• 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.

Eurogamer: Some Insight into Microsoft's Xbox 360 Content Submission Policy

Afrikan

Member
Trunchisholm said:
Are you serious? What on earth are you talking about? How has Microsoft ever prevented any of those things from happening?

maybe it has with some other older games, as well as maybe future ones from small developers who would not want to take a chance to piss off Microsoft....that is why I ended each scenario with a "?".

"Eurogamer reveals that Microsoft's developer terms also stipulate that the company may also refuse to allow an Xbox 360 release for games that offer more features or content on other platforms."
 

3rdman

Member
Mxrz said:
Meh. Fuck Microsoft, etc.

Really need to either figure out Linux, or start drinking coffee and buy a Mac.
So much rage...

Does anyone actually know of a title that was refused release because of this "policy"...All I see is that they "reserve the right" to refuse it but I don't see examples of it actually being implemented.
 
Afrikan said:
so......no more 7.1 lossless sound for PS3 multiplat games huh?

no more MOVE support for PS3 multiplat games?
no more MLAA for PS3 multiplats?
no more youtube upload feature?
no more free online gameplay for PS3 multiplat games???? where does it stop haha

......no more incentive for a developer to take advantage of another console abilities?

What are you talking about? This has to do with games being released simultaneously or not. Microsoft knows getting games after they have been on other platforms, especially the PS3, means it makes it that much harder to compete. During the original Xbox days there were numerous games that were released on the PS2 first. They don't want the same things to occur with the Xbox 360.

Besides your argument can be quickly rebutted with retail games such as Virtua Fighter 5. It came out later on the Xbox 360 with online play added.

John Carmack also noted some stipulations regarding Sony and how they mandate games to get additional content:

Don't think that Carmack's some Sony cheerleader, though. When reminiscing on Quake Wars' "depressing" development cycle and launch, Carmack notes that Sony demands that games coming out on their platform after they've already been released on other platforms must have significant bonus content.

source:

http://www.1up.com/news/quakecon-carmack-dishes-dirt-sony
 

Afrikan

Member
dragonelite said:
Reserves the right to not allow a game to be published on their platform.
Not sure but they will use it as a argument for why they don't want the game on their platform not downright say fuck you guys im going home.

"Eurogamer reveals that Microsoft's developer terms also stipulate that the company may also refuse to allow an Xbox 360 release for games that offer more features or content on other platforms."

so an example...either don't support the MOVE for your PS3 version or we will not allow you to release it on our system (which just so happens to have a bigger install base). Or support Kinect.

sure it might not work against big companies....but I'm sure small devs would not bother taking advantage of stuff the PS3 version can do.

I remember Virtra Tennis 4 was suppose to have suburb Move functionality....and Kinect was not initially supported. Well later when it finally released. The PS3 version basically had waggle type gameplay...and Kinect ended up being supported. Maybe it was just a coincidence.
 
Afrikan said:
"Eurogamer reveals that Microsoft's developer terms also stipulate that the company may also refuse to allow an Xbox 360 release for games that offer more features or content on other platforms."

so an example...either don't support the MOVE for your PS3 version or we will not allow you to release it on our system (which just so happens to have a bigger install base). Or support Kinect.

sure it might not work against big companies....but I'm sure small devs would not bother taking advantage of stuff the PS3 version can do.

I remember Virtra Tennis 4 was suppose to have suburb Move functionality....and Kinect was not initially supported. Well later when it finally released. The PS3 version basically had waggle type gameplay...and Kinect ended up being supported. Maybe it was just a coincidence.

Or maybe Move has issues tracking the body because of the Eye cameras limitations? It certainly didn't help in the 3D environment for Sports Champions. All the Move tracked was the controller. Playing Gladiators was interesting because you had to use the face buttons to move the character.
 

Melchiah

Member
Double standards, anyone? Microsoft has adhered the principle of having games first on their platform, accompanied with exclusive features and content. Now they throw a hissy fit when the tables have been turned. I have to say this pisses me off to no end.


StuBurns said:
It's the platform as a service I was complaining about. Their rules show a lack of compassion for their peers and their users. Shatter is incredible, it should be on XBLA, their user base should be allowed it.

