d21lewis said: And like somebody already said, Nintendo was far worse. Third parities weren't allowed to make Nes games that competed directly with Nintendo's games. They could only produce a certain number of games per year. They had to buy a certain number of cartridges from Nintendo to put their games on before the game released. They couldn't release the same game for competing platforms until after a year had passed. This continued until the PS1 era. When Sony started kicking serious ass, that's when Nintendo learned a little humility. Thing is, Nintendo third party support has never been the same, since. And, while I don't have anything to support the assumption that Sony made a similar move, I recall a few bigger games getting early release on PS2 (MGS2, GTA3) while, at the same time, games like Splinter Cell would get released much earler on Xbox. Maybe, to a degree, everybody is guilty.

Nintendo still is that bad when it comes to WiiWare. While their standards are low for the quality of content released, supposedly they require WiiWare developers to sell a set number of copies before they (the devs) even see penny one, and then no demos, no advertising of any sort unless you're a big name, and no promotional deals (like sales) ever. You get a mention the week you release, and that's the end of it.

The above is what makes me find the people complaining about XBLA to sound extremely spoiled. ^That^ is what they could be dealing with

The funny thing is that, like many have said, most developers are horrible for this kind of BS, that's what lawyers are for. that said, I can't recall Sony ever doing this. (not saying they never have, but I've never seen it or heard of it). In fact, I've seen plenty of people saying that Sony is known for being very 'hands off' when it comes to developers. It gives more freedom,so it's great for developers like Media Molecule or Quantic Dream to make something unlike anything you've seen before.

Sometimes they really pump marketing into a game, but there's no denying that it also has the potential to lead to a lot of detachment from developers.

But I think the main reason XBLA is better than PSN is that vital American market. Americans tend to have more disposable income than other nations, so more people are paying for XBL, and therefore are paying for more XBLA titles. Just a theory, of course.

that article came across as sony blaming microsoft for there problems. That's just how it sounded to me,when I read the article. It's just competion and nothing more.

slowmo said: VGKing said: I think they want to dumb it down and keep it as pedestrian as possible so that if you want to do anything for Blu-ray or you have extra content above 9 gigs or you want to do anything of that nature, you’d better sure as heck remember that Microsoft can't handle You can't argue that this is true. There's a ton of multiplatform games that could benefit from Blu-Ray technology. One that comes to mind is GTA4. The Xbox 360 is really holding back the PS3 and limiting that 3rd party games that come to it. 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.

This isn't just about CPU/GPU. Devs can easily make the most out of the Xbox 360s hardware. This is mostly about Blu-Ray vs DVD.

If the Xbox 360 had a Blu-Ray player we wouldn't have devs releasing incomplete games and then charging for the rest of the game as DLC.

RolStoppable said: Mr Khan said: Nintendo still is that bad when it comes to WiiWare. While their standards are low for the quality of content released, supposedly they require WiiWare developers to sell a set number of copies before they (the devs) even see penny one, and then no demos, no advertising of any sort unless you're a big name, and no promotional deals (like sales) ever. You get a mention the week you release, and that's the end of it. The above is what makes me find the people complaining about XBLA to sound extremely spoiled. ^That^ is what they could be dealing with What was that number again? 4,000 in North America and 2,500 in Europe? With millions of Wiis out there it really can't be that hard to meet those tresholds, especially when there's barely any competition on the service. The only developers that have complained were the ones who couldn't even make a decent game if their lives depended on it and demos wouldn't help them in any way. The kind of quality they try to sell depends on the cat in the bag business model.

I'm no proponent of these whiny developers, certainly, but one way or another Nintendo's is the most hostile environment for them.

Nsanity said: Dont Sony have a similar policy? http://www.1up.com/news/quakecon-carmack-dishes-dirt-sony

No.

You completely missed the point, if the ps3 version of your game is, for whatever reason, even a little better or bigger than the x360 version, you have to gimp it or otherwise M$ could not allow your game on their consoles. If your ps3 game, for whatever reason, is completed, but your x360 version of it has encountered some development problem and is not ready, you cannot release it on ps3 or your x360 version could be refused by M$.

This policy has nothing to do with the request of more contents and more polishing if the game was already released on other platforms. This policy ends the argument "multiplats are better on x360 because it's easier to develop for", it was just M$ mobbing the developers.

He got a blunt way of saying it, and have to agree with him. This is why I don't buy DLC for multiplats, free or not free.

Booh! said: Nsanity said: Dont Sony have a similar policy? http://www.1up.com/news/quakecon-carmack-dishes-dirt-sony No. You completely missed the point, if the ps3 version of your game is, for whatever reason, even a little better or bigger than the x360 version, you have to gimp it or otherwise M$ could not allow your game on their consoles. If your ps3 game, for whatever reason, is completed, but your x360 version of it has encountered some development problem and is not ready, you cannot release it on ps3 or your x360 version could be refused by M$. This policy has nothing to do with the request of more contents and more polishing if the game was already released on other platforms. This policy ends the argument "multiplats are better on x360 because it's easier to develop for", it was just M$ mobbing the developers.

So a recent policy that was just instigated a month or two ago is the only reason PS3 can't run multiplatform games properly, and all that stuff from Carmack, Crytek, Bethesda and Epic about the PS3 having less memory or a slower GPU or a slower drive speed or being hard to program was just a deep cover 5 year project to hide this policy?

littlejudas said: Booh! said: Nsanity said: Dont Sony have a similar policy? http://www.1up.com/news/quakecon-carmack-dishes-dirt-sony No. You completely missed the point, if the ps3 version of your game is, for whatever reason, even a little better or bigger than the x360 version, you have to gimp it or otherwise M$ could not allow your game on their consoles. If your ps3 game, for whatever reason, is completed, but your x360 version of it has encountered some development problem and is not ready, you cannot release it on ps3 or your x360 version could be refused by M$. This policy has nothing to do with the request of more contents and more polishing if the game was already released on other platforms. This policy ends the argument "multiplats are better on x360 because it's easier to develop for", it was just M$ mobbing the developers. So a recent policy that was just instigated a month or two ago is the only reason PS3 can't run multiplatform games properly, and all that stuff from Carmack, Crytek, Bethesda and Epic about the PS3 having less memory or a slower GPU or a slower drive speed or being hard to program was just a deep cover 5 year project to hide this policy? [citation needed]

Carmack said that the ps3 version would be better because he could use uncompressed textures. This policy was enacted when XBL was created.

Booh! said: littlejudas said: Booh! said: Nsanity said: Dont Sony have a similar policy? http://www.1up.com/news/quakecon-carmack-dishes-dirt-sony No. You completely missed the point, if the ps3 version of your game is, for whatever reason, even a little better or bigger than the x360 version, you have to gimp it or otherwise M$ could not allow your game on their consoles. If your ps3 game, for whatever reason, is completed, but your x360 version of it has encountered some development problem and is not ready, you cannot release it on ps3 or your x360 version could be refused by M$. This policy has nothing to do with the request of more contents and more polishing if the game was already released on other platforms. This policy ends the argument "multiplats are better on x360 because it's easier to develop for", it was just M$ mobbing the developers. So a recent policy that was just instigated a month or two ago is the only reason PS3 can't run multiplatform games properly, and all that stuff from Carmack, Crytek, Bethesda and Epic about the PS3 having less memory or a slower GPU or a slower drive speed or being hard to program was just a deep cover 5 year project to hide this policy? [citation needed] Carmack said that the ps3 version would be better because he could use uncompressed textures. This policy was enacted when XBL was created.

You have some dated info there. He said at Quakecon last month, the 360 and PS3 versions are approximately 22GB and with a full installation, he would go with the 360 version. Plus you will need to provide a link to confirm that this policy was enacted 9 years ago and explain why 1) Sony is only complaining about this now 2) How they managed to subvert it previously, since if as you claim this policy has been active since 2002, how did Sony get extras for Dead Space 2, Mafia 2, Batman: AA etc.