Support NeoGAF

[John Bender]

Congrats Phil Spencer!
That's one of the dumbest statements in the last years.

Have fun with your parity clause.
Seems like Xbox loves "Parity" stuff.

 

[Ape]

Phil can say what he wants, developers don't want it. This needs to go away.

 

[R3TRODYCE]

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.

Well that's one way to view it. I view it in the same light as timed exclusives; I feel that the games should release at the same time instead of a particular platform having to wait for a particular amount of time for a product. I understand that smaller studios might struggle with it but eh. I own all the major consoles so I wouldn't miss out anyway but still I wouldn't want to wait if I didn't own multiple consoles so I understand the reasoning.

 

[funkystudent]

Its the kind of policy that has me think that res parity for co marketed titles is a thing.

Both are dumb but understandable from the platform POV.


Would rather they did what PSN did last gen and say u can launch later but u must add a bunch of extra content or be cheaper. At least that means more games have a easier path. I am sure they will let any 85+ scoring PSN game past. Its everyone else who will have issues.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Well that's one way to view it. I view it in the same light as timed exclusives; I feel that the games should release at the same time instead of a particular platform having to wait for a particular amount of time for a product. I understand that smaller studios might struggle with it but eh. I own all the major consoles so I wouldn't miss out anyway but still I wouldn't want to wait if I didn't own multiple consoles so I understand the reasoning.

I understand the reasoning but I think it sounds like cutting the nose off to spite the face.

I don't see how less games on a platform would ever be considered a positive, from either the company's or the consumer's perspective.

 

[Krilekk]

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

As long as indie devs won't do demos and ask for 25 bucks or 30 bucks for games I haven't even heard about (Styx) I don't care about no parity clause, I won't buy their games. And I spent 1000+ bucks on indie games last gen. Same goes for devs asking for ten bucks for straight port jobs of iOS games.

The partity clause will be gone once Xbox runs Windows Apps natively. Which is coming with Windows 10 and the next DirectX. Guess then another platform will have a parity clause because X1 versions come free with PC version development.

 

[thelastcrusader]

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.

Exactly my thoughts. Wolf in sheep's clothing. I got that vibe when they first announced Tomb Raider exclusivity. He wants to win the war and he is willing to fight dirty to.

 

[Swass]

Why is it that Phil is trying to redefine the parity clause as something that came about because the Xbox One has a lower market share than the PS4, when the parity clause has been there from the start? it was even there when Microsoft thought they were going to sell a billion consoles.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

If it's just a dev issue for them but I don't want somebody to come and just think that am going to go do a special game on one platform and then I will get to the XB1 when I get to it.. because I don't think that's right because as Xbox one customers we want good games as they come out on both platforms but I also get that hey! for some guys they just can't afford the time to get both done. So we have just enter into the conversations with people as they are launching it and I feel pretty good about the plan.

Sounds good to me.

 

[@MUWANdo]

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.

They weren't always that way, though--there was a point where they were leagues ahead of the other consoles in terms of indie/download stuff, it's only relatively recently (3-4 years) that they've started introducing all these obviously terrible policies.

XBLIG has always sucked and I don't think there was ever a point where they handled it well.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

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

Sorry, couldn't let that pass up haha .


I would tend to agree though... you know what would make me feel first class as a customer? Getting every damn game available to release on the console so I could play it (if XB1 was my only console). A good game is a good game, and if XB1 was my only console, you (Phil) are effectively keeping me, your first class customer, from playing this awesome game. I could care less if it came out 4 months after another version, if it's the only way I can play it, I can still feel "first class" knowing I can play it. But nope...keep denying your customers games for some weird reason.

That whole argument of his is just baffling to me...

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.

Ya, I know, just having some fun .

 

[sangreal]

Why is it that Phil is trying to redefine the parity clause as something that came about because the Xbox One has a lower market share than the PS4, when the parity clause has been there from the start? it was even there when Microsoft thought they were going to sell a billion consoles.

It was there even on the 360, but the purpose (however succesful) has always been the same -- preventing xbox customers from having to wait longer for releases than anyone else

 

[Night Angel]

derp

Excellent summary of your argument. Thanks for condensing everything you've been saying into one post.

 

[Ol No Bones]

When Phil reads threads like this he must laugh at how people act about this stuff. I understand his reasoning but Its probably better for the games to release at some point on the Xbox regardless of the PS4.

