Support NeoGAF

[BeeDog]

That's missing the point. I'm asking what is preventing people from not paying any royalties, what's the legal angle?

Well, my guess is it would boil down to the fact that an unlicensed game would be classified as some bootleg/homebrewed release, and no retailer would touch it with a 10-feet-pole.

 

[ruttyboy]

Well, my guess is it would boil down to the fact that an unlicensed game would be classified as some bootleg/homebrewed release, and no retailer would touch it with a 10-feet-pole.

Retailers really aren't that noble, I know from personal experience. Plus, an unlicensed console game is basically a PC game and they sell those (well, they used to).

 

[Cimarron]

I see no problem with this.

 

[intheinbetween]

I would not be suprised if the other 2 had the same policy.

Linkage

iirc, during the Tales of Vesperia PS3 version drama some Namco employee said that Sony wouldn't accept a straight forward port of an existing 360 game unless it had more content or something like that

 

[TheOddOne]

iirc, during the Tales of Vesperia PS3 version drama some Namco employee said that Sony wouldn't accept a straight forward port of an existing 360 game unless it had more content or something like that

I did not know that. Still its a policy they can inforce, but don't have too.

 

[see5harp]

iirc, during the Tales of Vesperia PS3 version drama some Namco employee said that Sony wouldn't accept a straight forward port of an existing 360 game unless it had more content or something like that

I thought that was true at least in terms of retail releases. It's about giving yourself an advantage in the marketplace and I see nothing wrong with the practice. It's not that different from forcing demos for every game on the marketplace.

 

[Withnail]

The only thing it means is that PSN doesn't have timed exclusives.

Joe Danger is a bad example though as that would be on XBLA if Hello Games could have found someone to publish it. It wasn't a Sony deal that made it exclusive.

MS are just exploiting their dominant position in the download arena. It sucks a bit for Sony but they would have done the same in the PS2 games.

 

[StuBurns]

The only thing it means is that PSN doesn't have timed exclusives.

Joe Danger is a bad example though as that would be on XBLA if Hello Games could have found someone to publish it. It wasn't a Sony deal that made it exclusive.

MS are just exploiting their dominant position in the download arena. It sucks a bit for Sony but they would have done the same in the PS2 games.

Sony didn't do it last gen. RE4 being the most famous example. People could port old games to PS2.

 

[Emitan]

Retailers really aren't that noble, I know from personal experience. Plus, an unlicensed console game is basically a PC game and they sell those (well, they used to).

No. You don't need a license to put games out on PC.

 

[Withnail]

Sony didn't do it last gen. RE4 being the most famous example. People could port old games to PS2.

I'm not really talking about accepting late ports as such, I'm talking about using a dominant market position to exert influence over publishers. It's just business.

 

[mclem]

Is it that there's some copy protection function on the disc that would be illegal to replicate without permission?

Exactly that. The ISO builder MS supplies leaves gaps in the disc, which - when you send it to MS for manufacture - are filled with copy protection gubbins. Only MS have the ability to produce said gubbins, and all Xbox discs are manufactured by them.

 

[StuBurns]

I'm not really talking about accepting late ports as such, I'm talking about using a dominant market position to exert influence over publishers. It's just business.

I know what you're talking about, that was my response. Sony dominated last-gen, they could have abused that, they seemingly didn't. If that makes them bad at business, I don't know, they certainly fucked up the PS3, but it makes them a class act in comparison.

 

[ruttyboy]

No. You don't need a license to put games out on PC.

Exactly my point.

 

[immortal-joe]

it seems designed not to reward those who own Microsoft platforms so much as punish those that do not.

and there you go

 

[ruttyboy]

Exactly that. The ISO builder MS supplies leaves gaps in the disc, which - when you send it to MS for manufacture - are filled with copy protection gubbins. Only MS have the ability to produce said gubbins, and all Xbox discs are manufactured by them.

Thanks, that makes sense then. I assume Sony run a similar system.

 

[Frankfurt]

If they still can have PSN-exclusive DLC, what's the point?

 

[Emitan]

Exactly my point.

Putting out an unlicensed game on a system that requires licensing is completely different than putting put a game on a platform that doesn't require licensing.

 

[pvpness]

Seems pretty typical for MS. Next you know Eurogamer will publish an article on how MS seemingly, may be using it's vast assets to undercut markets and gain footholds where others simply can not. Now that would be crazy!

 

[AranhaHunter]

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).

Also, wasn't their deal with the SMB team that they couldn't release the game on PSN but could on PC and other platforms? It was even supposed to come out on Wii or 3DS afterwards IIRC. Seems like a very specific deal to be honest.

