PlayStation Now - could Sony go after Valve?

[Hecatoncheires]

Not for PS4. There's a test kit which is something like €700-800 I think

I bet many of these indies have a fancy iPhone or iPad or stuff like that. A decent notebook is in the same price range, by the way. Or do the Valve guys give away computers for free? There's always a financial hurdle. Hell, even if I want to become a musician, I'll have to buy the instruments first (good instruments are very, very expensive).

 

[liolio]

I don't get this thread Sony and Valve don't operate in the same realm. It is clear now that Valve doesn't want to position steamboxes as a console.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That is a very restrictive definition of the term "indie friendly".

Only because the term 'Indie' is too broad. It covers everything from single man, hobby enterprises like the 8 bit birth of game development, to multi-million dollar, hundred people companies.

And it seems only applicable to software because if you applied that definition to hardware, no platform would be indie friendly.

I don't know what this means.

I bet many of these indies have a fancy iPhone or iPad or stuff like that. A decent notebook is in the same price range, by the way. Hell, even if I want to become a musician, I'll have to buy the instruments first (good instruments are very, very expensive)

Entry level musical instruments are very cheap; certainly not $xxxx. If people had to pony up a thousand dollars just to try a guitar or flute, there'd be a lot less music in the world! And the company that offered really cheap instruments would get all the interest.

Liekwise, in the ordinary course of events you may well, probably will, have a PC or tablet for development. Development on other devices use the devices you already own. Sure, you have the option to buy deliberate hardware, but that's an option unless one really is destitute and doesn't have the basics of contemporary high-tech living (a PC and an Android smartphone, which is all you need to target PC and Android).

I have a PC here that I use for general every day purposes like everyone else. That means I can now develop for PC with no extra investment. I can also use it to develop for Android as I have an Android phone and tablet. To develop for PS4, I have to spend an additional $xxxx which serves no purpose outside of PS4 development.

Putting it another way, if the theory is that Sony are going to draw indies away from Steam because they are indie friendly, what are the aspects of Sony's ecosystem that are better and more attractive than Steam? The first points that come into mind for me are:

1) Steam is cheaper by a lot. Potentially free to develop for for anyone with a reasonable PC already, which'll be anyone thinking of getting into game development.

2) Steam has little bureaucracy, and even though Sony is simplifying that aspect on its console, it still has paperwork and deadlines getting in the way. Getting anything done (eg. getting a devkit) can involve lots of phonecalls and repeated phonecalls and waiting for them to act and sending emails and being told they're on it and waiting and...

I cannot see any obvious advantage to PlayStation over other open platforms for indies other than the known consumer base as high-spenders on games. PS4 is appealing now because it's not crowded. In every other aspect, console development is at best equal to other platforms, and generally worse. So how is the balance in favour for getting in the PlayStation boat instead of staying in the PC or tablone market?

 

[Hecatoncheires]

Entry level musical instruments are very cheap; certainly not $xxxx. If people had to pony up a thousand dollars just to try a guitar or flute, there'd be a lot less music in the world! And the company that offered really cheap instruments would get all the interest.

We're not talking about some kids who're trying to learn programming, do we? For a professional musician, playing his instrument is serious business. Same is probably the case for many indies: Unless you just do for fun or as a hobby, developing video games is business. And compared to other industries, purchasing a console sdk is a pretty minor investment for a start-up. There are thousands of people out there who're raising huge credits for the start-up of their companies and you talk like a sdk is an unscalable financial hurdle.

Also, purchasing a PlayStation sdk opens up an additional huge market with millions of new potential customers. Do you really think that talented indies will ignore this audience just because they don't get the sdk for free?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

We're not talking about some kids who're trying to learn programming, do we? For a professional musician, playing his instrument is serious business. Same is probably the case for many indies: Unless you just do for fun or as a hobby, developing video games is business.

Indies covers a wide demographic. Single man startups with a zero budget are still independent developers. Indeed, the incredibly low cost of starting up in software development is one of its draws as it enables pretty much anyone to have a go, unlike any other business. The only thing one needs to spend is time, and if it goes wrong, you don't lose anything because you haven't invested (tens of) thousands into it, if you're entering on the bottom rung.

Also, purchasing a PlayStation sdk opens up an additional huge market with millions of new potential customers. Do you really think that talented indies will ignore this audience just because they don't get the sdk for free?

