By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Carmack - Sony's restrictions on third-party ports

FreeTalkLive on 02 August 2008
Shoestar said:
Well, I don't really see how it's bad for PS3 users since they are getting a superior/improved product that those released on other systems.

The only people for which it is sorta 'bad' though are the Developers who have to work harder to add new things to the game and the people who bought the game on other consoles since they have to deal with the fact that they got an inferior port in the end.

No point complaining...

If 360 gets a game 9 months before PS3 gets the same game with added content, 360 cannot get a inferior port.

 



 

Tired of big government?
Want liberty in your lifetime?
Join us @
http://www.freestateproject.org

Around the Network
kitler53 on 02 August 2008

it's shit like this that bit nintendo in the ass 2 generations ago. very risky, sure some of your games will be "enhanced" but also many games just won't be released at all.



Bodhesatva on 02 August 2008

The most developer friendly of the three is Microsoft, and has been since they entered the industry.

1) They moneyhat quite often
2) They do not place restrictions on late ports
3) They do not require you to release games in english for the western audience
4) They went way out of their way to make sure the 360 was programmer friendly

Microsoft's entire approach is to make things as developer friendly as possible. It is MS' one true strength in the industry (because it sure isn't first party software! Zing!)



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">

jman8 on 02 August 2008
kitler53 said:
it's shit like this that bit nintendo in the ass 2 generations ago. very risky, sure some of your games will be "enhanced" but also many games just won't be released at all.

Nah, what bit Nintendo in the ass was wholesale cockblocking of third parties. The degree to which Nintendo restricted 3rd parties was on a whole other level. In order to uphold the Nintendo Seal of Quality, they practically shut out 3rd parties and assembled their "dream team" of 1st and 2nd party devs.

What Sony is doing is institutionalizing a practice that most savvy 3rd party devs would do anyway. Just look at PC ports. Gears of War PC came out a year or so after the Xbox game but it wasn't a straight port. Why did they add features? The PC is an open platform on which devs can do as they please. But they realized that the best way to generate sales of the old game was to increase the featureset.

There's a very good reason why we rarely hear 3rd parties talk about this issue, but a week doesn't go by without hearing someone say the CELL is so complicated. It's because this rule is a non-issue. No one cares that much. Move on.

 



My Top 5:

Shadow of the Colossus, Metal Gear Solid 3, Shenmue, Skies of Arcadia, Chrono Trigger

My 2 nex-gen systems: PS3 and Wii

Prediction Aug '08: We see the PSP2 released fall '09. Graphically, it's basically the same as the current system. UMD drive ditched and replaced by 4-8gb on board flash memory. Other upgrades: 2nd analog nub, touchscreen, blutooth, motion sensor. Design: Flip-style or slider. Size: Think Iphone. Cost: $199. Will be profitable on day 1.

smallflyingtaco on 02 August 2008
Noobie said:
This certainly is a good move in my view.. firstly it will improve the quality of the port and also the PS3 user will get better game... so they will have some reason to buy for PS3.... I fully appreciate this move..

 

 More likely I think it just hurts developers.  With budgets balloning and needing both the platforms to really have a wide enough audience to make their money back this does not help that. 



Proud member of the Sonic Support Squad

Around the Network
soccerdrew17 on 02 August 2008

for sony its smart. they dont get a game pushed back just to have it be the same game at best equal but most likely still worse.

this only really matters if sony is ignoring third parties, which they were for a bit. with the ps2 they assumed everyone would just come to them, so they didnt try with the ps3. now that they understand the situation they are fixing it. sony might be a very scary force next gen with their new found software side, third party relations, and gigantic first party.



my pillars of gaming: kh, naughty dog, insomniac, ssb, gow, ff

i officially boycott boycotts.  crap.

Retrasado on 02 August 2008
kitler53 said:
it's shit like this that bit nintendo in the ass 2 generations ago. very risky, sure some of your games will be "enhanced" but also many games just won't be released at all.

