Sony Attacks Microsoft's Publishing Policies

winston18 writes "Sony's vice president of publisher relations has gone on record as saying that Microsoft is protecting an inferior technology with their policies regarding content on Xbox Live Arcade and multiplatform titles. The comments stem from Microsoft's admission that they reserve the right to deny titles on Xbox Live if they launch on the PlayStation Network first."

Comments

Wait, what did Sony just said

[ge7]

Sony, who is known to pay millions towards Rockstar (with GTA series) and other developers to make PlayStation exclusives and offering them special deals, is saying Microsoft's policies are wrong when they try to fight against this old stupid shit with consoles?

I guess all the old OtherOS, PSN network hacking and other fiasco wasn't enough for Sony.

Re:Wait, what did Sony just said

[Trepidity]

Well, this is sort of a reverse exclusive. It's an interesting question whether the same considerations apply.

With an exclusive, the platform/publisher pays a developer $X, or otherwise gives them some special consideration, to only publish on the platform, or at least to publish there first. So e.g. Sony pays Rockstar something to launch first (or perhaps only) on PSX.

But with this, a platform/publisher punishes a developer for publishing first on another platform, so they say that if you launched on PSX, well then you can't also publish here 2nd.

What's particularly interesting is that in the case where a publisher wanted an exclusive, they shouldn't object at all to the 2nd one, because it's just giving them an exclusive for free! They don't even have to pay a dev to publish only on PSX, because Microsoft is exclusive-izing the release for them, by refusing to become a 2nd platform for it.

However the dynamics are a bit different with smaller devs, where this sort of thing can feel like a minefield of blacklists.

Re:Wait, what did Sony just said

[myurr]

The dynamics of this are also different in that a publisher can choose whether to accept or refuse an offer of exclusivity and the competing vendors are welcome to offer more money to the publisher. In this case Microsoft are simply acting as a bully and attempting to leverage their platform to enforce desirable behaviours in publishers wishing to target that platform.

If you want your game to appear on the XBox at some point then you have to follow Microsofts rules governing your game on OTHER platforms! That is anti-competitive and morally wrong.

Re:Wait, what did Sony just said

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole INDUSTRY is anti-competitive and morally wrong, from the basic locking down of the hardware, to having to have all published works go through Microsoft / Sony / Nintendo in the first place.

If they sell the hardware at a loss that's their problem. Having a monopoly built on top of that should be illegal, legitimate start-up developers are being locked out or forced to pay fees in order to have their games released and have their potential market share and exposure greatly marginalized if they can get a foothold at all (Microsoft have their Indie market albeit with crippled Managed code, Sony have nothing,)

Somebody needs to drag them through the courts over this. It's ironic that many of the big players today started of by producing unlicensed software on consoles. Remember EA, Codemasters and unlicensed Sega carts? Unfortunately the system is so corrupt today they simply need to play the piracy card and they get off scott free.
 

Microsoft Has No One To Blame But Themselves

[VisibleSchlong]

They have been in the console market for ten years now and they still think they can buy/bribe/threaten their way to beating Sony and Nintendo.

Sony has some 21 first party studios.
Nintendo has about 10.

Microsoft has only 3 or so first party studios.

So Microsoft is forced to play the bribe and threaten crap with publishers since they have almost nothing in the way of exclusive games to compete with Sony and Nintendo's huge first party lineups.

No wonder they went from distant 2nd place last gen to last place this gen.

Minecraft? More like Microcraft!

[DJHeRobotExVV]

I'll explain the title of my post towards the end. Regarding the two digital-distribution marketplaces that Microsoft maintain, however, Microsoft are so schizophrenic with regard to how they operate both XBLA and XBLIG that it's rather stomach-churning.

The fact of the matter is that when the Xbox 360 originally came out, you would see maybe 1 to 2 titles every 1 to 2 weeks released on XBLA. XBLA was touted as the way for smaller, more "indie" development houses to develop games on the X360 platform without having to deal with all of the ins and outs of manufacturing, distribution, and more restrictive technical certification requirements that come with a disc-based game. Microsoft were highly selective over the titles that would be released on XBLA, and for good reason - they needed an online marketplace with many "strong" titles and few "weak" ones.

After so many "indie" development houses complained that they were not being allowed to market such obvious smash hits as "Try Not To Fart" or "Controller Vibrator 2000" - note the intended sarcasm - Microsoft created the XBLIG marketplace, touting that as the new place for smaller, more "indie" development houses to put games onto the X360 platform.

This went well for perhaps 6 to 12 months, with a few particularly good indie games making their way to the top of the XBLIG charts, and all of the undeserving fluff and blatant cash grabs fell to the bottom of the pile, at which point the wheels fell off. Microsoft felt the need to take things in a third direction, now choosing to "upgrade" specific XBLIG dev houses to XBLA contracts.

In doing so, they signed the death warrant for both XBLA and XBLIG. Removing the more polished indie dev houses from the XBLIG marketplace ensured that XBLIG continues to play second fiddle to XBLA, but more importantly, it means that the XBLA marketplace is now flooded with "lesser" games that would otherwise have remained on the XBLIG marketplace (and for good reason). Now, it is much more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff on the XBLA marketplace, and there is no wheat on the XBLIG marketplace.

Despite all of this, Microsoft insist that they are "top dog" regarding their digital marketplaces, to the point of taking blatant advantage over dev houses they perceive as "smaller" when those dev houses come a-knocking to try to get their games released on XBLA. In the case of Minecraft, the sad fact is that the Xbox 360 is the only console (handhelds excluded) on which it will be released, specifically because Microsoft forced Mojang into an exclusive contract. The entire matter is sickening.

It's fairly normal in retail

[Sycraft-fu]

If you go and tell Target that you'll sell them something exclusively for awhile before you sell to other retailers, you may well find that Walmart, Best Buy and so on blacklist you. They don't like you trying to give a competitor an advantage so they'll say "Ok you want to go exclusive with them, you do that, but it is a permanent thing. We aren't going to let you give them a boost, and then give yourself a sales boost by using our store space."

Same shit with pricing. You generally can't give highly preferential pricing to one retailer or the others will retaliate.

Remember: It is 100% your right to determine who you do and do not wish to sell to. However it is 100% the stores' right to determine what they do and do not wish to stock. If you do something that they believe hurts them, they are within their rights to tell you to fuck off.

Similar deal here. If Sony bribes you to release your content first on PSN, ok that is their right, and your right to accept the deal. Nobody is going to say you can't. However MS is not then interested in carrying your product. They don't want you trying to boost Sony's platform by releasing there first, and then to improve your sales by going to MS's market later.