Windows 10 Now Offers Offline Gaming

[tetris42]

Company develops a game from funds from a contract with company B to be an exclusive title. After said agreement happens and work is finished, you can't expect them to just let you release it everywhere. The fun thing about the internet is we all know very little of what goes on in these business deals other than what someone hears and tells someone and then someone else writes an article.

Believe me, without exclusives the game market will water down, likely at the cost of pc gaming.

Nothing lost with sunset overdrive anyways, was given away on xbone and I still couldnt justify the disk space.

That's just an example of a recent case where exclusivity is keeping games off the market. I mean hell, I've wanted to play Heavy Rain, which was originally developed for the PC, before Sony came in and paid them money to keep it OFF the platform. I don't know why you think the market would get watered down without exclusives, there are more games than ever to chose from nowadays as it is. Again, it's like the studios of old only allowing their movies to be shown at company theaters, it doesn't benefit the average consumer and actively keeps games from reaching larger audiences.

 

[Darunion]

That's just an example of a recent case where exclusivity is keeping games off the market. I mean hell, I've wanted to play Heavy Rain, which was originally developed for the PC, before Sony came in and paid them money to keep it OFF the platform. I don't know why you think the market would get watered down without exclusives, there are more games than ever to chose from nowadays as it is. Again, it's like the studios of old only allowing their movies to be shown at company theaters, it doesn't benefit the average consumer and actively keeps games from reaching larger audiences.

But competition is what is healthy to keep the market going. A double edged sword really. Exclusive games come from big paychecks, so it helps to increase the development budget (should result in a better game but not often enough) and these come from the big guys and publishers, which then comes from investors etc etc. Let us say exclusive games as a whole gets banned and to release a game you must release it on all compatible platforms. For one, who will police this? Two, if they are forced to develop onto platforms they don't want to, how much love would go into it? If you just make it illegal to make exclusive deals, that is also just getting too much government involvement in private deals. I don't know if I had a point other than I just don't understand why it is such a big deal to leave things alone and let companies spend their money as they want. I have always gamed on console and pc so I tend to feel that no matter what it comes out on I can play it. If consoles don't do exclusives then what happens? All that remains is whoever has more graphics power per dollar. And pc gamers only buy games when they are on sale for <$10 lol.

 

[tetris42]

Let us say exclusive games as a whole gets banned and to release a game you must release it on all compatible platforms. For one, who will police this? Two, if they are forced to develop onto platforms they don't want to, how much love would go into it? If you just make it illegal to make exclusive deals, that is also just getting too much government involvement in private deals. I don't know if I had a point other than I just don't understand why it is such a big deal to leave things alone and let companies spend their money as they want.

I don't mean this offensively, but this is such an utter nonsense scenario you're describing. It's some completely unrealistic enforcement fantasy or something, I don't know why you would even consider this as a theoretical point to consider. To be clear, I don't think any company should be REQUIRED to release on multiple platforms, I just don't think they should be required NOT to. Do you get what I'm saying?

Since there's obviously some confusion here, I should clarify ENFORCED exclusives are anti-consumer. If a game is exclusive because the developer only feels like developing for one platform, fine. There's nothing wrong with that. It's when a company steps in and pays money to make sure games stay out of the hands of additional customers is where it becomes anti-consumer.

 

[Terpfen]

Here:

http://www.pcgamer.com/insomniac-wo...verdrive-to-come-to-pc-if-given-the-go-ahead/

They're right they're saying they can't make a PC port without permission from Microsoft. I'm sure part of their contract to publish means exclusivity to the platform.

You don't even understand your own contradiction. You claimed the developer was paid to not publish on the PC. This is factually incorrect.

I'm not sure what you think you're arguing here, but it sounds like a false dichotomy.

It's called "the other half you are not considering out of your own selfish attitude."

Do you understand yet? Again, feel free to explain to me how paying a company NOT to release to a wider market benefits consumers compared to having that freedom.

We have already proven that the developer of Sunset Overdrive was NOT paid to refrain from publishing on other platforms. The exact opposite occurred--a LACK of funding was the issue. The publisher chose not to fund a port. Your scenario is entirely backwards, and the fact that you cannot discern between the two is emblematic of your complaints.

You are not owed a version of anything. The end.

 

[tetris42]

You don't even understand your own contradiction. You claimed the developer was paid to not publish on the PC. This is factually incorrect.

I think you're just arguing semantics, so I'll try and be as clear as possible:

The developer was paid to allow Microsoft to publish their game on the Xbox One, exclusively. Part of this agreement contained the terms that they were NOT allowed to have their game published on any other platform, by Microsoft, or any other publisher. So IN EFFECT, they were paid to keep it off the PC. If you think what I just said in this post is erroneous, you should spell it out for me, otherwise we're not having communication at all.

It's called "the other half you are not considering out of your own selfish attitude."

See, I don't see that, I see "being snide and evading the question." Once again, how does an Xbox One owner benefit from a company making sure it can't be played on another platform IN ADDITION to theirs?

We have already proven that the developer of Sunset Overdrive was NOT paid to refrain from publishing on other platforms.

Proof? What proof? You literally just said "this is factually incorrect" and nothing else on the topic. In what universe is that considered proof? Could you PROVIDE the proof you're referring to? I may have used the wrong word in one sentence, hence the correction up at the top.

The publisher chose not to fund a port.

That's a disingenuous way of putting it. They chose to not fund the GAME unless there was NO POSSIBILITY of a port. The way you phrase it, you make it sound like they could have let Microsoft publish the Xbox copy, then walked down the street and let another company publish a PS4 or PC copy.

You are not owed a version of anything. The end.

And you're talking like a crazy person. What EXACTLY is it do you think that I think I am "owed"? Please, spell it out. Giving a short sentence quip and not answering the question like you did above is not communication. I think DEVELOPERS are owed the freedom to not be artificially tied to a platform, should they be interested in releasing their game on more than one. So once again, what is it you think I am owed?

 

[Darunion]

I don't mean this offensively, but this is such an utter nonsense scenario you're describing. It's some completely unrealistic enforcement fantasy or something, I don't know why you would even consider this as a theoretical point to consider. To be clear, I don't think any company should be REQUIRED to release on multiple platforms, I just don't think they should be required NOT to. Do you get what I'm saying?

Since there's obviously some confusion here, I should clarify ENFORCED exclusives are anti-consumer. If a game is exclusive because the developer only feels like developing for one platform, fine. There's nothing wrong with that. It's when a company steps in and pays money to make sure games stay out of the hands of additional customers is where it becomes anti-consumer.

Extreme I know but I guess I am not seeing what is 'anti-consumer' about this. Having to go buy a $200 console to play a different set of games? I guess I feel that calling this anti-consumer and wanting additional laws created to further regulate the gaming industry is also an extreme measure for this. Also how do you know for fact that these are deals where money is changing hands and the contract only specifies that the developer cannot release on any other platform? I just want you to realize how you are not part of the 'know' to be in a good position to require regulation. Do we really want a government department created to monitor transactions to ensure that these dealings don't happen? Otherwise they would happen anyways and then you would have to initiate class actions, which I promise will not result in great ports of games. Also in which burden of proof will fall on the accuser, good luck!

 

[tetris42]

Extreme I know but I guess I am not seeing what is 'anti-consumer' about this. Having to go buy a $200 console to play a different set of games? I guess I feel that calling this anti-consumer and wanting additional laws created to further regulate the gaming industry is also an extreme measure for this.

I don't think I even brought up wanting additional laws to prevent this? I would just like to see the practice end, ideally, wasn't giving a lot of thoughts to the specifics of what would be the best method. Consumers simply not tolerating it could potentially be even more effective.

Also how do you know for fact that these are deals where money is changing hands and the contract only specifies that the developer cannot release on any other platform?

It's true, I don't always know this for a fact, I'm taking the developers at their word essentially and looking at the evidence. [/quote] For example:

Heavy Rain = originally announced as being developed for the PC, Sony got involved and it became a PS3 exclusive.
Alan Wake = Originally being developed for the PC, MS got involved, became an Xbox exclusive. Two years later the devs released a copy on PC because the time had expired on their contract and said that they wanted to have a PC version all along, but the terms with MS wouldn't allow it.
Sunset Overdrive = Xbox exclusive, the developers flat out state they would like to develop a PC version, but can't get it published without Microsoft's permission.

I'm calling it anti-consumer because consumers get less choice and developers get less sales, and it's artificially perpetuated. Again, it's like the theaters of old. Say you want to go see a movie. Well nowadays, you just go to whatever theater you want, probably whichever one is closest, or cheapest, whatever. Well in the old days, if you wanted to see a Universal movie, you could just go down the block, but if you wanted to see a Warner Bros. movie, you might have to go halfway across town, because the companies didn't allow other movies to be shown at their theaters. No consumers benefited from this, which is why the practice eventually ended. Artificial exclusives now are pretty much just an extension of this sort of mentality. You say spend $200 to play a different set of games, would you want to buy a $200 player to watch Warner Bros. movies when you already had one that could play Disney and Universal ones?

I just want you to realize how you are not part of the 'know' to be in a good position to require regulation. Do we really want a government department created to monitor transactions to ensure that these dealings don't happen? Otherwise they would happen anyways and then you would have to initiate class actions, which I promise will not result in great ports of games. Also in which burden of proof will fall on the accuser, good luck!

Again man, you're the one who brought up regulation and a government department!

 

[Darunion]

(good points i cut down due to size and quote isnt working)

Again man, you're the one who brought up regulation and a government department!

Fair enough, I took what you said about it not being allowed as a path that could make things worse by getting more chefs in the kitchen. It does suck, I am not saying it as an amazing system, just trying to argue the other side to better understand. Many times the devs never get to call the shots because they cannot afford to. More or less the starving artist is a good analogy of a game developer. Here comes a publisher that will fund your entire idea you want to make, but their payment comes with terms you must agree to. They are more than welcomed to turn it down but $$$$. The devs are part of this same equation. It is just fun to bitch about how MS wont let me release my game, but at the same time I cashed the check.

 

[Ryokurin]

You didn't read all my posts or just trying to ignore parts? I said I'd be fine with games not being on PC, but doing what MS is doing with the UWP platform is a big middle finger to all self respecting PC enthusiast. They're trampling on everything that makes PC great, and superior to consoles. They're trying to level the playing field, and I'm making my stand by saying FUCK NO, you're not demoting my PC experience to a console experience.

And that's why I think if they were to make a statement about this, it probably would be that you aren't the person they are doing the UWP platform for.

UWP is their way of bringing the phone experience to windows. That is, upgrades are handled by them, every app is sandboxed. No windows rot, DLL hell, system destroying viruses, snake oil, etc. In other words, something for someone who knows nothing about computers. In a world where most people can be served quite well with a chromebook or ipad they have to at least make part of windows just as appealing. Do they have a long ways to go? Yes, but just like Apple hasn't killed installing normal apps in OSX it's highly unlikely that it would work with Windows. WinRT was the attempt at that and it failed.

Don't go all tinfoil hat on how it's domination and anti consumer and think about how there is a growing amount of people who demand it and are starting to use other platforms that provide a similar sandbox.