-
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.
[2014] Xbox One Indie Parity Clause impacting number of announcements for system
- Thread starter chubigans
- Start date
They weren't available on PC for at least a year and none of those games were IPs owned by Microsoft.
of course one could also look at it on a slightly more positive note...
Release on X1 first as you have much less competition
just look at steam, releasing a game on steam now is like trying to get noticed in the dark ocean without any lights. seems like PS4 will also end up with just so many games (indie) that you can get lost
On X1 you will have a much more closed market now it seems
Release on X1 first as you have much less competition
just look at steam, releasing a game on steam now is like trying to get noticed in the dark ocean without any lights. seems like PS4 will also end up with just so many games (indie) that you can get lost
On X1 you will have a much more closed market now it seems
Miles Quaritch
Member
Because the games are slowly but surely making their way to the X1.
Oddworld, Olli Olli. I won't be surprised when most of the games listed in the OP appear on the X1 as well.
They need to unify and state as clearly as possible that they won't be releasing their games on the platform until it's dropped. Developers aren't doing this, they are simply releasing on PS4 and then heading to X1 a few months later.
MS still gets the games and doesn't feel the pressure. Why would they? The games will make it to their platform eventually.
PseudoKirby
Banned
READ the topic, this guy makes some good points. there is no fanboyism here.
and I consider myself an Xbox Fanboy..
THIS^ is some fanboy business.
J
Jotamide
Unconfirmed Member
In this day and age, the parity clause shouldn't be a thing. Also, SMH at some posts ITT.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
Irrelevant, not everyone games on PC.
Do you care that Dark Souls or Metal Gear Rising is coming to PC at a much later date even though it was already on consoles? No right? You just want it on your machine.
I love how convenient it is that when these kinds of topics come up all the sudden the Xbox fans are the world's biggest pc fans and all these games cost a penny on pc so the argument that ps4 has more games than XBOX ONE is invalid....because PC.
I was unaware of the severity of this problem until now. Thanks chubigans. It's like Microsoft enjoys throwing their weight around with anti-consumer decisions for years now, but they haven't learned that they can't get away with it this time because they are no longer the market leader, so they are going to suffer as they lose more and more sales and games to PS4.
Naughty_Doge
Member
Nice job showing you didn't even read the OP.
justsomeguy
Member
Amazingly written post, chubbigans.
What's your prediction for the state of play if the clause hadn't ever existed?
One implication from the "only manage one platform" statement you made is that those all 47 games would still have hit ps4 first. In which case as unpopular as the clause is, you could maybe in some 1% theoretical view see how at exec level they don't want that narrative (in line with Phil S's comments to date).
An alternative outcome is that a decent number of those games would have ended up on xbox first (pick a reason, better dev support, promotion deal from id@xbox, I don't know - just speculating)?
In the latter case the policy doesn't even stand up to the contrived scrutiny I put on the first case.
As ever posting personal opinion, nothing to do with employer.
What's your prediction for the state of play if the clause hadn't ever existed?
One implication from the "only manage one platform" statement you made is that those all 47 games would still have hit ps4 first. In which case as unpopular as the clause is, you could maybe in some 1% theoretical view see how at exec level they don't want that narrative (in line with Phil S's comments to date).
An alternative outcome is that a decent number of those games would have ended up on xbox first (pick a reason, better dev support, promotion deal from id@xbox, I don't know - just speculating)?
In the latter case the policy doesn't even stand up to the contrived scrutiny I put on the first case.
As ever posting personal opinion, nothing to do with employer.
illmatic22
Banned
So Microsoft is indirectly forcing small teams to develop and release on XBO first, aware that Sony is cognizant of such development strains and has a more relaxed policy. Have I got this right? Plus it saves them money.
Steverulez
Member
What would change is that Xbox One port later doesn't seem to currently exist for a lot of titles
of course one could also look at it on a slightly more positive note...
Release on X1 first as you have much less competition
just look at steam, releasing a game on steam now is like trying to get noticed in the dark ocean without any lights. seems like PS4 will also end up with just so many games (indie) that you can get lost
On X1 you will have a much more closed market now it seems
Walled gardens are only good if you're Apple. Microsoft is in no position to act that way with regards to the XB1.
It's nonsense. We already have TONS of devs on the record saying they're never bringing their games to XBO; we have hundreds more devs announced for PS4 development and not XBO development. We have tons of games already that are on PS4 and have not been announced for XBO and by all accounts never will be.
It's wishful thinking at this point on your part to try to say "most of them are coming to XBO." They can't, due to the ID@Xbox Parity clause. Phil Spencer has to make "special exceptions", and so far he's only made a few! That's the whole point!
They are factually losing revenue. They are factually hurting XBO gamers. They are factually hurting indie devs. It's time for Phil Spencer to move the fuck on, embarrassing already.
Really not sure yet.
kitschykitty
Member
Really well thought out and well written OP, so thanks for that.
I think it's a really interesting problem and I'm not sure how Microsoft handles it, on one hand dropping the parity requirement will surely bring games over that haven't been ported yet but on the other hand I kind of agree with Microsoft about not wanting old ports of games that have been out forever on competitor's consoles, the potential sales will be lower and it doesn't project a strong image for the brand.
I guess my suggestion would be to drop the punishment angle and instead set up a program to reward devs for launch parity by offering something like reduced fees or a bonus system, even reduced marketing costs might be enough.
I think it's a really interesting problem and I'm not sure how Microsoft handles it, on one hand dropping the parity requirement will surely bring games over that haven't been ported yet but on the other hand I kind of agree with Microsoft about not wanting old ports of games that have been out forever on competitor's consoles, the potential sales will be lower and it doesn't project a strong image for the brand.
I guess my suggestion would be to drop the punishment angle and instead set up a program to reward devs for launch parity by offering something like reduced fees or a bonus system, even reduced marketing costs might be enough.
I love how every time I post anything jokingly against the PS4 on here I get quoted 8 times with a "NUH UH! YOU!" response.
Relax, guys. Let's not pretend like Sony didn't just host a major event showcasing Playstation stuff. I mean ffs one of the posters above me just commented how nothing shown at the event was announced for Xbox as well. Its a Playstation event!
So I'll just go ahead and parrot what everyone else has been saying for months, blah blah parity clause is evil and has to go, blah blah.
Relax, guys. Let's not pretend like Sony didn't just host a major event showcasing Playstation stuff. I mean ffs one of the posters above me just commented how nothing shown at the event was announced for Xbox as well. Its a Playstation event!
So I'll just go ahead and parrot what everyone else has been saying for months, blah blah parity clause is evil and has to go, blah blah.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
I heard a few console exclusive debuts during the PSX stream.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Didn't they receive funding from Sony after they were hit by a flood?
Trigonometrize.
Member
Self published, made by (I think the number thrown around is) four people. Seems pretty indie to me.
The thread title was mainly to get people to see how badly the XB1 is lagging behind in terms of announcements, and what can be done about them. And yeah, it's impossible for me to say if all 47 asked for exceptions or not. I do know of two in particular that got a free pass: Stick it to the Man and Pure Pool.
Good question, I actually addressed that in the OP!
Sure, let me know if I missed any games. And I'll correct Commander Cherry, thanks for the heads up!
Is this a Xbox One only clause? I don't recall hearing about it before last year.
I've been a PC gamer longer than anything else and the problem being that if the games are on PC it doesn't give a real reason to buy a PS4 to play them. Even more so when you have sales on Steam, ability to use the PS4 controller on PC and the games we're talking about can be run on slower machines than a PS4 at 1080p.
I look at this from a perspective of someone owning a Xbox One and PC who is waiting for the right time to pick up a PS4. I'm not saying my situation is exactly common to the normal person.
I'm also not defending the parity clause although one must really wonder how this data would be different if the parity didn't exist.
Yeah, but it doesn't seem to be working as most indie developers aren't stupid.
It's FordGTGuy.
The moment Spencer removes the parity clause, he will tell you the complete opposite.
Kar
Member
Did you even read the OP? read the fucking OP, its right there.
BobTheFork
Member
When I first heard about that clause, it felt like something that was created not to improve the quality and selection of XBO indie games, but rather to effect Playstation offerings. They thought that most indie devs would want to, or perhaps HAVE to release the games on both systems, and this policy would lead to release parity.
Delaying a release of one version so that multiple version can release at the same time doesn't look like it's as feasible as many think.
Nice write up Chubs.
Delaying a release of one version so that multiple version can release at the same time doesn't look like it's as feasible as many think.
Nice write up Chubs.
PseudoKirby
Banned
Never is a strong word...
they're coming to other platforms, they repeatedly said so. They just said they won't work on other versions until the PS4 version is done (that includes PC). Almost certain Lord Phil Spencer will make an exception for it.
PseudoKirby said:
That's their word!
I'm sure "never" will become "tomorrow" if Microsoft removes this fucked up clause.
gotstrangepowers
Banned
You should probably assume it's timed. Why wouldn't they be advertising its exclusivity? Sony recently said they try to be very clear with exclusive labels so as not to confuse.
Everday I get up from bed and see my xbox one besides my ps4 I can hear Phil whisper "because of xbox, you are first class"
then I see my ps4 and remember that I buy 99% of my games for the ps4.
Very interesting and informative OP, appreciate the thought and time put into it.
It really is an indefensible clause, and it's clear at this point that it's creating a very uneven landscape in terms of where indies are publishing their games. I don't think this is a trajectory that will be altered until the cause is removed entirely. It really sucks for, well everyone.
Incidentally, the parity clause was the tipping point in my going for the PS4 this gen. After all the XBO reversals, most of my reasons for leaning toward the PS4 had been eliminated. But a huge chunk of the games I played last gen were indies, and I'd expect the same this gen as well.
It really is an indefensible clause, and it's clear at this point that it's creating a very uneven landscape in terms of where indies are publishing their games. I don't think this is a trajectory that will be altered until the cause is removed entirely. It really sucks for, well everyone.
Incidentally, the parity clause was the tipping point in my going for the PS4 this gen. After all the XBO reversals, most of my reasons for leaning toward the PS4 had been eliminated. But a huge chunk of the games I played last gen were indies, and I'd expect the same this gen as well.
Kar
Member
Yeah I saw it, but I just wanted to see if there're some examples of this in the past.
This is not my first go-round in these threads either. I will not speak in absolutes but many indie devs who represent themselves here said they are highly, highly unlikely to go with XB1 with the parity clause in place.
Tone isn't always clear when reading posts online. If you ended with /jk or /s or anything along those lines it would have been more clear. Its easy for people to misconstrue what you wrote because plenty of people have posted those words while being serious.
No one was asking you to parrot what has been said for months. People wouldn't have responded the way they did had they been able to tell you were joking.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
You guys gotta understand Phil Spencer, he's just trying to be the next Steve Ballmer.
Duxxy3
Member
I usually don't get into indie games too much. I won't bother with any reasons. There are two indie games that I REALLY want to play on my XB1 that I won't be able to because of this stupid clause. I would love to play Transistor and The Binding of Isaac Rebirth on my console, but I don't have that option.
#NoParityClause (this is twitter, right?)
#NoParityClause (this is twitter, right?)
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
Great thread, interesting topic, wonderful OP - thank you.
I love games, including indie games. I don't want to see AAA or indie games being marginalised as I enjoy both equally and both have their place in gaming.
I struggle to understand who benefits from Microsoft's stance. I appreciate they want to appear to be curating but the perception of their approach seems far less noble and results in what appears to be a stifled library that could otherwise be flourishing.
I love games, including indie games. I don't want to see AAA or indie games being marginalised as I enjoy both equally and both have their place in gaming.
I struggle to understand who benefits from Microsoft's stance. I appreciate they want to appear to be curating but the perception of their approach seems far less noble and results in what appears to be a stifled library that could otherwise be flourishing.
yup. I was actually a day from buying an XBO this fall before Phil Spencer went on the record about the ID@Xbox parity clause again. A shame, so many games I want to play on XBO.
RazielCuts
Member
Well whenever Sean Murray comes on stage he always starts with 'We're an indie team, only 4 people' like it's written into his rider or something. I'm sure someone behind the scenes (Sony or whoever) said that this would be good PR move and I like the guy but I'm finding it a bit eye-rolly every time I hear it now. The schtick, it wears thin.
With his stubborn insistence to a stupid idea, he's more like J Allard.
shadowsdarknes
Member
It's amazing how Microsoft went from creating the console indie market to absolutely fumbling that market.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
Uh huh, I'm almost certain you weren't 'jokingly' anything, this smells more like a back-down.