• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ori Dev Criticizes Microsoft For Creating “Artificial Barriers”

packy34

Member
The point of them is bad for consumers who can't afford more than one platform but on the other hand they are made specifically to showcase what said console is capable of.
Not always. Not usually, actually. Especially when it comes to third party exclusives. Purely business.

Look at most of Nintendo's exclusives. They're often good games, but few actually push the Switch to any sort of hardware limit, nor do they do things that can't be done elsewhere. The differences between the XSX and PS5 are so minor that they could fairly easily trade titles with little to no changes in most cases. It's really just about who owns what. Everything else is just noise.
 

Sony

Nintendo
To be honest, I did expect Microsoft to give in Mahler's suggested direction with the acquisition Bethesda: make multiplatform games with benefits for Xbox customers.
That way you get revenue from PS players that want to play the game and you can sway them over to Xbox if they care enough for the games for the Xbox specific content/perks.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
This doesn't make any sense. If platform exclusivity counts as an EEE strategy, then Sony and Nintendo have been doing the same thing for decades?

This has nothing to do with EEE.

Its a matter of scope and scale as opposed to pure intent. And yes, every company does it to a degree. Its just that MS, because they have been the big kahuna for decades, tend to think bigger than their competitors and have the wherewithal to implement these massive ambitions.

The issue at the heart of this is when they say "we want people to play our games everywhere", the caveat is always "via our service/monetization model".

Because by feeding the model, they gain ground in terms of market control on top of income.

In simple terms, and I suspect this is precisely the motivation behind Mahler's comment, perhaps going forward the rule coming down from the top is that you can only have our content as part of our service offering as a whole. This is perfectly in-line with Phil's precise choice of wording regarding product coming from the Bethesda acquisition once previous contractual obligations have expired being contingent on "wherever GamePass is".

The artificial barrier being that on one hand they'll go to their third-party devs, sure you can port your title to another platform, but we won't allow you to release it on those platforms until we can offer it as part of GamePass on those systems.
 

Soodanim

Gold Member
The "consumers want everything" point isn't even a point. Until console manufacturers stop being businesses and/or having access to all games becomes a human right, companies will always have reason to have exclusives.

If you're talking about paid/timed exclusives, then that's a shitty move. But for first party devs, those high quality games would necessarily be lesser in some way for being multi-platform.
If you're thinking "But they're the same thing", one is the choice to not spread the game thinly and the other is someone from outside paying for a product to be limited. You're not losing out if you never had it in the first place. An example would be Tony Hawk 1+2 being tied to EGS forever. There's no technical reason for that, no loss of quality to have it on Steam. Just Epic being Epic.
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
So he wants Microsoft,Sony and Nintendo to become multiplat publishers?

Nothing wrong with that opinion, but if you're going to have it then you at least have to explain how it would work.

Very naive from a business perspective.
 

Nautilus

Banned
He literally points out why console exclusives make sense for platform holders as it stands. His point is that maybe MS would actually make more money if they published their IP on all platforms, he even cited Minecraft's popularity as an example of this model working. Would Minecraft be the cultural phenomenon that it has become if Microsoft was in charge from the start and restricted access to it? I think for certain IP and experiences it would make sense to make it available on everything. I would have thrown Halo Infinite MP on literally everything, even PS and Switch, I still wonder if that might happen eventually.

Console platform loyalty is learned behaviour, kids aren't born console warriors, they become them by being forced to choose a platform and then end up trying to justify their choice. Times are changing and now the hardware is less of the platform the games themselves are becoming platforms themselves. It would be brave of MS to break from the current cycle, but it would be cool to see them try.
This is the same discussion we have over and over about why " Nintendo should release their games on other platforms", and the answer is the same as that one.

While the primary goal to any business is to make money, the way you do it is much more complex than selling a product. Exclusive games and products aren't simply a tool to sell your ecosystem, but also to have and/or exert control over the marketshare inside that industry. Nintendo, MS and Sony arent selling exclusives on the platforms they own just because they dont pay commisions that way(and thus make more money per copy sold) but also because they fully control what, how, and when things happen inside that platform. Having control/power over the medium that your products are sold in gives you more leverage and thus, better conditions to sell better on the future.

Not only that, but if you also make your platform more attractive to business partners, because of the big install base it has, due to a numbers of reasons such as exclusive games, attractive hardware and friendly OS, just to name a few, more third party games release their products on the systems that you own, and thus you make more money because of the comissions they pay per copy sold.If you stop making first party games exclusives, it becomes harder to convince people to come inside your own ecosystem, and thus third party devs will be less prone to make games for that system. You could compensate that with better hardware, innovative hardware ideas and a better OS, but in a industry where the software is king, that really hard to do, if not impossible.

And there is also the matter of power.If you are the owner of the popular console/platform, like Steam is on PCs, its basically impossible to not have your games on it due to the sheer strenght of its install base and its appeal. Same thing with the PS4 during the 8 gen. That way, its far easier for you not only to convince devs to put their games on your system, but also for your costumers to buy on your system. You spend WAY less money on marketing, and maximize profit due to sales thanks to that "monopoly", that abundance of influence/power.

That just some reasons why owning a platform makes far more sense than simply going third party for companies like MS, Sony and Nintendo.

Sorry for any typo found in the post.
 

Concern

Member
Not always. Not usually, actually. Especially when it comes to third party exclusives. Purely business.

Look at most of Nintendo's exclusives. They're often good games, but few actually push the Switch to any sort of hardware limit, nor do they do things that can't be done elsewhere. The differences between the XSX and PS5 are so minor that they could fairly easily trade titles with little to no changes in most cases. It's really just about who owns what. Everything else is just noise.


Yes but Nintendo doesn't really go for the same type of gamers. They're market mostly targets nostalgic players rather than competitive gamers, graphics whores, or even hardcore gamers.

Imo besides exclusives, only other real preference for gamers over the other is the controllers. Without that its really a flip of a coin.
 

Haggard

Banned
exclusives matter to the platform holders because it forces people into their ecosystems.
Customers/Gamers taking pride in a game only being on "their" platform, however, are just pathetic idiots.

Hence I don`t get the critique here.
That guy acknowledges the economic reality but wished it was different. When`s wishing become "bad"?
 

Bernkastel

Ask me about my fanboy energy!
Spencer has preached games should not be gated or lock players out. And then does the opposite and also buys popular already estsblished ip’s to keep them on MS.
How is that opposite? He meant games will be on console, PC and phones(via xcloud). If no one ever interpreted his statements to mean established first party titles will suddenly appear in other platforms, why are you resorting to projecting new interpretations now?
 
I get where he's coming from, but at the end of the day I'm sure he knows why MS is pushing play anywhere. The good PR is just an added bonus.

If Sony went to Microsoft and asked them to port their games to PS and in return they'd allow gamepass on their system, they'd probably agree, even if Sony didn't port theirs to Xbox.
 

kyoji

Member
How is that opposite? He meant games will be on console, PC and phones(via xcloud). If no one ever interpreted his statements to mean established first party titles will suddenly appear in other platforms, why are you resorting to projecting new interpretations now?
How do you explain buying timed exclusivity like for the medium then? And yes i understand the medium is 3rd party but Hes commented on how he dislikes this practice more than once yet he did it for the medium as well as other games. So whats the deal?

Theres an old quote that goes if you wish for change be the change you seek.
 

reksveks

Member
The next time this is going to raise its head is going to be when the next minecraft spin-off game gets announced.

I am expecting the same availability as Dungeons
 

Bernkastel

Ask me about my fanboy energy!
How do you explain buying timed exclusivity like for the medium then? And yes i understand the medium is 3rd party but Hes commented on how he dislikes this practice more than once yet he did it for the medium as well as other games. So whats the deal?

Theres an old quote that goes if you wish for change be the change you seek.
"Paying marketing funds so another console's base can't play a piece of content doesn't feel like growth."
The current Xbox only pays for timed exclusivity when there moneyhatting helps the project and hence usually the full game.
 

kyoji

Member

The current Xbox only pays for timed exclusivity when there moneyhatting helps the project and hence usually the full game.
But the medium was already pretty much completed ms approached them right before the reveal. So what exactly were they funding if the game was darn near complete?
 
Last edited:

tygertrip

Member
So what does that say about gaf? because you somehow are able to post here, Ree should consider itself lucky i guess?

What does re have to do with it, its only the outlet he choose to use to comment on.
Birds of a feather flock together.
 

Bernkastel

Ask me about my fanboy energy!
But the medium was already pretty much completed ms approached them right before the reveal.
Where did you get that? They have said they were one of the first studios to receive the dev kit for Series X. Blair Witch was also released first on Xbox, so they were already in talks about The Medium for a while.
"Each of the games opened doors," says Zięba. "Layers of Fear opened one door, Observer, which let us work with some Polish actors and Rutger Hauer. I think without Layers of Fear that would have been impossible. And Observer opened the door to Lionsgate for Blair Witch and the first collaboration with Microsoft, and this opened the door for a big cooperation with Microsoft."

"Microsoft, you know, have a great connection with us," adds Piejko, "and when we showed them The Medium they say "oh cool, okay guys, this looks cool, this looks like something really different to our portfolio," because I think they do not have any horror games right now and I think we perfectly fit into their portfolio plans."
 

JLB

Banned
To be honest, I did expect Microsoft to give in Mahler's suggested direction with the acquisition Bethesda: make multiplatform games with benefits for Xbox customers.
That way you get revenue from PS players that want to play the game and you can sway them over to Xbox if they care enough for the games for the Xbox specific content/perks.

I'd definitely love to play Halo with my PS only friends, so I'd go for it.
 

sankt-Antonio

:^)--?-<
If Sony hadn’t removed the web browser feature from the PS5 you would be able to connect your PS5 via Ethernet cable and play the whole MS first party (and everything else on Game Pass) on your PS5 on xCloud with minimal latency.
The whole point is that Nintendo and Sony are not going to do any of this free 4 all gaming, while MS claims is will. Sony blocking web browsing is it in this instance not hindering MS releasing their games on PS5. Its knows Sony wants a walled garden. MS say they want it open but aren't really into it.

That's what the Guy in the OP is arguing about. I think exclusives matter to a certain extend. But I hate MS buying up shops and stopping the games they bought mid dev cycle from releasing on PS5.
 
Its a matter of scope and scale as opposed to pure intent. And yes, every company does it to a degree. Its just that MS, because they have been the big kahuna for decades, tend to think bigger than their competitors and have the wherewithal to implement these massive ambitions.

The issue at the heart of this is when they say "we want people to play our games everywhere", the caveat is always "via our service/monetization model".

Because by feeding the model, they gain ground in terms of market control on top of income.

In simple terms, and I suspect this is precisely the motivation behind Mahler's comment, perhaps going forward the rule coming down from the top is that you can only have our content as part of our service offering as a whole. This is perfectly in-line with Phil's precise choice of wording regarding product coming from the Bethesda acquisition once previous contractual obligations have expired being contingent on "wherever GamePass is".

The artificial barrier being that on one hand they'll go to their third-party devs, sure you can port your title to another platform, but we won't allow you to release it on those platforms until we can offer it as part of GamePass on those systems.
What you're describing is still much more open than usual exclusivity (see Sony and Nintendo), so I don't see the problem.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
The whole point is that Nintendo and Sony are not going to do any of this free 4 all gaming, while MS claims is will. Sony blocking web browsing is it in this instance not hindering MS releasing their games on PS5. Its knows Sony wants a walled garden. MS say they want it open but aren't really into it.

