Sony Exec Blasts Microsoft for Content Policy

[The Random One]

Even when I half-agree with Sony they still come across as Disney movie villains.

 

[WanderingFool]

So... anybody suddenly feel the urge to look up female mud wrestling?

But all kidding aside, while im not sure just how right or wrong his statement is, it is really nothing better than a mainstream fanboy crap we hear most everyday...

 

[MajorDolphin]

Speaking of fanboys.. this article seems like it was written by a hardcore xbox fanboy whose trying his hardest to appear neutral.

 

[Plazmatic]

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.

 

[oldtaku]

Pot, Kettle

 

[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.

 

[Plazmatic]

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)

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

On a side note, if, hypothetically MS DID want to incorporate Blu Ray to a console, could they legally? I mean, isn't that Sony's baby there?

Yes, they could legally do it. The Blu Ray Disc format is controlled by the Blu Ray Association (BRA) and Sony is only one of a dozen or so members of that group. While Sony wouldn't be compelled to sell their own manufactured BRD players they can't stop other Association members or licensees from selling theirs. There's also the wee fact that Sony Electronics is a completely different division of the company to the various Sony Computer Entertainment divisions and subdivisions and they'd probably be happy to sell a few million BRD units to Microsoft rather than have MS go and buy them from Samsung or Phillips (both are Foundation members of the BRA like Sony is) or whoever.

 

[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.

What Microsoft has to do with that is the more systems you put your game on, the more hands get on it, the more money your company gets to pay the people making it and to put in that profit jar.

However, on the original article, I for one can't say I'm surprised. Microsoft has always been behind on it, when they first made Xbox live no one used it cuz no one knew what the hell it was, when they finally started to figure it out, Xbox died and the 360 had come out shining in everyone's eyes. However, it got overshadowed by having been out for more than a year when the PS3 came out, Microsoft having released it early (too early I think considering the problems it continues to have) to try and subvert Sony by saying "everyone will already have a 360, so they won't WANT a PS3" however, the PS3 comes out, and everyone rushes out to buy one because they've had their 360 for so long it's become a piece of furniture. So, Microsoft had to do something to keep making money, they had Live's "Gold" membership be paid as it had been before, but they still kept losing ground because Sony released FULL Multiplayer and online co-op FREE OF CHARGE.

Frankly, Microsoft's only option is multi-console games that aren't exclusives to make their money. And let's face it, the Blu Ray technology, the higher capacity the PS3 has, the built in wireless, it really is better technology. Even if you ignore any press releases, Sony had at LEAST a year on Microsoft, not to mention the fact that you know, you just KNOW that as soon as the PS2 was released they started work on the PS3. Hell they'd been planning one since the Playstation was released (I have magazine articles to prove that at home). Microsoft was brand new to the console market with Xbox, and they weren't ready . . . they're still not ready I think.

Right then, primarily PC gamer here, have a 360/PS3, though the PS3 has become a glorified blu-ray player, and the 360 usually just gets played for the occasional bit of Gears or Halo. That being said, we are fairly overdue for a new console generation, and I certainly hope that both guys have learned from their mistakes for the next gen. MS will likely implement blu-ray for their next console, and that alone really ought to help games start pushing forward again, and hopefully end this whole stupid "protecting 'inferior' technology" nonsense, for a while at least.

Really now, this guy has a bit of a point, but he just comes of as childish.

On a side note, if, hypothetically MS DID want to incorporate Blu Ray to a console, could they legally? I mean, isn't that Sony's baby there?

Yes, they could, since it was the same case for DVD's. It's just a matter of it not being practically for the current gen, but really no reason why it shouldn't be a thing in the next xbox.

The only problem there might be about them trying to put in Blu Ray on their next console is they tried that before, anyone remember the HD DVD player for 360? that was external . . . sold on it's own, for almost the same price AS a 360 at the time? the one that became worthless plastic a year later? At this point, if they do put Blu Ray in, it'll almost seem like conceding the point the Sony Exec is saying, that MS was working from a weaker position.

 

[Mikkaddo]

accidental double post, move along.

 

[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.

What Microsoft has to do with that is the more systems you put your game on, the more hands get on it, the more money your company gets to pay the people making it and to put in that profit jar.

However, on the original article, I for one can't say I'm surprised. Microsoft has always been behind on it, when they first made Xbox live no one used it cuz no one knew what the hell it was, when they finally started to figure it out, Xbox died and the 360 had come out shining in everyone's eyes. However, it got overshadowed by having been out for more than a year when the PS3 came out, Microsoft having released it early (too early I think considering the problems it continues to have) to try and subvert Sony by saying "everyone will already have a 360, so they won't WANT a PS3" however, the PS3 comes out, and everyone rushes out to buy one because they've had their 360 for so long it's become a piece of furniture. So, Microsoft had to do something to keep making money, they had Live's "Gold" membership be paid as it had been before, but they still kept losing ground because Sony released FULL Multiplayer and online co-op FREE OF CHARGE.

Frankly, Microsoft's only option is multi-console games that aren't exclusives to make their money. And let's face it, the Blu Ray technology, the higher capacity the PS3 has, the built in wireless, it really is better technology. Even if you ignore any press releases, Sony had at LEAST a year on Microsoft, not to mention the fact that you know, you just KNOW that as soon as the PS2 was released they started work on the PS3. Hell they'd been planning one since the Playstation was released (I have magazine articles to prove that at home). Microsoft was brand new to the console market with Xbox, and they weren't ready . . . they're still not ready I think.

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.

 

[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!!