It is necessary. DVD is old technology. Microsoft doesn't allow 3rd parties to make their games better on the PS3 or they'll refuse to release it on the 360. Multplatform games would have A LOT more content is they were taking advantage of Blu-Rays 50gigs.

I thought Xbox and GC games looked better than their PS2 counterparts?

It's not exactly Sony's fault that the market was in favor of them that time so they had more exclusives. I don't think I quite remember they were constricting MS last gen to their very potential.

I knew this was going to be an issue, but to be honest I didn't expect Sony to come forward and say something like this. Much as I GREATLY prefer Sony's business practices, this just seems unprofessional.

That said, I recall there being a huge thing not to long ago from developers like Sucker Punch and Media Molecule coming forward and saying that Sony was being very supportive of their creative vision, helping to pump marketing into their games and giving them a budget to work with. I especially can see that with the LittleBigPlanet series, which Sony helped to innovate the 'play-create-share' mantra. I just plain don't see that kind of game coming out on Xbox.

It also makes sense that Microsoft does this, because I've seen it happen many times. DLC is often exclusive to Xbox (at least for some time), games often look and play better on 360 (especially Bethesda games), and I rarely ever see a PS3 exclusive GO to Xbox after it's already been released, though I've seen it the other way around. sure, stuff like Assassin's Creed, Mirror's Edge, and Final Fantasy XIII were SUPPOSED to be PS3 exclusive at one point (or so I hear), but they ended up getting a dual release at launch, if I recall FFXIII was actually DELAYED just so it could be released on 360 at the same time.

tsk tsk.

it didn't say that ms dont let the game be published "reserves the right to not allow that content to be published for Xbox 360 or released on Xbox Live marketplace" they just lightly threat the devs that if they over do it and if ms thinks that they can live without that game that they can refuse the publish of the content... imo, its is not surprising, coming from ms. i would love to see them refuse to let MW3 or GTA V be published in their platform just because in MW3 for ps3 has 30 MP maps instead of 15 in xb360 or because GTA V for ps3 has 5 isles instead of 3 for xb360... they wouldn't... they would do that for games that they know its not going to break a million in sales... but devs should stand up... and ms, sony or nintendo, they are the ones that should be proud to lets devs release games on their platform, not the other way around... you can't play a console... you play the game... if no games, no sales of HW... Developers and Publishers shouldn't be afraid... console makers are the ones that should...

Without specific examples of how this has hurt the consumer, this just sounds like corporate whining that panders to fanboy wars more than the truth.

In others words, Mission Accomplished.

By the same token there have been games released that could have played to the 360's extra GPU horsepower more but were wound back due to issues getting equivalent performance from the PS3.  Both consoles have different strengths that only a exclusive game can fully utilize.  I would argue for the first 2 years on the market the PS3 was massively holding the 360 multiplats back as huge amounts of dev time were put into dragging them to near equivalent performance, it happens.

Size really isn't an issue, devs are just lazy and have got out of the habit of using smart compression techniques and don't want to have to pay to learn to use them, just like the devs who whinged the PS3 was too hard to develop for.  New process cost money so it's easier to whine to get stuff changed.  I would question where all this masses of content we're missing out of by being limited to DVD is coming form exactly as it seems developers are going out of business now given the huge budgets they're burning for game a third of the size they could be.  Extra content means more development time, more testing time and ultimately all this for ZERO extra revenue or profit.  I'll give you a clue, it's mind washing bullshit PR.  I can count on one hand the number of games that really needed that extra capacity and that was purely for cutscenes which I don't like anyway as they detract when switching to and from game engine and the quality difference.

Nintendo have done far worse than this in the past, I remember the huge licensing debate when Nintendo used to have the ultimate say on whether you could release a game or not.  If the game you made didn't fit Nintendo's image they would refuse you the right to manufacture licensed cartridges.  It was only when there hardware cartridges were reverse engineered people got the opportunity to release what they wanted.  Sony also have always had vito on what they will allow on their system too, this isn't a new thing, console manufacturers have always tried to control what is and isn't released based on whether it suits them.  Lets not forget EA caused Sega headaches on the Megadrive by manufacturing their own cartidges thus avoiding having to goto Sega and pay them for manufacturing their games.

I find this entire argument vexing.

I am correct in assuming that publishing =/= allowing the game on the service at all, right?

He doth protest too much I think. Which tells me that Microsoft is winning this little war. His frustration is apparent, but it is not rooted in some high minded altruism. More along the lines of him being pissed that his own self serving machinations are not being allowed to bare fruit. Their format of choice is their format, and it was never needed, or particularly wanted by developers. It served no relevant need, and only increased costs incurred. They even went so far as to force a competitor out of the marketplace to make themselves the only choice. He is not promoting the idea that games should be allowed to get bigger as much as he is pushing his proprietary technology. It would be a reasonable argument if there was competition, but seeing as Sony removed said competition from the market. Well imagine that the only one that profits from bigger games is Sony.

His comments on content are equally asinine. While it is understandable that he wants the versions of games on his platform to be better. I am certain he would cry a river if the competitions versions of said games arrived two to three months sooner. While the version for his console got bonus material. Short answer is he is bitching that there is a arbitrary quantity limit, but he would be adamant that a arbitrary launch window would remain in place. His issue is not with the limit, but that the limit does not favor him or his product. Ironically it doesn't really favor anyone if both get the same game at the same time. He wants an advantage that he isn't getting.

The irony about his complaints is this. Developers need the two high def consoles combined to make their ends meet. They can hardly favor one console heavily over another not now anyway. So they are likely to accept the terms made by Microsoft, because they are actually reasonable, and mutually beneficial. Equal versions is only really good for developers. They do not want to put in extra work if they do not have too. After all doubling the size of a game does not double the sales price.

Just a lot of hot self serving air being blown. Microsoft is no more detrimental then Sony. The fact that their own practices cause Sony pain does not necessarily mean it hurts developers. Who do not seem to be overly vexed by these policies, and probably benefit more from parity then they would without it.

First off it kind of sounds like he's just mad that MS's policy keeps Sony from getting as many timed exclusives as they would like.

Secondly he completely ignores the indie games section of XBL which negate a lot of his arguments.

Thirdly doesn't Sony demand extra content too if a game is getting released later on their platform?

Sounds to me like he's just trying to take a piss.