official Gamescom 2014 News & Discussion

[Athernar]

But people hate when one company comes in and sets a single standard.

Fragmentation is simply one of those negative aspects of choice. If you prefer a more closed ecosystem, one of its positive aspects is a single, cohesive path.

 

People hate when one company comes in and sets a de facto standard as that usually leads to lock-in. (a la DirectX) 

 

An open standard, while having it's own associated set of issues to deal with is nowhere near as problematic.

 

To put the discussion in terms of hardware, Intel's de facto x86 standard has largely kept the CPU market in a duopoly. If it wasn't for AMD and x86-64 Intel would've likely been able to eventually strongarm the industry into adopting IA-64. Even then, arguably the current duopoly isn't exactly working out best for the consumer with AMD's poor performance in the CPU segment as of late.

[LaP]

So basically, get out of the console business as it is run today. I mean its not a silly notion.

 

 

Releasing the games on PC and xbox is not getting out of the console market. It's like saying Valve making Steam OS is getting out of the PC market.

[LaP]

But people hate when one company comes in and sets a single standard.

 

 

It would not be a problem if AMD and nVidia would not close the tech they are working on.

 

Open standard is better. But between one closed standard and two closed standard just one is better. Ideally AMD and nVidia would open their technology to make them universal standards but it wont happen and both TrueAudio and G Sync are sort of needed and we will end up with 2 different implementations of the same idea and some games will support just nVidia and other just AMD and well it wont be good.

[trooper11]

Releasing the games on PC and xbox is not getting out of the console market. It's like saying Valve making Steam OS is getting out of the PC market.

Valve's success as a marketplace for content on the pc is not tied to exclusive content. Console gaming is tied to exclusive content.

Imagine for a moment that every single Xbox One game was also out for the pc. Would the result be mass praise for MS and more adoption of the X1? Or would it result in MS getting hammered for a lack of exclusive content and a drop in adoption?

To survive in the console market today, you need exclusives. So either MS leaves the console market, or they attempt to radically change the market to bring it into the pc market.

In a weird way, Valve is attempting to do this from the other direction. They are taking the pc platform and pushing it into the living room while at the same time using their Steam OS to provide a more 'console-like' experience. What if MS took their console and transitioned it into an extension of the pc platform? That way, MS could still offer extra features and experiences with hardware that simply tapped into the same pc gaming ecosystem for content.

It would not be a problem if AMD and nVidia would not close the tech they are working on.

 

Open standard is better. But between one closed standard and two closed standard just one is better. Ideally AMD and nVidia would open their technology to make them universal standards but it wont happen and both TrueAudio and G Sync are needed and we will end up with 2 different implementations of the same idea and some games will support just nVidia and other just AMD and well it wont be good.

I'm not sure what you want MS to do about that though. AMD and Nvidia do their own thing and unless you want MS to strong arm them into conforming, they will continue to do so in order to try and get a competitive advantage.

[Luc2k]

Do you ultimately want MS to improve or ready for them to go away? If you want them to improve, what do you suggest they do across their console and pc markets?

Improve of course because for better or worse we're stuck together for a while at least. Some good suggestions have already been made by previous posters and I'll try to add to them once I'm rested.

 

There was no exclusive 360 game that was in the same genre/setting as Uncharted. MS doesn't need to match title for title, they just need a good variety.

In this case, and in most cases where time exclusive deals happen, its because the platform holder need more content to fill a gap in releases. So in this case, maybe the games that are in production in house for MS simply wont be ready to fill all of the gaps next year. Maybe SE was on the fence about their sequel being released at all based on their displeasure with the sales numbers for the first one and they reached out to MS (and Sony for all we know) to check interest in getting a free investment in exchange for timed exclusivity. It would be interesting to know the details, but ultimately that does not change the end result.

With Tomb Raider, they would have had the content regardless of the deal, but they attempted to prop the Xbox above the others and we can all see how that went. Or are you talking about some kind of exclusives quota?

 

Your Squeenix scenario is somewhat plausible, but ultimately unlikely. First of all, they're both guilty, regardless of whom instigated the deal. And if it would have went down like you described, it would have been, at worst, a neutral PR scenario: "MS saves Tomb Raider sequel, but it is a timed exclusive". Then again, maybe it's just another case of MS trademarked bad PR.

 

It would not be a problem if AMD and nVidia would not close the tech they are working on.

 

Open standard is better. But between one closed standard and two closed standard just one is better. Ideally AMD and nVidia would open their technology to make them universal standards but it wont happen and both TrueAudio and G Sync are sort of needed and we will end up with 2 different implementations of the same idea and some games will support just nVidia and other just AMD and well it wont be good.

To be fair, while both companies have closed stuff, AMD is way more open and willing to share than Nvidia. Here are two recent examples:

 

Freesync is AMD's alternative to G Sync and it has been made into an open standard. It will take more time to make it to market, but once it lands, anyone will be able to use it provided they implement support into their hardware.

 

While Mantle is closed source, they have offered it to Nvidia and Intel. There's debate about it being PR, but at the end of the day AMD is working closely with Khronos and MS to implement the performance improvements into the next versions of the APIs.

 

Here's one (a bit older) with Nvidia. Physx used to work on ATi/AMD hardware by pairing one of their cards with a low-end Nvidia GPU (used for Psysx processing). I'll let you figure out how that concluded.

[trooper11]

Improve of course because for better or worse we're stuck together for a while at least. Some good suggestions have already been made by previous posters and I'll try to add to them once I'm rested.

 

With Tomb Raider, they would have had the content regardless of the deal, but they attempted to prop the Xbox above the others and we can all see how that went. Or are you talking about some kind of exclusives quota?

I'm talking about a platform holder looking for an exclusive title to add more variety to their current library of games if they do not have enough out at the moment.

Again, I have no idea what SE's plans were for Tomb Raider, so its all speculation.

Your Squeenix scenario is somewhat plausible, but ultimately unlikely. First of all, they're both guilty, regardless of whom instigated the deal. And if it would have went down like you described, it would have been, at worst, a neutral PR scenario: "MS saves Tomb Raider sequel, but it is a timed exclusive". Then again, maybe it's just another case of MS trademarked bad PR.

It isn't an issue of PR, just an issue of the event itself. No one wants MS to do this and they will punish MS for it.

[Luc2k]

I'm talking about a platform holder looking for an exclusive title to add more variety to their current library of games if they do not have enough out at the moment.

Tomb Raider is a long way away so it doesn't seem a likely candidate right now.

 

It isn't an issue of PR, just an issue of the event itself. No one wants MS to do this and they will punish MS for it.

MS is the one that stepped on the glass big time, but don't single them out. Unless somebody is a die-hard fanboy of the platform that gets the better deal or the parties involved, they would not support a similar move. At worst, you would find apathy.

[trooper11]

Tomb Raider is a long way away so it doesn't seem a likely candidate right now.

Its just next year. Game development plans are usually in motion for the next 2-3, so MS knows the bulk of first party content they will have next year. Maybe Tomb Raider fills a gap in that lineup.

MS is the one that stepped on the glass big time, but don't single them out. Unless somebody is a die-hard fanboy of the platform that gets the better deal or the parties involved, they would not support a similar move. At worst, you would find apathy.

Your correct in principle, and yet there are other examples of games going exclusive that did not receive public backlash like this move.

So its probably a combo of genuine displeasure, interest in Tomb Raider as a popular franchise, and the negative pr trend for the X1.

[Emn1ty]

Of course MS is evil, it's a many-layered megacorporation and a convicted monopolist to the extent that if it wasn't for the well timed election of a certain republican president - we wouldn't be having this conversation. As Microsoft would've been carved up into many smaller less abusive companies.

 

And Sony is any better? I really don't understand this opinion, that because a company is large they are inherently evil. The last truly monopolizing thing Microsoft did was with IE in the 90's. It's been 20 years!

 

And this doesn't even beget the fact that Xbox is a subsection of Microsoft with different management, and therefore different history. As far as I've seen, the Xbox division has been very cooperative if not transparent.

 

But no, we'd rather default to the idea that "they have money and power, and because they have power the power is obviously corrupting and therefore they've been corrupted and are evil." All conjecture, assumption and just plain paranoid.

[Athernar]

And Sony is any better? I really don't understand this opinion, that because a company is large they are inherently evil. The last truly monopolizing thing Microsoft did was with IE in the 90's. It's been 20 years!

 

And this doesn't even beget the fact that Xbox is a subsection of Microsoft with different management, and therefore different history. As far as I've seen, the Xbox division has been very cooperative if not transparent.

 

But no, we'd rather default to the idea that "they have money and power, and because they have power the power is obviously corrupting and therefore they've been corrupted and are evil." All conjecture, assumption and just plain paranoid.

 

Is Sony any better? Not especially no, although I don't think they have quite the history of anti-competitive practices Microsoft do. (or the convictions)

 

There is no reason to trust megacorps, they exist solely to drive value to their shareholders and will trample upon anyone and everyone if they can get away with it.

[Emn1ty]

Is Sony any better? Not especially no, although I don't think they have quite the history of anti-competitive practices Microsoft do. (or the convictions)

 

There is no reason to trust megacorps, they exist solely to drive value to their shareholders and will trample upon anyone and everyone if they can get away with it.

 

The shareholders are... us? It's not like a shareholder is some exclusive club.

[Athernar]

The shareholders are... us? It's not like a shareholder is some exclusive club.

 

I'm certainly not a shareholder of either, and neither are the majority of customers.

 

Even less so if you discount minor shares.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Back on topic please, if you want to discuss Tomb Raider's news there is a topic specifically for it.

[Emn1ty]

I'm certainly not a shareholder of either, and neither are the majority of customers.

 

Even less so if you discount minor shares.

 

The point is regardless of what percentage of people own stock and how much, stockholders are just normal people like you and I. And you and I can easily buy into it or not. The stockholders may as well be their consumer base, if not more so because they've invested money into the company directly rather than just its product.

[Luc2k]

The point is regardless of what percentage of people own stock and how much, stockholders are just normal people like you and I. And you and I can easily buy into it or not. The stockholders may as well be their consumer base, if not more so because they've invested money into the company directly rather than just its product.

No they're not. Just because you happen to have several thousand dollars in shares (a guess), does not mean your voice matters as much as someone with millions or more, if at all. These people are usually businessmen, not gamers.

[trooper11]

Is Sony any better? Not especially no, although I don't think they have quite the history of anti-competitive practices Microsoft do. (or the convictions)

Not so sure that Sony's hands are any cleaner. If you want a cleaner company, Nintendo would be a better choice.

 

 

No they're not. Just because you happen to have several thousand dollars in shares (a guess), does not mean your voice matters as much as someone with millions or more, if at all. These people are usually businessmen, not gamers.

In a weird way, Kickstarter has created a new, hip, way of being a 'shareholder'. People can come up with an idea and then try to convince other people to support them by buying a piece of the project. Like the stock market, the more you buy into it, the more you are rewarded and, in some cases, the more influence you can have on the end product. Kickstarter is just a much easier form of the stock market, something that is more 'friendly' to the average person. Its a lot less intimidating for one thing.

I have wondered what it might be like if MS, Sony, or Nintendo attempted to use Kickstarter in some way.

[Luc2k]

In a weird way, Kickstarter has created a new, hip, way of being a 'shareholder'. People can come up with an idea and then try to convince other people to support them by buying a piece of the project. Like the stock market, the more you buy into it, the more you are rewarded and, in some cases, the more influence you can have on the end product. Kickstarter is just a much easier form of the stock market, something that is more 'friendly' to the average person. Its a lot less intimidating for one thing.

I have wondered what it might be like if MS, Sony, or Nintendo attempted to use Kickstarter in some way.

They look nothing alike to me. Being a shareholder is more about investing in company so that you make more money out of it, with big holders pushing said company in a direction they might profit from. On Kickstarter you just put money towards a product, idea or whatever. Once that product is out, you don't usually get influence its future or receive any additional benefits outside what was promised in the project's reward brackets. See Oculus Rift for a case where the backers felt shafted after they funded the thing.

 

I have wondered what it might be like if MS, Sony, or Nintendo attempted to use Kickstarter in some way.

They'd get torn to shreds in the media and on the internet since we're talking about corporations that have the capital to fund their own projects. That's not to say that funding might not be successful if they actually go through it since most corporations have their fair share of blind followers.

[trooper11]

They look nothing alike to me. Being a shareholder is more about investing in company so that you make more money out of it, with big holders pushing said company in a direction they might profit from. On Kickstarter you just put money towards a product, idea or whatever. Once that product is out, you don't usually get influence its future or receive any additional benefits outside what was promised in the project's reward brackets. See Oculus Rift for a case where the backers felt shafted after they funded the thing.

I know there are differences, but the idea is the same: You provide support to something that you expect a good return on. Its a similar principle.

You don't always get to influence the game, but it does happen, so there is a precedence for it. As for cases of people feeling cheated when a project fails to meat expectation, well that is a reason I think that eventually, there will be mechanisms in place to hold people accountable in a more serious fashion. Regulations if you will.

They'd get torn to shreds in the media and on the internet since we're talking about corporations that have the capital to fund their own projects. That's not to say that funding might not be successful if they actually go through it since most corporations have their fair share of blind followers.

They should get torn to shreds for having shareholders for the same reason. Why have shareholders if you can fund everything on your own?

There have already been examples of established game developers going through Kickstarter and having successful projects even though its possible they could have gotten the funding elsewhere. Its spun as a way to more directly connect with gamers and not just about about the funding itself. A way to gauge interest in content.

[Luc2k]

I know there are differences, but the idea is the same: You provide support to something that you expect a good return on. Its a similar principle.

You don't always get to influence the game, but it does happen, so there is a precedence for it. As for cases of people feeling cheated when a project fails to meat expectation, well that is a reason I think that eventually, there will be mechanisms in place to hold people accountable in a more serious fashion. Regulations if you will.

Like I said, I find nothing similar between the two apart for both being investments.

 

They should get torn to shreds for having shareholders for the same reason. Why have shareholders if you can fund everything on your own?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

 

There have already been examples of established game developers going through Kickstarter and having successful projects even though its possible they could have gotten the funding elsewhere. Its spun as a way to more directly connect with gamers and not just about about the funding itself. A way to gauge interest in content.

Keyword developers. Change that word with publishers and watch the negativity pour in. The reason most of these devs went with crowd-funding was because sometimes publishers don't want to fund their ideas, they demand too much control, force deadlines or who knows what else. Of course, not everyone will properly manage their funds (DoubleFine) or be noble *cough* Star Citizen *cough*.

 

I think there might actually have been some publisher that attempted to Kickstarter, but then backed out after bad PR. I could be wrong though.

[Athernar]

Not so sure that Sony's hands are any cleaner. If you want a cleaner company, Nintendo would be a better choice.

 

Nah, it's better to just not trust public companies in general - because even a "good" public company is likely to be derailed by shareholders/investors and dumb managers.

 

Better to be small and privately owned, no outside meddling and you only answer to your customers.

[trooper11]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

What is the point of selling shares in a company?

My point was that a company joins the stock market to generate investment that they turn into new products. The point of a Kickstarter campaign is similar. The developer starts one in order to generate investment that they turn into a product. Of course there are differences, I just noticed a similar goal between the two.

I didn't mean for it to be a big deal.

 

Keyword developers. Change that word with publishers and watch the negativity pour in. The reason most of these devs went with crowd-funding was because sometimes publishers don't want to fund their ideas, they demand too much control, force deadlines or who knows what else. Of course, not everyone will properly manage their funds (DoubleFine) or be noble *cough* Star Citizen *cough*.

 

I think there might actually have been some publisher that attempted to Kickstarter, but then backed out after bad PR. I could be wrong though.

I still think its possible that more groups will try to tap into this seeing how successful others have been (such as Star Citizen, which you pointed out). The pr issue is a tough one for sure, but maybe there is a way to lessen that impact.

I have yet to contribute to a kickstarter project yet, mostly because I'm just not ready to put my trust into a project like that. It just seems to be too flimsy of a system, with many options for fraud or just incompetence.

 

 

Nah, it's better to just not trust public companies in general - because even a "good" public company is likely to be derailed by shareholders/investors and dumb managers.

 

Better to be small and privately owned, no outside meddling and you only answer to your customers.

Even small companies can have dumb managers. Still, you make a good point, a smaller company is more free to do what it really wants without answering to shareholders, they can react faster to issues as well. I'm not ready to say all public companies are bad, but they are certainly more vulnerable to bad influences and rotting away from the inside out.

Even most big companies seem to wish they were not beholden to shareholders. I would say MS is included in that. The whole Dell fiasco showed that a big company can reject the shareholder idea and return to private status. It wasn't easy though.

[Emn1ty]

Even most big companies seem to wish they were not beholden to shareholders. I would say MS is included in that. The whole Dell fiasco showed that a big company can reject the shareholder idea and return to private status. It wasn't easy though.

 

There's a bit of a reason why being at a shareholder's mercy is a positive. It means the CEO's / owners aren't in complete control and means they have someone to answer to. There's arguments both ways but public trading isn't any more inherently corrupt than one or a couple guys running the show.

[Luc2k]

What is the point of selling shares in a company?

My point was that a company joins the stock market to generate investment that they turn into new products. The point of a Kickstarter campaign is similar. The developer starts one in order to generate investment that they turn into a product. Of course there are differences, I just noticed a similar goal between the two.

I didn't mean for it to be a big deal.

The similarities are superficial to me, so I'll just drop this part of the conversation.

 

I still think its possible that more groups will try to tap into this seeing how successful others have been (such as Star Citizen, which you pointed out). The pr issue is a tough one for sure, but maybe there is a way to lessen that impact.

I have yet to contribute to a kickstarter project yet, mostly because I'm just not ready to put my trust into a project like that. It just seems to be too flimsy of a system, with many options for fraud or just incompetence.

Oh they will, but publishers will have a hard time unless they try and deceive people. There are some examples like Yogsventures underestimating the size of a project, running out money and then cancelling.

 

Haven't contributed myself, mostly because I use my limited games budget on sure things.

[trooper11]

The similarities are superficial to me, so I'll just drop this part of the conversation.

 

Oh they will, but publishers will have a hard time unless they try and deceive people. There are some examples like Yogsventures underestimating the size of a project, running out money and then cancelling.

 

Haven't contributed myself, mostly because I use my limited games budget on sure things.

 

 

Is there such a thing as an indie publisher? :laugh:

Indie groups are the hot thing to support now and they get treated much better than larger groups.

 

I wonder if the kickstarter program is big enough now that a big developer/publisher would see it as a chance to market a new project to gamers. What if they didn't even ask for money (they could ask for whatever the minimum is required for kickstarter). Maybe there is value in the connection they can make with gamers. Kickstarter projects do get a good amount of attention in the gaming media.

[Luc2k]

Is there such a thing as an indie publisher? :laugh:

Indie groups are the hot thing to support now and they get treated much better than larger groups.

 

I wonder if the kickstarter program is big enough now that a big developer/publisher would see it as a chance to market a new project to gamers. What if they didn't even ask for money (they could ask for whatever the minimum is required for kickstarter). Maybe there is value in the connection they can make with gamers. Kickstarter projects do get a good amount of attention in the gaming media.

I think there are publishers that focus on indie games, although a large chunk of games are self published.

Indies do get cut a lot of slack indeed, but the amount of crap that makes its way to Steam is huge. Greenlight is considered a failure and will supposedly disappear at some point, not that it would solve the quality problem since there are plenty of publishers that release shovelware without any oversight.

 

What would be the point of putting something on Kickstarter if they're not looking for funding. The kickstarter would be cancelled, that is, if it even meets the requirements and gets published in the first place. Make a community site or something.