cj_iwakura
Member
The thread title keeps making me think they're promoting a US release of Idolm@ster.
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.It's just a shame that it no longer feels fresh. Even though I've never played it before, I feel cheated because I know it came out on other platforms years ago.
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?
Ah. Apologies all.I'm afraid your sarcasm detector is in desperate need of recalibration.
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.
We? You own an XBOne now?
If a game is not going to be coming to Xbox One for many months because there's been an exclusivity agreement signed or something like that then all we really ask is that they do something with the game so that it feels fresh for Xbox players.
"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?
I think we do deserve it. I guess that makes me "entitled"?
"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?
Also, some genres and their communities do not react well to platform-exclusive content. So in those cases, they're basically asking you to burn your community for the priviledge of publishing on their platform. Even timed exclusives aren't acceptable for some genres and situations.
Don't forget to close your lol tags! Like this: lol [shit post] /lol
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.
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.
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.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.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.
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.
Ding ding dingThing 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.
And in that situation it was the devs choose to go the Sony Santa monica/Sony for help.
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.
Interestingly enough, not a peep was heard out of him when Rise of the Tomb Raider was moneyhattedYup. 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.
Don't you know that devs are wrong and boneheaded when they do things I don't like? /s
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?
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?
1) It is enough
2) Yes
3) Everyone deserves it
4) Yes
.
LOL! So in the end Alexandros is just anti-Sony guy?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Are we not allowed to voice an opinion on a fucking stupid policy? So if Coke starts putting 3 extra tablespoons of sugar in each can, I can only say that's disgusting if I drink Coke?
In which case, if you don't own a PS4 then what makes you think Bloodborne should get an 8.5 or 9 out of 10, or have an opinion on The Order: 1886?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/08/22/dear-esther-devs-rapture-no-longer-coming-to-pc/“So the thinking went like this,” he began. “We don’t have enough money or production expertise to make this game without help. We don’t think we can raise enough through Kickstarter or public alpha to make this happen. We could do with production support on a game this scale. We’ve always wanted to make a console game. Publishers have bad reputations all too often. Hey, Sony Santa Monica are great though. We’ve met them a few times and really like them and their attitude.”
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.
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?
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.
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?