Support NeoGAF

[Mr Moose]

So you're saying that whenever the two are close it's because Sony forced parity?

Just seems like an excuse whenever there isn't a large difference between two versions of a game.

Yes, even with games that have marketing deals with Microsoft like Valhalla and DiRT 5.
/s

 

[Kangx]

Not to be backsit modding. I suggest this thread to close. It has served it purpose. I and many others have explain this is not the case of force parity. Many others coming here without reading and keeps repeating false story from the op. The cycle continue and its a unproductive discussion.

 

[Jigsaah]

Reminds me of the fear that the PS4 wouldn't be taken advantage of due to parity. While it was true in some cases the two systems were not that far apart and most games performed better on the PS5. I expect this gen to play out more or less the same. The multiplats will be similar between the two but the XSX will probably edge out. Nothing to do with Sony paying developers to hold the XSX back. It's not like you can expect one platform to run games on low while the other runs them at maximum settings.

Hmmm, I think Shadow of War would beg to differ. If you remember "SoupGate", that's a prime example of how things can turn out when developers are free to push the individual hardware to it's max potential. With Microsoft GameStack coming in hot this month, Sony seems to be trying to stem the bleeding at this point.

This is not surprising. Jim Ryan is known for trying to suggest parity among 3rd party developers when the Xbox One X came out. He was head of marketing at the time, I believe.

For your review:

Sony's Jim Ryan believes developers will hold back Xbox One X versions due to PlayStation 4 Pro

Update: Even Bungie has come out and said that they won’t hold back the Xbox One X version because of the PlayStation 4 Pro’s weaker hardware. It’s amazing how fickle our memories are and how conveniently we forget history. In a recent interview, Sony’s Jim Ryan said that developers usually aim...

mspoweruser.com

In the end, it's business. However it also shows that Sony is indeed very aware and very scared of being inferior.

 

[Neofire]

I don't see anything wrong, Sony is protecting it's user base and it's bottom line.

 

[Mmnow]

MS would be buying publishers even if Sony didn't get timed exclusives. How do you not understand that?

Of course they would. I didn't say they wouldn't.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Hmmm, I think Shadow of War would beg to differ. If you remember "SoupGate", that's a prime example of how things can turn out when developers are free to push the individual hardware to it's max potential. With Microsoft GameStack coming in hot this month, Sony seems to be trying to stem the bleeding at this point.

This is not surprising. Jim Ryan is known for trying to suggest parity among 3rd party developers when the Xbox One X came out. He was head of marketing at the time, I believe.

For your review:

Sony's Jim Ryan believes developers will hold back Xbox One X versions due to PlayStation 4 Pro

Update: Even Bungie has come out and said that they won’t hold back the Xbox One X version because of the PlayStation 4 Pro’s weaker hardware. It’s amazing how fickle our memories are and how conveniently we forget history. In a recent interview, Sony’s Jim Ryan said that developers usually aim...

mspoweruser.com

In the end, it's business. However it also shows that Sony is indeed very aware and very scared of being inferior.

But Jims doing this with every single multiplat? That's what I'm calling fear. There won't be a huge difference between multiplats unless there's a huge difference between the systems power levels. Like comparing the PS4 version of Valhalla to the PS5s for example or Doom on the X1 to Doom on the Switch.

Edit: Looking back at Pro vs X it wasn't the same situation as the PS5 and the XSX. The Pro came out a year earlier at a lower price point while the One X came out a year later at a higher price point. It's pretty obvious that there would be a larger difference between the two.

 

[Jigsaah]

Not to be backsit modding. I suggest this thread to close. It has served it purpose. I and many others have explain this is not the case of force parity. Many others coming here without reading and keeps repeating false story from the op. The cycle continue and its a unproductive discussion.

Shhh

 

[Topher]

Hmmm, I think Shadow of War would beg to differ. If you remember "SoupGate", that's a prime example of how things can turn out when developers are free to push the individual hardware to it's max potential. With Microsoft GameStack coming in hot this month, Sony seems to be trying to stem the bleeding at this point.

This is not surprising. Jim Ryan is known for trying to suggest parity among 3rd party developers when the Xbox One X came out. He was head of marketing at the time, I believe.

For your review:

Sony's Jim Ryan believes developers will hold back Xbox One X versions due to PlayStation 4 Pro

Update: Even Bungie has come out and said that they won’t hold back the Xbox One X version because of the PlayStation 4 Pro’s weaker hardware. It’s amazing how fickle our memories are and how conveniently we forget history. In a recent interview, Sony’s Jim Ryan said that developers usually aim...

mspoweruser.com

This is a better link as it has actual quotes:

Sony's Jim Ryan isn't worried about Xbox One X's power, game devs more likely to aim for "lowest common denominator" - VG247

“I’m not going to go into the detail of what’s embedded into individual contracts with publishing partners. What I would do is cast our minds back to the PS3 generation, where we had on paper more impressive specifications than our competition, and in some areas by quite a considerable margin.

“Now, that didn’t play out the way we had anticipated it would – and this is nothing to do with co-marketing deals, this is just general developer and publisher dynamics.

“What happened was that developers, maybe at the behest of publishers, developed up to the lowest common denominator and stopped there. And in very few cases took advantage of the additional horsepower of the PS3.

“Now, I’m a big believer of learning lessons from history. History doesn’t always repeat itself. But if you’re a publisher of video games, that is a perfectly commercially rational approach for you to take,” he said. “Because you only do one set of work. You don’t do one set of work to get up to one level and then a different amount of work and consequently may need to go further.”

And in case you were wondering if Sony has been putting pressure on publishers to ensure that the Xbox One X versions of these games are held back to make sure that the quality is comparative, Ryan’s response is a resounding no.

“I think you’re trying to see some sort of nefarious platform-holder activity where likely none exists,” he replied.

“Well, we’ll see when they launch in six months’ time…There will be hundreds of games published this year and those games, market forces will prevail. If a developer or publisher wants to take advantage of the supposed power of the X, they will do that. If they don’t, they won’t.”

He wasn't trying to "suggest parity" at all.

 

[Jigsaah]

But Jims doing this with every single multiplat? That's what I'm calling fear. There won't be a huge difference between multiplats unless there's a huge difference between the systems power levels. Like comparing the PS4 version of Valhalla to the PS5s for example or Doom on the X1 to Doom on the Switch.

Well, while I don't think there is a huge difference between the XSX and PS5, that does not mean there is no difference. There have already been plenty of examples where the XSX has run at higher resolutions than the PS5. I believe Sony will pick and choose which games these kind of deals will be for. A long time exclusive franchise to Sony, Resident Evil seems to meet that requirement. It's also the most anticipated 3rd pt game right now, I'd argue. Sony does not want to take an L on this one. Lesser games will probably not garner Sony's interest like this.

Only time will tell, but I think Sony is starting to see the writings on the wall.

 

[Jigsaah]

This is a better link as it has actual quotes:

Sony's Jim Ryan isn't worried about Xbox One X's power, game devs more likely to aim for "lowest common denominator" - VG247



He wasn't trying to "suggest parity" at all.

"Suggests", "Expects", it's all the same to me. The point is he's running the show now and these kind of deals reflect his way of doing business. That's all I'm saying. That's why it's not surprising to me.

 

[MasterCornholio]

This is a better link as it has actual quotes:

Sony's Jim Ryan isn't worried about Xbox One X's power, game devs more likely to aim for "lowest common denominator" - VG247



He wasn't trying to "suggest parity" at all.

What he says sounds like what happens every single gen. The most powerful console will be taken advantage of. If games are similar between them it doesn't mean that one party is paying for parity. It usually means that the hardware isn't that far apart. If we didn't see massive differences between the X1 and the PS4 it's because the hardware reflected that.

The only reason why I was even away of those small differences is because of comparisons by Digital Foundry. If I need Digital Foundry to point out those differences then it's something that I probably wouldn't notice in the first place.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Well, while I don't think there is a huge difference between the XSX and PS5, that does not mean there is no difference. There have already been plenty of examples where the XSX has run at higher resolutions than the PS5. I believe Sony will pick and choose which games these kind of deals will be for. A long time exclusive franchise to Sony, Resident Evil seems to meet that requirement. It's also the most anticipated 3rd pt game right now, I'd argue. Sony does not want to take an L on this one. Lesser games will probably not garner Sony's interest like this.

Only time will tell, but I think Sony is starting to see the writings on the wall.

I don't think the differences are large enough to damage the PS5. It's certainly not like they delivered an extremely underpowered system at the same price as the competition.

 

[Topher]

"Suggests", "Expects", it's all the same to me. The point is he's running the show now and these kind of deals reflect his way of doing business. That's all I'm saying. That's why it's not surprising to me.

That's the point. There is no deal here. There wasn't one back then either.

"If a developer or publisher wants to take advantage of the supposed power of the X, they will do that. If they don’t, they won’t."

 

[Jigsaah]

That's the point. There is no deal here. There wasn't one back then either.

"If a developer or publisher wants to take advantage of the supposed power of the X, they will do that. If they don’t, they won’t."

So you're saying the document I'm reading here is fake?

 

[Topher]

So you're saying the document I'm reading here is fake?

I guess you missed these tweets from Daniel Ahmad.

 

[mckmas8808]

Well, while I don't think there is a huge difference between the XSX and PS5, that does not mean there is no difference. There have already been plenty of examples where the XSX has run at higher resolutions than the PS5. I believe Sony will pick and choose which games these kind of deals will be for. A long time exclusive franchise to Sony, Resident Evil seems to meet that requirement. It's also the most anticipated 3rd pt game right now, I'd argue. Sony does not want to take an L on this one. Lesser games will probably not garner Sony's interest like this.

Only time will tell, but I think Sony is starting to see the writings on the wall.

Do you really think that many people care about the difference of 1800p to native 4K?

 

[Jigsaah]

Do you really think that many people care about the difference of 1800p to native 4K?

I don't honestly. I do think Sony and Microsoft care.

 

[MasterCornholio]

So you're saying the document I'm reading here is fake?

More like open to interpretation. I mean there's no concrete clause that says both versions have to run at X framerate at X resolution with all features put to X. If the comparisons come out and both versions are exactly the same then you can say they forced parity. But if the base resolution is higher on one than the other then parity wasn't forced.

Edit: Topher thanks for that it's what I meant by "open to interpretation". It's not like there's a clause that specifically says they have to downgrade the XSX version.

 

[Redlancet]

So you're saying the document I'm reading here is fake?

nah,just desperate fud as usual

 

[killatopak]

This is weird, why would you compare GC wii and PS3, and not directly GC and ps2?
If the gc version sold 1.6m and the ps2 version sold 2.3m, then it seems to me that a much larger percentage of people, per console userbase bought the game on GC, making it more popular amongst GC players than ps2 players.

And if you then compare wii to ps2, and substract possible non first buyers from GC, then it's still a larger percentage of people buying RE4 on wii than on ps2.

You’re the one who told me install base difference is a large reason why PS2 versions sold better. The very first comparison was PS2 and GC exclusively.

I already told you earlier and have even given an example that you should remove this notion that just because an install is bigger, it would mean a proportional increase in sales.

Let me repeat. Viewtiful Joe, a new IP, no history with either console but is an action platformer with a style very in line with GC era Nintendo games released on both consoles at the exact same date. 46k on PS2, 275k on GC.

Now imagine this. There are 10 people who like resident evil and there are 40 who don’t. 3 RE lovers buy a Nintendo. 7 RE lovers buy a Playstation. 12 non lovers go to Nintendo while 28 buys a Playstation. No matter how many additional non lovers go to Playstation at this point, the RE lovers don’t increase.

To make it simple, we’re dealing with absolute and not doing ratios.

The reason I even did ratios is because of your obsession with install base which I then gave a Nintendo console with the highest install base and comparing it to Sony console that has the lowest install base. The result is the same. People still buy more RE games on Playstation.

Dude. You’re comparing a single generation worth of sold game to two generations. I dunno what to tell you.

 

[Jigsaah]

I guess you missed these tweets from Daniel Ahmad.

I have not seen this. Thanks for clarifying this. So basically what we are seeing is standard fare regardless of the game or console manufacturer. If this is the case, then the idea of parity lies solely with the developer.

I believe there shouldn't be parity, devs should always push each version to their absolute limit given they have the resources to do so, regardless of who's console it benefits. It will only encourage console makers to put forth their best when developing new hardware.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't honestly. I do think Sony and Microsoft care.

And that's my biggest issue with Sony at the moment. I think they care more about native 4K, than their customers. There's zero reason for a game like Ratchet and Clank to be native 4K with Raytracing turned on. There's no reason why Spiderman: MM should even have a native 4K mode. Insomniac's temporal injection AA software is so great that it native 4K doesn't matter.

But Sony will want them to check that box off to compete with MS in a stupid console war.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

I already told you earlier and have even given an example that you should remove this notion that just because an install is bigger, it would mean a proportional increase in sales.

I'm not talking about proportional, but when there's a difference of 100m users, then an increase is to be expected; you cannot say that the 100 million difference in users has zero effect on units sold, and therefore you cannot just plainly use units sold as your only metric for gauging popularity.

Group A has 1000 people and 50 of them like horror movies, that's 5% of the group.
Group B has 50 people and 25 of them like horror movies, that's 50% of the group.
Group A might have more total people that like horror movies, but horror movies are wildly more popular in Group B.

Likewise RE4 was more popular amongst GC players than it was amongst PS2 players, even if PS2 players had more sales.

 

[bender]

"I don't know why..."

I do!

 

[Jigsaah]

And that's my biggest issue with Sony at the moment. I think they care more about native 4K, than their customers. There's zero reason for a game like Ratchet and Clank to be native 4K with Raytracing turned on. There's no reason why Spiderman: MM should even have a native 4K mode. Insomniac's temporal injection AA software is so great that it native 4K doesn't matter.

But Sony will want them to check that box off to compete with MS in a stupid console war.

I agree. Until they bring PC-esque options to their games it's almost like they are forced to guess what it's customers would enjoy most. Microsoft started paying attention when it came to enhancements from X1X release, but more recently we aren't really getting those options anymore. With games starting to hit 120 FPS, we really should have more options for RT on or off, fps limits and resolution presets.

 

[Grumpy Toe Nail]

Was looking forward to it since RE7 is on gamepass. Soy boy sony cockblocking again :/

 

[skit_data]

Has Hoeglaws video on the subject been posted yet?



Very good breakdown

TLDR; Until official comfirmation, we don’t know if all these documents are even real. If it indeed is legit, its still totally normal and does not indicate anything out of the ordinary regarding these types of agreements.

 

[bender]

Was looking forward to it since RE7 is on gamepass. Soy boy sony cockblocking again :/

 

[JaksGhost]

And that's my biggest issue with Sony at the moment. I think they care more about native 4K, than their customers. There's zero reason for a game like Ratchet and Clank to be native 4K with Raytracing turned on. There's no reason why Spiderman: MM should even have a native 4K mode. Insomniac's temporal injection AA software is so great that it native 4K doesn't matter.

But Sony will want them to check that box off to compete with MS in a stupid console war.

Huh?! PlayStation has been the one sacrificing resolution for performance so I’m not seeing this picture. And in cases of a lot of these games they are giving you the option to chose one or the other.

 

[Demon2blades]

#ForThePlayers

Keep seeing this "for the players " doesn't this just mean for the players on Sony's platform , I mean if you game solely on playstation like the majority of console players do this won't matter at all will it ? .

 

[Lort]

Ahhh the infamous “parity” clause ... that supposedly held ps3 games back to be equivalent to xbox 360.

In reality every cross platform release was better on xbox 360, ( except for the rain scene in metal gear solid and max payne), even battlefield 3 which had a sony marketing deal and heavily spu optimised.... no parity clause.... was still just as good on xbox 360.

The Jim ryan quote is hilarious.. his basically falsely claiming that a parity clause held back ps3 .. which it didnt .. and sony would never have such an agreement.. which it does.

No wonder fanboys are following this logic...

Sony contract leaks
“Everyone does this”
“Therefore xbox does this”
“This is fake”
“So therefor only xbox does this”

 

[MasterCornholio]

I have not seen this. Thanks for clarifying this. So basically what we are seeing is standard fare regardless of the game or console manufacturer. If this is the case, then the idea of parity lies solely with the developer.

I believe there shouldn't be parity, devs should always push each version to their absolute limit given they have the resources to do so, regardless of who's console it benefits. It will only encourage console makers to put forth their best when developing new hardware.

I also believe there shouldn't the parity. What they did with Assassin's Creed Unity should never be repeated.

 

[FatKingBallman]

So, is this another thread where some, you know who, trying again blew up things out of proportion? :/

If these folks would put in the slightest amount of time to do proper research...

 

[Negotiator101]

Yes, even with games that have marketing deals with Microsoft like Valhalla and DiRT 5.
/s

Sarcasm is supposed to be subtle, it's a fine art form don't spoil it with this turd of a post.

 

[DJ12]

All this drama, I would've thought xbox users would be grateful for parity with the PS5 anyway.

Not often it does that well.

 

[bender]

his basically falsely claiming that a parity clause held back ps3 .. which it didnt .

 

[Negotiator101]

I also believe there shouldn't the parity. What they did with Assassin's Creed Unity should never be repeated.

What did they do?

 

[Jigsaah]

I also believe there shouldn't the parity. What they did with Assassin's Creed Unity should never be repeated.

I'm not familiar, what'd they do to AC Unity?

 

[MasterCornholio]

What did they do?

Making this comment.

Assassin's Creed Unity is 900p/30fps on both PS4 & Xbox One - VideoGamer.com

Ubisoft locked both versions at the same spec 'to avoid all the debates and stuff'.

www.videogamer.com

"We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff," senior producer Vincent Pontbriand told VideoGamer.com while explaining that it's the consoles' CPUs - not the GPU - that prevents Ubisoft Montreal from improving the game's performance.

Jigsaah because you asked.

Edit: Just wanted to clarify it was Ubisofts decision to do this not Microsofts.

 

[Negotiator101]

Making this comment.

Assassin's Creed Unity is 900p/30fps on both PS4 & Xbox One - VideoGamer.com

Ubisoft locked both versions at the same spec 'to avoid all the debates and stuff'.

www.videogamer.com

Jigsaah because you asked.

But that's not Microsoft, this is Sony now I read it and it seems like they are forcing technical parity on this particular game. Then again I'm no legal expert.

 

[Jigsaah]

Making this comment.

Assassin's Creed Unity is 900p/30fps on both PS4 & Xbox One - VideoGamer.com

Ubisoft locked both versions at the same spec 'to avoid all the debates and stuff'.

www.videogamer.com

Jigsaah because you asked.

Edit: Just wanted to clarify it was Ubisofts decision to do this not Microsofts.

Interesting. Never knew that. AC Unity was a dumpster fire when it first launched and they exacerbated the problem even more with parity? Jeez.

 

[MasterCornholio]

But that's not Microsoft, this is Sony now I read it and it seems like they are forcing technical parity on this particular game. Then again I'm no legal expert.

Oh no it was Jigsaah that said it's probably upto the developers to decide parity and I was pointing out Unity as an example of that.

Seems like it's a standard legal document that's not being interpreted correctly. At least that's what Zhuge and Hoeg Law are saying.

 

[killatopak]

I'm not talking about proportional, but when there's a difference of 100m users, then an increase is to be expected; you cannot say that the 100 million difference in users has zero effect on units sold, and therefore you cannot just plainly use units sold as your only metric for gauging popularity.

Group A has 1000 people and 50 of them like horror movies, that's 5% of the group.
Group B has 50 people and 25 of them like horror movies, that's 50% of the group.
Group A might have more total people that like horror movies, but horror movies are wildly more popular in Group B.

Likewise RE4 was more popular amongst GC players than it was amongst PS2 players, even if PS2 players had more sales.

I think the problem with our understanding is based on what you and I perceive differently as popularity.

For me, sales matter and probably more important to Capcom. It is what I define as popularity as a unit sold is a unit sold. The reasoning doesn’t matter as Capcom just looks at the numbers same as any other company. Heck, Capcom did just that on Monster Hunter and never went back until World.

I feel like we could have done this comparison a lot more easily had we had a full PS3 release of RE4 as we could directly compared sales with the Wii with additional context from past generation sales.
Unfortunately the PS3 and I think even the 360 version of it is digital only. With physical to digital ratio vastly skewed toward physicals at that generation, I just don’t think it’s a valid metric.

 

[Negotiator101]

Oh no it was Jigsaah that said it's probably upto the developers to decide parity and I was pointing out Unity as an example of that.

Seems like it's a standard legal document that's not being interpreted correctly. At least that's what Zhuge and Hoeg Law are saying.

Who is Zhuge and Hoeg Law? Are they in the industry? Sorry if that's a stupid question.

 

[killatopak]

Who is Zhuge and Hoeg Law? Are they in the industry? Sorry if that's a stupid question.

IIRC Zhuge has the same job as those twitter guys from NPD. Hoeg Law from read a few pages back is a Youtuber/Lawyer.

 

[Aroll]

1. There is no parity requirement like that

2. It's not gamepass specifically, it's every service that is equivilient to PSNow or PS+. It's called right of first refusal

Does Sony pay for timed exclusives because they're scared of Xbox? Come the fuck on this is absolute nonsense

Stadia and Luna are platforms, you contradict yourself. You acknowledge that game pass is different from a platform and then wonder why other platforms aren’t blocked.

If Sony had blocked only Xbox and no other platforms (which they have done, SFV) your example would be sound.

Do you people even bother to research things before you make claims? Outriders isn’t on Stadia’s subscription service, it’s available only as a full priced, paid game on Stadia, like on PS5 and PC.

The GP deal for Outriders would absolutely have a clause stopping it appearing on PS+, PS Now or Stadia Pro for a limited time period.

Let's break this down, shall we. First off, barely anything partakes in Google Stadia's Pro service, and Luna from amazon doesn't really have a sub service like that per say (and is still in beta). Remember what I said in my initial post: There is, quite literally, not a single service on the market that is what Game Pass is. When you say "Outriders is on Stadia, but it's not part of Pro" - the real response is... and? So is 90% of every game released on Stadia. Very few of them ever appear on Pro. How do we know it was ever going to be part of that service regardless? We literally have not seen the "marketing" contract for Outriders. We have absolutely no idea what the terms are, so to make presumptions about those terms seems kind of silly doesn't it? How do we know Outriders can't appear on PS +? PS+ doesn't get brand new games like Game Pass does, so how can we ACTUALLY know that's some sort of stipulation? Games that end of up plus end up there after they are no longer selling much.

As for "every service equivelent to PS +"- Game Pass ISN'T equivalent. It's literally an entirely different type of service. Games with Gold is equivalent. However, Game Pass, Game's With Gold, and Xcloud are named specifically, along with Stadia Pro. Granted, right now that term seems to potentially only be for a year - thought a bit vague on the exact length of that term. Even Xcloud... Stadia Pro... are note equivalent services. What they are, are types of services Sony does not offer and does not have a direct answer to at this given point in time. Discluding them from those services is for no other reason, than to not give a potential competitive advantage to other platforms that have more user friendly delivery methods. That's it. It says it in black and white.

As for parity - they have an entire clause about it. They call it feature, content, and technical parity. It lasts 7 years. It goes into detail about technical parity for a line, before veering off into not allowing any exclusive content on any other platform. They said it. I read it. You may interpret it different, I'm just regurgitating their own verbiage.

I am not saying Sony is a shit company. I am not saying Microsoft DIDN'T do this with Outriders. What I am saying, is we don't have any actual proof that's what the contract is for Outriders, but we do have proof of what this contract is and that is all we can go off of. When I mentioned Outriders, it was specifically because someone else brought it up as if we actually know what that contract is.

 

[assurdum]

Hmmm, I think Shadow of War would beg to differ. If you remember "SoupGate", that's a prime example of how things can turn out when developers are free to push the individual hardware to it's max potential. With Microsoft GameStack coming in hot this month, Sony seems to be trying to stem the bleeding at this point.

This is not surprising. Jim Ryan is known for trying to suggest parity among 3rd party developers when the Xbox One X came out. He was head of marketing at the time, I believe.

For your review:

Sony's Jim Ryan believes developers will hold back Xbox One X versions due to PlayStation 4 Pro

Update: Even Bungie has come out and said that they won’t hold back the Xbox One X version because of the PlayStation 4 Pro’s weaker hardware. It’s amazing how fickle our memories are and how conveniently we forget history. In a recent interview, Sony’s Jim Ryan said that developers usually aim...

mspoweruser.com

In the end, it's business. However it also shows that Sony is indeed very aware and very scared of being inferior.

Can I say this thread has reached the lower level possible in terms of consolewarness?

 

[assurdum]

Let's break this down, shall we. First off, barely anything partakes in Google Stadia's Pro service, and Luna from amazon doesn't really have a sub service like that per say (and is still in beta). Remember what I said in my initial post: There is, quite literally, not a single service on the market that is what Game Pass is. When you say "Outriders is on Stadia, but it's not part of Pro" - the real response is... and? So is 90% of every game released on Stadia. Very few of them ever appear on Pro. How do we know it was ever going to be part of that service regardless? We literally have not seen the "marketing" contract for Outriders. We have absolutely no idea what the terms are, so to make presumptions about those terms seems kind of silly doesn't it? How do we know Outriders can't appear on PS +? PS+ doesn't get brand new games like Game Pass does, so how can we ACTUALLY know that's some sort of stipulation? Games that end of up plus end up there after they are no longer selling much.

As for "every service equivelent to PS +"- Game Pass ISN'T equivalent. It's literally an entirely different type of service. Games with Gold is equivalent. However, Game Pass, Game's With Gold, and Xcloud are named specifically, along with Stadia Pro. Granted, right now that term seems to potentially only be for a year - thought a bit vague on the exact length of that term. Even Xcloud... Stadia Pro... are note equivalent services. What they are, are types of services Sony does not offer and does not have a direct answer to at this given point in time. Discluding them from those services is for no other reason, than to not give a potential competitive advantage to other platforms that have more user friendly delivery methods. That's it. It says it in black and white.

As for parity - they have an entire clause about it. They call it feature, content, and technical parity. It lasts 7 years. It goes into detail about technical parity for a line, before veering off into not allowing any exclusive content on any other platform. They said it. I read it. You may interpret it different, I'm just regurgitating their own verbiage.

I am not saying Sony is a shit company. I am not saying Microsoft DIDN'T do this with Outriders. What I am saying, is we don't have any actual proof that's what the contract is for Outriders, but we do have proof of what this contract is and that is all we can go off of. When I mentioned Outriders, it was specifically because someone else brought it up as if we actually know what that contract is.

If you look to some previous page MS did similar deals with similar clauses with AAA even recently. Technical parity doesn't means graphical parity. The hell is that stupidity. What the contract implies Sony pretends by Capcom to not deliver an inferior product compared the others, outside obviously the hardware limitations. Isn't it reasonable pretend this in an exclusive deal?

 

[Jigsaah]

Can I say this thread has reached the lower level possible in terms of consolewarness?

Keep reading.

 

[assurdum]

Keep reading.

Two points: first, Capcom could find sufficient the graphic reached on ps5 and offers the same on series X. But that's a total different argument. From what I remember their engine is practically the same on pc, outside higher res and FPS. That means if it's possible will run better and higher resolution on series X. If not will be like per like to the ps5. Second and more important such clause is not referring to parity for the graphic setup. It's more about to guarantee to Sony a game to not have with shitty perfomance/graphic (I guess) until technical limitations occur. Zhuge it's not absolutely a Sony fanboy and he has already said people has misinterpreted (as always) something which regularly happens in such contract.