Support NeoGAF

[TheDreadLord]

That’s so desperate by Sony if that’s true.

Sony should have just paid Capcom to make RE8 exclusive if this is the case.

This also makes you question whether this was the reason some games were running better on PS5 compared to the Series X.

I think the main effect here is that most of the current gen released games started development having PS4 as basis. As more “next gen” games start coming out we should see a bigger gap between PS5 and XSX... Unless Sony keeps doing these kinda of agreements, which is very likely as PS5 will probably detain the majority of the market and developers will be willing to negotiate with Sony for better marketing and etc.

 

[Three]

It’s not about the launch, if the document is to be believed RE8 won’t appear on Gamepass and won’t go past PS5 features and tech on Xbox as well as PC or any other competing platform or service this whole generation. 7 years is a looong time.

But proof is in the pudding, we’ll know if this is just some old legal mumbo jumbo Capcom don’t actual care about once we see the PC version.

How do you think it will affect the PC version? Technical parity means things like offering HDR, VR support etc to the PS5 if they do it elsewhere in the future. It doesn't mean limiting PC res or framerate. It never has. Name one game with a Sony marketing agreement where that has happened. Hell look at Death Stranding, they basically funded that game and that was not limited in any way.

 

[KingT731]

I think the main effect here is that most of the current gen released games started development having PS4 as basis. As more “next gen” games start coming out we should see a bigger gap between PS5 and XSX... Unless Sony keeps doing these kinda of agreements, which is very likely as PS5 will probably detain the majority of the market and developers will be willing to negotiate with Sony for better marketing and etc.

Not exactly. We already see the "gap" and it's smaller than most expected. We're only likely to see resolution differences as functionally these consoles are mostly the same.

 

[MasterCornholio]

How do you think it will affect the PC version? Technical parity means things like offering HDR, VR support etc to the PS5 if they do it elsewhere in the future. It doesn't mean limiting PC res or framerate. It never has. Name one game with a Sony marketing agreement where that has happened. Hell look at Death Stranding, they basically funded that game and that was not limited in any way.

Sony doesn't even limit the PC version of their 1st party titles so why would they care about 3rd party titles?

I honestly believe this is just your typical fear mongering incase both systems end of close.

 

[skit_data]

Sony doesn't even limit the PC version of their 1st party titles so why would they care about 3rd party titles?

I honestly believe this is just your typical fear mongering incase both systems end of close.

Good point, the PC version of Days Gone has several improvements compared to the PS4/PS5 Boosted version. Some of them quite noticeable, like wide screen support and unlocked framerates.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Good point, the PC version of Days Gone has several improvements compared to the PS4/PS5 Boosted version. Some of them quite noticeable, like wide screen support and unlocked framerates.

And also look at HZD. With the PC version you can obtain vastly improved IQ through the settings if your hardware can handle it.

If I had an XSX I wouldn't he worried. Jim won't downgrade my version of the game.

 

[Fredrik]

How do you think it will affect the PC version? Technical parity means things like offering HDR, VR support etc to the PS5 if they do it elsewhere in the future. It doesn't mean limiting PC res or framerate. It never has. Name one game with a Sony marketing agreement where that has happened. Hell look at Death Stranding, they basically funded that game and that was not limited in any way.

Well that’s what we’ll see. Parity would mean that the versions are identical, something that essentially never happens otherwise. But if the PC version (or XSX version in some ways) can use higher resolution, higher framerate, better raytracing, better graphics, better physics, etc - Then this is just nonsense legal mumbo and a big fat nothing burger people has spent far too much time talking about.

 

[yurinka]

How do you think it will affect the PC version? Technical parity means things like offering HDR, VR support etc to the PS5 if they do it elsewhere in the future. It doesn't mean limiting PC res or framerate. It never has. Name one game with a Sony marketing agreement where that has happened. Hell look at Death Stranding, they basically funded that game and that was not limited in any way.

Well that’s what we’ll see. Parity would mean that the versions are identical, something that essentially never happens otherwise. But if the PC version (or XSX version in some ways) can use higher resolution, higher framerate, better raytracing, better graphics, better physics, etc - Then this is just nonsense legal mumbo and a big fat nothing burger people has spent far too much time talking about.

