Publishers Getting the Crap Kicked Out of Them by Microsoft Claims Sony

[QUOTE="tormentos"] Loading texture fast enough.?IronBass

Yes, that's what pop-in is.

It still doesn't answer my question.

So textures no loading fast enough is not a problem.? Considering that not all games suffer from it how is not.? How many games has been criticize for having pop in.? Not now since the PS1 generation. Here on this site tons have been the games pick on for having texture problems,and yes it is a problem if it wasn't the game would not need to be install.tormentos

Pop-in is a problem (forgive the redundace) when it's a problem. When it's constant, very noticeable, and drastically affects the presentation, negatively affecting the experience.

Plenty of (great looking) games this gen have pop-in (BioShock, BioShock 2, Gears 1, Gears 2, Borderlands, GTAIV, RDR, Just Cause, Heavy Rain,Mass Effect 1 and 2, and more), and it wasn't a problem for either of them.

In fact, texture pop-in is something that affects (to different degrees) every game that uses the Unreal Engine 3, which is used in a huge amount of high profile, high quality and great looking games. And it isn't a problem, nor do they rely on installation to run properly.

As you can see now, texture pop-in isn's something out of the ordinary, is in fact, quite common, without it being a problem.

Those games that suffer from problematic pop in are usually mediocre releases (like Iron Man 2 and Alpha Protocol, for example), it's quite rare for it to be a problem in high profile games (especially one made by id).

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]Well drying out the market from 3rd party developers by buying them was considered a hostile move when MS was doing it. Now that it's SONY doing it, let's strangle MS for trying to put some measures against the exclusivity deals SONY is trying to make on the remaining multiplats 3rd party studios.tormentos

is that a justification as to why it's ok for SONY to have exclusivity deals? or you're just clarifying that SONY was doing it before MS?Mystery_Writer

Well, this thread exploded. :o

Well, this thread exploded. :o

DarkLink77

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]is that a justification as to why it's ok for SONY to have exclusivity deals? or you're just clarifying that SONY was doing it before MS?tormentos

What I understood from what you've posted is; buying a 3rd party dev and keeping all their titles exclusives is an ok practice (which I actually agree with).

Now what's your stance on MS not prohibiting, but rather de-incentivizing the practice of 3rd party developers making exclusivity deals (time exclusivity or extra content on launch, i.e. not later-on content as DLC) with other platforms holders?

This is why I will never be a fan of Sony. It is comments like these that make me really not like them as a company. Heck even when Sony lost the information of 103 million people between SOE and PSN Microsoft did not take jabs at them.CanYouDiglt

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]is that a justification as to why it's ok for SONY to have exclusivity deals? or you're just clarifying that SONY was doing it before MS?Mystery_Writer

What I understood from what you've posted is; buying a 3rd party dev and keeping all their titles exclusives is an ok practice (which I actually agree with).

Now what's your stance on MS not prohibiting, but rather de-incentivizing the practice of 3rd party developers making exclusivity deals (time exclusivity or extra content on launch, i.e. not later-on content as DLC) with other platforms holders?

I think the difference is the risk. Buying a studio and funding their projects from scratch is very risky, while paying a publisher to keep content off another system for a specified amount of time is not.

In the end, the point of both is to make your console look better due to content, but one strategy brings a lot of content to its users while the other simply keeps a small amount of content from users of another console.

I know which one looks to be better for me, as a gamer.

Confirmed: Microsoft's policy is to Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Confirmed: Microsoft's policy is to Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

GameShtopper

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Confirmed: Microsoft's policy is to Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

LeonSykes10

Yeah, but I like the people in this thread who were saying that it wasn't Microsoft's strategy. :lol:

[QUOTE="LeonSykes10"][QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Confirmed: Microsoft's policy is to Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

GameShtopper

Yeah, but I like the people in this thread who were saying that it wasn't Microsoft's strategy. :lol:

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Confirmed: Microsoft's policy is to Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

LeonSykes10

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="LeonSykes10"] Well, that's a good business strategy.KevinnButlerNPK

Yeah, but I like the people in this thread who were saying that it wasn't Microsoft's strategy. :lol:

It's actually as bad as somone who thinks a Wikipedia article that is heavily sourced isn't reliable.

