"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?
Yes, it's clear that you're okay with the bullying, and your only complaint with it is that it's currently backfiring because they don't have the strength to enforce their threats. You've championed Microsoft's "right" to veto features and cap performance on rival platforms, and you've yet to provide an adequate defense for such behavior, which is incredibly damaging to the industry as a whole. The parity clause benefits Microsoft alone, by actively damaging all of the other players, from developers to gamers. Please explain why anyone apart from Microsoft should be in support of parity as seen by MS.
No problem. I'm not anti-Sony or anti-Microsoft, despite the fact that some people here have tried to paint me as both on occasion. I am a PC gamer, I support open gaming platforms and I am against any sort of barriers that keep games away from every gamer, be it locked down hardware platforms or exclusivity through moneyhats.
Then why do you support Microsoft's veto power over features and performance on
rival platforms? That's far more damaging to all involved than something as trivial as a "late" port. Ubi even said MS used the parity clause to pressure Ubi in to limiting frame rates
on PC.
For the record, I agree that Microsoft (or Sony for that matter) being in a position to force anything on developers and gamers is a very bad idea.
So
you've now completely reversed your stance on the entire subject? Last time we spoke, you said it would be childish for anyone to refuse to work with Microsoft because of the parity clause. In the post I just quoted, you seemed to be positioning Microsoft as a White Knight for their efforts to ensure rival platforms aren't allowed to leverage their strengths.
You now agree that if they insist on having veto power over rival platforms, we should do what we can to ensure they can't actually do that? Say, by just ignoring them? Having demonstrated they can't be trusted to behave in a civilized manner, it's time for a good ol' Amish shunning?
In brief, because it's off-topic. Being forced to buy into multiple hardware platforms to play everything is a tremendous waste of money for the consumer. That money would be better spent, for both the gamer and the industry, on games and services. Multiple hardware platforms needlessly fragment the gaming audience, limit the potential audience for games and result in pointless exclusivity wars. There is no need at all for multiple similar locked down hardware platforms. The future of gaming should be one common hardware base that is capable of running everything and multiple service providers competing at the software and services level.
I see where you're coming from, but competition is also good. By arguing support should be identical on every platform no matter what, you're effectively arguing that no one should ever have anything better than what the weakest competitor in the marketplace is offering. There's effectively no competition because no competitor is allowed to demonstrate their unique merits. Then you conclude, now that we've destroyed competition, we should just do away with the waste of actually having competitors, and just have a single platform forever.
Again, kind of a terrible idea, because it kills innovation.
Competition > Parity; Forced parity is the opposite of competition. Any sort of mandate to have parity for parity's sake is anti-competitive by definition, as it removes any kind of incentive or ability for the consumer to seek out and choose a superior solution, because it only serves to ensure no such solution can exist. Also in the particular case of mandating day-and-date multi-platform support, it drives up development costs, which drives up prices for the consumer, and puts developers at a significantly greater risk of catastrophic failure of their business.
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...
[snip]
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?
You keep saying that as though Sony initially agreed to fund the game on PlayStation and PC, and then pulled the plug on the PC version six months in to the project or something. I don't know much about the game, and even less about its development, but it seems unlikely TCR signed the deal without knowing anything about their publisher's intentions. Just based on what I've read here, it sounds like the negotiations went something like this
TCR: Hey, would you guys wanna pay for our game?
SCE: Umm, we'd be happy to pay for your
PlayStation game
TCR: Woohoo!!
With regard to Sony "limiting" the number of platforms, as a platform holder, it's their responsibility to create compelling content that's unique to the platform, not only to attract users, but Sony have said they see 1st-party development existing primarily to attract 3rd-party development to the platform, and to kind of set an example for 3rd-parties at the same time. They're also limiting the audience for the game by not releasing it on the PS3, but again, as platform holder, maximizing revenue
today isn't always their top priority. Regardless, again, it seems likely TCR knew what they were signing on for here. Maybe only needing to get a single executable out the door made the deal
more appealing to them. That would certainly appeal to me.
With regard to your question about not pursuing the PubFund, that would be a question you need to put to TCR, not Sony or us here in the forum. Yes, the PubFund existed right alongside the more traditional publishing deal, and it was
TCR's decision to go with the latter.
