Souless Squirrel
Member
Paying for online
-
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.
Microsoft mismanagement ofthird party partnerships leaving developers in a bad state?
- Thread starter nynt9
- Start date
Paying for online
ResidentDante
Member
InquisitorAles
Member
They greenlight/funded ME? Source? Marketing it doesn't mean they were responsible for the ip. It is on Playstation, if they funded it that is doubtful.. If it were an MS ip it would not be on PS now, MS didn't make Mass Effect at all.
By your logic Sony is responsible for GTA 3.
You don't know that they published first Mass Effect and it was originally Xbox 360 exclusive? If you trying to downplay positive sides of MS presence in console business, you should at least know wellknown things like ME origins.
onemanasylum
Banned
Sigh, what does that have to do with them being responsible for the ip? so was Sony responsible for GTA 3? Being a third party exclusive doesn't make them responsible for the ip. MS never funded ME, don't own it, never developed it.
Outrun
Member
Forget reasoning with people that are so polarized that they negate any good a corporation has done for the industry.
When I claimed that the Xbox had the best open-worlded racer in FH3, a certain individual countered with "that's arguable".
When it comes to potential positives, everything is arguable.
What is absolute though is that MS shafted PG.
Stallion Dan
Member
Forced parity.
LukasTaves
Member
When he makes a point of corporate changes meddling with games in development he has to provide at least a solid evidence for that.
Specially when many of the games they funded didn't have the feature he claimed tackled on.
That's very unlikely when in TGS 2014 the team was saying it was unfortunate that they couldn't announce the Mp components, but hinted this:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/09/19/tgs-2014-scalebound-developer-teases-multiplayer
But as Kamiya touched on it earlier, we are not building this as a pure sort of linear boss [game. The] player can then go and go back if you want to and replay the entire game, so well kind of leave that up to your imagination."
Does this sounds like something tackled on, or a feature preeminent ever since the game got announced?
Again, do you have any first hand experience on that sort of interactions, or you are basing this on one sided info, sometimes even faulted information from "insiders"? Who by the way seems to have taken a few liberties to say the least when talking about Kamiya health state.
That according to one side of the story. Do you speak of any personal experience, or have any first hand information on that?
If increasing the scope of the project without paying anything more for that was anything common for Ms we would way more concrete info than that.
onemanasylum
Banned
Where is your source MS funded ME?
LukasTaves
Member
You mean like what happened when Ps3 was an absolute disaster to develop for?
Sony did it first then if we are going by ridiculous arguments XD
Oh, and moneyhats? Sony went there first as well.
Well. There wasn't any proper online infrastructure for consoles before XBL. I agree that it felt wrong, but how could it have been avoided? Someone has to pay for dedicated servers and bandwidth. Being free on PC isn't really an argument because dedicated servers was never really a thing outside of services that actually had subscriptions over there. I still feel like users should be able to host their own servers in games, but that is up to the developer.
onemanasylum
Banned
Mass_Pincup
Banned
If anything the PS4 is following the PSVita's path, with Mark Cerny working on both those systems and them being easier to develop for and both having unified memory.
Or is that also a response to the 360?
Stallion Dan
Member
Sony never forced parity on anything. Plenty games in ps1/2/3 eras looked better or had more content on other systems.
Also don't change argument.
Source?
Outrun
Member
You need to chill out mate.
Are you seriously arguing that MS contributed nothing to the industry?
Pathetic.
If MS bullies indies and they go to Sony as a result, isn't that just proof that we need competition?
Exclusive timed DLC is something MS invented?
what games had forced parity ?
onemanasylum
Banned
WTF, were did I say they didn't contribute anything? Why are you jumping to silly conclusions? Someone asked a question, I answered. You need to chill out more like it.
Yes timed DLC was not a thing until MS started it.
Stallion Dan
Member
I don't play that game, if you've never heard of it at this point then you don't want to.
Cool. So you don't have a proper source. Then why even bring it up?
I'm a PC gamer. Why would I know about this?
InquisitorAles
Member
What the fuck? GTA 3 was published by Take-Two, why you keep bringing it as example? Microsoft published (that means it was funded by them, if you don't know english well) and helped with development of first Mass Effect, It's mentioned on wikipedia and in several interviews:
But of course, you can still be biased and keep shitting on Microsoft because you don't like them in some ways.
Memorabilia
Member
I've been a pretty big fan of Phil's crew turning things around for Xbone after Mattrick's cluster-fuck launch. But...if there's proof that MS was withholding pay from PG...I mean, damn. From a purely consumer perspective, this would undo some of the warm n fuzzies I've felt towards them for the past 18 months or so. This has to be a bit of a PR problem within the community, no? *sigh* Just fucking treat people right and pay them well. It's not a high bar for a company with ~$125 billion in cash.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
You don't remember the infamous Parity clause?
Or all those AAA boasting about their games being the same on PS4, XB1 and PC even though some system are weaker then others:
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2015/01/27/evolve-developer-confirms-ps4-xbox-one-pc-parity/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...nity-graphics-lock-for-parity-on-ps4-xbox-one
Microsoft 100% funded Mass Effect 1, that's why the PS3 only had 2 and 3 for the longest time.
onemanasylum
Banned
Publish does NOT mean funded. Nothing you posted shows they funded it at all. Bioware is not some small time RPG studio that needed funding.
Source?
MS published witcher 2 on xbox as well does that mean they funded witcher 2 as well? Publish does in fact not mean funded.
Stallion Dan
Member
Because you don't want to.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-08-24-why-microsoft-wont-publish-psn-firsts
Plenty of examples thought the years.
TheBanditKing
Member
I have felt that MS was always headed towards a "Xbox as a service" something that is either a streaming service with the Live online store built into Windows, MS is big on cloud services. Or Xbox will simply become a spec to replace games for Windows that will have boxes built by third parties to match that spec for a guaranteed level of performance and access to MS servers for online play.
Just going to say this out-right. If developers don't have the right legally-binding contracts and agreements in-place to protect themselves, then it's their own fault.
Every client in the world tries to get everything for nothing. It's how you client.
Don't set up a game development company without the right business people, developers are developers.
Every client in the world tries to get everything for nothing. It's how you client.
Don't set up a game development company without the right business people, developers are developers.
I don't want to defend MS but: GTA 3. PC people had to wait ages for that one. Now it's not DLC, but timed exlcusive has been around for ages.
That said I hate DLC. Not due to the potential it has, but due to how it's used to sell unfinished and deliberately gutted games for some extra buck. DLC should be like an expansion, not extra money to buy a whole game.
Nail on the head, man.
How does this hurt the industry?
This is straight up a positive.
This is speculation.
As a PC gamer, you should install something called Chrome, Firefox, or use the built-in browser (you have to click the Windows key, and type 'Edge' to open it), and google it (type in www.google.com in the 'address' field of your chosen browser, following the steps above).
Type 'Xbox indie parity clause' into the search field and click 'enter'. Then, select any of the 8,800 results that appear.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Because you'll have a worst game on every platform if the 360 can't handle some improvements.
For a port of the game? Sure. But thats not the same as waiting for DLC. Making some customers wait to buy DLC is basically treating them like second class customers
Feature & content parity, not graphically parity. Read man.
LordRaptor
Member
A multibillion dollar global conglomerate might be used to treating contract negotiations like war, and send their best and trickiest lawyers to try and fuck over the other party as much as possible as a pre-emptive strike assuming the other party is trying to do the same.
But its hard to believe thats how a 2 man indie team are approaching things when they're thinking "cool, I get to release my game on console!"
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Where did I talked about graphical parity?
Stallion Dan
Member
Killing creativity, gimping features, forcing small devs to do things they don't want to, gamers missing out because PS got something first and MS then say no to porting. Disc content being forced in downloads to loophole the rules.
Etc etc.
Living through the 360's run?
Mass Effect 1 was a Microsoft published game. BioWare was allowed to retain the IP. EA swooped in and bought BioWare and all their IPs, including ME1.
EA only had the publishing rights to 2 and 3, but not 1, even though they owned the IP itself.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-buying-bioware-pandemic-for-860m/1100-6180818/
https://www.engadget.com/2007/10/11/ea-owns-mass-effect-so-what-now/
Like, this is just collectively known fact by the gaming community, until EA swooped in ME was going to be a 360-only trilogy because Microsoft was the publisher.
onemanasylum
Banned
Publish is not funded........You still have shown they funded the game. If they did it would have never ended up on playstation. It is not a known fact because they never funded ME at all.
Again, witcher 2 was also published by MS....they never funded it, same with ME. There is a difference.
Yeah. I should know to type "Xbox indie parity clause" into google whenever someone says "parity". Come on. Don't be an asshole. It's normal discussion etiquette to provide a source when you make a claim.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
Bullshit. And stop encouraging list wars.
Stallion Dan
Member
"Xbox parity" would be enough. We're talking Xbox and parity. Tough to figure out that search requirement.
Sigh.
Companies can buy out publishing rights or wait for them to expire.
Just like Lego City Undercover, which was funded by Nintendo, is now going to release on PS4 and the One.
Just like how Nintendo funded Banjo Kazooie, Tooie, and Perfect Dark, and now all 3 of them are on the Xbox 360.
Just like how Sony owned Psygnosis but they still released Wipeout on the N64, even though all the employees were on Sony payroll.
Fuck. I am still sore about this.
onemanasylum
Banned
What does that have to do with anything, again publishing a third party game <> funded. Sony published NMS but didn't fund it. MS published withcer 2, never funded it, same with ME, Bioware funded and developed ME.
What? It's just agreeing on principles that both parties are happy with and then sticking to them. It's your own fault if you don't.
This isn't done by lawyers, just read over and binded by them, this is done by the leads of each department. MS will have standardised templates for this and then just adjust specifics based on clients needs & requirements.
If you can't stick to something you agree too or don't properly consider something, it's your own fault. Simple as.
It doesn't matter if you're a large company or a small company.
What does can't handle improvements mean to you then?