MS allegedly paying publishers to not show PS4 games at E3

  • 80 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by OGred (196 posts) -
@kagato said:

With the bad press already surrounding the Cross bone or whatever all the cool kids are calling it these days, i think this kind of story is unlikely to make any real impact. If Sony come out and say, "hey kids, there are no used game restrictions and you can give your games to whoever you want" they have won, if they spin the same yarn as MS then it will come down to these kinds of arguments. E3 is going to blow Sony's way this time, Microsoft had a really good chance to knock Sony on its ass and not once, but twice messed it up. All Sony has to do to win this is play the good cop, failing that Nintendo will walk away with another one by default by being the only company without screwed up as hell DRM policies. E3 starts in less than 12 hours, lets see what comes out...

I thought the whole xbox DRM was forced by big publishers onto microsoft. If that's the case, sony will likely have the same DRM in place. If sony doesn't have the DRM & loses the support of Activision, EA, Ubisoft their console will be dead no matter how much internet support it gains.

#52 Posted by kagato (944 posts) -

@ogred said:
@kagato said:

With the bad press already surrounding the Cross bone or whatever all the cool kids are calling it these days, i think this kind of story is unlikely to make any real impact. If Sony come out and say, "hey kids, there are no used game restrictions and you can give your games to whoever you want" they have won, if they spin the same yarn as MS then it will come down to these kinds of arguments. E3 is going to blow Sony's way this time, Microsoft had a really good chance to knock Sony on its ass and not once, but twice messed it up. All Sony has to do to win this is play the good cop, failing that Nintendo will walk away with another one by default by being the only company without screwed up as hell DRM policies. E3 starts in less than 12 hours, lets see what comes out...

I thought the whole xbox DRM was forced by big publishers onto microsoft. If that's the case, sony will likely have the same DRM in place. If sony doesn't have the DRM & loses the support of Activision, EA, Ubisoft their console will be dead no matter how much internet support it gains.

This is what i dont get, since when did the big 3 start letting publishers push them around on policies? In the past it has always been the publishers scurrying around trying to get onto the most popular machine but since the death of the dreamcast its all changed. Activision and EA are currently the biggest threats to gamers worldwide and they have to be made to listen, if Sony stand up tomorrow night and tell the world this has gone far enough then i reckon they have won. I do feel by giving what is by all accounts a disasterous first reveal, MS have given the advantage to Sony even if they are employing the same DRM restrictions. What happens when the gaming public at large shuns the "big 2" and buy PCs and WiiUs out of defiance? It may not be as far fetched as it sounds, people get really angry (especially in the US) when people have their liberties revoked for no good reason, just look at the gun issue.

#53 Posted by Kierkegaard (603 posts) -

It's a real problem to shrug anti-consumer policies off as "just business." It has a mafia flavor to it.

It's a negative versus positive outcome thing.

If you buy exclusive DLC rights for your console, you are improving the experience for your consumers.

If you pay off companies to not show the competitor's version of their software, then you are hurting consumers of the other product and you are hurting the reputation of yourself and the companies. You are helping your market share, but not directly helping your consumers.

It's a dumb risk to take and it comes off as Machiavellian.

Considering that Nicolo was being satirical in The Prince, taking his advice in your business practices is just dumb.

All of this stands hypothetically even if this particular rumor is false.

#54 Posted by mellotronrules (1223 posts) -

even if this is true, i'm not sure how it matters to any of us or the press. i mean, ULTIMATELY, devs and publishers are going to want as much market penetration as possible. that means multi-platform releases up the wazoo. microsoft's pockets can't be so deep that they can afford to buyout the PROVEN moneymakers (CoD, Madden, FIFA) entirely, so aside from trying to "win" e3 and launch perception (whatever the fuck THAT means), this is just posturing with little material effect. and besides- microsoft's the one who needs to woo back the enthusiast mindshare, so let them do whatever the fuck they want- unless they bring it in a major way, throwing around money won't be sony's doom in the slightest.

#55 Posted by TruthTellah (9321 posts) -

It's a real problem to shrug anti-consumer policies off as "just business." It has a mafia flavor to it.

It's a negative versus positive outcome thing.

If you buy exclusive DLC rights for your console, you are improving the experience for your consumers.

If you pay off companies to not show the competitor's version of their software, then you are hurting consumers of the other product and you are hurting the reputation of yourself and the companies. You are helping your market share, but not directly helping your consumers.

It's a dumb risk to take and it comes off as Machiavellian.

Considering that Nicolo was being satirical in The Prince, taking his advice in your business practices is just dumb.

All of this stands hypothetically even if this particular rumor is false.

I still don't see how this is anti-consumer. It's like saying advertising is "anti-consumer" because it might give people elevated impressions of a product. The silly thing is people unaware of the industry acting like this is some rumored thing that evil Microsoft is doing. It's hardly even a rumor, as it's generally just what has happened throughout the industry for years. And Microsoft isn't the first or the last that will do things like this for promotional purposes.

It isn't illegal or wrong for these companies to make deals like this for the sake of their promotions, and gamers have generally been fine with it over all the years that it has gone on. Publishers have worked with hardware manufacturers to have shared promotions and special features since the early days of videogames, and working out promotional deals for E3 has been happening since E3 began. Some people may say they'd prefer if this changed, but no one should be under the mistaken idea that it is something new, something limited to Microsoft, or something that is likely to change any time soon. The more and more multiplatform gaming becomes, the more likely we'll see even more of this kind of promotional deal between platform holder and publishers.

#56 Posted by TruthTellah (9321 posts) -

@kagato said:

@ogred said:
@kagato said:

With the bad press already surrounding the Cross bone or whatever all the cool kids are calling it these days, i think this kind of story is unlikely to make any real impact. If Sony come out and say, "hey kids, there are no used game restrictions and you can give your games to whoever you want" they have won, if they spin the same yarn as MS then it will come down to these kinds of arguments. E3 is going to blow Sony's way this time, Microsoft had a really good chance to knock Sony on its ass and not once, but twice messed it up. All Sony has to do to win this is play the good cop, failing that Nintendo will walk away with another one by default by being the only company without screwed up as hell DRM policies. E3 starts in less than 12 hours, lets see what comes out...

I thought the whole xbox DRM was forced by big publishers onto microsoft. If that's the case, sony will likely have the same DRM in place. If sony doesn't have the DRM & loses the support of Activision, EA, Ubisoft their console will be dead no matter how much internet support it gains.

This is what i dont get, since when did the big 3 start letting publishers push them around on policies? In the past it has always been the publishers scurrying around trying to get onto the most popular machine but since the death of the dreamcast its all changed. Activision and EA are currently the biggest threats to gamers worldwide and they have to be made to listen, if Sony stand up tomorrow night and tell the world this has gone far enough then i reckon they have won. I do feel by giving what is by all accounts a disasterous first reveal, MS have given the advantage to Sony even if they are employing the same DRM restrictions. What happens when the gaming public at large shuns the "big 2" and buy PCs and WiiUs out of defiance? It may not be as far fetched as it sounds, people get really angry (especially in the US) when people have their liberties revoked for no good reason, just look at the gun issue.

The big differences now are how close hardware has become and the change in the hardware makers' focus. The console makers are selling a brand even more than a piece of hardware, because if you just look at raw specs, the main competitors are relatively similar. Closer and closer with each generation. So, they can't just champion a piece of hardware for publishers to want to be on. Instead, they can champion their brand, their audience, and an install base. While many developers do still clamor for getting on certain platforms, the big publishers are in a position where their loyalty is very important to a brand's identity. There used to be a time when the hardware manufacturers were also some of the biggest publishers, thus setting their own tone, but now, Microsoft and Sony are hardware manufacturers and brand identities first and publishers second. These third party publishers have more power because they're more needed than they once were. That's why their influence on console makers really sets the tone.

Microsoft and Sony are likely to have similar DRM features available to publishers; though, they'll have their own particular quirks with it. Sony seems to be leaning more toward being a step below Microsoft in this regard, and that could pay off for them. But both will be trying to woo these publishers for support and maybe even some exclusives. MS and Sony aren't powerless in it and there are still those looking to be on their platforms, but they know they aren't in a position to go it alone.

#57 Edited by Brodehouse (10077 posts) -

So if I'm one of these publishers, I take the money and show them on high end PCs and say "it'll be on Xbone and PS4". Also "thanks for the money". They said 'not PS4' not 'show it on Xbox'.

#58 Edited by Silver-Streak (1369 posts) -

@brodehouse: Definitely a good idea, but most big publishers don't think that way. I could see Capcom doing that, though, if they're one of the publishers. Just because I remember hearing that despite dead island exclusivity and other things, they still make more money on PS3. Likely due to the number of Fighting games they released and how bunk the 360 controller is for fighters.

#59 Edited by darkest4 (416 posts) -

@the_laughing_man said:

@jasonr86 said:

This can't be legal.

Its like paying for more advertising space at a store.

Not really... There's such thing as antitrust laws for a reason. But of course, it's not like anyone in the govt cares about going after big corporations who get them elected and what not, so they'll be fine.

#60 Edited by Kierkegaard (603 posts) -

@kierkegaard said:

It's a real problem to shrug anti-consumer policies off as "just business." It has a mafia flavor to it.

It's a negative versus positive outcome thing.

If you buy exclusive DLC rights for your console, you are improving the experience for your consumers.

If you pay off companies to not show the competitor's version of their software, then you are hurting consumers of the other product and you are hurting the reputation of yourself and the companies. You are helping your market share, but not directly helping your consumers.

It's a dumb risk to take and it comes off as Machiavellian.

Considering that Nicolo was being satirical in The Prince, taking his advice in your business practices is just dumb.

All of this stands hypothetically even if this particular rumor is false.

I still don't see how this is anti-consumer. It's like saying advertising is "anti-consumer" because it might give people elevated impressions of a product. The silly thing is people unaware of the industry acting like this is some rumored thing that evil Microsoft is doing. It's hardly even a rumor, as it's generally just what has happened throughout the industry for years. And Microsoft isn't the first or the last that will do things like this for promotional purposes.

It isn't illegal or wrong for these companies to make deals like this for the sake of their promotions, and gamers have generally been fine with it over all the years that it has gone on. Publishers have worked with hardware manufacturers to have shared promotions and special features since the early days of videogames, and working out promotional deals for E3 has been happening since E3 began. Some people may say they'd prefer if this changed, but no one should be under the mistaken idea that it is something new, something limited to Microsoft, or something that is likely to change any time soon. The more and more multiplatform gaming becomes, the more likely we'll see even more of this kind of promotional deal between platform holder and publishers.

Love to hear your reply to the continuation of my argument. A marketing deal that removes representations of your competitors extant and working product does nothing to help the consumer make an informed choice about buying your product. It hurts the amount of information your consumer has and helps your market share via dishonesty.

If you are afraid that the other guy has better looking shit, win in gameplay or story or something else. Don't hide stuff so you look better. That's admitting defeat.

How is this pro-consumer? Why should we accept this?

#61 Posted by TruthTellah (9321 posts) -

@truthtellah said:

@kierkegaard said:

It's a real problem to shrug anti-consumer policies off as "just business." It has a mafia flavor to it.

It's a negative versus positive outcome thing.

If you buy exclusive DLC rights for your console, you are improving the experience for your consumers.

If you pay off companies to not show the competitor's version of their software, then you are hurting consumers of the other product and you are hurting the reputation of yourself and the companies. You are helping your market share, but not directly helping your consumers.

It's a dumb risk to take and it comes off as Machiavellian.

Considering that Nicolo was being satirical in The Prince, taking his advice in your business practices is just dumb.

All of this stands hypothetically even if this particular rumor is false.

I still don't see how this is anti-consumer. It's like saying advertising is "anti-consumer" because it might give people elevated impressions of a product. The silly thing is people unaware of the industry acting like this is some rumored thing that evil Microsoft is doing. It's hardly even a rumor, as it's generally just what has happened throughout the industry for years. And Microsoft isn't the first or the last that will do things like this for promotional purposes.

