Support NeoGAF

[ZehDon]

I'm going to have to institute a purchase policy wherein if "parity" is retained across platforms, then I'm going to simply buy it second hand or not at all.

Being as the PC version undoubtedly has the required assets and necessary technological implementations to enable various degrees of scaling on various effects, assets and visual quality elements, forcing parity where a 40% power differential is in play is, frankly, unacceptable to me. I didn't buy a PS4 to pay more for less. In fact, its the reason I didn't buy an Xbone.

 

[Head.spawn]

Well that's extremely stupid.

I was going to get this day 1 but I'll just wait instead and buy it used.

Screw the developer, Gamestop needs money.

 

[Kosma]

Not gonna buy a gimped PS4 version.

Screw the developer, Gamestop needs money.

It would be rude not to screw them back when they are trying to screw you.

 

[Biker19]

Here's my problem with one of your arguments: People who bought the PS4 expecting the "360" of this generation did so based on assumptions. They were never outright promised a console that would literally be the 360 of this generation. It's just something they assumed; something that was implied by a lot of the coverage the console got but never outright stated. You say "If people bought the X1, that's their problem". Well, if you bought a PS4 assuming that it would have better multiplats without factoring in the odds that some bullshit like this could happen, then that's your problem.

...Are you kidding us with this entire statement? Of course, people want to have the better versions of multiplats on PS4; it's the better choice between the two consoles for that!

It's not like PS3 Vs. 360 where the hardware between each other is basically a wash when it comes to multiplats, with PS3 exclusives being far more stronger graphically than any 360 game. PS4 has the better hardware all around, & consumers should expect the best out of it, in both exclusives & in multiplat games.

 

[Error]

Because they own a PS4 and they want to feel like premium users. And "any" dev that doesn't reach the potential of this fabulous machine will be labeled as lazy or shit.

Yet some of these premium users are the same who bought Knack, Destiny and will buy Bloodborne.

People are right to be pissed if they buy a console to get the best the experience possible on mutiplat games, only to put up with a bogged down version of the game because of the inferior hardware of the other console.

Why was there no console parity last gen?

But it's OK if Rocksteady wants to pursue this parity BS, I'll just buy the game used.

 

[NBtoaster]

Not gonna buy a gimped PS4 version.



It would be rude not to screw them back when they are trying to screw us hard.

But they're not. Wanting an equal experience across platforms isn't an offense against you.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

But they're not. Wanting an equal experience across platforms isn't an offense against you.

It is if the PS4 version is held back for no reason.

 

[Jonm1010]

Just take the package as it is, in a vacuum ignore everything else, and decide whether it is something you want to play at the price you are willing to pay. It's simpler that way because you blackbox the entire development process and only evaluate if end product fits your consumer needs. A little knowledge with limited context is far more dangerous than pure ignorance.

Knowledge always trumps ignorance.

That's a horrible way to engage in the consumer process. Ignore everything surrounding a product? Really?

This makes zero sense on any level, let alone in any economic sense. Information Assymetry is one of the key ways a company is able to exploit their customer base effectively and without repercussion. The more information you have about every aspect of a product the more a consumer is able to close that assymeyrical gap.

 

[bishoptl]

Just take the package as it is, in a vacuum ignore everything else, and decide whether it is something you want to play at the price you are willing to pay. It's simpler that way because you blackbox the entire development process and only evaluate if end product fits your consumer needs. A little knowledge with limited context is far more dangerous than pure ignorance.

From a development standpoint, this post is more amusing than you probably intended. From a consumer standpoint? Considerably less so.

The toothpaste isn't going back in the tube anytime soon, people. And all the wishing in the world won't make it so. Consumers are informed, they look for and demand context for their decision-making on purchases, and the smart developers will take cater to/advantage of that.

 

[SyenceLabb]

Am I the only gamer that thought parity was always an issue with multiplats? I thought this is why we looked to exclusive titles as superior at utilizing console resources. I'm honestly confused.

 

[King Beyond the wall]

Another case of forced parity? Why not just push both consoles as far as they can go, give owners of either machine the best game possible? Instead they are going to gimp the PS4 version. This is not something I can support.

 

[score01]

Ive been musing on this for a while, but I haven't said this before because its hard to word without sounding like a console warrior.

here it goes.

Regardless of sales, power or even gamer reception, there seems to be a vested interest in the gaming industry by large for Microsoft to do well. Im not saying this is at the expense of Sony, but there seems to be a undercurrent effort to make sure that the Xbox one doesn't fall too behind the PS4.

It could simply because two healthy platforms mean more growth in sales, or people just rooting for the underdog, or Microsoft having better relations than Sony.

Whatever it is, it seems that there are sections of journalists, publishers, market analysts and even a few developers that seem to be going the extra mile for Microsoft.

Now that is not to say that there is anything wrong with microsoft having marketing deals, advertising deals, purchasing 3rd party content and making it exclusive. Its the nature of the business after all. Im not even saying Microsoft is having a direct hand in this most of the time.

Im just saying that sometimes i get the impression that Microsoft is being kept in the race, not just by the strength of their product and ecosystem.

You're not alone in sensing this and I think that the your post probably deserves a separate thread of its own.

What I don't understand is why does it matter to publishers which platform their game is selling on? eg if they sell 5 million units does it really matter how many of these are on the xbox platform and how many are on the playstation platform?

If one of the platforms is technically superior and they get a better version of the game people will gravitate to that version. This may ultimately lead to something like more PS4's being sold vs XB1 and ultimately the XB1 getting dominated but isnt this how competition works and the best scenario for consumers?

Are devs going to start neutering XBL features vs PSN for parity as well?

 

[The Antitype]

You're not alone in sensing this and I think that the your post probably deserves a separate thread of its own.

What I don't understand is why does it matter to publishers which platform their game is selling on? eg if they sell 5 million units does it really matter how many of these are on the xbox platform and how many are on the playstation platform?

If one of the platforms is technically superior and they get a better version of the game people will gravitate to that version. This may ultimately lead to something like more PS4's being sold vs XB1 and ultimately the XB1 getting dominated but isnt this how competition works and the best scenario for consumers?

Are devs going to start neutering XBL features vs PSN for parity as well?

I think having 2 healthy platforms ensures that neither platform holder amasses enough power to start leveraging it against publishers or developers.

You go all in with Sony and they turn around and start being dickish or making less than appealing demands on account of the fact that they have all the userbase, you've basically helped arrange the rock pressing you against the hard place.

 

[Jonm1010]

Am I the only gamer that thought parity was always an issue with multiplats? I thought this is why we looked to exclusive titles as superior at utilizing console resources. I'm honestly confused.

in short people are angry at the shift from parity of effort to parity of outcome.

....To elaborate:

Every past gen one of the consoles became the lead platform for multiplats, often the best selling console. It just came with the territory. Ps1 then ps2 then Xbox 360.

The games were developed to run on every relevent system effectively but then each console team would equally apply as much effiort as their timetable allowed to optimizie each version of the game. In generations where the consoles had different strengths and weaknesses and levels of difficulty to develop for, that tended to be reflected in the final product. But the key was that whatever team was on each version they aimed to optimize to the best of their ability for that given consoles hardware.

What is different right now is that the PS4 is the most powerful console AND the top selling console AND the easiest to develop for. But what companies like Ubisoft(and possibly rocksteady) have allegedly done is likely applied a lower standard of optimization to the more powerful, market-leader console in order to reach parity with a lower spec'd, poorer selling console.

Essentially the difference comes down to one console is intentionally receiving a lower standard of development then it's competitor. Or one console is being given the goal of aiming for parity with a technically inferior piece of hardware. Instead of optimizing that consoles version to the best of their ability for the console at hand.

 

[Ursiform]

Im just saying that sometimes i get the impression that Microsoft is being kept in the race, not just by the strength of their product and ecosystem.

SILENCE!

 

[Xtra]

Just take the package as it is, in a vacuum ignore everything else, and decide whether it is something you want to play at the price you are willing to pay. It's simpler that way because you blackbox the entire development process and only evaluate if end product fits your consumer needs. A little knowledge with limited context is far more dangerous than pure ignorance.

Is this an appeal to be ignorant about the products you purchase though? To me it reads like "why be partly ignorant when you can go all in?"

Anyway, people should be commended for wanting to know more about the products they purchase, not steered away from it, the world would without a doubt be a better place if this type of behavior spread.Now I am not claiming that knowing the background of your gaming purchase is going to make the world better (hell the console was made in a place with suicide nets probably), but this general attitude (research your product) is commendable. If you find out your purchase would be supporting business practices you do not agree with it is perfectly acceptable to not make the purchase because of moral responsibility.

I am not going to chastize someone for supporting comcast (quite possibly no choice) or walmart or nike. That is their decision. All I ask is don't crap on people who make purchases with consideration for issues other than "I want it now".

 

[Bastables]

I think having 2 healthy platforms ensures that neither platform holder amasses enough power to start leveraging it against publishers or developers.

You go all in with Sony and they turn around and start being dickish or making less than appealing demands on account of the fact that they have all the userbase, you've basically helped arrange the rock pressing you against the hard place.

Which is why I presume Publishers and Devs have been backing Nintendo and Mac/Linux systems to the hilt . . .

 

[vesvci]

Another case of forced parity? Why not just push both consoles as far as they can go, give owners of either machine the best game possible? Instead they are going to gimp the PS4 version. This is not something I can support.

Logically, there's only one party that really benefits from this forced parity, and that's Microsoft. Any reasonable consumer and Xbox fanboy/girl can agree to this. The XBO hardware is inferior to the PS4 (I own one, and I'm ok with it), but from Microsoft's standpoint, I would say that the only true equalizer is the software/game. Sad, but likely, and as a consumer, this sucks.

In an ideal world, it would be all about exclusive titles, online service and controller preference that would tip the scales one way or another.

 

[The Antitype]

Which is why I presume Publishers and Dev's have been backing Nintendo and Mac/Linux systems to the hilt . . .

Nintendo being the perfect example of a company that attempted and did use their marketshare dominance to place ridiculous demands of 3rd party developers.

They got out from under that rock and haven't looked back since.

As far as the PC space, it's somewhat different. If anything Valve would be the company that some developers might be starting to get a little uncomfortable with as far as power in the marketplace and being forced to kiss the ring. Thus far Valve has been doing and saying all the right things, but ideaology can change. Remember when Google was all 'don't be evil' and the freedom-focused little upstart?

Games aren't the primary/sole decider of platform success in the PC market. Spending the money to support Linux and Apple wouldn't suddenly shift the scales in any meaningful way. Plus, Microsoft is being about as helpful as possible right now because they know Games are the only real advantage they have over Apple in the consumer computer space right now.

 

[valkyre]

This is getting ridiculous... why screw a particular gaming group?

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Just take the package as it is, in a vacuum ignore everything else, and decide whether it is something you want to play at the price you are willing to pay. It's simpler that way because you blackbox the entire development process and only evaluate if end product fits your consumer needs. A little knowledge with limited context is far more dangerous than pure ignorance.

Sorry, but this statement is completely asinine. Consumerism does not take place in a vacuum. Nor should it. When deciding where to spend one's hard-earned money, it is incumbent upon the consumer to make an informed decision.

Any consumer who decides not to purchase an item because their research into that item has turned up something unsavory should be applauded for making an informed decision. If their information turns out to be faulty, their decision can be adjusted accordingly.

Ignorance is not bliss. It's ignorance.

 

[Shaunboy97]

I'm fed up with people implying that those who care about tech issues in games care less about games than you. This is a thread discussing potential parity, a practice that many do not want to support going forward because it's not something that has usually happened in the past, even with smaller hardware differences. If you don't care about it, great, but don't try to make others' stance on it less valid.

Good luck with that... You'll run out of torches and pitchforks in no time

 

[scoobs]

After the AC:Unity debacle it blows my mind any developer in any interview would even consider using the word "parity."

I'm going to assume he meant that they would make each version to the best of their ability and hopefully all of them look great. That said, if we get exact matches between PS4/XB1 its going to be a full-on shit-show. What a joke... why would you ever hold back a version of your game?

 

[The Antitype]

After the AC:Unity debacle it blows my mind any developer in any interview would even consider using the word "parity."

I'm going to assume he meant that they would make each version to the best of their ability and hopefully all of them look great. That said, if we get exact matches between PS4/XB1 its going to be a full-on shit-show. What a joke... why would you ever hold back a version of your game?

I think people gravely overestimate the backlash that Ubisoft received from that statement. Neogaf is something of skewed lens to analyze through, cause it's a highly concentrated community of enthusiasts.

Was there any report of an uptick in negative sentiment across social media regarding the statement in the media? Honest question. Ubisoft and Rocksteady are looking at an audience of millions, they can handle a couple thousand upset people on a message board.

 

[Biker19]

I think people gravely overestimate the backlash that Ubisoft received from that statement. Neogaf is something of skewed lens to analyze through, cause it's a highly concentrated community of enthusiasts.

Was there any report of an uptick in negative sentiment across social media regarding the statement in the media? Honest question. Ubisoft and Rocksteady are looking at an audience of millions, they can handle a couple thousand upset people on a message board.

It's more than just on gaming messageboards that people are having a problem with it. Just look at all of the tweets of #PS4NoParity on Twitter in relation to both AC: Unity & Batman: AK:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/ps4noparity

 

[Weeaboosuke]

Wow. =/

 

[GamerJM]

No, it isn't. You must need a history revision of you managed to concoct a scenario like that. The PS4 was designed based on developers input ; this included the now famous 8 GB GDDR5 RAM to offset the advantage X1 had.

It was tailored to suit the issues developed had for the PS3 and even more. This isn't something we consumers cocked up for the sake of the argument. We had a pre-conference based around it. Numerous developers actually CALLED upon it. They are the ones who set up this expectations. Never mind the amount of anonymous devs covered by Koaku, IGN and further leaks by CBOAT. The groundwork has been laid out.

Consumers didn't buy the console in a vacuum. All the negativity from the PS3 has been entirely dismissed with clear assurance from developers that the move was a right one for SONY. Why would developers suddenly support MS all of a sudden? You as a consumer should call foul play regardless of you own a PS4 or not because it paves the way for something worse than your typical fanboy wars.

Competition is supposed to be encouraged not related. No one company should hold a compete monopoly on this industry especially one who can pay their way into success. It affects our hobby in the long term. Batman AK is not the Holy Grail of video games so we can definitely live with boycotting such product.

If you want to support them then by all means go. Just remember these companies owe nothing for you. All you're doing is giving a few pass for questionable consumer ethics. But if that's they you want it to be than vote with your wallet. However, don't try to feign neutrality when it's clear your bias is heavily against the consumer. No, not PS4 consumers, consumers in general.

EDIT: I misquoted Yoshi as I thought they were the from the same person (responding through iPhone)

I mean, I still think this is an overreaction. I don't think anyone's trying to create a monopoly here, I think it's just Microsoft moneyhatting developers and publishers. They're trying to sway consumers who would buy a PS4 instead of an Xbox One towards the Xone due to performance differences away from doing so. That's really all it probably amounts to. It's still a really bad situation no doubt, but I don't think it really discourages competition (unless I'm seeing something wrong). I think it just unfairly sways the competition in one direction and just negatively affects PS4 owners, annoys PC gamers, and has no effect on Xbox One owners.

Also, like I said before, you can boycott these games if you want. It's fine with me and I understand where you're coming from to a certain extent now, but please stop insulting me and calling me heavily biased against the consumer. First of all, I'm not even buying this game (like I said before, I don't care about the Batman Arkham games nor do I care about the Assassin's Creed games). But also, I'm with everyone that thinks this is a bad thing. My point is just that if a game is good, the developers downgrading one version of the game for the sake of parity isn't going to convince me to not buy that game. I'm sorry, but I really don't think that makes me anti-consumer, it just makes me a guy who wants to play good video games. For what it's worth I would boycott almost any game with intrusive DRM or abhorrent amount of DLC.

 

[Renekton]

This makes zero sense on any level, let alone in any economic sense. Information Assymetry is one of the key ways a company is able to exploit their customer base effectively and without repercussion. The more information you have about every aspect of a product the more a consumer is able to close that assymeyrical gap.

Only if we have enough capability to process that information. We usually only have enough expertise to evaluate the properties of the product (e.g. resolution, framerate, gameplay, reviews). But we don't have enough knowledge on developer best practices, since we just play games and don't develop them.

Is this an appeal to be ignorant about the products you purchase though? To me it reads like "why be partly ignorant when you can go all in?"

Anyway, people should be commended for wanting to know more about the products they purchase, not steered away from it, the world would without a doubt be a better place if this type of behavior spread.Now I am not claiming that knowing the background of your gaming purchase is going to make the world better (hell the console was made in a place with suicide nets probably), but this general attitude (research your product) is commendable. If you find out your purchase would be supporting business practices you do not agree with it is perfectly acceptable to not make the purchase because of moral responsibility.

The issue with business practices is we don't know what the practices are. We just play games. We have no developer experience with core engines, to know for sure if a game of this scope is trivial to put on specific resolution of a PS4. We're not even sure if it's a moral issue since morality is subjective and differs by culture.

So yes, in this case, a little knowledge out of context is bad.

 

[Jova094]

Gamefly it is.

 

[GamerJM]

...Are you kidding us with this entire statement? Of course, people want to have the better versions of multiplats on PS4; it's the better choice between the two consoles for that!

It's not like PS3 Vs. 360 where the hardware between each other is basically a wash when it comes to multiplats, with PS3 exclusives being far more stronger graphically than any 360 game. PS4 has the better hardware all around, & consumers should expect the best out of it, in both exclusives & in multiplat games.

You're responding to someone who owns a PS4 and not an Xbox One primarily due to superior multiplats, so yes, I know what you mean. I think that part of my post was kind of phrased in a strange way, the point that I was making was basically just that you can't ever be 100% sure that every single game on the PS4 to always be superior in some way to the Xbox One version if you're buying the console while games are still being released for it because you never, ever know how developers will handle multiplatform releases. I'm not justifying what they're doing, I'm saying that when you bought your console you were taking a risk that something like this could happen. That's how things work with early adoption.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

"Every version will take advantage of each platforms strengths to the fullest."

Done. Perfect PR that offends no one.

They should hire you.

Some of these companies don't really understand how to avoid a PR disaster in the post social media era.

 

[Bastables]

Nintendo being the perfect example of a company that attempted and did use their marketshare dominance to place ridiculous demands of 3rd party developers.

They got out from under that rock and haven't looked back since.

As far as the PC space, it's somewhat different. If anything Valve would be the company that some developers might be starting to get a little uncomfortable with as far as power in the marketplace and being forced to kiss the ring. Thus far Valve has been doing and saying all the right things, but ideaology can change. Remember when Google was all 'don't be evil' and the freedom-focused little upstart?

Games aren't the primary/sole decider of platform success in the PC market. Spending the money to support Linux and Apple wouldn't suddenly shift the scales in any meaningful way. Plus, Microsoft is being about as helpful as possible right now because they know Games are the only real advantage they have over Apple in the consumer computer space right now.

And some such as Microsoft don't even need actul market share dominance to leverage vs developers http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-10-10-microsofts-indie-parity-clause-exists-so-xbox-one-owners-feel-first-class

Never mind their actul anti consumer always online drm Xbox one initial plans. Or their treatment of first party dev teams such as ensemble.

 

[bishoptl]

Only if we have enough capability to process that information. We usually only have enough expertise to evaluate the properties of the product (e.g. resolution, framerate, gameplay, reviews). But we don't have enough knowledge on developer best practices, since we just play games and don't develop them.


The issue with business practices is we don't know what the practices are. We just play games. We have no developer experience with core engines, to know for sure if a game of this scope is trivial to put on specific resolution of a PS4.

orly

We're not even sure if it's a moral issue since morality is subjective and differs by culture.

Well that's certainly the most interesting spin I've seen in this thread, and there's been some doozies. Kudos, I guess?

 

[b0uncyfr0]

We're not even sure if it's a moral issue since morality is subjective and differs by culture

Not provoking ya but whose 'We'? I dont even own a console and this parity thing is bullocks. If im included in this 'We' then in my opinion its a moral thing. My culture is probably different to yours.

 

[Gaiaknight]

This wont bother me all that much as i have a ton of faith in Rocksteady to make this one hell of a bad ass batman game to play.

 

[The Antitype]

And some such as Microsoft don't even need actul market share dominance to leverage vs developers http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-10-10-microsofts-indie-parity-clause-exists-so-xbox-one-owners-feel-first-class

Never mind their actul anti consumer always online drm Xbox one initial plans. Or their treatment of first party dev teams such as ensemble.

Yes, I'm sure developers and publishers were appalled at the notion that the Xbox One original concept would prevent used sales from cutting into their profits. I'm surprised we didn't see them picketing the press conference.

As far as Indies go, it's not a particularly smart plan, but then, publishers and developers have a strong alternative to go to if they don't like the terms, don't they. Now imagine if Sony were even further ahead of Microsoft and demanded the same terms? Where would they go if Microsoft wasn't in a viable position to offer an audience anywhere near the same ballpark? Indies saw what happened for most of last gen, when Xbox 360 was the only console with the means of supporting and showcasing indies while Sony struggled to catch up with PSN. They got dicked around hard by MS until Sony started being able to offer them an alternative. They're probably as sensitive as anybody to the possibility of the roles reversing this gen.

Finally, how Microsoft treats the companies they own probably isn't of much consequence to the companies they don't own... unless those companies go up for sale and Microsoft starts enquiring. Then they might get worried.

 

[Death³]

...
It's not like PS3 Vs. 360 where the hardware between each other is basically a wash when it comes to multiplats.

Wrong. 360 GPU is a generation ahead compared to PS3 (generation in PC GPU terms) and it had more memory available for games. Cell doesn't make up for this.

...
with PS3 exclusives being far more stronger graphically than any 360 game

Subjective and not measureable.

 

[DryvBy]

I think some people need to get their heads out of the butts of PR teams and corporations. Parity is not a good thing.

You pro-parity people, just imagine if that was the case for your favorite game. Let's pretend that Halo was multi-plat and instead of getting the MCC today developed for your system to take advantage of your system, there was parity with the Xbox One and a Wii U. Would you still be okay with it?

 

[Death³]

Why was there no console parity last gen? .

How do you explain that past Arkham games look almost identical on 360/PS3? Consoles with wildly different architectures somehow are able to run the same game with the same assets, frame rate, resolution with only a differing anti-aliasing method despite the best efforts of the developer to get the best out of each platform? That's a coincidence of cosmic proportions right there!

 

[Chev]

Ive been musing on this for a while, but I haven't said this before because its hard to word without sounding like a console warrior.

here it goes.

Regardless of sales, power or even gamer reception, there seems to be a vested interest in the gaming industry by large for Microsoft to do well. Im not saying this is at the expense of Sony, but there seems to be a undercurrent effort to make sure that the Xbox one doesn't fall too behind the PS4.

It could simply because two healthy platforms mean more growth in sales, or people just rooting for the underdog, or Microsoft having better relations than Sony.

Whatever it is, it seems that there are sections of journalists, publishers, market analysts and even a few developers that seem to be going the extra mile for Microsoft.

Now that is not to say that there is anything wrong with microsoft having marketing deals, advertising deals, purchasing 3rd party content and making it exclusive. Its the nature of the business after all. Im not even saying Microsoft is having a direct hand in this most of the time.

Im just saying that sometimes i get the impression that Microsoft is being kept in the race, not just by the strength of their product and ecosystem.

You guys are assuming it's about MS just because MS is behind one of the consoles. But this is about the rising costs and he thurdles of maintaining several different versions across platforms. They don't even have to be paid or compensated for parity, parity itself allows them to save money already, which is desirable for them as costs escalate.

 

[HORRORSHØW]

parity = moral ambiguity? god bless those ill-informed, ambivalent, and all-together ignorant consumers who don't know better. it's culturally divisive to boot!

 

[Sean*O]

I think people gravely overestimate the backlash that Ubisoft received from that statement. Neogaf is something of skewed lens to analyze through, cause it's a highly concentrated community of enthusiasts.

Was there any report of an uptick in negative sentiment across social media regarding the statement in the media? Honest question. Ubisoft and Rocksteady are looking at an audience of millions, they can handle a couple thousand upset people on a message board.

I agree with most of what you've written on this page, but I've looked around and pretty much every story on ACU you can find online that has any social comments attached, 'Parity' is being talked about there. I know few people comment but many people read those discussions if they go online to research a game. The bad PR will have an effect, how much there may be no way of knowing.

 

[Bastables]

Yes, I'm sure developers and publishers were appalled at the notion that the Xbox One original concept would prevent used sales from cutting into their profits. I'm surprised we didn't see them picketing the press conference.

As far as Indies go, it's not a particularly smart plan, but then, publishers and developers have a strong alternative to go to if they don't like the terms, don't they. "Now imagine if Sony were even further ahead of Microsoft and demanded the same terms?" Where would they go if Microsoft wasn't in a viable position to offer an audience anywhere near the same ballpark? Indies saw what happened for most of last gen, when Xbox 360 was the only console with the means of supporting and showcasing indies while Sony struggled to catch up with PSN. They got dicked around hard by MS until Sony started being able to offer them an alternative. They're probably as sensitive as anybody to the possibility of the roles reversing this gen.

Finally, how Microsoft treats the companies they own probably isn't of much consequence to the companies they don't own... unless those companies go up for sale and Microsoft starts enquiring. Then they might get worried.

Why do we need to imagine? Sony had dominance over two generations please provide the instances of Sony forcing parity in the Ps1/2 eras.

I do like how you think that microsofts anti consumer bullshit is all happy wink worthy in a thread where people are complaining that forced parity is anti consumer and pretty much a anti competitive practice.

 

[Sean*O]

Why do we need to imagine? Sony had dominance over two generations please provide the instances of Sony forcing parity in the Ps1/2 eras.

I do like how you think that microsofts anti consumer bullshit is all happy wink worthy in a thread where people are complaining that forced parity is anti consumer and pretty much a anti competitive practice.

I didn't get that.. I read it as devs being cautious not to push one console to dominate the other because they could be taking away their own leverage in the long run. In the meantime Parity could be cutting their own throat in the present.

 

[boredandlazy]

You guys are assuming it's about MS just because MS is behind one of the consoles. But this is about the rising costs and he thurdles of maintaining several different versions across platforms. They don't even have to be paid or compensated for parity, parity itself allows them to save money already, which is desirable for them as costs escalate.

But they're also developing for PC, which I'm assuming will perform well above what the 'parity locked' consoles will?
Why are they spending extra money on the platform that's probably going to sell the least copies?

Rising Costs the cause? It just doesn't make sense(no pun intended).

 

[Brianimaniac]

I'm a PS4 owner that's fine with this. I have zero doubt that it'll be a great-looking game on both platforms.

 

[Vroadstar]

I'm a PS4 owner that's fine with this. I have zero doubt that it'll be a great-looking game on both platforms.

I'm a PS4 owner too and I'm NOT fine with it...to each his own I guess. But just reading this thread, I would say you are in the minority. I'm sure it will be a great looking game but by which consoles standard?

 

[Mastperf]

But they're also developing for PC, which I'm assuming will perform well above what the 'parity locked' consoles will?
Why are they spending extra money on the platform that's probably going to sell the least copies?

Rising Costs the cause? It just doesn't make sense(no pun intended).

That's a good point. They already go through the trouble of offering different detail settings for the PC version, so not doing the same for consoles makes no sense.

 

[Bastables]

I didn't get that.. I read it as devs being cautious not to push one console to dominate the other because they could be taking away their own leverage in the long run. In the meantime Parity could be cutting their own throat in the present.

This forced parity to the weaker hardware to maintain future leverage is mere speculation that has no historical precedence in consoles or pc gaming. It also does not track as the pc version has not been shackled down, nor is there a wii u or PS3/xbox360 version to bring the parity level lower.

I sure as shit don't remember ikari warriors on Amiga/Atari st/c64 being kept in parity with the spectrum pc version. Do you remember the parity during the N64/ps1/Saturn era? I don't.

 

[Cave Johnson]

But they're also developing for PC, which I'm assuming will perform well above what the 'parity locked' consoles will?
Why are they spending extra money on the platform that's probably going to sell the least copies?

Rising Costs the cause? It just doesn't make sense(no pun intended).

DING DING DING! We have a winner here!