Sony Talks PS3 E-Distribution Initiative

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony are hardly likely to fund every single wannabe developer out there. If you have an idea, it's your responsibility to finance it's production. You can approach Sony as any other publisher to fund it's development. The point about these distribution isn't paying for every person who wants to give game development a go, but elliminating the costly production overhead that is extremely prohibitive. Now you just have to fund the game, instead of funding game+printing+license fees, and with (presumably) no upfront fees to Sony, the cost to develop is much reduced. If you have an idea for something in LocoRoco's vein, simple graphics producable by a few guys working from a home office, that can be a real game with real returns over online distro, whereas you'd need a publisher to fund a disc-based creation.

 

[scificube]

[size=-2]When asked whether Sony is helping with development costs for PS3 E-Distributed titles, Hight explains: "We fund development for 1st party games and we are open to self-funded games." This answer makes it clear that, unlike Xbox Live Arcade, where the titles have been exclusively sourced from third-party sources, Sony is currently developing multiple E-Distribution games in its internal studios.​

[/size]

Nothing bursts the creativity bubble like the sharp needlepoint of finances. :neutral:

It sounds like Sony is trying to remove all but in-house publishing from its mini-game equation. Under the guise of making things accessible for nickel-and-dime operations, what they're really after is absolute control over the revenue stream.

Truth is, without a publisher to co-sign on financial burdens, indie developers will have to shoulder it all. This maximizes financial fears and minimizes their willingness to take risks.

Back to square one.

So the only fair thing Sony can do is fund every Indie developer that shows up at the door?

Why wouldn't E-distribution be cheaper in the first place? Why do you need a publisher with E-distribution? Why would Indie "Mini-Games" cost relatively so much to produce in the first place as compared to "standard" games?

I don't see how E-distribution is anything but a good thing for Indie developers without a lot of capital. I also don't see why it's Sony's responsibility to fund Indie developers and why they can't choose to support those who support their interest absolutely. Does MS fund Indie devs without prejudice? I'm not aware that they do.

If Indie devs want to make "standard" games and then use Sony's E-distribution system I don't see how it's Sony's responsibility to fund the process just because of that...that's like paying vendor's for shelf space in your store. True E-distribution won't fund a game so Indie devs may still need a publisher's monetary support but it's still be a much better deal for all involved most likely.

Apart from this I don't see why Sony would block 2nd and 3rd party games from being sold on the online distribution network so I don't see how Sony wants or is ensuring only they have control of the entire revenue stream. Titles being "sourced" from 3rd parties to fill out MS's catalog of online games is not the same thing as MS funding the development of all those games to be there. Personally, I'm more curious as why MS ISN'T making 1st party games in order to further bolster the initiative. If 1st party games competing with 3rd party games on the network is the problem I cannot understand this as it's not a problem for games distributed on standard media and hasn't been for...since the beginning of home consoles as best I can tell. Why would it pose a problem with E-distribution?

edit: sorry Shifty was typing while you posted.

 

[Powderkeg]

Personally, I'm more curious as why MS ISN'T making 1st party games in order to further bolster the initiative.

That's never been their business model. Xbox Live Arcade is nothing more than an expansion of the MSN Gaming Zone. In that sense they are perfectly happy to act as the digital distributors and not worry about providing content as they already have a well developed library of games to offer without having to make their own.

 

[scificube]

That's never been their business model. Xbox Live Arcade is nothing more than an expansion of the MSN Gaming Zone. In that sense they are perfectly happy to act as the digital distributors and not worry about providing content as they already have a well developed library of games to offer without having to make their own.

Seems fair enough. I just think it would serve them better to also contribute to more directly to the Arcade being a success with IP of their own. Secondarily, it would be a good place to test IP's for their franchise worth in larger titles, while at the same time they could make a little extra pocket change. I get what you're saying of course, but that's just what I'm thinking.

 

[Rolf N]

What's the practical difference between "1st party" and "funded 3rd party" anyway? Seriously. The former can be expected to stay "loyal" for a while, but even that can change (Factor 5, Rare, Silicon Knights etc).

 

[NavNucST3]

Hexic and Uno are MSFT games, I'm sure there are more to come. They might, however, all be released under the Carbonated Games moniker.

 

[standing ovation]

So the only fair thing Sony can do is fund every Indie developer that shows up at the door?

Well, not exactly.

True. It's ridiculous to think that they would subsidize every Tom, Dick and Harry. But at the same time it is just as silly to prohibit outside publication, knowing the economic quagmire developers face: to be offbeat (and teeter on the brink of bankruptcy) or to be conservative (with a multi-platform sequel) and maybe, just maybe break even.

True E-distribution won't fund a game so Indie devs may still need a publisher's monetary support but it's still be a much better deal for all involved most likely.

No doubt fledgling companies may need assistance to get the ball rolling -- help, that is, from any and everyone who's NOT a game publisher. Publishers are too market savvy to forfeit distribution options, IP rights, and other mumbo jumbo without compensation ... leverage a desperate developer does not have.

Look at it this way. Signing on with a publisher is like joining the union. Sure you'll get screwed from time to time, but you are unlikely to find a better advocate for the price.

So which would you prefer: to have a pickpocket publisher or to be assaulted by Sony; to befriend a petty thief or a (convicted) felon?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't understand your point. You seemed to be complaining that Sony weren't funding Indies and suggested this service would only be for 1st party titles. Online distribution elliminates a lot of overhead. You can be a successful (earn a living) Indie developer without 'selling out' to a publisher (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=18112). Where the PC is the primary platform for Indie development, because of largest user base and low-cost development (can be free even!), there's a problem getting noticed. A single platform like PS3 or XB360 with a single access point means if your game gets listed, it'll get seen (at least until there's millions of indie titles!) and so for the cost of paying for development, which'll be a couple of guy's wages, some audio, and whatever dev tools they need, there's a potential for millions of sales, witout needing Sony's funding nor another publisher to highjack your baby.

What else, or how else, can this be done? If you don't expect Sony to fund every game, and know publishers won't want to fund indie games, what are you suggesting to enable indie's to create their own games and supply them ot the buying public in a way that's convenient and profitable? Seems to me this is the only solution.

 

[standing ovation]

I don't understand your point. You seemed to be complaining that Sony weren't funding Indies and suggested this service would only be for 1st party titles.

My point is that the sole beneficiary is the sponsor.

Seriously, if the goal is to nurture ingenuity, it only makes cents that Sony go out of its way to keep the daily grind from spoiling the creative process. So aptitude, not finance, will be the most daunting hurdle Indies face.

But instead of making the process bearable, it seems unwieldy.

Not only do Indies have to come up with a huge chunk of cheese, but approved content is made available online with the understanding that it will be exclusive there -- exclusive as far as their involvement is concerned anyway. I've got a feeling the User Agreement for this sort of thing mirrors what we've seen with open source programming on Cell, i.e., a forfeiture of any and all claims to IP.

HerHere's how it works. Sony goes fishing at its E-distribution pond using 'lures' donated by Indies. Then, the best 'bait' is sent off to first-party developers for use in more profitable projects.

So if you're a fledgling developer with an above average game concept or (god forbid) a hit on your hands, Sony's arrangement does not sound very amicable ... and THAT is my point.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Okay, but that seems pretty cynical to me. From previous Sony searches for IP, things like Yaroze, the originator was kept involved. I don't know that someone had their idea bought off 'cheap' through dodgy contracts where they forfeit all IPs.

Taken at face value, I don't see how this can be a bad maneouvre, or in any way improved upon. Of course, it could end up shafting a lot of devs, but that would be a fault of the handling of the initiative, rather than the initiative itself, and there's no way of knowing how bad indies will be treated until they're out there.

 

[standing ovation]

Cynical? This, my friend, is business -- where the strong take advantage of the weak. The question isn't whether Indies will be treated fairly (they probably won't be), but how unfairly should they should be treated.

In any other industry Sony's proposal would be outrageous.

Suppose Sony Music said to the unsigned acts lined up at its doorstep: "We won't help you record an album, but we will put all of your 'approved' songs in our online store, where they will be Sony Store exclusives … You'll be famous!" *

"There's just one requirement: your tracks must be homemade. From conception to submission, everything will have to done using your own talent and equipment. No agents to fight for your cause (and cut in to our profits); No managers or producers to show you the tricks-of-the-trade (and cut in to our profits); No recording studios to polish your content (and, well, you know)."

"Once on shelf, your songs will compete alongside ALBUMS of better-known artists with fat record contracts. Thanks to you, we'll corral consumers into our stockades and help them to help themselves to our most profitable products!"

"So come on and join us. It's gonna be SO much fun!!!" :smile:


[size=-2]* As with the PlayStation network, this isn't a broad market, but an incredibly narrow niche. Exclusivity, then, is not advantageous, particularly if you are peddling something that appeals to wider demographic.[/size]