Support NeoGAF

[a.wd]

Meh, I see his point but ultimately you want games on the platform, Microsoft were the first to embrace indies in the console space, they just need to realise why people want these smaller more experimental experiences.

Also these same experiences are not the same as AAA 3rd party experiences so do not require day and date release, more important is having a wide range of experiences to dip in and out of as and when required.

Fix it Phil

 

[Night Angel]

In a perfect world MS will only enforce the clause if they know the studio is capable, I obviously have no idea how its actually being handled though

the policy is obviously there to support microsoft's interests



right

so those articles show that at the start of the year MS had a bad indie policy

by examining recent articles you gain an insight into what things could be like right now

since the old articles say different things to new articles it suggests things have changed

Articles? I haven't seen such articles. I've seen one article that implies the policy is selectively enforced... which is exactly the way it has always been. What are you trying to prove here? Aside from your own ignorance, of course, which you've made very apparent.

 

[Tidus_Great]

how about they start making some first party games and quit trying to screw things up for everyone else. Forced parity is idiotic.

 

[hoos30]

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

No one who runs a billion dollar enterprise would stand for it to be perceived as "sloppy seconds". It would be better to go without; 90% of the public don't know about these games to begin with.

Why some people on GAF pretend not to understand that is amusing to say the least.

 

[James Coote]

Please link to information about the 'fixed ip' rule

I never heard of it

http://us.playstation.com/develop/

 

[Ricky_R]

Microsoft doesn't have insight to their finances. If a larger indie dev says they don't have the funds to release both at the same time, are they just going to call them liars?

MS audits them first.

 

[mocolostrocolos]

reading comprehension is important.

Nothing has changed regarding the PARITY CLAUSE. You know, what this topic is about. Christ.

Oh, I see.

But... what do we knowfor sure about Parity Clause?

For what has been stated on this thread, it only applies to Release dates and maybe content.

And not always.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

This is a pointless debate because.......

MINECRAFT.



It really is a poor policy. Phil isn't going to try to change it though. The changes that have gone on in the XBox division were decisions that had to be made. Making Phil the face of the division has had the desired effect on some. Moments like this should remind you that little has truly changed.

*Bring Back Ballmer*

 

[Daviii]

Taking into account Xbox One is losing against PS4 by a wide margin it is a little bit too arrogant to force devs to do something.

They should bring champagne and cookies, and be thankful to those who will to develop for their platform.

 

[Amir0x]

No one who runs a billion dollar enterprise would stand for it to be perceived as "sloppy seconds". It would be better to go without; 90% of the public don't know about these games to begin with.

Why some people on GAF pretend not to understand that is amusing to say the least.

What the HECK are you guys talking about? Other VIDEOGAME companies allow it all the time!

You guys just make up random bullshit to support your fucking brand loyalty. It's remarkable.

Oh, I see.

But... what do we knowfor sure about Parity Clause?

For what has been stated on this thread, it only applies to Release dates and maybe content.

And not always.

I've never said it was for anything other than release date anyway; and the indie devs complaining never said it was for anything other than release date.

1. Many indie devs say it is a problem
2. Many indie games have not already released on XBO due to it
3. Many future indie games have already been confirmed to not come to XBO due to it

Exactly what more do you guys want before you stop eating Microsoft's nonsense?

 

[CoG]

That nothing has changed since Phil is on charge?

How much can be directly attributed to him though? Do you think he sat at his desk on day one and was like, "We need to drop Kinect, drop the paywall, buy Mojang..."? These things were in motion before he took over to jettison what they could to keep the plane in the air.

Phil Spencer is right place at the right time. Just because he's more likable personality wise than his predecessors people give him way too much credit. His track record at MGS is pretty terrible when you look at the net result.

 

[Ol No Bones]

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?

Yes. However this doesn't apply to corporations making games.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Better to sit in Coach then not be on the plane at all though

Coach is first class when there is no first class or business class. Arena football is pro when we take away the NFL. The pacific coast league is the big leagues when we do away with mlb AAA aa a, etc. We don't need the Olympics when we got the pan am games. When nobody else gets 1080p 60 fps, you all of a sudden don't feel so bad. Next thing you know PC performance on games is locked so xbone owners will feel first class.

Parity for the win. All hail savior Phil.

 

[Maztorre]

No one who runs a billion dollar enterprise would stand for it to be perceived as "sloppy seconds". It would be better to go without; 90% of the public don't know about these games to begin with.

