cj_iwakura
Member
The thread title keeps making me think they're promoting a US release of Idolm@ster.
-
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.
C. Charla on promoting ID@XB titles - Why the infamous parity clause isn't a big deal
- Thread starter John Bender
- Start date
It might not feel fresh to you, but I can't wait to play it on the Vita later this year. Same goes for Banner Saga. I'm just glad they are arriving, should I feel cheated that not every developer chooses my favourite games boxes first? Even if it has been available elsewhere, if I haven't been able to play it (or often if I've been unaware of it's existence), it's new to me and I'm happy to see it.
This idea that games are only 'fresh' at launch and only on the initial system they launch on seems odd to me. I just don't have time to play everything available new on the systems I do own, let alone the ones I don't, so considering something as degrading in quality over time would mean that 99% of games on my platforms aren't 'fresh'. If I only get to play a new game two months after launch, is it then no longer worth playing even if it hasn't been released elsewhere? If it's about feeling jealous that other gamers have been able to play it, should I feel the same way that other gamers have ten times as much time to play games as me, and seem to finish the new games on even the systems I own before I've even been to the shop?
Seems to me it's more that some gamers feel they need to be compensated for not being able to play something at launch on their system, as if it's a competition to be given just as much enjoyment by every developer no matter what box you chose, which sounds a bit self-centred compared to the years of work that go into a game. When you get to the point where you just don't have the time to keep up with the hundreds of games released each year any more, that feeling will dissipate.
I'm afraid your sarcasm detector is in desperate need of recalibration.
Ah. Apologies all.
Neuromancer
Member
I don't know about you guys but if I were an Xbox One owner I'd be feeling pretty first class right now.
Keep the filthy indie devs in steerage below deck, I say, where they belong. Unless they make it big of course, then we'll let them come up for some fresh air.
Keep the filthy indie devs in steerage below deck, I say, where they belong. Unless they make it big of course, then we'll let them come up for some fresh air.
boredandlazy
Member
I think 'scummy' would have been a much more appropriate word.I don't know about you guys but if I were an Xbox One owner I'd be feeling pretty first class right now.
Keep the filthy indie devs in steerage below deck, I say, where they belong. Unless they make it big of course, then we'll let them come up for some fresh air.
What's funny is that I thought games like bastion and dust were brand new games lol. Guess I'm not so hardcore after all and to the vast majority of console owners they only know of the indie games that are presented to them since very few get television advertising. So this fresh idea is a moot point.
alexandros
Banned
"We" as in "the customers". The last console I owned was a SNES twenty years ago. I don't own nor will I ever own any non-PC gaming device.
And yes, as entitled as that may sound to the ears of some developers, I do expect a little something extra if your game was significantly delayed due to an exclusivity agreement. It's sad to me that a platform holder has to enforce what in my mind should be the default stance of every developer out there.
That's from the consumer's point of view. From the platform holder's point of view, it is more than obvious that Microsoft is in no position to dictate any sort of terms this gen. If they want most games to reach their platform they will have to realize that they are no longer top dog, lower the barrier for entry as much as possible and, not to put too fine a point to it, kiss developer ass in order to repair the burned bridges.
Clear enough?
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
I'm sure it's been covered in the thread already, but doesn't Sony have this same mandate for full retail games. Or at least, they did last generation. Hence why a lot of late PS3 ports got a tonne of extra content.
You keep trying to squeeze in the idea that these games are only delayed due to an exclusivity agreement to try and hold some moral high ground. Are PC exclusives some type of "exclusive" agreement between two parties? Your stance would be more believable if I had ever witnessed seeing you advocating for PC to Ps4 late ports to have extra content.
No, your expectations as a consumer are entirely your right. If a game comes late to a platform you own, and you personally do not see value in buying it unless the developer adds something, or cuts the price - then don't buy it. That is your absolute right as a consumer.
But surely you realise that the developer should have the ultimate right to decide what they publish, and at what price? If everyone is like you, then they will suffer lower sales and may change their offer with future games. Or if everyone isn't like you and simply thinks 'oh that game is now on a platform I own', then they won't.
You have your choices, let the developer have theirs.
Chobel
Member
1) Why does it need to be extra content? Lower price or including all/some DLCs is not enough for you?
2) What about early buyers (from the platform not affected by delay)? Do they deserve to have access that extra content?
3) What about people who buy the console after the late port get released? Why do they deserve the extra content? I mean they didn't wait at all.
Edit: Also
4) Some games get hurt by having exclusive content in just one platform. Do you still expect that extra content in these games if they released delayed in your platform? See Rav comment.
pffff lol
As far as I can tell, they no longer have this policy, although sometimes offer marketing support in exchange for some exclusive stuff.
alexandros
Banned
I am not. This distinction was made by Charla in the OP. I am annoyed by money hats (exclusivity deals) and developer/publisher boneheadedness (for instance, From not releasing Dark Souls on PC).If the game was delayed because the developers just didn't have the resources to release on everything and had to prioritize then I don't see any problem and apparently neither does Microsoft if
Charla is to be believed.
Chobel
Member
How about you answer my previous questions, I mean you're acting like you're all for consumer rights and shit, so let's see where you stand when facing those cases.
1) Why does it need to be extra content? Lower price or including all/some DLCs is not enough for you?
2) What about early buyers (from the platform not affected by delay)? Don't they also deserve to have access that extra content?
3) What about people who buy the console after the late port get released? Why do they deserve the extra content? I mean they didn't wait at all.
4) Some games and their communities get hurt by having exclusive content in just one platform. Do you still expect that extra content in these games if they released late in your platform?
Neuromancer
Member
Alexandros is just mad that Sony is actively courting indie developers and paying for the development of games that otherwise would have come to PC, like Everybody's Gone to the Rapture. Even though the developers have said it was a great deal for them and the funding was the only way they could make the game they want to make.
MS isn't doing that and is taking the unusual tack of actively alienating indie developers away from their platform, so of course he's ok with that.
MS isn't doing that and is taking the unusual tack of actively alienating indie developers away from their platform, so of course he's ok with that.
The only time platform exclusive extras kind bugged me was in Super Time Force, the XBO version didn't get any extra time characters. It also got the "Ultra" upgrade later than the PS4 version but that may have been a manpower/resource thing so I'm glad it eventually got that.
STF was a timed exclusive for MS though so that may explain why the Sony versions got the extra content. I would have still liked some extra MS characters in there though like Blinx or Jack Joyce.
STF was a timed exclusive for MS though so that may explain why the Sony versions got the extra content. I would have still liked some extra MS characters in there though like Blinx or Jack Joyce.
And in that situation it was the devs choice to go to Sony Santa monica/Sony for help.
boredandlazy
Member
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
BibiMaghoo
Member
Thing about this is, if there was some benefactor to money hat on behalf on PC - your platform of choice - would you give a single fuck? Is this championing of consumers because you personally miss out in your refusal to buy a console, or because you are disgruntled others on your platform of choice don't get to play them?
I would put forward you don't like money hats and exclusivity deals, because no one pays for them on PC, not because it eliminates gamers from playing the titles they want. Everyone else would just go and buy that platform, but not you.
Neuromancer
Member
Ding ding ding
Nightengale
Member
Don't you know that devs are wrong and boneheaded when they do things I don't like? /s
LiquidSolid
Member
Yup. It started with the crazy Everybody's Gone to the Rapture rants and now he rants about Sony's indie/second party support any chance he gets. He even came up with a wild theory that Sony moneyhatted Bloodborne, which earned him a ban for making shit up.
Interestingly enough, not a peep was heard out of him when Rise of the Tomb Raider was moneyhatted
Don't you know kickstarter would have been a guaranteed success and money from the previous game would have been enough /s.
alexandros
Banned
1) It is enough
2) Yes
3) Everyone deserves it
4) Yes
Yes. It is no problem for me to go out and buy all available consoles in order to have access to all the games. I don't because I strongly believe that exclusivity moneyhats, sugar daddies and locked down platforms are the wrong direction for gaming to be headed in.
Neuromancer
Member
Sugar daddies, as though indie developers are prostitutes. Nice.
Chobel
Member
1) You can just wait for sale, no?
2) 3) 4) You know MS ask for exclusive extra content, right? So not everyone will get it.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
I love mocking fanboys as much as anyone (I've done so in this thread) but it really isn't necessary.
From a consumer standpoint, sure. I totally agree, exclusives suck. The homogenization of gaming hardware is actually one of the best things to happen to the industry. The less times I have to hear "we can't port the game due to the codebase being designed just for one console," the better. It makes the games worse, the developers frustrated, and the consumers unhappy because they can't access the game on different platforms.
But. Here's where I disagree with you: just because a game did something I didn't care for doesn't mean I want Microsoft to strong-arm the developers. There becomes a point where my empathy for developers outstrips my desire to see exclusive content eradicated. I want to see it go the way of the dodo, absolutely, but the reality of development forces me to make philosophical compromises.
What Microsoft is essentially saying with their cause is that a game should come out on Xbox One day one, and if they don't, they deserve to be punished for withholding the game from their consumer base? I'm not so sure about that. And despite what you or Microsoft may think, forcing a developer to create new content IS a punishment. You are demanding for reparations for a slight against the Xbox community and the Xbox brand. Whether you perceive it as an attack on you and your gamer ego, the gamers on Xbox One, or just a shitty thing for the whole industry, it is very much a demand for justice.
With full priced AAA games, I might see this argument. Maybe. Even that stretches it a little bit. At the end of the day, as a PS4 owner, I don't want Tomb Raider to be punished for being an Xbox-only exclusive, I just want to play it. I wish Tomb Raider was coming out on everything, and I hope the game eventually releases widely with extra content. That'd be a nice bonus to me, but I know the reality of development costs and I don't want to see the developer fail because of one bad mistake.
But there's no justice to be wrung from indie games that don't have the resources to handle a huge porting job. If you have the resources to port your game to everything, sure. Call of Duty signing exclusive to a console would be total bullshit - they don't need the money, they can port to whatever they want and that exclusivity harms the industry. But a game like Axiom Verge - a love letter to a genre we don't see a lot of, made entirely by one very talented man who's risking his entire livelihood on releasing this game?
There becomes a point when your punishment becomes something that harms the industry. Harming the indie devs like the ones behind Axiom Verge is that point. When justice harms the very foundation of the industry it should be protecting, then we have a massive problem.
SerTapTap
Member
The extra content stuff is fucking ridiculous, frankly. There is no sustainable market that actually cares THAT MUCH about 5 minutes of extra content or a dorky costume to require later ports have extra content. It's just a marketing tool by Microsoft to fuck over Sony and it's frankly disgusting to see people in here defending Microsoft trying to force small developers into being marketing points against other platforms. The game is enough.
Chobel
Member
You're right, I shouldn't have done that.
We don't even know what MS considers extra content and how much of it there has to be. I doubt that they would accept a simple skin change, or has this happened already?
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
This is the biggest problem I have with this form of justice: that Microsoft is conducting their business behind closed doors. We don't know what they're asking for or demanding on our behalf.
If this were truly done for our own benefit, we would have transparency and Microsoft would be championing how well they fight for better games and against exclusivity. It's certainly a selling point, if done correctly. I support platform holders that fight for their consumers. I support an open discussion about what gamers want, as long as gamers are involved in the conversation.
However, we don't know what their standards are, how strict they are about them, and thus we cannot really tell what their motives are behind the process. We can see that Microsoft has no problem paying for exclusive DLC in the AAA space though, so it's hard to assume the rules are wielded with any form of wisdom or kindness for the industry.
I would rather see justice served by gamers deciding not to play a late featureless port rather than Microsoft holding a closed-off one-sided court, shrouded in secrecy by NDA's and bitter developer testimonials.
autoduelist
Member
So they want to have their stick to hit developers with and claim it isn't a big deal in the same breath.
NecromorphTX
Member
Please, put cold water in that BUUUUUUUUURN.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Or maybe the poster considers that to be anti consumer and frustrating when MS doesn't practice the same in most situations?
For example, when MS does fund games they inevitably end up on PC and I'm sure that pleases the poster very much. With that in mind, they clearly seem to consider practices like the one for Rapture to anti consumer as there's no reasonable argument for not pursuing Rapture on PC too?
It's more sales right? Why not bring it to PC?
It's like Ori on PC. MS own the IP and they funded its development, but it's still on PC as it's more sales and exposes the IP to more people. Or D4, which MS doesn't own, but did fund in its entirety and is now coming to PC.
I'm sure Sunset will be following along shortly too. The example of Rapture doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not an example of gracious Sony swooping in and saving the game from the shit pile...it's a case of them buying the IP and limiting the number of platforms it will be available on, a practice it's main competitor doesn't practice for most similarly developed games.
Street fighter 5, guacamelee, olliolli. Two pub funded games and one normally funded. Microsoft has a bigger reason to support pc gaming, and an argument can be made about developers wanting more sales. But let's not pretend that Microsoft excmusives all come to the pc and Sony funded ones never do.
So when can we expect Ori on Playstation, more sales and exposure amirite? Sony have no interest in PC yet they help fund games that end up there (pub fund games), the fact so many of MS games end up on PC is a big reason I don't have much interest in Xbox, and I suspect I am not alone in that.
Miles Quaritch
Member
That's an argument that can be made, but your pub fund examples are interesting ones as the pub fund could have been used for Rapture and yet Sony locked it down and forced the scrapping of the PC version...
I'd love for Ori to be on PS4 and U and Vita. It'd actually be perfect for the Vita.
Rapture could have been funded through the pub fund and still seen a PC release yet Sony chose to lock it down tight and force them to scrap the PC version. Being angry about that and bringing it up as something to say the poster is irrational or shouldn't be taken seriously is ridiculous.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Smells like damage control. When games like Yukaa Layee can be funded and break records in the space of 24hrs of hitting KS, this reasoning rings extremely hollow and let's not forget they were hot off Dear Esther and Amnesia...
In any case, why not pursue the pub fund? Sony both helps developers and funds their games through that initiative. What specifically about Rapture made them lock it down and force the scrapping of the PC version?
They wanted more stability. Literally in the article. And a game like dear Esther and egttr are niche and don't have the history of banjo kazooie devs behind it ie2, nostalgia.
Nightengale
Member
Pubfund isn't exactly a big-money investment. Last I recall, the cap of it is around $500k, and not every project gets that amount. It's an advance payment to support development, but unless you're really able to get the bang out of your buck, that's not enough money for the development of most games.
Sure, Sony chose to lock it down by accepting to fund it beyond what would've been offered by Pubfund (most likely). But it's also a choice that thechineseroom made themselves, since they went ahead to SSM.
Nightengale
Member
Well, if they aren't lying, they did say it's more than just 'money', but other aspects as well like production support, etc. Without the full post-mortem of the details, all we have are their words.
Pubfund has its limits.