Support NeoGAF

[Miles Quaritch]

Is the One's announcement of used games and always online/24hr check in festure what he meant when he made these comments on the bonus round?

Based on what we know, Sony doesn't have a mandatory 24hr check in system, they also won't allegedly be blocking used games, but will instead leave it up to publishers.

What if the some developers/publishers aren't too happy about the pretty draconian methods being implemented to curb used games and have decided to forego the One as a platform altogether?

CDPR, for example, refuse to acknowledge if there's a One version in the works. Many, including myself initially thought that it would be a timed exclusive and show up at the MS presser, but it apparently won't be shown in public at all this year (BHC), so where does that leave the One version?

CDPR aren't the only ones, many smaller developers are simply foregoing the One due to its approach to self publishing, not receiving dev kits and simply not being happy with the direction MS are going..

Anyway, to get to my point...is what we are seeing now what Gertsmann meant when said third parties would be picking a side?

http://www.thecoversystem.com/2013/04/rumor-third-party-exclusives-making.html

 

[Mononoke]

Would be kind of fitting. Sony makes it easier for Devs to make the best games that they can on their system, MS makes it easier for them to make more money.

They go with the money.

 

[MikeE21286]

Is the One's announcement of used games and always online/34hr check in festure what he meant when he made these comments on the bonus round?

Based on what we know, Sony doesn't have mandatory 34hr check in system, they also won't allegedly be blocking used games, but will instead leave it up to publishers.

What if the some developers/publishers aren't too happy about the pretty draconian methods being implemented to curb used games and have decided to forego the One as a platform altogether?

CDPR, for example, refuse to acknowledge if there's a One version in the works. Many, including myself initially thought that it would be a timed exclusive and show up at the MS presser, but it apparently won't be shown in public at all this year (BHC), so where does that leave the One version?

CDPR aren't the only ones, many smaller developers are simply foregoing the One due to its approach to self publishing, not receiving dev kits and simply not being happy with the direction MS are going..

Anyway, to get to my point...is what we are seeing know what Gertsmann meant when said third parties would be picking a side?

http://www.thecoversystem.com/2013/04/rumor-third-party-exclusives-making.html

Or what if it's the other way around.

Companies are going to start choosing sides though based on what we know about the strategies of both companies.

Indies to PS4. Mega-publishers to Xbox One

 

[Antiwhippy]

His reasoning seems to be more about the price of development rather than any actual console policy.

 

[Data West]

Would be kind of fitting. Sony makes it easier for Devs to make the best games that they can on their system, MS makes it easier for them to make more money.

They go with the money.

No money if no one buys the system because of internet requirements though. Particularly, families with multiple kids.

 

[badcrumble]

Why would third parties be unhappy about the new approach to used games, lending games, et cetera? They'll be delighted, it's consumers that should be angry.

 

[StuBurns]

Publishers won't be 'picking sides'. Franchises will be co-marketed in exchange for exclusive content, but it won't even fall straight down publisher lines, for example we already have Activision associating CoD with XB1 and Destiny with PS4. Ubisoft are on both, as are EA.

 

[anexanhume]

Would be kind of fitting. Sony makes it easier for Devs to make the best games that they can on their system, MS makes it easier for them to make more money.

They go with the money.

Not if PS4 gets an early install base lead.

 

[alr1ght]

Why would third parties be unhappy about the new approach to used games, lending games, et cetera? They'll be delighted, it's consumers that should be angry.

Because they like money. Consumers have all the money.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Wait, 34-hour?

I thought there were only 24 in a day.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Or what if it's the other way around.

Companies are going to start choosing sides though based on what we know about the strategies of both companies.

Indies to PS4. Mega-publishers to Xbox One

I think that you can see that in EA and MS' sudden tight relationship. For years EA has been very close to Sony, but all of a sudden they're now tight with MS. And we're even hearing rumbling about them handing over a full exclusive to MS, and that's obviously something that's extremely rare with EA.

 

[reson8or]

Or what if it's the other way around.

Companies are going to start choosing sides though based on what we know about the strategies of both companies.

Indies to PS4. Mega-publishers to Xbox One

Mega Publishers games' will also be on PS4, they can't afford not to.

 

[anexanhume]

Wait, 34-hour?

I thought there were only 24 in a day.

The cloud gives you 33% more hours a day.

 

[Ceebs]

The big budget AAA games are too damn expensive for publishers to really "choose" sides unless they are getting money from the console manufacturers to offset the loss of sales from the other console.

Sure your lower profile games may be able to do this along with indies who do not have the resources to develop for both, but the big AAA stuff will be multi-platform.

 

[andycapps]

Publishers won't be 'picking sides'. Franchises will be co-marketed in exchange for exclusive content, but it won't even fall straight down publisher lines, for example we already have Activision associating CoD with XB1 and Destiny with PS4. Ubisoft are on both, as are EA.

This.

 

[benny_a]

His name is Jeff Gerstmann

What is this? Bonus Round?

 

[Uncle Rupee]

Why would mega publishers ignore the PS4 base when it'll be easy to port their Xbox One games to the PS4 (since it is more powerful)? Just because of the used games policy? That's absurd.

 

[Mononoke]

No money if no one buys the system because of internet requirements though. Particularly, families with multiple kids.

To clarify, I'm not saying they will make more money with MS. Or that Xbox One will make more money.

I'm just saying, these companies are probably salivating at MS's decision to block used games via fees. I wouldn't put it past them to initially side with MS right out the gate, choosing money over the ease of developing games for the system.

 

[solarus]

Is the One's announcement of used games and always online/24hr check in festure what he meant when he made these comments on the bonus round?

Based on what we know, Sony doesn't have a mandatory 24hr check in system, they also won't allegedly be blocking used games, but will instead leave it up to publishers.

What if the some developers/publishers aren't too happy about the pretty draconian methods being implemented to curb used games and have decided to forego the One as a platform altogether?

CDPR, for example, refuse to acknowledge if there's a One version in the works. Many, including myself initially thought that it would be a timed exclusive and show up at the MS presser, but it apparently won't be shown in public at all this year (BHC), so where does that leave the One version?

CDPR aren't the only ones, many smaller developers are simply foregoing the One due to its approach to self publishing, not receiving dev kits and simply not being happy with the direction MS are going..

Anyway, to get to my point...is what we are seeing now what Gertsmann meant when said third parties would be picking a side?

http://www.thecoversystem.com/2013/04/rumor-third-party-exclusives-making.html

Lol your example is fucking hilarious since the vast manority of publishers LOVE these draconian measures microsoft is implementing, if anything they are more likely to hop in bed with microsoft than sony. Your example demonstrates the minority for sure though.

 

[Garrett 2U]

If Sony doesn't adopt an anti-used game policy, third party publishers will push the XboxOne platform harder with exclusive content and sales.

 

[ThisWreckage]

His reasoning seems to be more about the price of development rather than any actual console policy.

I think he's dead wrong. With the rising cost of development you'll likely see LESS studios picking a side. Disappointing sales would be catastrophic for many studios.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

Publishers won't be 'picking sides'. Franchises will be co-marketed in exchange for exclusive content, but it won't even fall straight down publisher lines, for example we already have Activision associating CoD with XB1 and Destiny with PS4. Ubisoft are on both, as are EA.

This is most likely.

the vast manority of publishers LOVE these draconian measures microsoft is implementing, if anything they are more likely to hop in bed with microsoft than sony.

Also this is most likely true as well. I suspect most large publishers like MS's DRM policies.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Indies will definitely pick a side, because Sony treats them better.
Huge studios like EA, Acti, Take2 and so on won't pick a side, they want to sell as many units as possible and for that they need both plattforms. To make one of them pick a side might take some huge moneyhats.
Smaller studios like the Witcher3 makers might also pick a side if they are really into that anti DRM thign.

 

[Callibretto]

If Sony doesn't adopt an anti-used game policy, third party publishers will push the XboxOne platform harder with exclusive content and sales.

If ps4 manage to sell more and get bigger userbase, 3rd party cant afford to push sony to the sidelines.

 

[badcrumble]

I think he's dead wrong. With the rising cost of development you'll likely see LESS studios picking a side. Disappointing sales would be catastrophic for many studios.

Yeah, especially when the Xb0ne and the PS4 are *more* architecturally similar than the 360 and PS4. Publishing to both consoles is a no-brainer.

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

Mega Publishers games' will also be on PS4, they can't afford not to.

This. Any thought otherwise is obtuse.

 

[andycapps]

To clarify, I'm not saying they will make more money with MS. Or that Xbox One will make more money.

I'm just saying, these companies are probably salivating at MS's decision to block used games via fees. I wouldn't put it past them to initially side with MS right out the gate, choosing money over the ease of developing games for the system.

And they may do that. What may be more interesting is in seeing multiplatform sales breakdowns if Sony doesn't have the same used game policy as the Xbone. Companies may like this policy but if they got less overall sales on the platform, that doesn't help their bottom line.

 

[Messofanego]

No money if no one buys the system because of internet requirements though. Particularly, families with multiple kids.

Makes me wonder, what if Xbox One becomes like the Wii in that loads of casual people buy it, but no one is buying the hardcore games because they've all turned to the PS4 for that?

 

[liquidtmd]

Or what if it's the other way around.

Companies are going to start choosing sides though based on what we know about the strategies of both companies.

Indies to PS4. Mega-publishers to Xbox One

I would be OK with this. I actively would like to see Sony and MS have more opposing strategies. As much as I don't like MS's conference, strategy and attitude, they will be successful in many markets with the ONE.

This gen has seen not much to really differentiate the 360 and PS3. Strategies have been kinda converging. A few exclusives. If we did really continue on this path and Sony was much more 'games come first' with MS being 'we want the living room', I think you're right and more indies would develop / flourish on PS4 with the big devs maybe going for a few more exclusives on the ONE.

It would make things more interesting certainly. Love or hate MS's approach, it's polarising - if both companies stick to their philosophies, surely it will encourage them to not be complacent in the market which I feel they kinda both have for the last couple of years.

 

[SilentFlyer]

Is that why EA and MS entered into 'unprecedented partnership' where MS can force gamers to pay for the used games while Sony chose other route? Of course MS way will give them more money.

 

[Deified Data]

I don't think we'll see too much favoritism from publishers this gen, but I have no doubt that the majority of them probably wish Microsoft was the only game in town right now. They'd get their money and they could do it while pretending like they don't want to.

 

[Phonomezer]

No money if no one buys the system because of internet requirements though. Particularly, families with multiple kids.

Everyone can access the same game.

 

[maquiladora]

I think there may be some games that end up being exclusive because of those reasons (mainly smaller, indie titles) but the vast majority will probably be exclusive by moneyhats, and I assumed thats what Jeff meant.

 

[unbias]

IF this actually happens, I wonder what impact that would have on the PC? Might actually strengthen it by a lot, unless they dont release it on the PC as well.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Lol your example is fucking hilarious since the vast manority of publishers LOVE these draconian measures microsoft is implementing, if anything they are more likely to hop in bed with microsoft than sony. Your example demonstrates the minority for sure though.

No if they are starring to loose money or resources to the cloud/smartglass shenanigans.

 

[pax217]

Publishers might love it, but project ten dollar was going to make them better off than this is. One cannot forget the laws of supply and demand.

 

[Vyse The Legend]

If Sony doesn't adopt an anti-used game policy, third party publishers will push the XboxOne platform harder with exclusive content and sales.

Think outside of the box.

If Sony doesn't adopt those practices, they may, in the short term, anger some publishers, but gain strong brick and mortar partners, such as GameStop, that will push PS4 software instead of XONE stuff, giving them top billing in the stores and promotions. In the long-term, the publishers will come back.

 

[ThisWreckage]

I think there may be some games that end up being exclusive because of those reasons (mainly smaller, indie titles) but the vast majority will probably be exclusive by moneyhats, and I assumed thats what Jeff meant.

If you're a third party dev moneyhats wouldn't be enough. Look, both systems are going to have a similar architecture, gaming development costs are skyrocketing, and you want to reach as many gamers as possible. The ONLY solution is to release your game on both. It's almost like devs are begging for their studios to perish.

 

[Brokun]

That is a weird statement to make. Publishers not happy about curbing used games??

Publishers are the reason Microsoft implemented this feature to begin with. While there will always be exceptions, publishers will be more than happy to develop for the Xbox One where used games won't eat into their bottom line. Their investors will be even more happy.

 

[Loris146]

Bullshit. We don't know if PS4 will sell good or bad and the same for Xbone. So bullshit.

 

[SilentFlyer]

If Sony doesn't adopt an anti-used game policy, third party publishers will push the XboxOne platform harder with exclusive content and sales.

This. I've strong feeling.

 

[Cave Johnson]

Why would third parties be unhappy about the new approach to used games, lending games, et cetera? They'll be delighted, it's consumers that should be angry.

Because suddenly preventing used games will INSPIRE said gamers to purchase them. Oh golly gee, I look at all my used game collection and say to myself "Yeah, I TOTALLY should buy them had it been impossible to buy them used".

 

[BadWolf]

Individual company reputation comes into play here as well I think, going the anti-used route (either via X1 exclusivity or the option given via PS4) will definitely put a company into the asshole category.

So I can see backlash happening against companies that do this, kind of like the on disc DLC thing with Capcom.

 

[MikeE21286]

Mega Publishers games' will also be on PS4, they can't afford not to.

But they have incentive to have their games be best on Xbox so they sell more copies there.

No more need for MS to moneyhat them for exclusives either. They have a "built-in" moneyhat

 

[harSon]

I think he's dead wrong. With the rising cost of development you'll likely see LESS studios picking a side. Disappointing sales would be catastrophic for many studios.

That's definitely going to be the case once both consoles have install bases that are worth a shit, but in the early portions of a generation, it actually seems beneficial to be exclusive to a platform. There's something about exclusivity within this period that makes games infinitely more desirable, and this on top of the fact that money from Sony/Microsoft to subsidize the burden of development being highly attractive to publishers/developers, is ultimately the reason we'll see the return of the 3rd party exclusive for the time being.

 

[Antiwhippy]

Also I can't seem to find the bonus round episode where he made those comments. Any links?

 

[gofreak]

There's no indication at this point that 'mega publishers' are pushing one console harder than the other. For now it seems like business as usual - multiplatform-ism, with co-marketing deals and exclusive DLC deals on both sides.

There are perhaps some indications that small and indie pubs are pushing on PS4 harder than Xbox One. At least if media reach outs to indies thusfar, and announced games thus far, are anything to go by.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Also I can't seem to find the bonus round episode where he made those comments. Any links?

http://www.gametrailers.com/full-episodes/8q4vcl/bonus-round-pachter-on-next-gen-pricing-

 

[CosmicQueso]

That is a weird statement to make. Publishers not happy about curbing used games??

Publishers are the reason Microsoft implemented this feature to begin with. While there will always be exceptions, publishers will be more than happy to develop for the Xbox One where used games won't eat into their bottom line. Their investors will be even more happy.

Not necessarily.

Many publishers believe that used provides liquidity that funds new game purchases.

Just as GAF isn't a hivemind, neither is the publishing community.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

If Sony doesn't adopt an anti-used game policy, third party publishers will push the XboxOne platform harder with exclusive content and sales.

I'm starting to think this too.