Why some people on GAF pretend not to understand that is amusing to say the least.

So why do Microsoft back down on their own policy and allow games through?

 

[mocolostrocolos]

How much can be directly attributed to him though? Do you think he sat at his desk on day one and was like, "We need to drop Kinect, drop the paywall, buy Mojang..."? These things were in motion before he took over to jettison what they could to keep the plane in the air.

Phil Spencer is right place at the right time. Just because he's more likable personality wise than his predecessors people give him way too much credit. His track record at MGS is pretty terrible when you look at the net result.

We can't know for sure. Maybe is him or just serendipity.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

When you hink of all the indies they could've helped out with the $400 Million they gave to the NFL it's even more abhorrent.

Ahh, the old NFL defense, where people still pretend that the 400million NFL deal came out of the Xbox team's game budget.

 

[travisbickle]

Meh, I see his point but ultimately you want games on the platform, Microsoft were the first to embrace indies in the console space, they just need to realise why people want these smaller more experimental experiences.

Also these same experiences are not the same as AAA 3rd party experiences so do not require day and date release, more important is having a wide range of experiences to dip in and out of as and when required.

Fix it Phil

Didn't they not allow any indies without publishers, kind of contradictory to the term, and lock them into 1 year exclusivity deals if they used MS as a publisher?

 

[Ol No Bones]

Well I guess that's our confirmation that Spencer isn't just ambivalent towards the parity clause but actually thinks it's a good thing. If you needed any more proof that his shit stinks nearly as bad as Mattrick's, there it is.

Ironically, as long as the PS4 has a commanding lead over the Xbone the clause is going to make Xbone a third class citizen when it comes to indies.

I really look forward to your inevitably snarky posts in any Xbox related thread.

 

[BokehKing]

This is a pointless debate because.......

MINECRAFT.



It really is a poor policy. Phil isn't going to try to change it though. The changes that have gone on in the XBox division were decisions that had to be made. Making Phil the face of the division has had the desired effect on some. Moments like this should remind you that little has truly changed.

*Bring Back Ballmer*

Yeah but the magic of Phil Spencer is fading rapidly the more he opens his mouth. You can only put on that facade for so long

 

[mocolostrocolos]

I've never said it was for anything other than release date anyway; and the indie devs complaining never said it was for anything other than release date.

1. Many indie devs say it is a problem
2. Many indie games have not already released on XBO due to it
3. Many future indie games have already been confirmed to not come to XBO due to it

Exactly what more do you guys want before you stop eating Microsoft's nonsense?

I'm not eating shit, I think this parity clause is a clusterfuck and stupid. Just want to know if there's something else beyond release dates, because if so, it would be fucking shady. Even more than what it is right now.

 

[Two Words]

If some indie dev simply tells MS they want to release their game on PS4 first and then they'll release on Xbox One later, and they say their reason is because they want to do it that way, is MS just going to say "Then you can't release on Xbox One"? How does not having a game make their customers feel like first class?

 

[OldmanAndroid]

Does getting a game first on their console really make people feel special? It seems like it's just a bragging rights thing. I'm stoked to see indie games like Don't Starve and Rogue Legacy on my ps4, regardless of what other platforms they were released on first.

 

[Xando]

http://us.playstation.com/develop/

Where does it say that?

They talk about a static pc ip for access to their network.

 

[Amir0x]

I'm not eating shit, I think this parity clause is a clusterfuck and stupid. Just want to know if there's something else beyond release dates, because if so, it would be fucking shady. Even more than what it is right now.

I mean, if we're on gradients of shadiness of course. But I don't really know why that side conversation about visual parity came up, that's for the Ubisoft speculation topic. This parity clause from day one has always been -just- about release dates, with MS allowing "exceptions" for games with a certain level of hype.

 

[benny_a]

If some indie dev simply tells MS they want to release their game on PS4 first and then they'll release on Xbox One later, and they say their reason is because they want to do it that way, is MS just going to say "Then you can't release on Xbox One"? How does not having a game make their customers feel like first class?

Everyone who is educated on plane crashes knows that the survivability on first class is lower than in economy.

It's a risk you take. The first class analogy from Phil is perfectly apt.

 

[Rymuth]

Yes. However this doesn't apply to corporations making games.

But corporations are people, my friend...

 

[kaching]

What's bizarre here is claiming first is really "first class" anymore in the age of post-release patches, dlc, the inevitable "definitive editions" and long tail digital sales. My purchases are increasingly NOT day 1 and I'm more than happy to wait in the cheap seats for a more stable, better performing version of a game that generally includes more content than the original release, often at significantly lower price.

And to doggedly stick to such a clause which only serves to inflate the potential for buggier, content-poorer day 1 releases by way of pressuring devs into supporting more platforms at once than they really may have the resources to manage effectively, it really says this has little to do with truly being "first class" at all.

Well, this make me start to believe they may be enforcing resolution parity for games with co-marketing deals.

That's the scary part. Seeing Spencer double down on the indie parity clause like this, you can't help but expect the same "first class by handicapping everyone else" policy being applied elsewhere.

 

[Doug Heffernan]

What a bizarre thing to say.
I don't see the point in having a launch parity.
Instead, Microsoft should focus more on funding and publishing cool indie exclusives like Sony did with Ryme.

 

[James Coote]

Well as far as Sony they give loaner kits, they now give Unity pro licences like Nintendo and MS and then they is the optional Pub Fund which comes with clause of exclusivity in terms of launch window. So all three each provide incentives/ways of easing development without such clauses with exception of Sony's Pub fund which is providing funding.

Ok what about devs that can afford it but don't have the manpower or expertise at the time to launch on multiple platforms and have to choose one platform to start with. Should they be locked out by default?

Obviously MS want devs to choose X1 over PS4. I'm fairly certain that if you do something extra for the X1 version (e.g. Kinect, extra levels etc), even if you release on PS4 first, then MS will allow that. But what Phil Spencer and others at MS have said is to not just assume that, but talk to them first.

As for Sony, it's the same story, just with devkits. If you have a cool indie game that they like, and talk to them, they'll probably do you a deal. But they can't say that publicly, nor just drop the price of the devkits to zero for everyone, because then they'd get bombarded with shitty my-first-games and/or devs who aren't serious / able to deliver.

 

[Amir0x]

What's bizarre here is claiming first is really "first class" anymore in the age of post-release patches, dlc, the inevitable "definitive editions" and long tail digital sales. My purchases are increasingly NOT day 1 and I'm more than happy to wait in the cheap seats for a more stable, better performing version of a game that generally includes more content than the original release, often at significantly lower price.

And to doggedly stick to such a clause which only serves to inflate the potential for buggier, content-poorer day 1 releases by way of pressuring devs into supporting more platforms at once than they really may have the resources to manage effectively, it really says this has little to do with truly being "first class" at all.

That's a really excellent point re: bugs that I never really conceptualized like that before, but it is true. Damn, good one kaching.

 

[michaelius]

It really is a poor policy. Phil isn't going to try to change it though. The changes that have gone on in the XBox division were decisions that had to be made. Making Phil the face of the division has had the desired effect on some. Moments like this should remind you that little has truly changed.

*Bring Back Ballmer*

And let's not forget how Microsoft focused on PC gaming

http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/21/5534188/microsoft-renewed-focus-on-windows-pc-gaming-phil-spencer

To the point where they paid Square Enix to make sure Tomb Raider won't release on PC at the same time as on Xbox One

 

[Ultimatum]

You guys just make up random bullshit to support your fucking brand loyalty. It's remarkable.

This parity clause from day one has always been -just- about release dates, with MS allowing "exceptions" for games with a certain level of hype.

derp

 

[Rebel Leader]

Where does it say that?

They talk about a static pc ip for access to their network.

Some people use fixed in the place of static

 

[benny_a]

derp

It's true. We've had tons of threads about this.

Of course Amir0x hasn't anticipated the ultimate defense by describing it as "only release date" parity, because by using "only" you automatically win.

 

[AAK]

As if MS isn't going to make an exeption for games like No Man's Sky and the Withness. Hypocricy at it's finest.

MS just doesn't need to consider those games indie, and *poof* problem solved. I suppose they can really make the word indie as flexible as they want for when it's convenient for them.

 

[James Coote]

Where does it say that?

They talk about a static pc ip for access to their network.

This is getting into NDA territory now, but suffice to say, "network" is not what you're thinking in this case. Simply, you need a static/fixed IP address to make PS4 games.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

I know plenty of developers who will never be on board for XB1 because of the parity clause. Curve Studios and their lineup of games is one. Devolver Digital is another.

Saying this doesn't affect games coming to XB1 is completely untrue.

I guess Curve didn't get your memo considering they are bringing Thomas Was Alone to XB1 in November...lol.

 

[Xando]

Some people use fixed in the place of static

I thought he is talking about Intellectual property and not a PC IP lool

 

[PhoenixFyre]

Comes down to this. It's not my job to bend over backwards to help you sell your console and your "first class experience." That is your job. My job is to make the games I'm passionate about and sell them.

Why should I give two of the daintiest shits about your console? It's not the market leader anywhere, it's seemingly hostile towards indies and would be far worse had your original plans not been shut down by the market.

As far as I'm concerned, focusing on your console is a detriment to me, and as I'm not the one with enough pocket change to buy fucking Minecraft for 2.5 bil and not see that as an insane investment, I'm not too worried about you. Well, financially anyway.

 

[CoG]

We can't know for sure. Maybe is him or just serendipity.

This is not meant to be political because I am the most apolitical person I know but I see a lot of parallels between Spencer and Obama. Both came in to replace incumbents who were almost universally disliked. Both lead on a platform of "change". Being charismatic they both got a lot of people sucked into their cult of personality. Under both we saw a lot of positive change up front while the negatives were blamed as artifacts of the old regime.

I think over time, just as with Obama, we'll start to the ugly cracks in the underbelly of Spencer. We already have the parity clause. The alleged resolution clause is another clue that Spencer is not all about gaming as much as stifling competition by any means necessary. The sooner the bromance a lot of gamers have for this guy putters out the better.

 

[Renzoku]

This guy is so full of shit and has been since day one.

 

[SeanR1221]

It seems promoting Phil is no different than smothering a pig in lipstick.

 

[Doug Heffernan]

I guess Curve didn't get your memo considering they are bringing Thomas Was Alone to XB1 in November...lol.

Yeah, that is one notable exception.
It seems this clause isn't as strict as some people make it out to be.

 

[ethomaz]

lol

Tier 2

You make the gamers feels like second class but for indies you what them to fell like first class? Weird.

 

[a.wd]

Didn't they not allow any indies without publishers, kind of contradictory to the term, and lock them into 1 year exclusivity deals if they used MS as a publisher?

I never said they were great terms, but it was a market that was never there at all, for indies to get the opportunity to sell on consoles they would have eaten glass and shat diamonds to get access to it. The stupid restrictions now are just that, stupid. Open the doors and offer free hosted servers to incentivise development on your platform Microsoft or give them access to free devkits whatever, show some love, remember developers developers developers?

Also stop blaming Phil for this (I do this myself because I'm an idiot), you ladle blame onto a person then you never get corporate policies to change, focus the vitriol at Microsoft policies and the organisation will acknowledge that it's an issue.

 

[Amir0x]

derp

you are truly the king of fucking joke characters

 

[benny_a]

Yeah, that is one notable exception.
It seems this clause isn't as strict as some people make it out to be.

It's their policy. Since the start when this has been revealed the discussion was around selectively enforcing the policy to the detriment of games that don't have much hype behind it.

 

[chubigans]

I guess Curve didn't get your memo considering they are bringing Thomas Was Alone to XB1 in November...lol.

Oh weird, didn't know they moved into XB1 development. Whoops, well 50% of my argument still stands!

 

[mocolostrocolos]

This is not meant to be political because I am the most apolitical person I know but I see a lot of parallels between Spencer and Obama. Both came in to replace incumbents who were almost universally disliked. Both lead on a platform of "change". Being charismatic they both got a lot of people sucked into their cult of personality. Under both we saw a lot of positive change up front while the negatives were blamed as artifacts of the old regime.

I think over time, just as with Obama, we'll start to the ugly cracks in the underbelly of Spencer. We already have the parity clause. The alleged resolution clause is another clue that Spencer is not all about gaming as much as stifling competition by any means necessary. The sooner the bromance a lot of gamers have for this guy putters out the better.

As an Xbox One user, I really hope Phil doesn't become Obama :lol

 

[SerTapTap]

Didn't they not allow any indies without publishers, kind of contradictory to the term, and lock them into 1 year exclusivity deals if they used MS as a publisher?

It's funny that people bring up the "MS INVENTED INDIES" stuff, their policies towards indies outside of the "indie ghetto" of XBLIG were awful. See also basically every time the Skullgirls crew has had to do anything to the Xbox version.

I guess Curve didn't get your memo considering they are bringing Thomas Was Alone to XB1 in November...lol.

Curve said they'd be including future games on Xbox One but their current library already on PS4 was unlikely to make it to Xbox One because of the clause.