-
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
The problem is you're taking BruiserBear seriously and are assuming he's interested in facts. Several developer statements have already been posted in this thread stating they won't be bringing their games to the platform due to the clause.
If he was interested in facts, he would have just read those and not have asked those questions.
SwiftDeath
Member
The quality of games is subjective. What happens if XB1 misses out on something like Rogue Legacy because it doesn't pass whoever at Xbox metric for "greatness"?
That is such a bullshit policy.
RespectThySole
Member
Exactly. This is the issue here. Personally, I don't feel like I've missed out on anything I wanted to play or would've played outside of Transistor. However, there is no excuse to deny all gamers the option to play these games.
I don't get the point of the clause because it doesn't help Microsoft or gamers. It usually just ends up with some devs going Timed exclusive anyway to spite them or not releasing there games on XB1 at all.
Many of them still do release on XB1, but I'm sure they would arrive at a faster and larger rate if this clause was dropped and devs had made it pretty clear they don't like it. If they make "exceptions" for some games, why even have the clause at all?
It only serves to complicate interactions with indie devs at this point. I appreciate that Microsoft has started to put more effort into working with indie devs lately and there are a lot coming to the platform now, but it would be to everyone's benefit if the clause was dropped as well.
serversurfer
Member
Hence his admiration for MS, I suppose.
That's quite an amazing song. I don't know how I've never heard this until now considering I grew up in the 90s.
You fanboyism is reaching hilarious levels. Not good for health.
Now let's watch as Bruiser ignores that fact and jumps into another argument entirely that is blatantly dumb but still gets people riled up enough to respond to it.
Or hey, I'll do it for him. "So, I see a lot of complaining, but I don't see a lot of the same people giving MS their proper accolades for their constant OS refreshes every month. And why is that?"
BruiserBear
Banned
Fair enough. I haven't played it, but it's got a great metacritic.
I'll remind you that I haven't said this is a good policy. I've only said I don't have a problem with it. Maybe that opinion is influenced by the fact that I have a PS4, so I have access to any of these games if I'm interested.
WordsintheWater
Member
Yup, I don't see the positives this clause has
No they haven't. They just don't comment in these threads at all. Indies are cool. You forget a lot of Xbox owners are 360 owners, where indies were pushed hard, but I think this thread has gone around that already. On a more serious note, its business and nothing in business is ever a fair someone is always trying to get the upper hand. I get how it is problematic, as I'm in an industry that is a pain in the behind to get into but honestly no-one gives me free cameras, and lighting or pays for my actor, these cost money out of my pockets and trust me they not cheap at all. All I'm saying is no-one has it easy, if you want something you have to be willing to work around it and honestly I'm gona state this as someone who works in a different industry, but if I heard I was getting help from Universal Studios or Warner Bros, I would not waste any time and phone, its not work to negitiote with them, film is one of my passions (along with games) why would it be. If you serious about your business, game or anything in life you put in that extra work. Getting in contact with Microsoft if you want to release on both platforms it is not a big deal honestly, especially if its true they will help you or make an exception, its not a big deal. If you come in with an attitude that its too much, then you won't get far in anything, Indies can complain but no-one has it easy ever, separates the exceptional to the less exceptional. Then again that is a lie from Microsoft (about helping indies), but who knows.
Alright thanks for your reply.
Neuromancer
Member
I'm not convinced any of this is actually helping MS. They get a cut of every game sold on their service, so why are they throwing up roadblocks to developers trying to make games for their platform?
So just to catch up, the past two pages have basically been,
"You can only complain about a terrible clause if you own the specific system", which is terrible. You know it's basically like saying "If you're not gay you can't complain about laws that negatively affect the gay community"
and
"If you're a good indie the Microsoft will bargain with you against the clause", so wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Cause if you're good and popular, sure release it here too (for whatever Microsoft bargain for), if you're not, then either screw yourself out of sales from other places if you want to be on our system at all.
"You can only complain about a terrible clause if you own the specific system", which is terrible. You know it's basically like saying "If you're not gay you can't complain about laws that negatively affect the gay community"
and
"If you're a good indie the Microsoft will bargain with you against the clause", so wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Cause if you're good and popular, sure release it here too (for whatever Microsoft bargain for), if you're not, then either screw yourself out of sales from other places if you want to be on our system at all.
Heh. Thanks for this, since I read the first five pages, and then skipped to the last few and was confused!
Anyway, I don't think Microsoft is in a position to act this way with indies. It's different when you're a-number one, and even then it's not a good practice to have. I hope something changes quickly, because I'd love to see a lot more indies on the Xbox One. It would make wanting to get one much easier!
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
To be fair Bruiser was pointing out the the majority of people complaining about the policy on here are not obviously identified as XB1 owners. He wasn't saying that XB1 owners or developers were not against the policies MS has in place, just that they weren't the obvious vocal majority.
It can't be helped. Most people here don't have Xbox Ones.
Holy shit.
It's a ridiculous hurdle to place on opinions, though.
I'm not going to take a picture sleeping with my Xbox One to properly signal to people that are not even addressing the actual debate at hand in the first place that I own the console -- and owning one shouldn't even be a requirement for making relevant additions to the debate in the first place.
serversurfer
Member
Apparently, they've persuaded about 300 indies to hold off on publishing the PS4 version of their game, so they probably see that as a win for their side.
Besides, as MS supporters are fond of pointing out, they don't actually need anyone else's money; they just feel like they should have it on principle. And maximizing returns while minimizing effort is just smart business.
FairXchange
Member
Indie support has been my most appreciated feature of the PS4, thus far. MS shouldn't gloat about the fact that they have a strong-armed policy that essentially makes indies fall in line should they ever want to develop a game on Xbox. I've had such a good time with Octodad, Towerfall, Surgeon Simulator, Don't Starve, etc. on my PS4, it makes me worried that this kind of creativity and openness could be stifled due to more corporate bullshit. Lately, the narrative of corporate meddling has been worrisome between graphical parity, release parity, it could be a nuisance to smaller devs that want to develop the best possible game for one particular platform before moving on elsewhere.
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
Maybe, maybe not. But for a company that is concerned with those loyal to their ecosystem to change policy it helps that change is demanded by those loyalist.
Look at all the policy changes that MS has enacted over the last year, plus as Chubs joking pointed out, the OS updates. MS is listening to their consumer base, and trying to shape their product the the wants of that base.
The point is that if those who own XB1s don't become the vocal majority the incentive for MS to change policy isn't there.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
I doubt it will. This is a policy they have had pre-launch and Spencer is still towing the line on it. Microsoft don't want no-name indie devs on their system, they want to pick and chooose and that misses the point.
justsomeguy
Member
Out of interest, have you actually asked and been told that?
I know this thread is about the parity clause en mass not the ability to get exemptions, but I am interested.
It's not like they could just "flip the switch" on this clause right ?
Solaire of Astora
Death by black JPN
Me too. But first we need someone to get an interview with Phil and really grill him on the subject. That guy from metro who grilled Jim Ryan (SCEE) on the lack of 1st party vita games would do the trick. This shitty PR spiel needs to go. It's a shitty policy, and they can try to spin it all they want. Most can see right through the bs.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
No policies cannot be changed as easily as that. You don't understand how this works, in the background, there's so much stuff going on. It wouldn't be possible to just change it.
I predict 2 weeks, after which Spencer will be hailed as a hero again.
Phil should have said that the X1 ecosystem is like an exclusive golf clubhouse, and just like in the real world, the clubhouse can allow some minority and women to join the club if they are rich/big enough in the politic/business world.
So if the dev is a big shot, sure, go ahead, MS can make an exception for them to join in the exclusivity and getting free perks.
The first class thing for me was ehhhh, what would happen if the pilot denies my ticket since I bought the wrong airfare?
So if the dev is a big shot, sure, go ahead, MS can make an exception for them to join in the exclusivity and getting free perks.
The first class thing for me was ehhhh, what would happen if the pilot denies my ticket since I bought the wrong airfare?
I don't think it will happen this time, at least not that quick. It might change, but I feel it's going to happen only after a few years.I think they might stubbornly stick to this one. The reason being that the outcry that changed the reveal policies came not only from "gamers" like us from forums (which, let's face it, we're a small subset of the total users), but it came from huge sections of people who are not even that involved with game news or keep up to date as well as the media.
This, while it should be a big deal, is not as big to the general populace....yet. Over time with more indies (high profile or gems that came out of no where or stuff that people's friends can't stop talking about), if they are not on the Xbox, the larger, less in tune users will start asking questions on why those games are not on their machine and why they are missing out on them (specially if MS can't convince the makers of those hit titles to release on the Xbox). Some big hit indies denying MS a release on their machine plus users complaining about it is really what might tip MS to actually change their policies. Imagine the next minecraft level indie coming out on the PS4, and it does become a big phenomenon that can't be ignored, that indie dev might be able to change MS policy.
bigboss370
Member
yeap i remember this as well. people tweeted him and he said he'd be looking into it...i guess this is the result/finality of the matter.
CaptainTiptop
Member
Speedy Blue Dude sure showed Nathan Fillion.
But is there any group of people where XB1 owners are the obvious majority?
***
On Topic:
Policy is dumb. You don't hear apple fans saying apple should really require that apps come out on ios day and date with android because it would be a good but pushy business decision for them. If Microsoft changed this tomorrow you wouldn't hear anyone going "man, I really wish Microsoft would change this requirement in their contract with indies, it would make my console so much better."
