DarknessTear
Banned
Oh? Please explain.
Microsoft is known for not budging with their silly policies even if it leads to the benefit of their users.
-
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.
Shovel Knight XB1 Retail Release Cancelled Due To "Publishing Policies"
- Thread starter dancrane212
- Start date
Oh? Please explain.
Microsoft is known for not budging with their silly policies even if it leads to the benefit of their users.
TemplaerDude
Member
And as you said the very same license exists with physical copies. They may have a harder time enforcing their "claim to ownership" with your physical copies but there are still plenty of steps they can take to making owning it as useless as possible. Using that as the sole argument against digital is bogus and yes, I am satisfied with the ownership I have over my digital library.
"Microsoft is bad at working with developers" is a blanket statement that is, while perhaps true in some case, has been plenty not true in others.
LimitedRunGames
Member
I think they will still publish Shovel Knight on Vita. It might just take longer.
If not, we would love to publish it!
If not, we would love to publish it!
Livingskeletons
If I pulled that off, would you die?
3DS version it is.
+1 Sale
If given the choice between the VIta or PS4 version... Via it would be
LimitedRunGames
Member
Some games just feel better on Vita.
That's actually not the "sole" argument, it's just the most direct one.
There are myriad reasons why there's a distinction. With digital the inarguable fact is that we own licenses to play it, while with physical, we own both a license and a physical manifestation of that license.
With that physical manifestation comes the power to resell, transfer, and destroy, three things we usually have the right to do to the items we own. You don't get that with digital.
To your assertion that they have a harder time enforcing, but still could, that's not true. If a physical game works right now without the need to go online, there's nothing the copyright holder can ever do to make it not work.
Nobody is begrudging your satisfaction with the ownership of your digital library. But to claim as if there's only one argument why the two are totally different is disingenuous.
This made me think of something. Cave chose 360 last gen to release the majority of their games. Did they really print at least 50k of each game? I would consider Cave about as niche as it gets for a Japanese publisher.
Battlesmurf
Member
well, that's odd. I wanted XB1 retail, moving to another platform. Their loss :/
MS seems to get me more frequently than the other platforms with things like this- especially lately. I wonder why they don't re-examine their priorities. I don't feel like they understand their user base very well.
MS seems to get me more frequently than the other platforms with things like this- especially lately. I wonder why they don't re-examine their priorities. I don't feel like they understand their user base very well.
The minimum figure was lower if you region-locked your games, IIRC; that's part of the reason why they kept flip-flopping between region-locked and region-free games.
SmartWaffles
Member
What is Microsoft thinking?
The publisher orders the discs from MS. Anybody with business experience knows that all business-to-business purchases involve an MOQ (minimum order quantity). The MOQ is set by the supplier on the basis of overheads etc. It can be difficult to justify small production runs, especially at this time of year when production lines are flat out making games by the million for the big publishers.
In this case (assuming this is the actual reason) the MOQ is a high number and the publisher is not willing or able to tie up that much capital. It's more interesting that Sony is able to do it, maybe Sony has better production facilities (which wouldn't be too surprising given Sony also has movie and music businesses).
Ah thanks for that info. I had no idea, but that makes a lot of sense.
To actually own a copy? I want it for that reason.
Newtype-001
Member
They aren't.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Don't worry, I'm sure Phiil Spencer will look into it. Someone hit him up on Twitter.
Modest Mauser
Member
Yes please
Probably wondering why it's even worth going to retail with a print run that low. Less malicious, more just not understanding niche markets well. Probably one of the bigger reasons they thrive more on Sony and Nintendo (the other being that, in the console space, niche markets are often including Japanese games that wouldn't be on Xbox anyway.)
This is on point.
Hey man, Sneak King was a limited run. SNEAK KING!!
Because while this seems like a big deal on GAF, the "physical or no buy" crowd don't have much of an impact as you would think.
Neuromancer
Member
Actually, I would imagine that publishers of mid-tier, mid-priced games probably do a pretty healthy business from having their games on shelves at Gamestop and Walmart, bought by people who don't necessarily scour PSN or XBL stores looking for games to download.
It might not be significant money for MS, but I bet it would have been significant for Yacht Club Games.
LimitedRunGames
Member
I know a guy who loves to buy up every copy of that game for some reason.
He has more Burger King games than any one person should have.
Diablohead
Member
Really upsetting after months of looking forward to getting the xbox version on disc, annoyed with Microsoft right now :/
Diablohead
Member
This kind of thinking is why stuff like this happens.
Sometimes you print limited runs of popular games to keep your fans and owners of your console happy, even if the profit margin is minimal you do it to not lose your fans to someone else.
*edit* maybe Limited Run games could do something, wink wink.
funkystudent
Member
I think I remember hearing that MS have a pretty high minimum requirement for the number of discs they will print compared to Sony which is a pain in the butt for a lot of smaller games.
So you need to commit to a few hundred thousand to get on disc on Xbox and the cost of that + the risk of selling all those copies doesnt make sense for a lot of devs.
As with most hearsay about MS policies that could have changed or it could be complete hearsay and BS though.
I do hope both platform holders do things to help get their downloadable games at retail. Sony seems to be more open to it but could be doing more to push their sizable downloadable games library.
And Shovel Knight is a great game that should get that retail push.
So you need to commit to a few hundred thousand to get on disc on Xbox and the cost of that + the risk of selling all those copies doesnt make sense for a lot of devs.
As with most hearsay about MS policies that could have changed or it could be complete hearsay and BS though.
I do hope both platform holders do things to help get their downloadable games at retail. Sony seems to be more open to it but could be doing more to push their sizable downloadable games library.
And Shovel Knight is a great game that should get that retail push.
The Mad Draklor
Member
Yeah, I remember Kagari mentioning how the XBO version of Type-0 sold below the minimum print order in the US (and that SE was likely not happy about that).
Diablohead
Member
frankie_baby
Member
No idea what the minimums are these days but back in the GameCube days Nintendo's minimums in north America were 9000 discs (and 3000 for reprints)
chun li's thighs
Member
Surprised a small up and coming dev is willing to put MS on blast for these things. I understand the fans like this kind of transparency, but this doesn't do them any favors on the biz relations side.
YianGaruga
Banned
What are they supposed to do? Lie?
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
I didn't know that publishers order discs directly from MS and Sony. That's really interesting. Thanks!
Off-Kilter
Banned
On blast? They merely stated that there are circumstances beyond their control, and they are negotiating through them with Microsoft. "On blast" is a bit much.
Neuromancer
Member
They didn't put MS on blast; it seems to me they were as diplomatic as possible.
Diablohead
Member
One thing though, YCG should have not announced it for xbox one until they were sure about numbers, because now after hearing about it makes me sad that it's probably not going to happen, at least for this retail launch date.
They told the truth. The only other option was taking the blame themselves, which is even worse for them.
chun li's thighs
Member
I'm not advocating they lie, but they could simply say that it was for reasons outside of their control. They didn't have to say it was MS or their publishing policies. Right or wrong, it's something that MS will remember if they ever go them for anything. Just saying, I'm surprised they called them out on it.
Ah, yes.
Maybe they should have just stayed quiet and never mentioned that version again. Or worse, said they were canceling it themselves and not giving a reason.
They didn't put anyone on "blast" -- they didn't even give too many details. They just said publishing policies are not letting it happen in a concise, objective way.
I'm positive it will have no impact on the "biz" relations side.
Yeah, maybe next time they go to MS for a lower print run they won't help out and accommodate.
Why do that if they want the public to help them get it released. If people make enough noise at MS they may reduce the minimum numbers. If they said it was out of their control they just get people blaming their publishing partner.
Standard operating procedure for a year or so when a small dev was denied an Xbox One release due to the parity clause was for the dev to get on social media and complain about it. Worked wonders really.
Not something I'd recommend normally though.
I kinda doubt it. It doesn't seem like a game that would do well at retail, tbh. I think the policy is very dumb, but I'm willing to bet that physical copies of this would have appealed to a specific, small group of people.
sixteen-bit
Member
Not for X1, anyway