Support NeoGAF

[Bojanglez]

Sony makes MLB the Show on Xbox. Does MS withhold info about new consoles with Sony?

Maybe not because maybe MS was so desperate to get The Show on Xbox and Gamepass that they were willing to do so. Or maybe they were just so confident in the power of their own box.

This idea that if only MS had access to devkits in advance they'd be able to copy the "Sony secret sauce!1" is a laughable idea. These companies use off-the-shelf IP from the same company and have access to the same internal roadmaps from said company. If a forum dweller like me can get the general outline of what the PS5 SoC would be 2½ years before launch I guarantee you that Microsoft can too.

This isn't necessarily about specs, it could be a lot of other things too. Remember when Sony said "we believe in generations" many people took that to be that they believe in abandoning making games on their old consoles and only making them for their new, but what I think is the reality is that they believe in making a generational leap in the overall experience of a new console. This includes peripherals, operating systems features, network features, community features etc. Not just putting together a new box and slapping on the same OS and using essentially the old controller. So even the same game, could see a generational leap in the experience.

If Microsoft got wind of these new features, they could set to work immediately on replicating them if they were software based, and for any feature (hardware or software) could prepare suitable marketing accordingly to counteract the strengths Sony may have. Look at the way this generation launched, MS came out and made such a fuss about 12TF, because they knew on paper that PS5 was not 12TF even if it was more performant by other metrics, they went hard on power as that was their only perceived advantage knowing that they were not pushing the bard in any other meaningful way.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

This is a big nothing imo

So what if they don't share undisclosed information they do the same with almost all 3rd party devs as well

Only their most trusted 1st party devs get this info first anyhow

Much like where things stand right now with the rumored PS5 Pro, as it stands today doubt we get any real spec leaks until October ish when more devs have access to whats being shared internally (and maybe it get cancelled)

 

[Skifi28]

Duh

 

[DeepEnigma]

This is a big nothing imo

So what if they don't share undisclosed information they do the same with almost all 3rd party devs as well

Only their most trusted 1st party devs get this info first anyhow

Much like where things stand right now with the rumored PS5 Pro, as it stands today doubt we get any real spec leaks until October ish when more devs have access to whats being shared internally (and maybe it get cancelled)

But gaming internet gonna be gaming internet.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Oh no.
Anyway.

 

[soulbait]

Well no shit.

It does not mean they could not develop games for PlayStation, it is just that Sony will hold non-public information due to Microsoft owning the company. Did anyone think otherwise?

 

[StealthGoblin]

Grasping at straws at this point..

Bungie is a Sony studio now and they make games for Xbox so what's the deal there?

When Cerny tours studios and partners to develop the hardware of the PS6, they don’t want Microsoft knowing their thoughts. Obviously Activision shouldn’t be part of that going forward and I’d elect Bungie excluded from Xbox discussions.

Those are very sensitive discussions. Sony’s hardware discussions have given them distinct advantages and points of differentiation over the last two gens.

 

[wolffy66]

It's honestly a good argument against non exclusive games. But something tells me, all of these console manufacturers have the to money to get info from someone, if they really wanted to get some inside info. They seem to know what the other guys are doing for the most part. Probably even more than they admit or act like.

 

[JackMcGunns]

What a stupid comment.

Please explain how PlayStation doing bad is good for gaming?

Go.

If ANY of the big 3 suddenly fail to compete, it is not good for gaming.

Call it a "shit take" all you want but you're just being dumb if you think that lol.

Competition is good for gaming. Sony is killing it right now, this isn't competition, people even talk about MS exiting the gaming space, but the recent push of acquiring studios and pushing GamePass is the last ditch effort to remain competitive, and now that's being blocked. MS throwing in the towel and letting Sony reign is definitely bad. Getting Activision isn't even close to a level playing field, but it's a start.

 

[jshackles]

I'm not sure why reading the court docs where the stenographer wrote "Mindcraft" instead of "Minecraft" cracks me up so much, but here we are.

Also - duh. You're not going to share your confidential information with your biggest competitor. Seems like a bit of a foregone conclusion.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm not sure why reading the court docs where the stenographer wrote "Mindcraft" instead of "Minecraft" cracks me up so much, but here we are.

Also - duh. You're not going to share your confidential information with your biggest competitor. Seems like a bit of a foregone conclusion.

MS lawyers called Spider-Man, Batman, and said Bloodborne was a third party exclusive in CMA submissions.

It's most definitely amusing reading the out of touch law arm of companies vs the PR.

 

[Gone]

Do you really believe Microsoft would give Bungie Next gen specs early? I don't.

So it's a non story..
Neither companies will do such a thing.

 

[Gone]

When Cerny tours studios and partners to develop the hardware of the PS6, they don’t want Microsoft knowing their thoughts. Obviously Activision shouldn’t be part of that going forward and I’d elect Bungie excluded from Xbox discussions.

Those are very sensitive discussions. Sony’s hardware discussions have given them distinct advantages and points of differentiation over the last two gens.

Exactly and that's why this whole thing shouldn't be a point of discussion.

 

[mrmustard]

MS lawyers called Spider-Man, Batman,

To say in their defense, when i played Spider-Man Batman came into my mind more than once

 

[DeepEnigma]

So it's a non story..
Neither companies will do such a thing.

Exactly. It's only a story to those not educated in this, and it gets clicks in this court case saga right now.

To say in their defense, when i played Spider-Man Batman came into my mind more than once

I mean, it's all cape shit.

 

[Three]

To say in their defense, when i played Spider-Man Batman came into my mind more than once

They called it Superman, so no defence. To the gulag with them.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-says-sony-is-working-on-a-superman-game.1654272/

 

[Ogbert]

This is an utter non-story.

Of course they wouldn’t.

 

[DeepEnigma]

They called it Superman, so no defence. To the gulag with them.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-says-sony-is-working-on-a-superman-game.1654272/

Ah yes, Superman. At least the suit colors could have through them off.

 

[Miyazaki’s Slave]

FWIW dev kit delivery and development is considered “late stage” when deploying new architecture and development environments (a ”new gen” of consoles).

The companies (MS, Sony, NOJ) typically delivery white papers with spec layouts, performance estimates, and intended use case scenarios. They will then provide a list of recommended development specs for currently available (read PC) hardware. The intention here is that development can start (budget creation, early asset creation for stress testing, etc) well before any development kits are delivered.

Later you get SDK information that further refines your early development efforts and gets your product “ready” to run on new hardware.

They then deliver dev kits, but this is very late in the process as they have already manufactured the kits their hardware is “baked in” and won’t change.

I think that the early process is what JR is referring to…which can take place, in some cases, 36MONTHS before a dev kit ever hits your studio.

 

[Fabieter]

Competition is good for gaming. Sony is killing it right now, this isn't competition, people even talk about MS exiting the gaming space, but the recent push of acquiring studios and pushing GamePass is the last ditch effort to remain competitive, and now that's being blocked. MS throwing in the towel and letting Sony reign is definitely bad. Getting Activision isn't even close to a level playing field, but it's a start.

What would make it a even playing field? T2, Ea, capcom and sqaure. At which point isnit enough. Ms dont need any of them they need to clear house at the mangement level.

 

[EverydayBeast]

I don’t know if losing Activision hurts Sony PlayStation, they still have exclusives and Activision, call of duty has many issues.

 

[Unknown?]

So it's a non story..
Neither companies will do such a thing.

Exactly, neither will give the other early access to their dev kits.

 

[Snake29]

FWIW dev kit delivery and development is considered “late stage” when deploying new architecture and development environments (a ”new gen” of consoles).

The companies (MS, Sony, NOJ) typically delivery white papers with spec layouts, performance estimates, and intended use case scenarios. They will then provide a list of recommended development specs for currently available (read PC) hardware. The intention here is that development can start (budget creation, early asset creation for stress testing, etc) well before any development kits are delivered.

Later you get SDK information that further refines your early development efforts and gets your product “ready” to run on new hardware.

They then deliver dev kits, but this is very late in the process as they have already manufactured the kits their hardware is “baked in” and won’t change.

I think that the early process is what JR is referring to…which can take place, in some cases, 36MONTHS before a dev kit ever hits your studio.

But internet needs to spin Jim his context as always, and news outlets act as if they don't understand what Jim is saying here.

 

[ZehDon]

You can't just romanticise everything and call it good, and you can't just attribute Sony's good decisions to xbox. The PS4 wasn't good because Sony was "desperate". First party output wasn't great "because they had their throats against the wall".

The qualities that made the PS4 good were absolutely because Sony were desperate. Instead of an obtuse set of custom hardware designs, a luxury afforded by their dominate position with the PS2 leading into the PS3, Cerny designed a cost-effective machine that developers could more easily use because Sony needed exactly that: a powerful console at affordable prices. They couldn't survive another PS3 debacle. If the PS3 had been as successful as they wanted, Kutaragi's PS4 would've looked a lot different to Cerny's.

The PS4 being good and their first party output had little to do with xbox though and certainly nothing to do with the "it only does everything" push.

The PS4 being good was because Microsoft, and Sony, had put them in a position where it had to be. They both used x86 hardware for a reason. As for their first party, Sony built their ICE team, improved their support studio structure, and their QA pipeline to bolster their first party lineup during the PS3 era. Why? Because the hardware was incredibly difficult to wield, HD games required a lot more work, and they needed to fill the gaps left by third parties stepping away. All of that work continues to pay off today, built up because they had to.

We need MS and xbox to keep prices in check and for innovation, not to remove third parties and cause harm.

Yes?

 

[Mozza]

Next gen you better believe CoD will be Xbox console exclusive, and all future Bungie projects for next gen will be Playstation console exclusive.

Hard to pick a winner out of those two studios.

 

[Mozza]

Yes. Agreed. But using your trillionaire status to just buy out entire publishers is not healthy competition. The industry needs healthy competition. Not simply buying out entire publishers.

Of course. Any of the big 3 fail to compete and the industry is worse off for it. Point blank.
It boggles my mind how theres gamers in here trying to tell me that if Sony stopped competing, it would be good for gaming. Like what the fuck are you talking about?
I honestly think my tag needs to be shared with about 88 other people here.

But the games would still come to the platform that was left, and would it not be better to have just one awesome platform where you could buy all games, rather than having to own three different machines, pretty sure that would be a better option for us all. Lots of people complaining on here that Nintendo's games for example are hindered by weaker hardware, and also having to bring games to multiple devices is also not helping developers gat the most from them.

Totally agree that healthy competition is a good thing, but that can also create issues as well.

 

[SuperSaiyanWithDreads]

Deal needs to fail. It is bad for gaming.

It’s bad for fanboys; that’s it

 

[Mozza]

It’s bad for fanboys; that’s it

Some will say it's bad for gaming, but never have any tangible reasons why this is the case, this seems to be a case of Microsoft can buy any small studio they want, but because they have bought Zenmax, no large purchases are allowed, as it's bad for gaming. So following the same reasoning, is Sony's buyout of Bungie not a potentially bad for gaming scenario too.

 

[Mozza]

I don’t know if losing Activision hurts Sony PlayStation, they still have exclusives and Activision, call of duty has many issues.

Seems strange that there is such a fuss about this if it does not affect Sony, and so many people seem to be suggesting COD is not a great franchise, seems strange they would be upset if it became some sort of exclusive for Microsoft.

 

[Three]

The qualities that made the PS4 good were absolutely because Sony were desperate. Instead of an obtuse set of custom hardware designs, a luxury afforded by their dominate position with the PS2 leading into the PS3, Cerny designed a cost-effective machine that developers could more easily use because Sony needed exactly that: a powerful console at affordable prices. They couldn't survive another PS3 debacle. If the PS3 had been as successful as they wanted, Kutaragi's PS4 would've looked a lot different to Cerny's.

Sony wanted a console that was easy to develop for with more possible vendors for hardware. Not desperation. You could argue that because there were alternative machines that were easier to develop for that had unified memory or whatever they couldn't afford to ignore those innovations.

The PS4 being good was because Microsoft, and Sony, had put them in a position where it had to be. They both used x86 hardware for a reason.

Even before x86 they all used powerpc. All of them using it doesn't mean one or the other convinced them out of desperation, if anything the market leader influences what the other uses and not the other way round.

As for their first party, Sony built their ICE team, improved their support studio structure, and their QA pipeline to bolster their first party lineup during the PS3 era. Why? Because the hardware was incredibly difficult to wield, HD games required a lot more work, and they needed to fill the gaps left by third parties stepping away.
All of that work continues to pay off today, built up because they had to.

The hardware was difficult to wield but they built them because of the PS3 not because of the 360. Thier first party had to learn to make highly parallel engines and games. Something that became more and more common as CPUs got more and more cores too. Did the performance of competing games elsewhere on PC or xbox motivate them more to do it? Possibly, but why are you attributing their work primarily to xbox? Why would this motivation to have better performing games compared to rival game developers inhouse or third party not exist?

Yes?

Well refer back to the original question, somebody asked:

"Please explain how PlayStation doing bad is good for gaming? Go."

The answer is that it's not good for gaming. when it's designed to remove third parties and cause harm there is nothing good. What's good for gaming is for xbox and PS to outdo eachother innovating and to compete with each other on price. There is no "good for gaming" by playstation "doing bad".

 

[Stooky]

Like I said,

except it really isn't.

 

[SSfox]

Make total sens

 

[Stooky]

MS are competing on a different front that, ironically enough, Sony can't compete on (yet?). Which is their games-as-a-service stuff with Game Pass and all that ecosystem around it. That being said, Sony's recent reports show that most customers are actually paying quite a lot of money for digital transactions in service-games (hence their efforts in that area) and are buying fewer games in turn. So in that sense, Microsoft is actually competing quite well. It's just that in the traditional "Buy a game for $70" market, Microsoft have trouble. But that market seems to shrink.

And yes, you're right, the regression of Sony's first-party diversity may be my opinion. Still want a new MotorStorm, though. For me, Pacific Rift was on the level of Burnout 3 when it comes to action/arcade racers. And Burnout 3 is probably the best one ever.

I do think Sony needs to diversify their 1st games. I just don’t think they are regressing. Their first party is the best in the industry at what they do. They set a high quality bar. Microsoft is going strong with game pass. Think about bout this MS is purchasing a Activision PS is the console compared to google apple etc. 16% PS to MS less than 10%. COD might stay on PS but what about the other games. I don’t trust them. For Devs these big acquisitions are never good. They always end with people losing their jobs and studio shutdowns. MS history with handling studios is bad. I don’t like how like how the future of the industry looks with this type of model.

 

[Hudo]

I do think Sony needs to diversify their 1st games. I just don’t think they are regressing. Their first party is the best in the industry at what they do. They set a high quality bar. Microsoft is going strong with game pass. Think about bout this MS is purchasing a Activision PS is the console compared to google apple etc. 16% PS to MS less than 10%. COD might stay on PS but what about the other games. I don’t trust them. For Devs these big acquisitions are never good. They always end with people losing their jobs and studio shutdowns. MS history with handling studios is bad. I don’t like how like how the future of the industry looks with this type of model.

Well, Sony could revive Resistance or Killzone and actually make more than just third-person cinematic games again. Bungie can help out, if need be. But yeah, Sony's first party is the best at that specific niche, you're right. It's just that they were the best at more than just that. And for me, that's sad to see. I also doesn't help that I just can't get anything out of the new God of War games, they just get boring after some hours (I still play GoW 1-3 every couple years, they're still quite fun). And The Last of Us Part 2 I dropped because I found the writing to be bad, even though I like the first one. Maybe I am just not part of the target audience anymore. I am also not interested in superhero stuff (maybe I am not American enough for this, who knows), so these Spider-Man games are also not for me. But I recognize that all these games are highly popular and it clearly works for Sony.

