| Goatseye said: Well, they have to satisfy gamers by giving them couple of "free" games monthly and by doing that they have to compensate devs/pubs. They have to maintain servers for online gaming and modern competitive games require robust network infrastructure (Killer Instinct is the game with the best netcode I've seen so far this gen). It "welps" them during software droughts to offset losses and they wouldn't want to dig into that honeypot. Investors wouldn't want that. Why would they cut into their revenue, if they can arrange a solution where pubs and devs could work out a deal and the three parts come out favored? That's in a perfect world. MS does that but other publishers reportedly are too greedy to let devs get a significant cut. |
Like I've said, I don't think consoles are at the point where they really need quality control yet. However, I think you are overstating the weight that this would put on MS. Nintendo already lotchecks every eShop game and they have for a while. It really isn't very difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if MS and Sony already had some system in place to check to make sure the games work so it really wouldn't be very difficult to turn up the quality control by one tick.
I would like to stress again that my insistence on the need for quality control is really for Steam only at this point in time.
As for your last point, the "three parts come out favored" seems fairly arguable. I'm not sure what specific system you are talking about, but I've already discussed numerous problems with the parity clause and the publisher requirement. As such, I really don't think you can argue that MS does indie better than everybody else (if that is in fact what you are trying to say) although they been pressured to remove some of the bullshit restrictions that they have been implimenting.
