Support NeoGAF

[oldergamer]

OK so are there any indie title that released first on xbox one and at a later date on PS4?

 

[Toki767]

Spencer just got Mattricked.

Or maybe Mattrick was the fall guy and Spencer was the real mastermind behind the initial Xbox One reveal.

 

[CambriaRising]

Spencer just got Mattricked.

He always was.

 

[bishoptl]

Show an example where they made an exception for financial hardship. Hard evidence only, please, not just Phil Spencer promising he has. And then, when you show us that evidence, demonstrate how that changes the policy still being bad.

But we have tons of examples where the parity clause has forced devs to be unable to release on the system, and tons of GAFers who are indies who said it has been hurtful

Indies all expressing displeasure with the policy
GAF Indie Devs Speaking Up

Let's see, so far...

games by metascore NOT available on the other console:

score   PS4     Xbox
90+       3        2
80+      21        3

Link

That's just for those games 80+ too. See that gap? That's mostly all indies. That have not come to Xbox One. Partly because of the parity clause.

Let's see... there are nearly 300 indie devs ready to make games for XBO; there are over 1000 ready to make games for PS4. Many of those decisions were also made due to the parity clause.

Is this parity clause helping sales? Not by any sales numbers we can see. Xbox One indies are not selling particularly better in any reports we got; Xbox One and the fans of XBO are indisputably receiving less good solid games because of it. And on top of that they keep opening up these horrible PR wounds and showing they're still total dicks sometimes. So, in what way in your estimation has this disastrous policy helped anyone, including MS?

Please, describe how our "mob mentality" is even remotely wrong based on the evidence before us?

Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em

 

[walltowall]

Deflect huh?

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...

Preach it Miles!

 

[benny_a]

i'm actually very interested in hearing if any of the devs that have posted here have tried to talk to MS and have gotten a response to see if MS really is willing to work with them or if its just bs.

Unfortunately the ones that have come forward and have identifiable names are tainted, because MS reads GAF so they will be accommodated. So they will be unable to test the claim.

That is good for them, but for the ones that don't speak up the clause will still pose a problem.

 

[Marcel]

He always was.

Phil Spencer is secretly Don Mattrick, who also secretly had Benjamin Button disease. I believe it.

 

[Bedlam]

So, bottom line (from an indie dev perspective): if you aren't one of those handful of well-known "indie" dev darlings whose games get hyped years in advance, you're just shit out of luck with MS. Great.

 

[serversurfer]

I probably have read every post.

I don't think there were many people that talked about what you're talking about. It was about the release date.

The quote you use does not exist in this thread either. There were some people speculating that this reinforcement by Phil means that the other parity stuff might be true.

"Might" be true? We already know that MS demand that developers deliver feature parity across both platforms.

Developers aren't allowed to make the PS version of their game superior unless MS say it's okay.

 

[GeoramA]

That's a very sleazy way to defend a sleazy ass parity policy.

This has definitely been foot-in-mouth week, holy shit.

 

[Toki767]

OK so are there any indie title that released first on xbox one and at a later date on PS4?

I can't even find a list of the indie games that are currently out on Xbox One. I'm guessing there are only like 10 of them too. Half of which are probably already out on PS4.

 

[grumble]

Edit: ^ lol bish



Extremely sad. Every link, every indie post, every obvious bulletpoint proving they have absolutely no merit to their arguments is just casually cast aside because they can't admit it's bullshit.

These remaining few also have echoed a bunch of times about how this is somehow good for Microsoft's business, but curiously when pressed, not a single one has backed up how with anything even tangentially related to real world facts. But everyone on the other side keeps dropping a mountain of facts.

This conversation has been so one sided it's hilarious

They know it's bullshit. The policy is in place to hurt their competitors and help them, not help developers or consumers. This is just pr babble to muddy things enough that people stop complaining

 

[Xando]

The sad thing is you can do this with Ubisoft PR and it would never hit 7 days without accident.

 

[Nafai1123]

So, bottom line: if you aren't one of those handful of well-known "indie" devs whose games get hyped years before they come out, you're just shit out of luck with MS. Great.

Don't worry, I'm sure if your game ends up being a knock out hit MS will be happy to have a conversation with you!

 

[FZW]

That's how I always viewed the parity clause. I don't have an issue with it.

yea me neither

 

[benny_a]

"Might" be true? We already know that MS demand that developers deliver feature parity across both platforms.

Developers aren't allowed to make the PS version of their game superior unless MS say it's okay.

I wasn't specific enough, I meant the current AC: Unity parity PRapolooza.

 

[kaching]

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.

There are however solutions that better balance the best interests of all three. It's incredibly cynical to suggest otherwise.

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.

As a platform holder, your goal is to make your platform an attractive destination for as many devs and consumers as possible by way of _adding_ value rather than subtracting value from the market overall. You don't just want to grab the most marketshare, you want to help grow the market as well. If you feel the need to engage in behavior that locks out opportunities for all market players to prosper as much as possible, how is that actually benefitting anyone? It's myopic thinking that's self-destructive in its short-sighted selfishness.

Bottom-line is that if MS really thinks the best way to get ahead is by handicapping their competitors, that's not a winning argument for anyone, including XBO customers. It's basically taking the stance that the market isn't big enough for everyone to succeed and they have no desire to grow the market and prevent stagnation, so they'll just run in and take what they can get while it lasts.

 

[Kayant]

I can't even find a list of the indie games that are currently out on Xbox One. I'm guessing there are only like 10 of them too. Half of which are probably already out on PS4.

This should help a bit - http://www.listwar.com/released-games/

 

[Family Fry]

I can't even find a list of the indie games that are currently out on Xbox One. I'm guessing there are only like 10 of them too. Half of which are probably already out on PS4.

22 self-published indie games on xbox one.
Don't think there has been one instance of there being an xbox one version before ps4, unless super time force goes over next year.

 

[cyber_ninja]

New button available.

This is the most puncheble face ever...

 

[FZW]

OK so are there any indie title that released first on xbox one and at a later date on PS4?

Fibbage and a few more.

 

[Amir0x]

22 self-published indie games on xbox one.
Don't think there has been one instance of there being an xbox one version before ps4, unless super time force goes over next year.

Not yet, but it's going to happen. For example, Below has already been confirmed to be timed exclusive on XBO and is almost certainly going to PS4 from the hints Capy keeps dropping.

 

[serversurfer]

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...

I wouldn't say it's the only way. As consumers, it's our responsibility to put a stop to these shenanigans by not buying MS products in the first place, thereby giving them the power to enforce the policies which are harming us.

 

[FonkyByNature]

Show an example where they made an exception for financial hardship. Hard evidence only, please, not just Phil Spencer promising he has. And then, when you show us that evidence, demonstrate how that changes the policy still being bad.

But we have tons of examples where the parity clause has forced devs to be unable to release on the system, and tons of GAFers who are indies who said it has been hurtful

Indies all expressing displeasure with the policy
GAF Indie Devs Speaking Up

Let's see, so far...

games by metascore NOT available on the other console:

score   PS4     Xbox
90+       3        2
80+      21        3

Link

That's just for those games 80+ too. See that gap? That's mostly all indies. That have not come to Xbox One. Partly because of the parity clause.

Let's see... there are nearly 300 indie devs ready to make games for XBO; there are over 1000 ready to make games for PS4. Many of those decisions were also made due to the parity clause.

Is this parity clause helping sales? Not by any sales numbers we can see. Xbox One indies are not selling particularly better in any reports we got; Xbox One and the fans of XBO are indisputably receiving less good solid games because of it. And on top of that they keep opening up these horrible PR wounds and showing they're still total dicks sometimes. So, in what way in your estimation has this disastrous policy helped anyone, including MS?

Please, describe how our "mob mentality" is even remotely wrong based on the evidence before us?

Damn Amir0x, solid arguments !

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Preach it Miles!

JAW, among others, were leading the charge with how vocal they were about the parity clause and how it negatively affected them and their games and then this happened...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-10-oddworld-new-n-tasty-coming-to-xbox-one-later-this-year

Still disappointed and somewhat pissed that JAW didn't stick to their guns. I get that they want the game on as many platforms as possible, but this was a disappointing decision.

 

[Marcel]

Damn Amir0x, solid arguments !

I don't think that person who got trounced will be back.

 

[Amir0x]

I don't think that person who got trounced will be back.

Miles actually just provided the evidence I was thinking of when i said 'show an example of them making an exception for the financial allowance.' But notice how even then the devs don't say the policy is good, and notice how it doesn't actually change the point about how bad the policy is.

Because think of it: why should any dev even have to go through the headache of hoping their game is popular enough to receive an exception? Does anyone realize how frustrating that sort of red tape is to navigate, especially when you're a small team strapped for funds?

 

[serversurfer]

I wasn't specific enough, I meant the current AC: Unity parity PRapolooza.

I'm not seeing the difference. We know MS were holding devs to feature parity a few years ago. Perhaps that's the one parity clause they've actually been willing to drop, but Untiy and Diablo would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[Opiate]

Really the only plausible argument in favor of this policy is that you'd rather not get games at all than get games after someone else.

I think that's a nearly insane preference to hold, but it's not wrong in itself. If you are a typical person who would rather have games late than not have them at all, then this policy is demonstrably hurting you in significant ways. We're talking about the Xbox getting 1/3 as much Indie support as the PS4 has.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I wouldn't say it's the only way. As consumers, it's our responsibility to put a stop to these shenanigans by not buying MS products in the first place, thereby giving them the power to enforce the policies which are harming us.

