i think the linux, mac version were the icky part LOL i am laughing my ass off

at any rate multiplatform.

l

Braid was on the 360 first, though. And it stayed exclusive for a good 6-9 months.

Looked into it a bit more and it looks so beautiful to me :O A game that has Steam Punk written all over it...Better come to PSN or gonna get a PC version

Also, why should Microsoft be the publisher for a game that would also appear on another console?  As faras I know though, Indie games on XBox don't need publishers to be released.

this is probably the only example you'll find. However, Sony owns the Ghostbusters IP, this was in PAL only, and it was timed exclusive for like 6 months or something.

So MS would take less profits as a publisher than a different publisher?

It would only have been on PC, Mac, Linux, and 360. It wouldnt have been on another console unless you consider computers as consoles. The PS3 and Wii would not have got this game, the devs didnt even approach either company about it until after MS turned them away.

So I have to believe that MS was pissy about it going to Mac and Linux. Or they just didnt think it was a good enough game to publish. The part that sucks is MS wont allow them to publish it themselves, that i dont understand. I guess if they allowed that they wouldnt make much off of it. Which is why they turned to Sony, Sony will allow them to publish it themselves if they opt not to. So either way the game could be released on the PSN. Or WiiWare for that matter.

But he hit the nail on the head, there is obviously much more to this story.  MS just isn't airing the dirty laundry like this guy is.  How could he expect them to publish something that wasn't exclusive to the platform?  They could go to any 3rd party publisher if they want it released on multiple systems right off.

Sorry, I don't see what MS did wrong here and I'd be very surprised if SCE says "sure, we'll publish it even if you release it on the 360 at the same time" ...

You might want to go look up how videogames were, pre-crash in the early 1980s.  You had companies release titles not only on their console, but on competitor consoles.  As a policy, I don't believe companies want games they published, when possible, to also appear on other consoles.  There was stuff like Age of Empires going on a handheld, but Microsoft didn't have a handheld.  A title like Ninja Gaiden gets a Sigma after it also, for example.

"Microsoft requires all XBLA titles be attached with a publishing partner, meaning neither Amanita Design and Golgoth Studio can self-publish the games on the XBLA platform. Sony and Nintendo do not have the same policy for the PlayStation Network and WiiWare, respectively."

Edit:  Just in case people still don't understand, apparently Microsoft requires all games to have a publisher, probably to help differentiate XBLA and XBL Indie Games.  So if Amanita Design and Golgoth Studio want their games on XBLA, they would have to get a publisher.  The point isn't that Microsoft doesn't want to publish the game, it's that Microsoft REQUIRES a publisher.  And having a publisher would just mean giving away some, and maybe most, of your profits to someone else for doing really, very little for an online distributed game.  Especially a game that's already made (so no funding required), and that's already been released and probably has a decent amount of "advertising" already done for it.

Sony and Nintendo apparently do NOT have a requirement that games must have a publisher.  Just submit your game to Sony/Nintendo and hope it makes it through the certification process.  This means that Amanita Design can keep whatever money the game makes (minus Sony/Nintendo's share).