The PlayStation Network gives small developers "a much weaker negotiating position" compared to Xbox Live Arcade, says acclaimed indie dev, Introversion Software.
Comparing the differences between the two consoles' online business models, Introversion MD, Mark Morris told CVG, "I think there are different challenges with Sony.
"With Microsoft your approval is given at the start, as long as you deliver what you said you'd deliver you're going to launch, where as it's not like that with Sony," he explained.
"Sony's clearance for launch comes quite later and you have to invest quite a lot of time before you get it. That's a problem because it means you have to invest a lot of time and effort and then you're in a much weaker negotiating position because they could turn around and say 'we don't want it'."
He did, however, go on to add: "To be fair, I'm sure if Microsoft wasn't happy with what you'd delivered they'd say 'you need to fix this'."
Introversion's next game, Darwinia+, is expected to release on Xbox Live Arcade within the next month. As for why the bedroom dev's not releasing it on PSN too, Morris had this to say:
"When you're a small developer you kind of have to go with whatever you're offered. I would prefer a world where we could put our content out on 360 and PSN, because I think that being able to do that is really going to enable small developers to take risks."
although with MS's system they have more pressure/chance of releasing a "polished turd".
sony not committing - especially to unknown devs is the wiser move.
MS just have too much money to waste.
And here... we can see... a stupid comment in it's natural habitat. If... I'm very quiet... we just might be able to take a glimpse... Oh, nevermind, it's heard us.
although with MS's system they have more pressure/chance of releasing a "polished turd".
sony not committing - especially to unknown devs is the wiser move.
MS just have too much money to waste.
not really, getting MS approval up front gives confidence and a target to the dev. if sony dump a project late into the dev cycle and demand massive changes that could have been done earlier, its to the detriment of the small dev.
it seems to me that sony's approach suits them more but the MS approach suits the devs more but also gives MS power to affect quality.
although with MS's system they have more pressure/chance of releasing a "polished turd".
sony not committing - especially to unknown devs is the wiser move.
MS just have too much money to waste.
not really, getting MS approval up front gives confidence and a target to the dev. if sony dump a project late into the dev cycle and demand massive changes that could have been done earlier, its to the detriment of the small dev.
it seems to me that sony's approach suits them more but the MS approach suits the devs more but also gives MS power to affect quality.
really.
why would you approve something you havent seen, from a team who's skills you know nothing of?!
its just stupid.
if they make a decent game, then it will get put on PSN. they have nothing to worry about, unless they plan on churning out some peice of shit, hoping people will buy it and make them profit.
they dont get cash anyway till its on sale, so its all in the mind. it would have to be cack for it to be refused. they would turn round and say improve that anyway - just like MS would do.
sony just dont bind themselves to a possible lame duck. its common sense. nothing else.
different if the devs were established, creative skills known and proven.
i seem to remember flower dev speaking very highly of PSN and sony support. but they were making something creative. not some generic blaster signed up before it ever appeared.
although with MS's system they have more pressure/chance of releasing a "polished turd".
sony not committing - especially to unknown devs is the wiser move.
MS just have too much money to waste.
And here... we can see... a stupid comment in it's natural habitat. If... I'm very quiet... we just might be able to take a glimpse... Oh, nevermind, it's heard us.
Man, you are angry today! How about I let you beat my Fengers up in SF2? That make you feel better? How about a hug?
And for my own two pence. I like the way Microsoft do it, it benefits both dev and publisher alike. The (untested) developer just has to be able to deliver what they said they could and the game gets released.
The Sony way protects Sony from investing but by then the game has already had loads of resources and time spent on it.
although with MS's system they have more pressure/chance of releasing a "polished turd".
sony not committing - especially to unknown devs is the wiser move.
MS just have too much money to waste.
not really, getting MS approval up front gives confidence and a target to the dev. if sony dump a project late into the dev cycle and demand massive changes that could have been done earlier, its to the detriment of the small dev.
it seems to me that sony's approach suits them more but the MS approach suits the devs more but also gives MS power to affect quality.
really.
why would you approve something you havent seen, from a team who's skills you know nothing of?!
its just stupid.
if they make a decent game, then it will get put on PSN. they have nothing to worry about, unless they plan on churning out some peice of shit, hoping people will buy it and make them profit.
they dont get cash anyway till its on sale, so its all in the mind. it would have to be cack for it to be refused. they would turn round and say improve that anyway - just like MS would do.
sony just dont bind themselves to a possible lame duck. its common sense. nothing else.
different if the devs were established, creative skills known and proven.
i seem to remember flower dev speaking very highly of PSN and sony support. but they were making something creative. not some generic blaster signed up before it ever appeared.
It has nothing to do with Microsoft not "seeing" the game as it hasn't been written yet.
The dev. puts forward a game design document with the key features, control method, goals etc to the XBLA team, and providing it meets Microsoft's criteria they will get the green light to develop it with complete access to Microsoft support during the development process.
