This isn't the first time we've heard about this policy though. Rumors about it have been circulating for months. This just happens to be more concrete confirmation that the policy is real. I doubt this is new to the PSP development community so I doubt anyone is scrambling to rethink/rework their games.Lost Weekend said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
*Sony Says "No" To Direct Ports*
- Thread starter Mystifizor
- Start date
TheUnknownForce
Member
Developers are still going to make ports of games whether Sony wants them to or not. It's just easy money. In order to get around they might add one or two levels or characters and call it "Game PSP" or somethig like that.
Yes, it's the Chroncle version. Being a Dreamcast port is irrelevant, as the article explicitly states the focus being on PS2 ports being frowned upon.
Jarrod, I don't know, but think about it; of all of Capcom's fighters to port to PSP, why VS?
Because they wanted to revitalize interest in the series? OR maybe because most if not all their other fighters are on PS2?
Jarrod, I don't know, but think about it; of all of Capcom's fighters to port to PSP, why VS?
Because they wanted to revitalize interest in the series? OR maybe because most if not all their other fighters are on PS2?
Well, there's also the fact that Vampire Chronicle is getting a limited arcade release (like Hyper SF2X)... maybe they wanted a new consumer release too and thought it'd be better to capitalize on the PSP launch rather than deliver a crusty PS2 release that'll be ignored? Also, stuff like MVC2, CVS2 and 3rd Strike aren't really PS2 games but ports themselves... I wonder if Sony would have a problem with those on PSP?MoxManiac said:
Sony has been hard on ports (Nintendo hasn't), maybe they're trying to put focus on the fact that Nintendo milks stuff. Sony may also be releasing the PS3 later taking away thier usual headstart advatntage. Maybe they're doing some things on purpose to try to prove that they can "win" without a handicap.
But...I do think they should allow any and every kind of port or game or any kind of content on PSP...quantity of content has always been a strong suit for Sony. Plus "enhanced" ports are pretty much licences to print money...I just think Sony should allow anything and everything they can to make PSP a success, hold nothing back (of course unless it's horrible).
But...I do think they should allow any and every kind of port or game or any kind of content on PSP...quantity of content has always been a strong suit for Sony. Plus "enhanced" ports are pretty much licences to print money...I just think Sony should allow anything and everything they can to make PSP a success, hold nothing back (of course unless it's horrible).
SolidSnakex
Member
DrGAKMAN said:
Yep Sony's very hard on ports unless they're improved or used as double packs. They don't like simple ports. Which I think is a good thing, even if its just an extra character or level it's still good.
I would like to see some ports...not the whole library but there are certain games that I would like to see on PSP and that already exist on older systems.
I hope that Sony statement allows them to be released...well, if that has to make companies improve the games better for me...but I am afraid that the instant cash that is a port is not the same thing that remading a whole game (much more challenging and expensive)...All will be about finding the right balance...
For instance, think in RRV...Just suppose NAMCO plans to port it to PSP....Yay...But sony refuses it and asks for improvements...Since adding new trakcs to RRV would be a pain to code, they just choose to change the philosophy of the game and made a pack with every RR game => SONY accepts.
I hope that Sony statement allows them to be released...well, if that has to make companies improve the games better for me...but I am afraid that the instant cash that is a port is not the same thing that remading a whole game (much more challenging and expensive)...All will be about finding the right balance...
For instance, think in RRV...Just suppose NAMCO plans to port it to PSP....Yay...But sony refuses it and asks for improvements...Since adding new trakcs to RRV would be a pain to code, they just choose to change the philosophy of the game and made a pack with every RR game => SONY accepts.
I don't believe in a no straight ports policy. What I think Sony should do is require publishers to also produce original content for the platform (and not throwaway original titles made on a shoestring budget) to get ports approved. A company that comes to Sony with proposals for 2 original PSP games and 5 ports of PS1/PS2 titles should get their stuff approved, while a company that comes to Sony with nothing but ports gets rejected.
Defensor said:
If all they plan to do is add minor features to the games it's seems counterproductive to their no port policy. I mean look at Nintendo's GBA "ports", outside of the NES classic series most of their ports have added enhancements/extras (Mario Bros., 4 swords, e-card support, etc.). Yet these games are still just ports with a few added enhancements/features.
When I was referring to color switches, I was talking about Mario vs. Donkey Kong. MvDK has color switches, DK94 does not.Gunsmoke said:
MvDK also has a different form of play in its Plus worlds, and there is nothing of the sort in DK94.
Of course, you would have known this if you knew anything about the games.
EDIT: I didn't even LIKE MvDK that much
Anyway, to get this discussion back on track:
Some direct ports may be necessary if the original launch software lineup is a bit thin. With all the lack of information about the PSP floating around, there's still the chance that developers may not finish enough original games for the PSP at launch. Some ports would help with that - taking advantage of established brands didn't hurt other console launches.
Some direct ports may be necessary if the original launch software lineup is a bit thin. With all the lack of information about the PSP floating around, there's still the chance that developers may not finish enough original games for the PSP at launch. Some ports would help with that - taking advantage of established brands didn't hurt other console launches.
Of course they are going to say "no ports!" No 1st party in their right mind would send a press release out saying "we don't care if you just port your old crap over."
3rd parties get around that is by adding a +ALPHA to the old game and calling it 2.5 or Hyper-Extreme 2 + ALPHA or whatever they want. If the first party wants "old game + ALPHA", they will approve the game on the grounds that it is more than just a port. If the 1st party doesn't like it, they can just say "no ports" and have a justified reason for shooting down ideas.
3rd parties get around that is by adding a +ALPHA to the old game and calling it 2.5 or Hyper-Extreme 2 + ALPHA or whatever they want. If the first party wants "old game + ALPHA", they will approve the game on the grounds that it is more than just a port. If the 1st party doesn't like it, they can just say "no ports" and have a justified reason for shooting down ideas.
SolidSnakex
Member
Ozchin said:
Or if Sony is going by this, they'll just can a game if someone tries to do a direct port. Sony's already shown they have no problem shooting a port down if it's a direct one with no improvements. But as long as they atleast add something to the game it should be fine. I prefer this way than having games I played years ago ported to the PSP with no improvements and no extras.
SolidSnakex
Member
Sea Manky said:
How could they have done that when the PSP and PS2 use diffierent stuff to save your games (atleast I think they do)?