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="LeonSykes10"] Well, that's a good business strategy.KevinnButlerNPK

Yeah, but I like the people in this thread who were saying that it wasn't Microsoft's strategy. :lol:

Edit: If you want to be successful in business, you really need to kill your compititors. That's how the business world works.

[QUOTE="LeonSykes10"][QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Confirmed: Microsoft's policy is to Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

DarkLink77

Except people in this thread were saying that it wasn't the reason for Microsoft doing timed exclusives with Call of Duty map packs.

Good business is to not treat your customers like suckers.

[QUOTE="KevinnButlerNPK"]

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Yeah, but I like the people in this thread who were saying that it wasn't Microsoft's strategy. :lol:

GameShtopper

It's actually as bad as somone who thinks a Wikipedia article that is heavily sourced isn't reliable.

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="KevinnButlerNPK"] Almosat as bad as the people in this thread using Wikipedia as a reliable source :lol:

KevinnButlerNPK

It's actually as bad as somone who thinks a Wikipedia article that is heavily sourced isn't reliable.

Sure it's a dumb deal for publishers, but they are the ones that have helped MS build a significant marketshare this gen. I say if they don't like the terms they should make a stand and call the bluff, because I guarantee if a few high profile titles were at risk, MS would back down. I also think if they're gonna continue to accept those terms then the publishers need to stop grumbling about it.

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="KevinnButlerNPK"] Almosat as bad as the people in this thread using Wikipedia as a reliable source :lol:

KevinnButlerNPK

It's actually as bad as somone who thinks a Wikipedia article that is heavily sourced isn't reliable.

What's funny is that any smart professor would tell you to use the CITED portions of Wikipedia to your advantage, but you can't use Wikipedia as a source.

And the Wiki article I posted is ALL cited.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="LeonSykes10"] Well, that's a good business strategy.GameShtopper

Except people in this thread were saying that it wasn't the reason for Microsoft doing timed exclusives with Call of Duty map packs.

Good business is to not treat your customers like suckers.

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Pretty much every business does that, though. It's just good business.DarkLink77

Except people in this thread were saying that it wasn't the reason for Microsoft doing timed exclusives with Call of Duty map packs.

Good business is to not treat your customers like suckers.

ALLTHISHATE and his alt Foolwithalancer.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Except people in this thread were saying that it wasn't the reason for Microsoft doing timed exclusives with Call of Duty map packs.

Good business is to not treat your customers like suckers.

GameShtopper

ALLTHISHATE and his alt Foolwithalancer.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Except people in this thread were saying that it wasn't the reason for Microsoft doing timed exclusives with Call of Duty map packs.

Good business is to not treat your customers like suckers.

GameShtopper

ALLTHISHATE and his alt Foolwithalancer.

First you call me a Troll account and then you try to insult me by making fun of the fact we'll never see anoher Conker and now you're calling me an Alt? :lol:

Here that?

It's the dwindling of your credibility! :lol:

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Who the hell said that?FoolwithaLancer

ALLTHISHATE and his alt Foolwithalancer.

First you call me a Troll account and then you try to insult me by making fun of the fact we'll never see anoher Conker and now you're calling me an Alt? :lol:

Here that?

It's the dwindling of your credibility! :lol:

Unlike you, I have supplied articles to back up my argument. No credibility was lost on my end.

Well what if Sony and Nintendo were to do the same thing? Then would all games be exclusive because they would all want the best version or no version at all?
That would have been interesting. But would it have been good for gaming?

Confirmed: Microsoft's policy is to Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

GameShtopper

Well what if Sony and Nintendo were to do the same thing? Then would all games be exclusive because they would all want the best version or no version at all?
That would have been interesting. But would it have been good for gaming?

KungfuKitten

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Who the hell said that?DarkLink77

ALLTHISHATE and his alt Foolwithalancer.

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="KevinnButlerNPK"] Almosat as bad as the people in this thread using Wikipedia as a reliable source :lol:

KevinnButlerNPK

It's actually as bad as somone who thinks a Wikipedia article that is heavily sourced isn't reliable.

You can't use sourced Wiki entries in a research paper for the same reasons you can't use any encylcopedia, because it's a secondary source. The sources in the wiki entry back up the info, so if you want to ignore it then it's just because you want to stick your fingers in your ears and say, "La la la la la."

I don't think this is particularly smart for MS. The next games being developed may go elsewhere like to OnLive instead. What does MS do if publishers move around this rule or heaven forbid ignore the rule? How are they to know?

[QUOTE="KevinnButlerNPK"]

Great, enroll ina any College, take a Writing course that requires doing a Reasearch Paper, use anything from Wikipedia as a source, come back and report how much spastic laughter you get from your professor before they flunk you for using Wikipedia as sourrce, In other words, Wikipedia and relaiable information are composite opposites. Sorry to burst your bubble...

LeonSykes10

This really was the best thing they could do to make sure developers didn't add more than the 9 gigs of space only available on dvds for xbox 360. otherwise the ps3 versions of games could have a lot more.

It's anti-competitive.. and only exists so developers have to lag behind with them.

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

ALLTHISHATE and his alt Foolwithalancer.

GameShtopper

First you call me a Troll account and then you try to insult me by making fun of the fact we'll never see anoher Conker and now you're calling me an Alt? :lol:

Here that?

It's the dwindling of your credibility! :lol:

Unlike you, I have supplied articles to back up my argument. No credibility was lost on my end.

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Confirmed: Microsoft's policy is to Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

tormentos

what microsoft is trying to do is to stop sony from using any of there fist party franchises as persuasion for potential sales, like kratos in MK or hale in street fighter vs tekken. microsoft at the startof this gen was doing the same thing but now there going to cry about it when sony does it. its not there fault they have many first party stuidos which could give them an option to give excusive content to a third party game. didnt sony also spend a butt load of money for indie developers to create games? where microsoft and there big money showing there love to developers to create new and fresh games. this is why theres a shift between the two companys. microsoft in which you may have a dev friendly in terms of making games on your console you restrict the developers freedom by yourpolicies, this is where sony comes in with there open arm policies and gives the developers the freedom to do with ther creation as they see fit.

you don't have xbox 360 and having multiple consoles does not exclude you from being a fanboy, it's pretty obvious when you defend SONY even when they make mistakes like using outdated security and server for there network, remove features from the Ps3 and put spyware on peoples music CD's (which was actually illegal), also by the the very fact that you use every opportunity you can find to hate on MS and praise SONY, it's obvious from the way you post that you are a SONY fanboy mate, the whole world can see it.and whichever way YOU try to spin it, it cost 840 dollars for SONY to make the hardware they sold you, so SONY sold you 840 dollars worth of harware, end ofdelta3074

what microsoft is trying to do is to stop sony from using any of there fist party franchises as persuasion for potential sales, like kratos in MK or hale in street fighter vs tekken. microsoft at the startof this gen was doing the same thing but now there going to cry about it when sony does it. its not there fault they have many first party stuidos which could give them an option to give excusive content to a third party game. didnt sony also spend a butt load of money for indie developers to create games? where microsoft and there big money showing there love to developers to create new and fresh games. this is why theres a shift between the two companys. microsoft in which you may have a dev friendly in terms of making games on your console you restrict the developers freedom by yourpolicies, this is where sony comes in with there open arm policies and gives the developers the freedom to do with ther creation as they see fit.

FFKi11er

This really was the best thing they could do to make sure developers didn't add more than the 9 gigs of space only available on dvds for xbox 360. otherwise the ps3 versions of games could have a lot more.

It's anti-competitive.. and only exists so developers have to lag behind with them.

Infinite_Access

This really was the best thing they could do to make sure developers didn't add more than the 9 gigs of space only available on dvds for xbox 360. otherwise the ps3 versions of games could have a lot more.

It's anti-competitive.. and only exists so developers have to lag behind with them.

Infinite_Access

[QUOTE="delta3074"]you don't have xbox 360 and having multiple consoles does not exclude you from being a fanboy, it's pretty obvious when you defend SONY even when they make mistakes like using outdated security and server for there network, remove features from the Ps3 and put spyware on peoples music CD's (which was actually illegal), also by the the very fact that you use every opportunity you can find to hate on MS and praise SONY, it's obvious from the way you post that you are a SONY fanboy mate, the whole world can see it.and whichever way YOU try to spin it, it cost 840 dollars for SONY to make the hardware they sold you, so SONY sold you 840 dollars worth of harware, end oftormentos

First it would have make many of the games come out on multiple DVDtormentos

,developers had been having problems with the policies and limitations of the xbox 360 for a long time.tormentos

[QUOTE="Infinite_Access"]

This really was the best thing they could do to make sure developers didn't add more than the 9 gigs of space only available on dvds for xbox 360. otherwise the ps3 versions of games could have a lot more.

It's anti-competitive.. and only exists so developers have to lag behind with them.

xsubtownerx

[QUOTE="tormentos"] First it would have make many of the games come out on multiple DVDIronBass

,developers had been having problems with the policies and limitations of the xbox 360 for a long time.tormentos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dragon As early as 2006 already a 4 disc game on 360,if DVD is so great and is enough why 4 disc. ""One problem it seems is the size of the game. "On XBLA there is a 2[GB] size limit we have to adhere to, currently the title weighs in at 2.1GB and that is without any updates, so either we have to pull a miracle out of the bag with some type of amazing compression system, or ask Microsoft to increase their 2GB limit" Just Add Water said. However, the developer believes that the 2GB limit is a hardware limit making a port increasingly unlikely."" http://www.1up.com/news/oddworld-stranger-wrath-xbox-360 ""Symphony of the Night is not a "small-scale" game in any sense of the phrase. It's based on an existing home-console game, a distinction on Live Arcade only shared by the upcoming Alien Hominid HD. Konami has confirmed to GameSpot that the final size of the Symphony of the Night download will surpass Microsoft's 50MB size limit for Live Arcade games. Microsoft's group manager for Xbox Live Arcade, Greg Canessa, told GameSpot why the company instituted a 50MB limit in the first place. "By keeping the file size small for Xbox Live Arcade games, gamers can put one or more games on a memory unit and easily bring those games to a friend's house to share and play," Canessa said. "Small file sizes also mean fast download times, making it possible to download and begin playing any Xbox Live Arcade game within one or two minutes." Even though Symphony of the Night will exceed the size limit, Canessa indicated that there is still a 50MB cap on Live Arcade games, although Microsoft is willing to make exceptions to the rule. "If any games do exceed 50 MB, it's for a very specific reason that would ensure that the gameplay experience is the best it can be," Canessa said."" http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/adventure/castlevaniasotn/news/6164077/castlevania-to-break-live-arcade-size-limit The first game to break XBL limitation was SOTN a PS1 game release,what was holding it back.? MS policy on size because they wanted core 360 owners who just had a memory card to buy stuff as well,so this time developer were getting nightmares because MS did not put an HDD standard,and they wanted to keep the size small for those buyers. Xbox 360 games use extreme compression,Castle Vania SOTN is 95MB on xbox live,on PSN is 355 MB the game is shrink by compression to what almost a quart of what the PS3 version is.? So yeah the limitation had been making developers life more difficult since launch,and all of them are base on how the xbox 360 was build and how it was make to operate.tormentos

One game being on mutiple DVDs doesn't prove that "many games" would be, which is what I asked. In fact, it actually proves the contrary. It proves that MS has no problem allowing developers use multiple disks, yet 99% of games still use only one.

Also, one XBLA game? First, the download limit was extended a very long time ago, and secondly, I'm talking about things a bit more relevant and that had actually affected a game's development.

It would be like me pointing out how difficult the PS3 was to develop for, or pointing out the many inferior multiplats that were released because of it. It's pointless stuff.

One game being on mutiple DVDs doesn't prove that "many games" would be, which is what I asked. In fact, it actually proves the contrary. It proves that MS has no problem allowing developers use multiple disks, yet 99% of games still use only one,Also,one XBLA game? First, the download limit was extended a very long time ago, and secondly, I'm talking about things a bit more relevant and that had actually affected a game's development.It would be like me pointing out how difficult the PS3 was to develop for, or pointing out the many inferior multiplats that were released because of it. It's pointless stuff.IronBass