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).'"
We've had so many stories about the PS3, and I'm excited because of the Cell chips, but with all this chatter, HAS ANYONE SEEN A DEMO?
Does the thing work, yet? Are there any games people have seen running? Are the graphics or the smarts or the complexity really beyond the 360? Is it all simulation for design, still, or is there a PS3 that basically works that people have seen, and is it stunning?
"Some of our [digitally distributed first-party] games, by virtue of their design and hardware demands, simply couldn't work on Xbox 360" So he means they're developed without cross platform distribution in mind. Let's not be so harsh about it Phil, just be honest about it.
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.'"
And why are the hardware demands so high? Is it because the games are that much cooler? Or because the programmers suck? Reminds me of the reason why Windows Vista's Hardware requirements are so bloated.
With states like oklahoma passing laws against selling violent games to children... they might have a problem on their hands with age verification. Or maybe they wont be able to sell games with lots of violence online, crippling them back down to the simple games of xbox live arcade.
Am I the only one who refuses to pay a subscription so that I have the privlage of paying for additonal content? If Sony makes the service itself free of cost than I might consider it, but if they chose the Xbox live model forget about it. On a side note, are there any decent games on the 360 yet, or is it faring as well as the Xbox did in that regard? (I may be in the monority here but I do not care for sport "sims", racers and console speed FPSes) The biggest thing I fear in the gaming industry is Microsoft killing inovation by flooding the market with focus group tested "sure thing" products.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
"Some of our games, by virtue of their design and hardware demands, simply couldn't work on Xbox 360"
Im pretty sure this is just refering to the motion sensing which sony built into the control in a late attempt to jump onto the ninetendo bandwagon. it doesnt say that the xbox is incapable of running the game due to lack of resources such as cpu, mem etc
so sure, these games couldnt work on the xbox, but will xbox (& wii) owners really be missing much....? (especially when you look at price comparisons/value for money)
... Xbox Live Arcade 'killer' ...
Maybe they should worry about the price of their hardware killing the market before going on sale first?
Many may question why they would care to Distribute first party games through electronic means after going through the trouble of implimenting Blue Ray for 'increased space for better, more involved games that you could get on other formats.' Some may even question pledging support for E-distro of these games with the sizes of harddrives their offering. Well I for one do not question them, it makes perfect sense from the point of view of historic trends and buisness. Unfortunatly for us, the reasoning is pure evil.
About the time of the 32-bit battles, an old trend began resurfacing in a new form; Forced Competition Development Denial (FCDD.) FCDD was easiest illustrated by Nintendo's NES. They choked off development for other consoles (namely the Sega Master System) by forcing developers to choose; in this case by having them sign contracts preventing them. That was killed in the courts and for the 16-bit console wars, FCDD didn't happen; the only denial of competition was from sales, loyalty, and popularity (oh, and who bring the $$.) From that, you had relativly similar cross platform offering and much less exclusivity.
In the lastest Generations, however, FCDD has resurfaced in a more diabolical, more legal form. By creating hardware and formats incompatible with their competition (as in Sega Saturns multiprocessor setup, 64's cartrige format) forcing developers to strech their resources to support them all. It is in the developer's best (buisness) interest to develope a game for as many platforms as its resources will allow without impacting the game's quality in a way that it will hurt overall sales. As new competition enters the console game, the developers are already becoming streched naturally. The FCDD tactic takes this further by increasing the resources the developer must devote to developing for a particular system; stealing those resources from other consoles and hopefully costing the developer to drop support for a competitor. In this generation FCDD is hitting a high mark, especially between Sony and Nintendo (Microsoft is guilty too, they just hide it well.) Nintendo's controller will require a different devotion of resources, namely creative input, to 'port' games successfully without disappointing. Sony has an unholy FCDD armament in the form of their Cell processor. This octopus of a processor is built in such a devious way that multi-threading in their programming is almost impossible to avoid; complicating the development process.
E-Distro is a huge next step. Not only is it on their format tailored for their hardware, Sony manages to monopolize the entire game development by forcing the developer to integrate Sony into every level of the game; it would become a nightmare for developers to to go cross platform (especially if they are targeting indy and small time developers, who have notoriously small budgets.) Don't expect games released by E-distro on Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft to be appearing on any where else. And that, unfortunatly, is the point.
