d21lewis said:
It boils down to this: When M$ was dominant, they wanted games ( I thought it was only indie/Arcade games) to release on their console on day one of first or have additional content. If not, they didn't want it released at all.
I personally can't think of any game that released later with any content. People feel this was bad.
On the other hand, we have Sony who had no such deal as far as we know. Still, people can make several games that released later with added content (and a few times like Lost Planet were the game had no bonus AND ran worse).
Which side do you fail on? Because if it was bad for M$ then, is bad for Sony now. If it was good for M$ then, it's good for PlayStation gamers now. It doesn't matter if the bonus was good, bad, or ugly. According to what we read, it only applied to what was ON THE DISC. Console exclusive Dlc wasn't taken into consideration. |
All console manufacturers have their own policies and rules. We know that. Multiple developers have confirmed that, even if they've declined to go into detail on record. The question for us, as gamers, is if any of these policies are anti-consumer or if they're anti-developer to the point that they are essentially anti-consumer. Those are the rules we need to concern ourselves with. A policy that is simply about making the company money is absolutely fine, as long as it does not impact the above criteria in a meaningful way.
As an example of what I mean, Microsoft had a rule with the Xbox 360 where they would not publish (basically self-publish) a game that had already been on other platforms. They'd only allow the game if the developer went out and signed with an outside publisher. Some developers felt that was a significant penalty and so they passed on an Xbox 360 launch. The studio behind Machinarium had already started work on a 360 version when they found out Microsoft would not publish them because they'd already been on Windows and Linux. Thus, we end up with a game that is pretty much everywhere, from Vita, to Android, to freaking OS X, except the Xbox 360.
I'm not trying to pick on Microsoft, so no one get offended, it's just that this is a perfect example of how a policy is anti-developer to the point it becomes anti-consumer. If there is a rule that is keeping content away then we need to look at it closely, doesn't matter if it's Playstation or Xbox, and we need to be vocal about our opposition.
Which brings us to the policy Spencer was talking about. Is it anti-consumer? Not as far as I can see. If anything, it seems to be pro-consumer. People had to wait a year but they ended up with a very slightly superior version. I have no problems with that. It also seems to be pro-developer, as those slight improvements can be advertised and thus potentially result in more sales.
Personally, I have little problem with the policy, regardless of who does it. I also have no clue why some people seem to indignant that I dare to suggest that Sony does the same thing. If anything, they'd be foolish not to.
