-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Resident Evil Village's Sony exclusivity contract leaked: forced parity for 7 years, banned from GamePass for 1 year
- Thread starter Atheerios
- Start date
- Status
User Banned (1 Week) Console Warring; prior history of similar behavior
hahahahhahahahahahaha...sony's been acting weird lately. Why build a more powerful console when you just ask the devs to downgrade their game on other systems...i cant believe it, its just too comical..im genuinely having a hard time believing this....lol
The things shown in the tweet are legit. The reading the Twitter user is doing is wrong, though.
Even if it were true, that's a fairly standard thing to put in a contract if Sony are helping fund marketing costs,etc..
Forced parity for 7 years? That's...quite a long time, if that's true. Has to be one of the longest contract periods in the industry, right? Never heard of a period that long before.
This was already debunked in the Capcom leaks thread btw
Edit:It's amazing how people really want to have knee jerk reactions lmao
Edit:It's amazing how people really want to have knee jerk reactions lmao
Read the "forced parity" clause. It says "subject to material platform limitations". It is not saying the versions all have to be the same - it says, in essence, that they must make a best effort attempt to make the PS5 version as good or better than other verisons, except where that is not possible due to the limitations of the hardware. It does not preclude higher settings and faster / better performance on other platforms if that is truly the limit of the PS5.
The reporting on this kind of thing at face value and the sensationalist headline choices are basically irresponsible, but I expect nothing less anymore.
The reporting on this kind of thing at face value and the sensationalist headline choices are basically irresponsible, but I expect nothing less anymore.
This, you would think people would learn from the last few threads
These types of clauses are pretty standard for everyone. They don't mean hold back res, framerate, load times, etc on other platforms. It's more about the existence of broad technical features. They couldn't implement RT on Series X and not on PS5 but they can have it on both and have it run smoother.
Wow lol. I remember when people were accusing MS of doing this last gen.
Outright paying to downgrade the game on your competitors more powerful hardware.
Outright paying to downgrade the game on your competitors more powerful hardware.
This sounds pretty ludicrous but deals with clauses like this probably happen more often than any of us could possibly even imagine.
Doesn't seem like a game this huge was likely to end up on gamepass after a year in the first place, but I guess you can't be too sure.
This parity clause is probably extremely common - all it says is you can't release features or content for another platform but not Playstation. It's not about forcing the exact same resolution or frame rate or shadow quality or whatever.
I see I've been beaten several times on this point, but it will probably need to be said several times per page to combat the unmitigated stupidity that is going to follow.
This parity clause is probably extremely common - all it says is you can't release features or content for another platform but not Playstation. It's not about forcing the exact same resolution or frame rate or shadow quality or whatever.
I see I've been beaten several times on this point, but it will probably need to be said several times per page to combat the unmitigated stupidity that is going to follow.
This is just a standard contract, and technical parity is not "bring other platforms down to PS5/4 level" but to put the PS platforms as high as possible, hence the really specific wording "(subject to material platform limitations)".
The Game Pass part is a misread and it's also missing a crucial clause, 9.1.4. It's not a ban from Game Pass, Sony gets rights to "first negotiation and last match" to have the game on PS+ / Now either exclusively or along services. The clause I mentioned also says that in case Sony rejects the deal to release on their sub services, they can go to Game Pass / Stadia / whatever.
As I said, this is just normal stuff that you'll see every single company do, including the technical parity stuff. As an example, here's a contract between MS and EA that uses the same parity stuff.
The Game Pass part is a misread and it's also missing a crucial clause, 9.1.4. It's not a ban from Game Pass, Sony gets rights to "first negotiation and last match" to have the game on PS+ / Now either exclusively or along services. The clause I mentioned also says that in case Sony rejects the deal to release on their sub services, they can go to Game Pass / Stadia / whatever.
As I said, this is just normal stuff that you'll see every single company do, including the technical parity stuff. As an example, here's a contract between MS and EA that uses the same parity stuff.
I wonder how one would even really enforce this. Like would Capcom actually have to like...show documentation to Sony they tried their best if the Xbox Series X version looked and/or ran slightly better than the PS5 version? I don't see how something like that could be proven one way or another, really.
Parity for 7 years doesn't mean they need to support it continuously for 7 years. Just they need to backport any changes on future other platforms. That's easy to achieve. It even says subject to platform limitations for technical parity right there in the text
User banned (2 Weeks): Platform Warring; history of similar behavior
This has been their MO for a while.
It's unlikely to ever be enforced, because it would be basically impossible to prove unless there were leaked meeting minutes that said "lol xbox rules, playstation drulez, we're going to gimp it". It would never happen. You might have Sony argue that it's in breach of contract if the PS5 version outright lacked a bunch of features or had majorly reduced performance, such that was implauisible from what other games were seeing between multiplatform versions, and that the damage of them doing this was quite severe (e.g. it became a big public issue that the PS5 version sucked).
This made me laugh.
I don't know who this person is. Could someone educate me? All I can muster from their bio is that they're "a streamer" (using auto-translate)?
OP
OP
I don't see anything there unless I missed something as only has been discussed for 1 page there.
After that last thread, I'd encourage people to not misconstrue, and end up looking like irrational fools.
Click bait title. OP can't even bother to read the small red highlighted section that debunks his own thread title.
- Status