 

[Dragon]

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.

And that's prohibitive? You could run a webserver from your house and set your router to be static. What am I missing?

 

[oldergamer]

He's talking about release time parity. Not the parity people on GAF have been complaining about.

 

[benny_a]

He's talking about release time parity. Not the parity people on GAF have been complaining about.

It is the exact parity people on GAF have been complaining about ever since the policy was revealed.

 

[BruiserBear]

It sounds like they're being flexible when the situation calls for it. I don't see why people on gaf care about this so much, but anything can be turned into system warz ammo these days.

 

[boredandlazy]

It sounds like they're being flexible when the situation calls for it. I don't see why people on gaf care about this so much, but anything can be turned into system warz ammo these days.

Thank god we always have you there to take the high road.

 

[Amir0x]

It sounds like they're being flexible when the situation calls for it. I don't see why people on gaf care about this so much, but anything can be turned into system warz ammo these days.

Maybe because many of us on GAF know indie devs or are indie devs and indie devs consistently say it is a fucking problem?

Why am I not surprised you are trying to defend this shit too now. Shameless. Absolutely fucking shameless.

 

[Nightengale]

It sounds like they're being flexible when the situation calls for it. I don't see why people on gaf care about this so much, but anything can be turned into system warz ammo these days.

It makes no difference to me as a consumer, but I care on a principle level. I care when there's risk of competition pursuing a race to the bottom approach.

I'm offended that you think just because some of us care, it's console war bullshit. It's not like I'm campaigning in the streets for this, I just don't like it and want that opinion known.

 

[Impeccable]

It sounds like they're being flexible when the situation calls for it. I don't see why people on gaf care about this so much, but anything can be turned into system warz ammo these days.

BruiseBear, it is okay for other people to take issue with something you don't, not necessary to boil everything down to system warz.

 

[Ol No Bones]

The dude goes out of his way and gives a great upfront and honest interview and people pick one small piece that they disagree with and make him out to be the reincarnation of Hitler or worse the evil stepson of Don Mattrick.

I disagree with him on this policy but I'm not gonna shit on him.

 

[Amir0x]

The dude goes out of his way and gives a great upfront and honest interview and people pick one small piece that they disagree with and make him out to be the reincarnation of Hitler or worse the evil stepson of Don Mattrick.

I disagree with him on this policy but I'm not gonna shit on him.

This is a discussion forum. We discuss what people in the industry say.

If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. Further, if HE does not like it, he should shut his stupid fucking mouth and stop spitting nonsense about the parity clause. Or, better yet, he should change it, because it's harmful to indie developers.

But I guess that's too much to ask for our corporate idols, they might get uncomfortable and shit!

 

[Family Fry]

This is a discussion forum. We discuss what people in the industry say.

If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. Further, if HE does not like it, he should shut his stupid fucking mouth and stop spitting nonsense about the parity clause. Or, better yet, he should change it, because it's harmful to indie developers.

But I guess that's too much to ask for our corporate idols, they might get uncomfortable and shit!

Can we go back to worshipping him if he changes the clause?

 

[oldergamer]

Many people on GAF is over reacting. Sony had a similar clause for PS2 titles, where you had to release on PS2 first or it wouldn't be approved "If" the game wasn't from a big publisher ( the only way to avoid the clause ). If you released on the original xbox first, your chances of disapproval or even being blacklisted were extremely high ( and yes Sony America did blacklist developers ).

They also wouldn't approve the game unless it had something unique added. Like extra levels, bonus content or basically anything that would make the game better on their platform. Or... you wouldn't get approval

Many people on GAF have no idea these are standard practices for Sony & MS. Sony has traditionally had more strict policies compared to MS!

 

[SEGAvangelist]

This is a discussion forum. We discuss what people in the industry say.

If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. Further, if HE does not like it, he should shut his stupid fucking mouth and stop spitting nonsense about the parity clause. Or, better yet, he should change it, because it's harmful to indie developers.

But I guess that's too much to ask for our corporate idols, they might get uncomfortable and shit!

I understand you're angry... but really? You should relax for a bit.

 

[James Coote]

And that's prohibitive? You could run a webserver from your house and set your router to be static. What am I missing?