Vice versa: Trials HD is incredible, it should be on PSN, their userbase should be allowed it.


specialguy said:
I bet Sony has the same policy. Nonetheless cue yet another bitter thread of MS bashing on neogaf.

I cant really think of a single example where this applies as far as disc games, nor much on the reverse side either. Mass Effect is the only one that comes to mind as coming to PS3 later than 360, but it didn't sell well anyway so maybe it proves that MS is right? The only other title that really comes to mind is MGS4. It would seem to preclude that title ever coming to 360, but there's really little else on PS3 that would even seem feasible or desirable to bring over.

Bioshock
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
The Last Remnant
Tales of Vesperia
Eternal Sonata
Star Ocean 4: The Last Hope
Limbo
Braid
Castle Crashers

Together with ME2, most of those were released about a year after the 360 release date. That would suggest Sony has no such objections as Microsoft for recieving multiplatform titles later on
 

Afrikan

Member
Louis Cyphre said:
Or maybe Move has issues tracking the body because of the Eye cameras limitations? It certainly didn't help in the 3D environment for Sports Champions. All the Move tracked was the controller. Playing Gladiators was interesting because you had to use the face buttons to move the character.

well they were going to allow the CPU to control the player, but the swinging was suppose to be as responsive as Table Tennis (sports champions)

also they were thinking of letting you just control the character with the navigation controller, but you'd still have 1:1 movement with the Move controller.....or at least that is how they were making it sound.
 
Afrikan said:
well they were going to allow the CPU to control the player, but the swinging was suppose to be as responsive as Table Tennis (sports champions)

also they were thinking of letting you just control the character with the navigation controller, but you'd still have 1:1 movement with the Move controller.....or at least that is how they were making it sound.

Well hopefully the new EA Tennis game is much better.
 

jcm

Member
Riddick said:
Microsoft's disgusting tactics never cease to amaze me.

They all have disgusting tactics. None of these corporations are our friends, and none of them have our best interests in mind. Just be thankful that they're forced to compete for our dollars. A one platform future would be a nightmare.
 

Vorg

Banned
Just because they have the power to refuse a title does it mean they always will? Some mighty overreactions here.
 

Riddick

Member
jcm said:
They all have disgusting tactics. None of these corporations are our friends, and none of them have our best interests in mind. Just be thankful that they're forced to compete for our dollars. A one platform future would be a nightmare.


You're deliberately falsely equating all corporations to make excuses for Microsoft's crappy tactics. Corporations aren't our friends but some are much worse than the rest. Microsoft fits that category in everything they do, the way they treat the companies they buy, their shitty money grabbing attitude with their consumers and their attitude with their partners and especially the ones they don't need much, the weak ones.

Because this policy isn't for the big publishers, they need them, this policy will be used to blackmail small developers.
 

jcm

Member
Riddick said:
You're deliberately falsely equating all corporations to make excuses for Microsoft's crappy tactics. Corporations aren't our friends but some are much worse than the rest. Microsoft fits that category in everything they do, the way they treat the companies they buy, their shitty money grabbing attitude with their consumers and their attitude with their partners and especially the ones they don't need much, the weak ones.

Because this policy isn't for the big publishers, they need them, this policy will be used to blackmail small developers.

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm saying they all suck. Sorry if that wasn't clear. And you're very much mistaken about the big vs small thing, too. Platform holders push everyone around. So do the big retailers, for that matter. Granted, big pubs are able to push back more, but there's still plenty of elbows being thrown. It's the nature of the beast.
 

Riddick

Member
jcm said:
I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm saying they all suck. Sorry if that wasn't clear. And you're very much mistaken about the big vs small thing, too. Platform holders push everyone around. So do the big retailers, for that matter. Granted, big pubs are able to push back more, but there's still plenty of elbows being thrown. It's the nature of the beast.

Again, "all suck" is an awful generalization that you use to defend Microsoft. They all suck doesn't explain how Sony has excellent relationships with almost all of its first party developers while Microsoft has ruined almost everyone one of theirs. It doesn't explain disgusting tactics like the one discussed in this thread and it doesn't explain proprietary ripoff accessories or asking money for P2P online gaming.
 

