Sony Exec Blasts Microsoft for Content Policy

[josemlopes]

So basicly he just wanted to say that the 360 is weaker? Multiple games are PS3 exclusive, if someone wants to make a game that the Xbox cant handle then do it exclusively on the PS3, it would probably end up beeing cheaper since they would work only for one system. I dont see what Microsoft has to do with anything here.

this isn't the point, your looking at one place, say some one is making a game Mainly for the PS3, but also wants to release it on the 360 for extra sales, but they have more capablities on the PS3, now they can't take advantage of the ps3's capabilities, and in-order to make enough money, they are forced to also sell on the 360, now with this statement from microsoft, they hope to make the PS3's superior capabilities obsolete.

Really doesn't matter to me though, I play PC, save a lot of money in doing so, and get more for it. console-fied games like dues ex (not gameplay wise, but engine wise) wash up here all the time, and we don't even have to upgrade our graphics cards or anything on our computers to play them, you guys still use directx9, and have 512mb of ram.

If the game company is doing a PS3 game and going over that leap that makes the game not possible on the 360 then that company is a AAA title company. They can release the game for the PS3 and if its good then it will sell enough. Just look at the PS3 exclusives, they can survive, they dont need to make them 360 compatible, the ones that dont its because they suck.

and then there's reality, You have to be already struck in with the Sony crowd to make it as a sony exclusive, 360's got every one beat now in sales (even wii now I think)

Heavy Rain, InFamous (and that one even had Prototype launching at the same time), Little Big Planet, 3 franchises that started on the PS3, those companies never were exclusive before, you dont need to make up excuses. This is trash-talk between Sony and Microsoft and that is what pisses me off.

 

[Mikkaddo]

So basicly he just wanted to say that the 360 is weaker? Multiple games are PS3 exclusive, if someone wants to make a game that the Xbox cant handle then do it exclusively on the PS3, it would probably end up beeing cheaper since they would work only for one system. I dont see what Microsoft has to do with anything here.

Lets look at this in a diferent way, a game company wants to make a game that looks awesome, the visuals are one of the most important things about the game, they ARE capable of said game, why the fuck would they want to release it on a console that cant handle it? If that game is so great then why cant they just release it on the PS3 as an exclusive like other games do? Why has this become a problem? Sony has a console that is capable of doing things that others cant and they are bitching that Microsoft doesnt want the games that only the PS3 can handle, thats a big plus on my book, you have an exclusive title right there. It means less market, I know, but if it is a title so ahead of the 360 then it will only fail if it sucks. PS3 exclusives can survive.

Why arent they bitching about the Wii not beeing capable of running the latest games? Isnt Nintendo the one that sold the most consoles overall?


What bothers me in here is that there is no need to ***** about this. Yet, they keep on doing it, after this Microsoft will ***** about something that Sony did and so on.

Because Nintendo has money enough to buy out MS and Sony, but they are a Benevolent Deity, and both Sony and Microsoft know they can't really beat out Nintendo. I mean hell, ever since the N64, Nintendo has damn near purposefully released subpar hardware, but the difference is Nintendo has never DEMANDED games have content be cut from them to warrant a release on their consoles. And as well, Nintendo doesn't care about MS or Sony, when you see games commercials, if it's one of the generally accepted "AAA titles" what do you see at the end of it? PS3, 360, PC. Always, without fail. WHY? because Sony and MS have the higher hardware. But Nintendo still has enough money to release and pay for all their things, making a PROFIT on every console they sell, while MS and Sony take a loss per console.


It's been said to pick your battles, that's what Sony and MS have done here. They don't fight Nintendo because it would be like trying to take down The Great Wall of China with marbles.

Don't be surprised if Nintendo starts getting up to par with the Wii U. Assuming that is, that the HD quality pans out how they claim it will, and that the radical controller doesn't ruin things.

 

[josemlopes]

So basicly he just wanted to say that the 360 is weaker? Multiple games are PS3 exclusive, if someone wants to make a game that the Xbox cant handle then do it exclusively on the PS3, it would probably end up beeing cheaper since they would work only for one system. I dont see what Microsoft has to do with anything here.

Lets look at this in a diferent way, a game company wants to make a game that looks awesome, the visuals are one of the most important things about the game, they ARE capable of said game, why the fuck would they want to release it on a console that cant handle it? If that game is so great then why cant they just release it on the PS3 as an exclusive like other games do? Why has this become a problem? Sony has a console that is capable of doing things that others cant and they are bitching that Microsoft doesnt want the games that only the PS3 can handle, thats a big plus on my book, you have an exclusive title right there. It means less market, I know, but if it is a title so ahead of the 360 then it will only fail if it sucks. PS3 exclusives can survive.

Why arent they bitching about the Wii not beeing capable of running the latest games? Isnt Nintendo the one that sold the most consoles overall?


What bothers me in here is that there is no need to ***** about this. Yet, they keep on doing it, after this Microsoft will ***** about something that Sony did and so on.

Because Nintendo has money enough to buy out MS and Sony, but they are a Benevolent Deity, and both Sony and Microsoft know they can't really beat out Nintendo. I mean hell, ever since the N64, Nintendo has damn near purposefully released subpar hardware, but the difference is Nintendo has never DEMANDED games have content be cut from them to warrant a release on their consoles. And as well, Nintendo doesn't care about MS or Sony, when you see games commercials, if it's one of the generally accepted "AAA titles" what do you see at the end of it? PS3, 360, PC. Always, without fail. WHY? because Sony and MS have the higher hardware. But Nintendo still has enough money to release and pay for all their things, making a PROFIT on every console they sell, while MS and Sony take a loss per console.


It's been said to pick your battles, that's what Sony and MS have done here. They don't fight Nintendo because it would be like trying to take down The Great Wall of China with marbles.

Don't be surprised if Nintendo starts getting up to par with the Wii U. Assuming that is, that the HD quality pans out how they claim it will, and that the radical controller doesn't ruin things.

No one is going to win anything with trash-talk, that is what I said on my first post, this whole accusation is pointless. I hate seeing these guys (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, etc) pretending to care about the games while the only thing that matters to them is money. The only guys that I actually look forward to listen to what they have to say about the industry are the devs, publisher can just go fuck themselfs.

 

[A Satanic Panda]

Ever wondered why PS3 is technically a bit more powerful than 360, yet not many games look better on PS3? Here you go.
Actually, I'm more into PC games situation here, and it's where MS did most damage. Suffice to say you need to go OpenGL to achieve really great graphics. DirectX is a handicap.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Direct3D a faster API the OpenGL?

lul wut?

 

[night_chrono]

If the PS3 is the "open" system, why does Sony sue anyone that opens it up all the way?

Obviously they have some good points against Microsoft, but it is complete bull shit on their part too.

 

[matsugawa]

It really seems like Microsoft is basically afraid of ending up like the Wii when it comes to cross-platform games.
XBox360 and PS3 get Dead Space, Wii gets Dead Space Extraction;
PS3 and XBox360 get Sonic (2006), Wii gets Sonic and the Sacred Rings;
XBox36o and PS3 get Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Wii gets Tatsunoko vs. Capcom;
PS3 and XBox360 get Dead Rising, Wii gets Dead Rising: Chop Til You Drop.
...

Oi!. Hey! Tatsunoko was a much better game than MvC3. Don't even try.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I have Tatsunoko and I love it (I debated mentioning A Shadow's Tale and Limbo, but that's more of a stretch). I also love Dead Space Extraction. It's not that the games are inferior versions of better games (except chop til you drop), just that they're a different experience, though clearly intended to fill a similar niche. Like I said, I really liked Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, but deep down, as someone who loved MVC2 on the Dreamcast, I can't help but feel like I got a tiny bit shortchanged, which is only a dealbreaker because it seemed offered as a replacement instead of an alternative, if that makes sense. In short, why couldn't I have both?

 

[brodie21]

i agree with microsoft. if a company wants to give you a downgraded version of something for your system and give a better version of something to someone else, then why should you let them make money off of your system? and i am tired of hearing about the 'inferior tech' argument. i like my xbox for what it is, and nothing the PS3 has offered has convinced me to get one. as long as my favorite games are coming out for the xbox, then that is what i am sticking with.

