Why do people make excuses for such things?
It is true that such things happen often.
It is true that such things offend some people, and some people don't care.
It is true that not everyone does things like this, and that doing things like this is not the only option for successful game releases.
If it doesn't offend you, why are you making an issue of someone else being offended? Why say someone else should not be offended with your reasoning being that you personally are not?
If you'd intend to make a case that having one vendor will enhance progress and lower costs, or that such statements made in game forums have no impact, I'd wonder what you've observed that seems to indicate that will be the result from this.
If you'd imply everyone does things like this, I'd respond that such is both untrue and irrelevant to anyone who isn't gaining benefit from this, short or long term.
It seems to me that product evolution is fastest and pricing lowest when those determining evolution and pricing have to compete with others. This gives more pricing control to the consumer.
It seems to be true that this doesn't serve consumers when it is in actuality "exclusive" support, since it has a negative impact on those excluded (the benefit of cross-vendor APIs, I'd think), and shifts pricing and evolution control to one party (the one who benefits from higher prices).
It seems to be true that this doesn't serve consumers when it is portrayed as "exclusive" support when in actuality it is not, since it can mislead those "excluded", and also shifts pricing and evolution control to the same one party.
Why would it be invalid for consumers to find such practices undesirable and vote with their money accordingly? That is the type of choice they would prefer to retain, since their influence on evolution is even more limited.
It seems that it does serve people in the short term to say things that get them more money, whether those things have to be true to get that money or not.
In my opinion, publishers as a whole don't care, but not caring doesn't have anything to do with whether other people should care or not.
In terms of correlating things said elsewhere:
I don't buy that ATI devrel gave them the cold shoulder for support...I don't see any correlation whatsoever for that in what others say about dealing with ATI devrel, or in my limited personal experience as some "no name" who emailed them with my own questions.
Considering these things, I conclude that the contents of that text is bought and paid for propaganda...possibly decided upon by the person making the statements, or possibly decided by marketing/higher management and dictated to them, but in any case made for the purposes of IHV promotion in exchange for funding. It seems worded like it, and apparent contradiction to prior statements make it seem even moreso. Note, this doesn't make all of it untrue, or even my conclusion definitely right.
In terms of those making money, the question is whether they encourage people to switch to the IHV sponsoring them after buying their game, or instead encourage people to avoid their game, and how that affects their bottom line. The choice for the developers (as much as that is separated from the above) is a matter of their unique choices, values, and preferences, with as much latitude is allowed by deadlines and funding limitations (which is controlled by the "making money" part above).
No one is saying it is new, AFAICS, just that it is becoming more apparent. BTW, I think ATI marketing is learning. I'd prefer they'd spend more time and energy on other things, but the reasoning seems to be that because I have no choice in the matter of whether they have to adapt to this approach or not, that I shouldn't have a preference...?