On another note, FCDD is a risky tactic for any developer. Increasing resource costs can also force developers to reconsider developing for the FCDD console itself. FCDD practictioners need to put more reliance on brand popularity (which Sony seems to rely a lot on) and really sell the FCDD hardware as "superior choices" if it's going to really win those ever important developer games. Jaguar and Saturn are two good examples of consoles that (inpart) failed because of a backfire of their FCDD tactic. Don't let Sony's focus on 'first party games' in the article fool you, this is all about the 3rd party developers; lower distribution costs for their own titles is just a happy bonus.
Demented But Determined.
...execs boasting about superiority and features of non-existing products? "Our product will be 31% nicer and 73.6% more cool; it will be so cool, that software for our product couldn't even run on competition's product!"
Geez... Like kids in kindergarten. Just release the frelling product and we'll see for ourselves.
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Oh come on. People say that, but the PS3 will still sell millions. You all know it.
Yay, I have a sig.
My comments are in support of PS3 because I am level headed. Every company does the same stuff, Nintendo, Apple, MS, etc...they are no different. They all chase the almighty dollar is the same ways. It just so happens that Sony is the whipping boy of the moment. Everybody screams rootkit, proprietary hardware/software, etc... when it comes to Sony. They have all done the same (Windows, cartridges, the ipod itself) so what makes Sony so evil? For some insight read the reply on FCDD. Am I a Sony fan, yep. Fanboy, nope. I like all electronics, As I said I am a early adopter of all things digital, and to me the PS3 is very exciting. I am over Nintendo because I have owned every piece of hardware they have every produced, from the original NES to the Virutal Boy. I personally have no desire buy their products anymore I'm over it, but that is MY preference. What you choose to do with your money is your right. As far as the means to afford it comment, that was just to highlight the high cost of the system not my own personal wealth. I will refrain from stating that I can afford something from now on as not to offend those over 30 still living in their parents basements, playing MMOG's all day, posting on slashdot to make up for their lack of female interaction. If I have offended your people I apologize.
Hey guys, the PS3 is expensive! OMG LOL! Let's keep repeating this forever and ever, even if it's in a discussion about something different and we can't tie it into a real argument.
Seriously, we get it. Enough already.
Even if the PS3 itself sucks, it can still play some of the great PS2 games I own and upcoming PS2 titles that shouldn't disappoint
So you've just replaced your $100 PS2 with a $600 PS3? Genius!!
Vaporware: As far a vaporware, there were working PS3's casing and all, not dev kits, at E3 this year. They were in those back rooms that are reserved for industry insiders
Interesting - I didn't see any. Sega didn't have any. They were just in the Sony booth? So they had what - 4 or 5 units? That's just an engineer spending a couple of days cramming a dev kit in a plastic box.
IMO the PS3 looks cleaner and has more detail. That may sound like there is not big difference but when you consider that the 360 is on 2nd gen titles while the PS3 is running unfinished ones, I would say at the end of the day the gap is going to be very wide and very noticeable.
The 360 wasn't really on 2nd gen games at E3, there was a big drought in new releases after Christmas. Given also that the PS3 demos were just that, demos, not full games (ask a Forza developer what they think of the GT-HD "demo" if you want a laugh).
I'll wait and see what Sony can come up with, but so far I'm unimpressed.
I own a HDTV and I have the means to afford it
Me too. Isn't it great? Any particular reason you haven't spent the last 6 months playing HD games then? If you're so rich why not buy all 3 consoles?
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
So you've just replaced your $100 PS2 with a $600 PS3? Genius!! "Actually my PS2 was $300" Interesting - I didn't see any. Sega didn't have any. They were just in the Sony booth? So they had what - 4 or 5 units? That's just an engineer spending a couple of days cramming a dev kit in a plastic box. "I can only vouch for what I saw and played" see link below http://reviews.cnet.com/E3_Sony_PlayStation_3/4660 -12331_7-6521287.html
Me too. Isn't it great? Any particular reason you haven't spent the last 6 months playing HD games then? If you're so rich why not buy all 3 consoles?
"I bought a 360 on release day and returned it recently. As I wasn't getting much use out of it, since I still play my PS2, XBox, and Gamecube. Any more questions?"
