Ugh..it's like talking to someone who's got their head buried in the sand.
Ugh..it's like talking to someone who's got their head buried in the sand.
That twitter is not Spencer's profile tho.
Thing is, what do you expect them to say? They've shown they've read it and taken the feedback but do you really expect the person running the twitter account to send their boss under a bus?
Its incredibly unrealistic to expect them to do much else publicly. What we can hope for is that they'll see the thread, read the feedback and take it to someone who can talk to the powers that be and discuss some changes.
I'd much rather get that than have them ignore it and make it seem like they haven't even bothered to read it.
Im not defending the parity clause at all, but you have to have realistic expectations of what you expect them to say on their twitter account. If the policy is reversed, I bet they won't even say it publicly. I remember when we found out they'd binned off certification fees on 360, they didn't make a blog post or say it on twitter, they just did it and a few months down the line it caught on, they got asked and released a short statement.
To be fair, the games do sometimes come to Wii U also so it still technically is PS4 first.
They don't seem to care? So I guess they just all bought PS4s because.........??Call me crazy but in my day to day life I don't see people really giving a damn about most of these games mentioned that are only on PS4. Here in the states outside of a few huge titles like Uncharted people don't seem to care. I don't think this is that detrimental.
Ugh..it's like talking to someone who's got their head buried in the sand.
This is infuriating.
Does Chris Charla run that account? He's always just deflected any criticisms on ID@Xbox with "we are listening! Thank YOU for the feedback!", been like that for months. No change, and the parity clause has been cause for contention from day one.
Does Chris Charla run that account? He's always just deflected any criticisms on ID@Xbox with "we are listening! Thank YOU for the feedback!", been like that for months. No change, and the parity clause has been cause for contention from day one.
Does Chris Charla run that account? He's always just deflected any criticisms on ID@Xbox with "we are listening! Thank YOU for the feedback!", been like that for months. No change, and the parity clause has been cause for contention from day one.
Microsoft doesn't care about actually building a large library of games. Microsoft cares about making a big splash with big news to sell their system. Getting indie games on your system late doesn't give them that big splash. They'd rather ignore those type of things and just buy up some big indie games and have a big splash about them being exclusive.
Thanks for the thread, Chubigans. I'm an indie dev as well as a fellow GM Studio user. I made Home for Steam/iOS/PS4/Vita (it was the very first GM Studio game on a PlayStation console, I was told). I announced with Sony my next game (Alone With You) as a PS4/Vita exclusive at PAX this year.
All that is to say I agree with what Chubigans is saying, from a developer point of view. Interesting note: to date, not a single Microsoft rep has ever reached out to me at events or online, and I've never seen one here in town (Toronto). To contrast that, reps from PlayStation have been coming to Toronto for years to sniff out talent and talk to small studios (I spoke to them two years ago about Home).
Now, I know some local devs who are launching first on Xbox One, and speak well of MS. I wouldn't doubt it; they were in that spot where they hadn't launched yet, hadn't announced anything, and could make those decisions.
But for someone mid-project, something like the parity clause (if enforced) is brutal. Home is now on multiple platforms (Steam - Windows and Mac, iOS and PS4 and Vita) and if I had to deal with even two of those very different platforms at launch I would have lost my mind. At least with PS4/Vita at launch, you're dealing with some similar situations; PS4 and XB1 would be really tough for me (I'm a one-man shop).
I love my Xbox One (seriously, it's great; I use it every day), and would certainly love to make games for it. But sometimes as a developer new to a platform, the best way to join the party is to port something you already know and learn your way around before you commit to something new. A parity clause makes that impossible for tiny studios like mine.
Sony won with the PlayStation (among other things) by being incredibly developer-friendly compared to Nintendo, and obviously it was the smart move. Every platform generation has had a similar story; make a good home for devs and everyone does business. I can't say nicer things about the folks I know now at Sony; hopefully MS will, as many have said here, cotton on to their friendlier tactic.
The thing is everyone has a different "played in" experience. Some people had a 360; others a PS3; others just a Wii; others a PC; others all of the above.
When we start making arbitrary determinants for what should count or not, everyone loses. Because it's not just about what I played or what you played. It's about what the entire market can potentially have access to.
The PS4, XBO and Wii U is an entirely new generation where players new and old can try out all fashion of games, including some that came out on previous platforms they didn't have a shot at playing.
So your entire argument boils down to... "I don't care about indies and/or I don't see many people giving a damn about most of these indies, therefore who cares if indie devs get fucked."
I really wonder how much training it takes to be this selfish.
Wait he is linking to one game? What?
Did not know this was a thing. Any idea which shops might stock it? I have friends in Japan.
But the clause is clearly. If the choice is get late ports or don't get the game, MS should choose the former. It's a matter of pride, and I get that, but they need to suck it up.hurting Xbox gamers more than anything
.
I think if you want to make a claim that games are devalued on PS4, you should probably back that up with data about PS+ payout vs. sales.
Expectations are not universal, nor are they created equally. I bought Transistor on Day 1, for the record, to support a developer I enjoyed. Reasonable people don't expect certain things to be free or discounted, as much as we would like it to be occasionally.
Wait he is linking to one game? What?
Well anytime Phil Spencer gets a tweet about an issue all he ever says is "I'm on it" or something to that effect.
Why do people try to take things other people say and spin them as negatively as possible?
I'm referring to the entire overarching topic of Neogaf this week, from threads like these all the way to "Microsoft better step it up" I think Microsoft is doing pretty awesome and I don't think the Playstation announcements were near as exciting is everyone is making them out to be.
A lot of that mainstream audience and even hardcore audience isn't going to care about a great deal of these games not on Xbox. The Playstation is a great platform, The Xbox is a great platform, does there always have to be a superiority complex involved?