It's the fastest, most efficient way to get MS to drop the clause.

As for not buying their product, it's not like their trouncing at the hands of Sony over the past year has done much to see them drop the clause. Quite he opposite as they've seemingly doubled down on it with claims of wanting their userbase to feel special.

 

[CambriaRising]

It's the fastest, most efficient way to get MS to drop the clause.

As for not buying their product, it's not like their trouncing at the hands of Sony over the past year has done much to see them drop the clause. Quite he opposite as they've seemingly doubled down on it with claims of wanting their userbase to feel special.

Its really baffling when you consider the position they are in. The sales gap is widening every month.

 

[serversurfer]

As for not buying their product, it's not like their trouncing at the hands of Sony over the past year has done much to see them drop the clause. Quite he opposite as they've seemingly doubled down on it with claims of wanting their userbase to feel special.

I didn't say it would be easy or pleasant.

 

[Opiate]

Its really baffling when you consider the position they are in. The sales gap is widening every month.

Well, the other part of their "position" which cannot be forgotten is that Microsoft is, at the end of the day, also the owner of Windows. They already have a platform that is even more open than the PS4, and may feel they need to differentiate their own products.

That doesn't make the choice right, mind you. I'm just trying to think of possible explanations for why Microsoft would think like this.

 

[HighResTomato]

It was actually a shit argument because that is describing the situation where Phil says they can make an exception, if it is because of financial hardship. The available evidence directly contradicts the argument.

The times they might actually enforce it is if maybe Sony money hatted a financially stable indie studio, and that studio just don't care about the xbox platform except as an afterthought.

This actual parity clause has nothing to do with features, but is to give an incentive to developers not to treat the platform as a second-class citizen.

It is a good decision for a company to make on behalf of its own consumers. Developers that want to slight the xbox platform can, but they will be leaving money on the table. I personally appreciate it as a platform holder. If it didn't exist, then I see a lot of developers only coming out with an xbox version a year or so later, Sony gets a giant bag of free virtual exclusives, and fanboys will have more arrows in their quiver for saying the xbox is a shit platform that should die.

So I really don't see the outrage against this, especially if you claim to be of the belief that all gamers should be treated equally, regardless of platform.

The problem is the parity is now a hate-inducing buzzword that sends people flipping tables without actually reasoning the situation. Look at how many posters in this thread are talking about this "holding back other platforms" when the actual discussion is about release dates. But they spout off without thinking, thus further spreading FUD because they scream louder than anyone else.

I really wish gamers as a community would tend less to mob mentality.

Hot damn that post.

 

[Marcel]

Miles actually just provided the evidence I was thinking of when i said 'show an example of them making an exception for the financial allowance.' But notice how even then the devs don't say the policy is good, and notice how it doesn't actually change the point about how bad the policy is.

Because think of it: why should any dev even have to go through the headache of hoping their game is popular enough to receive an exception? Does anyone realize how frustrating that sort of red tape is to navigate, especially when you're a small team strapped for funds?

As the indie developer in here mentioned earlier, bureaucracy is a time vampire. I'm sure they would rather spend that time making their game better rather than dealing with the self-fellating and draconian rules of a company who is licking their wounds over being second place.

 

[Patroclos]

That's a very sleazy way to defend a sleazy ass parity policy.

This has definitely been foot-in-mouth week, holy shit.

It's even more sleazy because it simply isn't true. The parity clause has nothing to do with "market share" it has been in place since before the console was released. They were not losing in market share then. It's typical obfuscation and narrative changing behavior from Spencer & Co. in Redmond.

Phil, please stop being a disingenuous PR mouthpiece and focus on shoring up your first party games, develop more great IP and MAKE Xbox One a VIABLE place to play. Own and accept the fact that from an objective standpoint that it will NOT be the best place to play this gen. In fact, if you change your corporate mindset and culture within the division you might even still have a shot at that title.

Tic..Tic..Tic..Tic..Tic..

Time is running out my friend...

 

[PhatSaqs]

Really the only plausible argument in favor of this policy is that you'd rather not get games at all than get games after someone else.

I think that's a nearly insane preference to hold, but it's not wrong in itself. If you are a typical person who would rather have games late than not have them at all, then this policy is demonstrably hurting you in significant ways. We're talking about the Xbox getting 1/3 as much Indie support as the PS4 has.

Truth.

 

[Ultimatum]

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.

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.

It really sucks you've been turned away from a platform (and potential revenue) due to this clause. I'm thinking maybe I was wrong in my arguments earlier so I tweeted Phill Spencer rather than joining in on the sony fanboy circle jerk express #yolo

https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/520266267534438401

hopefully something good can come of this

Extremely sad. Every link, every indie post, every obvious bulletpoint proving they have absolutely no merit to their arguments is just casually cast aside because they can't admit it's bullshit.

sigh

this is my post explaining why I think it's good business for MS

it's a business decision, and it's the right one. If MS removed the clause, indie devs would still get all the benefits of working with MS' indie program, but in 99% of cases they would prioritise the PS4 version since it has higher market share. If a majority of games are releasing first on PS4 then it is damaging to Xbox. I love indie games, and I will always support indie studios, but this clause is a necessary evil.

Unless an insider can provide us information on the negotiations Phil is talking about, then we have no idea how damaging this clause really is to indie devs.

I still think the clause is okay (and the right business decision), it just needs more lenient exception rules for situations where the devs can't afford to develop multiple versions concurrently (assuming that isn't the case already).

 

[Amir0x]

Well, the other part of their "position" which cannot be forgotten is that Microsoft is, at the end of the day, also the owner of Windows. They already have a platform that is even more open than the PS4, and may feel they need to differentiate their own products.

That doesn't make the choice right, mind you. I'm just trying to think of possible explanations for why Microsoft would think like this.

I just don't actually see the financial benefit of this move from MS position. Can you think of any way this works for them as a business? I've been trying genuinely but cannot. I mean, I'm trying to figure out an angle here where I can say there is at least something that makes sense about this. :/

this is my post explaining why I think it's good business for MS

Not only did this fail to present any hard evidence for your vague claim that "if a game releases first on PS4 it's damaging to Xbox", but I've released about a thousand counter claims backed by actual hard evidence that shows how it is damaging them, by the numbers.

 

[bishoptl]

Hot damn that post.

He was flat out wrong at nearly every turn.

What are you applauding?

 

[BitStyle]

Why this policy is still a thing continues to boggle my mind. I mean, it will only serve to hurt Microsoft in the long run, as more and more indies decide that release date parity isn't worth the extra investments.

 

[prwxv3]

It really sucks you've been turned away from a platform (and potential revenue) due to this clause. I'm thinking maybe I was wrong in my arguments earlier so I tweeted Phill Spencer rather than joining in on the sony fanboy circle jerk express #yolo

https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/520266267534438401

hopefully something good can come of this



sigh

this is my post explaining why I think it's good business for MS



I still think the clause is okay (and the right business decision), it just needs more lenient exception rules for situations where the devs can't afford to develop multiple versions concurrently (assuming that isn't the case already).

hahaha oh wow

 

[Marcel]

It really sucks you've been turned away from a platform (and potential revenue) due to this clause. I'm thinking maybe I was wrong in my arguments earlier so I tweeted Phill Spencer rather than joining in on the sony fanboy circle jerk express #yolo

https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/520266267534438401

I'm not sure why this GameFAQs-tier bullshit is helpful when you're posting actual useful information about Spencer's reaction. It's like you're doing this out of spite.

 

[bishoptl]

I'm fairly certain Ultimatum was being tongue-in-cheek with that crack.

 

[xxracerxx]

I hope the parity does change, but I am doubtful

 

[Patroclos]

I'm not seeing the difference. We know MS were holding devs to feature parity a few years ago. Perhaps that's the one parity clause they've actually been willing to drop, but Untiy and Diablo would seem to indicate otherwise.

Diablo was aligned with Sony I believe, as was Destiny. I think they (MS) put extra effort into bringing those titles up to par. That is commendable, handicapping titles on other systems, allegedly Unity, is not.

 

[BitStyle]

It really sucks you've been turned away from a platform (and potential revenue) due to this clause. I'm thinking maybe I was wrong in my arguments earlier so I tweeted Phill Spencer rather than joining in on the sony fanboy circle jerk express #yolo

It's things like this that convince me you must be a joke account.

In regards to the tweet: actions speak louder than words; I want to see some tangible results from their feedback collection.

 

[Impeccable]

hahaha oh wow

Not only that but Phil, who is good at tweeting what people want to hear supposedly hears the feedback meaning the Sony Pony Expres #yolo or whatever he said is doing work.

 

[Toki767]

It really sucks you've been turned away from a platform (and potential revenue) due to this clause. I'm thinking maybe I was wrong in my arguments earlier so I tweeted Phill Spencer rather than joining in on the sony fanboy circle jerk express #yolo

https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/520266267534438401

hopefully something good can come of this

So when Phil changes his mind on this parity clause and people start believing in Phil Spencer again, things like what people are saying in this thread have nothing to do with it right?

 

[hawk2025]

Why are people posting gifs and applauding a demonstrably false post?

Regarding BruiserBear's love for the free market:

The parity clause is a Most Favored Nation clause, in business terms. These clauses over the past five years have been debated and investigated by the DOJ and academic researchers for being anti-competitive. It's the exact opposite of being pro free market.