E3 2017: Indies 'Less Relevant Now,' Says PlayStation's Jim Ryan

[Mr Puggsly]

Ali_16x said:

SegataSanshiro said:
So Sony didn't treat RiME dev all that great
http://sirusgaming.info/2017/06/rime-developers-had-more-creative-freedom-with-greybox-as-publisher-than-sony
Sony didn't allow the creative freedom they needed.

You mean those frauds? Do you know why Sony dropped them? All the shit they had shown to Sony was just CGI, they were lying to them.

Oh and Sony allows the most creative freedom from all companies, that's a fact.

Oh and "creative freedom" is a generic excuse the industry uses, even in movies.

Mr Puggsly said:

This is total bullshit.

XBLA is where the retro stuff and indie games got a big push before Sony. MS promoted them on the Xbox dashboard and thats where they get the most attention.

Furthermore, Sony lost support from some indie developers due to their crappy policies. Sony didnt want to support indie games unless they owned them. That changed because MS was better to indie developers and Sony wanted support.

If you dont believe me I suggest you do a little research. The big push started when games like Braid and Limbo happened. Both of which were on Xbox first.

Edit: Oh, most importantly Castle Crashers was a huge hit. Also on Xbox first.

Lol, what I said still holds, they treated them horribly. Indies were big back then because they were fun and cheap, and you had plenty of AAA games to go a long with them. Now they have a bad stigma because AAA are seen less often while indies are in surplus.

Can you show me where Sony had these shitty policies? Because I've never seen them. I know of Microsoft's shitty policies.

And I still don't see where you address how having a parity clause for them is a good thing. 

Or how requiring a publisher was a good thing for them, while most went with Microsoft because it was the easiest. Explain how them getting a publisher and the developers getting less money because of it is good for them.

Or did you forget all the shit Microsoft went through last gen when they weren't giving money to the developers, ie being late on payment. And all the shit with Jonathan Blow. Let's see what he had to say, “put you through as much pain as you will endure in order to extract whatever [they] feel like this week.” Wow, that sounded absolutely amazing for indies and it also sounded like they had no restrictions at all. 

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/sony-indies/

Read more on nothing but positive things about Microsoft. Like cancelling their game release for speaking against them.

Lol "do more research", and then you bring up Braid. LMAO. thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be mistaking Microsoft creating/leading the indie space with them automatically being in a healthy environment. 

If you wanna argue neither company was great to indies, there is totally a discussion. But Sony was worse and thats why MS got great support early on. Over time, Sony relaxed and got better support.

However, your original point was Sony started the indie boom when MS actually deserves the credit.

Frankly, it doesent really matter and I do agree the indie scene has become oversaturated. But there are still gems.