Support NeoGAF

[hydrophilic attack]

But is there any group of people where XB1 owners are the obvious majority?

People that own Surface iPads.

 

[BigDug13]

People that own Surface iPads.

Uh oh. Has the word ipad become synonymous with tablet where people use the word ipad to describe every company's tablet? Like band-aid, "coke", etc?

 

[jelly]

MS likely think they only need to cherry pick the best and that will suffice while trying to kneecap the PS4 with this policy but the horse has already left the gate and isn't within reach.

 

[nynt9]

Maybe, maybe not. But for a company that is concerned with those loyal to their ecosystem to change policy it helps that change is demanded by those loyalist.

Look at all the policy changes that MS has enacted over the last year, plus as Chubs joking pointed out, the OS updates. MS is listening to their consumer base, and trying to shape their product the the wants of that base.

The point is that if those who own XB1s don't become the vocal majority the incentive for MS to change policy isn't there.

That's where you're wrong. They need to listen to people who don't have xbones so that they can sell those people xbones. If you consistently ignore the concerns of potential consumers, they will ignore your product and go with the obviously better competing product.

But is there any group of people where XB1 owners are the obvious majority?

Places like /r/xboxone, which is a pretty amusing place.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

I don't agree with the parity clause, but BruiserBear does have a point. The people who are "upset" don't even own a X1. I don't see any X1 owner really voicing that they dislike the for clause.

I'd classify myself as a pretty hardcore Xbox One fan... I'm a Microsoft Xbox MVP even...and the indie parity clause is NOT okay.

Apparently, they've persuaded about 300 indies to hold off on publishing the PS4 version of their game, so they probably see that as a win for their side.

Besides, as MS supporters are fond of pointing out, they don't actually need anyone else's money; they just feel like they should have it on principle. And maximizing returns while minimizing effort is just smart business.

What? Lol...

Going to assume you think that that is the amount of devs in the ID@Xbox program and that ALL of them are holding back games? You are vastly wrong on both the number of devs in ID, and wrong to assume that every one of them had plans to launch on PS4 first. So please, stop making stuff up with posts like that.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

edit: sorry for Double post.

 

[QaaQer]

In this post, you seem to be arguing that because Microsoft's policy wasn't 100% successful, it can't be considered anticompetitive. Actually, right at the end, you made a subtle shift to it not being "anti-consumer," but yeah, it's anti-consumer too; they're hurting their own development partners, they're hurting their competition, they're hurting their competitor's customers, and thanks to the backfire they're hurting their own customers too.

The policy is in place solely to unfairly hamstring their competition. That's anti-competetive, regardless of the actual effectiveness of the policy.

and harkens back to when they would sabotage things like Wordperfect, lotusnotes, and Netscape with undocumented 'updates' to Windows.

 

[QaaQer]

I have absolutely no problem with people who disagree with the parity clause. I don't personally object to it, but I have no problem with anyone else not liking it. I've made that quite clear.

BUT, you can't browse this thread and not see a lot of people who are really just being opportunists, and jumping on the opportunity to attack Microsoft and tell us how they don't want indie devs to feed their families. That is the sub narrative of this thread, regardless of people wanting to admit it. I have yet to a see an XB1 owner in this thread saying "man, I'm so mad this policy is keeping all these great games off the XB1".

It helps if you quote actual people when spreading your own 'narrative'.

 

[Discusguy]

I don't MS cherry picking indie games as it means more quality over quantity.

 

[Family Fry]

I wouldn't say MS are cherry picking or even that they have "persuaded" 300 devs to make xbox one versions and delay others.

I've spoken to a couple of devs who are working on PC/xbone one versions of games because they haven't got, couldn't get or simply can't afford a wii u/ps4 dev kit and MS sent them dev kits first, so they started making those versions.

I know Crazy Viking Studios 'Volgarr the Viking' devs have said they would love to make other versions and are hoping that the xbox one version can help them fund dev kits if and when they can get them.

