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

[Ali_16x]

Mr Puggsly said:

Ali_16x said:

Please give me examples as I don't know any. I've actually given you tons of examples. And even if Sony did treat indies worse, which I haven't heard of anything, Microsoft got indies because they looked for them. It was just a plan, like how Microsoft is doing BC right now, it's just a plan. 

And again, you seem to be confusing Microsoft getting indies first to indies being in a health environment. So if you can't give me any facts, and even if you did, it doesn't change what I've said, they've changed all their shit, BECAUSE OF SONY. It's a fact, you can see that RIGHT NOW, with how indies are given so much freedom now. You can see now that MS doesn't have a partiy rule or atleast not as severve as it use to be, you can see that indies don't need a publisher, they can actually publish their game themselves. You can not say that indies were better off in the 360/PS3 era than right now. You just can't. And I have a feeling you're going to reply and basically say nothing, like you just did, don't bother.

So it sounds like you agree pushed for that indie movement and retro movement first. It really started on OG Xbox because MS sold small titles there as well.

The problem is developers have had is Sony wanted to own the IPs they worked with. Which is fine but it costed them support. While MS was more open to working with developers for timed or sometimes permanent exclusivity. MS was obviously more open to console exclusives which why a lot of indie content also went to PC.

The Limbo developer was one who flat out said they went to MS for the reasons I said. For a period Sony just about everything they got involved with. That changed.

My argument in a nutshell is MS made the push first. Sony made chamges for better support and MS followed.

I don't even get it, that wasn't even the main topic of this conversation and you're making it sound like you won the argument? When did I ever argue that indies didn't start on MS? You replied to something I said about MS treating indies like shit and the only reason that changed was because of what Sony did in E3 2013, and overall how they've treated indies, with no restrictions. Now what I said has nothing to do with whether or not "indies started on MS". You replied by saying that they started at MS, which really isn't a reply to what I said, and further on you said that Sony also treated indies like shit, which I've asked for proof multiple times but since I haven't gotten any, I'm going to assume you don't have any and what you said was pure conjecture.

How is Sony owning an IP bad for the indie? If they don't want to sell the IP to Sony, they don't have to. And the only time this would happen is when Sony would be publishing, which happens when the developer pitches an idea to Sony. Which is completely different from indies, you're talking about small first party games while I'm just talking about regular indies.

Lol again, how the hell is that bad for indies? You're acting like Sony wants to own literally every indie, the only one they want to own is the one the developers go to Sony and ask for money/funding which makes sense that they would want to own it. Seriously, what are you talking about?