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

Forums - Gaming - Machinarium submitted to Sony after Microsoft refusal

BillyBOBMahog on 13 April 2010
richardhutnik said:
BillyBOBMahog said:
So MS would take less profits as a publisher than a different publisher?

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.

I was referring to this quote:

"It means if we want to release the game on XBLA we must throw, probably, most of the profit out of the window -- to the publisher. Just because we created Mac and Linux versions."

The implication here is that MS would have taken less of a chunk for publishing than a 3rd party.  In fact, I am not sure how your comments applied to what I said.



Around the Network
rocketpig on 13 April 2010

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.

What is so hard to understand about this line?

I'm not one to say "is this news?" but c'mon...




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig on 13 April 2010
Xoj said:
MrBubbles said:
microsoft has published other games that were on the computer (braid, which even went to other consoles later) so i have trouble believing this is the entire story.

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

at any rate multiplatform.

 

l

If you honestly think the MS game division gives a SHIT about Mac or Linux, you're sadly mistaken. Those two wasps are a problem for the operating system division, not the guys who run the decisions behind Xbox.

Sometimes I wonder how much any of you actually realize how big these companies are and how much they "contradict" another division's policies...




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig on 13 April 2010
JerzeeBalla said:
richardhutnik said:
badgenome said:
MrBubbles said:
microsoft has published other games that were on the computer (braid, which even went to other consoles later) so i have trouble believing this is the entire story.

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

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.

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.

Or maybe it could be this:

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.

Seriously, do you people even read the fucking article? It's as if this board has been populated by illiterates who spend their offline time eating paste.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Rainbird on 13 April 2010
nordlead said:
Rainbird said:
CommonMan said:
I'm confused, which of the big Three publishes games that aren't exclusive? Is this a big deal?

Sony published the Playstation versions of Ghostbusters in PAL, and apparently, Microsoft are the only one of the three where they have a policy like this for their downloadable games.

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.

It is an example none the less, and shows that Sony might be more open to 3rd party games, which seems to be reflected in their PSN game regulations versus Microsoft's. I don't know if there is any point in drawing a connection between Ghostbusters and Sony's PSN policies, but Sony are clearly more open with regards to 3rd parties on PSN than Microsoft and XBLA.



Around the Network
rocketpig on 13 April 2010
Rainbird said:
nordlead said:
Rainbird said:
CommonMan said:
I'm confused, which of the big Three publishes games that aren't exclusive? Is this a big deal?

Sony published the Playstation versions of Ghostbusters in PAL, and apparently, Microsoft are the only one of the three where they have a policy like this for their downloadable games.

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.

It is an example none the less, and shows that Sony might be more open to 3rd party games, which seems to be reflected in their PSN game regulations versus Microsoft's. I don't know if there is any point in drawing a connection between Ghostbusters and Sony's PSN policies, but Sony are clearly more open with regards to 3rd parties on PSN than Microsoft and XBLA.

Absolutely, whereas Microsoft has a system in place for developers with NO publisher or any kind of backing, just not the kind these developers were looking for.

Um, really? Is anyone going to argue the validity of each manufacturer's policies on third party games? And has Sony or Nintendo actually APPROVED anything this company has done?




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Rainbird on 13 April 2010
rocketpig said:
Rainbird said:
nordlead said:
Rainbird said:
CommonMan said:
I'm confused, which of the big Three publishes games that aren't exclusive? Is this a big deal?

Sony published the Playstation versions of Ghostbusters in PAL, and apparently, Microsoft are the only one of the three where they have a policy like this for their downloadable games.

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.

It is an example none the less, and shows that Sony might be more open to 3rd party games, which seems to be reflected in their PSN game regulations versus Microsoft's. I don't know if there is any point in drawing a connection between Ghostbusters and Sony's PSN policies, but Sony are clearly more open with regards to 3rd parties on PSN than Microsoft and XBLA.

Absolutely, whereas Microsoft has a system in place for developers with NO publisher or any kind of backing, just not the kind these developers were looking for.

Um, really? Is anyone going to argue the validity of each manufacturer's policies on third party games? And has Sony or Nintendo actually APPROVED anything this company has done?

I don't know what Microsoft's policies are on XBL Indie games, but I don't know why they wouldn't allow for a game like Machinarium on XBLA. And Sony haven't approved anything from these guys to my knowledge, but going by precedence, Sony have Trine on PSN, which came out on PC first, and Sony still allowed that just fine.

I'm sure Microsoft has their reasoning, but XBL is more closed than PSN is, not just with XBLA, but with features games are allowed to us, and I am much in favor of Sony's style.



rocketpig on 13 April 2010

Again, I do not understand what you cannot comprehend about "Microsoft will not publish a game on XBLA without a secondary publisher".

Seriously. Not rocket science.

Not even science.

It's English.

Comprende?

Sony has their style, MS has theirs. Whose is better? Dunno. Don't really care, honestly. We'll get the games. Sony has a more open door to business devs while MS has a more open door to create indy content on their platform.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Rainbird on 13 April 2010

I'm perfectly aware of what that policy means, I just don't understand their reasoning. What in the world would the issue of allowing these guys to publish their own game on XBLA be? I just don't see it.



rocketpig on 13 April 2010

What's the point of XBLA Community (or whatever they call it) if anyone is allowed to publish to XBLA? You may like Sony's approach but there is only one console platform that allows indies to test their mettle, and that's XBL. Microsoft has to establish rules between the two and while it sucks that Machinarium can't get a publisher, that's not Microsoft's fault.

But, and I say BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, this article (that you posted) was wildly misleading.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/