Support NeoGAF

[orthodoxy1095]

That doesn't matter to this discussion.

This discussion is about indies that are self-published, not indies that sign work-for-hire contracts with a platform holder.

That's fine if you're making an arbitrary distinction, but they are still technically indies. As an example, Dust being published by Microsoft doesn't make that game less of an indie.

I don't want anyone's leftovers. If it isn't a technical reason..and a good one...they can keep their game. I'll get it for a dollar on a steam sale 2 years from now.

That's all well and good for you, but what about everyone else who owns an X1?

 

[Toki767]

I don't want anyone's leftovers. If it isn't a technical reason..and a good one...they can keep their game. I'll get it for a dollar on a steam sale 2 years from now.

They can keep their game...until you buy it later? Way to have principles man.

 

[BlastProcessing]

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.

I am actually half of a two man indie team. We work out of our apartments, not basements so you got us there. I will say that Microsoft's policy absolutely affects us negatively. We are in the prototyping stages for our next game and it sucks that we have to waste any of our bandwidth on platform decisions at this point.

I would also say it hurts larger indies even more. Larger teams mean larger budgets. Which means every extra man-hour you have to spend before you can get you game out hurts a ton. It's not just getting the game running on a platform that takes time. TRCs and all the bureaucracy are the time vampires. Being able to stagger releases allows you to get income as quickly as possible. It's pretty vital.

 

[Marcel]

Phil says to contact them. Guessing if the game is good, they will help out so they can release on multiple systems.

I'm sure indie developers have the time and inclination to sit on their hands while their Totally Necessary exception request is run up the chain.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Jesus Phil, Can you spell hypocrisy?

"must come to xbox because it's not fair"

*buys up exclusives from other platforms, or pays to have them delayed*

 

[Miles Quaritch]

No, if I had to guess they slapped it together without much thought especially without the intention of padding or manipulating. Looks to me like making a quick visual point to stress what this policy is causing people to miss out on.

It is easy to deflect and take five games off missing the point, though. I will give you that.

Deflect huh?

I see you're trying to a spin a narrative whereby I'm trying to deflect from the topic at hand?

If only it were that simple. I'm only interested in the facts and the facts are that the list wasn't entirely accurate. If that upsets you the point where you begin to construct an imaginary narrative of it being something of a deflection, that's something you need to deal with.

The only one on your list that's not really an indie is Eveybody's Gone to Rapture, SCE Santa Monica is helping the indie devs. The rest are all developed by independent studios.

But they're not developed by Sony which is where the key to being an indie really lies: having the creative freedom to develop what you want.

Published by Sony = for intent and purposes, first party. When they come to other platforms, then we can say they weren't first party, but until that happens, those games are first party.

Even if you subtract those five games, it's still a pretty big list of notable titles that Xbox will miss because of a backwards policy.

Of course, MS deserve to have more indies skip their console. I'm still pissed that JAW decided to bow down to MS and announce an X1 release for Oddworld: New & Tasty.

It's annoying in the extreme, the only way to get MS to drop this clause is for indies to work together and agree not to release on the platform until MS scrap. There's nothing else for it as MS clearly don't care it's costing them the odd game here or there...

 

[benny_a]

That's fine if you're making an arbitrary distinction, but they are still technically indies. As an example, Dust being published by Microsoft doesn't make that game less of an indie.

I don't think it's arbitrary. I think that is the actual distinction when it comes to this discussion.

Dust was only published by Microsoft because Microsoft didn't allow for self-publishing until recently.

In comparison to for example Helldivers from the list which wouldn't exist without the Sony funding.

 

[Toki767]

Phil says to contact them. Guessing if the game is good, they will help out so they can release on multiple systems.

So Phil wants indies to go to them, rather than him going to indies?

 

[BruiserBear]

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 is the best summary I've seen on this topic.

I'd also like to add to the end of it. If you're game is truly a stand out title, the chances are high either Microsoft or Sony are going to approach you about a nice deal. See No Man's Sky timed exclusivity on PS4.

I just don't care if every single indie game makes it to both platforms. I have a strong belief that the best games will appear on both at some point. If Microsoft believes a game is great, they're gonna see to it that it shows up on XB1.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Jesus Phil, Can you spell hypocrisy?

"must come to xbox because it's not fair"

*buys up exclusives from other platforms, or pays to have them delayed*

Ah. Forgot about Tomb Raider!

 

[Duxxy3]

I know that when I'm not able to play Binding of Isaac Rebirth that at least I'm not playing it while in first class.

 

[CambriaRising]

This guy is delusional.

 

[TheDangerMan]

This is the problem in a nutshell. People literally don't understand why some people are not selfish with their thought process.

This stands out to me as having way more truth to it than I wish it did...

 

[mcrommert]

Lol. I bet you have a hard time finding romance.

They can keep their game...until you buy it later? Way to have principles man.

So you're admitting to being a self-deluded miser. Brave.

Tow the line people...or the mob will attack you

But seriously this is a good business decision. As a platform holder it is up to you to get the best deals and games you can. Getting them months or years later doesn't help your platform.

 

[Shin-Ra]

"We want to give off the impression that our customers are special, but we'll actually take whatever we can get from developers."

 

[Two Words]

I don't want anyone's leftovers. If it isn't a technical reason..and a good one...they can keep their game. I'll get it for a dollar on a steam sale 2 years from now.

This is so hilarious.

 

[Peterpan]

So no income at all for several more months or longer just because they can't do all platforms at once? Seems fair, who needs money to operate?

I'm on neither side, but I think you need to reread what he meant. Its fair to delay the Xbox One version according to Microsoft, but Microsoft may help them out to get it released on release date. They not delaying anything. They don't want delays for no reason, apparently.

 

[NoMoChokeSJ]

This policy is actively hurting Microsoft, because it's preventing games from coming to their platform at all.

Your last comment shows you have not been reading the thread whatsoever. Do yourself a favor and read the thread. Even on this very page you have a dev saying it hurts their bottom line.

I read the quote but it doesn't refute that most developers talk highly about the support they get from MS during development. While I sympathize with the developer on here that says this policy took MS off of their radar we know nothing of their conversations outside of a post.

And you missed my point... If the policy only hurts MS.. If somebody has no intention of supporting the console, why the outrage? PS4 has double the customer base and the number of PC gamers is immense. The capacity for success for a good indie game is their without the XB1. I get it if they were the only game in town, but they aren't... In fact they are the smallest game in town.

 

[Kayant]

Phil says to contact them. Guessing if the game has enough hype, they will help out so they can release on multiple systems or allow them to come later.

Ftfy

I don't want anyone's leftovers. If it isn't a technical reason..and a good one...they can keep their game. I'll get it for a dollar on a steam sale 2 years from now.

Loooool

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I read the quote but it doesn't refute that most developers talk highly about the support they get from MS during development. While I sympathize with the developer on here that says this policy took MS off of their radar we know nothing of their conversations outside of a post.

And you missed my point... If the policy only hurts MS.. If somebody has no intention of supporting the console, why the outrage? PS4 has double the customer base and the number of PC gamers is immense. The capacity for success for a good indie game is their without the XB1. I get it if they were the only game in town, but they aren't... In fact they are the smallest game in town.

Why would an indie dev, a small group, want to miss out on ANY sales? The X1 may be smaller, but it's by no mean small or stagnant in terms of user base.

 

[Marcel]

Tow the line people...or the mob will attack you

My ridiculous statement is being attacked by the NeoGAF hivemind. Boo-hoo-hoo.

I'm not sure what else to say to a person who stands on their flimsy "principles" until something is two dollars.

Getting them months or years later doesn't help your platform.

Not getting them at all doesn't help either, which is what's happening.

 

[_Ryo_]

I can't see why Microsoft won't just change it simply due to the fact that their parity clause gives Sony an advantage.

Okay... let's take for example an indie game that everyone is looking forward to...

A Hat in Time (I know it's not announced to be coming to PS4, this is just a hypothetical example.)

If A Hat in Time releases on PS4 and not XB1 and it is very well received, this would be very bad for Microsoft.

1. It shows that indie devs are much more welcomed by Sony on PS4.
2. It automatically has a higher user-base compared to XB1.
3. Sony and the dev will be recognized as the revivers of platformers and collectathons.
4. More indie devs will be inspired to release platformer games on PS4 and not XB1.
5. Lover of more old-school type games will purchase PS4 as it has the type of games they're looking for.

It's Microsoft eating its own tail...

 

[mcrommert]

My ridiculous statement is being attacked by the NeoGAF hivemind. Boo-hoo-hoo.

I'm not sure what else to say to a person who stands on their flimsy "principles" until something is two dollars.

i used the winky face...should have used

Spoiler

/s

 

[statham]

So Phil wants indies to go to them, rather than him going to indies?

what?

 

[Toki767]

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 is a fair point to make, but as a platform holder, that disadvantage is only until the game comes out on your platform. People who buy a PS3 now for indies aren't going to care that Minecraft or Limbo or Castle Crashers wasn't available on the system the same time as the 360.

As a platform holder, this clause effects potential new console buyers just as much as it does your current owners.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Tow the line people...or the mob will attack you

But seriously this is a good business decision. As a platform holder it is up to you to get the best deals and games you can. Getting them months or years later doesn't help your platform.

I don't understand this logic. Getting a game at a reasonable later date is better than never getting it. More high-quality games is never a bad thing and certainly helps your platform.

 

[Honey Bunny]

edit: nvm

 

[mcrommert]

This is a fair point to make, but as a platform holder, that disadvantage is only until the game comes out on your platform. People who buy a PS3 now for indies aren't going to care that Minecraft or Limbo or Castle Crashers wasn't available on the system the same time as the 360.

As a platform holder, this clause effects potential new console buyers just as much as it does your current owners.

My understanding is the way to get around this parity clause is rerelease the game with a new version. So a game called "Hat"...would have to have "Hat Definitive Version" with some new stuff...and that would be okay. Anyone correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[BruiserBear]

I read the quote but it doesn't refute that most developers talk highly about the support they get from MS during development. While I sympathize with the developer on here that says this policy took MS off of their radar we know nothing of their conversations outside of a post.

And you missed my point... If the policy only hurts MS.. If somebody has no intention of supporting the console, why the outrage? PS4 has double the customer base and the number of PC gamers is immense. The capacity for success for a good indie game is their without the XB1. I get it if they were the only game in town, but they aren't... In fact they are the smallest game in town.

This is the magic question for the people who are outraged. The two biggest platforms for indie's are wide open. PS4 and PC.

That's why I said earlier this is about console warz for the vast majority of people in threads like this. It's just another route for saying how evil Microsoft is, even though, apparently it's really hurting their platform.

 

[Toki767]

what?

Hey, you said it, not me.

Phil says to contact them. Guessing if the game is good, they will help out so they can release on multiple systems.

 

[oldergamer]

Absinthe you don't get the full picture man, you're just an indie. you'll never understand.

Don't be an ass, he just said they aren't big enough to do multi-patform at once. it's too risky. I agree with absinthe, you do what you can. however even if MS changes their stance, how does that change the cost/amount of risk for his company? it doesn't.

My advice is to make a bigger name for yourself, stick to less platforms until you can get big enough to do more then one. If you want to keep it small then chances are multi-platform isn't in the cards at that point in time.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

My understanding is the way to get around this parity clause is rerelease the game with a new version. So a game called "Hat"...would have to have "Hat Definitive Version" with some new stuff...and that would be okay. Anyone correct me if i'm wrong.

Would this require an indie dev to basically give away free content or make new content? What would constitute a "Definitive Version"?

 

[Amir0x]

I am actually half of a two man indie team. We work out of our apartments, not basements so you got us there. I will say that Microsoft's policy absolutely affects us negatively. We are in the prototyping stages for our next game and it sucks that we have to waste any of our bandwidth on platform decisions at this point.

I would also say it hurts larger indies even more. Larger teams mean larger budgets. Which means every extra man-hour you have to spend before you can get you game out hurts a ton. It's not just getting the game running on a platform that takes time. TRCs and all the bureaucracy are the time vampires. Being able to stagger releases allows you to get income as quickly as possible. It's pretty vital.

I just want to note that on top of all the links I provided earlier, this is now the third indie in this topic saying it's damaging. You deniers want to deny it's a problem to all these indies direct now?

Any indies want to speak up for the "pro hurting indie devs" side of the argument? No? Hmm...that's weird.

This stands out to me as having way more truth to it than I wish it did...

I say it because I used to be super selfish. I had to grow up. seems some people still have their own path to go down.

 

[Toki767]

Don't be an ass, he just said they aren't big enough to do multi-patform at once. it's too risky. I agree with absinthe, you do what you can. however even if MS changes their stance, how does that change the cost/amount of risk for his company? it doesn't.

My advice is to make a bigger name for yourself, stick to less platforms until you can get big enough to do more then one. If you want to keep it small then chances are multi-platform isn't in the cards at that point in time.

He was being sarcastic based on other people's responses here.

 

[PhatSaqs]

I can't see why Microsoft won't just change it simply due to the fact that their parity clause gives Sony an advantage.

Okay... let's take for example an indie game that everyone is looking forward to...

A Hat in Time (I know it's not announced to be coming to PS4, this is just a hypothetical example.)

If A Hat in Time releases on PS4 and not XB1 and it is very well received, this would be very bad for Microsoft.

1. It shows that indie devs are much more welcomed by Sony on PS4.
2. It automatically has a higher user-base compared to XB1.
3. Sony and the dev will be recognized as the revivers of platformers and collectathons.
4. More indie devs will be inspired to release platformer games on PS4 and not XB1.
5. Lover of more old-school type games will purchase PS4 as it has the type of games they're looking for.

It's Microsoft eating its own tail...

Eh....the only way this would happen is if the developer chose to release on PS4 first with plans to release on X1 later which is effectively a timed exclusive. Everything in your numbered list would happen with or without a parity clause in that case which is probably the key reason why MS has the clause in the first place.

 

[statham]

Hey, you said it, not me.

If you want your game on a system, you should be in contact with them.

 

[Patroclos]

Tow the line people...or the mob will attack you

But seriously this is a good business decision. As a platform holder it is up to you to get the best deals and games you can. Getting them months or years later doesn't help your platform.

It's an idiotic business decision. It is built on promoting exclusion, favoritism, and denial of value. More disturbing is the fact that, if the quotes are from the article are true Phil Spencer is an unabashed liar.

The parity clause has been in effect since the beginning and now he is trying to say it is because of "market share". Spencer is changing the narrative on the middle of the game.

Jesus, how do people not see this. For god's sake even Statham isn't rocking an "I believe in Phil badge on his avatar anymore."

Spoiler

JK, Statham, never change.

 

[Dragon]

I read the quote but it doesn't refute that most developers talk highly about the support they get from MS during development. While I sympathize with the developer on here that says this policy took MS off of their radar we know nothing of their conversations outside of a post.

And you missed my point... If the policy only hurts MS.. If somebody has no intention of supporting the console, why the outrage? PS4 has double the customer base and the number of PC gamers is immense. The capacity for success for a good indie game is their without the XB1. I get it if they were the only game in town, but they aren't... In fact they are the smallest game in town.

Because some games are MS only because of this policy?

 

[Marcel]

This is the magic question for the people who are outraged. The two biggest platforms for indie's are wide open. PS4 and PC.

That's why I said earlier this is about console warz for the vast majority of people in threads like this. It's just another route for saying how evil Microsoft is, even though, apparently it's really hurting their platform.

It's more about you generalizing different opinions to fit your limited scope and understanding of what's happening. If you don't see how more open environments for creativity doesn't benefit everyone I'm not sure what anyone can say to you. Do you defend Nintendo's region-locking too?

 

[Amir0x]

however even if MS changes their stance, how does that change the cost/amount of risk for his company? it doesn't.

Of course it does.

Let's say they decide for financial reasons to go PC and PS4 first, because that's the biggest userbase and the best odds of being successful. So then, you're successful, and you want to bring it to XBO to make more money and further your financial stability. Now, you can't make the game for XBO, because Microsoft has a release date parity clause in place. You can decide after to be condescended to by Microsoft and have a 'meeting' with them in the principal's office to explain why it was not possible to release day and date. And then you have to hope your game was popular enough for them to make an exception.

 

[ak1276]

He was being sarcastic based on other people's responses here.

Oldegamer was one of those people; he feels attacked, because Amir0x used his own statement to say exactly what he meant, and didn't paint that point of view in a very flattering light.

 

[Sorral]

Tow the line people...or the mob will attack you

But seriously this is a good business decision. As a platform holder it is up to you to get the best deals and games you can. Getting them months or years later doesn't help your platform.

Do you have stock in MS? Yes or no.

But then...

I don't want anyone's leftovers. If it isn't a technical reason..and a good one...they can keep their game. I'll get it for a dollar on a steam sale 2 years from now.

 

[Toki767]

If you want your game on a system, you should be in contact with them.

I guess? I mean Phil could always be more proactive about going to indies himself though couldn't he? Him or Chris Charla or whoever is in charge at least. Microsoft seems to be suffering from not having someone like Shahid or Nick Suttner.

 

[Marcel]

Oldegamer was one of those people; he feels attacked, because Amir0x used his own statement to say exactly what he meant, and didn't paint that point of view in a very flattering light.

Yeah no one 'attacked' him. It's more like he's displaying a victim complex common to a certain subset of console owners.

 

[Amir0x]

Do you have stock in MS? Yes or no.

But then...

There is also no evidence whatsoever that this is good business. In fact, any statistic we could point to might suggest the implication of the exact opposite.

So, I'd like to hear the people saying it's good business back that up with any real world facts.

 

[oldergamer]

This is the best summary I've seen on this topic.

I'd also like to add to the end of it. If you're game is truly a stand out title, the chances are high either Microsoft or Sony are going to approach you about a nice deal. See No Man's Sky timed exclusivity on PS4.

I just don't care if every single indie game makes it to both platforms. I have a strong belief that the best games will appear on both at some point. If Microsoft believes a game is great, they're gonna see to it that it shows up on XB1.

Yes, if say your sequel or new title has some hype to it, MS will likely waive roadblocks or find a way to help make it possible.

Also I happen to know of a small company that makes apps for various devices. Android, ios, roku, xbox 360 & Xbone. you know what they told me? they approached sony to release their apps on PS4 and Sony wasn't interested and they aren't open to the idea. like i said earlier people think sony is the white knight in all this, but it's not always the case.

 

[Marcel]

There is also no evidence whatsoever that this is good business. In fact, any statistic we could point to might suggest the implication of the exact opposite.

So, I'd like to hear the people saying it's good business back that up with any real world facts.

I'm sure you'll get the same response when people ask how Nintendo's region-locking is good business.

Yes, if say your sequel or new title has some hype to it, MS will likely waive roadblocks or find a way to help make it possible.

Also I happen to know of a small company that makes apps for various devices. Android, ios, roku, xbox 360 & Xbone. you know what they told me? they approached sony to release their apps on PS4 and Sony wasn't interested and they aren't open to the idea. like i said earlier people think sony is the white knight in all this, but it's not always the case.

Who said Sony was a white knight other than you?

 

[hoos30]

My understanding is the way to get around this parity clause is rerelease the game with a new version. So a game called "Hat"...would have to have "Hat Definitive Version" with some new stuff...and that would be okay. Anyone correct me if i'm wrong.

No, that was Sony, last gen. Late ports had to have extra features.

The MS "parity policy", as far as I can tell, is that they will accept late ports on a case by case basis, based on conversations between the dev and MS.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Of course it does.

Let's say they decide for financial reasons to go PC and PS4 first, because that's the biggest userbase and the best odds of being successful. So then, you're successful, and you want to bring it to XBO to make more money and further your financial stability. Now, you can't make the game for XBO, because Microsoft has a release date parity clause in place. You can decide after to be condescended to by Microsoft and have a 'meeting' with them in the principal's office to explain why it was not possible to release day and date. And then you have to hope your game was popular enough for them to make an exception.

On top of this, I'm a bit confused by reactions calling this smart business. Sure, Indie devs will lose out on sales. But also, isn't MS losing out on sales themselves? I would assume that they're still keeping the 70-30% sales split. So if the game doesn't release on X1 within a few months of release on other platforms, people may very well just go buy it on PS4 or PC. And that's lost money for MS.

 

[Impeccable]

There is also no evidence whatsoever that this is good business. In fact, any statistic we could point to might suggest the implication of the exact opposite.

So, I'd like to hear the people saying it's good business back that up with any real world facts.

Maybe the sense of luxury that comes with a gated community, only the best on Xbox. Makes the brand seem more exclusive and expensive. I don't get it, either.