I did not say that. I also didn't say the cost of a PS4 was so expensive no-one would develop for it. I said PlayStation is not a more attractive proposition than Steam or Android in direct refutation of your viewpoint that indies are getting into the PlayStation boat.

Sony is actually going after Steam right now by getting all the indies and b-tier devs into the PlayStation boat. With the new console, Sony is stealing one of the most important pillars of the Steam success.

So either you prove that PlayStation is more attractive than the rivals by countering my observations, or you accept that I'm right and PlayStation isn't more appealing, but it is still appealing for some indies, certainly the more businesslike and not the smallest scale, and will attract plenty of custom. Or whatever point you'd like to make. You can qualify your selection of indies to a subset and probably have a valid an argument.

 

[Hecatoncheires]

Oh, so in the end it was just for the nitpicking? Yes, my wording was not perfect (I'm not a native speaker), but I was sure that people get the idea.

What a waste of time...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No, it's not nitpicking. We need to be exact in communication otherwise we have misunderstanding. If I don't know what you mean by indie, and go by my own interpretation, than we end up talking about different things which makes discussion pretty much impossible. Rather than give up, revise your comment. I think what you're saying is for established, top-tier independent developers with a decent annual turnover, or at least decent investment, where $xxxx for an SDK isn't prohibitively expensive, the sort who are already interested in consoles, say, then PS4 has appeal.

But even then, I don't see how PS4 offers more appeal. I can't see anything about any of the consoles that makes them more attractive than other markets, except for the limited competition with other games. Going back to your original comment, what makes you think indie developers are getting in the PS4 boat? There's been a lot of high-profile PR about it with devs saying it's a great platform, but I think that's a little misleading. As I say, the original story about Sony giving SDKs for free was a headliner and made Sony look like they really were getting behind devs, but now that it appears this was a loan and the devkits have to be returned or paid for, that generosity doesn't pan out. I don't think there are any real facts about the business terms that show whether PS4 really is a better platform than Steam for developers.

 

[Nesh]

I dont know the details, but if any, what are the differences in agreements between releasing indie games on Steam and on PSN for PS4? What makes attractive these two platforms to indies?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The specifics for PSN are unknown at this point. We know that Sony's checklist for getting a product onto the store has been reduced from over a hundred steps to far less (whether a dozen or 20 or whatever, I can't recall. It was in an interview with SCEA). However, there are still three entities to deal with - SCEA, SCEE and SCEJ; Sony doesn't have a homogenous market yet AFAIK. It would appear the pricing of patches has been dramatical reduced as well for PS4, as we had the Awesomenauts devs tell us why they didn't support updates on PS3 (the console version missed out on a half-dozen new playable characters and a new map because of this), although the specifics, once again, are shrouded in NDA. There are also the TRCs, again an unknown. I know when devs apply to Sony to become PSN developers, they are awarded 'points' based on software features, and a minimum grading is needed. Adding PS specific stuff like Move support adds to the title's points, encouraging platform specific feature support, although clearly that's not a hugely important aspect for Sony at the moment as the current crop of indie titles headed to the platform aren't making a big thing of the extra features.

For Steam, one just posts it on Greenlight and lets the community decide. Obviously for the Steambox one'll have to have a Linux version, but the indie favourite platform Unity supports Linux, so one would only need set up a Linux test environment; development is still cost effective.

In fact middleware is an important cost. At the moment you need either an expensive middleware license for PS4, or develop your own from scratch (not really an option for the typical indie), or use PhyrEngine and whatever else comes with PS4. Unity isn't presently ready for PS4 although it's coming. In contrast, PC has a glut of cheap and free development options including the aforementioned Unity which doesn't require a paid license until you hit a $100k turnover.

For these reasons I expect the indie platform of choice, in terms of sheer number of available titles, to be Steam (second to mobile platforms).

 

[Nesh]

The specifics for PSN are unknown at this point. We know that Sony's checklist for getting a product onto the store has been reduced from over a hundred steps to far less (whether a dozen or 20 or whatever, I can't recall. It was in an interview with SCEA). However, there are still three entities to deal with - SCEA, SCEE and SCEJ; Sony doesn't have a homogenous market yet AFAIK. It would appear the pricing of patches has been dramatical reduced as well for PS4, as we had the Awesomenauts devs tell us why they didn't support updates on PS3 (the console version missed out on a half-dozen new playable characters and a new map because of this), although the specifics, once again, are shrouded in NDA. There are also the TRCs, again an unknown. I know when devs apply to Sony to become PSN developers, they are awarded 'points' based on software features, and a minimum grading is needed. Adding PS specific stuff like Move support adds to the title's points, encouraging platform specific feature support, although clearly that's not a hugely important aspect for Sony at the moment as the current crop of indie titles headed to the platform aren't making a big thing of the extra features.

For Steam, one just posts it on Greenlight and lets the community decide. Obviously for the Steambox one'll have to have a Linux version, but the indie favourite platform Unity supports Linux, so one would only need set up a Linux test environment; development is still cost effective.

In fact middleware is an important cost. At the moment you need either an expensive middleware license for PS4, or develop your own from scratch (not really an option for the typical indie), or use PhyrEngine and whatever else comes with PS4. Unity isn't presently ready for PS4 although it's coming. In contrast, PC has a glut of cheap and free development options including the aforementioned Unity which doesn't require a paid license until you hit a $100k turnover.

For these reasons I expect the indie platform of choice, in terms of sheer number of available titles, to be Steam (second to mobile platforms).

Thanks. That clears things up

 

[dobwal]

Only because the term 'Indie' is too broad. It covers everything from single man, hobby enterprises like the 8 bit birth of game development, to multi-million dollar, hundred people companies.

I don't know what this means.

Indie simply means independent and yes it covers a broad spectrum of individuals. Doesn't mean that you are only indie friendly if you provide a development enviroment at no cost. Indie friendly doesn't need to be defined in absolute terms. From a historical perspective, Sony is being very indie friendly when talking about the console space.

Hardware is practically never offered for free to independent devs with no resources. While that hardware may have been acquired for another means, it doesn't mean that the PC you are developing was acquired for free. What of the indie developer that has no PC but wants to make a game? Does the PC space suddenly become non indie friendly because it doesn't cater to an edge case?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Indie simply means independent and yes it covers a broad spectrum of individuals. Doesn't mean that you are only indie friendly if you provide a development enviroment at no cost. Indie friendly doesn't need to be defined in absolute terms.

I agree with that, but the context was defined as Sony drawing indies away from Steam. As Steam caters to a wider selection of independent developers, that's not an obvious piece of logic in Sony's favour and it needs explaining or clarifying if its ever to be proven.

So far all we have is a blanket statement that Sony is getting indies in their boat and some arguing from me based on the broadest interpretation of that (I had no reason to interpret it differently). For this topic not to get decidely tiresome (probably too late!), we need someone to offer up explanations how Sony is attracting indies, probably with reference to which indies they are.

For the sake of industry discussion in future it'd be nice to have better clarification of developer types, like bedroom developers, small indies, mainstream indies, first party. Whatever. Not needed here though - the topic is Sony versus Steam and how/if they can get the same range of titles or more on PSN. Even taking indie to mean professional entities with enough financing to cover development costs of a good quality (standard needed for PSN, say), I'm not seeing good reasons for Sony to be attractive to indies. Less unattractive than before, and maybe less unattractive than the rival closed platforms, but not as attractive as Steam.

 

[dobwal]

I agree with that, but the context was defined as Sony drawing indies away from Steam. As Steam caters to a wider selection of independent developers, that's not an obvious piece of logic in Sony's favour and it needs explaining or clarifying if its ever to be proven.

So far all we have is a blanket statement that Sony is getting indies in their boat and some arguing from me based on the broadest interpretation of that (I had no reason to interpret it differently). For this topic not to get decidely tiresome (probably too late!), we need someone to offer up explanations how Sony is attracting indies, probably with reference to which indies they are.

For the sake of industry discussion in future it'd be nice to have better clarification of developer types, like bedroom developers, small indies, mainstream indies, first party. Whatever. Not needed here though - the topic is Sony versus Steam and how/if they can get the same range of titles or more on PSN. Even taking indie to mean professional entities with enough financing to cover development costs of a good quality (standard needed for PSN, say), I'm not seeing good reasons for Sony to be attractive to indies. Less unattractive than before, and maybe less unattractive than the rival closed platforms, but not as attractive as Steam.

Ok I see what you are saying. Within that context Sony might not be considered friendly in comparison to the PC space. And any indie attraction to the PS4 is probably based on a motivation to expand its audience not totally migrate to a new audience.

Regardless of Sony's wooing of indie devs it isn't enough to warrant jumping platforms with very little understanding of how well indie titles will resonate with the PS4 crowd on a mass level. I haven't see anything (but its not like I have been keeping up) when in comes to the PS3 that would encourage indie devs to drop PC development in favor of the PS4.

The Playstation brand has a huge following but significant migration of indies devs to the PS4 as the preferred destination of indies titles is going to encompass a reality where indie PS titles themselves have a huge following. Otherwise cheap or even a free development enviroment means nothing if producing PS4 indie titles aren't lucrative for developers.

There are a ton advantages on the PC side. Its one of the few places where you get to release and basically sell an incomplete title with the promise to release and complete version once you have sold enough units.

 

[Hecatoncheires]

Shifty, I think I found a little flaw in your critique of my argumentation, namely the geographical influence: The list of Japanese indie titles on Steam is pretty short, right? Your theory that Steam will remain ahead of the competition is probably only true with explicit reference to western indies.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Shifty, I think I found a little flaw in your critique of my argumentation, namely the geographical influence: The list of Japanese indie titles on Steam is pretty short, right? Your theory that Steam will remain ahead of the competition is probably only true with explicit reference to western indies.

That might be true. I guess a lack of PC gaming in Japan means Japanese indies won't target the PC. Although if they use middleware, they'll have a hard time avoiding the PC IMO because it ought to be a low-cost conversion.

By indie, are you talking about all indies or just the more sizable companies? I naturally talk about all indies including bedroom developers, so if I ask the question, "where do Japanese indies target," I'll likely get responses from people based on their interpretation. The mainstream indie developer probably targets consoles on the whole. The entry level probably targets tablones, I'm guessing.

This has all gone a little OT though. With PS Now, developers will be best served writing PC versions of their games to be streamed. If you're writing PC code anyway, the limiting factor to releasing on PC directly will be business choices - either the PC economy is against it, or the controls for PSN content don't allow it, or something like that.

 

[Phil]

This post may not be solely directed at PlayStation Now but other [gaming] streaming services as well...

Is streaming-service the future? I simply don't see it. If we take PS-Now for example, which seems to be based off a server-farm of PS3s, you would need at least a console within the farm/cloud for a user at any given time. If you have 10'000 users, you need at least 10'000 virtual PS3s outthere.

Now at which point would you rather have 10'000 subscriptions rather than 10'000 sales of PS3s? If a subscription for a year costs $100 (and the cost for a consumer of a PS3 is what, $149?) I guess it would make sense after 1.5 years, but then at this point, you still haven't factored in that your streaming-service also includes an entire game library, so when going subscription service, you are also losing out on lots of software sales that your consumers would otherwise buy.

Or will PS-Now cost at a 'per play/game rate'? E.g. similar to rending a movie-stream, you're effectively paying $20 for a game for a week. Once the week expires, you have to rent it again?

I just can't for the life of me come up with numbers where running a server-farm full of PS3s to offer a streaming service actually outweighs the benefit of just selling consoles. And after all this, you still are basically living with a second-rate experience short of the real thing because you are playing a highly compressed with added latency stream.

Streaming services might work with movies, TV shows etc where you don't need dedicated 3d processing hardware to "stream" and the cost is probably a minor fraction than what you would need if you wanted to create a gaming streaming network...

Anyone care to enlighten what I'm missing?

 

[DieH@rd]

Playstation Now server hardware - One big mobo placed into single rack unit, housing 8 PS3 systems
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-sony-creates-custom-ps3-for-playstation-now

 

[Inuhanyou]

ND used 8 PS3's in a render farm to make the cut-scenes of LOU. I wonder why that number specifically?

Either way though, it makes sense to use PS3 components, unlike certain people assuming that it would be done through emulation, and that Sony simply held back PS3 emulation on PS4 to get more PS Now sales.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

ND used 8 PS3's in a render farm to make the cut-scenes of LOU. I wonder why that number specifically?

Software developers and computer engineers think in powers of two.

 

[joker454]

Playstation Now server hardware - One big mobo placed into single rack unit, housing 8 PS3 systems
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-sony-creates-custom-ps3-for-playstation-now

Cool, article says servers are in southern California, right in my backyard so this should work well for me. It also says running games at 60fps as done on pc to reduce latency can't be done on ps3 but I wonder if that is really true. They could always try faster ps3 hardware and run games at 60fps, but only render every other frame since it's not the visual speed one wants in this case but just the logic and input. That could shave off a bit more latency, and I figure how hard can it be to build a faster cpu side ps3 8 years after the fact.