...to most people that Sony have simply got themselves into trouble by spending the past few years designing and developing the most powerful piece of gaming hardware that they could, and are now faced with a market which is not ready for it, or indeed particularly interested. In this round, having the latest, greatest, most powerful thing is not a sure fire way to win market share.
The games industry has seen major changes since they started developing their new baby, and most of those changes do not help Sony at all, so they're in risky territory. So much so, that they've pretty much had to bundle two major products (their latest games console and their play for the future of HD home cinema) into one and hedge their bets, pooling the marketing cash and hoping that the success of one will bring success for the other. It is however as likely that the failure of one will take the other down with it, or certainly hurt it bad.
Right now, they're battling to convince us that the future of gaming is a piece of hardware which is insanely expensive to produce (their initial losses at launch, and for at least the first twelve months will be by far the highest ever for a games console), extremely expensive and troublesome to develop for (leading to higher cost games, just you wait and see) and has some rather risky choices in terms of the hardware - Cell and Blu-Ray - the latter of which could simply fail miserably within a short period of time in the same way as UMD did. I don't think anyone is genuinely convinced by what they're saying though.
I personally don't think the console is anywhere near ready to ship, but Sony are at that shit-or-bust stage, where if they don't release something *very* soon, no matter how buggy the hardware is, or how few titles are available at launch, then they'll not only lose this round of the games console war, but their Blu-Ray format will also be dead on its arse. Rememeber, they need to get the thing out there and in the homes of early adopters right now for Blu-Ray to even have a 50-50 chance of coming out on top of HD-DVD.
The number of confirmed reports of serious perfomance bottlenecks with the hardware, developers tearing their hair out to get the current development kits working properly, and the last minute changes Sony are still making (e.g. adding motion sensing in the controller) all smack of a system roughly a year or more away from release. They're pretty much screwed, and they know it, but there's just no way they can say it.
Their marketing budget is no smaller as a result of all these problems though, and they're doing all they can to convince you that what they have in the PS3, is the future of gaming. Give it a month or so and there'll be glowing, raving previews of the hardware and first batch of games in the lads-mags and newspapers, these will all be paid for of course, and based upon press releases and canned footage rather than the actual console and games. Right now, you can believe the Sony marketing machine or not, but all the indications so far, are that this is looking like it'll be their biggest flop (and they have quite a history of such things) to date. With every Sony press release, the picture gets bleaker, and if they had even the smallest piece of good news right now, you can bet they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
You may point to the games developers and their respective companies who are being very positive about the new console and its potential, and claim that surely they are in the best position to know what it's all about, but that's only because like Sony, they've invested a lot of time and money into the console and they desperately need it to succeed or face millions in losses. However, at the same time they're hailing it the best thing ever, they themselves are very worried and fearing the worst. And I know that for a fact.
But here's what I don't get.
If you have the means to buy a HDTV and all the equipment needed to hook your PS3 into the system (HDMI connector? Mine 2-year old HDTV doesn't have one; so Sony would be making me buy a new TV-- screw that!)... why don't you just buy a Xbox 360 right now and enjoy all the benefits and features that Sony's giving you right now this instant? The only thing the 360 doesn't have that the PS3 does is a tilt-sensor controller-- but it *does* have rumble pack controllers, so it all evens out, right?
The 360 has the HDTV support of the PS3, but right now this instant, not a year from now. It has Xbox Live Arcade, which Sony is furiously trying to rip-off. It has the HD, it has the online play, it has the next-gen games. It doesn't require an HDMI connector, so maybe you could save major scratch not upgrading your TV for awhile.
Comment of the year
Millions is nothing, millions is assured. The launch units will sell out(all console launches pretty much do), and there's your millions. If by some stretch of the imagination it *doesn't* sell out at launch(personally I see absolutely no gaming reason to buy one at launch, but that's me), it's effectively dead. The key time comes *after* launch. And that's where the price is *really* a killer.
It needs to sell 10s of millions to do well(on it's own) and at least 100 million(and counting) to not be a "failure" compared to the PS2. At the pricepoint it's at, it's simply not going to do that. Even the fanbases of the two anticipated titles it has coming out: FFXIII and MGS4 won't get it above 20 million or so(providing there's no overlap between the bases, every last fan of each series buys a PS3, and they actually stay exclusive[since they're third party]).
Name the titles you want(must be exclusive). Name the month and year of their release dates. Come on.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
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.