The external IP needs to be static. Once you have that, you can access from anywhere on your home/office network. It's not always easy to get a static IP address even from your home. I had to "upgrade" to a business broadband package because my ISP didn't do static IP's on residential accounts. It took a month for them to come round and do it, and then they charged me £150 to have the engineers basically swap one identical router for another and change a couple of settings.

I'm very lucky that I own my own home, but in London, where I now live, there are a lack of houses. That means owning your own home is simply not affordable for most people (and for pretty much anyone calling themselves indie). Renting is the only way to go, but because there's a shortage of rental properties, so landlords have all the power. It's a pain in the ass just to persuade shitty landlords to do basic maintenance, never mind something like call up an ISP and get a static IP.

The other option is to get Amazon Ec2 server or Azure or something like that, with static IP, and just use that as a proxy. Apparently Sony have clamped down on people doing that.

Moreover, whichever way you slice it, it's a royal pain in the ass. It's a hurdle / barrier that I know for a fact has put off a number of indies I know from getting on with making PS4 games.

 

[Anion]

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?

If the social hypotenuse theory was affirmed and validified by the social constructs of the society, I would tend to agree. However, since the basic tenants of the social contract suggest otherwise, I must announce that you are definitely wise and all trustworthy

 

[Rebel Leader]

Can we go back to worshipping him if he changes the clause?

Helix says... maybe

 

[Amir0x]

Many people on GAF is over reacting. Sony had a similar clause for PS2 titles, where you had to release on PS2 first or it wouldn't be approved "If" the game wasn't from a big publisher ( the only way to avoid the clause ). If you released on the original xbox first, your chances of disapproval or even being blacklisted were extremely high ( and yes Sony America did blacklist developers ).

They also wouldn't approve the game unless it had something unique added. Like extra levels, bonus content or basically anything that would make the game better on thier platform. Or... you wouldn't get approcal

Many people on GAF have no idea these are standard practices for Sony & MS. Sony has traditionally had more strict policies compared to MS!

Why is it always when someone does something wrong, the backup defense is to try to act like people are being hypocritical about their standards. How do you know when users GAF complained or not? How do you know who on GAF is unaware of past standards that were appropriately maligned and changed?

One wrong does not make another wrong right.

Can we go back to worshipping him if he changes the clause?

Worship him now! He's just like one of them greek or roman gods instead of a judeo christian God is all.

you know, the ones who fucking destroy cities because they accidentally turned over in their godly mountain abode the wrong way

I understand you're angry... but really? You should relax for a bit.

Nope. He gets no respect from me. If he has no respect for indie devs and thinks being incredibly harmful and selfish is appropriate, I'm going to call a spade a spade. He needs to shut his stupid mouth about it.

 

[Ol No Bones]

This is a discussion forum. We discuss what people in the industry say.

If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. Further, if HE does not like it, he should shut his stupid fucking mouth and stop spitting nonsense about the parity clause. Or, better yet, he should change it, because it's harmful to indie developers.

But I guess that's too much to ask for our corporate idols, they might get uncomfortable and shit!

Damn dude. Wow.

We can certainly talk about this but I can almost hear the forceful strikes on your keyboard from here.

I was just hoping maybe things could get more level headed. Im not trying to stop discussion.
Again, I do disagree with him. Aside from technical reasons which he said they are flexible on, why are Indie devs so concerned about this? Im just curious cause you know them and I don't.

 

[Amir0x]

Damn dude. Wow.

We can certainly talk about this but I can almost hear the forceful strikes on your keyboard from here.

I was just hoping maybe things could get more level headed. Im not trying to stop discussion.
Again, I do disagree with him. Aside from technical reasons which he said they are flexible on, why are Indie devs so concerned about this? Im just curious cause you know them and I don't.

Then why is it always people trying to tell us we shouldn't get angry?

Why is anger some scary emotion that denotes some level of inherent irrationality? Anger is great when that anger is appropriate. Is there any more better reason to get angry at an individual who consistently shows disrespect toward indie devs and has no problem whatsoever harming them so his legion of fanboys can say they had the game on day one?

As for why it's harmful to indie devs, the problem is this:

Indie devs are typically quite small. Usually, they have to decide to focus on one or two ports at a time, and then can bring another later. Compounding this problem is that Microsoft was super late in courting indie devs, which meant a lot made games for PS4 by default. They too are getting punished due to this.

Indie devs typically don't have the budget to make games for fifty platforms, they have to choose which ones to focus on first. This is penalizing indie devs for not having the budget or team size to make more ports.

 

[flatearthpandas]

I find this interesting considering the whole TR debate. PR going to PR I guess.

How so?
Getting Tomb Raider first will make Xbox owners still feel like first class citizens. I'm sure he doesn't give a fuck how PS fans feel, which is fine.

 

[R3TRODYCE]

I understand you're angry... but really? You should relax for a bit.

Haha it got real for a minute here.

 

[mrklaw]

Well apparently is isn't enough because a lot of devs are still releasing first on PS4. I don't know what kind of point you're trying to make.

carrot, not stick is my point. Incentivise, don't restrict.


This all started from the idea of self-publishing. If you have to negotiate with MS to be granted a waiver because you launched on PS4 (or wanted to), then it isn't self-publishing anymore, it is back being down to MS' discretion

 

[Figments]

A developer shouldn't have to converse with Microsoft to explain themselves.

Actually this sounds incredibly arrogant and ridiculous. Yeah, if a dev comes and talks to us then we MIGHT let him release the game on our system if it comes after the PS4 version. If they pat our back enough.

Whole thing is dumb to me.

I don't really get that feeling at all. More that MS is trying to play caretaker rather than overseer.

If that makes any sense.

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.

And here we go again. What a world.

Yeah but right now this clause just leads to indie games not coming to Xbox at all instead of coming to Xbox at the same time as Ps4.

I understand his point but many indie devs just don't have the ressources to put two versions out at the same time.

That's a fair point. I agree with this statement.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

carrot, not stick is my point. Incentivise, don't restrict.

What if some of us like the stick?

 

[Tycho_b]

Many people on GAF is over reacting. Sony had a similar clause for PS2 titles, where you had to release on PS2 first or it wouldn't be approved "If" the game wasn't from a big publisher ( the only way to avoid the clause ).
[...]

Many people on GAF have no idea these are standard practices for Sony & MS. Sony has traditionally had more strict policies compared to MS!

I think nobody says it was a good thing if done by Sony.
This is just wrong in any circumstance

 

[benny_a]

Indie devs typically don't have the budget to make games for fifty platforms, they have to choose which ones to focus on first. This is penalizing indie devs for not having the budget or team size to make more ports.

And if they can't work on these versions simultaneously they will not have any income even though versions of the game are already done.

The solution: Publish on Xbox first and delay every other version.

If you now think that the problem is solved, consider the thought experiment of Nintendo and Sony instituting the same policy.

 

[SeventhSon]

I have none of the new consoles, but things like this is why I hope PS4 continues to smash Xbone. I'd like to see indies just release first on PS4/PC because of ease of development/larger base and Xbone get shut out.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Phil Spencer trying to be the political equivalent of the politician you want to have a beer with.

By having a conversation, he means a big enough, established game that makes Xbox look bad if it were not to launch on time. It's mostly an attempt to make up for the fact that Xbox took two shits on Indie devs during the time that PlayStation was courting indie devs.

Strong-arm tactics can be spun to sound like bros having a sit-down talk.

This is pretty much how I feel about the guy. He says a lot of the right things but I don't believe he's sincere at all.

 

[hawk2025]

It's an anti-competitive, damaging policy from an economic point of view.

I'm not surprised that they have it, but I am surprised that so many of you accept it.

 

[Amir0x]

And if they can't work on these versions simultaneously they will not have any income even though versions of the game are already done.

The solution: Publish on Xbox first and delay every other version.

If you now think that the problem is solve, consider the thought experiment of Nintendo and Sony instituting the same policy.

Precisely. What makes this even worse is that despite Xbox fanboys who refuse to acknowledge when Microsoft does anything wrong, they are actually getting hurt by this too. Many indie dev games that are quite highly rated simply never came to Xbox One so far. That's partly because of the parity clause. And, we know of a bunch of games in the future already that have to skip out on XBO due to this.

So, treating Microsoft Xbox One fans as "first class citizens" actually means giving them access to a diminished and curated group of games wherein Microsoft is choosing what is OK for them to play, and other fans on other systems get to make the choice themselves and on top of that have a massively wider selection to begin with.

 

[IDKAboutThat]

Hard not to see this as kind of condescending, but it's actually very promising. If poorly phrased.

 

[Ol No Bones]

Then why is it always people trying to tell us we shouldn't get angry?

Why is anger some scary emotion that denotes some level of inherent irrationality? Anger is great when that anger is appropriate. Is there any more better reason to get angry at an individual who consistently shows disrespect toward indie devs and has no problem whatsoever harming them so his legion of fanboys can say they had the game on day one?

As for why it's harmful to indie devs, the problem is this:

Indie devs are typically quite small. Usually, they have to decide to focus on one or two ports at a time, and then can bring another later. Compounding this problem is that Microsoft was super late in courting indie devs, which meant a lot made games for PS4 by default. They too are getting punished due to this.

Ok. That makes sense.

I'm not saying being angry is always wrong. Its just that in many situations a more cool tone is more effective in communication. I can tell you are just more passionate about indie games than I am and that's cool. Phil Spencer seems like a reasonable guy. I'm sure if people if people respectfully reasoned with him via twitter he would at least consider his stance on the parity clause.

Bugging him on twitter got fans like myself a remake of Phantom Dust. He also often responds with upfront and honest answers when he doesn't need to.

 

[oldergamer]

Why is it always when someone does something wrong, the backup defense is to try to act like people are being hypocritical about their standards. How do you know when users GAF complained or not? How do you know who on GAF is unaware of past standards that were appropriately maligned and changed?

One wrong does not make another wrong right.

Wait a second. Back up defense? The reality here IS some ( and i didn't say ALL) people are over reacting. Asking for time/release parity and people getting all up in arms about it here is a total over reaction to the situation. How surprising it is that console makers want to make sure their fans are not getting neglected?

I've been here for a while, nobody complained or even questioned about this and it was obvious when games like GTA3 took months to a year to release on the original XBOX despite the fact. How about people here demanding Sony be more open and explain their policies on the topic?

I know GAF loves to consider MS the bad guys in any instance, but some of the venom for that company is a touch odd IMO.

 

[HighResTomato]

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

This is a discussion forum. We discuss what people in the industry say.

If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. Further, if HE does not like it, he should shut his stupid fucking mouth and stop spitting nonsense about the parity clause. Or, better yet, he should change it, because it's harmful to indie developers.

But I guess that's too much to ask for our corporate idols, they might get uncomfortable and shit!

I have none of the new consoles, but things like this is why I hope PS4 continues to smash Xbone. I'd like to see indies just release first on PS4/PC because of ease of development/larger base and Xbone get shut out.

Holy shit the war is real.

Edit:

What sane platform holder would allow titles to come out 6-12 months later than on a rival console. It's insane, if the indie's don't like it then go platform exclusive. They moan it costs them money, well it's going to cost Microsoft money as well in missed revenue, effects of game not being available on their platforms.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Precisely. What makes this even worse is that despite Xbox fanboys who refuse to acknowledge when Microsoft does anything wrong, they are actually getting hurt by this too. Many indie dev games that are quite highly rated simply never came to Xbox One so far. That's partly because of the parity clause. And, we know of a bunch of games in the future already that have to skip out on XBO due to this.

So, treating Microsoft Xbox One fans as "first class citizens" actually means giving them access to a diminished and curated group of games wherein Microsoft is choosing what is OK for them to play, and other fans on other systems get to make the choice themselves.

While that's surely a negative, part of me likes that I won't have to see a Steam-style over saturation of sub-par indie games on the XB1 store.

 

[Amir0x]

Ok. That makes sense.

I'm not saying being angry is always wrong. Its just that in many situations a more cool tone is more effective in communication. I can tell you are just more passionate about indie games than I am and that's cool. Phil Spencer seems like a reasonable guy. I'm sure if people if people respectfully reasoned with him via twitter he would at least consider his stance on the parity clause.

Bugging him on twitter got fans like myself a remake of Phantom Dust. He also often responds with upfront and honest answers when he doesn't need to.

For the record, I twittered Chris Charla before on the ID@Xbox policy issue, and maaaany people have twitter'd Phil Spencer himself on the ID@Xbox Parity clause. And I did it respectfully, and so did most others.

They just don't really care. They see it as another way to try to force the market in their direction, and they know - quite appropriately judging from this topic - that his Xbox fanboys will defend and support absolutely anything he does.

Holy shit the war is real.

Completely agree. The war against damaging indie developers continues.