It isn't illegal or wrong for these companies to make deals like this for the sake of their promotions, and gamers have generally been fine with it over all the years that it has gone on. Publishers have worked with hardware manufacturers to have shared promotions and special features since the early days of videogames, and working out promotional deals for E3 has been happening since E3 began. Some people may say they'd prefer if this changed, but no one should be under the mistaken idea that it is something new, something limited to Microsoft, or something that is likely to change any time soon. The more and more multiplatform gaming becomes, the more likely we'll see even more of this kind of promotional deal between platform holder and publishers.

Love to hear your reply to the continuation of my argument. A marketing deal that removes representations of your competitors extant and working product does nothing to help the consumer make an informed choice about buying your product. It hurts the amount of information your consumer has and helps your market share via dishonesty.

If you are afraid that the other guy has better looking shit, win in gameplay or story or something else. Don't hide stuff so you look better. That's admitting defeat.

How is this pro-consumer? Why should we accept this?

I think you're mistakenly taking this as "the publisher won't advertise that their game is on other platforms". Which isn't what we're talking about. Microsoft and Sony are making deals so that publishers will tout one of the platforms as the premiere platform, and with exclusive DLC and other things like that, they may make a case for that. Since they're less and less able to get exclusives, they can compromise with shared promotion.

The publisher will still promote their game as being on these other platforms. They're just stressing some over others. Which has been the case for many years. A lot of games have PC releases along with their console releases, but the console releases often get more advertising. That doesn't mean consumers will be unaware of the game's presence on PC, as they'll still want people to buy it there. But these companies will prioritize some platforms over others. And if they can also make a deal for shared promotional support with the Sony or Microsoft brands, they have a lot of reason to do so.

This doesn't mean they'll somehow have -less- promotion than they would have. Instead, it means they may be capable of -more- promotion for the game, even if its only more for one version of the game. They're still going to be trying to sell the game on every platform, as developers have since multiplatform releases began.

#62 Posted by sins_of_mosin (1556 posts) -

Who the hell cares......

#63 Posted by flasaltine (1682 posts) -
#64 Posted by Kierkegaard (603 posts) -

@truthtellah: Huh, as I read the rumor as writ, no representations of certain multiplat games on PS4 would be shown at E3. Since we don't get to play these games until there are demos (which may not be representational) or they are out, impressions from game writers about different versions are the only data we have as to knowing which to want.

Now, the best method is to wait for a comparison or just buy one system and stick to it and don't worry about it, but more universally speaking, isn't the purpose of such a rumored action to make it appear that your console is the only one with those games? Isn't that disingenuous?

It's not new, but isn't it strange? Marketing to make the consumer decide things based off of lack of information is the nature of a lot of advertising. Every beer commercial making claims of amount of "refreshment" is guilty of this.

But if all you are doing is trying to trick people into buying your product, wouldn't it be way better to make a better product that they'll want when you're honest about it?

#65 Edited by endaround (2147 posts) -

@truthtellah: Huh, as I read the rumor as writ, no representations of certain multiplat games on PS4 would be shown at E3. Since we don't get to play these games until there are demos (which may not be representational) or they are out, impressions from game writers about different versions are the only data we have as to knowing which to want.

Now, the best method is to wait for a comparison or just buy one system and stick to it and don't worry about it, but more universally speaking, isn't the purpose of such a rumored action to make it appear that your console is the only one with those games? Isn't that disingenuous?

It's not new, but isn't it strange? Marketing to make the consumer decide things based off of lack of information is the nature of a lot of advertising. Every beer commercial making claims of amount of "refreshment" is guilty of this.

But if all you are doing is trying to trick people into buying your product, wouldn't it be way better to make a better product that they'll want when you're honest about it?

Its not different than the 360 or PS3 bumper during TV commercials right now. Its co-marketing dollars.

#66 Posted by Kierkegaard (603 posts) -

@kierkegaard said:

@truthtellah: Huh, as I read the rumor as writ, no representations of certain multiplat games on PS4 would be shown at E3. Since we don't get to play these games until there are demos (which may not be representational) or they are out, impressions from game writers about different versions are the only data we have as to knowing which to want.

Now, the best method is to wait for a comparison or just buy one system and stick to it and don't worry about it, but more universally speaking, isn't the purpose of such a rumored action to make it appear that your console is the only one with those games? Isn't that disingenuous?

It's not new, but isn't it strange? Marketing to make the consumer decide things based off of lack of information is the nature of a lot of advertising. Every beer commercial making claims of amount of "refreshment" is guilty of this.

But if all you are doing is trying to trick people into buying your product, wouldn't it be way better to make a better product that they'll want when you're honest about it?

Its not different than the 360 or PS3 bumper during TV commercials right now. Its co-marketing dollars.

Yeah, aren't those weird, too? I mean, they are deceptive by nature. You shouldn't have to work so hard to know that the console not in that ad also has that game.

Having additional content or a discount or some other tangible difference is consumer oriented and it helps your market share.

Do you think it just works that if you have mock exclusivity the uneven split sells more units total than an even split would? Would you lose overall sales if that ad ended with "On 360 and PS3 in November!"? I'm honestly curious...

#67 Edited by TruthTellah (9321 posts) -

@kierkegaard: There probably aren't going to be many meaningful differences between versions of multiplatform games on either console, but they'll still want people to associate a game more with one console than the other. As endaround noted, their shared promotions are based on building brand and getting one console to be preferred over another. It's like comparing Coke and Pepsi. Coke might make a deal with the NFL to co-promote their products. For game publishers and console makers, they can pool their resources to help each other out. Impact both of their brands in the way their marketing teams desire. Frankly, this is better than the console makers just spending even -more- money to lock up exclusives, as it means the games will at least be available on multiple platforms.

DLC and indies are probably going to be the most consistent exclusives(timed or otherwise) this generation, and while I can understand some concern over consumer confusion, these games are unlikely to be coming out right after E3. By the time they actually come out, the publishers will be advertising for each platform regardless of whether they are especially pushing one platform over the others right now. The console makers want hype for their console right now, and they won't mind so much when publishers actively advertise games for both consoles once they're actually released. This is about helping hype up consoles for their release and providing publishers with more promotional opportunities than they would have otherwise.

#69 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -
#70 Edited by TruthTellah (9321 posts) -

@endaround said:

@kierkegaard said:

@truthtellah: Huh, as I read the rumor as writ, no representations of certain multiplat games on PS4 would be shown at E3. Since we don't get to play these games until there are demos (which may not be representational) or they are out, impressions from game writers about different versions are the only data we have as to knowing which to want.

Now, the best method is to wait for a comparison or just buy one system and stick to it and don't worry about it, but more universally speaking, isn't the purpose of such a rumored action to make it appear that your console is the only one with those games? Isn't that disingenuous?

It's not new, but isn't it strange? Marketing to make the consumer decide things based off of lack of information is the nature of a lot of advertising. Every beer commercial making claims of amount of "refreshment" is guilty of this.

But if all you are doing is trying to trick people into buying your product, wouldn't it be way better to make a better product that they'll want when you're honest about it?

Its not different than the 360 or PS3 bumper during TV commercials right now. Its co-marketing dollars.

Yeah, aren't those weird, too? I mean, they are deceptive by nature. You shouldn't have to work so hard to know that the console not in that ad also has that game.

Having additional content or a discount or some other tangible difference is consumer oriented and it helps your market share.

Do you think it just works that if you have mock exclusivity the uneven split sells more units total than an even split would? Would you lose overall sales if that ad ended with "On 360 and PS3 in November!"? I'm honestly curious...

Likely so. At least if having a promotional deal with one of the console makers is a possibility. If it's not, then there would likely be little difference in what platform you stress. Unless it's in a country where the balance of install base is largely different, like if you promoted your game in Japan as an Xbox title even though it has a PS3 version. That would be a bad idea, as you'd probably rather emphasize that it's on the PS3. But, if you struck a promotional deal, you're most-likely going to be able to release more ads than you would otherwise, and that could definitely mean more overall sales. A deal like this allows a publisher to do more through sharing a larger promotional campaign with a console maker, possibly leading to more overall sales of their game and a boost for the console's sales and/or brand.