 

[Roserari]

but if the PS3 is so much better why aren't the PS3 exclusive games astoundingly better than cross platform games?

They are.

HA, my point exactly.

Also, the guy is right. Microsoft is intentionally holding developers by the balls so they don't go and do something as insane as make use of superior hardware. Because in the end, that's what the PS3 has. PS3 has the hardware, 360 the software and the Wii has the ... euh ... It has Zelda.

 

[MrJoyless]

PS3 is so "open" they will just give your credit card info away for kicks!! yeehaw!!

 

[Dr. Crawver]

it doesn't restrict creativity, it restricts the graphics, I admit, but creativity is the gameplay, the story, hell some really creative games came out of the ps1 and 2 by TODAYS standards. The hardware doesn't limit the creativity, only the developers

 

[jp201]

when a ps3 game can come on one disc while a 360 game requires multiple discs to play the same game (really multiple discs?) then its time for a change.

 

[Jabberwock King]

And yet the PS3 will never be able to support multi-game party systems like the Xbox 360 can, how tragic.

Why arent they bitching about the Wii not beeing capable of running the latest games? Isnt Nintendo the one that sold the most consoles overall?

Quick statement here. The reason why nobody is bitching about Nintendo's inferior hardware (in this discussion at least) is because it is so inferior that porting a 360 game to it would be the gaming equivalent of hacking off 3 limbs during surgery. The PS3 and Xbox 360 are close enough in terms of capabilities that the damage is minor by comparison. The Nintendo Wii though, is simply irrelevant at this point.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Now we know why PC ports have been so lack luster. It's due to them not being allowed to be better than 360 versions..... Yay, Microsoft.

And that's because MS can't talk PC gamers in to paying them a monthly fee.

I love how we can always count on Sony PR to bring the discourse even lower. It reminds me of the old George Carlin bit: "And now a message from the National Apple Institute - Fuck Pears!"

They both like to say how much better they are than each other but whenever they try and prove it they can't...they just end up looking like dicks and getting legions of mindless fanboys anyway. It's just like politics.

 

[jyork89]

Sony's argument concerning superior hardware explains why both Microsoft and Sony own Nintendo in the sales department.... oh wait... The consumers want Gimmicks?!?! Farewell, oh sweet faith in society!!

 

[Awexsome]

Well... at least their fanboys will have more ammo in their next flame war thread they create on whatever particular forum they choose to start it on.

Yeah the 360 has technology less than the PS3 but the difference is almost negligible to my eyes. The worst I've ever noticed is minor inconvenience of disk switching on a small number of games and maybe some miniscule graphics differences that don't really matter.

If Sony wanted to blow MS out of the water they would want to be the first to the next gen console scene with something that made the 360 look like a Wii in terms of power.

 

[Ghengis John]

I might halfway believe this if PS3 exclusives blew what we saw on 360 out of the water. As it stands, they don't. Before you jump down my throat I love me some fable and some infamous, I have both systems, and the ps3 exclusives are pretty comparable to what's on the 360 as it is.

It's also pretty funny what sony considers creativity. So... graphics= creativity?

 

[swtstar777]

So, selling games that use their Playstation motion and requires rediculous and overpriced novelty add ons like a gun on one of two systems (the other being the 360) that are past their graphical and hardware prime when it comes to games makes Sony some how... better?

If I am correct, it came out first. Therefore its hardware is older.

BTW I use a computer, I stopped using both PS3 and 360 when I realized "Wait, 5 year old hardware! Why not use my top of the line 5 month old computer for games."

 

[LITE992]

Fanboys, both sides are jerks. This war is not going anywhere. It will never go anywhere.

 

[LordLundar]

Admittedly, the sony exec does make a point and it's not a new practice. Consider the case of the OpenGL interface. It was a vastly superior coding system to DirectX in that not only was it easier to code with, but also allowed better efficiency in game specs. So what happened? Microsoft's marketing department basically let loose their attack dogs and promoted DirectX as the superior system, despite it being inferior in almost every way. As such, OpenGL to this day hasn't had the market saturation that DirectX has.

That said there's better ways of saying it than that. At the very least, it opens himself and his company open to a retaliatory response.