Sony forcing game devs to add content?

[Fenring]

Not too different from Microsoft's technique, no? "We get DLC the PS3 doesn't get (or just much later)."

Exactly! GTA4 anyone? No one's screaming over Microsoft nabbing exclusive DLC for a game that's already multiplatform, but asking for something extra for a game that was only really ported for the PS3? Criminal! Also on a side not, you really sound like massive fanboy, Trivun.

Actually, the reason that DLC exists at all was MS was willing to give Rockstar money to develop it and make it a timed exclusive. If you read the kotaku article [http://kotaku.com/5360375/japanese-developer-microsoft-making-ps3-development-easier-%5Bupdate%5D], MS will give developers money to do so, which they did for Rockstar before GTA IV was finished. Instead of cursing that tactic, you should applaud it to a degree. MS probably wouldn't have had such a hard time making it 360 exclusive for a lot longer for the amount of money they payed.

 

[bad rider]

I like it personally.

Sony's all like, "What's that? Bitchbox didn't help pay for dinner? Weren't to interested in us awhile back were you? But we're feeling magnanimous today so, add in a shitload more stuff and we might allow you the privileged of porting to our console."

Sony is forgiving, if not forgetful.

Actually it's more, hey *****. You didn't have the money to come play the game so now work harder or don't bother coming back to us. Yeah, really kind company that one. :/

Lol, what?

Who's playing the game? Why do they need money to do it? And why...

What?

Okay, the developer said he went for the 360 exclusive as it was cheaper and easier to develop for. In other words, they couldn't afford to develop for the PS3. Then Sony turns around and insists they do more work as they cxouldn't afford to develop for them initially.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

"First off, it was easier developing for the Xbox 360. This is to do with the games I was involved with, but basically if you sign an exclusive contract with Microsoft (you won?t release it on other hardware for a year or similar), they will give you a lot of cash for development.
Their support is also very fast and complete in these cases.
SCE don?t really give much cash out (any at all perhaps). Their support is confused and unreliable. When I was doing it at least, the 360 was easier to develop for, which lowers costs.
As a result, first we developed for the Xbox, reducing development costs. But the Xbox version won?t sell [in Japan], you can?t recoup even those lowered costs at all.
So we ported to the PS3, it?s cheaper as you already have the game done, but then Sony came back and told us ?We won?t recognise it if it?s the same as the Xbox 360 version. Make sure you put in a lot of extra stuff!?
If we didn?t then they wouldn?t have let us pass their check?"

I don't think it's just cheaper and easier to develop for the 360.

So the dev was just going to use the 360 to make the game (since they'd get money for it) then just port it to the PS3 after the exclusivity wore off. Sony said no, put stuff in it. I think gamers benefit most in this design. 360 owners get to enjoy the games and PS3 owners get extra content.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

Personally I doubt Sony actually does this with any real consistancy if at all. Though it would go a long way to explaining why The Last Remnant went from PS3 exclusive, to Xbox getting it first, to the PS3 version becoming vaporware.

I've heard bad reviews of it, but it looked interesting, and I'd prefer to make up my own mind.

I like DLC personally, but I'd like everyone that bought a particular game to get to have all the stuff the devs actually made for it. They go through the trouble to make it, and hopefully get enough money from the exclusivity deal to off set potentially every single owner of their game on the rival console purchasing the content. Oh and pissing off about half the fan base too, regardless.

Though lately the DLC is of the variety that merely unlocks stuff already on the disc, already made, just making you buy it on top of the full retail price. Usually not even decent stuff. Fallout 3 being an exception. *waiting for GotY*

 

[D_987]

This would explain why games like Eternal Sonata, Tales of Vesperia, and Star Ocean 4 got or are getting so much new content for the PS3 versions. I can see why Sony is doing this--they lose out with exclusivity deals, and this is a way to get people to want that PS3 version or to wait for a PS3 version instead of getting a 360, but it seems kind of heavy-handed.

I wouldn't really consider it a lot of new content. 1 or 2 new playable characters, some new costumes and scenarios (and thats effectively it between all 3 games) is not going to make anyone buy the PS3 version if they already have it on 360.

However I believe it's justified in Sony's favour - as stated the content is nothing extraordinary (effectively what would often be considered "bad" DLC - although SO would work better on the PS3 without the disk changing) but at the same time gives people who have both consoles and (somehow) do not own the game the chance to get some more content.

At the end of the day it is justifiable, and with more third party developers I assume we'll see it happening more often.

 

[fix-the-spade]

That's a good business strategy from Sony, but surely it's not fair on the developer or the consumer? Sony are basically using unfair business practises and completely undermining the entire industry to try and push their platform. As a 360 gamer I find it totally unfair and wrong that Sony should be allowed to do this. No wonder some companies like Valve refuse to produce games for the PS3, if that's the sort of thing Sony are up to. Anyway, isn't that illegal? Surely it breaks some law on industry competition...

You'll have to excuse this, but wtf?

It's pretty sound business sense actually, if something's already out for the competition you need a unique selling point.
Don't like it, buy a PS3, that's the whole point and it's what's driven PC gaming for the last 10 years. It's only unfair to you because it doesn't service Microsoft.

 

[Aura Guardian]

Personally I doubt Sony actually does this with any real consistancy if at all. Though it would go a long way to explaining why The Last Remnant went from PS3 exclusive, to Xbox getting it first, to the PS3 version becoming vaporware.

I've heard bad reviews of it, but it looked interesting, and I'd prefer to make up my own mind.

I like DLC personally, but I'd like everyone that bought a particular game to get to have all the stuff the devs actually made for it. They go through the trouble to make it, and hopefully get enough money from the exclusivity deal to off set potentially every single owner of their game on the rival console purchasing the content. Oh and pissing off about half the fan base too, regardless.

Though lately the DLC is of the variety that merely unlocks stuff already on the disc, already made, just making you buy it on top of the full retail price. Usually not even decent stuff. Fallout 3 being an exception. *waiting for GotY*

The Last Remnant wasn't that bad. Reviews now-a-days are too picky when it comes to games. I've always thought that TLR was an Xbox 360 exclusive. I never knew it was made for the PS3. But seeing how the PS3 version never saw the light of day (at least I've never seen it), it might as well stay as a 360 exclusive. I heard that the PS3 version of Eternal Sonata was a letdown (Hell, the 360 version bored me). But now that PS3 is getting Fallout 3 content, it's best to get the GOTY verison(if released) instead buying each expansion pack. It makes me wonder about Sony sometimes.

 

[TPiddy]

I agree with the poster that Sony is not doing this to developers, that's a standard industry practice. The problem is that Sony is just creating more hurdles for developers to jump through in order to get their content to the Sony fanbase.

Many developers will see this as too much of a hassle and not bother with the PS3 at all, especially considering that the 360 fanbase is large enough to support most games. There are execptions to every rule, however, and I'm willing to bet that the company mentioned in the OP thought their game would do better on the 360.

Also, if a game is not selling well on the 360, why would the PS3 want the exact same game? At least adding content is better for marketing and maybe it would help sales on the PS3 as well. A game being cross-platform doesn't necessarily equate to more sales, the game still has to be good .

 

[TPiddy]

Weird. You just named a clutch of games that are more interesting on the PC. Except for Dead Rising which I 'think' is 360 only.

I like the 360 but overall you made an odd move. "I'm not going to spend 400 (it is 300 btw) dollars for a PS3 for two games but I will spend 300 for one game.". Going off your list of course. I imagine you have more than those.

I like the 360 but I tend to find mine is getting dusty. If the game comes out for it, ps3, and the PC I end up either getting the PS3 or PC version. Either way I'm looking at some (albeit on the PS3 likely trivial) improvement. On the PC I can mod the games which is fantastic and I can play online with people for free as opposed to paying for xbox live on the 360.

Just because YOU like them better on PC doesn't mean other people will. I am NOT a PC gamer. Just because Microsoft chooses to release a game on PC doesn't mean there's no reason for people to get an XBox. That's ridiculous to say that I got my XBox for 1 game because I could have gotten them on PC.

Also, it IS $400 when you add tax and accessories. Stop nitpicking my post. This is a console thread about console gaming. Stuff your PC arguments.

I paid 323 after tax. What state do you live in?

Also why on earth are Xbox owners such whiners? I come in and made my point and you respond with a bunch of drivel.

You defeat your own point by saying that it is my opinion which is better, because essentially you are saying "well ignore anything I say because it is equally an opinion and thus invalid."

well if you noticed, a ps3 bundle at stores is accutaly about 320 or 340 something dollars. you just added two games to make it more money. way to go...

Once again, way to miss the point entirely. I am saying the PS3, by itself, including tax and accessories is $400. I'm saying the only reason I'd spend that money is to play Fat Princess and Heavy Rain.

I'm saying the Xbox including tax and accessories is also $400, but I would want to play many more games on it. THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT I WAS MAKING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

So turn off the caps lock and just say "In my opinion it is a better option. But I appreciate your rebuttles I just feel they are incorrect."

Since so far you are using some pretty bad math that kills your own point.

First of all, I'm not bad at math, I live in Canada. We have higher taxes to pay for our wonderful health care system. I just upgraded to an Elite that came with Halo 3 and the Wireless adaptor and it came to nearly $400, and was the only Elite bundle available. I'll be able to re-coup some of that with trade ins and selling my old system, but you're both missing my original point, which was:

I, as a console gamer... had to decide where I was going to invest my money. I looked at the PS3, and realistically only saw a handful of games I would want to play on it. I looked at the 360, and saw a lot more titles that interested me. The decision was easy. I didn't have to consider that 360 games come out on PC as well because I don't game on PC unless it's something like Diablo. I also didn't have to consider Blu-Ray because I have one already.

It came down to games, which is how anyone should decide what system to buy. I have played both PS3 and 360, including the best offerings for each system, and I simply prefer 360. The remainder of my point was that I don't have another $400 to go and spend on a PS3 just to play Fat Princess and Heavy Rain. So, I will miss out on those titles, but I'm ok with that, Mass Effect 2 will go a long way to comfort me .

 

[yeah_so_no]

This would explain why games like Eternal Sonata, Tales of Vesperia, and Star Ocean 4 got or are getting so much new content for the PS3 versions. I can see why Sony is doing this--they lose out with exclusivity deals, and this is a way to get people to want that PS3 version or to wait for a PS3 version instead of getting a 360, but it seems kind of heavy-handed.

I wouldn't really consider it a lot of new content. 1 or 2 new playable characters, some new costumes and scenarios (and thats effectively it between all 3 games) is not going to make anyone buy the PS3 version if they already have it on 360.

However I believe it's justified in Sony's favour - as stated the content is nothing extraordinary (effectively what would often be considered "bad" DLC - although SO would work better on the PS3 without the disk changing) but at the same time gives people who have both consoles and (somehow) do not own the game the chance to get some more content.

At the end of the day it is justifiable, and with more third party developers I assume we'll see it happening more often.

Actually, the Tales of Vesperia port has a lot of new content (including connectivity with the new PSP game Tales of VS), so much that Japanese 360 owners pitched a fit and tried to petition Namco to strip all the new stuff out of the port because it was unfair. And two new levels for Eternal Sonata (one is an optional dungeon after you've played through the game once), as well as some rewriting to take out a scene where one character was being a dick and fixing the ending so it wasn't as weird, isn't exactly 'nothing'.

Yeah, it probably won't make anyone buy it again (Tales of Desperia aside; it really is a major upgrade they did), but it does make waiting on getting a game to see if there'll be an enhanced port later a more than feasible option. Especially in Japan, where the 360 is doing extremely weakly.

 

[yeah_so_no]

I agree with the poster that Sony is not doing this to developers, that's a standard industry practice. The problem is that Sony is just creating more hurdles for developers to jump through in order to get their content to the Sony fanbase.

Many developers will see this as too much of a hassle and not bother with the PS3 at all, especially considering that the 360 fanbase is large enough to support most games. There are execptions to every rule, however, and I'm willing to bet that the company mentioned in the OP thought their game would do better on the 360.

Also, if a game is not selling well on the 360, why would the PS3 want the exact same game? At least adding content is better for marketing and maybe it would help sales on the PS3 as well. A game being cross-platform doesn't necessarily equate to more sales, the game still has to be good .

The thing is, these are Japanese game devs. And if you look at the sales for the 360 in Japan...yeah, it sucks. The reasons the games aren't doing well is because no one really has a 360--if no one has a 360, no matter how good the games are, no one is going to buy it. The 360 is practically the redheaded stepchild of consoles in Japan--every single 360 section of every single game store I've been to has been small, hard to find, and completely empty of people (the place I go to the most has it in the corner next to the used PS1 games and the PS2 gambline games). One store didn't even have the 360 demo area set up (and the demo area was very, very far away from the Wii and PS3 demo areas, which were right next to each other and the first thing you saw when getting off the elevator), and one electronics store in Osaka--a BIG store--didn't even bother listing the 360 on their list of consoles they'll buy used (they had gameboy advances, but no xbox). So releasing a game on the 360 is not going to do very well for you in Japan...unless you're planning to take Microsoft's money to use to off-set dev costs, and just port it to the platform that will recoup the costs one the timed-exclusivity thing is done.

 

[KarumaK]

I like it personally.

Sony's all like, "What's that? Bitchbox didn't help pay for dinner? Weren't to interested in us awhile back were you? But we're feeling magnanimous today so, add in a shitload more stuff and we might allow you the privileged of porting to our console."

Sony is forgiving, if not forgetful.

Actually it's more, hey *****. You didn't have the money to come play the game so now work harder or don't bother coming back to us. Yeah, really kind company that one. :/

Lol, what?

Who's playing the game? Why do they need money to do it? And why...

What?

Okay, the developer said he went for the 360 exclusive as it was cheaper and easier to develop for. In other words, they couldn't afford to develop for the PS3. Then Sony turns around and insists they do more work as they cxouldn't afford to develop for them initially.

That's not what happened. The 360 was easier? Of course it's easier it's a 360, one of it's main features is it's easy to develop for, it was cheaper because Microsoft gives devs funding in exchange for being an exclusive. Devs have budgets and free cash means a larger one.

Sony said they had to do more work, because they're not morons. A game over a year old is worthless unless something is changed along the way. So they were told to add in new content because otherwise there was no value for Sony in letting it port.

 

[bad rider]

Okay, the developer said he went for the 360 exclusive as it was cheaper and easier to develop for. In other words, they couldn't afford to develop for the PS3. Then Sony turns around and insists they do more work as they cxouldn't afford to develop for them initially.

Sounds like the moral to this story is, hard work actually pays off. Cutting corners and taking the easy route, will get you screwed. Honestly...most parents teach their kids this lesson at an early age. Hopefully, this developer won't make the same mistakes in the future.

So your saying they should have not taken thew extra funding to make the game. So there would be no game/jobs because they didn't have the money to fund it. Yep, the filthy corner cutting bastards sure got what was coming.

 

[bad rider]

I like it personally.

Sony's all like, "What's that? Bitchbox didn't help pay for dinner? Weren't to interested in us awhile back were you? But we're feeling magnanimous today so, add in a shitload more stuff and we might allow you the privileged of porting to our console."

Sony is forgiving, if not forgetful.

Actually it's more, hey *****. You didn't have the money to come play the game so now work harder or don't bother coming back to us. Yeah, really kind company that one. :/

Lol, what?

Who's playing the game? Why do they need money to do it? And why...

What?

Okay, the developer said he went for the 360 exclusive as it was cheaper and easier to develop for. In other words, they couldn't afford to develop for the PS3. Then Sony turns around and insists they do more work as they cxouldn't afford to develop for them initially.

That's not what happened. The 360 was easier? Of course it's easier it's a 360, one of it's main features is it's easy to develop for, it was cheaper because Microsoft gives devs funding in exchange for being an exclusive. Devs have budgets and free cash means a larger one.

Sony said they had to do more work, because they're not morons. A game over a year old is worthless unless something is changed along the way. So they were told to add in new content because otherwise there was no value for Sony in letting it port.

Year old games do have value. That makes no sense why would they bother spending cash changing the codeing and employing people to make it compatible with the ps3, just so they can make no money selling the game on another console?

 

[KarumaK]

SNIP*
That's not what happened. The 360 was easier? Of course it's easier it's a 360, one of it's main features is it's easy to develop for, it was cheaper because Microsoft gives devs funding in exchange for being an exclusive. Devs have budgets and free cash means a larger one.

Sony said they had to do more work, because they're not morons. A game over a year old is worthless unless something is changed along the way. So they were told to add in new content because otherwise there was no value for Sony in letting it port.

Year old games do have value. That makes no sense why would they bother spending cash changing the codeing and employing people to make it compatible with the ps3, just so they can make no money selling the game on another console?

Year old games do not have value, at least not full value. Their old news people played them, replayed them, and learned their stories. As Sony only gets an advantage on new games sold they have no incentive to allow a port unless it brings something new. Why would a consumer pay $60 for a new version of the same game when they can get it half price used on another console?

Additionally Sony is trying to get the serious fans back who bought the Microsoft version, by making their's better. They want the people who own a PS3 to feel like the wait was justified. And they're also fully aware that the port would never have been considered if the 360 version had sold better, of course that would be speculation on my part.