-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Eurogamer: Some Insight into Microsoft's Xbox 360 Content Submission Policy
- Thread starter Kagari
- Start date
MarshMellow96
Member
gofreak said:
That sounds... Like Microsoft.
Glass Rebel
Member
Well, it makes sense for Microsoft and 360-only users I guess.
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
I wonder if this is why Trine XBLA never happened?
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
gofreak said:
No PC?
I love the fact that stuff is available across all platforms, when MS gets an exclusive they have more control than they should.
Prime example is Left4Dead, as it wasn't out on PS3 they charged for the Free DLC from PC on 360.
but when a game is out on PS3 they can arrange free DLC (MS have a policy where they have to match PSN content prices).
Prime example is Left4Dead, as it wasn't out on PS3 they charged for the Free DLC from PC on 360.
but when a game is out on PS3 they can arrange free DLC (MS have a policy where they have to match PSN content prices).
DeadRockstar
Member
The release date part could screw a few 360 only gamers, but the rest is just having standards so good for them.
Castor Krieg
Banned
El Rauha said:"we seek to maximise our own advantage to ensure the playing field is even, and certainly plays to our advantage wherever possible."
Maybe a limitation in my English, there's something wrong with that sentence (I think). Oh MSthe playing field won't be even then.
Was thinking the same, English must be difficult for them.
WrenchNinja
Member
Seriously. Freakin' ridiculous. Who gives a shit if another platform got it first.Coxy said:
snoopeasystreet
Member
I guess Microsoft use it as an ultimatum for devs looking to make a PS3 exclusive. They can basically say "You can either make it for the 360 now or never be able to". They can also say "well, if you can only develop for one platform, make it for 360 so you can then port it others somewhere down the line".
Seems a bit dumb to me but I guess it's working for them. Live Arcade has more exclusives than PSN.
Seems a bit dumb to me but I guess it's working for them. Live Arcade has more exclusives than PSN.
Another question would be: how does this affect PS3 development? Do multiplatform devs cut features from PS3 version to please MS?
I guess Move support is not considered as an extra feature as there have been quite a few Move supporting games released on both platforms simultaneously.
I guess Move support is not considered as an extra feature as there have been quite a few Move supporting games released on both platforms simultaneously.
TelemachusD
Member
I guess they were fine with Just Cause 2 not having the same recording and YouTube features as the PS3 version, or the latest Tiger Woods game having Move support, but no Kinect support.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
I did not know they outsourced internal policy making out to this figure:
specialguy
Banned
I bet Sony has the same policy. Nonetheless cue yet another bitter thread of MS bashing on neogaf.
Besides that, 360 is doing very well and actually seems to be gaining momentum over time, and XBLA lineup seems noticeably superior to PSN from what I know, so it's not hurting them.
I cant really think of a single example where this applies as far as disc games, nor much on the reverse side either. Mass Effect is the only one that comes to mind as coming to PS3 later than 360, but it didn't sell well anyway so maybe it proves that MS is right? The only other title that really comes to mind is MGS4. It would seem to preclude that title ever coming to 360, but there's really little else on PS3 that would even seem feasible or desirable to bring over.
Besides all of the above, I thought this policy was fairly standard throughout video game history? EG, console makers always require at least "extra content" if they get a late port, including Sony and Nintendo. Also, that would probably be a easy run around the policy, instead of "exact same MGS4" on 360, if it happened you'd get some sort of bonus content, so now it's a "different" game and the policy doesnt apply? I dont recall pretty much ever any console getting a late port from another without said "bonus content"...
Beyond that, it actually seems like it could be a semi smart policy, if a bit monopolistic, for throwing ones weight around, of course it's success hinges on whether you have the weight to throw around. For all we know, maybe lets say FF13 would have been 6 months late on 360 if not for this policy. But SE looking at it could have thought, hey we want those 360 sales (the weight), so we have to do what MS says.
Besides that, 360 is doing very well and actually seems to be gaining momentum over time, and XBLA lineup seems noticeably superior to PSN from what I know, so it's not hurting them.
I cant really think of a single example where this applies as far as disc games, nor much on the reverse side either. Mass Effect is the only one that comes to mind as coming to PS3 later than 360, but it didn't sell well anyway so maybe it proves that MS is right? The only other title that really comes to mind is MGS4. It would seem to preclude that title ever coming to 360, but there's really little else on PS3 that would even seem feasible or desirable to bring over.
Besides all of the above, I thought this policy was fairly standard throughout video game history? EG, console makers always require at least "extra content" if they get a late port, including Sony and Nintendo. Also, that would probably be a easy run around the policy, instead of "exact same MGS4" on 360, if it happened you'd get some sort of bonus content, so now it's a "different" game and the policy doesnt apply? I dont recall pretty much ever any console getting a late port from another without said "bonus content"...
Beyond that, it actually seems like it could be a semi smart policy, if a bit monopolistic, for throwing ones weight around, of course it's success hinges on whether you have the weight to throw around. For all we know, maybe lets say FF13 would have been 6 months late on 360 if not for this policy. But SE looking at it could have thought, hey we want those 360 sales (the weight), so we have to do what MS says.
I'm turning this over in my head trying to reason if this is a net gain for their customers or not. I think the conclusion I came to is yes, it is, but I don't *like* how they do it.
Advantages of this system:
The games that *do* come out will either be first or simultaneous with PSN. Some of those may never be viable for PSN after the XBLA release.
Disadvantages of this system:
Some games will stick with PSN, and customers won't ever get them.
I tell you what in particular bothers me about this - this sort of heavyhandedness reminds me of early 90's Nintendo, and that's not necessarily the best long-term strategy.
Advantages of this system:
The games that *do* come out will either be first or simultaneous with PSN. Some of those may never be viable for PSN after the XBLA release.
Disadvantages of this system:
Some games will stick with PSN, and customers won't ever get them.
I tell you what in particular bothers me about this - this sort of heavyhandedness reminds me of early 90's Nintendo, and that's not necessarily the best long-term strategy.
dragonelite
Member
TelemachusD said:
They can use it as a basis to reject the title.
Wow, he really has lost a lot of weight, I just assumed people were overreacting because he's been skinny as long as I've really had Apple stuff.Y2Kev said:
Although I agree with what he said in that video, even MS to this day which of course that video doesn't speak to, but I didn't really mean the same thing. He's talking about creating a better product by having a shared vision informed by good taste. It's the platform as a service I was complaining about. Their rules show a lack of compassion for their peers and their users. Shatter is incredible, it should be on XBLA, their user base should be allowed it.
TheOddOne said:
AFAIK Sony is fine about late ports as long as you throw in a bit of extra stuff over the original. They don't threaten the possibility of never getting on PSN if you don't release the game from day one on PSN - of course they make their own arrangements to get exclusives and debuts, but they don't use that stick to do it, or so it seems.
radioheadrule83
Banned
I can't fault them really. If I were in charge there I'd want the same thing for my users: day and date parity, timed exclusivity, full exclusivity or content that makes our version the definitive version. And if I had the success behind my service to make not passing content a real threat to stop my competitors gaining timed exclusives or whatever, I'd use that too.
snoopeasystreet
Member
TheOddOne said:
They're games that are too big for microsoft to refuse.
gofreak said:
Aye, that's what I remember too. Vampire Rain and Eternal Sonata came over to PS3 with more content than the original 360 release. We see games come from 360 to PS3 a decent amount, like the two mentioned earlier, and of course the DD titles that come to PSN after a bit.
But this is certainly harsh on 360 only people. They're going to miss out on great games because MS won't allow late ports, although I'm sure they're willing to make exceptions.
ULTROS!
People seem to like me because I am polite and I am rarely late. I like to eat ice cream and I really enjoy a nice pair of slacks.
The only game that I could think of that are late PS3 ports that have little-to-no added content are Braid and Star Ocean 4 (just added additional voiceovers and menu interface, making it "international").
Probably a stupid question, but what is stopping people releasing 'unlicensed' games? Just printing up the discs themselves and cutting deals with retailers directly?
Is it that there's some copy protection function on the disc that would be illegal to replicate without permission?
Is it that there's some copy protection function on the disc that would be illegal to replicate without permission?
I wonder how many times this has worked out in their favor though. This prevents 3rd parties from signing timed exclusivity deals for PSN release so who knows whether it's helped them. Yea Joe Danger is a great game, which I paid happily for on PSN. Sequel coming to XBLA though.
Nuclear Muffin
Banned
gofreak said:
Well it's not a steadfast refusal. They simply have the discretion to refuse a 360 release if they want to. They can still make exceptions.
Makes perfect sense to do from Microsoft's perspective and considering the stranglehold they have on most 3rd party devs, they are in a strong enough position of power to do so.
sixteen-bit
Member
This is in line with my expectations considering the handling of DD titles.