StuBurns

Banned
Melchiah said:
Vice versa: Trials HD is incredible, it should be on PSN, their userbase should be allowed it.
What? That's not the same situation at all as far as I understand it. Trials is published by MS. It's MS that is also not allowing it to be on PSN, not Sony. But in that case it would be crazy to be irritate by that, MS have no obligation to allow their games on PS3, it doesn't benefit their consumers.
 

DDayton

(more a nerd than a geek)
FieryBalrog said:
I am seriously befuddled as to how anybody thinks what MS is doing here is a bad thing.

They are standing up for people who own Xboxs so that publishers can have a good long think before they throw timed exclusives or exclusive bonus content to another platform.
They're strong-arming third parties to give them the "best" version or risk being cut off from the 360 market.
 

DiscoJer

Member
ruttyboy said:
Probably a stupid question, but what is stopping people releasing 'unlicensed' games? Just printing up the discs themselves and cutting deals with retailers directly?

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

Back in the Genesis days, that's just what EA did. Though they eventually worked out a deal with Sega

http://www.horriblenight.com/10487/...w-ea-and-tengen-got-1-up-on-sega-and-nintendo


And of course, it was the norm in the first console era - 2600/Colecovision/Intellivision.

I think the catch today is that if a company did so, they would not be able to use any of the development tools provided by Sony/Nintendo/MS. As games are so complex to program nowadays, I think it would be worth the royalty fee just for that.

As recently as about 5-6 years ago, there was a disc based action replay for the PS2 that was unlicensed, yet still booted up. Also came with a Genesis emulator and a couple other programs (I think media player?)

And of course, the Dreamcast still gets games once in a while. Unlicensed...
 

jcm

Member
Riddick said:
Again, "all suck" is an awful generalization that you use to defend Microsoft. They all suck doesn't explain how Sony has excellent relationships with almost all of its first party developers while Microsoft has ruined almost everyone one of theirs. It doesn't explain disgusting tactics like the one discussed in this thread and it doesn't explain proprietary ripoff accessories or asking money for P2P online gaming.

Saying "they all suck" necessarily contains the statement "Microsoft sucks". If you think that's defending Micrsosoft, well then, I'm not sure how much else there is to say.
 
Orayn said:
This disturbs me a lot more than the timed exclusives business. Why would they do such a thing?

Fact of the matter is, it's already pretty hard for "smaller" games to get a retail release this gen, due to the prohibitive costs involved. XBLA and PSN has been quite good for allowing smaller developers to get their foot in the door, although it sounds like there's still a high entry requirement for that.

As for the policy, it sounds like typical MS.
 
DavidDayton said:
They're strong-arming third parties to give them the "best" version or risk being cut off from the 360 market.

It's annoying that this is their focus now (that and Kinect) as opposed to investing in first-party developers and adventurous new IPs, like they did last gen and the beginning of this one. Sony has spent a lot of time and money doing this, having realised they're not going to get exclusives for free anymore, and it's really paid off for them.
 

sleepykyo

Member
Afrikan said:
so......no more 7.1 lossless sound for PS3 multiplat games huh?

no more MOVE support for PS3 multiplat games?
no more MLAA for PS3 multiplats?
no more youtube upload feature?
no more free online gameplay for PS3 multiplat games???? where does it stop haha

......no more incentive for a developer to take advantage of another console abilities?

They reserve the right to refuse. That doesn't mean they will and in all likelihood they won't on a big game, such as Batman AA or MoH. Pretty sure if your game is a big enough franchise or the publisher has a lot of clout both MS and Sony will ease up their regulations.
 

Iknos

Junior Member
PS3 doesn't have this policy because they are dead last and need all the games they can get.

MS is strongarming people because they have the bigger userbase and these small developers don't want to miss out on that.
 
What a terrible policy for 360 only owners.
Iknos said:
PS3 doesn't have this policy because they are dead last and need all the games they can get.