It's just my opinion but I wish there were less threads about how "Sony is doing this and Microsoft is not" and more actual interesting stuff. It's been over a year and I feel like we're still leading up to launch of those systems.
I don't think a twitter response is a "full response" to this thread. I am pretty sure there are some games in that list coming to Xbox. Still though, the discrepancies do not change the general theme - the gap is not close and they're getting soundly beat.
Why do people try to take things other people say and spin them as negatively as possible?
I'm referring to the entire overarching topic of Neogaf this week, from threads like these all the way to "Microsoft better step it up" I think Microsoft is doing pretty awesome and I don't think the Playstation announcements were near as exciting is everyone is making them out to be.
A lot of that mainstream audience and even hardcore audience isn't going to care about a great deal of these games not on Xbox. The Playstation is a great platform, The Xbox is a great platform, does there always have to be a superiority complex involved?
It's just my opinion but I wish there were less threads about how "Sony is doing this and Microsoft is not" and more actual interesting stuff. It's been over a year and I feel like we're still leading up to launch of those systems.
This is a wonderful post. I also like how perfectly it illustrates this has nothing to do with platform bias or some anti-MS sentiment. It's simply bad policy and it's hurting vulnerable developers as well as Xbox One-only gamers. It's bad bad bad.
Thanks for your insight, I'm adding it to my list
Timing is everything. You release a game that gamers know has been out on competing consoles for months and there's a chance they won't care by the time it reaches them.
You have to get the game in their hands as soon as the noise generates.
Yeah! And everybody is happy when Phil said something like that and they believe him.
hahaha. It truly is amazing. "Well it's awful but not really totally awful 'cause one of those games is inaccurate."
Guess you are new to gaming forums. There will always be this sort of discussion, and to call this specific thread not "interesting stuff" is downright sad. These devs deserve to be able to put their games on as many systems as they can for greater reachability and discussing it is very interesting.
Indeed. PvZ is a nice example of that. I don't know the numbers but I am pretty sure the sales on PS4 are nothing to go home and talk about.
Why do people try to take things other people say and spin them as negatively as possible?
I'm referring to the entire overarching topic of Neogaf this week, from threads like these all the way to "Microsoft better step it up" I think Microsoft is doing pretty awesome and I don't think the Playstation announcements were near as exciting is everyone is making them out to be.
A lot of that mainstream audience and even hardcore audience isn't going to care about a great deal of these games not on Xbox. The Playstation is a great platform, The Xbox is a great platform, does there always have to be a superiority complex involved?
It's just my opinion but I wish there were less threads about how "Sony is doing this and Microsoft is not" and more actual interesting stuff. It's been over a year and I feel like we're still leading up to launch of those systems.
Edit: Let me apologize and clarify, the clause isn't a good thing, I'm just so tired of seeing the MS hate and catering to Sony as if they do no wrong that all of the Internet likes to poke fun at Neogaf for. My emotions are tied into that more than the parity clause, which is the topic at hand, so I apologize for that.
Not after this past weekend.
Awesome!
I think Sony has just been much more proactive. If someone from MS chatted with me I might be over the moon, who knows? When I am able to handle it, time-wise, I would certainly look into ID@Xbox, but right now I can't over-extend myself. Hopefully this policy will change in the future and I can choose my own development schedules.
I wonder all the time why this keeps getting swept under the rug. The gaming media certainly never talks about this.
EA Free Access on PS4 :0
You're derailing. Easy, sir.
EA just gave the game away for the 20th Anniversary, along with Mirror's Edge for PS3 and Need for Speed Rivals (I believe) for Vita.
The same reason why you constantly heard about DriveClub's server issues but never hear about MCC Matchmaking issues.
Microsoft money talks.
Edit: Let me apologize and clarify, the clause isn't a good thing, I'm just so tired of seeing the MS hate and catering to Sony as if they do no wrong that all of the Internet likes to poke fun at Neogaf for. My emotions are tied into that more than the parity clause, which is the topic at hand, so I apologize for that.
Not after this past weekend.
Oh for fuck's sake.
Spin what? This post confirms it's just selfish shit you're arguing.
You don't like to hear people say mean things about Microsoft. I get it. It doesn't change the fact that the ID@Xbox parity clause is hugely damaging not just to Microsoft, not just to the most vulnerable devs in the industry, but also to XBO-only gamers. It's not a fucking system wars thing, it's not about platform preferences. It's simple reality.
If I hated indies and XBO was my numero uno platform and I hated PlayStation and Nintendo, I would still be championing an end to this hateful clause of theirs. Because I'm not a selfish jerk who only thinks about myself anymore (I once was, but I'm 30 years old now. That time has passed). I can understand an issue is causing real harm to people who genuinely need as little hurdles as possible to be financially successful, and that it needs to be fixed.
If YOU don't like to hear about it, then YOU should exit the topic. You don't need to come in here and remind everyone how little you get it.
It doesn't matter how important you personally think indies are at market, because that's not what this topic is about. Not only do you have no way to qualify that position, but it wouldn't matter if you could.
This topic is about a seriously awful policy that is factually hurting XBO-only gamers, Microsoft and, most importantly, indie developers. Do you have any thought on that or is it just "I don't care about indies and also don't think anyone else does anyone so fuck off indies?"
To your edit:
Do you really think it's a good idea then to come into a thread which has nothing to do with platform preferences or system wars and make a point? It's counterproductive. This is a policy hurting XBOX ONE gamers. Changing it would HELP Xbox One gamers.
I seriously cant think of a benefit for ANYBODY as to why this clause is still is place. Fuckin blows my mind.
Solidsoul said:I completely "get" the topic at hand, it's not the first time it's been talked about. I'm not trying to upset anyone, and I don't think the tone of your comment was deserved.