 

[ruttyboy]

Putting out an unlicensed game on a system that requires licensing is completely different than putting put a game on a platform that doesn't require licensing.

From the retailer's point of view (which was the context), they're the same.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Also, wasn't their deal with the SMB team that they couldn't release the game on PSN but could on PC and other platforms? It was even supposed to come out on Wii or 3DS afterwards IIRC. Seems like a very specific deal to be honest.

Last I heard, Sony rejected Super Meat Boy.

EDIT: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-12-team-meat-cant-ever-do-a-ps3-version

 

[TheOddOne]

Also, wasn't their deal with the SMB team that they couldn't release the game on PSN but could on PC and other platforms? It was even supposed to come out on Wii or 3DS afterwards IIRC. Seems like a very specific deal to be honest.

Nintendo also rejected it :|

 

[Dave Long]

Reading this on the heels of another 360 kicking the bucket for me does not make me at all interested in the NWO of Xbox whenever they announce and ship their next console. I think I'm pretty much done with them after this generation.

 

[Emitan]

From the retailer's point of view (which was the context), they're the same.

A retailer is OK with putting out illegally produced games?

 

[Emitan]

SMB wasn't on Wii because the file size was over 40MB

 

[ruttyboy]

A retailer is OK with putting out illegally produced games?

Why are they illegal? What's the article of law that says you can't sell compatible games without paying the 1st party for the privilege (providing you have the capability to produce them obviously, which from what mclem said seems to be the major sticking point).

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Anyone have an actual example of them putting this policy to use? Because off the top of my head I can think of games like SSX, NFS The Run, Medal of Honor, Dead Space 2, Just Cause 2, BF3, etc, that all launch on 360 and PS3 same day but have more features/content on PS3.

 

[Emitan]

Why are they illegal? What's the article of law that says you can't sell compatible games without paying the 1st party for the privilege (providing you have the capability to produce them obviously, which from what mclem said seems to be the major sticking point).

Is it legal to reverse engineer Microsoft's disk printing process?

 

[AranhaHunter]

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").

Games that came to PS3 later and have no extra content that I can think off the top of my head:

Oblivion,
Limbo
Braid
Castle Crashers
Mass Effect 2
Star Ocean 4
The Orange Box

Games that had extra content:

ToV
ToG
Bioshock (exclusive DLC only)

Can't think of anything else right now. Don't remember whether Eternal Sonata had extra content or any other games that came out on PS3 later.

Last I heard, Sony rejected Super Meat Boy.

EDIT: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-12-team-meat-cant-ever-do-a-ps3-version

That source actually backs up what I said.

Nintendo also rejected it :|

Do you have a source? Also did they supposedly reject it before the game came out or they rejected a port of the game?

 

[Withnail]

Surely the main thing preventing unlicensed content is that the 360 will only run signed code and only MS have the signing keys.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Limbo
Mass Effect 2

Limbo had a new area, ME2 came with the prequel comic to make the ME1 decisions. Course that comic eventually came to other platforms too.

 

[TheOddOne]

Do you have a source? Also did they supposedly reject it before the game came out or they rejected a port of the game?

Team Meat wanted to release it, they where far along I think and then one day on twitter said it was cancelled. Some say it was a size limit problem that prevented it from coming to Wiiware.

 

[ruttyboy]

Is it legal to reverse engineer Microsoft's disk printing process?

I doubt it, but that wasn't in question?

You seem to be following the logic that any compatible game must have been made compatible via an illegal process, but one doesn't follow from the other.

Even then that's a big grey area that I think most retailers would probably risk if the benefits were there. After all, surely the publisher would be liable, not the retailer who bought in good faith.

How does a retailer know that a PC game isn't using unlicensed technology in it's development?

 

[mocoworm]

I don't really have a problem with this policy.

Microsoft are only reserving the right to turn down a game, it is not an either/or situation. At the same time they are making sure that they don't lose out to Sony and Nintendo on games.

I guess it stems from the early days of 360 when they needed good content.

 

[ymmv]

Games that came to PS3 later and have no extra content that I can think off the top of my head:

Oblivion,
Limbo
Braid
Castle Crashers
Mass Effect 2
Star Ocean 4
...

Wiki quote: Star Ocean: The Last Hope International is an international version of The Last Hope which was released February, 2010 exclusively for the PlayStation 3. It came on a single Blu-ray Disc and contains new additional exclusive content for the PlayStation 3 such as dual voices (Japanese and English), the original illustrated character portraits for dialogues, as well as multiple new soundtracks.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

A retailer is OK with putting out illegally produced games?