No. this is not like what Nintendo did. Thay were on another level of retardation entirely. In order to get a game for one of Nintendo's platforms approved, you had to sign an agreement that basically said you could only make games for Nintento platforms and if you didn't follow this, Nintendo would refuse to allow your games to be published.

Since we don't know anything about what Sony is actually telling dev to do (though most of you are jumping to conslusions), I think it is ridculous to debate the matter. I can guarentee you though, that Sony is not anywhere close to being as retarded as Nintendo was.

 



Not trying to be a fanboy. Of course, it's hard when you own the best console eve... dang it

soccerdrew17 on 02 August 2008
Retrasado said:
kitler53 said:
it's shit like this that bit nintendo in the ass 2 generations ago. very risky, sure some of your games will be "enhanced" but also many games just won't be released at all.

No. this is not like what Nintendo did. Thay were on another level of retardation entirely. In order to get a game for one of Nintendo's platforms approved, you had to sign an agreement that basically said you could only make games for Nintento platforms and if you didn't follow this, Nintendo would refuse to allow your games to be published.

Since we don't know anything about what Sony is actually telling dev to do (though most of you are jumping to conslusions), I think it is ridculous to debate the matter. I can guarentee you though, that Sony is not anywhere close to being as retarded as Nintendo was.

 

dont be so nice to nintendo.  they limited the amount of games allowed per year per company to five, they controlled the cartidges, they could impose any censorship if a game wanted to be released, they sold the cartridges in minimum packages, they sold the cartridges at premiums, they ignored all third parties other than they got to release games.

other than nintendo having so many consoles, third parties were dieing to leave nintendo.  that's the reason why sony was able to be so successful with the ps1: third parties.  they were asking for a savior and that was sony at the time.

 



my pillars of gaming: kh, naughty dog, insomniac, ssb, gow, ff

i officially boycott boycotts.  crap.

|_emmiwinks on 02 August 2008
NJ5 said:

According to Carmack in this video, Sony will not allow 3rd parties to release late ports of 360 games unless they improve the game in some way.

While I understand the reason, this surprised me a lot. It's interesting in a number of ways - the gamer's perspective, the business perspective, and, most of all, it showed me that Sony isn't as friendly to developers as I thought; I thought they were the most developer-friendly of the three, but I'm starting to doubt that.

 

 

Good for them, they got tired of thier system being treated as the "oh yeah, and lets see if we can make it work on that" and told them no more crap, as a mater of fact, you had better make it different in some way. The first is obviously Bioshock for this new policy, I cant think of any other ports that have had differences between the two, but I only really pay attention to games that interest me.



I own all three current consoles and a great gaming rig, now thats out of the way.

This space Reserved for the Nuggets of Wisdom dropped by Bladeforce:

"Why post something like this when all it will get is PS3 owners blinded to reality replying? BOTH THE PS3 AND BLUE-RAY WILL NOT LAST 3 YEARS! TECHNOLOGY CHANGED TOO FAST!"

"is it Wii FIt that has sold as many as PS3's sold? Thats a LOL Look at the total sales of software is it just me that sees Nintendo titles hitting 10m+ and you say they arent making a difference? Another LOL!"

"Hell, with all the negative hype Sony spin, people just aren't interested cost is too high and to get the true HD experience (1080p, 7.1 surround) you will need a $1000+ system. THAT IS GOING TO DO IT IN A RECESSION! PS4 will not happen"

S.T.A.G.E. on 02 August 2008

I always knew that Sony were a bunch of hacks. It's always been that way since they gained a majority market share with the PS2. Kaz is a fool who likes to control people, including the buyers to accept his will (some of them even do respond the way he likes as well. He has a god complex.). They aren't publishing the majority of their 3rd party, so they should just shut up instead of trying to be extremely controlling. Carmack is right when he says that they have to work double as hard on the Blu Ray games just to come up with a similar version to the 360, where as they didnt have to work as hard with the 360. Heavenly sword is off of PS3 because of how they treat their developers, and the same thing goes for The Getaway.