Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

237 Comments

If You Publish on PSN First, Microsoft Ain't Interested

Xbox Europe boss tells Eurogamer why platform parity or exclusivity are the only ways Microsoft will play.

If you're one of the remaining few still holding out hope for an eventual XBLA release of Critter Crunch, we have some unfortunate news...
If you're one of the remaining few still holding out hope for an eventual XBLA release of Critter Crunch, we have some unfortunate news...

You may have noticed that games that appear on the PlayStation Network, but not on the Xbox Live Marketplace, don't seem to ever come Microsoft's way down the road. The opposite has often been true, with numerous Xbox 360 and Xbox Live Arcade releases eventually making their way to Sony's disc-and-download-based platforms months after the fact. And yet Microsoft seemingly never gets these post-exclusive releases on the other side of the coin.

Apparently, that's because they don't want them.

Speaking to Eurogamer at Gamescom, Xbox Europe head Chris Lewis stated that Microsoft's policy is that titles must ship simultaneously on Xbox 360 or XBLA alongside other platforms, or be exclusive to Microsoft for some period of time. Otherwise, the company may simply refuse to allow the content on its console.

"We're a little biased, so obviously we're going to look to protect our own space as best we can and get exclusivity," he said. "Whilst I can't be specific about the terms and conditions, you can be very confident we seek to maximise our own advantage to ensure the playing field is even, and certainly plays to our advantage wherever possible."

Eurogamer obtained a copy of Microsoft's Content Submission and Release Policy, which states the following regarding parity and/or exclusivity:

Titles for Xbox 360 must ship at least simultaneously with other video game platform, and must have at least feature and content parity on-disc with the other video game platform versions in all regions where the title is available. If these conditions are not met, Microsoft reserves the right to not allow the content to be released on Xbox 360.

The "parity on-disc" portion of that statement does explain away how Sony was able to secure certain launch exclusive content, such as the added bonus case for L.A. Noire, which came in the form of downloadable content. At the same time, it doesn't explain away how Warner Bros. was able to release Mortal Kombat, which featured an on-disc PS3-exclusive character in God of War lead Kratos, without drawing Microsoft's ire. While Kratos would never appear on any console not branded PlayStation, the fact that the Xbox 360 version had no equivalent bonus character seems to go against the wording of the policy. Perhaps feathers were rankled, and Microsoft simply allowed things to move forward given MK's stature and draw as a title.

This policy does also extend to digital titles as well. This may have something to do with why Sony's new PSN PLAY program, ostensibly an attempt at bringing to the table its own version of Microsoft's Summer of Arcade, features no exclusive titles save for Payday: The Heist, a Sony Online Entertainment developed title. Microsoft, for its part, requires a minimum of four weeks of platform exclusivity to include any title in the Summer of Arcade program.

Regardless of any evidence of apparent flexibility in the policy, Lewis made it clear that he sees no chance for change in the policy any time in the foreseeable future, and emphasized that Microsoft sees this policy as a way of ensuring things remain competitive between the various console platforms.

"But, honestly, and this is going to sound a bit contrived, we just want what our consumers want from us. We want to be where they want us to be. We want the quality bar of what they experience from us to continue to go up. I think it has to happen. Everybody's got to do that. If we want to continue to command healthy average selling prices, which we all do, that which we offer our consumers has got to keep getting better. Despite the fact it can be irksome to have such strong competition all the time, it actually does keep us on our toes. It's great for everyone, and it makes for a very healthy race to higher and higher levels of quality of game experiences."
Alex Navarro on Google+

237 Comments

Avatar image for mijati
Mijati

1086

Forum Posts

526

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By Mijati

Trenched. Keep your own fucking rules Microsoft and look into shit you publish. Also denying games for this reason is a joke.

Avatar image for internetdetective
InternetDetective

356

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This policy is BAD and WRONG.

Avatar image for themartino
TheMartino

136

Forum Posts

50

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By TheMartino

Except Moon Diver.

Avatar image for somejerk
SomeJerk

4077

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By SomeJerk

If you think this is bad about game publishing on the 360, strap yourself in as you dive deeper and learn what goes on..

Avatar image for authenticm
AuthenticM

4404

Forum Posts

12323

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

Edited By AuthenticM

Wow, what a bunch of dicks.

Avatar image for razielcuts
RazielCuts

3292

Forum Posts

8

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By RazielCuts
@PhilESkyline: You've got it the wrong way round. If Bastion was released on PS3 first it would never make it to 360. 
Avatar image for lunar_aura
Lunar_Aura

2824

Forum Posts

17

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By Lunar_Aura

Allow me to be Frank:

MS had the opportunity to utterly crush Sony this generation and they fucking blew it by doing this kind of shit.

PS3 was practically harakiri...ing itself and instead of swooping in for a swift kill, they just sort of rest on their own laurels. Now Xbox is just this bad dudebro motion gaming joke. They're always going for short term gains but are so unaware of long term repercussions and that will be their eventual undoing. GG Microsoft.

Avatar image for mosespippy
mosespippy

4751

Forum Posts

2163

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 8

Edited By mosespippy
@PhilESkyline said:
I guess this means Bastion will never make it to PS3 then?
No, it means Bastion won't be on PSN for at least 4 weeks after release. It means Trine, Flower and Pixel Junk games will never be on 360. 
 
Glad to see it's microsoft policy to make sure other system's exclusives stay exclusive.
Avatar image for canteu
Canteu

2967

Forum Posts

65

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Canteu

Alex cannot have written this. It was actually readable and not filled with childish metaphors.

Avatar image for ssully
SSully

5753

Forum Posts

315

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By SSully

@PhilESkyline said:

I guess this means Bastion will never make it to PS3 then?

No, it can. They just want games on their system at the same time, or first. Bastion has already been released on PC. Very possible it will come to PS3.

Avatar image for onarum
onarum

3212

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By onarum

oh wow, that is so childish.

Avatar image for donpixel
DonPixel

2867

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By DonPixel

A perhaps this is why I'm not getting the Avatar Von Dutch Hats exclusives I so wanted.

Avatar image for a_dog
A_Dog

762

Forum Posts

311

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By A_Dog

Maybe they were cool with MK because of the avatar stuff, with in-game avatars in King of the Hill and avatar items for sale.

Avatar image for jrock3x8
JRock3x8

327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By JRock3x8

I love the part where the words coming out of his mouth are completely opposite to the real message being sent. 
 
Being able to do that and still sleep at night is an art form.

Avatar image for enigma777
Enigma777

6285

Forum Posts

696

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By Enigma777

@Karsghul said:

It's Microsoft being Microsoft. It makes sense as a business but it's a slap in the face for devs and user wanting great games like Joe Danger.

The 360 would never get Joe Danger anyways since it uses the PSN Pub Fund.

Either way, I think people are missing the biggest part of the problem here. While it's true that MS has the right to do whatever they want on their platform, lets look at other companies. Sony and Valve don't have such shitty policies, and it's this reason alone that makes MS seem so anti-competitive. After all, they love tooting their own horn when it comes to time-exclusive DLC like COD, Fallout, GTA and so forth, but the second their competitors do something similar, they cry no fair and throw a tantrum.

Not only is it shitty, but incredibly hypocritical.

Avatar image for ghostiet
Ghostiet

5832

Forum Posts

160

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

Edited By Ghostiet

They don't have exclusive titles, so they have to manage with timed exclusives and stuff like this. I kind of think the only logical conclusion to this is Sony doing shit that'll make it profitable or attractive for developers to make downloadable titles for them.

I wonder what will happen if the WiiU comes out and it turns out it'll have the same 3rd party support as everyone else.

Avatar image for def
DeF

5450

Forum Posts

208181

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By DeF

is it weird that most of the names in the comments on the first two pages are blue? :D

Avatar image for cptbedlam
CptBedlam

4612

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By CptBedlam

MS, this is NOT what I want from your service as a customer. I want you to get as many games on your platform as you can get and I don't give a shit if it was released on PSN/PS3 earlier.

This means that because of your stupid policy I'm missing out on many great games. Thanks for "caring", idiots.

I can see why they do it obviously, they try to keep somewhat of an upper hand as a company. But for all their customers this is flatout bad.

Avatar image for cylemoore
CyleMoore

571

Forum Posts

1210

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 7

Edited By CyleMoore

Funny stuff.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b079cb81b70c
deactivated-5b079cb81b70c

96

Forum Posts

55

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Breaking news: Microsoft to consumers, "Fuck you." Details at 11.

Avatar image for lclay
lclay

401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By lclay

Fuck you Microsoft. I want to pay you some money so I can play some cool games on your system but apparently this is not something you want?

What the hell?

Avatar image for christ0phe
christ0phe

1048

Forum Posts

2364

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By christ0phe

Don't really see a big problem with this

Avatar image for negativecero
NegativeCero

3160

Forum Posts

32

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By NegativeCero

Well that's very arrogant of them. They need to stop bullshitting and go for more games. There are plenty of game on PSN I would love to play but can't because of this dumb policy.

Avatar image for halfsunkboat
HalfSunkBoat

112

Forum Posts

170

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By HalfSunkBoat

This makes Microsoft look kinda bad.

Avatar image for zeezkos
zeezkos

70

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By zeezkos
@rebgav: You are probably right that it did not begin with this announcement.  I had always been told (and cannot verify as I don't have the skills) that it was easier to develop games for the 360 than the ps3, and it seemed like more games were being put on 360, even games that I thought would have been ps3 exclusives.  
 
Regardless, it looks like MS has left themselves a lot of room to maneuver; at least on paper.  They've said that it must at least ship at the same time with the same features, but leave themselves open for 360 exclusives.  They also reserve the right to reject games that launch elsewhere first.. but I think we've seen a couple games end up on 360 after the fact (i'm drawing a blank, sorry).  Reserving the right means just that... it doesn't mean everything is outright rejected.  Of course, the more they let things slide the less they can complain in the future because then there will be strong precedence, so I expect they will try to keep it tight because, otherwise, their 'right to refuse' looks like it will not be exercised.   This is simply about protecting their interests.  For all people who own only 360 consoles, this is a good thing.  It guarantees they will have greater access to content (unless an anti-360 rebellion occurs among publishers/developers), it guarantees more revenue and a deeper catalogue for MS and more revenue and awareness for publishers/developers.  It may seem evil, but it will likely work out well for most people.   
 
only one problem:  will the 360 hardware keep up with ps3 hardware?  Is 360 limiting the cross-platform games?  Graphics-wise, that's possible.  you also need more discs for 360 games like LA Noire, i guess.  Some people are saying an updated 360 may be in the works (as opposed to a true new console) so who knows.  Not me.
Avatar image for draxyle
Draxyle

2021

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Draxyle

Can't say I'm surprised in the least, but this definitely explains a heck of a lot. It's just really sad.
 
I still detest the day that Microsoft entered our market. They have introduced so many practices that are detrimental to the videogame industry in the same way they're detrimental to every other industry. They're the bully with a lot of money that have bought gamers hearts, not earned them.

Avatar image for xenogamer
xenogamer

21

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By xenogamer

Steve Jobs was right, classless tasteless company. F them.

Avatar image for wrenchninja
WrenchNinja

271

Forum Posts

25

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 10

Edited By WrenchNinja

Great for Microsoft, horrible for consumers. There are a lot of great games that 360 owners miss out because of this stupid policy.

Avatar image for sergio
Sergio

3663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

Edited By Sergio

@Slaker117 said:

And that's fine. No one says you have to like the policy, but that doesn't make it bad or wrong.

Actually, the policy is bad and wrong for consumers who don't own a PS3 and are locked out of games that developers/publishers could've ported over to XBLA.

It's not bad or wrong if you are Microsoft.

Avatar image for j12088
J12088

471

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By J12088
@Sergio: I think it's a safe bet that XBLA generates a lot more money than PSN. 
 
I think most pepole can agree on this. Now if the shoe was on the other foot i could see this policy damaging the consumer. As it is however Microsoft dominates with Live compared to PSN.  I'm betting it does X360 users more good than bad and shuts Sony down from getting exclusives/timed exclusives. 
 
So the 360 users miss out on flower. I don't see Splosion man on PSN. In fact i see a lot more arcade games i want on the 360 than i do on the PS3. Timed exclusive or not.
Avatar image for newdust
NewDust

97

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

Edited By NewDust

I don't see how Microsoft and small developers are anything other than losers on this.

Having a simultaneous release with other platforms means Microsoft neither gains nor loses consumer interest.

When a product is released on XBLA first Microsoft will gain a bit of interest because of the 'hype' around the game, but exclusivity isn't sure, meaning other platforms eventually could profit from post XBLA release, because the game can 'prove' itself.

Than there is the possibility that a game is released on other platforms first and Microsoft denying this content from their console. Microsoft will never profit from these titles while for instance Sony could profit from the sale AND possibly sell consoles due to exclusivity.

Although I don't quite get the reasoning of Microsoft and not blame them on the urge of making money (which all company's have!), they have small developers in a choke hold. Also how can you pay homage to your loyal customers by denying them access to some great games? Having exclusives is not something wrong, it is a way of differentiation, but this policy doesn't make any sense.

Avatar image for lordxavierbritish
LordXavierBritish

6651

Forum Posts

4948

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 6

Fuck everything about this.
 
You can bet your ass if Call of Duty got released early on PS3 there is no way they would turn it down. This is just screwing small indie developers.
 
This makes me fucking sick.

Avatar image for ryanwho
ryanwho

12011

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By ryanwho

When shit like this permeates more than the naive idea that "competition breeds quality", I kind of question the infallibility of the free market. Apparently competition breeds contempt more than anything.

Avatar image for skywarpgold
Skywarpgold

206

Forum Posts

1316

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By Skywarpgold

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Avatar image for 617_jbug
617_jbug

466

Forum Posts

20

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By 617_jbug

How come you have to give Sony extra content if you give them the game later?