Retailers sold the black cart Tengen games back in the day.

 

[Emitan]

Limbo had a new area, ME2 came with the prequel comic to make the ME1 decisions. Course that comic eventually came to other platforms too.

What was Limbo's new content?

 

[Deleted member 81567]

This disturbs me a lot more than the timed exclusives business. Why would they do such a thing?

I can't fucking find a way to comprehend it either. Microsoft simply boggles me sometimes.

 

[Mr Killemgood]

Wiki quote: Star Ocean: The Last Hope International is an international version of The Last Hope which was released February, 2010 exclusively for the PlayStation 3. It came on a single Blu-ray Disc and contains new additional exclusive content for the PlayStation 3 such as dual voices (Japanese and English), the original illustrated character portraits for dialogues, as well as multiple new soundtracks.

Don't forget that most of the titles listed came with all pack-in DLC as a freebie. That would be considered the 'extra content'. For example, Mass Effect 2 came with the comic book intro + some DLC that costs extra on the 360. The same with Oblivion, and others.

 

[BeeDog]

What was Limbo's new content?

A completely new area shrouded in darkness and hard as hell (you rely on sounds to navigate).

 

[snoopeasystreet]

Anyone have an actual example of them putting this policy to use? Because off the top of my head I can think of games like SSX, NFS The Run, Medal of Honor, Dead Space 2, Just Cause 2, BF3, etc, that all launch on 360 and PS3 same day but have more features/content on PS3.

Like I said earlier, those games are big enough that the publisher can get away with things like that. There's no way MS is going to refuse having Battlefield 3 on their service. It'd be mad. I think it applies more to xbla games than retail. I think Machinarium got refused because it was already out on PC.

 

[bishoptl]

I bet Sony has the same policy.

You'd lose that bet handily.

Now what?

 

[ULTROS!]

What was Limbo's new content?

Uh... It had a new extra dungeon (you get it after completing the game). It's pretty difficult but it has a trophy in the end.

 

[PairOfFilthySocks]

Microsoft's vice president of interactive entertainment, Chris Lewis, defended the policy, saying: "We're a little biased, so obviously we're going to look to protect our own space as best we can and get exclusivity…we seek to maximise our own advantage to ensure the playing field is even, and certainly plays to our advantage wherever possible."

Y'know, as dickish as this seems, I do appreciate the transparency on the matter.

 

[Gozan]

Microsoft's content submission and release policy reads: "Titles for Xbox 360 must ship at least simultaneously with other videogame platforms, and must have at least feature and content parity on-disc with other platform versions in all regions where the title is available.

Does Microsoft count graphics and control options on PC as features? That would explain so much!

 

[SuperSonic1305]

PSN exclusives have cooties.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

So basically as a result of this policy...XBLA debuts can make their way to PSN, while PSN games will stay exclusive to PSN - as much because of MS policy as any effort Sony makes.

Hmmm.

This really is the best way to go about getting your game out as a small dev team who can only work on one game at a time. Make it timed exclusive for the XBLA and reap the extra rewards from that like free marketing and the biggest install base for downloadable titles, then basically the PC version is done when the XBLA is done... then take the time to port the PSN version and get a second boost of marketing when the game releases there.

So it's a win/win for everyone and the developer can take their time with each port and still sell their games to the widest audience on as many systems as they can. Gamers regardless of system get to play the game and the developers get to maximize their marketing and profits.

 

[KageMaru]

I guess this can be seen as both good and bad, though I think too many people are overlooking the part that says "reserve the right". It's not a guarantee that a game won't come to the 360 if it appears on another platform first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upzKj-1HaKw

It's odd how he thinks MS deserves it's success but believes they make 3rd rate products. I would think any company that makes 3rd rate products does not deserve the success they may have.

 

[mollipen]

It's odd how he thinks MS deserves it's success but believes they make 3rd rate products. I would think any company that makes 3rd rate products does not deserve the success they may have.

You can make third-rate products, but still work your ass off and have the drive to make your company a success, thus deserving whatever success you do get due to your hard work.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

It's odd how he thinks MS deserves it's success but believes they make 3rd rate products. I would think any company that makes 3rd rate products does not deserve the success they may have.

If I sell you a dirty sock for $3,000. How am I not successful and deserve what I got? I was smart enough to sell a crappy product for great profit to someone. Apple has been able to sell 1st rate products AND be successful. Windows sells because it's dominate in the marketplace, not because it is a good product. But as a Mac user since 1996 I'm a little biased