Microsoft Protecting an Inferior Technology

[Secura]

Now I recently read an Interview In which SCEA's (Sony Computer Entertainment America) senior vice president of publisher relations Rob Dyer, took a shot at MS's content submission and release policy. Apparently this happened after last weeks Info which told us that MS has the right to refuse game a release on XBLA should they launch on the PSN first.

 

 

Eurogamer Says: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.

 

"So from a creativity standpoint and what we are doing to try to make it better for the consumer, our view is Microsoft's doing everything they can to eliminate that because they have an inferior technology."

 

While Dyer appreciates why Microsoft holds to its policy, he suggested that ultimately it's the consumer that is losing out, as they're being denied potentially innovative content.

 

"I just wanted to make it clear from Chris Lewis' comment last week and the fact that he's saying, 'Well, this is great for consumers,' and that they're going to protect their consumers. I think that that is an admirable stance to take.

 

"That being said, while they might be protecting their consumers, what are they protecting them from? And what it looks like they're protecting them from is the ability to see great content show up on a superior technology.

 

"The problem we're having right now is these threats and these serious issues that Microsoft is throwing at publishers - it's only going to dumb down what could potentially come out for a number of these games.

 

"And whether people are willing to stand up to Microsoft on this stuff or not is up to that publisher and they do it at their own risk."

 

Elsewhere in the interview he singled out Sony's partnerships with Valve and Dust 514 developer CCP as examples of where it is attempting to open things up.

 

"I can't wait to see what's happening on Counter-Strike. We're working with them on that. I think we're going to have some really cool things. We're pumped up. We're also very pumped up in working with guys like CCP as a matter of fact to try and be more inclusive rather than being very restrictive."

 

Dyer's might not be a lone voice on this issue. His comments closely echo those of one anonymous third party publisher quoted in Eurogamer's original report.

 

"Microsoft is suggesting that anything but parity will result in them not carrying a title. They may think this is competitive, but it's not. They are killing any creative exposure of titles to make up for their own platform's shortcomings."

 

 

IGN recently published a similar article for those of you in the US, Read it Here

 

 

So what's your view on all this then. I myself find it absolutely despicable, It shows you just what lengths MS will go to make sure another company doesn't get what they think is rightfully their's when in all honestly it isn't. I mean to go so far as to refuse a release on Their system just because it came out on the opposition's console first is just Idiotic.

 

[E.A.B.]

Microsoft can afford to do this because they have a large share of the market and publishers would find it easy to go with Microsofts demands since the Sony userbase isn't as big.

 

Sony can't do the same thing because they don't control as much of the market, therefore they need to fold on this end[/entirethread]

[jking]

Microsoft can afford to do this because they have a large share of the market and publishers would find it easy to go with Microsofts demands since the Sony userbase isn't as big.

 

Sony can't do the same thing because they don't control as much of the market, therefore they need to fold on this end[/entirethread]

how is a 2.4% lead gonna make sony fold? sales are at 55,000,000 for the xbox and 50,000,000 for the ps3...its just the fact that if your a indie developer just starting out your not gonna cut your potential revenue in half by siding with one company first unless they throw a ton of money at you and are funding your studio. i like that he is taking a shot at microsoft, it kinda like the EA boss saying the CoD franchise is gonna burn lol he's just speaking his mind.

[Dabai Namona]

Xbox is a way better platform than P(is)S3. It got a larger market share, have much more variety of games and had better exclusives, which P(is)S3 will never have. This comment of his is just sour grapes. As long as P(is)S3 only gets the ports from Xbox, MS will always dominate over Sony.

[sivispacem]

Microsoft can afford to do this because they have a large share of the market and publishers would find it easy to go with Microsofts demands since the Sony userbase isn't as big.

 

Sony can't do the same thing because they don't control as much of the market, therefore they need to fold on this end[/entirethread]

how is a 2.4% lead gonna make sony fold? sales are at 55,000,000 for the xbox and 50,000,000 for the ps3...its just the fact that if your a indie developer just starting out your not gonna cut your potential revenue in half by siding with one company first unless they throw a ton of money at you and are funding your studio. i like that he is taking a shot at microsoft, it kinda like the EA boss saying the CoD franchise is gonna burn lol he's just speaking his mind.

Because Microsoft already has a close working relationship with almost all the hardware and software makers out there. It's not all about sale numbers. Microsoft keeps their market share sheerly because they've been at it so long and got into bed with all the suppliers over the years.

[Mainland Marauder]

Let's try to stay away from the MS vs. Sony (or Nintendo or whoever) fanboyism. Just saying.

 

MS will get away with this, for now, because the 360's still a technologically viable console......for now.

 

It smacks of Nintendo's policies in the NES era where they essentially forced game publishers to sign exclusivity contracts, but that stopped as Sega put a dent in their market share.

 

I do think the PS3 will age better than the 360 if neither one is getting replaced in the near term, so this might not work out so well for MS in the long run.

[AreXi]

Xbox is a way better platform than P(is)S3. It got a larger market share, have much more variety of games and had better exclusives, which P(is)S3 will never have. This comment of his is just sour grapes. As long as P(is)S3 only gets the ports from Xbox, MS will always dominate over Sony.

Those little letters you put in the parentheses really help you make your point.

[Finn 7 five 11]

Xbox is a way better platform than P(is)S3. It got a larger market share, have much more variety of games and had better exclusives, which P(is)S3 will never have. This comment of his is just sour grapes. As long as P(is)S3 only gets the ports from Xbox, MS will always dominate over Sony.

Well actually Xbox has sold 55.6million as of last week, and PS3 has sold 52.3million. SOny is fast catching the xbox for sales, it has been selling more units per week than the xbox since the end of last year, last week the xbox sold 122000 units, and the PS3 sold 202 000 units.

As for software, the Ps3 sold 1.5million and the xbox 1.1 million last week.

As you can see the PS3 is more popular at the moment and has been for a while, despite less numbers.

 

PS3 used to lack many titles and barely any exclusives but i would say both platforms selection of games and exclusives are pretty well on par, many games that used to be xbox exclusive are now on PS3 as well, such as Mass Effect.

The recent L.A Noire was designed on PS3 and ported to xbox, but xbox --->PS3 ports are becoming very very good, and differences are becoming less and less noticeable.

 

Sorry mainland i had to ave my input.

-------------------------------------------------------

On topic:

This is bullsh*t, Microsoft is no way helping the game industry, with all these restrictions they are limiting creativity (not by much) and they are damaging possible sales for developing companies, Microsoft made the mistake with not using sony's Blu Ray, but the even bigger issue was selling consoles without HDD's.

Microsoft are just using tactics to make sure their platform comes first, what happens if Sony does the same thing? The market will effectively become divided and there will be no multi-platform games, personally i would side with sony and make use of Blu-Ray and installs and their ever growing popularity.

 

I lost a lot of respect for Microsoft f*ckwits.

[Ash_735]

Guys, this is down to Microsoft's Policy which threatens developers to not put anything extra on PS3 versions of the games. It also extends to the Indie market, if you're an Indie Dev and you go with Sony first, Microsoft will blacklist you and you can never release that game on Xbox Live. The policy is REALLY strict and sadly companies like EA, Rockstar and UbiSoft have caved in and bestowed to it.

 

For example, the following games had exclusive content on the PS3:

- Batman: Arkham Asylum

- Assassins Creed: Brotherhood

- L.A.Noire

 

BUT, Microsoft's policy forbid these developers from including that extra content on Disc, rather than use the free space they have with Blu-ray (which was the original plan for L.A.Noire to ship with all Pre-Order Bonuses on disc for PS3), all exclusive content had to be taken off the PS3 version and instead put up on PSN for players to download, That's why those games mentioned had Day One Free DLC on the PSN (except L.A.Noire which came later and only free for NA).

