@Andir: I simply said that there's no reason to be so much against this thread. OK, I don't have both sides of the debate, it's not perfect. But it's still a valid topic of discussion.

That's why I don't buy GTA4 yet.... I don't know what system I should get it for. I don't know what that exclusive DLC for 360 is.....

This topic only makes me think that Sony wants to lay the seeds to its own destruction. This only binds consumers as "superior" PS3 ports will only cause more grief for developers.

Then NJ5 succeeded at his goal.  Arbitrary "evidence" based on a 3 second quote from an 18 minute video.  Even then it's a cuffed quote where Carmack qualifies his statement by saying Sony doesn't want delays without withdrawing some of the marketting support and "things like that".  He does not really come out and say Sony denies the game release.  This is of course after he admits that his experience isn't direct, but more through 3 separate proxy companies that actually did the port work for a previous game.

I am not surprised by the fact that some will blindly defend Sony, but I am surprised that nobody has really fingered the real consequence of this policy by Sony. This would be one of the things creating the delaystation phenomenon, or more to the point the hurry up and wait mindset that so riddles these forums. Sometimes I just feel sorry for PS3 loyalists. They sit there getting excited about unannounced ports of games which may or may not happen. Then if they do happen they are a year away from the market. I mean it looks downright pitiful how neglected the audience is that its beyond thrilled with the mere hope of a very delayed port.

Apparently Sony has not yet learned the familiar mantra beggars cannot be choosers. They really need to rework their philosophies to be in line with market realities, and their technological eccentricities. Which all to often leave developers already disillusioned with the prospects of developing for the platform. Sony is already costing them much more money then Microsoft, and has so much less to offer. Which is why Microsoft usually gets the first dig regardless, and this strategy is not going to help Sony change that. The only thing this strategy gets Sony is a port a year later if they get one at all.

The winner is most definitely not the PS3 owner. They already have little to play, and even less to get excited about. Most have said it on these forums the delays are just not acceptable. They cripple public perception rather then help public perception, and that is reason enough to not have such policies in place. Especially since that is probably the reason for the policy in the first place propaganda about game quality. Which seems far less relevant then release date. I cannot honestly think of one community member who would not have preferred Bioshock five months ago when there was nothing to play.

Seriously to those blindly defending Sony just stop. These kind of policies are part of the problem, and the sooner Sony realizes this the better. Removing the policy would greatly help the library as more titles could see the market sooner then otherwise, and titles that were not going to see the platform could possibly be ported. This is what would be good for PS3 owners. Having more good games as soon as possible, and having a richer selection to play.

The whole Sony is friendly thing comes from the fact that Nintendo has always been the most restrictive console maker out there. Comparatively, Sony pretty much allows developers to come out with any piece of junk they want and also supposedly has/had much lower licensing fees.

This practice that you mention goes all the way to the original PS. Any and every Saturn port always had to have some kind of Sony-exclusive content. Also in those days they had a very negative attitude toward 2-D games, so those were harder to get approved.

The only truly friendly (i.e. open) platform is the PC. The very definition of consoles is that it's a closed format. Therefore there's going to be restrictions put on third parties.

Lol:

Late ports - check
Pissing devs with a hard platform - check
Pissing devs even more with more content - check

Sony is definitely getting close to a unfriendly status with the devs, the next gen will be very interesting...

@Dodece

Wow, the delays don't have anything to do with this policy. Have we heard any developer complain about this? No. When their game has been delayed, what do they usually point out as the culprit? The complex and unique architecture of the PS3. The only games that have been delayed a year are Bioshock and Eternal Sonata, and I think it's pretty clear those games were bought and paid for by Microsoft in some sort of timed exclusivity deal.

This policy actually encourages developers to come out with their game at the same time as the 360 version so that they don't have to add extra content.

lol... a lot of people here seem to be upset because they are not getting the extras the PS3 users are lol...

Since when did u all become the righteous knights defending devs who port games to the PS3? Why does it bother you so much that a dev is being forced to cough up more for a system u do not own?

Feeling jealous about not getting the same content? :P


Also, this is not BS. For anyone trying to port a game on the PSP, the port has to have at least 30% additional content. It has always been like this. It is designed so that PSP users enjoy original content rather than plain 'ports'. Quality > Quantity.

I hope Sony arent shooting themselves in the foot with this one.

I agree developers should add if they are porting later, but it might not be a good idea to limit third party games too much...