“I prefer the industry when you have two really strong competitors. You get better games, you get more games, and you get an industry riding a positive wave.”
Steam: publisher and platform
I mean, afaik Steam has never helped in the role of publisher.
Publishers might provide engine tools, development resources, coordination, or other forms of development assistance. Or, if they’re rich and brain damaged, they’ll just buy out functioning game studios and force them to make live service slop.
Valve publish their own games.
Publishers are not responsible for any of what you mentioned.
Steam has never helped in the role of publisher
The explosion of indie games because of how easily Steam allows a budding developer to publish their game says otherwise. The ease of self-publication through Steam was one of the first major benefits of the platform. Not to mention all the stuff Steamworks provides in modern times.
They publish their own games, so in that sense it’s true. I don’t think they’ve ever published a 3rd party game though.
Also, aren’t publishers mainly for marketing and that? Usually people are happiest when the publisher doesn’t involve itself in the development. That’s what the developers are for, after all.
To everyone confused what his point is:
“But those two roads do not converge. Those two roads necessarily diverge, because to be a platform and to be a very well-supported, well-accepted, well-selling platform, you need exclusive content. Nintendo needs its Mario and its Zelda, and PlayStation needs Crash Bandicoot and Astro Bot, and Kratos and Horizon, all of that. But if you’re going to be the biggest publisher in the world, which is not a bad ambition - I’m sure there’s gold on them there hills - you have to bring your stuff on every platform. Multi-platform is almost a prerequisite.”
He’s arguing that Xbox has ambitions to buy massive studios and be the biggest publisher ever, but that doesn’t work with how they also want to start making games exclusive. This kinda fits with him saying that PlayStation should keep their games on PC
Basically, he’s saying that if you want to make big franchises that are in the public consciousness and get made into TV shows/movies etc, then they need to reach the biggest amount of people possible so that the average person cares about that franchise. If most people can’t play the games, most people will stop caring about the franchise entirely.
Little weird to see astro bot in that list, isn’t that just one game that came out like 2 years ago? I don’t anyone is buying a PlayStation for the next astro bot.
Honestly this is what is confusing me the most about Xbox’s move here. They have spent the better part of 10 years dumping exclusives specifically to become the next Steam. Now all of a sudden they care about console sales again and it doesn’t really make sense with the direction they have been going.
You can tell when commenters have not read the article.
Remember when gaming companies were publishers AND platforms?
Back in the 1970s, ActiVision sued Atari for the right to be a publisher but not a platform. The idea of being a publisher but not a platform was a new idea at the time.
But most gaming companies aren’t, and have never been, platforms. The exceptions are Atari, Mattel, Commodore, Nintendo, Sega, SNK, Hudson Soft, Sony, Microsoft, Steam, and CD Projekt.
Pepperidge FarmNintendo remembers.
Isn’t Sony both a publisher and a platform? Nintendo, too.
Also, why is the quote there twice? Read both 2-3 times looking for one to say something different. Guess you got me, but I don’t see the point.
As a first-party platform, our job was almost not to be the biggest game publisher in the world. In fact, it was against our interest to start muscling our partners out of the pie. We weren’t there to steal; I wasn’t making games so I could steal market share from EA or steal market share from Activision. My job was to make games that made the pie bigger, and my opportunity was in growing it out.
He isn’t talking about being a publisher, its about being the biggest publisher.
Pretty much every platform is both, except linux maybe.
Valve doesn’t really publish much does it? Other than a few obvious moneymakers.
Two really strong competitors is called a duopoly and in practise it works like a monopoly in terms of gouging customers and stiffling competition. It promotes collusion, but it tends to look way healthier from the outside than a monopoly. It’s not though.
Nintendo is laughing at Layden.
Valve laughing at half life 3
And on the eve of Spider-Man, it was like: we should just put a ring on it - we’ve been dating for 20 years.
Lol, never seen it like this. They were dating and making babies for 20 years. And then got married.
On the other side, we have Microsoft with a big harem, but uncapable of doing babies with most of them, abortion, mistreatment, replacement with robots.
Playstation:
We would like a Duopoly: Xbox disappears and we are left to compete with Nintendo.
Meanwhile, Steam does nothing, wins anyway.
I mean, they could have been both. The parent corp is one of the greediest pieces of shit though. But no one is going to buy their consoles when M$ goes all in on llms and drives the cost over $1000.
XBOX hire this man. Edit: Actually this was a joke reply. I don’t think it would even work, because of the possibility sharing Playstation secrets from a direct competitor? Layden and Microsoft would be under constant eyes for this alone. And if something happens, both would be under fire for a possible secret sharing. I don’t think either of them wants this. Besides this, I don’t think Layden wants to do the same job again.
two really strong competitors