 

[Peltz]

I've already made it clear what I consider to be anticompetitive. You're looking for a specific definition you can defeat through pedantry, but again, semantic acrobatics don't impress me. Wrong is wrong.

And I don't disagree with the legal definition of anticompetitive. I just don't try to pretend it's comprehensive, either in a legal sense, or in a "common use" sense. What I do disagree with it the implication that because their behavior isn't explicitly illegal, it's perfectly acceptable and/or not worthy of debate.



Why do you think it's wrong? I think it's wrong because Microsoft are pressuring their suppliers in to shorting Microsoft's competition, thereby eliminating said competition's legitimate advantage. To me, that's anticompetitive, and therefore, wrong.

I think it's wrong for the same reasons as well as the fact that it's a bad business decision that will harm Microsoft's own brand. So, you and I agree on almost everything. We have the same normative underpinnings and see eye to eye on that.

However, here is where we disagree: just because it's wrong morally, and bad business in this specific context doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed. Microsoft's behavior will be corrected by the market, then internally, as consumers continue to disapprove of their tactics, and their marketshare continues to slip away as a result.

But it would be wrong to "ban" this type of behavior, and it is not fair to call it something that is anti-competitive, when it really isn't. Harming competition isn't the definition of anti-competitive -- even under a common layman's use of the term. Rather, there has to be some semblance of manipulating free trade and consumers in a non-transparent fashion for it to be anti-competitive.

Release parity deals like this cannot be totally transparent and anti-competitive at the same time. It's fair game, and horribly pro-competitive to demand release-date-parity in exchange for being able to release a game on Microsoft's platform.

And why is that? Well, imagine this tactic in other contexts:

Movie theatres: Would it be wrong for one movie theatre to refuse to show a 6 month old movie from a studio that released it in a rival theatres in the same city first? Especially if the movie didn't perform well? Would it be anti-competitive for a movie theatre to have a policy that they only show the latest releases? I don't think so, and I think you could understand why.

Clothing stores: could we blame a store that didn't want to feature a jacket that was from last season? I think we'd feel fine with them refusing it and we wouldn't call it "anti-competitive" for not having release date parity on a once-hot fashion item that has since lost its appeal.

In the abstract, it's okay for distribution companies to play hardball with suppliers who favor other marketplaces/storefronts first. That's what Microsoft is doing, and it's in the spirit of competition. It's not anti-competitive at all. I don't like it, and I think it's dumb on their part, especially because the demand for indie games on the platform is higher than they realize. But again, even if it's wrong that doesn't make it "dirty" or "anti-competitive".

 

[chubigans]

It helps if you quote actual people when spreading your own 'narrative'.

I'm surprised the mods haven't challenged him on this.

 

[EGM1966]

So just to catch up, the past two pages have basically been,

"You can only complain about a terrible clause if you own the specific system", which is terrible. You know it's basically like saying "If you're not gay you can't complain about laws that negatively affect the gay community"

and

"If you're a good indie the Microsoft will bargain with you against the clause", so wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Cause if you're good and popular, sure release it here too (for whatever Microsoft bargain for), if you're not, then either screw yourself out of sales from other places if you want to be on our system at all.

Yup that covers it nicely. Can't be bothered discussing it further myself, seems little point.

I figure let current trends continue. PS4 install base advantage can continue to grow making the choice easier for devs to ignore the clause and target the higher install base first; after all if the game is a hit MS will clearly waive their own policies retroactively to bring the title to their customer base at a later point - the feel of first class I guess.

The developers who feel this policy actively hurts them certainly have my sympathy but it seems for many the issue "doesn't matter and XB1 owners don't care" and MS seem to have the same view . Makes the choice of platform to support even easier I'd imagine.

Funny though, you'd think MS would be keen to remove any and all barriers to platform sales, but no, not entirely I guess.

 

[Toki767]

I wouldn't say MS are cherry picking or even that they have "persuaded" 300 devs to make xbox one versions and delay others.

I've spoken to a couple of devs who are working on PC/xbone one versions of games because they haven't got, couldn't get or simply can't afford a wii u/ps4 dev kit and MS sent them dev kits first, so they started making those versions.

I know Crazy Viking Studios 'Volgarr the Viking' devs have said they would love to make other versions and are hoping that the xbox one version can help them fund dev kits if and when they can get them.

Which is fine. No one's saying indies can't appear on Xbox One first. The stupid thing would be if Sony or Nintendo didn't allow Volgarr the Viking on their platforms just because it appeared on Xbox One first. Which is what Microsoft is doing here with their parity clause.

 

[tkalamba]

Which is fine. No one's saying indies can't appear on Xbox One first. The stupid thing would be if Sony or Nintendo didn't allow Volgarr the Viking on their platforms just because it appeared on Xbox One first. Which is what Microsoft is doing here with their parity clause.

Aren't there plenty of demonstrated cases already where they in fact have released games that have launched on other platforms first?

 

[Toki767]

Aren't there plenty of demonstrated cases already where they in fact have released games that have launched on other platforms first?

No? The only one that comes to mind is Outlast.

 

[Family Fry]

Aren't there plenty of demonstrated cases already where they in fact have released games that have launched on other platforms first?

Yeah there are only a few.
Outlast, Contrast, Stick it to the Man, and Warframe.

 

[tkalamba]

No? The only one that comes to mind is Outlast.

Didn't Strike Suit Zero see a PC release before Xbox One? DiveKick is supposed to release on Xbox One, and it's already on PS3, Vita and PC.1001 Spikes should also be seeing release on Xbox One, already on WiiU and PC. I've seen people mention threes! or whatever its called which I'm pretty sure is an app on iTunes.

These are just games I can think of in about 30 seconds time and I don't even follow Indie titles much.

 

[Toki767]

Yeah there are only a few.
Outlast, Contrast, Stick it to the Man, and Warframe.

There was a loophole though right? Something about signed before the whole ID@Xbox thing was officially announced or something. Those games might have just fallen under that loophole.

Didn't Strike Suit Zero see a PC release before Xbox One? DiveKick is supposed to release on Xbox One, and it's already on PS3, Vita and PC.1001 Spikes should also be seeing release on Xbox One, already on WiiU and PC. I've seen people mention threes! or whatever its called which I'm pretty sure is an app on iTunes.

These are just games I can think of in about 30 seconds time and I don't even follow Indie titles much.

I don't think the policy applies to PC releases. It seems kind of clear that this policy is really only against the PS4 (and maybe to a lesser degree the Wii U?)

 

[Mass Effect]

Uh oh. Has the word ipad become synonymous with tablet where people use the word ipad to describe every company's tablet? Like band-aid, "coke", etc?

It seems like it. I remember during one of the football games (I think it was Broncos vs Seakhawks? w/e, it's not important) the announcers referred to the Surface Pro tablets the teams use as "iPad-like tablets."

You know Microsoft was angry at that slip up.

 

[tkalamba]

There was a loophole though right? Something about signed before the whole ID@Xbox thing was officially announced or something. Those games might have just fallen under that loophole.



I don't think the policy applies to PC releases. It seems kind of clear that this policy is really only against the PS4 (and maybe to a lesser degree the Wii U?)

I don't think the policy states any platforms specifically in it. I could be wrong, I haven't been following this much. Just recall seeing indie titles both released and unreleased on other platforms.

Edit: quick question for anyone that has followed this more than I have. Is MS still offering the free dev kits + Unity stuff for Indies as part of ID@Xbox or w.e its called?

 

[fallingdove]

Where are the "in Phil we trust" group now?

Phil was a part of the group that put the Xbone and its initial policies together - why there ever was an assumption that he would usher in a complete reversal of Microsoft's shittiness, I'll never know.

I will say this though, as horrible as this Parity garbage is, bravo Microsoft for grabbing Iron Galaxy to make Killer Instinct Season 2. From the looks of it, they fixed most of the issues I had with season 1. If Phil really wanted to engender trust and make Xbone owners feel like they are 1st class, focus more on projects like Killer Instinct and forget about parity. Microsoft has too much potential with the Xbone for it to be squandered on nonsense.

 

[Grady]

'I'm going to go do a special game on one platform and then I'll get to Xbox whenever I get to it.' I don't think that's right."

Turns around and makes Tomb Raider deal. Sure Phil, fucking hipocrite.

 

[Family Fry]

There was a loophole though right? Something about signed before the whole ID@Xbox thing was officially announced or something. Those games might have just fallen under that loophole.

I don't think the policy applies to PC releases. It seems kind of clear that this policy is really only against the PS4 (and maybe to a lesser degree the Wii U?)

Yeah it is possible they fall under a loophole or MS talked to the developers about it. I know Compulsion Games (Contrast devs) spoke about it on reddit AMA.

So... console parity clause - care to elaborate how you got round that?

Hah, this had to be the first question, didn't it?
So, I'll preface the answer by saying that we have been asking Microsoft for years to allow developers to self publish. We had been talking about self publishing Contrast since at least early 2012, to anyone at MS who would listen. When self publishing was announced for MS, it took us by surprise - we had no idea it was coming, which is a bit of a bugger because we had just signed a publishing deal for the 360. So, when they announced it, we were already committed to four platforms on launch, and for an 8 person team, that's pretty crazy already.
However, we still asked for dev kits from the middle of last year. Unfortunately, it took some time (as you guys know) for the ID program to get up and running, and we didn't get kits until after release. I think that's pretty reasonable - Microsoft was creating a new program, and priority probably should have gone to other devs who were not launching on other platforms, who wanted kits. But, obviously it meant that we couldn't have launched on Xbox One even if we tried.
I think that's the gist of why we "got around" the parity clause. But Microsoft's reasoning is their own. They are pretty flexible in unique situations, which I think is a good thing.

 

[USC-fan]

Aren't there plenty of demonstrated cases already where they in fact have released games that have launched on other platforms first?

The work around was if you had a deal with another company before this policy came out this didnt apply to your game.

 

[Patroclos]

I will say this though, as horrible as this Parity garbage is, bravo Microsoft for grabbing Iron Galaxy to make Killer Instinct Season 2. From the looks of it, they fixed most of the issues I had with season 1. If Phil really wanted to engender trust and make Xbone owners feel like they are 1st class, focus more on projects like Killer Instinct and forget about parity. Microsoft has too much potential with the Xbone for it to be squandered on nonsense.

Thank You!! Here is my take, the Xbox One will not be the most powerful system this gen. Wise up and recognize Microsoft! Stop trying to obfuscate and using underhanded methods/tactics in everything you do. Make your box distinct enough that people want it for the irresistible content they cannot get anywhere else. Do this not through enforced parity and moneyhats, do it through creativity and originality.

Sadly, my hopes are not high, creativity and originality are something Microsoft do not excel at. I have not seen it in their Xbox division since midway through the 360's life cycle.

 

[benny_a]

Thank You!! Here is my take, the Xbox One will not be the most powerful system this gen. Wise up and recognize Microsoft! Stop trying to obfuscate and using underhanded methods/tactics in everything you do. Make your box distinct enough that people want it for the irresistible content they cannot get anywhere else. Do this not through enforced parity and moneyhats, do it through creativity and originality.

Basically this: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-08-14-microsofts-chequebook-warfare-is-bound-to-fail

 

[serversurfer]

SERIOUSLY? WTF

Umm yeah? That's how many devs have joined the program which enforces launch parity, right?

Is there a source for that number?

Seems somewhat unbelievable.

Maybe earlier in the thread? By the time I got here, people were talking about ID having about 300 members as though it were true. Is it not?

Going to assume you think that that is the amount of devs in the ID@Xbox program and that ALL of them are holding back games? You are vastly wrong on both the number of devs in ID, and wrong to assume that every one of them had plans to launch on PS4 first. So please, stop making stuff up with posts like that.

How many members does ID have? As I said, I think I saw 285 and 300 mentioned in the thread. Is that not accurate?

And no, not all of them will have agreed to delay their PS4 game. MS like to imply they make exceptions in special cases, but the only exceptions I personally know of were developers who heard about the ID program's parity clause before it was officially announced, and scrambled to sign an exclusivity deal with Sony before it was. Perhaps they've made other exceptions for Mojang-class devs and/or devs who've managed to get some public outcry going, but I don't personally know of any, and I imagine such exceptions are few and far between.

Then you'll have fanboys who never planned to release on PlayStation because reasons, but I can't imagine that makes up a large fraction of their members.

So no, not all of them will have agreed to delay a PS4 game, but it seems likely the vast majority of them have done so. Hence, "about 300." Even if 10% managed to get an exception, that's still 270 who didn't, which I'd still consider "about 300."

That said, it sounds like you have a more accurate number you can share? Where did you get it?

Well, imagine this tactic in other contexts:

Movie theatres: Would it be wrong for one movie theatre to refuse to show a 6 month old movie from a studio that released it in a rival theatres in the same city first? Especially if the movie didn't perform well? Would it be anti-competitive for a movie theatre to have a policy that they only show the latest releases? I don't think so, and I think you could understand why.

Clothing stores: could we blame a store that didn't want to feature a jacket that was from last season? I think we'd feel fine with them refusing it and we wouldn't call it "anti-competitive" for not having release date parity on a once-hot fashion item that has since lost its appeal.

Your analogies are a bit flawed.

Movies:
AMC: Hey, we heard you've been giving Regal movies with surround sound, and we're only getting stereo. How does that make us look?
Warner Bros: Well, they have surround speakers, and you guys only have stereo.
AMC: Okay? So just deliver stereo movies to them too, or we'll never show any of your movies.

Clothes:
Kohl's: WTF? You're already delivering to Gordman's?? Where are the clothes you promised us?
DKNY: Err, Gordman's are already open. Your store doesn't even have a door cut yet. How are we supposed to deliver your stuff now?
Kohl's: You can't, obviously, but you need to delay their shipment until we're ready to open, or we'll never carry any of your clothes.

That stuff is anticompetitive. Also, your examples are stuff that has more of a "shelf date" than what we're talking about. With movies and clothes, there was nothing preventing me from going to the competition and getting the new thing last year when it was new. Video games are different in that most people are locked in to whatever platform they happened to buy. When Castle Crashers came to PlayStation, it was new to me, because I don't own an XBox; I had no opportunity to play it before now. For most gamers, these games don't lose value simply because someone else already played it.

 

[Patroclos]

Basically this: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-08-14-microsofts-chequebook-warfare-is-bound-to-fail

Great read Benny! Thanks. It seems so obvious.

 

[Family Fry]

As of August there were over 500 developers signed to id@xbox with dev kits.

http://news.xbox.com/2014/08/gamescom-id-xbox-games-coming-to-xbox-one

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Umm yeah? That's how many devs have joined the program which enforces launch parity, right?

Well, that wouldn't necessarily mean that all these devs would hold back their PS4 releases. Some of them would likely have gone with simultaneous releases anyway, while some of them may have planned to go XBO first, or fully exclusive, from the start. And some of the devs in the programme were excepted from the launch parity clause.

 

[xxracerxx]

As of August there were over 500 developers signed to id@xbox with dev kits.

http://news.xbox.com/2014/08/gamescom-id-xbox-games-coming-to-xbox-one

But some could be people like chubagins where they have a dev kit, yet won't release their game because of the launch parity clause.

 

[Family Fry]

But some could be people like chubagins where they have a dev kit, yet won't release their game because of the launch parity clause.

Of course and as I said earlier some are on there because they can't get it afford Wii u/ps4 kits or loan kits are not available. So they are signing up to id@xbox to get their game on a console and hopefully strum up new revenue.

 

[serversurfer]

Right, there could've been other factors which made agreeing to launch parity a comparatively easy decision for the dev in question, but by joining, they agreed to it, unless they're one of the privileged few who were granted an exception to the clause.

 

[NoMoChokeSJ]

That's where you're wrong. They need to listen to people who don't have xbones so that they can sell those people xbones. If you consistently ignore the concerns of potential consumers, they will ignore your product and go with the obviously better competing product.



Places like /r/xboxone, which is a pretty amusing place.

I don't disagree, but I imagine the tone and substance of the dialogue will determine what the company deems legitimate or not. For example, tweets that cite real issues with the console but are laced with personal attacks are probably not going to get considered. I don't think that people consider that sometimes noise drowns out legitimate conversation.

I wonder if GAF took on a thread about this issue and kept it void of trolling, smart ass "thecloudz" type comments, and concerns about how their policy hurts the competing platform if it could be a springboard for change. Would the developer or consumer concerns be more emphasized if they weren't drown out by bickering and bullshit?

 

[Family Fry]

Right, there could've been other factors which made agreeing to launch parity a comparatively easy decision for the dev in question, but by joining, they agreed to it, unless they're one of the privileged few who were granted an exception to the clause.

Well you can't really agree to parity when you haven't got a kit for the competition.

 

[jelly]

Where are the "in Phil we trust" group now?

Phil was a part of the group that put the Xbone and its initial policies together - why there ever was an assumption that he would usher in a complete reversal of Microsoft's shittiness, I'll never know.

I will say this though, as horrible as this Parity garbage is, bravo Microsoft for grabbing Iron Galaxy to make Killer Instinct Season 2. From the looks of it, they fixed most of the issues I had with season 1. If Phil really wanted to engender trust and make Xbone owners feel like they are 1st class, focus more on projects like Killer Instinct and forget about parity. Microsoft has too much potential with the Xbone for it to be squandered on nonsense.

I would go further, Phil has been at Microsoft since the 80s, you can imagine what philosophies he follows being in that bubble for so long.

 

[CoG]

I would go further, Phil has been at Microsoft since the 80s, you can imagine what philosophies he follows being in that bubble for so long.

Anyone who has been at MS for that long is pretty much useless anywhere else in the world. The Bill Gates era was notorious for its ruthless anti-competitive spirit. Gates hates to lose and employed some pretty creative methods to ensure the competition did not get ahead of them.

Which is my problem with MS. Their solution to just about any problem is to throw a pile of money at it until it goes away. In the console space they seem to be following the same anti-competitive playbook Gates developed. Parity clauses, dumping billions into Xbox just to "win". When you listen figureheads like Greenberg and Hyrb and you can tell what shits they really are. Since E3 2013 they've obviously been muzzled but from time to time they stick their head up and say something really dumb that exposes their true nature. Spencer is no different.

 

[serversurfer]

Well you can't really agree to parity when you haven't got a kit for the competition.

Sure you can. In fact, you'd have little reason not to, at that point.

 

[Peltz]

Umm yeah? That's how many devs have joined the program which enforces launch parity, right?



Maybe earlier in the thread? By the time I got here, people were talking about ID having about 300 members as though it were true. Is it not?



How many members does ID have? As I said, I think I saw 285 and 300 mentioned in the thread. Is that not accurate?

And no, not all of them will have agreed to delay their PS4 game. MS like to imply they make exceptions in special cases, but the only exceptions I personally know of were developers who heard about the ID program's parity clause before it was officially announced, and scrambled to sign an exclusivity deal with Sony before it was. Perhaps they've made other exceptions for Mojang-class devs and/or devs who've managed to get some public outcry going, but I don't personally know of any, and I imagine such exceptions are few and far between.

Then you'll have fanboys who never planned to release on PlayStation because reasons, but I can't imagine that makes up a large fraction of their members.

So no, not all of them will have agreed to delay a PS4 game, but it seems likely the vast majority of them have done so. Hence, "about 300." Even if 10% managed to get an exception, that's still 270 who didn't, which I'd still consider "about 300."

That said, it sounds like you have a more accurate number you can share? Where did you get it?



Your analogies are a bit flawed.

Movies:
AMC: Hey, we heard you've been giving Regal movies with surround sound, and we're only getting stereo. How does that make us look?
Warner Bros: Well, they have surround speakers, and you guys only have stereo.
AMC: Okay? So just deliver stereo movies to them too, or we'll never show any of your movies.

Clothes:
Kohl's: WTF? You're already delivering to Gordman's?? Where are the clothes you promised us?
DKNY: Err, Gordman's are already open. Your store doesn't even have a door cut yet. How are we supposed to deliver your stuff now?
Kohl's: You can't, obviously, but you need to delay their shipment until we're ready to open, or we'll never carry any of your clothes.

That stuff is anticompetitive. Also, your examples are stuff that has more of a "shelf date" than what we're talking about. With movies and clothes, there was nothing preventing me from going to the competition and getting the new thing last year when it was new. Video games are different in that most people are locked in to whatever platform they happened to buy. When Castle Crashers came to PlayStation, it was new to me, because I don't own an XBox; I had no opportunity to play it before now. For most gamers, these games don't lose value simply because someone else already played it.

Erm.. you manipulated my examples into totally different situations.

Those weren't really meant to be analogies. I'm saying the practice of demanding release date parity for various types of products isn't an evil in and of itself which we should frown upon in the abstract. Those examples were specifically offered as an acceptable contrast to Microsoft's parity clause.

I agree with you about Microsoft and it looks like we aren't going to see eye to eye about the definition of the word "anti-competitive." I can live with that.

 

[serversurfer]

Erm.. you manipulated my examples into totally different situations.

Those weren't really meant to be analogies. I'm saying the practice of demanding release date parity for various types of products isn't an evil in and of itself which we should frown upon in the abstract. Those examples were specifically offered as an acceptable contrast to Microsoft's parity clause.

Ah, right on. Sorry for the confusion. It sounded like you were saying, "Situations such as these aren't really bad," and I was saying, "Yes, but those examples are almost entirely unlike what we're actually dealing with here."

I agree with you about Microsoft and it looks like we aren't going to see eye to eye about the definition of the word "anti-competitive." I can live with that.

The thing is, no, your examples weren't anticompetitive, but they also didn't describe the behavior MS engage in. The anti-competition comes in to play when you take actions to hamstring your competitors. I agree that not taking actions to harm your competitors isn't anticompetitive behavior, but I maintain that doing so is.

That's why I changed your examples; to make them relevant to what we're discussing here. If we were discussing murder, I'd similarly agree that petting puppies doesn't constitute murder. but that really has no bearing on the murder we were talking about, or make it not so murdery after all.

 

[Hinchy]

Here's my two cents, as an indie developer actively looking into applying for ID@Xbox: this blows.

We're already Sony developers. By the time we're approved for ID@Xbox and have jumped through all the hoops, the PC/Mac version will have been long done, the PS Vita version already done or very close, and the PS4 version well on its way. (That's our planned release order at the moment.)

It's completely unfeasible for us to hold off on the game for that long. Frankly, we're very nearly out of money as it is. And we don't really have any industry clout, nor is our game particularly ambitious. It's not something I expect to sell like hotcakes. It's a little title we've put a lot of love into and we'd like to share with the world and maybe, hopefully, earn a little bit to help us float by a bit more comfortably while we work on something a little more substantial. (EDIT: My point being, it's not a title that Microsoft would be likely to make a special exception for.)

So, they will just go "well, your game is already out on another platform so no fuck you"? That takes some major balls, man. It's a stupid, nonsensical policy. And I sincerely hope Microsoft listens, since, make no mistake, the ID@Xbox program is very enticing, and we would love to release our game on Xbox One.