Ori Dev Criticizes Microsoft For Creating “Artificial Barriers”

kyoji

Member
I am not disagreeing with you. The walled gardens are all alive and well on streaming services right now. Everyone has like 5+ subs.

But Phil shouldn't come out and say things that make him look like he's a champion for gamers and that Sony is bad because they have a walled garden, but Microsoft is good because they don't have as many barriers. It's something a politician would say to bend the truth to their narrative rather than being completely honest.
☝️/thread
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
You can find it funny all you want but;

1. PSNow has been in operation since 2014
2. Is available in 19 countries,
3. Has 1296 games counting regional exclusives. Over 800 per region and more are added each month.

What customers choose to spend their money on is their business. I personally don't prefer streaming games as I prefer owning the games I play. Merging both services into one makes sense and It's the same thing Microsoft did, merging their cloud streaming platform into the other Xbox services to create a unified service.


Apparently, Microsoft disagrees because they are clearly honoring previous contracts PlayStation has with Bethesda. MLB The Show was made by Sony SD as a PlayStation exclusive but now under new terms have to make the game multiplatform. That's how contracts work. MLBPA licenses the IP out under certain terms.

MLB The Show is developed by Sony SD, if they didn't like the terms of the deal with MLBPA they could create their own game but would lose all the players and teams that make these games worth anything. You are listing multiplatform IPs bought by Microsoft as if they created them. Just like how Sony is under contractual obligation to develop MLB as multiplatform, Microsoft is contractually obligated to release those games. Ghostwire, Deathloop are time-exclusive contracts between Bethesda and PlayStation. Psychonaut 2 is a Kickstarter contract between backers with Double Fine. After those contracts are fulfilled Microsoft can do whatever they want with Bethesda and Double Fine. There is nothing to downplay.

There is something very hypocritical about saying you don't want to take away games from people yet you take away multiplatform IPs that would have been released on other platforms and make them exclusive. That is the literal definition of hypocrisy.
Small correction. MLB and MLBPA are two totally separate and pricey licenses. One is for MLB rights which includes stadiums, uniforms, etc., and the other is for the player names and likenesses. But yeah, back to the regularly scheduled arguments. 🤭
 
Thomas Mahler makes a great point, and the rabid senseless fanboys in this thread are missing the forest for the trees.

Imagine a potential future where you can play whatever Sony/MS/Nintendo game on whatever console platform you choose...

It's not a bad idea, tbh. It has real benefits.

That said, however, it also has real downsides, as platform hardware differentiators (e.g. dual sense or PS5's insane SSD/IO) would be largely underutilized because even first parties won't be able to design their games with those platform features in mind.

On the balance of pros versus cons, I can see the clear benefits of either approach. Realistically, however, I just don't see walled gardens going away due to the above as well as the commercial realities.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
But Phil shouldn't come out and say things that make him look like he's a champion for gamers and that Sony is bad because they have a walled garden, but Microsoft is good because they don't have as many barriers. It's something a politician would say to bend the truth to their narrative rather than being completely honest.

Why?

That's marketing. Why would he not market the greatest strengths of their brand and contrast that against the competition? MS does have the most accessible platform of the traditional console makers, they are more open and have fewer barriers to entry. That's just facts. No different than Sony going on about how their games are too grand of scale to be in a service like GP. Sony makes a lot of big budget titles (historically more than MS), so that is on brand marketing for them even though it is a bit disparaging against the competition, that's the way it goes.
 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
Why?

That's marketing. Why would he not market the greatest strengths of their brand and contrast that against the competition? MS does have the most accessible platform of the traditional console makers, they are more open and have fewer barriers to entry. That's just facts. No different than Sony going on about how their games are too grand of scale to be in a service like GP. Sony makes a lot of big budget titles (historically more than MS), so that is on brand marketing for them even though it is a bit disparaging against the competition, that's the way it goes.

Because it's not a fact. Xbox is a walled garden.
 
Because it's not a fact. Xbox is a walled garden.
You mean to say that Xbox has exclusive games on their system?

 

EDMIX

Member
I remember his comments coming off as a bit salty, jealous, and petty. That was my issue with them, not so much the criticism itself.

----

EDMIX EDMIX What I meant was I've never heard of a dev openly discussing a newly released mainline game as if it's a failure that's in the past and just how much they're gonna restructure the entire series and change series' leads and all that. The game is very new and already they're talking about it like it's dead or something. Usually they talk about fixing the current game. I mean look at Cyberpunk or GTA Collection. You don't see them talking about the NEXT game being better, they talk about fixing what they just released.


Lol I was so confused on why I was being mentioned here

I understand what you mean but to say something like "as if it's a failure" is a narrative that the majority of the commenters have brought up, Electronic Arts did not openly state anything ie BF7, I would say most of their public comments about the future of the series is vague as they're not specifically announcing the reveal of a brand new entry or anything weird like that. We learned about BF6 existing not even a year after BFV came out, but that isn't a shock as THEY HAVE A SUPPORT TEAM lol Knowing this helps a lot man. BFV got updates, dlc etc by support team, main DICE team works on BF6. You are not citing some brand new concept here man

Secondly if this is a common thing it means the success or failure of the title has no relevance on the development team discussing internally a Mainline game because technically speaking that is what they do following release in the support team simply takes over so I don't know what to tell you but a lot of you guys are building that narrative that discussing a new game means it's a failure lol

Even to say a comment like that it's in the past is ridiculous when they're telling you about future support and a development team like ripple effect is continuing the post launch support but that's what they did with the other Battlefield games as to why I gave you those examples. So you're trying to build this notion that it's based on success or failure yet disregarding how that was done in the past is not something unusual with how it's being done today.

So I cannot see how discussing the future of a Series has anything to do with arguing something is a failure and that it's in the past or something weird like that when technically speaking that is what they internally do after all the releases. You're going based off not even knowing about what they did in the past so I don't know what to tell you but look up their structure before posting lol

Even to say something weird like you don't "see them" talking about the next game, lol we don't see Rockstar or CD projekt Red saying much about their next games but clearly I'm pretty sure we know they've been in development for probably years as what you're arguing about is now simply based on exposure of what their publicly discussing or telling you but that does not fucking mean it's not internally being talked about because you seem to be under this weird assumption that 100% of those teams are fucking working on just Grand Theft Auto online and just cyberpunk but that doesn't make any sense because factually we know that to be false. So I'm not even sure if you're just crying over publicly what the perception is of knowing that they're planning something else lol you have to be pretty naive if you really think those Publishers and developers have not already had years of development and planning of those new titles there's a reason why they have those support teams to continue updates in support of older games they don't just have 100% of Rockstar North working on Grand Theft Auto V online or Red Dead Redemption 2 online or something really fucking weird like that that's simply something you assumed from them not saying something to you so if you don't hear them saying that of course they're going to be under this weird assumption that those teams are doing absolutely nothing lol hahaha So Rockstar was working on Red Dead 2 for years without saying anything, that didn't mean GTAV did good or bad or anything like that, that is just how Rockstar makes their games, we found out officially about Red Dead 2 on its official reveal, but not everyone does that man, that isn't a fucking standard to argue fail or pass or some weird narrative like that, YOU are the one making that argument to force something. Red Dead 2 started development in 2010, the year Red Dead 1 released.....sooooooo maybe we need to just look up WHEN they start doing that shit before arguing some pass or fail lol



So this is a weird one because I don't think you fully understand what's being done and it's why you might be confused on the team internally planning another game, the other half of that team has probably been working on that Star Wars game for years because what the fuck did you think was happening when you got Star Wars Battlefront 2 one year after you got Battlefield 1 did you really fucking think they made that game in less than a year or something really weird like that? So this is one of these situations where not knowing something could lead to something like this where your perception of what you think is going on is altered because you don't know the structure of how these games are developed. You're literally trying to argue something is seen as a success or failure based on the team internally discussing the future of a property, so you're telling me if this game was successful they were never going to talk about the future and they were never going to plan a new fucking game?

What the fuck does that have to do with DICE LA??!! THAT is the team that is continuing BF support, the main DICE team is working on new engine stuff, planning new games etc. So...I don't know man, you need to look up how that works in gaming before reaching to such conclusions as I'm not sure why anyone would think no one at Rockstar is working on GTA VI, no one at CDPR is working on Witcher 4 lol This is some odd thinking and I don't know why you needed to SEE them plan it, to know they are planning it. That is a safe assumption based on how we know they develop games. All I can take from this is that you simply haven't heard a lot about game development, thats it....

 
Last edited:

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
Still the most accessible walled garden by a mile. Walls are a lot more translucent than the competition. LOL

Again, you can easily play Halo Infinite with a PS controller on a Chromebook, that speaks for itself.

Who is wanting to do that? Sony has had remote play for ages, and they are also making their games available on the PC.

Are we really getting into a pissing contest on which walled garden is walled less?
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Who is wanting to do that? Sony has had remote play for ages, and they are also making their games available on the PC.

Are we really getting into a pissing contest on which walled garden is walled less?

On Xbox you don't need an Xbox at all, not even on launch day. So that's a bit different than remote play.

As a player, I don't care one way or the other (I'll be playing locally on console for as long as it is an option). But it doesn't mystify me that MS actively markets the virtues of their platform. Seems like common sense to me.
 
Last edited:

GhostOfTsu

Member
Contracts can be broken. MS was under no obligation to update Skyrim at all. They didn't for Hellblade. Minecraft is a big property and Minecraft Dungeons was a NEW game that didn't have to be released on PlayStation at all. Sony doesn't own the MLB. They didn't have much say in what platforms the game would be released on. Proof point when it was up to Sony they made it PlayStation exclusive.

MS does own Minecraft, Elder Scrolls, Quake, and Psychonauts. They have released new games on PlayStation AFTER MS acquired various properties. How many Sony/Nintendo owned properties have hit Xbox? You are going out of your way to downplay what no other platform holder is doing AT ALL.

There is nothing hypocritical about Phil Spencer's stance. He wants more people to have access to more games and he doesn't require you to buy an Xbox to do so. That is unlike any other platform holder out there. It is business and MS business isn't to force anyone to purchase their hardware to play their games and that is hardly something to scorn.

What spin is this? MS had no involvement in any of those IPs and yet you're giving them all the credit as if they created them?

Hellblade was on PS4 a year before it went on Xbox. You want us to thank Phil for that too?
 
On Xbox you don't need an Xbox at all, not even on launch day. So that's a bit different than remote play.

As a player, I don't care one way or the other (I'll be playing locally on console for as long as it is an option). But it doesn't mystify me that MS actively markets the virtues of their platform. Seems like common sense to me.

I'm sorry. I don't believe you.
 
What spin is this? MS had no involvement in any of those IPs and yet you're giving them all the credit as if they created them?

Hellblade was on PS4 a year before it went on Xbox. You want us to thank Phil for that too?

The number of delusional fanboys in this thread is eye-watering.

That said, I find they're like pigeons. If you don't feed them, they'll go away and won't shit up the place.
 
Last edited:
You can find it funny all you want but;

1. PSNow has been in operation since 2014
2. Is available in 19 countries,
3. Has 1296 games counting regional exclusives. Over 800 per region and more are added each month.

What customers choose to spend their money on is their business. I personally don't prefer streaming games as I prefer owning the games I play. Merging both services into one makes sense and It's the same thing Microsoft did, merging their cloud streaming platform into the other Xbox services to create a unified service.


Apparently, Microsoft disagrees because they are clearly honoring previous contracts PlayStation has with Bethesda. MLB The Show was made by Sony SD as a PlayStation exclusive but now under new terms have to make the game multiplatform. That's how contracts work. MLBPA licenses the IP out under certain terms.

MLB The Show is developed by Sony SD, if they didn't like the terms of the deal with MLBPA they could create their own game but would lose all the players and teams that make these games worth anything. You are listing multiplatform IPs bought by Microsoft as if they created them. Just like how Sony is under contractual obligation to develop MLB as multiplatform, Microsoft is contractually obligated to release those games. Ghostwire, Deathloop are time-exclusive contracts between Bethesda and PlayStation. Psychonaut 2 is a Kickstarter contract between backers with Double Fine. After those contracts are fulfilled Microsoft can do whatever they want with Bethesda and Double Fine. There is nothing to downplay.

There is something very hypocritical about saying you don't want to take away games from people yet you take away multiplatform IPs that would have been released on other platforms and make them exclusive. That is the literal definition of hypocrisy.
PS Now has not been very successful despite being out as long as you've mentioned. No one is asking for it including Xbox gamers so there is no comparison to Gamepass period. It is getting rebranded because it has largely been a failure especially compared to other PlayStation products. Sony is simply trying to rightly salvage what is left.

Just because MS chose to honor a contract does not mean it could not have been undone. Regardless it still doesn't change the fact that MS has put more of their IP on other game consoles than the competition yet MS is targeted for criticism. It's pretty silly.

None of your comments about the MLB change reality. Sony doesn't own the IP. They made The Show multiplatform under duress. They would NOT have made an Xbox version if they didn't have to. This is a far cry from MS CHOOSING to put some of their IP on other platforms. That is in keeping with MS' recent philosophy of getting games on more platforms including ones they do not own. Until someone is doing more in that area there isn't much room to attack MS here. They have done more in this space than anyone else.
 

carlosrox

Banned
Lol I was so confused on why I was being mentioned here

I understand what you mean but to say something like "as if it's a failure" is a narrative that the majority of the commenters have brought up, Electronic Arts did not openly state anything ie BF7, I would say most of their public comments about the future of the series is vague as they're not specifically announcing the reveal of a brand new entry or anything weird like that. We learned about BF6 existing not even a year after BFV came out, but that isn't a shock as THEY HAVE A SUPPORT TEAM lol Knowing this helps a lot man. BFV got updates, dlc etc by support team, main DICE team works on BF6. You are not citing some brand new concept here man

Secondly if this is a common thing it means the success or failure of the title has no relevance on the development team discussing internally a Mainline game because technically speaking that is what they do following release in the support team simply takes over so I don't know what to tell you but a lot of you guys are building that narrative that discussing a new game means it's a failure lol

Even to say a comment like that it's in the past is ridiculous when they're telling you about future support and a development team like ripple effect is continuing the post launch support but that's what they did with the other Battlefield games as to why I gave you those examples. So you're trying to build this notion that it's based on success or failure yet disregarding how that was done in the past is not something unusual with how it's being done today.

So I cannot see how discussing the future of a Series has anything to do with arguing something is a failure and that it's in the past or something weird like that when technically speaking that is what they internally do after all the releases. You're going based off not even knowing about what they did in the past so I don't know what to tell you but look up their structure before posting lol

Even to say something weird like you don't "see them" talking about the next game, lol we don't see Rockstar or CD projekt Red saying much about their next games but clearly I'm pretty sure we know they've been in development for probably years as what you're arguing about is now simply based on exposure of what their publicly discussing or telling you but that does not fucking mean it's not internally being talked about because you seem to be under this weird assumption that 100% of those teams are fucking working on just Grand Theft Auto online and just cyberpunk but that doesn't make any sense because factually we know that to be false. So I'm not even sure if you're just crying over publicly what the perception is of knowing that they're planning something else lol you have to be pretty naive if you really think those Publishers and developers have not already had years of development and planning of those new titles there's a reason why they have those support teams to continue updates in support of older games they don't just have 100% of Rockstar North working on Grand Theft Auto V online or Red Dead Redemption 2 online or something really fucking weird like that that's simply something you assumed from them not saying something to you so if you don't hear them saying that of course they're going to be under this weird assumption that those teams are doing absolutely nothing lol hahaha So Rockstar was working on Red Dead 2 for years without saying anything, that didn't mean GTAV did good or bad or anything like that, that is just how Rockstar makes their games, we found out officially about Red Dead 2 on its official reveal, but not everyone does that man, that isn't a fucking standard to argue fail or pass or some weird narrative like that, YOU are the one making that argument to force something. Red Dead 2 started development in 2010, the year Red Dead 1 released.....sooooooo maybe we need to just look up WHEN they start doing that shit before arguing some pass or fail lol



So this is a weird one because I don't think you fully understand what's being done and it's why you might be confused on the team internally planning another game, the other half of that team has probably been working on that Star Wars game for years because what the fuck did you think was happening when you got Star Wars Battlefront 2 one year after you got Battlefield 1 did you really fucking think they made that game in less than a year or something really weird like that? So this is one of these situations where not knowing something could lead to something like this where your perception of what you think is going on is altered because you don't know the structure of how these games are developed. You're literally trying to argue something is seen as a success or failure based on the team internally discussing the future of a property, so you're telling me if this game was successful they were never going to talk about the future and they were never going to plan a new fucking game?

What the fuck does that have to do with DICE LA??!! THAT is the team that is continuing BF support, the main DICE team is working on new engine stuff, planning new games etc. So...I don't know man, you need to look up how that works in gaming before reaching to such conclusions as I'm not sure why anyone would think no one at Rockstar is working on GTA VI, no one at CDPR is working on Witcher 4 lol This is some odd thinking and I don't know why you needed to SEE them plan it, to know they are planning it. That is a safe assumption based on how we know they develop games. All I can take from this is that you simply haven't heard a lot about game development, thats it....


Not sure why you're taking such a weird tone with me as if I'm shitting on the game or something.

All I said was I'm surprised by how they're restructuring stuff so publicly and early and that it gives me the vibe that they're treating the game as if it's a failure.

If CDPR announced soon after CP's release that they were gonna hire some new guy to head a series and were seemingly gonna course correct a bunch of stuff I'd get the same feeling that they're giving the vibe is a huge failure.

Yes we all know developers work on the next game in a series soon after the last one is done, who is disputing that?

But a couple weeks after Other M released you didn't hear Nintendo saying they're gonna hire a new guy to change the series up.

Again, not sure why the tone you're using with me is so challenging.

You don't think publicly announcing they're gonna get the creator of COD and that he's now the head of the series doesn't come off as some kind of admittance of failure? It does to me. And it's just my opinion, it's not really a big deal.
 
Last edited:
Hey folks,

You naysayers are being a little silly. Let me clarify:

1) I'm not a bad person cause I post on Resetera. I usually don't post much anymore, because journalists love finding things they can make controversial, usually without even getting into the context. It's shit journalism, but hey, clicks! I usually use forums like these to catch up on news and I'm thankful that you crazies deliver that service :) That said, every now and then I feel the urge to speak up, so I did. Suggesting that someone is a bozo for posting on some forum... give me a break. I know everyone loves Twitter these days, I just never really got into it.
2) It should be very, very obvious that I meant the same thing for Nintendo and Sony as well, I didn't call out Microsoft specifically. I obviously love Microsoft for how they supported Moon Studios and I think they're generally a good force in this industry. I called out that walled gardens in general are shitty and should be going away. Microsoft has been outspoken about being against walled gardens and hey, they usually support Steam / PC now as well and we even got MS to allow us to publish Ori on Switch. That's great and ideally they should be doing more of that. We should all be against walled gardens and if we want the industry to grow and see more games being played not just by 5-10m players, but by 100m players, well, here's one obvious answer. Don't lock your stuff behind artificial barriers, make your games as accessible as possible, let everyone play. I bet that's actually also how Phil thinks. And I understand that the current way the industry is set-up doesn't allow for that, games are being subsidized through other income, etc., but why accept a Status Quo that in the end might not be the best thing? And here's another truth: What I'm proposing here is more than likely going to happen anyway. The box you own won't matter that much in the future. It'll be more like your typical streaming service where content might still be locked to a certain store, but right now the games industry is just still stuck in the 90s with this idea of exclusivity. Imagine a world where the film industry releases some content that's only available on Samsung TVs while other content is only available on LG TV's. That's dumb, right? That's sort of what we're used to in the games industry. If I want to experience all games of this hardware generation, I need to buy 3 different devices, 2 of which are basically identical to one another. Some people will never get to experience some game that might be meaningful to them simply cause they don't own the 'right' device. That sucks.
3) I'm 37 now, I've been a gamer since I was like 4, starting with a Commodore 64. I grew up as a Nintendo Fan, but with age you ought to grow out of fanboy'ism. You folks should be loving the games themselves, not the hardware the games run on, cause it's just hardware. It's meaningless (and in fact, your Xbox and your PlayStation are basically just a PC these days). The hardware itself is and always has been secondary. The games are what matters.
4) I realize that what I'm saying might still be controversial in this present day, I'm not sure I even want some of this myself. Like... I still would want a company like Nintendo to make a crazy device with completely new input methods and be successful at that. They're great at that, so more power to them. But as an industry, if we want to see it grow, one way to get there is by making games as accessible as possible. To everyone. If I see a kid in the train playing Fortnite on the iPad, I don't cringe, I think it's cool. I wouldn't play it on a touchscreen myself, but hey, the kid is having fun playing a game, so that's cool. Microsoft is actually ahead of Sony / Nintendo in that regard cause of GamePass / XCloud. In my ideal scenario, I should be able to play a game on my PC one night, take my Switch with me the next day and keep playing. Or whip out my phone and keep playing. I think that'd be pretty cool, you folks disagree? I would've liked playing Animal Crossing on Switch and then at home when I'm on my couch just be able to whip out my phone (+Backbone Controller, cause let's keep it real) and keep playing exactly where I left off without me being tied to some specific device. Gaming should be as ubiquitous and as accessible as Film or TV. Does anyone here actually disagree with that? I actually think a lot of this exclusivity stuff is beyond silly. I can't play Bloodborne at 60+fps these days cause the game was only released on PS4 and is locked to that hardware, just like Demon's Souls was locked to PS3 for a good decade. That stinks. Make it available on PC, let people decide what device they want to play on and let the company that makes the best hardware win, don't lock art behind some pretty steep paywall.
5) I love you all :) We all love games, so we should all think about how the industry can grow and be better in the future. Just accepting the Status Quo usually doesn't get you there. What might feel uncomfortable today might just be the way towards a brighter future. Just cause things have been a certain way in the past doesn't mean that that's how they have to be in the future.
 
valid point, being "only on playstation" would have included exposure to 100+ million + a probable PC release since most of there 3rd party deals are structured like that anyway, Street fighter V and most recently Kena Bridge spirits come to mind.
But, it likely wouldn't include Switch.
 

Tams

Member
There’s a real lack of reading comprehension being shown on this thread already. 🙄

He raises some interesting points about MS contradictions in words v actions, calls out Sony and Nintendo for being scared and is not particularly “whinging” about exclusivity on Ori - rather seems to accurately talking about the reality of the situation and explains why they’ve sought a new publisher for their next project.

All in all a thought provoking post, but yeah, he’s disagreed with Phil so let’s all go Johnny Storm.

He's just a bitter dev sniping from the sidelines.

He wants all games to be on all platforms, completely ignoring (not missing; he knows but it doesn't fit his narrative) the realities that exclusive games are one of the few ways that a console developer has to justify making a console.
 

FrankWza

Member
Sony doesn't own the IP. They made The Show multiplatform under duress. They would NOT have made an Xbox version if they didn't have to.
They do own the IP. The Show is theirs. The license for MLB was open for anyone of the 3 console manufacturers to make a game. Microsoft and Nintendo either did not or could not. MLB wanted more exposure and rather than see the MLB license get released to 3rd party like EA or take2, Sony made a xbox port. That’s not duress.
 
Hey folks,

You naysayers are being a little silly. Let me clarify:

1) I'm not a bad person cause I post on Resetera. I usually don't post much anymore, because journalists love finding things they can make controversial, usually without even getting into the context. It's shit journalism, but hey, clicks! I usually use forums like these to catch up on news and I'm thankful that you crazies deliver that service :) That said, every now and then I feel the urge to speak up, so I did. Suggesting that someone is a bozo for posting on some forum... give me a break. I know everyone loves Twitter these days, I just never really got into it.

Please ignore the loons who push these kinda narratives. Despite the fact that site is a shithole, it doesn't automatically mean that everyone posting there is equally a derpster.

2) It should be very, very obvious that I meant the same thing for Nintendo and Sony as well, I didn't call out Microsoft specifically. I obviously love Microsoft for how they supported Moon Studios and I think they're generally a good force in this industry. I called out that walled gardens in general are shitty and should be going away. Microsoft has been outspoken about being against walled gardens and hey, they usually support Steam / PC now as well and we even got MS to allow us to publish Ori on Switch. That's great and ideally they should be doing more of that. We should all be against walled gardens and if we want the industry to grow and see more games being played not just by 5-10m players, but by 100m players, well, here's one obvious answer. Don't lock your stuff behind artificial barriers, make your games as accessible as possible, let everyone play. I bet that's actually also how Phil thinks. And I understand that the current way the industry is set-up doesn't allow for that, games are being subsidized through other income, etc., but why accept a Status Quo that in the end might not be the best thing? And here's another truth: What I'm proposing here is more than likely going to happen anyway. The box you own won't matter that much in the future. It'll be more like your typical streaming service where content might still be locked to a certain store, but right now the games industry is just still stuck in the 90s with this idea of exclusivity. Imagine a world where the film industry releases some content that's only available on Samsung TVs while other content is only available on LG TV's. That's dumb, right? That's sort of what we're used to in the games industry. If I want to experience all games of this hardware generation, I need to buy 3 different devices, 2 of which are basically identical to one another. Some people will never get to experience some game that might be meaningful to them simply cause they don't own the 'right' device. That sucks.

I can understand the rationale for this, but I think the industry history and the data shows that the devices a game is played on matters. The arguments for walled gardens aren't simply limited to fanboy tribalism. There are very good reasons why walled gardens do and should exist and the very fact of the existence and success of consoles as a consumer product is a testament to this.

The biggest argument for walled gardens and the importance of console hardware is the hardware features themselves. This isn't just about CPU cores and terraflops. Actual hardware peripherals and hardware features matter, especially when you consider that developers who may want to make a game designed around those specific hardware features need to be able to rely on the promise of feature ubiquity across the platforms supported. Great examples are VR (not supported by Xbox), dual sense's advanced haptics, the Wiimote, the Wii balance board, new-gen console SSDs.

The concept of hardware platform independence already exists today, across mobile and also on PC, and in many cases, it can have a deleterious effect on the consumer experience when it's simply not clear which hardware is supported and which isn't for a given game. Idealistically, it makes gaming for the consumer easier because they don't have to worry about the device they are playing on, but in practice, it clearly doesn't because consumers sudden have to worry about minimum hardware requirements and the possibility of weird untested bugs popping up in their games, because their specific device hardware setup includes hardware in a configuration that the developers weren't possibly able to test on beforehand.

Subsequently, the answer to the above bevvy of issues is to simply go with a fixed standardized hardware specification and limit game development to a small number of fixed target specs.... well then, welcome to consoles and their subsequent walled gardens intended to maintain this universally smoother user gaming experience.

With this in mind, I fundamentally disagree that fixed hardware specs and walled gardens intended to maintain them are artefacts of a dated industry gaming concept. Short of removing all hardware and allowing only gaming through the cloud exclusively (and no-one wants that shit show), there really isn't a way for the open platform model to address the above-mentioned issues that consoles and their walled gardens do so elegantly.

I understand why as a developer you would want the maximum number of gamers to be able to play your creation. But the issue I see with your argument for an open platform on consoles is that you presume gamers think the same way as you, and I really don't think they do. Most gamers overwhelmingly don't care about the gaming experiences of anyone but themselves individually, and they absolutely shouldn't either, because we're not just gamers, we're consumers and we pay out of our hard-earned money to support our hobby, so the sole directive for us is the maximization of our enjoyment in our gaming hobby. Being able to enjoy seamless, stable, gaming experiences that maximise the features of the hardware that we paid good money for, is what concerns us gamers. Not whether some unknown, faceless, poorer person, elsewhere in the world isn't able to also enjoy the games we do, because they bought the wrong console.

3) I'm 37 now, I've been a gamer since I was like 4, starting with a Commodore 64. I grew up as a Nintendo Fan, but with age you ought to grow out of fanboy'ism. You folks should be loving the games themselves, not the hardware the games run on, cause it's just hardware. It's meaningless (and in fact, your Xbox and your PlayStation are basically just a PC these days). The hardware itself is and always has been secondary. The games are what matters.

Again you make this mistake. We do enjoy games. But we also place value on the consoles too, and we absolutely should do. How the hell else can these gaming companies convince us to spend literal hundreds of dollars of our hard-earned money on these boxes?

When games cost $60-70 max, but consoles run easily in excess of 8 times that amount, why would anyone think it logical that after making such a huge investment, gamers would be so easily convinced to not care about the box they play the games on as well? It's a perspective that ignores the reality of the situation gamers face.

For me I currently game on PS5 and PC. I care about the 3D audio on the PS5, the dual sense haptics and the super-fast SSD. It's why I upgraded to PS5 from PS4 in the first place. So given this fact, I'll often want to pick games that maximize the use of these features to ensure I'm seeing the maximal return on investment (in terms of enjoyment and satisfaction) from my purchase. To say I shouldn't is the same as telling me to throw $500 away and not think about it. It's a denial of my reality.

4) I realize that what I'm saying might still be controversial in this present day, I'm not sure I even want some of this myself. Like... I still would want a company like Nintendo to make a crazy device with completely new input methods and be successful at that. They're great at that, so more power to them. But as an industry, if we want to see it grow, one way to get there is by making games as accessible as possible. To everyone. If I see a kid in the train playing Fortnite on the iPad, I don't cringe, I think it's cool. I wouldn't play it on a touchscreen myself, but hey, the kid is having fun playing a game, so that's cool. Microsoft is actually ahead of Sony / Nintendo in that regard cause of GamePass / XCloud. In my ideal scenario, I should be able to play a game on my PC one night, take my Switch with me the next day and keep playing. Or whip out my phone and keep playing. I think that'd be pretty cool, you folks disagree? I would've liked playing Animal Crossing on Switch and then at home when I'm on my couch just be able to whip out my phone (+Backbone Controller, cause let's keep it real) and keep playing exactly where I left off without me being tied to some specific device. Gaming should be as ubiquitous and as accessible as Film or TV. Does anyone here actually disagree with that? I actually think a lot of this exclusivity stuff is beyond silly. I can't play Bloodborne at 60+fps these days cause the game was only released on PS4 and is locked to that hardware, just like Demon's Souls was locked to PS3 for a good decade. That stinks. Make it available on PC, let people decide what device they want to play on and let the company that makes the best hardware win, don't lock art behind some pretty steep paywall.

It's not really controversial. It's just ignoring the basic premise and reason why consoles emerged as a product in the first place and why they've been so successful.

You're really arguing and advocating for consoles to become what they were never intended to be. Which is an argument that console gaming companies should abandon everything that's made them so successful---because the market demand itself selected for this success---to follow a model that already exists on other supplemental platforms, i.e. PC and mobile.

The mere fact that console gaming continues to thrive alongside the existence of mobile and PC proves the intense consumer demand for these products and what they offer. Removing them by making them into PCs, only actually removed gamer choice and forces console gamers into a gaming business model they neither want nor asked for (otherwise they would have already migrated across to PC and mobile).

5) I love you all :) We all love games, so we should all think about how the industry can grow and be better in the future. Just accepting the Status Quo usually doesn't get you there. What might feel uncomfortable today might just be the way towards a brighter future. Just cause things have been a certain way in the past doesn't mean that that's how they have to be in the future.

Just because things have been a certain way in the past doesn't mean we should change them either. It's much better to assess the pros and cons of various different approaches, and trying to tell gamers how they should enjoy their hobby, by making purely developer/publisher-focused business arguments that don't at all, in reality, serve actual gamer interests isn't really going to convince anyone.

Instead, I would argue it would be better for industry personnel to examine why console gaming together with their walled gardens have been so successful and continue to be. So as to inform perspectives on where the industry should look to go in the future.

Most other industries outside of gaming, spend literal millions in research to assess their customer's requirements, needs and desires and use that information to inform the direction of their product development and business models. Gaming is the only industry I've ever seen where corporate folks will decide based on largely irrelevant metrics (or even no metrics at all) what gamers want and then use that to chart the direction for their platforms, more often than not to increasing failure. The few companies within the industry that do get it right, thrive and yet the rest of the industry continues to look down on them and demean them for being "old fashioned" and "stuck in the past". It's really quite bewildering.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
Exclusives obviously serve a purpose, but he's right that Spencer is full of shit, acting all "I just want everyone to play together and be happy" but then buying Bethesda explicitly to take their games away from PlayStation gamers.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
They do own the IP. The Show is theirs. The license for MLB was open for anyone of the 3 console manufacturers to make a game. Microsoft and Nintendo either did not or could not. MLB wanted more exposure and rather than see the MLB license get released to 3rd party like EA or take2, Sony made a xbox port. That’s not duress.
Busch Beer GIF by Busch

And now they're sales and revenue skyrocketed for them, since they're the only game in town with the DD (MUT/FUT) mode. It was a win/win for all parties and gamers at the end of the day.

A damned good baseball game at that.

Fun fact: MS bought out the High Heat license (a great playing baseball game back in the day) cancelled the games and vaulted it (back when EEE was ever so prevalent) to get in the good graces for EA to join their platform with less competition when MVP was starting to take off... they could have made a baseball game since Sony only had a first party MLB/MLBPA license, they never did. 2K couldn't hang, so they bowed out. The opportunity was there for the 3rd party, and it's better off in that game's/developer's hands than it would be in EAs.
 
Last edited:

Kssio_Aug

Member
Imagine a potential future where you can play whatever Sony/MS/Nintendo game on whatever console platform you choose...

It's not a bad idea, tbh. It has real benefits.

That said, however, it also has real downsides, as platform hardware differentiators (e.g. dual sense or PS5's insane SSD/IO) would be largely underutilized because even first parties won't be able to design their games with those platform features in mind.

On the balance of pros versus cons, I can see the clear benefits of either approach. Realistically, however, I just don't see walled gardens going away due to the above as well as the commercial realities.
I don't really think people are missing the point. It's pretty to imagine the ideal world where everyone can live together in perfect harmony. It's just not feasible though... it would be a giant risk for MS (and any other company in the same situation) to do what he wants them to do. MS is moving towards allowing as much players as they can to play their games, they're moving towards making Xbox broad and accessible; but what he wants is pretty much that they commit suicide.
 
Last edited:
maybe he was the one who pushed to port it onto the switch? it was so weird that microsoft randomly decided to port ori to switch. i reckon some of people at the studio were unhappy with the performance but obviously microsoft would never port to PS. switch was the only other option and aint really seen as a direct competitor to xbox like PS is.
 
Last edited:
They do own the IP. The Show is theirs. The license for MLB was open for anyone of the 3 console manufacturers to make a game. Microsoft and Nintendo either did not or could not. MLB wanted more exposure and rather than see the MLB license get released to 3rd party like EA or take2, Sony made a xbox port. That’s not duress.
Does Sony own the MLB license? Owning 'The Show' seems pretty meaningless if it's a baseball game without the MLB license. Bottom line is that Sony would not have created an Xbox port AT ALL had the MLB not demanded it. That sure sounds like duress to me. Look at the prior games that were PlayStation exclusive. I'm glad they made the port over losing the license entirely. That was a good business move and it really bolstered Game pass nicely.

None of this exposes some sort of hypocrisy on MS' part. As I've stated earlier there are plenty of MS owned properties on PlayStation and other places that aren't there because someone threatened to take away the IP if they didn't make the port. Big difference.
 

FrankWza

Member
Does Sony own the MLB license? Owning 'The Show' seems pretty meaningless if it's a baseball game without the MLB license. Bottom line is that Sony would not have created an Xbox port AT ALL had the MLB not demanded it. That sure sounds like duress to me. Look at the prior games that were PlayStation exclusive. I'm glad they made the port over losing the license entirely. That was a good business move and it really bolstered Game pass nicely.

None of this exposes some sort of hypocrisy on MS' part. As I've stated earlier there are plenty of MS owned properties on PlayStation and other places that aren't there because someone threatened to take away the IP if they didn't make the port. Big difference.
You’re going to have to provide proof of the bolded.
DarkMage619 DarkMage619 if the show ip is meaningless, why didn’t they just have Microsoft make their own baseball game or continue using rbi baseball as it’s only baseball game? They had the right to make an MLB game just like Sony and Nintendo.
 
Last edited:

Bragr

Member
You might as well start to argue that HBO should publish all their new shows on Netflix because Karen Johnson and her fat five kids don't like to switch channels. This is some crackhead logic if I ever saw it.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
I hate to rag on this poster any more since they are a member right here:

Hide Reaction GIF by flor


But the example about movies absolutely does happen today. Movies typically get released first on just one streaming service or one premium movie channel (after the requisite theater and PPV of course) , so if you don't have that service, you don't watch that movie. Not to mention if Netflix suddenly put all their content on Hulu out of the goodness of their hearts (couldn't bear the thought of little Johny not being able to watch, he has only got Hulu), they would almost certainly exit the market fast (Hulu would totally be the better deal). So basically unless everybody does this together, whoever goes first is basically dead in the water, outside of just being a content creator for someone else's service.

Obviously there could come a day when everyone is streaming everything to their TV, but you are basically just swapping physical platforms for virtual ones then. And you do have PC now, where all of MS content is and much of Sony's will be coming, so in a way you can have one platform now (you just give up the subsidized hardware, which is going to cost you more $$$, probably more than just buying an Xbox and a PS).
 
Last edited:

Fbh

Member
Biggest news I get from this is that the next game from Moon studios will be multiplayer, which sucks.
As for the Phil stuff, everyone gets way too dramatic about these thing. People need to take these PR statements from studio heads in the context that they are still working for a big profit focused corporation, not a charity. Working with MS still allowed Moon studios to release Ori on more systems than if they had worked with Sony or Nintendo.
 

Lord Panda

The Sea is Always Right
Hey folks,

You naysayers are being a little silly. Let me clarify:

1) I'm not a bad person cause I post on Resetera. I usually don't post much anymore, because journalists love finding things they can make controversial, usually without even getting into the context. It's shit journalism, but hey, clicks! I usually use forums like these to catch up on news and I'm thankful that you crazies deliver that service :) That said, every now and then I feel the urge to speak up, so I did. Suggesting that someone is a bozo for posting on some forum... give me a break. I know everyone loves Twitter these days, I just never really got into it.
2) It should be very, very obvious that I meant the same thing for Nintendo and Sony as well, I didn't call out Microsoft specifically. I obviously love Microsoft for how they supported Moon Studios and I think they're generally a good force in this industry. I called out that walled gardens in general are shitty and should be going away. Microsoft has been outspoken about being against walled gardens and hey, they usually support Steam / PC now as well and we even got MS to allow us to publish Ori on Switch. That's great and ideally they should be doing more of that. We should all be against walled gardens and if we want the industry to grow and see more games being played not just by 5-10m players, but by 100m players, well, here's one obvious answer. Don't lock your stuff behind artificial barriers, make your games as accessible as possible, let everyone play. I bet that's actually also how Phil thinks. And I understand that the current way the industry is set-up doesn't allow for that, games are being subsidized through other income, etc., but why accept a Status Quo that in the end might not be the best thing? And here's another truth: What I'm proposing here is more than likely going to happen anyway. The box you own won't matter that much in the future. It'll be more like your typical streaming service where content might still be locked to a certain store, but right now the games industry is just still stuck in the 90s with this idea of exclusivity. Imagine a world where the film industry releases some content that's only available on Samsung TVs while other content is only available on LG TV's. That's dumb, right? That's sort of what we're used to in the games industry. If I want to experience all games of this hardware generation, I need to buy 3 different devices, 2 of which are basically identical to one another. Some people will never get to experience some game that might be meaningful to them simply cause they don't own the 'right' device. That sucks.
3) I'm 37 now, I've been a gamer since I was like 4, starting with a Commodore 64. I grew up as a Nintendo Fan, but with age you ought to grow out of fanboy'ism. You folks should be loving the games themselves, not the hardware the games run on, cause it's just hardware. It's meaningless (and in fact, your Xbox and your PlayStation are basically just a PC these days). The hardware itself is and always has been secondary. The games are what matters.
4) I realize that what I'm saying might still be controversial in this present day, I'm not sure I even want some of this myself. Like... I still would want a company like Nintendo to make a crazy device with completely new input methods and be successful at that. They're great at that, so more power to them. But as an industry, if we want to see it grow, one way to get there is by making games as accessible as possible. To everyone. If I see a kid in the train playing Fortnite on the iPad, I don't cringe, I think it's cool. I wouldn't play it on a touchscreen myself, but hey, the kid is having fun playing a game, so that's cool. Microsoft is actually ahead of Sony / Nintendo in that regard cause of GamePass / XCloud. In my ideal scenario, I should be able to play a game on my PC one night, take my Switch with me the next day and keep playing. Or whip out my phone and keep playing. I think that'd be pretty cool, you folks disagree? I would've liked playing Animal Crossing on Switch and then at home when I'm on my couch just be able to whip out my phone (+Backbone Controller, cause let's keep it real) and keep playing exactly where I left off without me being tied to some specific device. Gaming should be as ubiquitous and as accessible as Film or TV. Does anyone here actually disagree with that? I actually think a lot of this exclusivity stuff is beyond silly. I can't play Bloodborne at 60+fps these days cause the game was only released on PS4 and is locked to that hardware, just like Demon's Souls was locked to PS3 for a good decade. That stinks. Make it available on PC, let people decide what device they want to play on and let the company that makes the best hardware win, don't lock art behind some pretty steep paywall.
5) I love you all :) We all love games, so we should all think about how the industry can grow and be better in the future. Just accepting the Status Quo usually doesn't get you there. What might feel uncomfortable today might just be the way towards a brighter future. Just cause things have been a certain way in the past doesn't mean that that's how they have to be in the future.

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for dropping by, taking the time to clarify your position, and not treating Neogaf like a leper colony 🙂

I concede that I was too harsh in my critique to your initial comments on Microsoft and the concept of walled gardens.

However while MS, or any other manufacturer, are building and selling their own hardware, they will use exclusives as leverage to market and sell these devices. I personally don’t see any way around this as manufacturer with hardware to sell. No one is surprised that your games weren’t allowed to be played on the platforms belonging to MS’ direct competitor.

What should have happened with the Ori games perhaps, is for it to be granted timed exclusivity, then PlayStation owners have a chance to play it. But the fact that you could still play the game across multiple Xbox generations, PC, and Switch is an amazing feat.

Since the entire industry is heading towards streaming and gaming as a service, and with proliferation of datacenters across the world, l can unfortunately envision a console free future. The big players will redirect all their research and resources into their datacenters and streaming technologies, and no longer build consoles and avoid messing with all the logistics and headaches that involves.

However there will be multiple cloud services, and these walled gardens will now be in the cloud, so I can’t really see a truly open future no matter what anyone says. The common example for all this are all the multitude of movies/tv/anime streaming services, and the nascent rise of game streaming services too.

In a perfect world, consumers should be able play anything, anywhere, on any device. But that world wouldn’t make too much sense to any platform owner/investor.
 
Last edited:
You’re going to have to provide proof of the bolded.
DarkMage619 DarkMage619 if the show ip is meaningless, why didn’t they just have Microsoft make their own baseball game or continue using rbi baseball as it’s only baseball game? They had the right to make an MLB game just like Sony and Nintendo.
Uh Frank the proof is every other Show title being exclusive to the PlayStation. If the MLB had not told Sony to make an Xbox port they would have kept on making the game exclusive to PlayStation like Sony does ALL other games they make. Sony didn't want to lose the license and they already had a team up and running to make the game. If MS or Nintendo wanted to make an MLB game they too would have to make it multiplatform because that is what the IP holder demanded. They also would have to put a team together as well and probably wasn't worth their time.

Again none of this addresses the point of the thread that MS should be singled out for their walled garden when they have more of their IP on platforms they don't own than any other platform holder. Sony making a multiplatform game for IP they don't own isn't changing that fact. No one else is doing what MS is in the console space right now. You don't even need an Xbox to play Xbox games. Who else is doing anything even remotely close?
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Uh Frank the proof is every other Show title being exclusive to the PlayStation. If the MLB had not told Sony to make an Xbox port they would have kept on making the game exclusive to PlayStation like Sony does ALL other games they make. Sony didn't want to lose the license and they already had a team up and running to make the game. If MS or Nintendo wanted to make an MLB game they too would have to make it multiplatform because that is what the IP holder demanded. They also would have to put a team together as well and probably wasn't worth their time.

Again none of this addresses the point of the thread that MS should be singled out for their walled garden when they have more of their IP on platforms they don't own than any other platform holder. Sony making a multiplatform game for IP they don't own isn't changing that fact. No one else is doing what MS is in the console space right now. You don't even need an Xbox to play Xbox games. Who else is doing anything even remotely close?
Sony ONLY had a first party license. MLB was making their own third party, but then realize making good games is hard. They were shopping around the third party license at around the time Sony was up for renewal, and instead of letting EA snag it up and jump in with the MUT/FUT when The Show already has their successful version in DD, they chose the lesser of two evils which then works out for more revenue for them and one of the best baseball games ever made for more gamers to enjoy.

Not everything always has to be a negative spin for your less than favorite brand.

Now waiting on the PC version, because the mods will be off the chain. Especially with the already robust uniform/team/stadium creator in the game now.
 
Last edited:

FrankWza

Member
If MS or Nintendo wanted to make an MLB game they too would have to make it multiplatform because that is what the IP holder demanded.
Sony is the IP holder.
They also would have to put a team together as well and probably wasn't worth their time.
Microsoft they had more than 15 years to put the team together
Sony making a multiplatform game for IP they don't own isn't changing that fact.
Again, they own the IP

We’re all waiting for proof that MLB DEMANDED Sony make the show multiplat and not that Sony chose to make it available rather than let EA or another company into the market.
 

Murdok

Member
Assuming he really cares about game accessibility and not just profit. It seems very inconsistent to nudge the company that is making more efforts to make their games available in as many places as possible. Even more so knowing that competitors do little or nothing to change this situation.
 
Top Bottom