#71 Edited by Hunter5024 (5816 posts) -

If something is exclusive, then they will definitely say so. So in our case, this shouldn't be a problem even if it is true as long as you pay attention.

#72 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

If something is exclusive, then they will definitely say so. So in our case, this shouldn't be a problem even if it is true.

They do it very smart thought. I remember people going crazy when they thought at first Metal Gear Rising: Revengence is 360 exclusive because most people did not listen^^

#73 Posted by probablytuna (3731 posts) -

Well Microsoft does have the cash to throw away at something like this. In the end it doesn't matter unless Microsoft actually paid them for console exclusivity.

#74 Posted by hidys (1029 posts) -

@fourwude said:

Typical dirty western bastard Microsoft tactics.

Sony is superior in its eastern morality and spirituality, and would never stoop to such low hand machinations. Big nosed western companies have no morals. This is how they do business.

Not sure if serious?

#75 Edited by TangoUp (314 posts) -

BREAKING NEWS: "Microsoft allegedly paying journalists at E3 to stab Playstation developers and Sony execs, urinate on corpses and display consoles."

BREAKING NEWS: "Microsofts Xbox One video game console allegedly made primarily of bones of Native Americans and endangered species, assembled by blind orphans."

BREAKING NEWS: "Microsoft giving free Xbox One consoles to supporters of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, internal email declares excitement for Xbox-Assad partnership in eradicating Israel."

/sarcasm

#76 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2259 posts) -

I wouldn't put it pass MS to do something underhanded like this but hey Sony could always pay publishers to mention the name PS4 before mentioning XBOne when they announce what platforms a specific game is coming out on.

#77 Edited by Commander_Crichton (157 posts) -

Jack Tretton ain't havin none of that! I'm sure he's rolling through the convention center with his posse (Cerny, Driveclub guy and that Sucker Punch fella) and just dissin the Microsoft people, knocking over their drinks and calling them names.

If Sony had that Microsoft money right about now, I'm sure they would be doing the same shaddy, underhanded bullshit.

#78 Edited by MildMolasses (3225 posts) -

@darkest4 said:

@the_laughing_man said:

@jasonr86 said:

This can't be legal.

Its like paying for more advertising space at a store.

Not really... There's such thing as antitrust laws for a reason. But of course, it's not like anyone in the govt cares about going after big corporations who get them elected and what not, so they'll be fine.

This has absolutely nothing to do with antitrust. In no way are they preventing Sony from being able to sell their products or restricting consumer ability to choose.

Now if they were to announce a deal where they will be the only console sold at Walmart and Best Buy, locking out Sony and Nintendo, then that would fall under antitrust

#79 Posted by MattyFTM (14417 posts) -

Remember when some random, unverified person on the internet claimed that Microsoft were hiring marketing companies to go on message boards and social media to talk positively about the Xbox One? That was all of two days ago. Everyone went around treating it as fact for all of a day. And remember when that turned out to be false and have no basis in reality? That was yesterday.

And now we have some other random unverified internet person making another crazy claim that shows Microsoft in a negative light. And everyone is going around treating it as fact. It's almost certainly the same as what happened the other day. Not true.

Moderator
#80 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

I wouldn't put it pass MS to do something underhanded like this but hey Sony could always pay publishers to mention the name PS4 before mentioning XBOne when they announce what platforms a specific game is coming out on.

Underhanded? You know Sony has done it to right? Sony has also payed for commercials to say "PS3" as the end and not Xbox.

#81 Edited by madman356647 (327 posts) -

Say it with me: chemtrails.

Online
#82 Posted by Badass_Master_Blaster (29 posts) -

I dont think it really matters which system a multiplatform game is shown on, studios behind them strive to make the expierence the same across the board, if microsoft did waste money doing this then they should have thrown the cash at improved design or advertising, more funding for a new ip... Hope this isnt true though, yet more money wasted, not to mention all those cable box features that are useless to me (outside US)....sucks that my gamerscore wont mean squat on psn (might be back depending on what halo 5 seems like, or wars 2 happens), ill have to rack up a few platinum trophys fast to feel respectable

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.