Avatar image for yindotrunks
yindotrunks

104

Forum Posts

169

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 33

Edited By yindotrunks

Anyone who says this is bad for consumers really doesn't understand this policy at all. As an Xbox owner, this policy goes a long way to ensure that I get the most content on my system in a timely manner. As for non-Xbox owners MS has no reason to care about their experience at all.

Avatar image for crusader8463
crusader8463

14850

Forum Posts

4290

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 5

Edited By crusader8463

Oh look. Microsoft being Jackasses.

Avatar image for rjaylee
rjaylee

3804

Forum Posts

529

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 2

Edited By rjaylee

I completely understand why on the business end Microsoft wants to do this. Microsoft knows that the grand strength of the Xbox is because of their inherent Xbox Live platform/ecosystem, and not in it's exclusivity, so it has every right to protect it's exclusivity as much as possible over the longhaul in the bigger picture. They have to protect their interests, so yeah, I get it, but they need to be careful on what waters they are treading.
 
While yes, this makes Microsoft maybe look a little bad to the average Joe, anyone shitting on Microsoft with any stupid console-wars bullshit or saying anything more extreme than "well this sorta sucks" is pretty much a headline-only reading dummy.

Avatar image for themasterds
TheMasterDS

3018

Forum Posts

7716

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 31

Edited By TheMasterDS

It's a good move. They have a dominant position, it's in their best interest to keep as many exclusives away from PSN as they can. Hell, that's why Sony's Summer of Arcade knockoff is weak - the publishers have to release them day and date on Xbox Live Arcade or give up the ability to release them there, which they're just not willing to do.

Avatar image for djratchet
Djratchet

687

Forum Posts

185

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By Djratchet

Wasn't the Scott Pilgrim game a 1 month PSN exclusive before it went to XBL? I wonder why that was special.

Avatar image for siddarth0605
siddarth0605

161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

Edited By siddarth0605

Wow that definitely makes sense Microsoft; don't put games on your platform so that people will buy games on your platform? I feel bad for developers who have to put up with that bullshit and have no freedom

Avatar image for zeezkos
zeezkos

70

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By zeezkos

I guess I should look at this differently.. it is incorrect for me to say that MS is guaranteeing anything, because if they were, there would be no ps3 exclusives.  What i mean is that it is an attempt to do so.  When looking at ps3 exclusives I see a lot of games that I don't think Ps3 would ever let release on another system (at least, the good ones.. Drake's, God of War, LBP, Heavy Rain, etc) and then a couple that MS maybe could have picked up (Valkyria Chronicles, Demon's Souls.. but i guess they're jumping on the sequel).  There are probably unspoken agreements between the two systems about exclusives, too.. but that's just my GUESS.
 
I, personally, have both system.. though I got the ps3 a few years after my 360... and I didn't really feel inconvenienced.  but, again, that's just me.
 
Aside from ps3 exclusives that will never be cross platform, what are we msising out on ?  This isn't a dick question; please let me know what I am forgetting.

Avatar image for seppli
Seppli

11232

Forum Posts

9

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By Seppli

...because being in a competitive business means being a giant douche nosil and dick wad.

Avatar image for 014
014

430

Forum Posts

106

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 7

Edited By 014

Another reason why the PS3 is better. I'm not saying the game selection or the controller are better, but the system is a better offering overall I think.

Avatar image for seppli
Seppli

11232

Forum Posts

9

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By Seppli
@xenogamer said:
Steve Jobs was right, classless tasteless company. F them.
...because saying such a thing is such a classy move. F Steve Jobs.
Avatar image for 617_jbug
617_jbug

466

Forum Posts

20

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By 617_jbug
@Djratchet: because Scott Pilgrim was released during the Summer of Arcade. It had every intention to release at the same time on PS3 and XBLA.
Avatar image for rjaylee
rjaylee

3804

Forum Posts

529

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 2

Edited By rjaylee
@Djratchet said:

Wasn't the Scott Pilgrim game a 1 month PSN exclusive before it went to XBL? I wonder why that was special.

I was under the impression that wasn't an exclusivity deal, but instead a technical limitation or release issue.
Avatar image for killydarko
KillyDarko

1991

Forum Posts

165933

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 43

Edited By KillyDarko

I honestly think this would be a good time for consumers to start boycotting Microsoft's products. I have nothing against the 360 itself, mind you, it's just that Microsoft clearly has no respect for both players and/or game developers, especially indie developers who more than often rely on digital distribution to survive...
Microsoft... Paving the way to an ever-growing dictatorial future by means of petty childish threats and again, an absolute disregard for consumers and developers.