I call it . . . the Phil Spencer Effect
The feel of reforming the Xbox brand image.
I call it . . . the Phil Spencer Effect
Thanks pepe silva.gif
Thanks, so anyone hinting that the clause has to do with graphical parity is just speculating, joking or trolling.
just accept MS were late to the indie party and build goodwill by saying 'Hey I know we're late with the love but we're here and we still want your awesome games'.
I'm just bored and that's ..... feels like a conspiracyI don't understand the reference.
Sorry, I was definitely just speculating. I apologize if I gave the impression I had some insider info. I just find it hard to square the attitude in the OP with the idea that MS will throw millions of dollars at a publisher who is producing an inferior port of a AAA game.
Yeah I never understood why it is such a bad thing for microsoft to expect you to release a game at the same time as or before the PS4 version when they're giving you all these benefits. It would just be weird for them to say "here's a dev kit and unity. It's perfectly fine for you to release this on our main competitor's machine before ours."ID@Xbox does give two free devkits as well as free Unity, so it seems like a give more and ask for more back kinda thing.
Well, this make me start to believe they may be enforcing resolution parity for games with co-marketing deals.
Ckmpetitor... HAHAHAHAYeah I never understood why it is such a bad thing for microsoft to expect you to release a game at the same time as or before the PS4 version when they're giving you all these benefits. It would just be weird for them to say "here's a dev kit and unity. It's perfectly fine for you to release this on our main ckmpetitor's machine before ours."
Yeah I never understood why it is such a bad thing for microsoft to expect you to release a game at the same time as or before the PS4 version when they're giving you all these benefits. It would just be weird for them to say "here's a dev kit and unity. It's perfectly fine for you to release this on our main ckmpetitor's machine before ours."
I don't know why people find this idea so outrages.
I'm pretty sure I remember Jeff Gerstmann talking openly about third parties being paid to make one version of a game worse in one of the podcasts leading up to the PS4 & One launch, and he sounded pretty convinced that the co-marketing deal is the reason behind the resolution parity in the last Bombcast
Jeff Gerstmann doesn't really have a flawless insider record. He was also convinced PS4 would get the same DRM as Xbone and Sony changed the price of the device after hearing the E3 conference.I don't know why people find this idea so outrages.
I'm pretty sure I remember Jeff Gerstmann talking openly about third parties being paid to make one version of a game worse in one of the podcasts leading up to the PS4 & One launch, and he sounded pretty convinced that the co-marketing deal is the reason behind the resolution parity in the last Bombcast
But surely it's Microsoft's fault for being so slow in getting their shit together in regards to indies. These people have families to feed, lives to live. They can't just hold off on releasing their game on all platforms because one platform holder twiddled their thumbs for too long.
That's the bed they made though. They are an after-thought now. They should be courting them back, not making rules to scare small developers into delaying the launch of their titles. Developers that rely on the return of their one game to eat and survive.
Spencer is doing this to Indie Devs, because he thinks he can get away with bullying them.
They should be welcoming every damn game with open arms. Late release or not. As a console developer, having to jump through hoops to get your game on Xbox seems absurd when the platform is not the market leader in the slightest.
Currently they are not in the position to bully indies around just to appear less inferior to the competition. It's a straight up arbitrary hurdle and it fucks both developers and consumers.
I'm hoping more indies continue to give them the finger.
But they've given out loaner devkits for years. Last status from the indie department at Sony (that I've read in an interview) is that they haven't charged for a single devkit yet.Indie devs can't afford PS4 or Wii U devkits. How about Sony and Nintendo give them away for free to help those poor starving indies?
You don't know about the loaners but there is some IP rule. What is that IP rule?As a console developer on any platform, the number of hoops you have to jump through is enough to put most indies off. For example, Sony's stupid fixed IP rule. I know indies who have had to stop working on their games for PS4 because of it. You can bet there are hidden hurdles aplenty for all 3 console makers, but you only find them out once you've signed the NDA. Why single out MS/Xbox just because one of those happens to have come out in public?
I reject your premise that more market share means better sales for each and every game.
If that was true, every developer would make iOS games. But in reality there are a lot of factors and getting ad space and E3 space on Xbox increases the attachment value.
That means even if the PS4 is selling more, the bigger amount of games released every month means you have a bigger competition on that platform in comparison to the Xbone.
They just don't want devs to treat X1 as an afterthought or a given. If you can shoehorn in some use of platform unique features (i.e. Kinect), and talk to them upfront (i.e. before you release on PS4), then they'll probably be cool with you releasing later.
Also, is it better to launch first on X1 and get a free devkit or pay for a PS4 and/or Wii U devkit and be locked out of X1?
I can't remember which thread it was but someone posted a picture with releases on both consoles . It was pretty one sided in Sony's favout iirc.
how is it possible to reference so many devs and still address absolutely nothing
none of these devs talk about what is going on behind the scenes in regards to communication and negotiation with MS
He wore a Limbo shirt though, does that mean nothing?
Oh yeah, I recall something like that. Not sure about indie vs non-indie but I can't imagine too many AAA or first parties tipping the scales nearly as much in terms of absolute numbers.
As a console developer on any platform, the number of hoops you have to jump through is enough to put most indies off. For example, Sony's stupid fixed IP rule. I know indies who have had to stop working on their games for PS4 because of it. You can bet there are hidden hurdles aplenty for all 3 console makers, but you only find them out once you've signed the NDA. Why single out MS/Xbox just because one of those happens to have come out in public?
You had those quotes bookmarked, didn't you Amir0x?
Well, the fact that so many devs said it was unlikely that their games would release on xb1, along with the fact that the xb1 has missed out on several indies, kind of points to the conclusion that such discussions did not go well, dontcha think?how is it possible to reference so many devs and still address absolutely nothing
none of these devs talk about what is going on behind the scenes in regards to communication and negotiation with MS
Anyone got actual numbers of indie releases per month by console/platform? Feels like there's multiple indies dropping every week on PS4 and I seldom hear a peep about recently released Xbox One indies.
This is pr shit week. Why should I believe yours? >->Nope. I just googled searched, took about six mins
how is it possible to reference so many devs and still address absolutely nothing
none of these devs talk about what is going on behind the scenes in regards to communication and negotiation with MS
Indie devs can't afford PS4 or Wii U devkits. How about Sony and Nintendo give them away for free to help those poor starving indies?
Reality is that if you approach these guys and have a conversation, they probably will be able to find an arrangement that can accommodate both sides needs. That's exactly what MS are saying here, but with parity clause rather than devkit cost.
how is it possible to reference so many devs and still address absolutely nothing
none of these devs talk about what is going on behind the scenes in regards to communication and negotiation with MS, which is likely down to how old these articles are
I don't know why people find this idea so outrages.
I'm pretty sure I remember Jeff Gerstmann talking openly about third parties being paid to make one version of a game worse in one of the podcasts leading up to the PS4 & One launch, and he sounded pretty convinced that the co-marketing deal is the reason behind the resolution parity in the last Bombcast
This is pr shit week. Why should I believe yours? >->
Maybe because if there was "communication and negotiation" actually taking place with these devs they would have alluded to it rather than basically laying out how much the policy fucking sucks?
Well, the fact that so many devs said it was unlikely that their games would release on xb1, along with the fact that the xb1 has missed out on several indies, kind of points to the conclusion that such discussions did not go well, dontcha think?
The only recent article says this:And I'm the fucking fanboy? Every last dev said the parity clause is a huge problem. Every.Last.One.
But I guess we should keep it because, why? Because Microsoft is pathetic on this score?
The clause (if enforced) means it might not be possible for us to release on Xbox One, even though we wanted to.
I have no issue with this approach. Plenty games came out on PS4 first are now on XB1 and I haven't heard of any devs saying the game isn't on XB1 because of the parity clause.
It's an internal thing that should only concern consumers if it actually affects games coming to XB1 and it isn't.
Ultimatum said:note that he says "if enforced"
there's clearly more going on behind the scenes
but ignore that if you want
Well apparently is isn't enough because a lot of devs are still releasing first on PS4. I don't know what kind of point you're trying to make.That should be reason enough for MS to *not* need the parity clause.
MS: Hey devs, we give you free dev kits and unity licenses. No strings attached
Sony: Pony up for devkits.
Dev: Hmm, I'm really broke right now. Maybe I'll go with MS because my investment to start is zero, get the Xbox version out and then hopefully make some money to get the PS4 version done.
See how that can work?
I have no issue with this approach. Plenty games came out on PS4 first are now on XB1 and I haven't heard of any devs saying the game isn't on XB1 because of the parity clause.
It's an internal thing that should only concern consumers if it actually affects games coming to XB1 and it isn't.
do you guys just want to plug your ears from the truth? Does it make it easier to support bullshit?
It's an internal thing that should only concern consumers if it actually affects games coming to XB1 and it isn't.
Please link to information about the 'fixed ip' rule
I never heard of it
What's the argument here?note that he says "if enforced"
there's clearly more going on behind the scenes
but ignore that if you want
#fanboys