MS is strongarming people because they have the bigger userbase and these small developers don't want to miss out on that.
lol, People still say dead last?
 

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
Iknos said:
PS3 doesn't have this policy because they are dead last and need all the games they can get.

MS is strongarming people because they have the bigger userbase and these small developers don't want to miss out on that.
Lovely
 

Iknos

Junior Member
StuBurns said:
Brevity means concise, you added a redundant word, it's the opposite of brevity.

Needed a phrase that would stress how last they were. Nevermind consoles the iStore and Steam are big markets too. "dead" seems very concise. But I can see your point and ultimately you are right.

sleepykyo said:
Shouldn't it be levity?

Seeking levity in a brevitic fashion.

Now I'm just butchering the english language.
 

Dan Yo

Banned
MS really has the wrong idea with these policies. They seem to put more stock in timed exclusivity than in feature parity.

Every time I see 360 will get COD map packs or Skyrim DLC before PS3 owners for a short time, I just kind of roll my eyes. Well gee, THANKS Microsoft. Really looking out for me. Money well spent. Couldn't really care less about a small window where I play some stupid content that the others will get anyway.

But whenever I hear Sony will be getting exclusive content for LA Noire or some other title I'm interested, then I begin to wish I had a PS3 and could get the PS3 version. That happens enough times, and maybe I will.

Sony is doing what MS was doing at the beginning of this generation, and MS are starting to get arrogant and pretty much doing what Sony was doing at the beginning of this generation. I hope this trend does not continue.
 

YoungHav

Banned
so multiplatform game developers are not allowed to take full advantage of all the PS3's cores because they can't be better than their 360 counterparts? Microsoft holding back this gen confirmed.
 
Sony responds.

Sony has accused Microsoft of "protecting inferior technology", following its admission last week that it reserves the right to deny games an Xbox Live Arcade release if they launch on PSN first.

Speaking in an interview with IndustryGamers, Sony's senior VP of publisher relations Rob Dyer argued that Microsoft's content submission and release policy stands in the way of innovation by denying multi-platform developers the right to exploit the PlayStation 3's high-end features.

"I think what [Xbox Europe boss] Chris [Lewis] and the other representatives at Microsoft are doing is protecting an inferior technology," he explained.

"I think they want to dumb it down and keep it as pedestrian as possible so that if you want to do anything for Blu-ray, or you have extra content above 9GB, or you want to do anything of that nature, you'd better sure as heck remember that Microsoft can't handle that."

Microsoft's third party guidelines dictate that all games released on the Xbox 360 must launch "at least simultaneously" with other systems and must have "at least" the same features and content. It reserves the right to block release if those guidelines aren't met.

"That's a huge problem with them," continued Dyer.

"It first started on the smaller pubs, and we can talk about what's happened on XBL and the policy they have there that requires publishers to have a whole litany of things in order to get onto their network or they have to go through and be published by Xbox, by Microsoft, which essentially lets them dictate how long they'll be exclusive and whether or not they own the IP, etc, etc.

"We don't do that. We don't have any kind of policy like that.

"In fact, we've gone the other way to try and encourage publishers through our Pub Fund... We want to welcome the indies and we've seen that become a very big part of our business because indies are recognising that we aren't demanding a pound of flesh in order for them to get a game published on our network."

According to Dyer, it's a problem that extends to AAA developers as well as indies.

"It's now progressed to not just be these smaller indie pubs that are obviously very easy to kick around. It's moved up the food chain. It's gone to B and A level publishers," he said.

"So potentially any time we've gone out and negotiated exclusive content of things that we've announced at things like DPS or E3, publishers are getting the living crap kicked out of them by Microsoft because they are doing something for the consumer that is better on our platform than it might be perceived on theirs.

more at the link.
 
YoungHav said:
so multiplatform game developers are not allowed to take full advantage of all the PS3's cores because they can't be better than their 360 counterparts? Microsoft holding back this gen confirmed.

The industry is always held back by the lowest system. Last gen We didn't get devs taking advantage of the Xbox harddrive because they had to ensure the game would work on the PS2.
 
Top Bottom