Slashdot Mirror
Sony Talks PS3 E-Distribution Initiative
simoniker writes "Talking about its PlayStation 3 E-Distribution Initiative, the company's intended Xbox Live Arcade 'killer', SCEA's John Hight has laid down a challenge to Microsoft, commenting that: 'Some of our [digitally distributed first-party] games, by virtue of their design and hardware demands, simply couldn't work on Xbox 360.'" More from the article: "The PlayStation Beyond submission site has been online since GDC 2006, when Sony's Phil Harrison announced its presence, and explains further of the concept: 'The E-Distribution Initiative (EDI) will provide an alternative publishing opportunity for the direct download of games and other content to the user. The EDI will be managed by Sony Computer Entertainment's development and studio organizations in North America, Europe, Japan and Asia (collectively known as SCE Worldwide Studios).'"
uhhh, did you see any of the E3 coverage?
Basically, it has games running on it. The games dont look any better that the 360, and certainly dont look as good as the images they released ages ago. Its pretty much meh, hence the price tag being too much as you can get a 360 and a wii for less that a PS3, and have the same graphics and innovative gameplay (with the wii). go look up the E3 coverage for running demo viedos
As for this digital distribution thing, I fail to see how it is better than the 360's. Everything talked about (Content distribution, demo delivery etc) is already implemented in Live, that and Live is actually up, running and making money. Which means that it is also constantly getting refined with mass user feedback, whereas the PS3 online offering will have little end user feedback at launch time.
Excellent Phoenix AZ Office Space - Thistle Landing
Oh come on. People say that, but the PS3 will still sell millions. You all know it.
Yay, I have a sig.
You don't have to pay for the Live! service if all you want to do is download content/patches/videos/demos or whatever. The only time you have to pay is if you want to play multiplayer.
My recollection of developer lock-in tactics is different from yours, though I may be wrong. Most of my knowledge on the subject comes from an excellent book, Game Over (no I don't get a kickback if you follow the link...damn).
You're right that Console makers tried to ensure exclusivity in any way they could. However, my understanding is that the court cases you refer to were more than simple title exclusivity. Back in the height of their power, Nintendo's restrictions on publishers were pretty severe. Nintendo would only license two titles per year, and exclusivity was a requirement. This is legal, but I believe Nintendo tried to push it further by prohibiting licensees from developing *any* title for another console. This is where the revolts came.
However, the power has shifted (for the most part) towards publishers. No company, even Sony, could make such demands even if it were legal for fear that the publisher would simply jump ship. Imagine telling EA that they can only release two titles per year (hah!).
These days, Console makers have switched to the "catching flies with honey" approach to exclusivity. They either give big publishers sweet deals (Like Sony did to lockdown the exclusivity window on GTA III), or they buy out dev studios (like MSFT did with Bungie), or they entice independent studios with digital distribution (MSFT with Xbox Live Arcade, and now Sony with Playstation Beyond). Granted, you see XBLA titles that aren't exclusive (Street Fighter, Marble Blast, etc), but I'd wager the smaller name studios are bound by form of exclusivity provision. This doesn't mean that the console makers have given up being evil, but at the very least you get the facade of a benevolent company.
I don't see anything new here with the Playstation Beyond thing. Either from service itself (it seems no different from Xbox Live Arcade), or in terms of the furthering schemes of companies trying to lock-in exclusivity.