There are a number of quality control procedures in place such as, you can't make blatant clones e.g hopper as a frogger game, space invasion as space invaders etc, and there is a limit to the size of the finished downloadable product (I think 50MB!).
But all in all it's a great way to encourage small devs or even bedroom coders to get games out there, and believe me they don't accept crap or broken games, just ask Jeff Minter, a respected programmer how Microsoft made him jump through a sh1t load of hoops before Space Giraffe finally got the OK!
...surely there always has to be an element of "trust" and "risk" within the gaming industry, its seems MS are happy to give the go ahead...Sony sound a bit tighter to me...I personally think even though I like PS3's that Sony are out of touch with the market, the people and the devs indie or otherwise...
I'm not trying to start an arguement here I just feel they have had the wrong idea about their whole strategy from the off and they are not helping themselves....the PS2 were golden years weren't they
I'd say that the PSN has more quality, and the Marketplace has more quantity, as already mentioned. A lot of the games on the Marketplace are really quite amateurish which is surprising for a company like Microsoft, although if its for maximum profits then it's understandable. The prices are better on the Marketplace, definitely.
...surely there always has to be an element of "trust" and "risk" within the gaming industry, its seems MS are happy to give the go ahead...Sony sound a bit tighter to me...I personally think even though I like PS3's that Sony are out of touch with the market, the people and the devs indie or otherwise...
I'm not trying to start an arguement here I just feel they have had the wrong idea about their whole strategy from the off and they are not helping themselves....the PS2 were golden years weren't they
Let's be honest, the best things on PSN are old PS1 games, so it's not really the same thing. As as for:
why would you approve something you havent seen, from a team who's skills you know nothing of?!
Have you heard of contracts? Commissioning something? It's kind of, well, fair. The bottom line really is that this is a dev giving a bit of chat to please the people he's working for. We see it every single day (there has already been another identical story posted here today: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=232417)
And if anyone tries to pull the whole "M$ have too much money" etc etc argument, they deserve a slap. What are you saying, Sony is a poor little company with no advertising budget? Come on, don't be t**ts. Sony is one of the biggest companies in the world.
They're all as bad as each other, and that there is no argument.
microsoft sign everything in the hope something will be a success.
cheap tactics. a bit like arab-owned premier clubs.
LIVE is littered with tons of old games, rehashed specifically to cash in on the servers and customers.
I have a ton of those old Games (which ive enjoyed playing ), I also have some really good new IP's that have given me hours and hours of Fun and enjoyment.
The fact that bedroom programmers can have a Game on Live, available to the general public with the Indie Games Channel is something that MS should be commended for. There is creativity in its purist form right there.
Dont tell me though, all the Games on it are shoite ?
woah there lil fanboy. If i remember rightly most of the games on PSN are re releases of PSone games. There's not even been anything done to them. They're just port jobs. If anyones trying to cash in on nostalgia its sony.
Most of the stuff on LIve is brand new and made by small devs and the community. I don't see how taking chances on emerging talent is ever a bad thing.
@ parma. Hey POrtsmouth don't use cheap tactics. Now Poaching a clubs manager and then allowing him to buy pretty much the whole of his former squad. Now thats cheap.
What are you talking about Darwina is a brilliant game. And I love the fact you get indie developers working on Xbox and Playstation.
Also its not as if Microsft would not have been aware of the developer as its published several great games on Steam.
Microsoft seems to be more innovative and games led in this regard (more of the PC vide to gaming), and is also working on a standard business contract.
Its in both the developers and plaforms interest that the games are good or at least interesting to certain group of people otherwise they won't sell much.
I haven't yet purchased an indie arcade game on PSN (only games like GT Prologue) because unlike the Xbox, they don't seem to let you demo the arcade games from my experience.
microsoft sign everything in the hope something will be a success.
cheap tactics. a bit like arab-owned premier clubs.
LIVE is littered with tons of old games, rehashed specifically to cash in on the servers and customers.
And there was me thinking it was a marketplace, otherwise known as a free market where businesses can sell their wares and customers can choose whether or not to buy them.
Microsoft don't 'sign' anything, they greenlight a studio to develop on their platform, they don;t buy them or give them any money, only development support and then they'll take a cut as the marketplace host.
You know, i love reading all the posts, even the ones that get personal can be quite witty and amusing, but oh man, 'grasshopper' you really are a tit, grow up for pete's sake.
sony will give support to anyone developing on their machine. no 'green light' required.
i dont see why anyone needs a green light to start development. really whats the difference?
That a) doesn't make sense and b) is stupid.
Any evidence of this 'Sony supporting anyone' business? Would any company ever do that? No. And of course people need 'green lights'. Small devs couldn't afford to make a game and then not have anyone host it. PSN/Live are where a lot of small houses make their money, and can therefor continue.
sony will give support to anyone developing on their machine. no 'green light' required.
i dont see why anyone needs a green light to start development. really whats the difference?
if its crap it will get deffered anyway, on both platforms.
I think you're missing the point of the article, it's the green light that allows them to put time and money into developing a game without fear of it being knocked back late into the development, as long as they meet the criteria that was approved at the start Microsoft will allow it to be put on sale on the Marketplace. Sony, on the other hand, operates differently which could have more risk for the developer.
"Sony's clearance for launch comes quite later and you have to invest quite a lot of time before you get it. That's a problem because it means you have to invest a lot of time and effort and then you're in a much weaker negotiating position because they could turn around and say 'we don't want it'."
although with MS's system they have more pressure/chance of releasing a "polished turd".
sony not committing - especially to unknown devs is the wiser move.
MS just have too much money to waste.
And here... we can see... a stupid comment in it's natural habitat. If... I'm very quiet... we just might be able to take a glimpse... Oh, nevermind, it's heard us.
Man, you are angry today! How about I let you beat my Fengers up in SF2? That make you feel better? How about a hug?
Sounds... therapeutic! Not tonight though unfortunately, I'm taking my anger out to unleash on the general public. Maybe over the weekend though. *thumbs up*
This is a bit of a crap story really. becuase if you read it properly, both XBL and PSN work in the same way!
What are you talking about, they are at the opposite ends of the scale.
The big difference is that there are probably a lot of small studios ready to take the plunge on PSN but ultimately deem it too big a risk to spend time and money on something that might never see the light.
Risk is the No.1 entity for businesses, everything a business does is weighted against the risk factor, so for Sony to state that their game won't get a confirmed contract until a lot of money has been spent on it will scare them off and development may never even start.
Microsoft on the other hand is giving out a contract to the devs they think have a worthy product at the beginning. That means that the dev studios have a much better chance of sponsors and financial backing meaning their risks are much less.....hence this means the smaller studios get chance to thrive rather than shrink.
difference being if you have the green light you won't be wasting time, money and effort in making something that won't sell.
That's right... once they get the green light at the start they can carry on regardless and develop anything they want without ever having to go back for Microsofts approval again.
although with MS's system they have more pressure/chance of releasing a "polished turd".
sony not committing - especially to unknown devs is the wiser move.
MS just have too much money to waste.
And here... we can see... a stupid comment in it's natural habitat. If... I'm very quiet... we just might be able to take a glimpse... Oh, nevermind, it's heard us.
Man, you are angry today! How about I let you beat my Fengers up in SF2? That make you feel better? How about a hug?
Sounds... therapeutic! Not tonight though unfortunately, I'm taking my anger out to unleash on the general public. Maybe over the weekend though. *thumbs up*
Ok dude, I've got to resort to shouting at the general public from behind a counter. I'll catch you over the weekend.
This is a bit of a crap story really. becuase if you read it properly, both XBL and PSN work in the same way!
What are you talking about, they are at the opposite ends of the scale.
The big difference is that there are probably a lot of small studios ready to take the plunge on PSN but ultimately deem it too big a risk to spend time and money on something that might never see the light.
Risk is the No.1 entity for businesses, everything a business does is weighted against the risk factor, so for Sony to state that their game won't get a confirmed contract until a lot of money has been spent on it will scare them off and development may never even start.
Microsoft on the other hand is giving out a contract to the devs they think have a worthy product at the beginning. That means that the dev studios have a much better chance of sponsors and financial backing meaning their risks are much less.....hence this means the smaller studios get chance to thrive rather than shrink.
I can see what your saying, my comment was based against what the artical is talking about. I don't see how PSN gives you a weaker position when it comes to actually bringing out a game that is fully written.
As for your comments, XBLA is better for dev's than PSN yes. But I think PSN ends up being a better shop for games than XBLA, becuase MS pretty much green light everything before any code is even written, a lot of rubbish turns up on XBLA. On the PSN people are not even going to bother with the s**t ideas becuase Sony might not allow it once its done.
I think Sonys model is better for the consumer, where MS's model is better for the developer. I'm a consumer, so I like Sonys model better!
For the consumer it comes down to quality/quantity.
But then someone could argue that with PSN/LIVE games being smaller and lower budget, Microsoft's model gives the consumer more of a chance to find the little gem that appeals to them.
Either way, I personally find that 98/100 of them are either completely rubbish or not worth talking about anyway.
What was the name of that game where you got rid of the blocks on screen. like Breakout. and you'd see someone's ex girlfriend naked? That was a terrible game. I don't know why MS would put that on the Marketplace, I doubt anyone would be interested in that, she was ugly anyway.
there will always be crap games released on both networks so whats the big deal? What form a turd comes out of your ass really matters? Not the actual quality of it? Lol
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
), I also have some really good new IP's that have given me hours and hours of Fun and enjoyment.
Not tonight though unfortunately, I'm taking my anger out to unleash on the general public. Maybe over the weekend though. *thumbs up*
