GustyGardens
Banned
From what I read, they can most certainly forego adding any Xbox exclusive features to their game and still have it release on the platform.
-
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: Parity is a hell of a Clause
- Thread starter Neuromancer
- Start date
From what I read, they can most certainly forego adding any Xbox exclusive features to their game and still have it release on the platform.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Ohhhh I think you're right. That's weird though, because I'm pretty sure games like Steamworld Dig and The Pinball Arcade are part of that program and those games have no exclusive content that I'm aware of.
LukasTaves
Member
This. The notion that they are requiring or forcing anything is wrong going by the samples. But they need to communicate better, because it still sounds like something that's enforced.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Games can release just fine without needing to add extra "special content". See 1001 Spikes, Outlast, Binding of Isaac, ect.
He's talking about games that sign timed exclusive deals need "special" content. It's crappy and dumb but I think *some* people might be confusing this and thinking that every late game needs special content which is not the case
He's talking about games that sign timed exclusive deals need "special" content. It's crappy and dumb but I think *some* people might be confusing this and thinking that every late game needs special content which is not the case
Yeah, I thought when ID@Xbox was introduced, it was the only way to self-publish on Xbox(?), hence people's objection to the parity clause it entailed.
If they allow self-publishing without participating in the program (which nets devs free tools IIRC), then I actually see no problem with the clause.
Chocolate & Vanilla
Fuck Strawberry
Same shit, different day.
The first rule of Parity Clause: deny there's a parity clause whilst explaining how the clause works.
The first rule of Parity Clause: deny there's a parity clause whilst explaining how the clause works.
Journey
Banned
How do you know devs don't "come to talk to Sony" about it, didn't Super Time Force devs come talk to Sony and were "suggested" to add content?
They really confused everything but they started acting like every indie game goes through ID@Xbox, which I guess it might, but they might just be in charge of advertising all indie games in general.
The outrage is around ID@Xbox but the clause itself is not limited to that. It goes back to the 360 days and applies even to retail games. You can find it in any of the xbox one publisher agreements w/ the major publishers
eg: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/946581/000104746914000555/a2218068zex-10_1.htm
It's more of a guideline than a requirement since ultimately MS can choose when to enforce it -- but they can choose whether they want your game in the first place, even without a clause.
Crayon
Member
This statement, to me, shows a certain transparency relative to his previous statements.
Unfortunately for phil, in terms of absolute transparency, it's still clear as mud. So my feeling that this signals a curtailing of this fucked up behavior (it never was a POLICY, or a CLAUSE. It was BEHAVIOR) are just that. Feelings. And I'm feeling like I'm in the minority right now. Ha.
Vital Tundra
Member
The idea that you have to make your game special for an audience that never even got it baffles me. What does it matter?
OrbitalBeard
Member
Probably. My guess is Sony has a similar policy in place for games showing up later on PS4. Add something exclusive if you can, but you're not forced to.
This reasoning is still shit. Pure shit.
I am sorry but I will gladly eat up Super Meat Boy when it comes out on PS4 later this year. There may be a few people that think this way, but the vast majority of gamers would be glad to play a year old game if they were not able to play it until it came to their platform.
And from what I read in the OP, it still sounds like the developers need to add a little something, something (aka "special") to have it release on XBO. Transparency.
Man Phil Spencer sure is something special.
On PS4, they have no such policy. Even though that's not really a policy - "Hey if you can add it, but you also don't have to." That just equals "do whatever you want" in the end.
Microsoft's policy is more explicit, in that you do have to go through the red tape of talking about this stuff with Chris and whomever to get exemptions.
OrbitalBeard said:
On PS4, they have no such policy. Even though that's not really a policy - "Hey if you can add it, but you also don't have to." That just equals "do whatever you want" in the end.
Microsoft's policy is more explicit, in that you do have to go through the red tape of talking about this stuff with Chris and whomever to get exemptions.
OrbitalBeard
Member
....which is exactly what is happening with The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth on XB1. You're getting upset over nothing, really.
I am not upset, I just think that line of thought is stupid.
Neuromancer
Member
It's difficult to prove anything like that when developers can't even talk to MS without signing an NDA first. You have to learn to read between the lines.
Source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-04-29-chris-charla
Meanwhile, at Sony:
OrbitalBeard
Member
To add something unique to a version coming later? I don't think it's needed, but it's a very common practice on all platforms.
None of those games have any deals with Sony or Nintendo none released simultaneously. Which means they don't fall under that specification in the first place as the extra content is for games with deals as said by Phil.
DangerMouse
Member
Bingo. They weren't even even to most indies in regards to the rule, they made exceptions for the ones they wanted to leaving others out in the cold or jumping through hoops.
It honestly sounds exactly as before. I guess it is slightly less cryptic. It has gone from "Release a game on PS4 but can't release a game for Xbone? Even though our public policy is against working with you, talk with us because we have a secret policy that we can't talk about!" to "We just ask that you go back to that one year old game or w/e and add something special to make our Xbone owners feel first class!". He did reach that second stage a little while ago though.
krypt0nian
Banned
Exactly.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Via chubigans:
If anything has changed, it sounds like Spencer has rolled back the Parity Clause to the 360 days' interpretation of the rule, plus a 12 month grace period. You still need a 'special deal' with Spencer, the details of which are NDA'd, and you are still required to put in extra feature work to release on XB1, which apparently doesn't make enough financial sense to the indies that are otherwise staying away from the platform.
Business as usual, the parity clause is real and it's keeping indies from releasing on XB1.
Except it's not a policy on other platforms.
Sorry, Microsoft is the asshole here.
BobTheFork
Member
I don't know that. The problem isn't with the company but the policy (official or not).
That brings up a good question as to why we haven't heard this coming from the Sony side.
That gamers don't want to play year old games without something new, even though they have never played it before. It is the general mindset of that statement that I have a problem with.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Basically.
I'm ok with him having that view. The way he/they seem to view it is, if you're an indie who is in a position to "do a deal" with Sony, then you should have no issue doing one with Microsoft. Which is fair enough.
But if you just don't have the ability to launch on both, then they'll wait.
Seems reasonable enough. Ideally they shouldn't care either way but I can understand why they'd want it that way.
Seems clear to me and people want to interpret it negatively. However, or could be more clear still.
What is the scale of special?
If it's a skin or something simple that's fine.
The usual goty version could work too. That's pretty standard for re-release or later released games.
Is this asking or telling them to do something special. Probably on a case by case term.
"Come talk to us."
You (MS), should be reaching out and talking to them. They have done an okay job at getting some exclusives, but there could be more and with a larger library of multi platform titles.
What is the scale of special?
If it's a skin or something simple that's fine.
The usual goty version could work too. That's pretty standard for re-release or later released games.
Is this asking or telling them to do something special. Probably on a case by case term.
"Come talk to us."
You (MS), should be reaching out and talking to them. They have done an okay job at getting some exclusives, but there could be more and with a larger library of multi platform titles.
OrbitalBeard
Member
No, I'm not saying it's a policy anywhere else, I'm saying many devs believe that adding something exclusive to a version releasing later makes sense and adds value to their game.
Phil's making it sound like they no longer require this. If he's lying, then yeah, their policy sucks.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
I don't understand what's the issue?
What's wrong with wanting some extra content if the game isn't going to release on your hardware for a year? he even offers up some MS ninjas to help bring the game back to the spotlight.
I mean, when tombraider comes to the ps4, do people want the exact game that is being released in the fall to be released a year later?
What's wrong with wanting some extra content if the game isn't going to release on your hardware for a year? he even offers up some MS ninjas to help bring the game back to the spotlight.
I mean, when tombraider comes to the ps4, do people want the exact game that is being released in the fall to be released a year later?
It's the same exact thing they've been saying all along... If the release is staggered because of a deal with another party, the Xbox version needs to have something to make its version standout...
It really never seemed unreasonable to me...
Edit: some of the things developers have done to get on Xbox one after timed exclusivity have been so trivial, I really don't understand why a dev would forgo the system altogether.
It really never seemed unreasonable to me...
Edit: some of the things developers have done to get on Xbox one after timed exclusivity have been so trivial, I really don't understand why a dev would forgo the system altogether.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
I'm waiting for the: "It's not a cause, more like a requirement"
He's not. Read this again:
Phil Spencer said:
He's essentially being pretty explicit here saying that if you release a game for another platform first (say you have a "first on PS4" deal for financial reasons because you're an indie dev and it's fucking expensive to develop games), then you have to discuss with Phil a good reason why you can't add something new to your game.
It's a policy of adding content for exclusives, and discussing adding content for other versions of games. And to circumvent that policy, you need to talk to Chris or whomever to explain why and get an exemption. It's bonkers. And why they will continue to lose the indie war.
LiquidSolid
Member
The Sony part is only an assumption, Capy may've decided to add those characters entirely by themselves for all I know, I just thought it made sense to suggest "hey, you could probably add some things and further incentivize people to pick it up."
As for the Microsoft bit, well we've got the Skullgirls devs, who were told they had to add an entirely new character to the game (which costs a shitload, like $100k if I remember correctly) if they wanted to release the game on Xbone. Microsoft eventually backtracked on this but that was their original demand.
Are you serious? Have you missed all the former Xbox exclusives that've been ported over to PS3/PS4/Vita with no additions at all? Dust, Fez, Limbo, etc. There's pretty obviously no policy at all.
Edit: Also, trying to twist what I said into an attempt to equate Microsoft and Sony's policies is pretty pathetic.
krypt0nian
Banned
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
Waaaay more downloadables are releasing on PS4.
I mean...they released a 4 year old game (Bastion) with no additions at all. It's kind of safe to assume that they have no such clause.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Exactly my point. I'm saying some people are confusing it and saying that EVERY game that comes late needs new content. I've seen it a lot.
BobTheFork
Member
Well I think when this discussion started it came from developers who said that they were being told they HAD to add the content. It wasn't a question of wanting it but requiring it.
That why we keep getting this odd langue about 'come talk to us' and 'we'll work something out' as if they acknowledge it but don't want to put people off.
I see nothing wrong with encouraging devs to add unique content if their game is going to be coming to the console later on down the line behind the PS4 or WII U. Now, blocking games completely if they don't add that content? Yeah that's lame. From the looks of it though this doesn't seem to be the case. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Neuromancer
Member
Because we know how that happened. It wasn't even Sony's idea.
http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/6/7346539/playstation-shuhei-yoshida-super-time-force-ultra-vita-ps4
krypt0nian
Banned
You wanted it to stay the same as always? Weird.
Give War A Chance
Member
Awesome. Thanks for the Monthly Parity Clause Update brought to you by Square Space! "Build it beautiful!"
How often do we really need to ask this guy the same question and get the same answer?
How often do we really need to ask this guy the same question and get the same answer?
OrbitalBeard
Member
Eh, I guess I just don't have a problem with that specific scenario. If you're doing a deal with Sony for one year exclusivity, adding something small to the XB1 version releasing a year later seems ok to me. I don't think it should be necessary by any means, but it doesn't bother me.
What would bother me would be a situation where a small indie dev only has the resources to release on one platform at a time, but since PS4 gets the game, say, two months earlier due to this, MS would require them to add something extra, since the game is launching later on XB1. If that's part of their clause, it's complete BS. It sounds like it's not.
That being said, regardless of my personal feelings on the matter, you're right. Even if I think parts of this clause are reasonable, it seems to have hurt MS pretty badly, so they should just get rid of it altogether. Or, at the very least, give devs a real incentive to add exclusive content if they want to, but make it fully optional, with no red tape needed to get around it.
Similar threads
- Locked