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

Forums - Microsoft - Xbox 720 'will support Blu-ray, might not play used games' - report

happydolphin said:

I never said the contrary, but ... that's still mostly incorrect. There was much more at play that cause Sony to win over 3rd parties, they barely had to do anything, 3rd party devs were swarming to them. Reasons were:

1) Nintendo's iron grip on 3rd parties and game policies (which were once needed, but evolution never occured to remove them).

2) Nintendo's business decisions: keeping a cartridge format (higher manufacturing costs, slower delivery time, generally useless complications), higher royalties, the failed 64 DD, and so much more. Refusal to support fmv cutscenes and boasting in-game cinematics. Nintendo was in a mess, really.

3) Sony's reputation in Music, Hollywood and Entertainment in general. The dev-friendly sdks and especially the use of more modern technologies such as CD's, off the bat and support for fmv cutscenes (à la Hollywood).

I remember cause I was there ;)

Couldn't some of those things also be applied to microsoft with the 360 and sony with the PS3? 

Higher manufacturing costs? Yup Blu-rays are more expensive than DVDs yet games cost the same. 
Un-friendly dev kits? Yup Sony seemed to delight in the fact the PS3 was hard to develop for while MS tried to ensure the 360 was easy to develop for. 
Blu-ray complications? Yup while the 360 had problems with devs having to compress things the PS3 had problems with the slow read speeds. Meaning developers had to do some ridiculous solutions such as with MGS4 and it's installs. 
MS's strong reputation? Yup most definitely.

The fact of the matter is that really both companies acted fairly similarly. I really don't think MS had to do too much to persuade developers to go multiplatform. To get early releases? Yup most definitely. 



Turkish says and I'm allowed to quote that: Uncharted 3 and God Of War 3 look better than Unreal Engine 4 games will or the tech demo does. Also the Naughty Dog PS3 ENGINE PLAYS better than the UE4 ENGINE.

Around the Network
Zim said:
happydolphin said:

I never said the contrary, but ... that's still mostly incorrect. There was much more at play that cause Sony to win over 3rd parties, they barely had to do anything, 3rd party devs were swarming to them. Reasons were:

1) Nintendo's iron grip on 3rd parties and game policies (which were once needed, but evolution never occured to remove them).

2) Nintendo's business decisions: keeping a cartridge format (higher manufacturing costs, slower delivery time, generally useless complications), higher royalties, the failed 64 DD, and so much more. Refusal to support fmv cutscenes and boasting in-game cinematics. Nintendo was in a mess, really.

3) Sony's reputation in Music, Hollywood and Entertainment in general. The dev-friendly sdks and especially the use of more modern technologies such as CD's, off the bat and support for fmv cutscenes (à la Hollywood).

I remember cause I was there ;)

Couldn't some of those things also be applied to microsoft with the 360 and sony with the PS3? 

Higher manufacturing costs? Yup Blu-rays are more expensive than DVDs yet games cost the same. 
Un-friendly dev kits? Yup Sony seemed to delight in the fact the PS3 was hard to develop for while MS tried to ensure the 360 was easy to develop for. 
Blu-ray complications? Yup while the 360 had problems with devs having to compress things the PS3 had problems with the slow read speeds. Meaning developers had to do some ridiculous solutions such as with MGS4 and it's installs. 
MS's strong reputation? Yup most definitely.

The fact of the matter is that really both companies acted fairly similarly. I really don't think MS had to do too much to persuade developers to go multiplatform. To get early releases? Yup most definitely. 

Yeah, they can be said for sure. But it doesn't change the fact the devs were swarming from N to Sony back in the day, it wasn't the same this time around, money and the other factors I mentioned (" money-hatting, assisted marketing and general courting with 3rd-party devs ") were much more important this time around, significantly. The political factors were much more important in the N64 to PS1 days, hence Sony's total reversal of roles from Nintendo being King to Sony being king. This time, MS simply evened things out. Back then, it was Sony dominating the old king. The importance of political factors was much more important in that reversal of roles imho.



happydolphin said:
Darc Requiem said:
happydolphin said:
Darc Requiem said:
sales2099 said:
MS keeps on stealing PS3 exclusives it seems


Can someone explains this line of thinking to me? MS hasn't taken any Sony IPs. If this referencing third party titles, which I'm sure it is, then it's not true. Third party titles are the property of their publisher, not Sony.



What they mean is that, by means of money-hatting, assisted marketing and general courting with 3rd-party devs, MS largely took from Sony their ability to foster exclusive 3rd party content on their platform, which was the norm for two gens before this one.


That's exactly how Sony got their third party content in the first place.

I never said the contrary, but ... that's still mostly incorrect. There was much more at play that cause Sony to win over 3rd parties, they barely had to do anything, 3rd party devs were swarming to them. Reasons were:

1) Nintendo's iron grip on 3rd parties and game policies (which were once needed, but evolution never occured to remove them).

2) Nintendo's business decisions: keeping a cartridge format (higher manufacturing costs, slower delivery time, generally useless complications), higher royalties, the failed 64 DD, and so much more. Refusal to support fmv cutscenes and boasting in-game cinematics. Nintendo was in a mess, really.

3) Sony's reputation in Music, Hollywood and Entertainment in general. The dev-friendly sdks and especially the use of more modern technologies such as CD's, off the bat and support for fmv cutscenes (à la Hollywood).

I remember cause I was there ;)


Sony was just as bad as Microsoft with moneyhats. They paid Eidos to not release Tomb Raider 2 on Saturn when the game had been completed.  They built their PS brand around pad exclusive third party IPs like Crash Bandicoot, Spyro The Dragon, Battle Arena Toshinden, etc. Your first bullet point was how Sega got all it's third party support for the Genesis/Mega Drive.



Darc Requiem said:
happydolphin said:
Darc Requiem said:
happydolphin said:
Darc Requiem said:
sales2099 said:
MS keeps on stealing PS3 exclusives it seems


Can someone explains this line of thinking to me? MS hasn't taken any Sony IPs. If this referencing third party titles, which I'm sure it is, then it's not true. Third party titles are the property of their publisher, not Sony.



What they mean is that, by means of money-hatting, assisted marketing and general courting with 3rd-party devs, MS largely took from Sony their ability to foster exclusive 3rd party content on their platform, which was the norm for two gens before this one.


That's exactly how Sony got their third party content in the first place.

I never said the contrary, but ... that's still mostly incorrect. There was much more at play that cause Sony to win over 3rd parties, they barely had to do anything, 3rd party devs were swarming to them. Reasons were:

1) Nintendo's iron grip on 3rd parties and game policies (which were once needed, but evolution never occured to remove them).

2) Nintendo's business decisions: keeping a cartridge format (higher manufacturing costs, slower delivery time, generally useless complications), higher royalties, the failed 64 DD, and so much more. Refusal to support fmv cutscenes and boasting in-game cinematics. Nintendo was in a mess, really.

3) Sony's reputation in Music, Hollywood and Entertainment in general. The dev-friendly sdks and especially the use of more modern technologies such as CD's, off the bat and support for fmv cutscenes (à la Hollywood).

I remember cause I was there ;)


Sony was just as bad as Microsoft with moneyhats. They paid Eidos to not release Tomb Raider 2 on Saturn when the game had been completed.  They built their PS brand around pad exclusive third party IPs like Crash Bandicoot, Spyro The Dragon, Battle Arena Toshinden, etc. Your first bullet point was how Sega got all it's third party support for the Genesis/Mega Drive.

I had no idea they stole exclusives from SEGA though. Fair enough, but when it comes to the 64 my point stands. Good point.



WOW.. If that's true about the used games, I'm switching over to Sony.



Around the Network
radishhead said:
Come on guys, that used games thing will NEVER go ahead. Ever.

Quote me on that- I'll film myself eating a hat if it ends up happening.


Radish was wrong! sorry for necroing.

 

Pics or it didn't happen.



updated: 14.01.2012

playing right now: Xenoblade Chronicles

Hype-o-meter, from least to most hyped:  the Last Story, Twisted Metal, Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Playstation ViTA

bet with Mordred11 that Rage will look better on Xbox 360.

Eat a hat radish.
I'm also guilty. I said they wouldn't ever do either of those things.



It plays used games. It is up the developers if they want to stop it or not.



Wow I can't believe people picked me up on that quote >
I might actually have to eat a hat now



Click this button, you know you want to!  [Subscribe]

Watch me on YouTube!

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRadishBros

~~~~ Mario Kart 8 drove far past my expectations! Never again will I doubt the wheels of a Monster Franchise! :0 ~~~~

radishhead said:
Wow I can't believe people picked me up on that quote ><

I might actually have to eat a hat now