No I assume it is timed, I am unsure about the "indie" status of the team/game at this point.
-
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
No I assume it is timed, I am unsure about the "indie" status of the team/game at this point.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Developers like JAW who were pretty clear about their game never coming to X1 until they announced it was?
And of course they can still come to the X1. Spencer will just continue to make exception after exception. Just like he did for Outlast, Contrast, Stick to the Man, etc. We can argue he's only made a few, but the point is that as soon as a developer approaches him asking for one, he'll say yes.
Developers won't be able to ignore a console that will eventually have a 20m+ install base. Now is the time to apply pressure as the X1 is still struggling to hit its stride. You force a company to change when it's on the ropes, not when it's in a position of power.
They are essentially having their cake and eating it right now. Waiting for developers to come to them rather than dropping the clause as they know they can just give any developer they want an exception and still eventually get the game on their platform.
what is with the lord Phil stuff?, they obviously have some data to back them up on the policy and they clearly are willing to changes things when it is hurting them financially. if the math works in their favor using this method, they will keep at it.
7DollarHagane
Banned
They need to actually pay indie devs first, lol.
But yeah the parity clause is a shit idea. Hope its causing them to miss out on content until they fix it.
But yeah the parity clause is a shit idea. Hope its causing them to miss out on content until they fix it.
An interesting post, and I agree in general that the parity clause is hurting more than it is helping.
However I recall in one of the Phil Spencer interviews that he said that they would work with indie devs who could show they had financial reasons why it is impracticable to release on XB1 at the same time, and that is why we have already seen games like contrast, etc come out later. OP did not really discuss this. It seems reasonable to me if true.
It didn't sound like OP was even willing to try, which suggests to me that maybe OP doesn't actually have a financial reason not to release both at the same time. Or if OP does, then I think at a minimum OP should be willing to pick up a phone over leaving money on the table.
I am not saying the clause isn't partly at fault in OP's position, but OP has some blame as well. Is it impossible for OP to pick a different engine, that wouldn't have involved sitting on the free XB1 dev kit for 6 months? Can OP demonstrate while it is financially impossible to release both at once? Is OP more interested in getting free attention by blaming the parity clause?
I know asking these questions will likely only draw fire, but I think people need to look critically at all sides of issues like this before jumping on the easy bandwagon.
I personally think, based off OP's claims, that MS's best option is to allow indie devs to buy dev kits and release whenever they want. If a dev wants a free dev kit, then they should be willing to agree to a parity clause. I think most people should agree that it seems wrong for indie devs to get free dev kits, then choose to give the other platform preferential treatment when they don't have a demonstrable financial inability to release on both at once.
However I recall in one of the Phil Spencer interviews that he said that they would work with indie devs who could show they had financial reasons why it is impracticable to release on XB1 at the same time, and that is why we have already seen games like contrast, etc come out later. OP did not really discuss this. It seems reasonable to me if true.
It didn't sound like OP was even willing to try, which suggests to me that maybe OP doesn't actually have a financial reason not to release both at the same time. Or if OP does, then I think at a minimum OP should be willing to pick up a phone over leaving money on the table.
I am not saying the clause isn't partly at fault in OP's position, but OP has some blame as well. Is it impossible for OP to pick a different engine, that wouldn't have involved sitting on the free XB1 dev kit for 6 months? Can OP demonstrate while it is financially impossible to release both at once? Is OP more interested in getting free attention by blaming the parity clause?
I know asking these questions will likely only draw fire, but I think people need to look critically at all sides of issues like this before jumping on the easy bandwagon.
I personally think, based off OP's claims, that MS's best option is to allow indie devs to buy dev kits and release whenever they want. If a dev wants a free dev kit, then they should be willing to agree to a parity clause. I think most people should agree that it seems wrong for indie devs to get free dev kits, then choose to give the other platform preferential treatment when they don't have a demonstrable financial inability to release on both at once.
Nightengale
Member
The difference is that Sony locked exclusivity of games like Grim and SFV,so they can officially put it out there that they're exclusive.
OTOH, a lot of games only has them agreeing to debut on PS4 first. Presumably there's no binding contract preventing an XB1 SKU after the PS4 version is launched.
However, that doesn't guarantee an XB1 port will actually happen. Transistor was announced as a console debut,and up till now it's not announced for XB1 but rather for Vita.
YatÅkiri_Kilgharrah
Banned
You could say this about the Wii U too but then everyone just goes and shits on its library because " No AAA Western 3rd party games" " Small library of quality exclusives blah blah blah" focusing on what the machine doesnt have instead of the fact that it actually has quite a lot of games released on it.
Then again people never look things up before they open their mouths.
Maybe if you'd read the OP instead of trolling you'd see that point has already been addressed.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
Because Phil is the Lord and Savior of the Xbone, remember the "Phil Spencer Effect" thread?
Steverulez
Member
There was an easy get-out of the parity clause if you'd already signed a deal with Sony, which those 3 games (all PS+ you'll notice...) and others had.
That doesn't explain stuff like PurePool and Blue Estate released on or still coming to Xbox One when they weren't in that time frame but are still coming.
Also, in the OP I've asked Curve to confirm but their games are ID@Xbox, they're listed as such on the dashboard (for Thomas Was Alone) and I don't think OlliOlli would be any different to that.
That's off topic though. I own a ps4 xbox one and pc but that is not the purpose of this topic. A game being on pc for a penny doesn't help xbox one owners in the slightest.
there are many who do have both but don't like playing on pc or prefer to chill on the couch and play on the big screen. That's me.
so once again. Game on pc for penny does not help xbox one.
this is a good topic and highlights that this police is hurting xbox one.
again... not you personally...Xbox one.
i actually was looking for the "Ban" sound file.
I heard about the rule from microsoft and have to say this is pretty big bullsh... they would never do that to the bug publishers. why to the small ones? some of them will grow and maybe someday be the next bioware or something like that and they will only have negative thoughts of microsoft.
that makes absolutely no sense..
Of course that assumes as an Xbone gamer you'd only want the few games that are given an exception. I know that's not good enough for me.
Goes every which way. Everything gets devalued equally here.
Yeah Games for gold titles have so far been riveting masterpieces because of this clause. Oh wait....
You didn't read the op, and now you're responding to posts that don't exist.
How about instead of the sarcastic parroting you state your position and why you think the parity cause isn't a problem?
Miles Quaritch
Member
That's what gets me angry. That there are get outs, etc for a clause that shouldn't even exist. If it's so easy to bypass, why not just drop it? It's literally only there to make sure they can screw the really little guys, the ones who can't ask for exceptions or make use of the easy bypasses/get outs.
I've used the same engine for 12 years. I'm not about to learn a whole new codebase and platform and port my game to an entirely new development system just to get around the release clause. That's almost impossible.
Financially it's very possible to release on both at once, for myself anyways since I'm the sole programmer, but the amount of time and stress that would go into something like that would be insane. Heck, I just released an expansion pack for my last game on Steam and it was stressful beyond belief for many different reasons. And that's on the easiest platform to develop for.
Finally, I'm not interested in getting free attention. If I was I'd probably say who I actually was or the games I've developed or planning to develop on consoles. That's not really needed or necessary for the original post.
Nightengale
Member
Trying to legitimately discuss lineups and "list" on GAF is the worst.
Triggerhappytel
Member
It really is amazing how things have switched around between Sony and MS this gen. It used to be that the 360 got all the great indie games because of the strong backing MS would give them, but now it's just like they couldn't give two fucks. They're so busy trying to catch up with Sony that they're not realising stupid policies like this are hurting them.
But don't forget that indie games don't count!
But don't forget that indie games don't count!
So your entire argument is "Well phil spencer will just always make exceptions, because I trust the lovable man", even when that is demonstrably false and the number of exclusive indie titles on PS4 grow literally every day? How quaint.
There's already reams of indies on PS4 that are not coming to XBO. Where are the XBO exceptions? Oh right, they're not coming.
Miles Quaritch said:
Of course they will, because many, many indies don't actually have a choice. Because a huge amount of indies are so tiny, they have to make hard choices about which platform to come to first. And with Sony being as open as they are, the choice is extremely easy at this point.
And then these indies come up against ID@Xbox parity clause, time and time again. And Phil Spencer has NOT made exceptions for every game, which is why we have literally a metric fuckton of indies simply never coming to XBO.
And that's the reality. You can pray at whatever altar serves your needs, it's not going to change the landscape. Just compare the list of developers who have confirmed they're working on games for each respective indie platform. The gulf is comically large.
You think they're all waiting to announce their support for XBO tomorrow or some shit? The illustrious Phil Spencer got some plan with them? Of course not.
Just like almost every indie dev that has gone no the record, they know it's fucked up.
Microsoft is losing revenue for it, indie devs and XBO gamers are being hurt for it. Really is the end of the story until Spencer changes his daft policy.
And this conjecture is tales from thin air, right? Because he hasn't done that. And the results are clear.
Games for gold is fucking awful and if not for this policy at least maybe I'd get a GOOD indy for free.
In regards to games.. Its usually one sided.
PS4 and Sony have made really great efforts on being indie friendly and listening to fans and getting the games on PS4.
On a one to one basic, PS4 has done better then Xbone interms of indie and wii u interms third party
RipperGrim
Member
47 games is a shit ton. I actually still don't understand why the parity clause is actually a thing. What benefit does Microsoft says it gives? Is it to make games come out on the X1 first?
Right now PS4 has a bigger library of games and MS should be scrambling to fix that.
Right now PS4 has a bigger library of games and MS should be scrambling to fix that.
bigbaldwolf86
Banned
I'm amazed that with all the effort MS have made to push the Xbox after it's poor start in comparison to the PS4 they are so stubborn with this parity clause. It's not doing them any favours and the amount of games the PS4 is getting just shows it. I feel sorry for all of you Xbox owners that are having to put up with this. Hopefully Spencer will see how this is hurting them and will stop this parity bs.
I'm sure getting Red Faction Guerrilla free is better than getting 50 potentially awesome indie games.
Kar
Member
Maybe its not that easy..
Great thread, Chubs! It's informative enough that I think we can safely call it journalism.
The ID@Xbox parity clause, like the pack-in Kinect, is clearly an awful idea and I suspect it will meet the same fate: It will be defended by Microsoft to the bitter end and then it will be unceremoniously dropped.
The ID@Xbox parity clause, like the pack-in Kinect, is clearly an awful idea and I suspect it will meet the same fate: It will be defended by Microsoft to the bitter end and then it will be unceremoniously dropped.
Very very small number of them. Only devs who individually get permission from Xbox can release first on PS4 and then later release on Xbone.
Parity clause is only hurting the Xbox only gamers. Really does need to go. Considering how much data a company colelcts, I'm guessing MS is scared letting it go will lead to indie devs publically justifying PS4 development first for technical reasons unflattering to design decisions.
TheRealTalker
Banned
wonderful read OP
glad you took the time to layout an easy to understand article for this issue
glad you took the time to layout an easy to understand article for this issue
MastorofPuppetz
Banned
But Spencer said he wanted them to be treated like first class citizens......that made no sense then and doesn't now.
This has nothing to do with damages and everything to do with the PS4 having a larger market share.
I still don't understand how most of this thread seems to ignore that this data would be no different if this parity clause didn't exist.
You don't announce a game for a platform you can't afford to develop for so even without the clause they wouldn't have announced a Xbox One version until they could confirm that it was a sure thing it was coming.
When you're a small studio you're going to cater more towards the market with more potential sales. If the market share was switched Microsoft would have the most Indies announced for their system than Sony no matter the existence of the parity clause.
The bigger problem here is that the parity clause prevents these studios that have announced Indies on PS4 from launching on Xbox One afterwards without specific permission from Microsoft.
They need to get rid of the parity clause and instead have a incentive that increases their profit on Xbox One to the point of making the market share advantage irrelevant.
They supposedly didn't care about a lot of things which they later reversed. Once they realise how many games they're missing out on, and once more developers like chubigans speak up about it, I don't think this parity clause will be around for much longer.
Steverulez
Member
Well, it was a loophole with a very limited timeframe on it and its been closed now for obvious reasons but yeh, either way i'd like it to go.
I don't feel like I lack games on Xbox One, and I do have a capable PC of playing all these games but if I were to play most of them i'd rather do it on my primary platform and not everyone has my situation.
More games on XB1 is never going to be a bad thing for Microsoft or Xbox One owners, more chances of people spending their dollar... etc etc.
Some people don't care about indie games.
Do not forget Nintendo and their excellent indie support.
Miles Quaritch
Member
You're arguing that I trust Phil Spencer? That's not a road you want to go down. I don't even know what to say to such a claim.
I suspect you're replying to my posts from a position where you believe I'm either defending or making excuses for MS and the clause, when that couldn't be further from the truth.
And yes, there are exceptions. That the games in the OP haven't been given exceptions is besides the point. Those games haven't been released, when they are out on PS4 and the developer can focus on porting the game to X1, that's when they'll announce it and that's when Spencer will give them the exception that many games have already gotten.
Stealth_Cobra
Member
My two cents : Warning - Highly Opiniated and you might not agree.
I get your point.
But I still say it's their problem.
If they want to bully and try to forcefully coax devs into working for them due to bad indie dev policies, it's only legitimate that devs say "screw them", hurting Xbox gamers in the process.
And contrary to most people, I don't want them to change their policies because I'm sick of them doing 360 on every single one of their vile, anti-consumer and anti-dev policies. Do we really have to fight them on every single of their bad policies for months to "fix Xbox One yet again, or should we, maybe, just maybe, accept the fact MS did mostly everything wrong this gen and NOT give them a free pass because they end up submitting to public outrage and "fixing" their terrible design choices after enough public outcry.
It reminds me of politics, in a sense where you can place in power a group of individuals that respect what the population wants, tries to remain pro rights and serve the country tas best they can, or you can place some power hungry dictatorship that only care about their wallet, try to make everyone's life more complicated, attacking your rights as citizens and needsing to be constantly kept in check by the population, activists and journalists, doing riots, petitions and other similar things to fight for their existing rights and comfort.
The big difference is that, in gaming , you truly have a choice to vote with your wallet, and you're not stuck with a dictator because more than 50 percent of the population though it was a good idea to put them in charge... So please, vote with your wallet and vote for console makers that respect their fanbase, their devs and that work for the betterment of gaming, instead of fighting constantly to thwart that one power hungry corporation from changing the game industry for the worse. Don"t like MS's policies as a consumer ?Don't buy their products. Don't like their policies as a dev ? Don't make games for their platform. Simple, elegant, almost polite.
Short story short. I think gaming need more people willing to fight for their ideals. If you hate a publisher for releasing crap, stop begging them to stop, boycott their games. We have a power far greater than just complaining and hoping they will someday fix things.
I get your point.
But I still say it's their problem.
If they want to bully and try to forcefully coax devs into working for them due to bad indie dev policies, it's only legitimate that devs say "screw them", hurting Xbox gamers in the process.
And contrary to most people, I don't want them to change their policies because I'm sick of them doing 360 on every single one of their vile, anti-consumer and anti-dev policies. Do we really have to fight them on every single of their bad policies for months to "fix Xbox One yet again, or should we, maybe, just maybe, accept the fact MS did mostly everything wrong this gen and NOT give them a free pass because they end up submitting to public outrage and "fixing" their terrible design choices after enough public outcry.
It reminds me of politics, in a sense where you can place in power a group of individuals that respect what the population wants, tries to remain pro rights and serve the country tas best they can, or you can place some power hungry dictatorship that only care about their wallet, try to make everyone's life more complicated, attacking your rights as citizens and needsing to be constantly kept in check by the population, activists and journalists, doing riots, petitions and other similar things to fight for their existing rights and comfort.
The big difference is that, in gaming , you truly have a choice to vote with your wallet, and you're not stuck with a dictator because more than 50 percent of the population though it was a good idea to put them in charge... So please, vote with your wallet and vote for console makers that respect their fanbase, their devs and that work for the betterment of gaming, instead of fighting constantly to thwart that one power hungry corporation from changing the game industry for the worse. Don"t like MS's policies as a consumer ?Don't buy their products. Don't like their policies as a dev ? Don't make games for their platform. Simple, elegant, almost polite.
Short story short. I think gaming need more people willing to fight for their ideals. If you hate a publisher for releasing crap, stop begging them to stop, boycott their games. We have a power far greater than just complaining and hoping they will someday fix things.
It depends on who what your focus is IMO. If you only or mainly focus on PS4 then it may seem that way.
I know about the flood and no insurance money but never heard about any funding.
Well then based on this parity clause it would probably not appear right? But I don't think MS would let something like this go. It feels like that part where Spencer will "make an exception" is a pretty loose term and games will be allowed after PS4 on XB1 if deemed successful.