Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Microsoft PlayStation (Games) Sony XBox (Games) Games

Sony Attacks Microsoft's Publishing Policies 203

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Attacks Microsoft's Publishing Policies

Comments Filter:
  • by ge7 ( 2194648 ) on Saturday September 03, 2011 @05:23PM (#37298344)
    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.
  • by Trepidity ( 597 ) <delirium-slashdot.hackish@org> on Saturday September 03, 2011 @05:31PM (#37298396)

    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.

  • Pot, meet kettle (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Omnifarious ( 11933 ) * <> on Saturday September 03, 2011 @05:32PM (#37298406) Homepage Journal

    I can't see this as anything other than one giant who uses customer hostile strategies to profit complaining about another giant using customer hostile strategies to accomplish the same goal. Boo hoo, poor Sony.

  • by VisibleSchlong ( 2422274 ) on Saturday September 03, 2011 @05:38PM (#37298454)

    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.

  • by myurr ( 468709 ) on Saturday September 03, 2011 @05:45PM (#37298512)

    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.

  • by hinesbrad ( 1923872 ) on Saturday September 03, 2011 @05:49PM (#37298550)
    Wow. The kings of closed-source hardware that have done everything possible to attack home-brew development and hacking efforts have the audacity to attack another closed platform for closed platform behavior. This is the same company that has the nerve to consider a 250GB hard drive system a premium product. The same company that used Nintendo R&D to come up with a 32bit platform and weaseled the development away from Nintendo with legal maneuvers leaving Nintendo without an up-to-date console for nearly 5 years. (S)ome (O)ld (N)intendo s(Y)stem. This company's conduct makes me want to puke.
  • by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Saturday September 03, 2011 @05:51PM (#37298568) Journal

    Personally I think "Exclusive" title arrangements should be illegal.

    On what grounds? If I develop software, and some company offers me an extra sweet deal if they get an exclusive, you want to tell me that I shouldn't legally be able to accept the offer?

    Why stop with software? Should all companies that have exclusive deals be banned from continuing with those exclusive deals? Apple must sell phones through all carriers? Selena Gomez must ditch her exclusive clothing line at Kmart? Same with Kathy Ireland? Why would clothing or phones be any different than software?

    Dig a little deeper into this, and you find that the suggestion is pretty absurd, even if your heart is in the right place.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03, 2011 @07:06PM (#37299006)

    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.

  • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Saturday September 03, 2011 @07:49PM (#37299246)

    Are you seriously suggesting forcing developers to develop for multiple, independent platforms?

    No he didn't suggest that at all. So the rest of your argument is irrelevant.

    All he said was the console manufacturer shouldn't be allowed to pay a developer to prevent them from releasing on another console.

    If the console developer doesn't wish to release on a particular platform that's entirely up to the developer. He just can't accept a bribe from the console manufacturer to help him to come to that decision.

  • by symbolset ( 646467 ) * on Saturday September 03, 2011 @11:48PM (#37300424) Journal
    The best we can hope for is "no survivors".

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.