I am also usually not one for big corporations getting bigger (doesn't matter if it's Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo or whoever). The thing with ActiBlizz is that the current management is so shit that I see Microsoft taking over genuinely as an improvement. Maybe they can unfuck Blizzard because Blizzard themselves clearly aren't able (or willing) to and Bobby Kotick doesn't seem to give fuck as long as there's money in it.

Big first step would be to clear up the mess they've made with WarCraft III: Reforge and then actually sit down and discuss what they want to do with WoW and Overwatch. Microsoft's "handling" ironically is fairly hands off from all I have heard, so that would mean the issues at 343 are made in-house. So maybe Microsoft should actually start to give their studios a bit more pressure? I dunno.

 

[OuterLimits]

Its objectively bad for Sony/Playstation. Theres a reason they are trying everything in their power to stop it. Nintendo less so.

Nintendo definitely wants this deal to be approved since they get a 10 year commitment for Call of Duty.

 

[Impotaku]

Nintendo definitely wants this deal to be approved since they get a 10 year commitment for Call of Duty.

Nintendo doesn’t give a shit about COD it makes no difference to them they happily exist and thrive without that stuff on their systems the types that play COD are not ones that typically play on Nintendo systems, the dudebro demographic are firmly entrenched on PlayStation/Xbox which is why there’s so much drama and tears on here over it.

 

[Hudo]

the dudebro demographic are firmly entrenched on PlayStation/Xbox which is why there’s so much drama and tears on here over it.

That drama is also kinda entertaining tbh.

 

[Bartski]

Lmao. How is that surprising?

 

[MarkMe2525]

I understand the move, but in the event of the buyout going through; doesn't this all but ensure subpar versions of Activision/Blizzard multiplatform games being released near the launch of the PS6? CoD comes to mind as a game that would release around the time of a new console.

 

[KaiserBecks]

Guess who isn't going to get any games from Activision then lol.

 

[Stooky]

A vast majority of those Sony studios were bought just like MS is buying studios. Someone will chime in claiming thatwasdifferent.gif but it's really not.

Anyway this seems like another big nothing burger. Why would Sony share intimate details about a console with a direct competitor? Wasn't the PS4 RAM a surprise to MS? Imagine if they'd given an Xbox studio information about it and it could have given MS time to adjust the Xbox One hardware. Nintendo and MS wouldn't share info like that either.

It is different buying a studio vs a buying a publisher. It’s not remotely the same. If Sony started buying large publishers I would be against that. Disney buying fox I hated it. Comcast buying warner bros. This never turns out good.

 

[LostDonkey]

Salty bastards. This whole saga has shown how pathetic both sides really are.

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

Guess who isn't going to get any games from Activision then lol.

I'm sure the economics of pumping yearly Call of Duty titles would work great by excluding the most popular platform for the franchise lol. They're a business where the profit is the biggest motivator, so they'll get over it in the end.

 

[Thirty7ven]

That's actually quite easy, because we have a real-world example of what happens when PlayStation fails to compete. It's called the PlayStation 3. Microsoft took full advantage of Sony's litany of absolute blunders in the first half of that generation, and shoved Sony up against the nearest wall by their fucking throat. And what happened when it all went bad for PlayStation? Sony turned its first party studios into an industry leading powerhouse and fought back tooth and nail, giving us the legendary "It only does everything" push. PlayStation doing bad directly caused the second coming of PlayStation because, heading into the next generation, Microsoft was riding high on their arrogance and Sony were hungry to compete. The entire industry figured Microsoft had next-gen in the bag before it even started. Despite their successes in the late-PS3 gen, Sony as a whole was seriously bleeding. Desperate, Sony stepped back into the ring with the PS4: a cheap, powerful piece of kit that absolutely delivered. Hit after hit, smart decision after smart decision, win after win. Things going bad for PlayStation forced PlayStation to do better, so, things going bad for PlayStation seems to be a good thing for PlayStation, oddly enough. Sony doesn't need protecting - they need competition, or they'll end up making another PlayStation 3.

This only works if your competition isn’t capable of losing billions in a race to the bottom, isn’t buying a mid sized publisher and the biggest publisher, along with however many studios, not mention taking a kick in the teeth on hardware. How many storied IP will MS have bought by the time they fold ABK?

You’re asking a whole lot from PlayStation, when the only thing they can effectively do is join the consolidation game and go out there and buy a Take Two/Ubisoft along with a Capcom/SE.

If you think they can just build ten studios that will deliver hit new IP you are living in a fantasy.

 

[Three]

I can’t believe he’s sending a pre-recorded video testimony instead of at least being live on video for a FTC hearing that (according to him) is decisive for the future of his company.

What kind of soggy pussy does that?

Because some other 'soggy pussy' tried to fastrack a hearing in a couple of weeks and nobody has to drop everything and fly out for 2 days just because that bitch is afraid they would have to renegotiate.

 

[Stooky]

Well, Sony could revive Resistance or Killzone and actually make more than just third-person cinematic games again. Bungie can help out, if need be. But yeah, Sony's first party is the best at that specific niche, you're right. It's just that they were the best at more than just that. And for me, that's sad to see. I also doesn't help that I just can't get anything out of the new God of War games, they just get boring after some hours (I still play GoW 1-3 every couple years, they're still quite fun). And The Last of Us Part 2 I dropped because I found the writing to be bad, even though I like the first one. Maybe I am just not part of the target audience anymore. I am also not interested in superhero stuff (maybe I am not American enough for this, who knows), so these Spider-Man games are also not for me. But I recognize that all these games are highly popular and it clearly works for Sony.

I am also usually not one for big corporations getting bigger (doesn't matter if it's Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo or whoever). The thing with ActiBlizz is that the current management is so shit that I see Microsoft taking over genuinely as an improvement. Maybe they can unfuck Blizzard because Blizzard themselves clearly aren't able (or willing) to and Bobby Kotick doesn't seem to give fuck as long as there's money in it.

Big first step would be to clear up the mess they've made with WarCraft III: Reforge and then actually sit down and discuss what they want to do with WoW and Overwatch. Microsoft's "handling" ironically is fairly hands off from all I have heard, so that would mean the issues at 343 are made in-house. So maybe Microsoft should actually start to give their studios a bit more pressure? I dunno.

I think Microsoft’s management of their 1st party studios is shit, and if they join with Activision, I think some the smaller studios will shut down. That happens with these large mergers. If MS said that activiision would operate as individual entity I would be for that, but they are already picking winners and losers. Don’t be surprised when they start trimming the fat. Once ms gets the user numbers they will gate keep all of the content. PS 3rd party sales numbers are just to big to ignore.

 

[Hudo]

I think Microsoft’s management of their 1st party studios is shit, and if they join with Activision, I think some the smaller studios will shut down. That happens with these large mergers. If MS said that activiision would operate as individual entity I would be for that, but they are already picking winners and losers. Don’t be surprised when they start trimming the fat. Once ms gets the user numbers they will gate keep all of the content. PS 3rd party sales numbers are just to big to ignore.

We'll see, I guess. Again, I think that Microsoft steering Activision would be an improvement. They will obviously leave Call of Duty alone since that whole setup of studios and their production pipeline is working. The rest of the company is a shit show and needs restructuring and yes, some people should go. I would fire Blizzard's management first, tbh.

 

[Vestal]

If its bad for Sony its bad for gaming.

They are the most dominant and highest selling console manufacturer....

At the very least, it is not good for gaming. You cannot argue it being good

Why? Your argument makes it even more of a good thing for gaming. If someone is dominating that means adding some fuckery to the overall market will bring out the best in everyone.

It is a tried and tested way of any market to evolve. Whenever a market leader emerges, and one which continues to try to stifle others. The market adjusts and kicks em where it hurts.

Happened to Sega
Happened to Nintendo
Happened to Sony
Happened to MS

No one escapes this cycle.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Makes logical sense. You don’t give your competitor access to your hardware design discussions and development environment.

 

[solidus12]

They’re right.

Didn’t Xbox use the same design principle from the PS4 for their One X by ditching the Esram.