Sony: 'Publishers Are Getting the Living Crap Kicked Out of Them by Microsoft'

Last week, a story came to the forefront regarding Microsoft’s Content Submission and Release Policy, obtained by Eurogamer. The gist of it is that Microsoft has some very strict policies on what they're willing to publish on retails discs or on Xbox Live Arcade, and if it arrives on a Sony platform first or has more content on a Sony platform, Microsoft won't publish it. What does Sony have to say about all this? A lot, apparently...

IndustryGamers chatted with Sony Computer Entertainment America's SVP of Publisher Relations Rob Dyer, who was more than happy to highlight what he feels are very damaging policies for Microsoft.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Dart892631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

*"I think what Chris and the other representatives at Microsoft are doing is protecting an inferior technology."

Well time to get a bag of popcorn and let the comments roll in.

Well they do have a point.

@Rabid a little of both:D.

rabidpancakeburglar2631d ago

What kind of popcorn? Sweet or Salted?

Bull5hifT2631d ago

Chocolate Fudge, Nacho Cheese, tarter sauce Flavored Yummy

rabidpancakeburglar2631d ago

Christ, you americans just put everything on food, don't you?

MrDead2631d ago

I have chips and cheesy dip

I also got a box of Ritalin just in case the the kids go to crazy I can chuck it in there

evrfighter2631d ago

oh nice I thought it was going to be Gabe being the aggressor. Sony usually ignores M$ dealings but here we see some initiative.

Gamers are the winners here when stuff like this happens. Interested to see how M$ responds. steamworks maybe?

Brosy2631d ago

This sony idiot is just jealous of MS dominance. I mean last gen the ps2 dominated, and now the underdog(360) has come on the scene with a suprisingly dominant showing. It's funny how things change gen to gen. This is just a jealous sony idiot, and he has alot to be jealous of. I think its funny lol.

Silly gameAr2631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

mmm. Cheese, buttered, and caramel mixed.

REALgamer2631d ago

Hang on, when they say Microsoft won't 'publish' anything on retail discs or digital with more content for a PS3 version, I assume they mean that they won't act as the actual publisher for that game.

Ie: when you start the game up you won't see Microsoft Game Studios logo as the publisher. Otherwise Bioshock Infinite and Dead Space 2 wouldn't be on 360 because the publishers for them put Bioshock 1 and Dead Space Extraction packaged with the game too.

In that case, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Microsoft won't publish a game with more PS3 content, but the developer can still release it on 360 with any other third-party to publish it instead (eg: EA, Activision, Take Two, etc).

Boody-Bandit2631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

The hell with food. I just popped the cork on a fresh bottle of bourbon. I'm going to get a little toasty and watch the war begin.

Come to think of it I think I will grab some kettle popcorn to go along with this tasty bourbon.

On topic: No matter how anyone tries to spin this, things like this are not good for the industry. This holds it back and nothing more.

jony_dols2631d ago

'Christ, you americans just put everything on food, don't you?'

I'd love a six pack of Skittlebrau right now...

Dee_912630d ago

I have a taste for hotwings :)

Micro_Sony2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

A double cheese burger with 6 slices of bacon and some sea salt fries please with a large frosty.

gamingdroid2630d ago

***A double cheese burger with 6 slices of bacon and some sea salt fries please with a large frosty.***

That sounds sickeningly good, because that is exactly how I would feel after eating that!

2630d ago
pixelsword2630d ago

Hamburgers and doughnuts on my popcorned cheese.

Ragnaarock2630d ago


I think that if the "extra content" is completely different than the actual game in question microsoft will still publish it since Dead Space 2 was exactly the same on both consoles. The core content was the same therefore microsoft had no prob with releasing it i guess. I think they would only not publish or release a game on their console if the PS3 version used the space to pack 3 DLC packs of extra content on the the blu-ray leaving MS with 3 downloadable DLC packs on XBL for the same game. So I guess the extra game thing is a bit of a loophole Sony or the publishers found.

Army_of_Darkness2630d ago

Reading this article and Microsoft policy makes me really hate them now. I don't understand why these blind fanboys are still defending ms?! Its stupid.

humbleopinion2630d ago

You kinda nailed the point. That dude (who's not even a Sony tech person, just some PR idiot) talks a lot of trash but doesn't even back things up.
Fact it, many games include extra content on blueray when they come on a simultaneous release: be it better quality cinematics (Final Fantasy XIII), extra content (Batman Joker levels, Mafia 2 extra content) or even full extra games (MOH, Dead space 2).

The only thing that Microsoft doesn't allow, is to have a game globally released first on the PS3, and then released later on the 360 with no additional benefits. That's why publishers always had to include extra content when releasing 360 games later than PS3 games (Virtua Fighter 5 online mode, UT2007 extra levels.

What Microsoft is doing is a pretty reasonable tactic so that your console won't look like it's getting the lesser port released later. Mind you, he "forgot" to mention that Sony is doing the exact same tactic: check out every game ported later to the PS3 and you will see that Sony forced the publisher to shove in some extra content just so it won't look to customer like they're being screwed: Ninja Gaiden 2, Bioshock, Mass Effect 2, Oblivion, and even arcade titles like Castle Crashers.

Even funnier is how he talks great things about Gabe Newell and Valve after he praised the PS3 for including access to Steam. Guess he wasn't so fond of him back in the days when Newell called the PS3 "a total disaster":

I guess Allegiance switches a quickly in the corporate world and PR idiots will always be PR idiots who can't get their facts straights (to be honest, the PR suits on Microsoft side are even worse and more clueless about things). Just don't let gamers fall into this trash talk.

JD_Shadow2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

You missed the whole point, then.

A policy like this is severely damaging for game companies that want more exposure to their game. Imagine if you had a game company, and you planned on releasing a game on both the PS3 and 360. Since the 360 has or had such a huge lead on the PS3 (I don't believe it has a huge lead anymore, though), and you're game would receive massive exposure if it were on the 360 and/or XBL, then you were denied by MS to have the game on the 360 because it wasn't "equal" to what the PS3 version of your game was, you would be miffed, I would think.

You also mention DLC. Think about the Batman: AA DLC and Mafia 2 DLC you mentioned. Have you SEEN that content on the 360 yet? Also remember that MS only "reserves the right" to refuse devs clearance to release the game or content on the 360. That means that they CAN do it, but not that they necessarily WILL, though they seem to really decide TO DO so with most games.

Why do you think SE cut a ton of content out of Final Fantasy 13 from both versions? We complained for months about the PS3 version suffering from that multiplat announcement, and we cringe about FFV13 360 rumors whenever they pop up. You now know why.

And again, you completely missed the point of everything about why this is a dangerous policy for the gaming industry.

EDIT: I just saw that you not only missed the point, but you didn't even read what MS's policy even WAS:

There NOTHING in that article that even suggests that MS is only asking devs to stick extra stuff into the game when and if the game comes out on 360 later on. Where in that article that we're discussing did you see either that or the Sony policy you're talking about?

And what in the hell does Gabe's past comments about the PS3 have to do with ANYTHING?

humbleopinion2629d ago (Edited 2629d ago )

"A policy like this is severely damaging for game companies that want more exposure to their game."
Of course it is. But as I mentioned before: it's a a tactic that is employed by both sides. I think it's you that missed the point...
MS and Sony want to take care of their own user base and nothing more. Neither wants to see the other console getting the better game. They both don't care about the game on the other console.

"You also mention DLC. Think about the Batman: AA DLC and Mafia 2 DLC you mentioned. Have you SEEN that content on the 360 yet?"
No, it was PS3 exclusive. Are you just trying to prove my point that this "content equality" is just a general guideline that is not always enforced?
It's just like the guideline demanding games to have native resolution of 720P or else the MS/Sony reserve the right not to publish them. We've seen so many time where this was not actually enforced...

"Why do you think SE cut a ton of content out of Final Fantasy 13 from both versions? We complained for months about the PS3 version suffering from that multiplat announcement, and we cringe about FFV13 360 rumors whenever they pop up. You now know why."
If you actually believe that then I'm sorry but you're a delusional fanboy who can't deal with facts.
Fact is, the Japanese version of FF13 was completed before SE even started working on porting it to the X360 (which was done in a remarkable 6 months) so it didn't have any effect on the actual development.
If anything, it was the long and tedious development of the engine for the PS3 (based on specs given to SE by Sony) in the first place that causes such a hugh delay in the development of FF13 to Final Fantasy fans. We can also see how well FF14 fared as a PS3 exclusive without being ported to the X360 at all...