If this is true then Sony can piss off.

Gamepass thing would be one thing but forced parity?

Pathetic.

Hope it's not true for the sake of Sony's goodwill.

The document never asks for the versions to be identical, 'to force parity', 'to make Series X version look worse' or something like. The document only says that all the features and tech stuff that they plan to include in other platforms, if the technical limitations of the PS5 allows it, it should be on PS5 too.

This means that if Series X or PC would be able to achieve resolutions, VRR, HDR, wide screen support, VR support or whatever else that go beyond what the technical limitations the PS5 can handle, they would be able to put it on PC or Series X. But if the PS5 tech limitations can handle it, they should put it on PS5 too.

Basically what they say with that is "Hey we're paying you a huge marketing campaign, so make sure you don't put extra game modes, extra content or tech stuff in other platforms unless it's because our console can't handle it. If our console tech limitations can handle them, put them in our console too".

Basically this document is ok if Series X version has a bit of extra resolution or fps if it's the case, and let's say VRR support if PS5 still doesn't have it implemented, because it's due to the technical limitations. But doesn't allow to give Series X an exclusive game mode or 4K 60fps while giving 1080p 30fps to the PS5 version, because that difference wouldn't be due to logical PS5 tech limits. Same goes with giving the PC port super high-end PCs higher native resolutions, lighting, framerate than the one PS5 can handle, or wide screen support, the document would be ok with it.

Same goes with the game subscriptions, they say "hey we're paying you a huge marketing campaign, so if you plan to put the game in a subscription service give our service priority".

Same goes with time limited betas/demos/dlc, they say "hey if you plan to give someone timed betas/demos/dlc for this game give them to us, because we're the ones paying you this huge marketing campaign".

Basically they don't want to be a fool paying them a big marketing campaign just to see them giving to the competition exclusive stuff that their console can handle. They also ask them to show their version of the game in trailers and events and to make sure they use the new console features (Dual Sense stuff, 3D audio, etc).

It's just another marketing deal, the same one Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft did in the past a gazillion times during generations. And since they pay, they just make sure their version doesn't suck beyond what its logical due to tech limitations and make sure that if a version gets these small perks like getting a demo a couple of weeks earlier it's their version.

 

[DForce]

“Fact” in your terms is something you completely made up.

No, I don't make up things like you do.

Cuphead and Rise of the Tomb Raider were time exclusive deals. Were these games blocked from Releasing on the PS4 or not?

 

[JackMcGunns]

The document never asks for the versions to be identical, 'to force parity', 'to make Series X version look worse' or something like. The document only says that all the features and tech stuff that they plan to include in other platforms, if the technical limitations of the PS5 allows it, it should be on PS5 too.

This means that if Series X or PC would be able to achieve resolutions, VRR, HDR, wide screen support, VR support or whatever else that go beyond what the technical limitations the PS5 can handle, they would be able to put it on PC or Series X. But if the PS5 tech limitations can handle it, they should put it on PS5 too.

Given this deal, why would any developer put extra effort to utilize any advantage? They'll simply create the game on the common denominator.

Is everyone purposely missing the point? Take Destiny for instance, was there any content missing? was the PS4 version downgraded to run at a lower res? I mean it was running at 1080p and 60fps which means it looked great on PS4, but it's just clear that the engine was designed to run fine on Xbox One and 1080p, indicating that there was room for improvements on PS4.

 

[JackMcGunns]

No, I don't make up things like you do.

Cuphead and Rise of the Tomb Raider were time exclusive deals. Were these games blocked from Releasing on the PS4 or not?

Resident Evil is not an exclusive game like Cuphead, stop using false equivalencies.

 

[DForce]

Resident Evil is not an exclusive game like Cuphead, stop using false equivalencies.

Use common sense.


Microsoft signed exclusive deals to keep games off the PlayStation platform. That means Sony couldn't negotiate to even bring hem to PS+ or PS Now until the deal is over.

 

[JackMcGunns]

Use common sense.


Microsoft signed exclusive deals to keep games off the PlayStation platform. That means Sony couldn't negotiate to even bring hem to PS+ or PS Now until the deal is over.

Throwing money at developers just to block content from gamers is a shitty practice no matter who does it. It's something that's frowned upon amongst gamers.

One thing is to fund a game that would probably not exist without the funding, that's a win for gamers and totally justified exclusivity, or purchasing console exclusivity rights, thus adding value to the platform, sort of shitty, but much worse is when greedy corporations throw money to block content that ONLY benefits corporations and has ZERO value to gamers, the game is already coming to both Xbox and PlayStation, so there's no incentive to buy either platform, the only thing this achieves is to screw over gamers from potentially getting a good deal. Imaging celebrating Sony for blocking eBay from reselling RE8 or not allowing GameStop to lower the price of RE8 or allowing the resale of the game, none of the mentioned has any value to gamers, and neither is blocking it from GamePass.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

We already see the "gap" and it's smaller than most expected. We're only likely to see resolution differences as functionally these consoles are mostly the same.

We have yet to see multiplatform games purely designed with new consoles in mind. Battlefied 6 might be the one I think?

Microsoft signed exclusive deals to keep games off the PlayStation platform.

When it was last time when MS got time exclusive that did not come to Playstation? 2013 with Tomb Raider (even then there was a huge backlash)? But that's it.

That means Sony couldn't negotiate to even bring hem to PS+ or PS Now until the deal is over.

As if Sony would do that in the first place. It even put FFR year later. And keep in mind that FFR was moneyhatted to the core.

 

[PropellerEar]

Resident Evil is not an exclusive game like Cuphead, stop using false equivalencies.

Cuphead is not exclusive, stop with false info.

Cuphead

Cuphead is a classic run and gun action game heavily focused on boss battles. Inspired by cartoons of the 1930s, the visuals and audio are painstakingly created with the same techniques of the era traditional hand drawn cel animation, watercolour backgrounds, and original jazz recordings. Play...

store.playstation.com

 

[Derktron]

Why the fuck does this page have 16 pages, hasn't this been debunked as false. I mean how stupid would it be to actually believe it?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

When it was last time when MS got time exclusive that did not come to Playstation? 2013 with Tomb Raider (even then there was a huge backlash)? But that's it.

?

You think the last time Microsoft had some timed exclusives was Tomb Raider?

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

? You think the last time Microsoft had some timed exclusives was Tomb Raider?

You know modern cases of that?

 

[skit_data]

Ah this thread. I wish Sony would put Elden Ring on PS+ day one on release.

Oh they cant? Well why not? Oh you mean it has marketing rights with MS? Well why cant PS just put it on PS+? Why?

Oh they have probably entered an agreement with MS not to do so. Cause how stupid would it be if MS didn’t make sure that wouldn’t happen. Thats why.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

You know modern cases of that?

They do it every E3. Last years was no exception with the medium, stalker 2, Darktide among others

 

[DForce]

Throwing money at developers just to block content from gamers is a shitty practice no matter who does it. It's something that's frowned upon amongst gamers.

One thing is to fund a game that would probably not exist without the funding, that's a win for gamers and totally justified exclusivity, or purchasing console exclusivity rights, thus adding value to the platform, sort of shitty, but much worse is when greedy corporations throw money to block content that ONLY benefits corporations and has ZERO value to gamers, the game is already coming to both Xbox and PlayStation, so there's no incentive to buy either platform, the only thing this achieves is to screw over gamers from potentially getting a good deal. Imaging celebrating Sony for blocking eBay from reselling RE8 or not allowing GameStop to lower the price of RE8 or allowing the resale of the game, none of the mentioned has any value to gamers, and neither is blocking it from GamePass.

In other words, you have no argument.

Blocking a game from another console is much worse than blocking a game from a subscription service. You're blocking an entire fanbase from purchasing a game versus a fanbase who CAN purchase a game, but are only blocked from getting the game at a reduced cost.

Trying to convince someone that blocking a game from a Game Pass for a year is worse than blocking a game from appearing on platform is worse, then you're simply delusional.

 

[DForce]

When it was last time when MS got time exclusive that did not come to Playstation? 2013 with Tomb Raider (even then there was a huge backlash)? But that's it.

As if Sony would do that in the first place. It even put FFR year later. And keep in mind that FFR was moneyhatted to the core.

How many "console launch exclusive" games did Microsoft announce over the years?

Here are some timed exclusive deals over the years.

Rise of the Tomb Raider
Dead Rising 4
PUBG
Cuphead

 

[sainraja]

This thread proves that many people don't actually read. They just like to react and act like 'drama' queens. People are no longer interested in the technology both platforms bring to the table but the drama around it. It is sad.

Hitman 3 had higher res than the PlayStation 5 version.

Avengers performed better in performance mode.

Sony had marketing deals for both games. This is nothing more than Xbox fans on twitter spreading BS.

And ManaByte leading that army! Don't really mean to call him out but I saw him ignoring the very thing that proves otherwise (multiple times), in the thing he is quoting himself (like deliberately ignoring comments by others showing that it is not the case and the funniest part is, the line he keeps quoting says in parentheses 'subject to material platform limitations'), that performance won't be held back on other systems that are more capable.

Gaf discovers a run of the mill legal agreement and everyone loses their minds

“Technical parity” does not mean Xbox can’t have different settings or performance, it refers to the technical features of the game I.E if XSX has RT, ps5 must as well. Platform limitations dictate settings, resolution and performance.

If it weren’t like this, we’d see the PC version limited to PS5 settings,
which we will all find out won’t be the case upon release.

People just want drama and they don't need for it to be true for them to react. It's unfortunate.

But as this thread has proved. No matter how many times you try to point it out (many people have tried in this thread), people will continue to ignore and march forward with their fanboy agendas. lol

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Rise of the Tomb Raider
Dead Rising 4
PUBG
Cuphead

RoTR I already mentioned and the huge backlash it got, MS stopped getting big games exclusive after that.
PUBG was early access exclusivity, Cuphead was partially financed (no?) and nobody cared about DR4 after DR3.

Now compare with the stuff Sony had during the previous gen and even this year - it is just a completely level.

 

[DForce]

RoTR I already mentioned and the huge backlash it got, MS stopped getting big games exclusive after that.

PUBG was early access exclusivity, Cuphead was partially financed (no?) and nobody cared about DR4 after DR3.

Now you're just making excuses. lol

PUBG released a year later and it wasn't just "early access". It doesn't mater if its a big or small title.. It was still an exclusive deal.

 

[DForce]

And ManaByte leading that army! Don't really mean to call him out but I saw him ignoring the very thing that proves otherwise (multiple times), in the thing he is quoting himself (like deliberately ignoring comments by others showing that it is not the case and the funniest part is, the line he keeps quoting says in parentheses 'subject to material platform limitations'), that performance won't be held back on other systems that are more capable.

What's funny is that the game runs at an unlocked frame-rate which dips on the PS5. If they're the same settings then the PS5 can potentially run better. If Sony wanted to parity in performance, then they would've picked a resolution in RT mode that made the frame-rate stable and then forced the XSX to run at the same resolution.

 

[JackMcGunns]

Is this a parody account?
DForce = SonyDefenseForce?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Is this a parody account?
DForce = SonyDefenseForce?

He's a squadron leader of the Playstation Nation alongside Bryank75 Bo_Hazem and geordiemp

We also have the mascot sircaw but he smells of fish so we're probably going to replace him with Riky vrrooom

 

[sircaw]

i come in, i see my name, and it's abuse again.

Like i have told you in the past, keep pushing my buttons and I will be off to Reset error, at least there i can speak my mind and not be picked on.

Also, watch yourself, Mod of War is a Peta member.

 

[Mod of War]

i come in, i see my name, and it's abuse again.

Like i have told you in the past, keep pushing my buttons and I will be off to Reset error, at least there i can speak my mind and not be picked on.

Also, watch yourself, Mod of War is a Peta member.

 

[PooBone]

If accurate, this is not how you garner goodwill with gamers. The Jim Ryan era seems to be starting out as somewhat of a shitshow.

 

[DForce]

Is this a parody account?
DForce = SonyDefenseForce?

I debunked your entire argument and this is all you have to say?

Shame lol

 

[Zeroing]

- The thread

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Now you're just making excuses. lol

PUBG released a year later and it wasn't just "early access". It doesn't mater if its a big or small title.. It was still an exclusive deal.

No, I am not making excuses. I agree that I forgot about DR4 (I don't even remember it after DR3).
It is just that I looked at the big time exclusives and saw nothing. DR4 was not the one for sure - but it wasn't big though - basically only ROTR was the huge one. Now that I think, they was some time exclusivity with GTA 4 I think? DLCs? Don't remember.

Smaller ones do not count because they are small. Like who tracks number of indies that are time exclusive for PS or Xbox?

 

[FatKingBallman]

Now you're just making excuses. lol

PUBG released a year later and it wasn't just "early access". It doesn't mater if its a big or small title.. It was still an exclusive deal.

No, I am not making excuses. I agree that I forgot about DR4 (I don't even remember it after DR3).
It is just that I looked at the big time exclusives and saw nothing. DR4 was not the one for sure - but it wasn't big though - basically only ROTR was the huge one. Now that I think, they was some time exclusivity with GTA 4 I think? DLCs? Don't remember.

Smaller ones do not count because they are small. Like who tracks number of indies that are time exclusive for PS or Xbox?

The Medium is timed, Yakuza Like a Dragon was next-gen timed exclusive. Yeah, Microsoft is doing the same

 

[DForce]

No, I am not making excuses. I agree that I forgot about DR4 (I don't even remember it after DR3).
It is just that I looked at the big time exclusives and saw nothing. DR4 was not the one for sure - but it wasn't big though - basically only ROTR was the huge one. Now that I think, they was some time exclusivity with GTA 4 I think? DLCs? Don't remember.

Smaller ones do not count because they are small. Like who tracks number of indies that are time exclusive for PS or Xbox?

"Do not count"

This is just goal post moving. They count because they keep games off the other people's platform. One of the reasons why they acquired more studios is to keep the games off the competitor's platform.

People can't complain that keeping a game off Game Pass for a year while see almost nothing wrong with exclusive video game deals or studio acquisitions.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

The Medium is timed, Yakuza Like a Dragon was next-gen timed exclusive. Yeah, Microsoft is doing the same

Medium was a small game, Yakuze Like a Dragon came out to Playstation 4 any so hard to say whether it is better exclusive than week early demo for RE Village.

People can't complain that keeping a game off Game Pass for a year while see almost nothing wrong with exclusive video game deals or studio acquisitions.

Because in case of Game Pass there is a tangible benefit for a person - getting the game for free - while for in case for Sony - people can't get even MLB with a discount lol. Not to mention with XCloud the barrier of entry is really small. So no wonder people prefer Game Pass exclusivity and other stuff.

 

[DForce]

Because in case of Game Pass there is a tangible benefit for a person - getting the game for free - while for in case for Sony - people can't get even MLB with a discount lol. Not to mention with XCloud the barrier of entry is really small. So no wonder people prefer Game Pass exclusivity and other stuff.

We know the benefits.

I don't know why you haven't grasp this yet, but keeping a game off another platform is far worse.

 

[JackMcGunns]

I debunked your entire argument and this is all you have to say?

Shame lol

You haven't debunked anything. Blocking gamers from accessing a game is a shitty move no matter who's doing it. Explain to me a single benefit for gamers? there is NONE, this is 100% corporate bullshit that you're defending for some odd reason, Sony shill pretending to be a gamer account?

 

[DForce]

You haven't debunked anything. Blocking gamers from accessing a game is a shitty move no matter who's doing it. Explain to me a single benefit for gamers? there is NONE, this is 100% corporate bullshit that you're defending for some odd reason, Sony shill pretending to be a gamer account?

I have. You said it was "false equivalencies" to compare time exclusive deals to keeping a game off Game Pass.

Is keeping a game off a platform for a year worse than keeping a game off a subscription service?

 

[FatKingBallman]

Medium was a small game, Yakuze Like a Dragon came out to Playstation 4 any so hard to say whether it is better exclusive than week early demo for RE Village.

The Medium counts, becuse it was the FIRST big exclusive for XSeries only ( and PC ). Also, regarding Yakuza, i've strictly mentioned next-gen version.

 

[FatKingBallman]

I don't know why you haven't grasp this yet, but keeping a game off another platform is far worse.

Or 3rd party publisher.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Also, regarding Yakuza, i've strictly mentioned next-gen version.

Next gen version is akin next gen patch so it doesn't really matter and cannot be considered a true exclusive.
I am more curious why it did not launch into Game Pass.

 

[FatKingBallman]

Next gen version is akin next gen patch so it doesn't really matter and cannot be considered a true exclusive.
I am more curious why it did not launch into Game Pass.

Nevertheless, MS and Sega advertised Yakuza as next-gen exclusive :

Next-gen version of Yakuza: Like a Dragon is an Xbox Series X timed exclusive | VGC

“The PlayStation 5 version will release at a later date”…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[yurinka]

Given this deal, why would any developer put extra effort to utilize any advantage? They'll simply create the game on the common denominator.

Is everyone purposely missing the point? Take Destiny for instance, was there any content missing? was the PS4 version downgraded to run at a lower res? I mean it was running at 1080p and 60fps which means it looked great on PS4, but it's just clear that the engine was designed to run fine on Xbox One and 1080p, indicating that there was room for improvements on PS4.

Devs always focus on their best selling platform (typically PlayStation) and use the minimum common denominator. It's more profitable for them and cause less outrage.

The current deal doesn't stop devs (in this case the RE8) of implementing stuff on other pltforms that goes beyond PS5 capabilities and that would be possible in other devices (like VRR in Series X before gets implementd on PS5, or in PC higher resolution, textures or wide screen support).

This deal is just a marketing deal: a first party pays them a big marketing campaign, and in exchange they ask devs to use their version when promoting the game, to give them priority on stuff like possible timed exclusive betas/demo/dlc and possible inclusion on subscriptions or console bundles, in addition to make sure the competition doesn't get exclusive features, content or other stuff that could be implemented on their console, plus making sure the game takes advantage of the new features of the console (DualSense stuff, 3D audio, etc).

Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft make this kind of marketing deals all the time, and don't make other versions to look worse. They simply make sure that if they invest millions on a game, their version doesn't suck. As an example, Destiny also got marketing deal with PlayStation, so in that case Sony did make sure their version didn't suck.

Smaller ones do not count because they are small. Like who tracks number of indies that are time exclusive for PS or Xbox?

I think Gematsu have the complete list of all exclusives splitting them by exclusivity type, instead of by game size or if indie or not:

PS4

Visit the post for more.

www.gematsu.com

Xbox One

Visit the post for more.

www.gematsu.com

PS5

Visit the post for more.

www.gematsu.com

Xbox Series X

Visit the post for more.

www.gematsu.com

Looking at the web browser scroll bar size, PS4 has more exclusives than XBO and PS5 has more exclusives than Series X|S. Both released and announced as upcoming.
Both digital only and retail.

But it's normal, because until now Sony had a way bigger 1st party team and Sony also has a way bigger market share. So even if not moneyhatted, many studios skip Xbox because its installbase is too small for them. Specially Japanese devs making Jpn focused games, or indies who don't have enough money to port their game to all platforms.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Careful there.

 

[Excess]

This thread proves that many people don't actually read. They just like to react and act like 'drama' queens. People are no longer interested in the technology both platforms bring to the table but the drama around it. It is sad.

But we already nuked the Politics board, so pls let us have our "team sport" war of plastic and silicon instead.

 

[Sir Vilhelm]

I thought games this generation were going to be $69 but I can still pre-order this on xbox store for $59

Is it only certain games that will be $69?

 

[Yselacrey00]

Sony doesn't even limit the PC version of their 1st party titles so why would they care about 3rd party titles?

I honestly believe this is just your typical fear mongering incase both systems end of close.

You just need to read the lines. It says you can't offer something on other platforms without offering it on PS, only, and only If PS can handle it.

 

[JackMcGunns]

I have. You said it was "false equivalencies" to compare time exclusive deals to keeping a game off Game Pass.

Is keeping a game off a platform for a year worse than keeping a game off a subscription service?

Face it, this is something that's never been done before, MS has not taken a multiplatform game like Battlefield 1 or Fallout 4 and specifically blocked it from coming to a streaming service like PS+, it's an unprecedented move, and a shitty one.