People only talk about this policy because it's stupider than everyone else's in the industry. It really is that simple.
Frank Jaeger
Member
So should we expect parity with Wii U on those multi plat games?
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
Makes me wonder where they'd place the timed exclusivity on Tomb Raider on the class scale.
Parity for indies is just bullying. The fact that they don't enforce it in certain cases just proves they're disingenuous about their agenda. They don't want developers to launch on PS4 first and would strong arm any developer to hold that version before the XBO version is ready for market.
If a game is succesful enough they don't have a choice because they're basicly turning potential consumers away from their product. In cases like The Swapper and Mousecraft they don't forsee any lost consumers because these games sell so few units and thus they don't care.
Parity for indies is just bullying. The fact that they don't enforce it in certain cases just proves they're disingenuous about their agenda. They don't want developers to launch on PS4 first and would strong arm any developer to hold that version before the XBO version is ready for market.
If a game is succesful enough they don't have a choice because they're basicly turning potential consumers away from their product. In cases like The Swapper and Mousecraft they don't forsee any lost consumers because these games sell so few units and thus they don't care.
I don't know if this is just me being paranoid, but 'Xbox users should feel like first-class citizens' is the kind of statement that makes me think Microsoft is writing checks to people like Ubisoft for this "performance parity" bullshit.
The greasy-salesman PR we're getting out of Ubisoft doesn't help. I think I'll just not buy Unity.
The greasy-salesman PR we're getting out of Ubisoft doesn't help. I think I'll just not buy Unity.
Neuromancer
Member
SERIOUSLY? WTF
Yes that was some really biting 'parody' right there.
Jacksinthe
Banned
Let me clue you in. Its not just bad for X1 gamers, its bad for gamers as a whole. The 1 man studio of today making a small game with incredible ideas may just be the AAA developer of tomorrow making a ground breaking GOTF for everyone that challenges the standard conventions of "safe" AAA development because s/he grew their studio with a nourishing and sustainable developer/platform holder relationship.
Make no mistake, I have friends in some large studios and they have commented on a few independent games being made by gaffers in our development thread. Creating an environment that allows a small developer to thrive competitively is hugely important for the industry as a whole and benefits everyone, not a select few.
When we have so many threads here that are created for the sole purpose of bringing bad publisher/developer practices to light, we should hope the little guys that break those molds today will thrive and challenge those bad practices which are slowly becoming the norm, sadly.
You don't need an X1, PS4, WiiU or any platform to see this.
Much like Google's idiocy with showing developer's addresses, Microsoft is the odd one out here, not the norm.
There's no parity clause for iOS.
There's no parity clause for Android.
There's no parity clause to release anything on Linux.
Jesus, even Nintendo doesn't have a parity clause. Nintendo. The company that limited you do making like, 3 games ever for the NES, and often threatened to not allow games that also had a Genesis version onto the NES. Even THEY don't enforce parity release. You can literally release a game 3 years after other versions if you want, they don't care, they'll test and put it up for you.
This is blacklisting for not wanting to kill yourself making a game.
Melchiah
Member
Resogun was one of my last year's favorites, and Journey & The Unfinished Swan of 2012. There are also indies on the top of my waiting list, like The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, Everybody's Gone to the Rapture, and Rime. It makes me shake my head in disbelief, when some people dismiss the indies entirely.
I'd wager he just might value them more, if they were released first or exclusively to XB1. I wonder what his opinion about Ori and the Blind Forest, INSIDE and Below is? They aren't any less of value to me personally, eventhough they're XBox exclusives/firsts.
Delaying the release dates for the larger pool of gamers due to parity is nothing but a disservice to the consumers.
I don't have a PS4 and I don't plan on getting one any time soon. This policy fucks the ID@XBOX library in a remarkably negative way. For practically no reason I and other XB1 owners will miss out on potentially awesome indie games because of this policy.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
Yup, with most big publishers focusing on AAA games, indies are kinda filling in the gap left by the "mid tier" games. They also bring in some creative new ideas. I think indies could make nice use of Kinect and the PS4 touch pad.
Sad to see people ignore them based on the platform. Though Ori and the blind forest is a MS owned IP, so not sure if that qualifies as indie.
IAmRandom31
Banned
Yes?
I don't see Outlast or Don't Starve or Transistor or Fez or Towerfall or Hotline Miami or Rogue Legacy or Oddworld or any large number of other indies on the X1 at this time and we haven't heard any real comments about anything like that hitting the system.
Don't Starve hit the PS4 in February, along with an expansion. So there def. was no " 6 month exclusive " type thing going on. Transistor came out in April. Some are older indie games too so I dunno. If I were the owner of a system I would not want a policy around that is only hurting the situation on my system.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll