Support NeoGAF

[RoboPlato]

Spencer learning from 2013 MS PR guys.

 

[Sorral]

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.

As far as I can tell, it actually isn't. It seemed that they were losing more indie games than gaining them if anything.

 

[oldergamer]

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.

Lol, I think I said exactly what I meant, yet Amir0x still hasn't painted a decent argument.

 

[ak1276]

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

Agreed. That's why I said 'feels'.

If you are going to say something, and it gets refuted BY THE VERY PEOPLE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, don't be surprised or feel victimized when someone throws it back in your face.

 

[xxracerxx]

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.

What are the apps that they make?

Lol, I think I said exactly what I meant, yet Amir0x still hasn't painted a decent argument.

This was a pretty decent argument.

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.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

Why are people continually overlooking the obvious clue that Spencer is being disingenuous here? A couple of people have already pointed it out but still it's being ignored, why?

This argument of 'market share' can only apply to the Parity clause at the moment, so what was the argument for the Parity clause before they lost market share? It doesn't add up. He's lying.

 

[Marcel]

Lol, I think I said exactly what I meant, yet Amir0x still hasn't painted a decent argument.

He's provided data and indie developer reaction to back up his claims, which is more than you can say where you just meander on about how you 'feel'.

 

[mcrommert]

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.

Perhaps that was something that i had heard from a specific dev.

 

[JayhawkerStL]

I'll tell you one thing, until we stop debating the merits of commercials, including threads praising or critiquing 30 second to 2 minutes commercials for upcoming video games, there is really no reason for anyone to take video game journalism and the discussion around it, seriously.

Car enthusiasts can be as bad as gamers, but you don't see the discussion of magazine and TV ads as worthy of real discussion. So yes, this was a dumb idea for a thread. And also, yes, it was dumb for everyone to spend more than 10 seconds thinking about what was wrong with that ad. Basically, it provided cover so that fanboys could wage yet another battle in the great console war. This is a war that 90% of the people buying games do not even know exists.

And if you waste time debating the accuracy of "90%," you are part of the problem.

These are consoles for playing games. There is no bad reason to enjoy the console you are enjoying. But if there was one, it sure as hell would not be the ads run by any console maker.

 

[Mass Effect]

Classism? That's just great...Hasn’t history proven that Marx’s vision of an egalitarian utopia is unattainable, inevitably creating an oligarchy more oppressive to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie it vilifies?

heh, this is oddly fitting considering...

the clause seems to be waived for the games that garner hype and a following. that's even more of a slap in the face to the less known studios.

the more the Xbone division changes the more it stays the same. I can't believe people were so sure that Spencer was going to bring some real changes to the way the division was run

Yep, this practice is completely antithetical to the entire idea of the parity clause.

Also definitely agree with you on that last part as well. The cult of personality surrounding him is starting to get annoying (though it does bring some amusing gifs).

And with the gap getting larger between the PS4 and Xbone, and with Steam growing so rapidly as well, hopefully this means more developers skipping the Xbox until Microsoft gets the picture. It seems like this is becoming the case more and more as time goes on.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

I'm pretty sure the best approach for most true indie devs (i.e. low resources, no cash flow) would be to target one platform to start. It costs the least money, resources, and the game will get done faster. If successfull, you can use the money to bankroll ports to other platforms. If you have the money/resources and confidence in the project, you can consider developing on 2 or more platforms in tandem.

The problem with the parity clause is that MS is insisting that xbox is among the first platfoms, whether the platform is an ideal start or not. This puts extra risk on the indie dev, and 'entering into conversations' doesn't really change that risk. Even if a staggered release is agreed to, the dev is making a commitment that is not in their best interests.

I agree with Spencer that the clause is in xbox consumers' best interests. Except for cases where indie devs decide not to release on xbox at all because the parity clause is prohibitive.

 

[Amir0x]

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

Who said Sony was a white knight other than you?

It's funny the people who think this is about system wars always keep trying to change the subject to other systems and all the wrong they're doing too. Can't just stay on topic because of how comically incorrect they are.

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.

From every angle we can look at, there is no business sense here. Xbox One indies haven't been performing extra well due to this policy; Xbox One and its gamers has received less games due to it; therefore Microsoft has received less revenue due to it; Xbox One indies who can't get on the system are hurt by a lost window of revenue.

Everyone is hurt. On top of that, there is no evidence -whatsoever- that it has improved sales anywhere else. Xbox One system? Being beat in every territory, save China, since Sony hasn't launched there. Is there any statistic that these people want to draw from that can imply anything remotely close to someone benefiting here?

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.

First citizens indeed

 

[Sword Of Doom]

He's saying a whole lot of nothing. I honestly can't make sense of what he's saying

 

[_Ryo_]

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.

That's kind of the point isn't it? I would think that indie devs would want to release on XB1 later... but are being forced to not release at all or either put their livelihood in jeopardy.

And how would everything in my numbered list happen without a parity clause? If they're confirmed for both systems and xbox one just gets it later I'd assume xbox fans would just wait until it releases and grab it rather than it pushing them further to buy a PS4 to get the game. So...

 

[Marcel]

I agree with Spencer that the clause is in xbox consumers' best interests. Except for cases where indie devs decide not to release on xbox at all because the parity clause is prohibitive.

"Me first" seems like a childish interest. Everyone should be able to play and enjoy great games regardless of platform, especially indies that are platform-agnostic.

 

[Goodacre0081]

We are a couple of guys making things. This was the only thing holding us back from X1 development. It was considered straight out of the gate for us. We have been approved for one of the big 3 and are in the process of courting another. MS isn't on our list. We don't have that kind of manpower or funding to push several builds at once. As it is, we are spreading them as lightly as possible but it is rough.

Not that we are amazing or any of you should care about us but I hope MS changes their tune in the future. It would help us little guys out big time to get that extra bit of help and exposure. Right now its just a pipe dream.

A few of my friends and I have come together to try our hand at developing games. We're all really excited and every time we move closer to finishing the game, it's like we're kids at Christmas. It's such an amazing feeling, but when you're so wrapped up in it, it's easy to forget the kind of bullshit that goes on in the "big leagues."

That's why we've all agreed that we want no part of it, regardless of whatever financial hit we take. If there are inane politics like this parity clause (unless you're big enough or important enough) involved in getting on a platform, fuck it. We don't exist to serve them.

We're all definitely a lot happier since we stopped worrying about this stupid parity thing and decided not to release on Xbox.

well, add these two the pile of developers who have decided not to go with XB1.

http://gamingbolt.com/xbox-one-pari...lains-why-ther-game-is-not-coming-on-xbox-one

http://gamingbolt.com/yet-another-game-may-not-come-to-the-xbox-one-due-to-parity-clause

http://www.computerandvideogames.co...uns-titan-attacks-the-swapper-and-mousecraft/

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...parity-clause-problematic-for-the-indie-scene

 

[Mass Effect]

I'll tell you one thing, until we stop debating the merits of commercials, including threads praising or critiquing 30 second to 2 minutes commercials for upcoming video games, there is really no reason for anyone to take video game journalism and the discussion around it, seriously...

Uh, wrong thread?

 

[oldergamer]

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'm sure you would admit, staggered releases can also hurt sales on one platform. Every independent developer needs to make platform decisions. Large or small. I've tried the indie thing back before the first iphone existed with a 4 person studio. much harder back then then it is now. Sony & MS wouldn't even give you a dev kit if you didn't have a publisher backing you.

With a two man team, could you even realistically consider more then one platform?

 

[Amir0x]

well, add these two the pile of developers who have decided not to go with XB1.

Blast Processor above also is an indie that says it's damaging.

Indies all say it. It's common sense.

With a two man team, could you even realistically consider more then one platform?

Yes. Because if the game is successful on the other platforms and they release it, those people working on the game are free to decide what to do next again. Then they can focus on another port if they like. Why is this concept difficult for you? Being small and having low funds means you have to prioritize. That includes being able to - in a perfect world without fucking assholes like Microsoft mucking shit up - dedicated resources after you're done with previous ports because you gained income from releasing the game on those other platforms.

 

[Dragon]

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

If you blindly support a company, you should act willfully ignorant. Looks like you have that covered statham!

 

[Stone Ocean]

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.

Wow

Do you play videogames to cope with inferiority issues or to have fun?

 

[xxracerxx]

http://www.computerandvideogames.co...uns-titan-attacks-the-swapper-and-mousecraft/

MS passing on The Swapper is just a dumb fucking move.

 

[Marcel]

MS passing on The Swapper is just a dumb fucking move.

As Miles Q. said, the indies only means of reprisal is to starve Microsoft out on their games until they change their policy. I think it's a losing battle since MS seems to not give a shit and they're doubling down on it now but it's definitely a battle worth having.

 

[Family Fry]

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.

Because they can't afford to?
I've already mentioned The Last Tinker, devs said they couldn't afford to port the xbox one version after low ps4 sales, so they cancelled xbox one version.

 

[hoos30]

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.

If a late game is popular and would likely generate decent sales, they'll let it through.
If a late game is not popular and would likely generate poor sales, they won't.

Last thing they want is for the Xbox store to look like the $5 DVD bin in the supermarket. You could say 30% of $5 is a "sale", but they are rich as hell and don't care about the last dollar as much as they do the perception of their store. Hence the "second class" comment.

 

[Marcel]

Because they can't afford to?
I've already mentioned The Last Tinker, devs said they couldn't afford to port the xbox one version after low ps4 sales, so they cancelled xbox one version.

To be fair, the game had its own set of problems, chiefly among them the critical reaction and not being aware of your buying market.

 

[oldergamer]

Yes. Because if the game is successful on the other platforms and they release it, those people working on the game are free to decide what to do next again. Then they can focus on another port if they like. Why is this concept difficult for you? Being small and having low funds means you have to prioritize. That includes being able to - in a perfect world without fucking assholes like Microsoft mucking shit up - dedicated resources after you're done with previous ports because you gained income from releasing the game on those other platforms.

I don't know of any two man development team that could support two platforms at once, and I've worked with many many developers. It would always be a case of releasing on one platform first so you can finish the game, or have overall longer development cycle to get both platforms at least close to each other in terms of release.

 

[mcrommert]

Wow

Do you play videogames to cope with inferiority issues or to have fun?

Its mostly because i wasn't hugged as a child

 

[Stone Ocean]

As Miles Q. said, the indies only means of reprisal is to starve Microsoft out on their games until they change their policy. I think it's a losing battle since MS seems to not give a shit and they're doubling down on it now but it's definitely a battle worth having.

Do indies even need Microsoft? PS4 is growing, they have PS3, Vita, Wii U, 3DS and Steam to work with.

If anything, this is a losing battle for Microsoft.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

At the last count there were 255 Indie developers making games for the XB1 and 1000 Indie developers making games for the PS4. How is the parity clause helping XB1 consumers?

 

[Toki767]

Do indies even need Microsoft? PS4 is growing, they have PS3, Vita, Wii U, 3DS and Steam to work with.

If anything, this is a losing battle for Microsoft.

Not necessarily need them, but I can imagine indie developers not only want their games on as many platforms as possible not only to make more money, but also so that more people can play their game.

At the last count there were 255 Indie developers making games for the XB1 and 1000 Indie developers making games for the PS4. How is the parity clause helping XB1 consumers?

The funny thing is that of those 255 Indie developers making games for Xbox One, you can probably safely assume a huge percentage of them will also put it out on PS4 down the line. The same can't be said about the 1000 indie developers making games for PS4 because of this parity clause.

 

[oldergamer]

"Our goal is not to limit developers who are interested in Xbox One. In instances where games have signed a timed exclusive with another platform, we'll work with them on a case by case basis. We encourage them to get in touch at id@xbox.com."

I didn't even see this quote but knew they would do it this way. Has anybody checked on any dev studios that released first on xbox one and if sony made it more difficult for them to release on PS4? I know for a fact MS is much more forgiving to indies in the submission phase compared to sony.

 

[Rymuth]

Why are people continually overlooking the obvious clue that Spencer is being disingenuous here? A couple of people have already pointed it out but still it's being ignored. why?.

He changes his shirt like five times during every conference.
He tweets you back.
What more do you want? Isn't that enough to declare him the anti-thesis to the Mattrick regime?

 

[plasmawave]

Don't think. Feel.

 

[Goodacre0081]

"Me first" seems like a childish interest. Everyone should be able to play and enjoy great games regardless of platform, especially indies that are platform-agnostic.

it also falls in line with the trend of "First on PS/Xbox" garbage we see with every major multiplatform release these days.

 

[TetraGenesis]

But MS will just ignore their policy when a game is a hit and they want to get on that.

It's a power play bullying tactic for games that aren't big yet to intimidate them to sign with Xbox first because PlayStation and Nintendo have more open policies by default.
They want any indie that is interested in consoles to think: I need to go with Xbox first, to maximize the platforms I can be on.

Precisely.

 

[Amir0x]

I don't know of any two man development team that could support two platforms at once, and I've worked with many many developers. It would always be a case of releasing on one platform first so you can finish the game, or have overall longer development cycle to get both platforms at least close to each other in terms of release.

1. HI, I'm indie developer 101. I am making a game. Hmm, I have a very tiny team and therefore need to decide what platform is smartest to release on first with the funds and team size I have.

2. Alright, after some consultation with my team, we have decided a PC and PS4 version, since that is the greatest odds of reaching the most gamers.

3. Ok guys, we've gone gold! Let's cross our fingers!

4. Wow, the game did really surprisingly well. We made a profit and can now decide what to do next. Let me ask my team!

5. We've decided we want Xbox One gamers to experience it too, so we're going to port our game to XBO.

6. After some meetings with Microsoft, they said they had to make a determination if our game will be able to launch on the system due to their parity clause.

7. They decided not to let our game release on the system.

8. Guess we're going to port our shit to Wii U.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Do indies even need Microsoft? PS4 is growing, they have PS3, Vita, Wii U, 3DS and Steam to work with.

If anything, this is a losing battle for Microsoft.

Not really. There's no real incentive unless Microsoft dumps money at your door. This sort of policy is good in theory but hurts your userbase more. Indies today may be the A developers of tomorrow or the AAA of the future and may well remember where they were able to build a fanbase and where they were welcome.

 

[BigDug13]

If a late game is popular and would likely generate decent sales, they'll let it through.
If a late game is not popular and would likely generate poor sales, they won't.

Last thing they want is for the Xbox store to look like the $5 DVD bin in the supermarket. You could say 30% of $5 is a "sale", but they are rich as hell and don't care about the last dollar as much as they do the perception of their store. Hence the "second class" comment.

Not sure where you got the idea that a parity clause somehow prevents shit games from being released. If a dev is capable of releasing a shit game on multiple platforms at the same time, then XBO gets that shit game all the same. This policy is not a measure of quality except the exceptions to parity granting.

 

[benny_a]

"Our goal is not to limit developers who are interested in Xbox One. In instances where games have signed a timed exclusive with another platform, we'll work with them on a case by case basis. We encourage them to get in touch at id@xbox.com."

I didn't even see this quote but knew they would do it this way. Has anybody checked on any dev studios that released first on xbox one and if sony made it more difficult for them to release on PS4? I know for a fact MS is much more forgiving to indies in the submission phase compared to sony.

You could ask the gaffer that made Dust if it was difficult for him.

But I'm sure your unique perspective with the lots of indie developers you've worked with that isn't being echoed at all from the actual developers in this thread or threads similar to this will confirm to you that Sony is the worst when it comes to this.

 

[Amir0x]

At the last count there were 255 Indie developers making games for the XB1 and 1000 Indie developers making games for the PS4. How is the parity clause helping XB1 consumers?

Curated, first-class market place. Don't hate.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Not necessarily need them, but I can imagine indie developers not only want their games on as many platforms as possible not only to make more money, but also so that more people can play their game.


The funny thing is that of those 255 Indie developers making games for Xbox One, you can probably safely assume a huge percentage of them will also put it out on PS4 down the line. The same can't be said about the 1000 indie developers making games for PS4 because of this parity clause.

Well yeah, indies want money like anyone else, but isn't the issue with the clause that it costs them money because of delays/extra porting work?

MS is basically asking indies to either lose money or lose money.

 

[BigDug13]

1. HI, I'm indie developer 101. I am making a game. Hmm, I have a very tiny team and therefore need to decide what platform is smartest to release on first with the funds and team size I have.

2. Alright, after some consultation with my team, we have decided a PC and PS4 version, since that is the greatest odds of reaching the most gamers.

3. Ok guys, we've gone gold! Let's cross our fingers!

4. Wow, the game did really surprisingly well. We made a profit and can now decide what to do next. Let me ask my team!

5. We've decided we want Xbox One gamers to experience it too, so we're going to port our game to XBO.

6. After some meetings with Microsoft, they said they had to make a determination if our game will be able to launch on the system due to their parity clause.

7. They decided not to let our game release on the system.

8. Guess we're going to port our shit to Wii U.

9. We're going to work on the Vita port because Sony gave us some benefits and tools to do it.

 

[Toki767]

Not sure where you got the idea that a parity clause somehow prevents shit games from being released. If a dev is capable of releasing a shit game on multiple platforms at the same time, then XBO gets that shit game all the same. This policy is not a measure of quality except the exceptions to parity granting.

I would have gladly waited for The Swapper on Xbox One even though it came out on PS4 first than Flockers just because they released at the same time.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

The funny thing is that of those 255 Indie developers making games for Xbox One, you can probably safely assume a huge percentage of them will also put it out on PS4 down the line. The same can't be said about the 1000 indie developers making games for PS4 because of this parity clause.

Most of those 255 Indies will probably be coming day one to PS4 anyway, but I don't mind if they come later. It won't make me feel like a 'second class citizen'.

 

[xxracerxx]

I know for a fact MS is much more forgiving to indies in the submission phase compared to sony.

How do you know?

 

[tfur]

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.

New button available.

 

[PhatSaqs]

That's kind of the point isn't it? I would think that indie devs would want to release on XB1 later... but are being forced to not release at all or either put their livelihood in jeopardy.

So if the X1 didnt exist would they still be putting their livelihood in jeopardy by creating a game? Lets not get too over the top with our arguments here....

And how would everything in my numbered list happen without a parity clause? If they're confirmed for both systems and xbox one just gets it later I'd assume xbox fans would just wait until it releases and grab it rather than it pushing them further to buy a PS4 to get the game. So...

Because these types of games are severely unhyped, usually fall way short of any sales compared to their initial releases, and dont do as much for the console maker getting the game later than it does upon initial release. And in the current climate, it's pretty easy to just accept money from Sony for timed exclusive promotion and not mention an X1 version until after that period is up which i'm pretty sure I've read has happened at least a time or two.

I can see the argument for both sides tho. You have the devs that want the luxury to do what they want and release whenever wherever to turn as much profit as possible. And you have MS saying giving Sony defacto timed exclusives because you chose to release their first does them more favors than us so no thanks to your sloppy seconds.

In their (MS) eyes, they dont win or gain much simply from allowing EVERY game that goes defacto PS4 timed exclusive to be released on X1 whenever. Thus the clause.

 

[Marcel]

"Our goal is not to limit developers who are interested in Xbox One. In instances where games have signed a timed exclusive with another platform, we'll work with them on a case by case basis. We encourage them to get in touch at id@xbox.com."

Did you miss the post where the indie developer said that dealing with this type of bureaucracy is a major time vampire?

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

9. We're going to work on the Vita port because Sony gave us some benefits and tools to do it.

10. It was Cross Buy and Vita owners really appreciated it.

11. Let's make our new game, now we have more cash, for PC, PS4, Vita and Wii U since those platforms worked for us.