Ah, that happens sometimes. But mostly Indies continue to be a hotbed of innovative ideas and niche genre revivals, and PS4 just ends up getting a shitload more exclusives. There are plenty who do contort to it, but many are fighting back as well.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Phil Spencer on indie parity clause "I want people to feel like they're first class"
- Thread starter Kayant
- Start date
Ah, that happens sometimes. But mostly Indies continue to be a hotbed of innovative ideas and niche genre revivals, and PS4 just ends up getting a shitload more exclusives. There are plenty who do contort to it, but many are fighting back as well.
Future MS exec here.
HighResTomato
Member
Oh no, more because by the time I bought it Mojang was already a larger studio than some might ever hope to be (financially). Plus a game with the exposure Minecraft had/has is not typical indie.
Some people might take that as insult.
Maintenance
Member
Still shake my head every single time that I see that badge.
This logic makes no sense. They started small, with an Alpha that most people didn't even know it existed. Just because they got bigger doesn't mean they're not indie anymore, that's just moving the goalposts.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
And that matters why?
cyber_ninja
Member
My laptop is on its last legs, once it's done I'm going Mac; laugh all you want.
John Bender
Banned
He is. MS needed a new face after their Xbone reveal PR fiasco, and here he is....
I'm sure most indies would love to choose option A. The reality though is that a lot of indies would probably go bankrupt if they had to wait until every platform release was completed before releasing a game.
It got that exposure over time, that's how it works for popular indie games. They usually don't just start massive. Minecraft was like a rolling boulder of snow that got bigger and bigger as it ran downhill.
But it was still a typical indie game, until Microsoft purchased the company. Indie just means independent a publisher.
And plenty of people complained about the practice back then too.
Whether or not current members of GAF know the ful history, oldergamers like yourself should at least know this has never been a popular practice among gamers.
Amen
I know that many posters in here grow up with the X360 and so MS will always have a special place in their heart. But this company did so many shady and anti-consumer things in their life that i can't trust them. Everything they say, everything they do is just the complete opposite of what i want from a gaming company. All the shit like buying Third Party exclusives just to prevent other versions, the Kinect forced down to consumers so they can get more informations for personlized ads, the DRM debacle, the permanent shills on reddit, amazon and co. all that is to much to close my eyes.
BruiserBear
Banned
Are indie devs entitled to release their games on the XB1 platform? It's the smallest userbase after all, so indie devs can put their game on Steam and PS4 and be happy. Right?
This is the most comical failure to miss a point I've ever seen, and that's amazing. I guess you do have a purpose BruiserBear.
HighResTomato
Member
Sure...they can probably be happy about that, but what about the 4-5 million Xbox One owners? Are you seriously saying you're fine with all of them being denied a potentially great game just because it appeared on another platform first?
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
But tbe fact that the acu parity sounds true does not bode well
This thread in a few words.
Yep, that person speaks for every person in the thread. We, the Council of Salty System Warz Haters, elected him in secret to speak for everyone. You're ridiculous.
Loool some people. Millionaires really... Come one now. Really of all the vocal indie devs that have said anything relating to the parity clause which ones could be millionaires.
BruiserBear
Banned
Hey, feel free to point it out for me since I'm not seeing it.
OH, so this is really about your concern for XB1 owners. It's nice of you to look out for them. It really is.
Do they think that indie devs are really going to spend more development time and money to make an XBOX version at gunpoint when they could release on PS4/PS3/VITA and PC with minimal effort and to a larger number of potential customers?
Besides, indie devs usually want their games on every platform that can produce a sale. Games just might not come out at the same time for everything. Forcing this parity timetable is lunacy.
Grr, I'm enjoying my Xbox One. But these MS policies rub me the wrong way.
Besides, indie devs usually want their games on every platform that can produce a sale. Games just might not come out at the same time for everything. Forcing this parity timetable is lunacy.
Grr, I'm enjoying my Xbox One. But these MS policies rub me the wrong way.
Oh, that much is clear Bruiser. You didn't need to tell me you weren't seeing it when you made that post.
Since your post didn't even approach anything remotely related to the points that make this whole issue problematic, I guess we have to start slow. Precisely what is it do you think the ID@Xbox parity clause does, and why do you reject the endless indies who say it's incredibly damaging?
Well I do own an Xbox One so I don't know what your point even is.
Ol No Bones
Banned
Every indie dev is a billionaire. Duh!
Impeccable
Member
You don't care about the overall state of gaming and your fellow gamers at all?
BruiserBear
Banned
I'm being asked questions? I thought you were going to tell me why it's so horrible. Explain to me your rage for Phil Spencer. I'm asking this question 100% sincerely.
My point was that you're claiming that you know better than Phil Spencer what's best for XB1 owners. Do you really think he would make decisions that would harm the platform he's in charge of?
That's not how this works. I asked you a question first, and now it's your turn to answer it. If you fail to answer the question, then you don't have any interest in furthering the discussion, and you clearly have not earned the right to ask a return question.
The reason people have raged against Phil Spencer have already also been discussed a billion times in extensive detail in this topic, and your posts just state demonstrably you don't understand a single element of any of it. So, that's why we have to start from slow.
There have been people on here ever since the Xbox One reveal that have a whole attitude of "Well it doesn't effect me that much so fuck everyone else" and this just seems to be a continuation of that.
Need I remind you that he was in charge of the NFL deal? I absolutely think he could make wrong decisions.
FonkyByNature
Member
While it's no surprising because Microsoft are gonna be Microsoft, it makes me hate the company even more. It's like a soulless company that buys everything that is successful... disgusting and makes the industry go nowhere creativity wise.
The thing i don't understand is they have a shit load of money, why not put that into something that makes the company look better ? like building first party developers and going for creativity and style... They have so many possibilities with the money they have yet they don't care, or more like maybe they don't care about videogames as a long investment ?
I believe in Phil Spencer, lol yeah right !
The thing i don't understand is they have a shit load of money, why not put that into something that makes the company look better ? like building first party developers and going for creativity and style... They have so many possibilities with the money they have yet they don't care, or more like maybe they don't care about videogames as a long investment ?
I believe in Phil Spencer, lol yeah right !
BruiserBear
Banned
You're the one who's angry. I'm simply asking you to explain it to me in a concise manner. It shouldn't be this complicated.
OnionPowder
Member
Why does this matter?
How is denying games to xb1 owners best for them? How is having shit policies not harming the platform?
bigbaldwolf86
Banned
Does it matter where it came from? I'm willing to bet that a lot of people would rather that money was spent on games instead of NFL. That kind of money could have been used like Sony's pub fund.
It's already been explained in a concise manner in this topic, in agonizing detail. Which you clearly demonstrated you do not grasp the first element of. Therefore, I am asking questions to determine your level of competence on this subject.
If you have any interest in a discussion, you answer the questions I asked first, and then I will answer yours. Fair is fair.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Amir0x caught them feels from Phil's betrayal.
Gatdamn.
Gatdamn.
purpletentacle
Member
Nothing to laugh about, IMO. I went Mac exactly 10 years ago and have never looked back. Hell, even the offering of games has gotten better thanks to the rise of indies.
And he is asking you to demonstrate your understanding of the topic so he can explain to you what he feels is wrong.
If you don't reveal your current understanding of the situation, how will there be a chance of understanding between two people.
That's totally nice ... in theory.
Except people cannot afford it to await for every platform, also please don't forget certification of your game itself (even if its ready to go) might involve pretty high sums (I admit I don't know what MS charges for that). However this is just under perfect circumstances. More than enough people still use custom engines that have to be adapted for new platforms etc. Nobody can afford to set on a finished game for months just because one platform holder has a stupid parity clause.
At the end if you have limited funds you will decide for 1-2 platforms for a start, and if you're smart that will probably be PS4/PC as those are the two platforms with the biggest userbase ...
walltowall
Member
He SHOULD care how they feel because business does not rely on one title and you want to keep good relations with your partners in the present and down the line.
I find it amusing he talks about first class for this particular platform when it started off that it saw people as third rate citizens.
That said, the claims about their parity demands are pretty shady shit. You may make your userbase feel first class, sure, but the problem stems from the fact you are giving developers a harder time. They either have to consider your platform right out of the gate or hope their game is popular enough that you'll let them around later. And considering the sales of Xbox One, it is absolutely fair to assume independent developers will not be considering it out of the gate beyond the demands for parity.
It seems like a petty thing to demand parity in such a manner, especially when other major players are not doing it as feverishly. The fact this feverish approach is coming from a player presently behind others makes it more petty.
That said, the claims about their parity demands are pretty shady shit. You may make your userbase feel first class, sure, but the problem stems from the fact you are giving developers a harder time. They either have to consider your platform right out of the gate or hope their game is popular enough that you'll let them around later. And considering the sales of Xbox One, it is absolutely fair to assume independent developers will not be considering it out of the gate beyond the demands for parity.
It seems like a petty thing to demand parity in such a manner, especially when other major players are not doing it as feverishly. The fact this feverish approach is coming from a player presently behind others makes it more petty.
GeordieMark
Member
Read what he said and come back to me.
MS will not get his money apparently, as he expressed in no uncertain terms. That's why it matters. He's talking garbage.
SeventhSon
Member
By the way, is this policy even working, or have most indy games been releasing first for PS4/PC and never on Xbone?
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Parity only now an issue for MS now they have the console with weaker performance.
Last gen, my principle console was PS3 because of the free online access (I used a 360 for exclusives). I grit my teeth and accepted that most third-party developed games had better image quality on the Xbox 360. I didn't waste my time worry about feeling like a "second-class" gamer and just enjoyed the games.
Last gen, my principle console was PS3 because of the free online access (I used a 360 for exclusives). I grit my teeth and accepted that most third-party developed games had better image quality on the Xbox 360. I didn't waste my time worry about feeling like a "second-class" gamer and just enjoyed the games.
Fnord
Member
This policy hurts everyone.
It hurts developers, as it removes a revenue stream (X-Box One owners).
It hurts PlayStation owners (games get delayed for no reason other than to fulfill the parity clause from MS). At least for the games that developers have the resources to wait and get a One version complete.
It hurts X-Box One owners, as games simply don't appear on the platform.
It hurts Microsoft for the same reason.
The only entity that gets any benefit from this is Microsoft (and that is ALL PR benefits), but that benefit is overshadowed by the above negative.
It hurts developers, as it removes a revenue stream (X-Box One owners).
It hurts PlayStation owners (games get delayed for no reason other than to fulfill the parity clause from MS). At least for the games that developers have the resources to wait and get a One version complete.
It hurts X-Box One owners, as games simply don't appear on the platform.
It hurts Microsoft for the same reason.
The only entity that gets any benefit from this is Microsoft (and that is ALL PR benefits), but that benefit is overshadowed by the above negative.
GeordieMark
Member
I know why you are saying what you are, but in the interest of balance, please take the time to look into the Sony rootkit fiasco of a few years back.
If that isn't the very definition of anti-consumer and shady, then I don't know what is.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll