Support NeoGAF

[ChosenPredator]

I like phil only because he seems to have ken lobb latch to him and Ken lobb likes everything i like it seems soooooooooooooooooo win/win for me plus i got one of
my all time favorite games phantom dust returning which I thought i'd never see in a million
years perhaps this view of things is flawed but I do
still think he's the right guy for the spot - this newly acquired spot he's gained
and still developing his legacy - I will give him a few more years to see
if he's the real deal.

 

[hawk2025]

The "Press X to port AWESOME" is the best part of this thread so far

 

[sturgboski]

so, they give two dev kits and a game engine for free, yet they demand day 1 release?
omg
how ...preposterous?

Isn't Unity free now on the PlayStation side?

Sony and Unity extend their partnership for providing game engine tools for PlayStation developers

So in the scheme of things, its now just Dev kit for release date parity correct?

 

[serversurfer]

That was Aaron Greenberg...

So it was. My bad. In my defense, all of the suits at MS — yes, Spencer included — use corporate double-speak so effortlessly, I sometimes have trouble keeping them straight.

For example, here's Phil explaining that MS approached Square about TR exclusivity.

"So it was something Square Enix approached you about to see whether you would be up for it, essentially?

You've got to remember, we talk all the time. '09 was the first time we had them on our E3 stage. They were on our stage this year. They were on our stage last year. We've worked with them for many years. So it's not even like a conversation that's new to us. We've got an ongoing relationship with Crystal around this franchise.

They've seen what we've done with certain games out there that aren't ours. Ryse is another IP. I don't own the Ryse IP, but I was able to invest with Crytek to turn it into a franchise, which isn't easy to do for a studio on their own. I don't own it. They just announced it for PC, and certain people throw stones at me and say, 'you shouldn't let it go out on PC.' I'm like, look, I want Crytek to make money. I want Crytek to be successful. Why would I ever block them from doing something with a game they own?

I'm glad to be able to work with them. I think it's healthy. In terms of who came... it's just an ongoing conversation of what can we do next? At some point from our standpoint the investment becomes big enough that we're going to want to get something out of the conversation and the relationship. That's true with any game we have, whether it's one of our internal games, whether it's Sunset, Ryse, Dead Rising, or something like Tomb Raider.

It really was nothing against any other platform. It's just looking at our portfolio next holiday and saying, this is a great game for us, and we can go really big with it. If we look back on the franchise and this release, it can raise the elevation of what it means in gaming. I'll be happy to be part of that.

We've got to go build a great game. Crystal is a great studio to do that. They're going to focus on that. The partnership with Square around publishing this game, that's going to be strong. I feel good about the past with this franchise.

I get the reaction I see. If I'm a PlayStation person I feel like, oh, all of a sudden the franchise is going. I didn't buy the IP. I didn't buy the studio. It's not mine. Where this thing will go over time - just like Dead Rising or something else - we'll see where these things go. Just like Ryse. We'll see what happens with the games. I don't own every iteration of Tomb Raider.

But for us and this opportunity, I think it was a good opportunity for us to partner on this game. And I think it can be a win/win."

That's an awful lot of words to say, "No, we approached them." In fact, he kinda gives the impression that the idea occurred to both companies simultaneously. That's not what I'd call particularly "genuine" either.

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

Well, the list and cupboard look a bit bare to me. I'm not impressed and honestly it's proof of how far first party fell.

That whole bold part is what I really want. I guess it takes time though.

Fair enough I guess, I do personally think that from a first-party perspective, they have been doing really good, and probably up to par with X360 from the same time period (if even a bit more creative than X360, as seen with Susnet, Spark, D4 etc. and higher quality overall vs stuff like Perfect Dark and Kameo).

I honestly expect this gen's release schedule to be thinner now though. The budgets can be insane, so it's probably not smart to just pump out games these days. MS can afford it, but I expect less third party stuff.

 

[Rymuth]

Fair enough I guess, I do personally think that from a first-party perspective, they have been doing really good, and probably up to par with X360 from the same time period (if even a bit more creative than X360, as seen with Susnet, Spark, D4 etc. and higher quality overall vs stuff like Perfect Dark and Kameo).

I honestly expect this gen's release schedule to be thinner now though. The budgets can be insane, so it's probably not smart to just pump out games these days. MS can afford it, but I expect less third party stuff.

Why do you keep mentioning Sunset Overdrive along with first party entries?

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

Why do you keep mentioning Sunset Overdrive along with first party entries?

I think if we're having a discussion about the type of exclusive games/output MS is fostering these days it's quite relevant, but you are right, it's more of a second party game.

 

[TheUnsunghero26]

Why do you keep mentioning Sunset Overdrive along with first party entries?

Because Sunset Overdrive is a first party game.

 

[Melchiah]

Because Sunset Overdrive is a first party game.

It isn't developed by Microsoft's studios.

 

[Rymuth]

Because Sunset Overdrive is a first party game.

Nope.

 

[MikeE21286]

I mean it's an understandable strategy, I just don't think it's working out the way they envisioned it.

 

[rrc1594]

Nope.

If it's published and funded it makes it first-party game. Just like how The Order is first-party game for Sony

 

[benny_a]

Nope.

Tomato, tomato.

It's a game fully funded by Microsoft using an independent developer. It's a first party title. The distinction is that it isn't created by a Microsoft studio.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Can't believe that people would actually defend this, when they are the people negatively affected due to this policy (which gives them a lower number of games on their platform of choice)

At least, it seems like Phil saw this thread.

 

[TheUnsunghero26]

It isn't developed by Microsoft's studios.

Nope.

First party is any game funded and published by the platform holder.

Phil Spencer has explained the definition on twitter. The game was even announced as first party at e3.

 

[jayu26]

If it's published and funded it makes it first-party game. Just like how The Order is first-party game for Sony

The Order IP is owned by Sony, unlike Sunset IP and MS.

Tomato, tomato.

It's a game fully funded by Microsoft using an independent developer. It's a first party title. The distinction is that it isn't created by a Microsoft studio.

I don't know guys. Look at Ryse. The way I see it is that no one goes through the song and dance of owning the IP like Insomniac, only to get tried down to one plateform. I expect it to show up on PC within the year.

First party is any game funded and published by the platform holder.

Technically that makes Sunset second party, because Insomniac is independent, but we don't use that term any more.

 

[Melchiah]

First party is any game funded and published by the platform holder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_developer#First-party_developer

First-party developer
In the video game industry, a first-party developer is part of a company which manufactures a video game console and develops exclusively for it. First-party developers may use the name of the company itself (such as Nintendo), have a specific division name (such as Sony's Polyphony Digital) or have been an independent studio before being acquired by the console manufacturer (such as Rare or Naughty Dog).

Second-party developer
Second-party developer is a colloquial term used by gaming enthusiasts and media often used to describe two different types of game development studios:

Independently owned studios who take development contracts from the platform holders and what they produce will usually be exclusive to that platform.
Studios who are partially or wholly owned by the platform holder (also known as a subsidiary) and what they produce will usually be exclusive to that platform.
In reality, the resulting game is first party (since it is funded by the platform holder who usually owns the resulting IP), but the term helps to distinguish independent studios from those directly owned by the platform holder. These studios may have exclusive publishing agreements (or other business relationships) with the platform holder, while maintaining independence. Examples are Insomniac Games (which previously developed games solely for Sony's PlayStation platforms as an independent studio) and Game Freak, (which primarily develops the Nintendo-exclusive Pokémon game series).

 

[Rymuth]

If it's published and funded it makes it first-party game. Just like how The Order is first-party game for Sony

Difference is, Sony owns The Order's IP. This is much more comparable to a Quantic Dream project

Tomato, tomato.

It's a game fully funded by Microsoft using an independent developer. It's a first party title. The distinction is that it isn't created by a Microsoft studio.

Is it? I remember an IGN article where Insomniac said they pitched Sunset Overdrive to publishers but they refused unless they have full control of the IP. My understanding is that a first party title should be funded from the grounds up but I suppose I'll defer to you on this matter.

 

[CLEEK]

It's a game fully funded by Microsoft using an independent developer. It's a first party title. The distinction is that it isn't created by a Microsoft studio.

I thought that was the very definition of a second party title.

 

[benny_a]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_developer#First-party_developer

But it wasn't talked about First party developer. It was about first party games.

Shu and Phil both refer to games funded by them as first party titles, even if they do not own the studio that makes the title.

Where it isn't a first party title is when they ask a third party publisher to get one of their contracted or owned developer to make something for them.

I thought that was the very definition of a second party title.

Yeah I think it's fine to use second party but I just go with what Phil and Shu say when interviewed. Phil has used second party as well, on twitter.

 

[Melchiah]

But it wasn't talked about First party developer. It was about first party games.

Shu and Phil both refer to games funded by them as first party titles, even if they do not own the studio that makes the title.

Where it isn't a first party title is when they ask a third party publisher to get one of their contracted or owned developer to make something for them.

The difference with SO is that MS doesn't own the IP, and Insomniac hasn't denied the possibility of PC release.

 

[TheUnsunghero26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_developer#First-party_developer

Right, I'm not saying Insomniac is a first party developer(they aren't) but the game itself is a first party game. I'll link to the interview with Phil Spencer.

 

[Dragonborn]

If it's published and funded it makes it first-party game. Just like how The Order is first-party game for Sony

One slight (and by slight, I mean pretty big) difference, SO is an IP owned by Insomniac, MS doesn't own it. The Order is owned by Sony.

 

[benny_a]

The difference with SO is that MS doesn't own the IP, and Insomniac hasn't denied the possibility of PC release.

I think there are just too many concepts and variations in publishing that have different interpretations from people that you really have to be specific when you want to make a point.

Sunset Overdrive is a Microsoft Studios published title, fully funded by Microsoft with IP ownership rights retained by independent developer Insomniac Games. Quite a mouth full. ;-)

Edit: And to go back to the relevancy: Because it's fully funded by Microsoft, they do deserve the credit for bringing this game to light, IMO.

 

[Melchiah]

Right, I'm not saying Insomniac is a first party developer(they aren't) but the game itself is a first party game. I'll link to the interview with Phil Spencer.

I think just the term "exclusive" would be better to avoid misunderstanding. First party is often synonymous with something owned by the platform holder, and as was said before MS doesn't own the IP.


EDIT: For the record, I don't consider something like Bloodborne and Let It Die first party games either. Dunno about Everybody's Gone to the Rapture, as it's co-developed with Santa Monica. Tricky.

 

[hbkdx12]

Genuine question. Im not trying to sarcastically ruffle any feathers

Ppl get upset over a platform instituting a parity clause to be competitive and maintain value amongst the platform

But ppl also get upset at platforms locking up exclusive content (tomb raider only on x1, destiny content on ps4) to try to be competitive and maintain value amongst their platform

Where is the line drawn?

 

[TheUnsunghero26]

I think just the term "exclusive" would be better to avoid misunderstanding. First party is often synonymous with something owned by the platform holder, and as was said before MS doesn't own the IP.

Fair enough. Everyone seems to have their own definition of "first/second/third party," that the official definitions have lost meaning.

 

[hawk2025]

Genuine question. Im not trying to sarcastically ruffle any feathers

Ppl get upset over a platform instituting a parity clause to be competitive and maintain value amongst the platform

But ppl also get upset at platforms locking up exclusive content (tomb raider only on x1, destiny content on ps4) to try to be competitive and maintain value amongst their platform

Where is the line drawn?

The line is drawn by every person in different places, so your question doesn't have an answer.

A good personal metric, in my view, is that as a consumer I would like business deals to be value-adding for me, not value-subtracting affairs for others.

 

[Peltz]

It's actively crippling the competition. They're not competing with Sony; they're just trying to ensure Sony can't leverage the advantages of their own platform.

That's not being competitive. That's being anti-competitive. Competing means running as fast as you can. It doesn't mean coating the fast guy's shoes with lard because "it's not fair that he's faster than you."

No. The reason why larding up someone else's shoes in your example is "anti-competitive", is because it's against the rules. That's why it's wrong. But if we had a sport where that was an allowed skill, then it wouldn't be anti-competitive, it'd simply be scathingly competitive.

Microsoft didn't break any rule. The only court that will judge them is the court of public opinion. We may not like their way of doing business, but to call it anti-competitive really isn't fair.

Examples of actual anti-competitive behavior include agreeing to price fix with rivals, predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, and refusal to deal. Anti-competitive behavior, in other words, is manipulating consumers and free trade for marketshare. It doesn't include parity contracts, covenants not to compete, protecting trade secrets, and contracting for exclusive control over intellectual property.

It means behavior that actively curtails market freedom by limiting consumer choice and creating barriers to trade. And again, that does not include parity contracts. If it did, then many other contracts which restrict workflow would also be "anti-competitive".

In other words: to say that it's not in the spirit of competition to throw your weight around is actually asking a corporation to try and compete with their arms tied behind their backs. It may suck. But corporations should be allowed to play hardball with their contracts in the spirit of competition. It may subject them to criticism, as the parity clause rightfully did in Microsoft's case, but it's really not anti-competitive in any sense.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Genuine question. Im not trying to sarcastically ruffle any feathers

Ppl get upset over a platform instituting a parity clause to be competitive and maintain value amongst the platform

But ppl also get upset at platforms locking up exclusive content (tomb raider only on x1, destiny content on ps4) to try to be competitive and maintain value amongst their platform

Where is the line drawn?

Things that are objectively bad for consumers are objectively bad for consumers

What consumer benefits from less indies on XB1 or indies struggling to try and deliver multiple platforms day and date of each other?

Tomb Raider only on XB1 is bad for consumers if Square Enix would've funded it regardless as it would come to all platforms naturally had MS not made their deal [it's probably a timed exclusive I imagine] thus who does it benefit? XB1 gamers would've gotten the game in either case, now PC/PS gamers either don't get it or have to wait because MS made a deal of some sort with Square Enix. Consumers don't benefit

Destiny PS timed exclusive content doesn't benefit any consumer as PS consumers would get it regardless but now Xbox consumers have to wait a year. Dumb

Destiny Co-marketing obfuscates availability of a game [or is supposed to] in an attempt to mislead consumers. Co-marketing is therefore harmful to consumers and dumb. [Same with Madden, Diablo, Shadows of Mordor co-marketing etc.]

It's all bad regardless of who the platform holder is. Although some of it is far more harmful to consumers than others.

 

[Dragonborn]

Genuine question. Im not trying to sarcastically ruffle any feathers

Ppl get upset over a platform instituting a parity clause to be competitive and maintain value amongst the platform

But ppl also get upset at platforms locking up exclusive content (tomb raider only on x1, destiny content on ps4) to try to be competitive and maintain value amongst their platform

Where is the line drawn?

I don't mind exclusive content. It's a necessary evil as companies try to differentiate the consoles and get people to get multiplats on their console. Timed exclusive stuff and things like this parity clause are unacceptable in my eyes. Moneyhats serve no one except the moneyhatter (they don't provide anything new or help make something that wouldn't otherwise exist), and deprive gamers of a game that would have existed anyways.

As for this parity clause, it's clearly bullying. Maybe it worked last gen when the 360 was doing great, but as the gap continue to widen day by day, this clause will only hurt the X1 more. Not to mention, every time they make an exception, they'll look bad.

Like, for example, I'm sure MS would never deny NMS or the Witness from releasing on Xbox, even they came a year or more late. It's hypocritical.

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

Difference is, Sony owns The Order's IP. This is much more comparable to a Quantic Dream project


Is it? I remember an IGN article where Insomniac said they pitched Sunset Overdrive to publishers but they refused unless they have full control of the IP. My understanding is that a first party title should be funded from the grounds up but I suppose I'll defer to you on this matter.

This isn't true actually, a first-party relationship is when a game is developed by an internal 1st party development studio.

The order is still being developed by a second party developer. This was also true of Silicon Knights when they developed Eternal Darkness for Nintendo.

 

[rrc1594]

One slight (and by slight, I mean pretty big) difference, SO is an IP owned by Insomniac, MS doesn't own it. The Order is owned by Sony.

Difference is, Sony owns The Order's IP. This is much more comparable to a Quantic Dream project

Fair enough. What about Ori and The Blind Forest, I think that's a better comparison.

 

[Rymuth]

The order is still being developed by a second party developer. This was also true of Silicon Knights when they developed Eternal Darkness for Nintendo.

Correction. Co-developed by Second party developer AND a first party Developer (Sony Santa Monica), plus Sony owns the IP.

Tell me either one of these things (Co-development/ownership of IP) is happening with either of your examples (Nintendo for Eternal Darkness and Sunset for Microsoft)

This is the last time I'm addressing this matter, though.

 

[KratosEnergyDrink]

Ah!

Now I know why there are more good indie games on Wii U and PS4!

Isn't Unity free now on the PlayStation side?

It is free for Wii U too. And Nintendo is very generous with Wii U dev kits if some indie developer shows them a good idea.

 

[Stillmatic]

This is how it's always been for me.

1st Party: Platform holders IP, developed by whoever they want.

2nd Party: Platform holder is funding/publishing. 3rd party owns the IP.

3rd Party: 3rd party funds and develops the game. 3rd party owns the IP.

 

[shacklesmcgee]

I understood some of those words. And I don't agree.

Based Phil Spencer. He's just on a roll lately with good decisions for Xbox. Glad he's now in charge.

Dude, you really have to try and not be so transparent, it's kinda sad

https://twitter.com/SpeedyBlueDude/status/520321743349489665

 

[Apathy]

Dude, you really have to try and not be so transparent, it's kinda sad

https://twitter.com/SpeedyBlueDude/status/520321743349489665

Haha ouch.

 

[chubigans]

Dude, you really have to try and not be so transparent, it's kinda sad

https://twitter.com/SpeedyBlueDude/status/520321743349489665

Oh what the HELL. Screw you blue dude.

 

[fedexpeon]

Dude, you really have to try and not be so transparent, it's kinda sad

https://twitter.com/SpeedyBlueDude/status/520321743349489665

Wow.
Welp...time to pack it up.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

Dude, you really have to try and not be so transparent, it's kinda sad

https://twitter.com/SpeedyBlueDude/status/520321743349489665

Embarrassing.

 

[Marcel]

Dude, you really have to try and not be so transparent, it's kinda sad

https://twitter.com/SpeedyBlueDude/status/520321743349489665

He really needs to shill harder. This is a 7/10 console fanboy thing at best. That's some Destiny-tier shilling right there mang.

Get on misterxmedia's level.

 

[conman]

This is right up there with saying "I'm doing this for your own good." Riiiiight.

 

[rrc1594]

Dude, you really have to try and not be so transparent, it's kinda sad

https://twitter.com/SpeedyBlueDude/status/520321743349489665

Speedy is a riot! LMAO

 

[Peltz]

He really needs to shill harder. This is a 7/10 console fanboy thing at best. That's some Destiny-tier shilling right there mang.

Get on misterxmedia's level.

7/10 maybe on the IGN scale. 4/10 at best.

(I kid. I love you IGN).

 

[Marcel]

Speedy is a riot! LMAO

We're all "LMAO"ing at you, Speedy. Just so we're clear.

 

[shacklesmcgee]

wasn't gonna post it here but #NoOneCaresAboutIndies? Fuck that, that's insulting to thousands of people, myself included.

 

[Cess007]

Dude, you really have to try and not be so transparent, it's kinda sad

https://twitter.com/SpeedyBlueDude/status/520321743349489665

I blame the small size of this avatar as the reason i read wrong the text that it's on it

He really needs to shill harder. This is a 7/10 console fanboy thing at best. That's some Destiny-tier shilling right there mang.

Get on misterxmedia's level.

Do you want him to say that it was actually Sony the one who asked for the parity clause 'cause the Indies reached 100fps on Xbox one or something like that?

 

[plasmawave]

Dude, you really have to try and not be so transparent, it's kinda sad

https://twitter.com/SpeedyBlueDude/status/520321743349489665

I thought he was being sarcastic, but I stand corrected.

 

[Marcel]

Do you want him to say that it was actually Sony the one who asked for the parity clause 'cause the Indies reached 100fps on Xbox one or something like that?

I want him to go full-on Glenn Beck chalkboard for my entertainment, yes. Speedy is basically a caricature anyway so he can change it up.