 

It's just small things like this in the policy which aims to make the PS3 do more work. This policy came into place after 2009, when UbiSoft was pulled for including exclusive content in Assassins Creed II, and Rockstar were pulled for including exclusive content in Red Dead Redemption, and the PSN/XBLA complaint came in when Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game, had a timed exclusive on the PSN in 2009. Microsoft didn't like, and threw their toys out of the pram, so to speak, yeah the way Sony go on about is all ego battle like, but the truth is, Microsoft's Policy is a complete dick move for both Sony and Nintendo, because of the Policy, if a game has exclusive content on the PS3, it HAS to be in DLC form, not on Disc, if DLC is exclusive on the PS3, then Microsoft will make the developer Pay if they want it on Xbox Live (See: L.A.Noire and Rockstar Negociations for the DLC to appear) and if you're an Indie or small time dev and release on PSN first, well sonny, you've been blacklisted from that game EVER coming to Xbox Live.

 

It's a bully tactic, plain and simple, but they can get away with it as they are giving a "choice".

[Finn 7 five 11]

Guys, this is down to Microsoft's Policy which threatens developers to not put anything extra on PS3 versions of the games. It also extends to the Indie market, if you're an Indie Dev and you go with Sony first, Microsoft will blacklist you and you can never release that game on Xbox Live. The policy is REALLY strict and sadly companies like EA, Rockstar and UbiSoft have caved in and bestowed to it.

 

For example, the following games had exclusive content on the PS3:

- Batman: Arkham Asylum

- Assassins Creed: Brotherhood

- L.A.Noire

 

BUT, Microsoft's policy forbid these developers from including that extra content on Disc, rather than use the free space they have with Blu-ray (which was the original plan for L.A.Noire to ship with all Pre-Order Bonuses on disc for PS3), all exclusive content had to be taken off the PS3 version and instead put up on PSN for players to download, That's why those games mentioned had Day One Free DLC on the PSN (except L.A.Noire which came later and only free for NA).

 

It's just small things like this in the policy which aims to make the PS3 do more work. This policy came into place after 2009, when UbiSoft was pulled for including exclusive content in Assassins Creed II, and Rockstar were pulled for including exclusive content in Red Dead Redemption, and the PSN/XBLA complaint came in when Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game, had a timed exclusive on the PSN in 2009. Microsoft didn't like, and threw their toys out of the pram, so to speak, yeah the way Sony go on about is all ego battle like, but the truth is, Microsoft's Policy is a complete dick move for both Sony and Nintendo, because of the Policy, if a game has exclusive content on the PS3, it HAS to be in DLC form, not on Disc, if DLC is exclusive on the PS3, then Microsoft will make the developer Pay if they want it on Xbox Live (See: L.A.Noire and Rockstar Negociations for the DLC to appear) and if you're an Indie or small time dev and release on PSN first, well sonny, you've been blacklisted from that game EVER coming to Xbox Live.

 

It's a bully tactic, plain and simple, but they can get away with it as they are giving a "choice".

Where is the commission of fair trading?

If a supermarket did this in relation to another supermarket, i think it would be acted upon and they would be told they cannot do it.

Hopefully Ign and such continue to bring attention to it until maybe the government can step in and stop this bullsh*t.

[Ash_735]

They've worked around it and have came forward and said they are in compliance with European Trading Standards, again, down to them giving a "choice" on the matter gets them out of trading law way.

[mr quick]

-

Edited April 27, 2016 by Marwin

[Reincarnated]

Microsoft is just doing, what it sees, is in its interest. Just like Apple wants to rule its app store with an iron fist, Microsoft wants a lot of control over the titles. I mean, Dyer (no offense to him, he's just doing his job) is being ridiculous. If the tables were turned and Sony could do the same thing, it would (and if it wouldn't, the person who made that decision would get fired because they are not doing what is in the interest of Sony). Business is war. Why would Microsoft let an advantage like this just disappear? They would be idiots not to capitalize on it.

 

And Dyer suggests "consumers are losing out"? Really? A business trying to screw consumers and make a greater profit? Color me surprised. It has a name: capitalism. The business, by its design, must endeavor to make greater profits and defeat competitors. Often this entails giving consumers crappy deals (i.e. making a t-shirt, including all direct and indirect costs, for 80 cents and selling it for $79.99). Does Sony not want to crush its competitors? I mean, give me a break.