"Where in that article that we're discussing did you see either that or the Sony policy you're talking about?"
It's not in the article. It's a known policy for years - you can look it up yourself, ask any developer or just do the math yourself: just examine every PS3 port in existence and see if if has additional content or not. Then do the same for X360 ports and you'll see a common groung.

It's easy to disprove me: if you can give me even one example of a game that was a late port with no additional content then I will take everything I said back. If not - then simply don't bother replying because you will just be recycling arguments with no facts to back them up.

+ Show (22) more repliesLast reply 2629d ago
Muerte24942631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

Was a prominent xbox360 supporter. But like many closed platforms, the yellow tape eventually pops up. Steam on PSN seems to cut out the middle man between the devs and consumers. I don't expect it to be too long before EA announces some kind of Origins on PSN deal.

OcularVision2631d ago

Publishers are already feeding the PS3 with exclusive betas, most notable the Battlefield and Assassin's Creed betas. Which I find kind of strange because both of those aforementioned games sell better on the Xbox 360.

dragonelite2631d ago

@ocularVision dice said the bf3 beta is on every platform so yeah 360 too. But who wants to play bf3 on consoles. pc ftw.

Redempteur2631d ago

"both of those aforementioned games sell better on the Xbox 360. "
Lool you're joking right ? because the better is only a couple of hundred and that's in america ..
In the rest of the world the PS3 is in front by a wide margin

KMCROC2631d ago

Former MS employee has that for irony.

Blacktric2631d ago

Gabe Newell is a two faced idiot. Where were you when he was talking crap about PS3 3-4 years ago for no reason. He and his team was just too goddamn lazy to learn a new architechture and instead of trying, they just kept talking crap until E3 2010. He doesn't deserve the respect and love he's getting from PS3 users.

gamingdroid2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

Valve has their own interest as well. Do you think Gabe would be singing praises about PS3 if they weren't on the platform?

Steam is just trying to skim a little of PS3's business, and Sony just want better support than the Orange Box port to drum up more business. Hopefully a win-win situation.

I like Valve and trust them more than others, but I ain't blind!

It's business, because technically buying up companies and keeping exclusives are technically also hurting the industry. It limits the reach of those games... see I can spin too!

I'm also sure Online Passes is really good for the consumers. We all love to have restrictions on our games.

Fact is companies will do what is best for them first, not what is best for the industry. That tends to be a side effect, not a goal!

MS is no saint, but they do have one the easiest way to publish the game on any console with XNA. Want to publish [email protected] and get famous, XNA is for you!

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2630d ago
SuperLupe2631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

A Sony exec going all out on MS ? PASS !

I dont give credibility to employees that talk crap about the competition.

Especially when you're talking from the perspective of a firm who would LOVE to be in MS's position right now when it comes to online gaming i.e: leader

factory2631d ago

Sorry, but you have to appreciate a well stated and reinforced smackdown. And that's exactly what that was.

PirateThom2631d ago

It's more of a reiteration of what the MS exec said last week and how it's anti-consumer and anti-developer... and he's right, because it is.

SuperLupe2631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

Until an indie dev comes ou to say such things sorry but I cant trust Sony on what they think the competition is or is not.

Coca Cola's opinion on Pepsi for instance doesnt mean crap, especially if its a bad one. Same applies here.

looza2631d ago

Isn't it usually Pepsi the one talking crap about Coca Cola? I'm only basing it off their ads.

kaveti66162631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

"It's more of a reiteration of what the MS exec said last week and how it's anti-consumer and anti-developer... and he's right, because it is."

To me it sounds like MS is forcing devs and publishers to make sure that whatever content is coming to PS3 also comes to 360.

The Sony exec was interpreting it a different way.

Nevertheless, the fact is that there are multiplatform games coming to PS3 with extra content. Dead Space 2 came with Dead Space Extraction.

Did Microsoft refuse to let EA publish Dead Space 2 on 360? Nope.

Batman Arkham Asylum came with additional content on the PS3 version not available for 360. Did Microsoft refuse to let that game get published on 360? Nope.

And Battlefield 3 is going to come with a free game on the PS3 version. Has Microsoft declared that EA cannot publish BF3 on 360? Nope.

The statement that the MS exec made can be interpreted both positively and negatively. If it could have only been interpreted negatively, Microsoft would not have made that statement to the public, and if it could have only been interpreted positively, then Sony wouldn't have commented on that statement.

Yes, Microsoft doesn't allow just anyone to publish for 360. But that doesn't seem like a terribly bad thing? Microsoft is competing aggressively to make sure that the 360 remains the dominant console. They want to advertize high quality titles. Quality over quantity. So far, many of the XBLA games that have come out have been of a high quality. There are some crappy games there as well, but that just means that some crappy devs managed to jump through Microsoft's hoops and MS had to let them publish.

Obviously they must be very pleased right now that most publishers opt to cut content from their games than to add them onto the PS3 version. For all the money that Sony has invested in Blu-Ray on PS3, multiplatform developers rarely utilize the space, and MS must be pleased about that.

Additionally, why does this Sony executive claim that publishers are getting their asses kicked by this policy? Have they not adapted beautifully to it? Don't they make plenty of money by releasing the cut content as DLC for an additional cost?

I think the publishers are actually benefiting from it because they make more money now than they would initially.

Clarence2631d ago

"I dont give credibility to employees that talk crap about the competition."

Well then you should have a major problem with M$ then, because they have talked a $h!t load of crap about Sony and the PS3.

Sony is only going at M$ because M$ likes to come at them first.

jdfoster2631d ago

He's speaking the truth though... MS said it them selves... And how was he talking crap about them? Did you read his comments? Also, isn't ps3 out selling the 360 WW? o.o

Biggest2631d ago

First of all:

That explains it a bit better for you, kaveti6616. I know that you already know and chose to play the ignorant card to support your argument, but now you know know. The big games from the big developers are free from the selfishness. Microsoft wouldn't dare block a large developer from publishing a game late or with less content. They do it to the smaller teams that can't afford the risk. At least going with Microsoft first they can still double down with Sony. The risk is too great to bank on just one console. Microsoft made sure that the risk was much higher for those that tried to take advantage of better technology.

DragonKnight2631d ago

@Kaveti: You seem to be GROSSLY misinformed. The issue isn't whether or not Microsoft allows devs to publish their own games on the 360, the issue is that Microsoft will not foot the publishing bill for smaller indie devs who do not make their games either appear first or simultaneously on the 360 as well as the PS3, or if the PS3 has more content than the 360 version.

So, take indie dev A. They have a game they want to have take advantage of what tech the PS3 can push, but they also want to release it multiplatform to make more money. Unless the game looks identical to, has identical content as, and is released either before or at the same time as the PS3 version, Microsoft will NOT publish the game and instead will force the indie dev to self-publish or find a publisher themselves.

Sony will foot the bill if the game has some kind of exclusivity with PSN, be it content, release date, or availability. But they won't force the indie devs to make the game equal on all fronts or else pull funding.

MrBeatdown2631d ago


Batman, Battlefield, Dead Space 2... do you think Microsoft wouldn't allow those games to be released on 360?

Microsoft is pushing to keep the PS3 from getting any extras, but it defeats the point if they were to push that policy to the point where the 360 gets nothing. That's a luxury that big publishers have. It's a two way relationship. But it doesn't mean Microsoft isn't trying their damnedest to enforce it where they can.

I don't know how you could see it in a positive light. If they were doing everything possible to make sure the 360 versions were all they can be, that's one thing, but to make sure the PS3 version isn't any better isn't doing the consumer any favors. Rather than mandating the PS3 version can't be any better, they should be going to devs and trying to help them bring any benefits the PS3 version has to the 360.

gamingdroid2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

You do make a very good point, Sony's clout is no longer what it is when they have to resort to complaining about the competition instead of competing.

Sony is free to setup the opposite requirement... and MS is free to complain about it too.

kikizoo2630d ago

"on the scene with a suprisingly dominant showing". "sony is jealous" etc

why are they always in total denial ? (when everyone knows that sony is selling more worlwide) it's probably usefull to forget that they have to pay for playing with inferior games and exclusives, no bluray, etc, but common...stop the delusional state of mind, 2006 has ended, stop the ridiculous hate and buy a ps3, it's cheaper know

Legion2630d ago

And how many games is Sony willing to PUBLISH that has more content for Xbox then PS3?? I would think none.

thoract2630d ago

Your an idiot. He is just telling you the truth about MS's policies.

SkyGamer2630d ago

Wow! Pot calling kettle black... Talk about hypocrisy. How about sony's music deals and publishing deals? Remember when Deep Blue and a bunch of the Korean studios stated it was tough to work with sony because they took all the risk and not sony?

sony will fund up to half of game dev and regardless if it is successful or not, you have to pay sony back. Oh and sony owns the IP as well. Goes both ways. And what Small Dev is going to take advantage of the ps3? The comment above was rediculous. To make a game that looks like uncharted would take a huge staff and tens of millions of dollars!

If MS fits the bill then they want certain perks. Nothing wrong with that. If I pay you for an item, I'd want it the same way. So what you all are saying is that MS should fit the bill that their competition does not have to pay?

Hypocrisy, eigth level of hell guys....

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 2630d ago
Persistantthug2631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

There's really no need to GUESS why we didn't get it.

There really never was.

kaveti66162631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

If Bethesda wanted to bring mods to the console game, they could have.

Microsoft would not refuse to publish a major title just like they're not refusing to publish Battlefield 3.

Epic brought mods to the PS3 version of Unreal Tournament 3.

There are other reasons why Bethesda would not be able to bring mods to consoles, such as them not having enough time to refine the mod tools for consoles.

Again, Microsoft would not refuse to publish Skyrim. They would probably pay off Bethesda if they wanted to, which means that Bethesda and their owner Zetamax would have had to accept the money, which means that Microsoft is not "kicking" anyone's ass.

Edit: I mean "have published" not publish it personally.

Ice2ms2631d ago

Bethesda couldn't have brought mods to the consoles because of MS strict policies is what persistantthug is getting at I think.

Microsoft would have allowed skyrim on the xbox either way, Sony are a lot more lenient when it comes to that. Examples;

- mods on UT3
- Steamworks on portal and future valve games
- littlebigplanet's map sharing

Unless it's a first party title Microsoft refuse to allow things like this. Hell even patches cost money for devs on xbox live.

DragonKnight2631d ago

@kaveti: You are again misinformed. Microsoft DOES NOT allow mods AT ALL because they can't control the content. They claim it is a security issue, but the truth of the matter is that it's because they can't make money off of mods.

Sony is the most open of the big 3 and completely open to mods, it's up to the developers to implement that option or not, Sony does not restrict them at all. Microsoft is the most closed of the big 3, and it's documented fact.

A-Glorious-Dawn2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

I think mod's open up a whole new set of security issues, The fact that there are little to none on consoles means that devs like bethesda have not taken the time to refine a method for doing it yet, I mean if they are to be anywhere like on the PC the game needs to have a mod manager and the available mods need to bee individually screened for security, then there is the possibility of conflictions with the software (Iv'e had serious problems with some mod's on my PC, loosing game data and all sorts).

Not that any of this is impossible, far from it. It's just, for example, bethesda for whatever reason have not tallied that route up just yet, maybe it's a next gen plan? There must be, of course, other reasons. We can not know what Microsoft's strict policies dictate about mods, nor can we know the whole story but IMO there are a myriad of reasons why it has not been implemented just yet. It will happen though, relatively soon if I were to guess.

killcycle2630d ago

wtf is wrong with everybody keep the shit

Horny Melon2630d ago

They could have brought mods to the console games the same way unreal did. The problem is console gamers couldn't be bothered. Modding unreal on the ps3 was a huge flop. Console Gamers require too much hand holding for something like a modding to be prolific on their platform of choice.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2630d ago
JokesOnYou2631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

oh let me guess, a sony spokesman talking about micro is always right, and a micro spokesman talking about sony is of course "OMG so biased".

1 thing for sure sony wishes their online was as popular as xbox live. Nothing in micro's official statements have anything to do with lowering the quality or limiting content, they are simply saying they don't want "sloppy seconds", in other words if a dev wants to offer it on ps3 and not the 360 at the same time then its not good to try to push it on Live once it becomes old news, getting content late actually lowers the market appeal for consumers in some cases, micro's message is that xbox live will feature brand new content or exclusive content or not at all.....if they are not willing to offer Live users the same content that the psn has then micro doesn't want to have anything to do with the game. Xbox Live has plenty of content on it and is always getting new indie & xbla titles compared to psn, so I don't see how this is hurting "consumers" as sony indicates. I don't think this is a huge factor in the amount of content we've seen on xbl or psn, because frankly my time spent with both there seems to be a whole lot of "meh" games with a few gems like Bastion on both.

Actually when you are in a position that you have a good product you don't want to diminish it by receiving old or inferior content, I think this same precedent really hurt the ps3 reputation alot a few years ago when it came to multiplayer games because the avg consumer will begin to think the console itself is inferior when it gets games after they've been released on 360=old, and less content=DLC. sony, simply isn't in a position with psn to tell create this type of standard on, jealousy.

DragonKnight2631d ago

Forcing devs to limit the quality to the 360's capabilities, or forcing them to release it either on the 360 first or at the same time does hurt consumers.

If a dev wants their game to perform at its best, they shouldn't be forced to dumb it down in order to make a publisher happy. Said publisher should be happy they even get the game and get to take a cut instead of being a corporate bully. If it's about money, then accept the game whenever you get it, because having the game 6 months down the road is better than NOT having the game at all.

JokesOnYou2631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

Again, like I said above nowhere has micro forced devs to "limit the quality to the 360 capabilities",(lol, biggest fanboy lie with no proof) #1 -I think 360 when pushed is perfectly capable of handling its own compared to ps3= different strengths and weaknesses, but #2 this is about xbl and psn, lol if parity in DLC, Arcade, & Indie games is a problem then its on the dev, not the hardware. btw, I've always had the mentality that *IF any dev actually SOLD his SOUL and purposely diminshed the quality of his product just to make extra profits, YOU should hate him far more than microsoft. Seriously, I respect any dev who says hey "I think I can make a much better game on __ compared to ___, because ___ and thats why its exclusive. He might have his reasons and thats fine but saying, "Well I COULD have made the game so much better but I lowered the quality so both would be the same" says more about the developer.

Now back to the question of micro's xbl strategy, if micro allows devs to play favorites by favoring releasing content on psn, later after sales slow on xbl OR release more content on psn than xbl because of a exclusive or time exclusive deals it would indeed create the mindshare/mentality, true or not that xbl gets second rate material, micro is keeping their strength in online identity intact by telling devs that YES we will take xbl favortism=1st, or parity but if you choose cater to psn(exclusive DLC/time exclusive) then thats fine but we won't support you.....they've been doing this a awhile and just look at all the content xbl has to offer. Not every single game on psn is going to be on Live, thats great because otherwise they'd be the same, but as far as content goes xbl users have plenty of quality choices with more coming all the time.

Can you name any games/devs who announced they canceled a game due to micro's "evil" strategy?

DragonKnight2630d ago

"Again, like I said above nowhere has micro forced devs to "limit the quality to the 360 capabilities",(lol, biggest fanboy lie with no proof)"

-Fallacy 1. When Microsoft demands parity in all areas, that's forcing the devs to limit the quality. Fact is, the 360 hasn't had games that perform to the level of PS3 games when a developer, indie or not, chooses to use the full potential of the PS3. That's just fact. If an indie dev sees that the PS3 as a whole outperforms the 360 from a quality standpoint and wants to utilize the PS3's strengths to its fullest, why should they be forced not to because the 360 can't, in some way, keep up and MS just wants to be a baby about it and force the dev to make both releases equal instead of letting the dev create its truest vision and being happy the 360 even gets the game?

"if parity in DLC, Arcade, & Indie games is a problem then its on the dev, not the hardware."

-Common 360 fanboy argument. The hardware is never to blame, it's always the dev right?

""Well I COULD have made the game so much better but I lowered the quality so both would be the same" says more about the developer."

-Ummm, what about when they want to make it multi, and one of the platform holders says "Well you're not allowed to make it better on one, they both have to be exactly the same" and the dev says "But they can't be the same unless I reduce one." and then the platform holder says "It's either that, or your game can't be on this system. Parity or nothing." How is that the devs fault? Especially if the dev is just a small one working to being a big one and needs all the profits they can get? That's on the platform holder, not the dev.

"they've been doing this a awhile and just look at all the content xbl has to offer."

That's only because indie devs are forced into it. They have a choice, either make their game PSN exclusive and NOT make the multiplat money they need and hope for so that they can release the game THEY WANT to release, or they capitulate to Live's draconian policies just so that they can release their game on multiple platforms without incurring huge publishing costs that their small company can't possibly absorb. Tell me how that's a good thing for anyone but Microsoft?

"Can you name any games/devs who announced they canceled a game due to micro's "evil" strategy?"

I'd have to look into it, but I'm quite sure that any PSN exclusives are either due to a generous enticement by Sony, or MS' ridiculous policies. Forcing parity stagnates progress and creates a very closed system. But hey, you're an MS fanboy, so you love everything to be closed. Your name is quite ironic by the way.

modesign2630d ago

jokes on you is a idiot, if you max out the 360, its still inferior to the ps3, devs are beeing hurt when forced with the 360's limitations, GTA4 was set to have big assets to make it huge, it later had to be limited to fit on the dvd9, and to accommodate the 360's hardware, FFXIII was suppose to be the same way, had to be dumbdown alot to fit on the 360, originally FF13/versus was a 2 in one game,

JokesOnYou2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

DragonKnight, OK, I guess you don't get it you keep saying that because micro demands parity that means they are *forcing devs to limit a damm indie game, lol seriously? OK, again what game?= You have no answer. Once again just made up ps3fanboy crap with no proof. Parity simply means the same *amount of content at the *same time.

"if parity in DLC, Arcade, & Indie games is a problem then its on the dev, not the hardware."

-Common 360 fanboy argument. The hardware is never to blame, it's always the dev right?

>huh, wtf? lol are you actually saying Arcade and Indie games can't be equal in quality? I mean you do know that these are very small games many of which could easily be equal on last gen consoles right?....again so what game are you speaking of where 360 tech held it back?

"-Ummm, what about when they want to make it multi, and one of the platform holders says "Well you're not allowed to make it better on one, they both have to be exactly the same" and the dev says "But they can't be the same unless I reduce one."

-damm, I already covered this, You have alot of "what ifs", but no evidence to back up your theory, I assume here you mean full release games and not psn vs xbl games which then I would say if the game is so big use multiple discs, but if thats not the problem and its simply an issue of each consoles capabilities, if the dev likes ps3 hardware and *BELIEVE they CANT get the same results from the 360 then just make it ps3 exclusive, if they don't have the balls to do that because they want every dime they can get by going multiplat then thats their fault for sacrificing their belief that they could make a better game but instead chose more money. It's either that or they lack confidence in it selling well on ps3 so they CHOSE PURPOSELY to make an inferior game and go multiplat to ensure better sells, either way again thats their choice and I'm not going to cry for a dev with that type of mentality but quite frankly I think that scenario is all crap, the truth is closer to reality= some devs make good games/great games, some devs make bad/terrible games from time to time, not even every exclusive is as good as Gears or UC2 quality so its certainly logical that many multiplats were lacking in one way or another on both platforms simply because humans are not perfect.....but of course fanboys would rather go with the conspiracy theory.

-Still waiting on you to name a canceled game.

shoddy2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

The games that explain this holding back is:

ff13 lead on ps3, better on ps3
ps3 exclusive games have better performance.

COD and bayonatta is better on Xbox now you know why.

insomnium22630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )


Do you really think any indie dev has the luxury to openly say MS's policies are sh*t?

I've heard more smaller dev praise PSN and Sony's policies and open system than I can remember. But hey they are all just saying that stuff cause they want to keep a good relationship with Sony right...? You are effing hopeless....

There is an example but I'm sure they are only Sony nuthuggers to you too right?

Here's another:

"Last year Final Fantasy XIV Online creator and director Hiromichi Tanaka told Eurogamer that a "closed" Xbox Live blocked the game from appearing on Xbox 360.

"The main reason why we couldn't go with Xbox 360 was the Xbox Live system," he explained. "[Live is] different to the normal internet environment, so when we wanted to introduce this game in the same environment as Windows PC it had to be PS3, so that was our choice.

"Microsoft has a different point of view: they want to have a closed environment for Xbox Live. We're still talking to... We couldn't come to an agreement on Xbox Live."

insomnium22630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )


"MMO developer Cryptic chucked in the towel on an Xbox 360 version of Champions Online in early 2010. Producer Craig Zinkievich told Eurogamer he was frustrated with the business side of getting an MMO on Xbox Live; the game itself, he said, ran just fine. "

Could these be considered as cancelled games on x360 due to MS's policies or not?

WOW would you look at that...2 disagrees in 20 minutes. That was pretty fast. How about a reply to back that disagree up huh?

A-Glorious-Dawn2630d ago


wow, Interesting examples you have there, I had never heard that they tried to get Champions Online on XBL. Seems there is real frustration among developers due to these policies, It's a pity Microsoft can not be more open...

RealtorMDandDC2630d ago

The jokes is on you dude........It's blatantly obvious that there are un-kosher act's going on this generation of gaming. I've been a gamer now for 28yrs...and this generation is totally different than all the rest....

--Sloppy second's....your comments makes no sense...I rather have Sony provide me sloppy seconds so I can have access to as many games as possible cause I'm a gamer...

--Because of your aversion to sloppy seconds you are missing out as a gamers...

---If you had or have a girl(but by your comment I will say neither is the case)...I'm pretty positive that she had a boyfriend as of this moment you are or was part of sloppy seconds......

Solidus187-SCMilk2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

HAAH hyou people dont seem to understand the difference between microsoft publishing and publishing. Even if MS doesnt publish it, someone else can. This doesnt mean the block games from their platform. It means they wont invest in multiplat games, these developers are still able to release their games, they just need a multiplatform publisher.

This means MS wont invest and publish such games. It doesnt mean it cant be on xbox with another publisher. This really is obvious as MS doesnt publish that much anyways, they are not going to invest in a game that others have first or better versions of.

It no more crooked then sony funding devs that work on a PSN exclusives and dnot make the game available to the competitors. MS will allow the devs to get a third party publisher and release it, but they will not publish it themselvs.

What you MS bashers say if the bastion devs came out and criticized sony for not publishing their game? NOPE, You would all agree with sony and say "why would they publish a multiplatform game that is arriving late anyways."

No different here, If you want sony or MS to invest in your game there has to be something in it for them or else they are just investing their money for little to no gain.

Devs that complain about such things just want to create a multiplatform game, and they have to go to other publishers like Ubisoft, EA or Activision.

both MS and Sony instated these similar policies because they need something in return for their support, otherwise they are just wasting money.

This doesnt mean MS blocks these devs like so many fools here seem to want to pretend. It means MS will not invest/publish it but they are free to find a 3rd party publisher and it can still be released on the xbox 360.

Everyone here should know that games come out on 360 all the time with other versions having additional content, MS didnt stop them from getting a different publisher.

We only hear about this from small devs who think they are somehow exempt from these policies and MS is just going to throw money at them. Not how the business world works. Neither Sony nor MS will PUBLISH(not the same as allowing to release on their platform) a game that doesnt offer them some sort of perks. Sony will fund exclusives, MS will not fund non-exclusives. Either case, these devs can STILL GET THEIR GAMES ON PS3 or 360 BY GETTING A 3rd PARTY PUBLISHER.

I think many here are confused(or just playing dumb) and acting like MS not publishing something somehow blocs it form being released. WRONG, thats what 3rd party publishers are for.

Does anyone here think that sony is going to publish Insomniac's new multiplatform game??? NoPE, multiplat devs neeed to go to 3rd party publishers.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 2630d ago
showtimefolks2631d ago

we are all gamers MS needs to open their damn eyes and support us more than casuals and kinect

Valve who were ps3 haters have praised sony over and over along with EA so sony must be doing something wrong and MS has a much more closed platform and XBlive and that is the rea