That's what the Guy in the OP is arguing about. I think exclusives matter to a certain extend. But I hate MS buying up shops and stopping the games they bought mid dev cycle from releasing on PS5.
But they aren’t stopping it? They just want it on their terms: Game Pass on PS rather than selling the games in the conventional method.

Sony have said it’s A-OK for EA to have EA Play on PlayStation, but it’s not ok for MS to have a Game Pass app.

Ok, that’s fine - it’s a stalemate then.
 

pasterpl

Member
That's missing the point entirely and they only are better when it benefits them which makes their "everyone plays" facade disingenuous.
Gamepass with xcloud and you can play their games on any android phone, tablet and even potato pc, soon with tv stick on any tv, soon probably any connected device will be able to play Xbox games without need to purchase console. So yeah, that everyone plays slogan is quite accurate. so that 13 yo kid can play ori even if they don’t won any console or pc, smartphone is sufficient. They don’t even have to purchase the game at full price. Just pay 9.99 or use £1 promo, show me an ecosystem with less barriers to entry.
 

BbMajor7th

Member
Sony and Nintendo keep funding exclusives and continue to dominate the industry. You don't have to like it, but it does work. Hell, a lot of the people purchasing those consoles are only there for the exclusives. You don't have to like it, but if the two front runners are doing it, it's safe to assume it's working for them.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
What you're describing is still much more open than usual exclusivity (see Sony and Nintendo), so I don't see the problem.

I'm not saying there's a problem, MS are just using a strategy that's proven hugely effective for them over the years. All I was trying to do was to tunnel down to Mahler's specific issue with the current situation, which as I say suggests a policy change on XGS part since they were allowed to release the first Ori game on Switch.

In a funny way its pretty much inline with a "controversial" post I made yesterday about the distinction between publishers and platform holders who are also publishers. Obviously the platform holder is primarily (and rightfully) concerned with serving the business and strategy goals of the entire ecosystem, whereas a publisher can afford to focus more on individual products with a portfolio.

So, in this instance my suspicion that Moon's decision to go with an external publisher versus XGS is predicated not upon ingratitude or anger, but the realization that their business goals are no longer in perfect alignment.

No heroes and villains, just business as usual.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Now see here, this is the legitimate criticism of Phil Spencer. Not this pathetic nonsense talk about how all Xbox games should come to PS and Nintendo. I do think taking an established franchise from a large userbase is pretty shitty.

At least those are games that MS has paid for completely now. The long-term moneyhats on 3rd party are more annoying, but both are just part of the gaming business. The company that tried to get all altruistic about the business would just come out the loser. MS doesn't force users to purchase a console, at least that is something.

If every game was on every platform what exactly would be the use of having multiple platforms?

Agreed. When you reach a point where there is no competition in any space that can only have negative results for the end consumers.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
So he wants Microsoft,Sony and Nintendo to become multiplat publishers?

Nothing wrong with that opinion, but if you're going to have it then you at least have to explain how it would work.

Very naive from a business perspective.
His point is that it wouldn't. He is saying he has his doubts that the MS now would be able to keep Bungie contrary to what Phil says because Bungie wanted to create a platform where everyone could play their game on any system and the same is true of his next game hence why he didn't sign with MS anymore.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
But they aren’t stopping it? They just want it on their terms: Game Pass on PS rather than selling the games in the conventional method.

Sony have said it’s A-OK for EA to have EA Play on PlayStation, but it’s not ok for MS to have a Game Pass app.

Ok, that’s fine - it’s a stalemate then.

Honestly, I think GP on PS would be a disastrous move for MS, that is probably a huge mistake they sidestepped thanks to Sony saying no (if this scenario ever played out).

Maybe some kind of deal with Nintendo, but only if it was a reciprocal thing.

In the grand scheme of things, PS has an insignificant number of users. Especially when you consider the fact that 95%+ of those users already have a device that they can access MS games from. The major place MS should be looking to bring GP is steam, if they could work out an agreement that would be beneficial to both parties without costing devs more, that would be a master stroke. MS would probably want a piece of the MTX pie, and rightfully so.
 
If MS was just forcing consoles on people, I'd agree. But sorry a PC or Xbox is not an "artificial barrier" of any note in my book, especially when it won't be hardware dependent with xcloud.
 
Last edited:

Boss Mog

Member
Agreed. When you reach a point where there is no competition in any space that can only have negative results for the end consumers.
Yes I agree, competition is good and healthy. It's what allowed the US to go to the moon in 69. It forces console makers to invest in exclusives. With no competition and just one box you'd just be forced to play whatever games third parties decided to make and if gaming were to fully go the Gamepass route than there'd be literally zero incentive for companies to come out with top notch games. I mean look at netflix's original content, the vast majority is shit. Their only decent stuff is foreign and it's only a matter of time before they fuck that up too.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
What are some of you on?

You are not beholden to a corporation that funds your project beyond you delivering said product. Which they delivered a critically acclaimed project that is one of Microsoft's best IPs now. One of my favorite games ever.

As a publisher it is literally your job to give exposure to the game you are publishing, it is not charity, it is business. Microsoft, Sony, EA are contractually obligated to provide those services to games they are publishing, just like Moon studios were contractually obligated to create the game.

Sometimes it is not always about other publishers being out there to take on the project. The game was already in development before Microsoft approached them to be the publisher.
If Michaelangolo and Da Vinci ever criticized the Catholic church, gaf would side with the church.
 
Last edited:

Lupin25

Member
He obviously has a general disregard for his peers…

He’s also obviously jaded, not having access to Sony’s install base, as well lol.

I can understand this, as more exposure could’ve led to an even more successful IP (especially with Ori being as critically acclaimed as it is).

But in the end, he accepted the funding and he should be pleased and grateful with the opportunity he had.

Publishers like MS aren’t obliged to take on the risk and their stance on exclusives/crossplay probably wasn’t established during the time his game was initially funded.
 
Last edited:

Tripolygon

Banned
I think that this is exactly the reasoning behind the platforms on which MS accept to put their games.
Yes, exactly it is business which is exactly why I don’t really care about these corporations buying exclusives or buying studios. Same reason why I dislike these Phil Spencer platitudes about how he is not in the business of taking games away from players. While he is doing exactly what he is saying he is not doing. This is what Thomas is calling out.

Phil Spencer:

Nowhere in the documentation that we put together was: ‘How do we keep other players from playing these games?We want more people to be able to play games, not fewer people to be able to go play games. But I’ll also say […] when I think about where people are going to be playing and the number of devices that we had, and we have xCloud and PC and Game Pass and our console base, I don’t have to go ship those games on any other platform other than the platforms that we support in order to kind of make the deal work for us. Whatever that means.”

Immediately following that with you can only play them on Xbox platforms. How exactly is that allowing more people to play the games? When you buy a publisher and immediately make all the games that would have been multiplatform now exclusive how is that opening up the games to more players? Thomas Mahler is right in calling out the doublespeak and I really don't understand all the need for corporate cheerleading on this subject. He should be grateful to Microsoft? For what? Microsoft went to him to buy the Publishing right to his game and he delivered an excellent game. That does not mean he owes Microsoft any gratitude like you seem to think.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
If Michaelangolo and Da Vinci ever criticized the Catholic church, gaf would side with the church.

That's harsh. Everyone should be free to judge whether they think the criticism is fair or not.

The guy that signed an exclusivity deal that included selling his IP to a publisher complaining about the publisher having control over it is rather comedic.

@ Tripolygon Tripolygon do PS players not have access to a computer or a phone?
 
Last edited:

oldergamer

Member
I can understand the criticism, but they are quickly going to find that smaller publishers don't have the kind of advertising reach of big publishers. They will get the hint when the next game they make goes unnoticed or doesn't do as well as Ori.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
His point is that it wouldn't. He is saying he has his doubts that the MS now would be able to keep Bungie contrary to what Phil says because Bungie wanted to create a platform where everyone could play their game on any system and the same is true of his next game hence why he didn't sign with MS anymore.

Maybe, but im sure bungie could make the compromise, its interesting he puts the ball in Microsofts court on this one because you could also say its sony closing off gamers by not letting xcloud/gamepass on playstation.
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
The guy that signed an exclusivity deal that included selling his IP to a publisher complaining about the publisher having control over it is rather comedic.
We went over this last night. That's not whats happening here.

Yes, cricitism is fair game, but you cant just criticize someone for no reason. His reason to criticize Phil is based on Phil's hypocritical comments. Gaf's reason to criticize him is that he DARED to criticize mighty Phil Spencer, the man who bankrolled his first game.

Christopher Nolan worked for Warner Bros. for what 20+ years? They made him who he is, right? Should he have kept his mouth shut when they put all their movies on HBO on day one? Is he not allowed to criticize his previous employer?
 
We went over this last night. That's not whats happening here.

Yes, cricitism is fair game, but you cant just criticize someone for no reason. His reason to criticize Phil is based on Phil's hypocritical comments. Gaf's reason to criticize him is that he DARED to criticize mighty Phil Spencer, the man who bankrolled his first game.

Christopher Nolan worked for Warner Bros. for what 20+ years? They made him who he is, right? Should he have kept his mouth shut when they put all their movies on HBO on day one? Is he not allowed to criticize his previous employer?
It's only hypocritical if you genuinely think Phil's comments ever implied that they would give up all exclusives, which amounts to basically ending the entire Xbox branch.

I think 99.9% of people don't think Phil ever implied that.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Yes, cricitism is fair game, but you cant just criticize someone for no reason. His reason to criticize Phil is based on Phil's hypocritical comments. Gaf's reason to criticize him is that he DARED to criticize mighty Phil Spencer, the man who bankrolled his first game.

That's not my reason for criticizing the guy at all. I just think the guys business ideas are extremely naive. And the only way you could bend Spencers words to fit this point a view would be to look at them with this same type of naivety. News Bulletin: Giant corporation out to grow their business rather than fold to the competition. In other news water is wet, more news at 11.
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
It's only hypocritical if you genuinely think Phil's comments ever implied that they would give up all exclusives, which amounts to basically ending the entire Xbox branch.

I think 99.9% of people don't think Phil ever implied that.
Phil has repeatedly said that he wants Gamepass on all consoles. He said he would keep Bungie and let them go independent. What you are saying is that when Phil says something, we shouldnt take him for his word. That when hes says one thing, he meants the complete opposite which quite frankly is pretty fucking ridiculous.
 

Tripolygon

Banned
@ Tripolygon Tripolygon do PS players not have access to a computer or a phone?
Ask yourself why PC gamers complain about Epic Games buying exclusives even though they can literally play those games on their PC, then you will get your answer. Everyone has access to a Phone or PC but you don't see every signing up to these services, do you? Why didn't people who bought Ori on Switch play those games on their PC and Phones?

They are in the business of buying exclusives to bolster their own platform and services and it is stupid to pretend otherwise. Which is something Phil Spencer likes to pretend he is not doing.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
They are in the business of buying exclusives to bolster their own platform and services and it is stupid to pretend otherwise. Which is something Phil Spencer likes to pretend he is not doing.

Is he though? Or is he just out there selling the virtues of the platform they are building and how accessible it is in general.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
It's only hypocritical if you genuinely think Phil's comments ever implied that they would give up all exclusives, which amounts to basically ending the entire Xbox branch.

I think 99.9% of people don't think Phil ever implied that.

Exactly, why do people think that for everyone to play, playstation has to be part of the equation? The barrier of entry into the xbox ecosystem is very cheap.

The playstation installbase is like 130million. Not that important when you want to reach billions.
Xbox already has a reach of the billions of smartphones + internet devices and about 65million xboxs.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom