Or they get it later, if the game is good/well known enough to sell without media coverage or marketing.
Edit: And the dev even feels bothered to port it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Phil Spencer on indie parity clause "I want people to feel like they're first class"
- Thread starter Kayant
- Start date
Or they get it later, if the game is good/well known enough to sell without media coverage or marketing.
Edit: And the dev even feels bothered to port it.
Iono, keeps out the trash?
Seriously though, as far as policies go, for you they are shit, for me i have no problem with them. Thats how it is, you can never please everyone. The policies are put in place for a reason they decided was justified. I'm sure if they could change it and it would have a greater financial benefit they would, but since they have not then there are things going on behind the scenes that we just dont know.
I like that its coming to light, because you'd swear on neogaf, such a thing was "LOL WHut??!?! You honestly think..blah blah.."
Yep, and yep.
wanderjahr
Banned
Somebody just got out of class.
walltowall
Member
Lets be honest here, IF an indie dev only has budget for ONE platform the vast majority would go PC first unless they are getting some support, dev, marketing or otherwise form MS or Sony.
They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.
When Sony was behind last generation, they proactively reached out and got all those indie games that were missing to PS3. And as such, there are only a handful of popular indie games that weren't available on the system (Bastion probably being the main one).
Also: If you don't get a chance to experience stuff like Velocity 2X or Pix the Cat on Xbox One just because of an indie parity clause, you should be pretty mad.
SEGAvangelist
Member
I'm not asking for help to sift through indie games. I'm saying that the flood of indie games and early access in Steam's case makes me less likely to try them. It's kind of like the reaction people have when marketing gets oppressive (see Titanfall and Destiny for some people). I'm not agreeing with Phil's decision here, just to make things clear. I was just pointing out some of the negative effects of over saturation and how it could affect people's ideas on indie games in the console space. Indie games are also being devalued a bit with Humble Bundles, PS Plus and Games With Gold training them to just wait until the games are free so that doesn't help either. I wonder what the best solution is. A bit off-topic, but that's mainly what I was getting at.
It's a draconian and overly self-protective measure when you consider that the other big guys don't have policies that even touch this one. I can only hope someone hits me with a Sony Too. I haven't experienced it in a while.
GeordieMark
Member
I'm sorry, but had he been a bit more restrained and composed, I'd take the comment seriously and respond to it sensibly.
Instead it was a childish rant, and the OS point was relevant as he outright stated Microsoft would never get a penny of his money, but also that he likes PC gaming, which he does on a Windows PC.
I'm not saying anymore on the subject.
And its them passing off as if that's better for Xbox owners that is bullshit.
IAmRandom31
Banned
Seeing the list of indies on the PS4 currently and in the future in comparison to X1 shows that the dev community is basically writing this whole clause off anyway.
PS4 :
Fez
Octodad
Don't Starve
Outlast
Transistor
Hotline Miami
Spelunky
Pix the Cat
Secret Ponchos
Oddworld
The Witness
Rogue Legacy
Everybody's Gone to Rapture
Volume
Day-Z
Binding of Isaac
Galak-Z
Assault Android Cactus
N++
Helldiver
Starbound
Super Motherload
Cosmic Star Heroine
WiLD
Resogun
Aliennation
War Thunder
No Mans Sky
List goes on and on. A few of those are on / coming to the X1 atm but not many.
PS4 :
Fez
Octodad
Don't Starve
Outlast
Transistor
Hotline Miami
Spelunky
Pix the Cat
Secret Ponchos
Oddworld
The Witness
Rogue Legacy
Everybody's Gone to Rapture
Volume
Day-Z
Binding of Isaac
Galak-Z
Assault Android Cactus
N++
Helldiver
Starbound
Super Motherload
Cosmic Star Heroine
WiLD
Resogun
Aliennation
War Thunder
No Mans Sky
List goes on and on. A few of those are on / coming to the X1 atm but not many.
Wow, you actually don't get it. The policy is bad from the top down.
It's bad for Microsoft because in their current market position they don't actually have the clout to dictate terms to developers in this way. The longer it remains in place and the more PS4/Steam continue to attract users, the less incentive there is for anyone to even go through the hurdles of their policy. This is why they panic and back out of the clause when high profile titles are not going to meet the requirements.
It's bad for developers. Indies are so platform-agnostic that they will almost automatically support your system just for the additional revenue stream, however their budgets are not so large that they require multiple revenue streams the way that AAA titles do. Therefore if you attempt to force an indie to sit on a completed PS4 release until the Xbox One port is completed, chances are they will simply stick with PC/PS4 so they can actually get the game out there and financially support their livelihoods.
It's also bad for customers. Besides the obvious delayed release affecting customers on other platforms, the parity requirements are removing titles from release to Xbox users as many indies are simply avoiding the headache of sticking to the clause.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
I have no idea how anyone could like this guy. What a stupid comment.
IamRandom31 said:
War Thunder isn't on XBO because Microsoft doesn't allow crossplay between platforms
so that's a separate issue. But also fucked up! I'm sure Microsoft is all Santa Clause for this shit too!
Monster Zero
Junior Member
Finally, a company that'll call me Sir without adding "You're causing a scene"
bigbaldwolf86
Banned
That's a mighty fine list of games right there
If Sony had more of a war chest don't kid yourself into believing they would be any different, its business after all.
I personally have zero hate toward Microsoft or any corporation, love the games they've nurtured and as a multiplayer only guy they have me covered 100%. Gears of War, Halo, COD 2 all started the success on Xbox.
That's not to say I'd say I hate Sony, I don't hate any corporation and will buy a platform based on where the games I want to play are. Companies like Microsoft and Sony exist to be successful for there share holders.
You know that naughty dog were AQUIRED by sony right? Do you hate them too for taking a pool of talent too?
The best solution would be to drop the policy. The realistic solution is that Microsoft will carry on with this because it's something THEY can afford to roll with the punches on. It's the indie developers who suffer and it's clear that Microsoft doesn't really care (whether they should or not isn't really a relevant discussion).
You might not want to go down the road of bringing up something that a different division not connected to games did as anti consumer to make a flimsy connection. You are going to go downa slippery slope there.
Exploratory
Banned
Which is all well and good but freaking out about it won't help. I know because I do it all the time myself. I'm just saying having a more cool headed discussion will help it flourish instead of devolving into SHOUTING.
Miles Quaritch
Member
You're counting first party titles as indie?
Stare-Bear
Banned
Totally this.
(is there any word on Microsoft's promise that any Xbox one console can be used as a dev kit?)
LukasTaves
Member
Not to say their concern is not legit, but there's one thing in common with all the links you provided (and I read all of them): None of them were actively blocked by Ms. They are assuming they are going to be because it's on contract.
For all we know (and from what Phil says) the clause is there to force a dialog and try to solve why the game can't come out day and date on xbone. Maybe even to prevent devs from preemptively holding back a xbone version assuming they wouldn't be able to handle it, but them finding out that wouldn't be much of an extra effort compared to Pc.
If they actively block people from releasing games on Xbone then I agree is a shitty policy that needs to go away. But I've seen no evidence of that yet... The links you provided do outline another issue, though: People are just assuming they are going to be blocked and not even bothering with it, Ms needs to address this and makes sure the clause can be worked around.
Maintenance
Member
They never left.
Impeccable
Member
I don't think the intention was a fine tooth analysis but rather putting it into terms people can easily understand at a first glance, feel free to edit the list and help.
I'm not shouting, the few words I capitalize are for emphasis. I'll italics them for you instead if it reads better.
I am, however, undoubtedly angry. Many of very well meaning indie devs are being punished and hurt because Microsoft and Phil Spencer think it's cool to be selfish. And the sad thing is many of their fans are just blindly jumping to the defense.
Garrett 2U
Member
meh, I understand wanting games on the xbox platform, but I wouldn't want developers to feel pressured to do so.
the best way to get indie games on your platform is to make it the easiest platform to develop for.
focus on the work that needs to be done to enable anyone to develop games for xbox one.
finish your plans to make consumer xboxs function as dev units.
once you have that environment, indie games will follow.
also, the hostility here is ridiculous.
the best way to get indie games on your platform is to make it the easiest platform to develop for.
focus on the work that needs to be done to enable anyone to develop games for xbox one.
finish your plans to make consumer xboxs function as dev units.
once you have that environment, indie games will follow.
also, the hostility here is ridiculous.
GeordieMark
Member
Follow the chain of command upwards and all divisions are ultimately under control of the same person. That goes for both.
BruiserBear
Banned
I understand all the basics of this conversation. Indie devs are small teams, not easily capable of putting out multiple versions of their game at the same time. They want access to as many platforms as possible. Microsoft has a clause which demands games be released on their platform at the same time as the PS4. Phil Spencer, since taking over, has maintained this policy and seems to believe it's best for the XB1.
I see Phil Spencer as a business man running a business. Indie devs don't have a right to release games on whatever platforms they want to, whenever they want to, however they want to. This is how the business world works. I can't open up my own hotdog shop in the local mall tomorrow because I want to. The mall has rules in place for entry, and I can only get in if I follow the rules they've put in place.
Microsoft has rules in place for releasing a game on their platform. Is it harming the platform? I kinda doubt it, as the guy in charge clearly has decided to keep the policy in place despite some complaints. He's also made it clear that they'll bend the policy in certain situations where they think it's best for them to do so. So it's not 100% rigid.
That's how I see it. Feel free to let me know if I've missed some important details.
Weren't those plans dropped in light of Spencer taking over?
Makes sense, ps4 does have the biggest user base between the two. They can afford to skip xbox release.
IAmRandom31
Banned
which were first party?
Garrett 2U
Member
they weren't dropped, they were just lowered in priority
but apparently phil has a priority to get indies on xbox one, and I think opening the platform to more developers would help.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/14/xbox-one-dev-kit-retail/
Resogun and alienation are
SEGAvangelist
Member
Last we heard, it's still coming.
Exploratory
Banned
I would say the opposite side of the coin is that its a business. The unfortunate reality is that that people often lose out and not every party will be happy with every decision. I'm not defending the clause because I think it sucks for devs but its not negatively affecting gamers or the company so they aren't in a rush to change it. In fact as evidenced by the some of the people in this thread they perceive it to be okay or even good (which I would disagree with).
LukasTaves
Member
Are they actually forcing though? I've yet to see an actual case of a game blocked by their clause, and on the other hand a stream of games previously launched on other platforms that are now coming to Xbone.
And I think that if they were actively blocking games that don't release day and date on xbone we would be hearing about it, like we did on XBLA days whenever something like that happened.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Published by first party...
Developed by Housemarque...an indie.
Helldivers: developed by Arrowhead. An indie studio
Resogun and Alienation by Housemarque. An indie studio.
WiLD by Wild Sheep, you guessed it...an indie dev!
The migration of indie games away from Xbox and developer reactions on the indie parity clause tell the tale. You don't need a high-profile case of "blocking" to see what's going on.
Ok, so the critical points are here.
1. Indie devs don't often have the funds to focus on many ports at once
2. Indie devs don't often have the team sizes to focus on many ports at once
3. Indie devs don't want to be punished because they don't have the funds or team sizes to do more.
They don't have the "right", but this isn't about the "right." This is about whether a rule is harmful or not, and whether or not it's a good rule to have at all. Plenty of "rules" are fucking shitty. So this is about what is harmful to indie devs and what is not. A "business man" like Phil doesn't get any points whatsoever in lording his 'greater power' over small up-and-coming developers simply because he has the best interest of his platform at heart.
It's harming indie developers, and this matters. It's justifiable anger when a huge corporation shows they give no shits about the problems facing smaller up-and-coming developers. This is an inherent problem.
On top of that, it is harming the platform, as demonstrated already.
games by metascore NOT available on the other console:
Code:
score PS4 Xbox
90+ 3 2
80+ 21 3Link
That's just for those games 80+ too.
See that gap? That's mostly all indies. That have not come to Xbox One. Partly because of the parity clause.
Is this parity clause helping sales? Not by any sales numbers we can see. Xbox One indies are not selling particularly better in any reports we got; Xbox One and the fans of XBO are indisputably receiving less good solid games because of it.
And on top of that they keep opening up these horrible PR wounds and showing they're still total dicks sometimes. So, in what way in your estimation has this disastrous policy helped anyone, including MS?
Not enough fire and brimstone in your post. Up the anger.
Guess we can being up every instance of any Microsoft division to be anti consumer just to make a point about the Xbox simply because they all are under the corporations CEO.
Yep, class of '21. Best class there is.
Miles Quaritch
Member
So the intention was to try and make something which is already bad look worse by way of padding?
Everybody's Gone to Rapture
WiLD
Helldiver
Resogun
Aliennation
oldergamer
Member
What I see here from some people, is attempts that seem thinly disguised as "support for small developers" basically saying don't force them to support more then one platform ( within a release window?). When in reality, it's totally up to the developer if they want to release on more then one platform. Only developers serious about platforms will approach with that idea.
This seems misguided to me. You could even view some of the arguments here as people arguing for games to "not be multi-platform". Which totally goes against supporting small developers. I think there' a mixture of:
a) What benefits the consumer
b) What benefits the developer
c) What benefits the platform holder
There's no solution that benefits all three items above.
I buy games, for me the consumer it would benefit me to have games released on multiple platforms at the same time. Its gives me choice of which platform I want to play the game on.
As a developer it would be best to launch on multiple platforms at once, if I can't do that, then I make staggered release dates fully knowing that sales may be diminished ( due to reviews, problems with the game, or simply the game hitting the right subsidence) on the second platform (due to launching first elsewhere). I have to weigh cost versus benefit of supporting the second platform. If I can't reach that point of supporting two or more platforms, or if I don't want to strive for that point, then I become platform exclusive.
As a platform holder, I wouldn't want a game released on the competitors platform before my platform. It gives them an advantage, gives my consumers a disadvantage. I would prefer exclusivity for my consumers, and if i can't get that, then I ask for multi-platform release.
People saying this hurts indies, doesn't have the full picture. Indie doesn't only mean 2 guys coding a game in a basement anymore, Indie means independent developer ( take HB studios for instance), there's lots of studios out there that are fully capable of multi-platform release. Studios too small to tackle two platforms, simply won't. They won't risk closure to support a second platform if the title hasn't done well enough. If it has done well enough ( and I mean really well ), they would have the money to support more then one platform at a time, grow and expand to accommodate the ability.
This seems misguided to me. You could even view some of the arguments here as people arguing for games to "not be multi-platform". Which totally goes against supporting small developers. I think there' a mixture of:
a) What benefits the consumer
b) What benefits the developer
c) What benefits the platform holder
There's no solution that benefits all three items above.
I buy games, for me the consumer it would benefit me to have games released on multiple platforms at the same time. Its gives me choice of which platform I want to play the game on.
As a developer it would be best to launch on multiple platforms at once, if I can't do that, then I make staggered release dates fully knowing that sales may be diminished ( due to reviews, problems with the game, or simply the game hitting the right subsidence) on the second platform (due to launching first elsewhere). I have to weigh cost versus benefit of supporting the second platform. If I can't reach that point of supporting two or more platforms, or if I don't want to strive for that point, then I become platform exclusive.
As a platform holder, I wouldn't want a game released on the competitors platform before my platform. It gives them an advantage, gives my consumers a disadvantage. I would prefer exclusivity for my consumers, and if i can't get that, then I ask for multi-platform release.
People saying this hurts indies, doesn't have the full picture. Indie doesn't only mean 2 guys coding a game in a basement anymore, Indie means independent developer ( take HB studios for instance), there's lots of studios out there that are fully capable of multi-platform release. Studios too small to tackle two platforms, simply won't. They won't risk closure to support a second platform if the title hasn't done well enough. If it has done well enough ( and I mean really well ), they would have the money to support more then one platform at a time, grow and expand to accommodate the ability.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll