Support NeoGAF

[sirap]

Indie games + dat Vita OLED make me very, very happy.

 

[xxracerxx]

You have a habit of giving me this sort of response. Do you have to come across this way? You don't have to be so hostile at all. I scanned the OP because I was rushing to a meeting then I posted here after reading a few comments and was just discussing it.

Sorry, I don't mean to come off as harsh. I apologize.

I don't think it's dumb to want games released at the same time on your system as others.

It's just Microsoft is going about it the way.

I understand the want of releasing games at the same time, but sometimes it is just not feasible and putting that clause in there just makes it harder on the developers.

I want people to be able to play NMS, Below, Nidhogg, etc on the same day....it just can't happen for them all though.

 

[FordGTGuy]

Sorry, I don't mean to come off as harsh. I apologize.



I understand the want of releasing games at the same time, but sometimes it is just not feasible and putting that clause in there just makes it harder on the developers.

Which is why I said Microsoft is going about it the wrong way.

Jesus christ, I knew it was bad, but not this bad. I can't believe that parity clause bullshit still exists and quite frankly I'm extremely glad most indies are just skipping xbox altogether rather than following MS' clause. It needs to die as soon as possible and devs not respecting it is the fastest way for that to happen.

You should never be glad/happy about these studios have less opportunity to get a wider audience and more money for their work.

 

[nampad]

Great thread OP and thanks for making it.

The indie parity clause is a shitty move from Microsoft and I am happy to see it blowing up in their face. It admittedly sucks for the indie developers like you OP though because they miss another platform.

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

Whatever the reason for the huge indie love on PS4, it's true that if anything, the parity clause just seems to be hurting X1/MS, and at this point, just blocking indie devs and games that could otherwise make it over seems like a dumb move.

I appreciate the point of the clause, but Sony really turned indies to their favor. The PS4/PS3/Vita ecosystem is really inciting too.

At this point though, if I'm about to start a game, I'd simply choose a multiplat engine and target X1 first with PS4/PC and possibly Vita as second tier if we can't manage multiplat.

 

[Steverulez]

Yup, and the funny thing is you do not see many PS4 owners bitching about getting games well after the release of the XBO versions. Games are games and when they come they are just as fresh to certain people as the original release date. Fuck that first class bullshit, it is an awful mindset.

I think if MS didn't have this clause, what you would see is a situation where there was a some (or a lot, depending on how sales go in the future) of crossover between titles that would cancel out the debate of being a "first class citizen":

Game X from developer 1 releases on PS4 and comes to XB1 6 months later or whatever
On the same day:
Game Y from developer 2 releases on XB1 and comes to PS4 6 months later etc
Game Z from developer 3 being games release the same day on XB1 and PS4

Xbox One gamers won't care that Game X has come later because they've still also got the chance to play Game Y. MS have been tying up games for first on XB1 etc just like Sony have (only in smaller numbers) so if the parity clause didn't exist, I think as I said you'd see a case where actually no-one would actually care because theres other stuff to play anyway whether its Game Y, Game Z or Game X when it eventually comes over.

As it is, theres gaps all over the place because Game X isn't coming to XB1 at all.

 

[Toki767]

Jesus christ, I knew it was bad, but not this bad. I can't believe that parity clause bullshit still exists and quite frankly I'm extremely glad most indies are just skipping xbox altogether rather than following MS' clause. It needs to die as soon as possible and devs not respecting it is the fastest way for that to happen.

The list in the OP is just games that have been announced.

When you add that with the list of indie games that are already out on PS4 and not on Xbox One, it could already be over 100+ games.

 

[xxracerxx]

Which is why I said Microsoft is going about it the wrong way.

Ahh your sentence just said "the way" which I interpreted as "that way," not "the wrong way."

 

[GobFather]

You have a habit of giving me this sort of response. Do you have to come across this way? You don't have to be so hostile at all. I scanned the OP because I was rushing to a meeting then I posted here after reading a few comments and was just discussing it.

Not to defend him or her, but in this case, there were a lot of posters before you that posted without reading the OP and making unnecessary claims or derailing the thread. They have been banned but... It could be a factor that might have made them.. a little jumpy lol.

 

[LiLSnorpSnorp]

How anyone can be ok with not having MORE games because of this clause is ridiculous. And I say that as someone who loves the Xbox brand. I haven't personally had a problem with it because I also have a PS4, but if I only had an Xbox I'd be pissed about this. The more the merrier, despite them being "indie"

 

[Syph Medwes]

Excellent and very informative OP. I don't really have anything to add...just wanted to say thanks for explaining the situation, you did so quite clearly.

 

[FordGTGuy]

I think if MS didn't have this clause, what you would see is a situation where there was a some (or a lot, depending on how sales go in the future) of crossover between titles that would cancel out the debate of being a "first class citizen":

Game X from developer 1 releases on PS4 and comes to XB1 6 months later or whatever
On the same day:
Game Y from developer 2 releases on XB1 and comes to PS4 6 months later etc
Game Z from developer 3 being games release the same day on XB1 and PS4

Xbox One gamers won't care that Game X has come later because they've still also got the chance to play Game Y. MS have been tying up games for first on XB1 etc just like Sony have (only in smaller numbers) so if the parity clause didn't exist, I think as I said you'd see a case where actually no-one would actually care because theres other stuff to play anyway whether its Game Y, Game Z or Game X when it eventually comes over.

As it is, theres gaps all over the place because Game X isn't coming to XB1 at all.

Actually I think a lot do care about having to wait to get the same games.

 

[SerTapTap]

Wasn't there a six week period this year where not a single X1 game released? While the narrative has somehow gained strength, the X1 doesn't actually have more games. Hell, it's not even remotely close. And that disparity will continue to grow as the PS4 continues to dominate and MS is still in la la land thinking they have the same leverage they did last gen

I'm kind of amazed the "PS4 has no games!" narrative has survived at all considering the abysmal support from indies and par-at-best big pub third party support. But most people parroting the narrative seem to only care about "gotta be on all platforms" multiplats and MS first party and don't consider indie games "real games"

 

[chubigans]

Thanks for the reply. Did you see my message earlier in thread? Would REALLY appreciate your view.

My deleted post tried to draw a clear line between the general case and your specific case. You could have still written the post with your own exemption but given an insight into how ridiculously easy or hard it is to get.

However I get why you want the solidarity with others, no criticism from me on that front.

Ah I missed your last post, let me try and understand it a bit. I don't necessarily think that all 47 games would have hit PS4 first had the clause never existed. In fact, in my own personal experience, it was much faster getting an XB1 devkit than a PS4 devkit, so perhaps that could have facilitated an earlier announcement for many devs if their experiences were the same.

I do understand where Phil Spencer is coming from, in the executive level. But it's an absurd viewpoint to have. Shovel Knight and Super Time Force, both Wii U and XB1 releases, were announced at the PS show. It was a celebratory announcement that got tons of people excited. I don't recall seeing many people turning their noses to "old ports" of games.

I don't really believe that's the sole reason why Spencer continues to stick with this policy, despite that's what he says. I think it's more to force exclusivity, of which it's failing to do so, miserably.

 

[Dictator93]

Parity clause makes no sense for an indie developer. I mean, sacrafice reaching the majority of console market?

For what?

 

[xxracerxx]

Actually I think a lot do care about having to wait to get the same games.

I don't know, it would be very interesting to see a poll on this.

 

[Steverulez]

Actually I think a lot do care about having to wait to get the same games.

Well the option seems to be: wait or don't get it at all. I know which one I would prefer.

If MS had more goodwill with indies too, you might see more games decide to come to XB1 first because of a lack of capacity too (see Volgarr where they got XB1 dev kits earlier than they could on PS and are using the GwG money to buy the kits for other platforms)

 

[Tigress]

People who dont care about indie game probably picture oldschool games (16bit, sprites, 2D etc) when they think "indie games". But I doubt those people dont care about No Man's Sky or Star Citizen.

Me being one of them, I'll agree with this.

I'm not a huge indie fan. And I say that cause I tend to associate indies with 2d Platformers and yes, old school graphics. And also not very story oriented. But, I'm still totally open to indies that aren't this. Just seems most I see fit that (I am so excited for No Man's Sky and the one thing I ever kickstarted was Dragon Fin Soup... which has absolutely no plans for xbox from what i see but pretty much is supporting every other platform, smartphones, PC, Vita, PS3, PS4... linux and mac for god's sake. But not xbox. Not 360 or xbox one. And it's not market that would be why they aren't doing xbox.. because they're supporting mac and linux and as a mac fan, I can assure you we are not a huge market for gaming. I don't think linux is either. And honestly, anytime they pick Vita and not either xbox? That says something too. I suppose they did leave out Nintendo as well)

 

[TyrantII]

And people keep claiming and claiming the PS4 ha no games.

You're just getting the context wrong

 

[mrklaw]

Would the retail dev kits that were originally promised alleviate this problem? Then devs would only be roped into the date parity agreement if they accepted the perks of ID@Xbox without it being a total necessity.

Also, I'm curious how the case-by-case basis works for indie devs wanting to publish later on XB1. Did all 47 of those studios ask for an exception? Or do they need to wait and see if their game sells well enough on other platforms to merit and exception?

I can understand Phil's rationale for the parity clause. Indie games often rely entirely on buzz for their marketing and if the Internet has already moved on to the next big thing, a later release is gimped. However, the clause should never be allowed to become an obstacle preventing devs from releasing on XB1 at all. I'm really not sure how they should handle it. Without the numbers, For all we know, the parity clause has been more helpful than harmful to their bottom line.


Side note: I think that the thread title is needlessly inflammatory, especially since we already have a "Microsoft needs to step it up" thread. I would have had no idea we were discussing the parity clause had I not read the OP.

The fundamental point is that a platform holder should be incentivising developers to release on their platform first, not penalising those that choose otherwise.

MS already provide free dev kits, that is a good incentive. If they dropped the parity clause tomorrow I would bet they'd get more support simply out of goodwill. There will be many devs that are choosing PS4 first because of that clause.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

No, I'm replying to your argument that you're pulling from thin air, which is that you magically believe Phil Spencer is making exceptions whenever someone asks which is factually not the case.

The games in the OP are a sliver of the games announced for PS4 and not XBO. Literally, a snapshot. And the even bigger indicator is just how many devs announced they're working on PS4 games and not XBO games. You can't get exceptions if you're not even a developer on the platform, can you? Many of these developers made the choice partially because of the parity clause. Your entire argument hinges on pointing out the few exceptions and saying "SEE!? SEE!? MOST OF THE REST OF THE UNANNOUNCED GAMES ARE GETTING EXCEPTIONS TOO LATER". That is your entire argument in a nutshell, because there is no other support for it.

Again, you're just in a dream world. A true fantasy land. Tons of indie games are out on PS4 already which have not only not had XBO versions announced, but their respective developers have moved on to their next products. What are they waiting for, Miles? Right. They're waiting for Phil Spencer to stop being a monumental asshole.

It's not really from thin air when you can see games that were previously PS4 only coming to X1. That suggests to me that Spencer and MS are allowing games through, essentially making exceptions for games should the developer ask.

You could argue that some don't make it over, and that's a valid point. My overall point is that when a developer does ask for an exception, they'll seemingly get one. That means the really small indie developers, the ones who can't apply any pressure or even get them on the phone will be left out in the cold. The idea is that all indies band together now, agree to boycott the platform until the clause it dropped completely.

The bigger indies are the ones that need to stick up for the up and comers, that they aren't and seemingly pushing through by getting exceptions is what angers me.

JAW is just one example. How vocal were they about never coming to the X1 because of the parity clause?

This is what Lanning had to say about that,

"As soon as we get our obligations on the PS platforms out, our intention is to get rolling on the Xbox platform and really treat it with the same level of care," Lanning said. "We don't have a release date, but we know it'll be before the end of the year."

"The fact is, we were strapped for time and resources, so the parity clause was a challenge. I don't know where it stands officially with Xbox at the moment, but we've worked it out."

Worked it out. Wonder what that could mean. An exception because they are one of the bigger indies who can apply pressure to get such an exception?

 

[fantomena]

If we're going with the "Phil Spencer make exception" theory it kinda feels like indie devs are being discriminated since not every game are being an exception to Phil.

The rule is still, no matter which games are getting through Phils exceptions, fucking stupid. Open your arms Phil, not close and open it up to chosen ones.

 

[alr1ght]

It's a stupid strongarm move you make when you're in first place. Nobody told them they're not anymore.

Hopefully they drop this idiotic clause. More games for everyone.

 

[DieH@rd]

Because this thread is already focused on lists of games, can anyone compile the up to date and accurate breakdown of how much games were released on PS4 and Xbone so far?

 

[BobTheFork]

So they create one version first, to get it on the market, make some money, to help fund the next version. If you want to release on Xbox One, you are FORCED to release that version first, or release it at the same time as the PS4 version.


Because of time and money, many devs are simply releasing on PS4 first, so they aren't forced to release on the Xbox One at the same time. Now, I am not aware of how the wording in the parity clause works, but I know in the past, Developers with a contract already, weren't bound by the parity clause.

I would like to give MS the benefit of the doubt here. I want to believe that they didn't create this policy to try and force the hand of indie devs. But, they have to know all this already and it looks like they tried to use the disadvantages of indie devs AGAINST them. The logic being since they know the devs likely can't wait until two version are done before releasing them both, it would force them to release on Xbox first.

It's interesting that in the face of that possibility, many of them are just leaving XBO out and releasing a single console version.

 

[Toki767]

I would like to give MS the benefit of the doubt here. I want to believe that they didn't create this policy to try and force the hand of indie devs. But, they have to know all this already and it looks like they tried to use the disadvantages of indie devs AGAINST them. The logic being since they know the devs likely can't wait until two version are done before releasing them both, it would force them to release on Xbox first.

It's interesting that in the face of that possibility, many of them are just leaving XBO out and releasing a single console version.

It's clearly a move that was made when they thought Xbox One would be the market leader at least in the western world.

It sounds like it was a Mattrick move to be honest, which is why I'm not sure why Spencer doesn't just get rid of it.

 

[I Wanna Be The Guy]

PS4/Vita is the first world of indie games

XB1 is the third world of indie games

It's all because Microsoft insists on the idiotic parity clause. From most accounts they deal with indie studios just fine, it's just that they rarely deal with indie studios.

Does this make PC the minus world of indie games?

With that said despite the superior quantity of indies on PC I still feel Vita is the best place to play them due to portability.

But anyway MS really need to do something about this. It's such a shitty clause that benefits noone.

 

[Servbot24]

Indie games + dat Vita OLED make me very, very happy.

Indeed. Vita as a indie + JRPG machine is absolutely dreamy. My other consoles are just there on the side.


PS4 being more friendly to indie devs definitely makes me feel more compelled to support that platform. I know for most people it's probably not a key purchase point, but having such a great selection really makes my purchase feel justified,

 

[mrklaw]

Developers like JAW who were pretty clear about their game never coming to X1 until they announced it was?

And of course they can still come to the X1. Spencer will just continue to make exception after exception. Just like he did for Outlast, Contrast, Stick to the Man, etc. We can argue he's only made a few, but the point is that as soon as a developer approaches him asking for one, he'll say yes.

Developers won't be able to ignore a console that will eventually have a 20m+ install base. Now is the time to apply pressure as the X1 is still struggling to hit its stride. You force a company to change when it's on the ropes, not when it's in a position of power.

They are essentially having their cake and eating it right now. Waiting for developers to come to them rather than dropping the clause as they know they can just give any developer they want an exception and still eventually get the game on their platform.

Which is entirely against the point of self publishing. The point of that was supposed to be a free and fair platform for developers to publish on. If they have to go cap in hand and beg MS for a waiver, it is no longer a self publishing system, it is the same old 'get approval from the platform holder' system

 

[Shyakugaun]

I for one don't mind, keeps the Marketplace from getting flooded by these subpar games, Sony relies way to heavily on Indies to fill their game Release Schedule, especially this year. But for the guys that do love Indies, i can see why this is annoying.

 

[xxracerxx]

It's clearly a move that was made when they thought Xbox One would be the market leader at least in the western world.

It sounds like it was a Mattrick move to be honest, which is why I'm not sure why Spencer doesn't just get rid of it.

Because it probably wasn't just a Mattrick move.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Because this thread is already focused on lists of games, can anyone compile the up to date and accurate breakdown of how much games were released on PS4 and Xbone so far?

Let's not, because this thread is about the XBO indie clause and it's impact on indie development and platform selection. Not "lists".

(Unless you mean just indie games.)

 

[Majmun]

Ridiculous policy. This is just too stupid and too damaging to continue. I'm sure we'll be seeing another 180

It's a stupid strongarm move you make when you're in first place. Nobody told them they're not anymore.

MS has never been 1st, though.

 

[hawk2025]

I for one don't mind, keeps the Marketplace from getting flooded by these subpar games, Sony relies way to heavily on Indies to fill their game Release Schedule, especially this year. But for the guys that do love Indies, i can see why this is annoying.

What subpar games?


The ones with 80+ Metacritic scores? Did you skip Amirox's post?

This thread is about how the Xbox One is missing on a great number of games, and also a great number of high quality games. It's all shown here factually and clearly. There is no "flooding" going on in the PS4

 

[imjust1n]

No real games tho. Don't count, etc

they are not real guys the people that worked on them are from the north pole and these are all santas made up games. Well I better start my xmas list because lots of them are going to be on there.

 

[xxracerxx]

I for one don't mind, keeps the Marketplace from getting flooded by these subpar games, Sony relies way to heavily on Indies to fill their game Release Schedule, especially this year. But for the guys that do love Indies, i can see why this is annoying.

Oh god.....so all the indie games on the XBO are better than subpar? What a ridiculous statement.

This thread is about how the Xbox One is missing on a great number of games, and also a great number of high quality games. It's all shown here factually and clearly. There is no "flooding" going on in the PS4

Exactly.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Which is entirely against the point of self publishing. The point of that was supposed to be a free and fair platform for developers to publish on. If they have to go cap in hand and beg MS for a waiver, it is no longer a self publishing system, it is the same old 'get approval from the platform holder' system

The really bastardised thing about is that MS have this place but developers still have to self publish, self promote the game and get what appears to be no real support from MS, even though they force developers to jump through these hoops to get on the platform in the first place.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I for one don't mind, keeps the Marketplace from getting flooded by these subpar games, Sony relies way to heavily on Indies to fill their game Release Schedule, especially this year. But for the guys that do love Indies, i can see why this is annoying.

Huh. What games are subpar and how exactly are they flooding the marketplace? Sony has a much tighter quality control on their platform than say something like Steam. You'll have to tell us what exactly you are referring to.

 

[BobTheFork]

It's clearly a move that was made when they thought Xbox One would be the market leader at least in the western world.

It sounds like it was a Mattrick move to be honest, which is why I'm not sure why Spencer doesn't just get rid of it.

Maybe. You would think that if XBO were leading the market with a huge margin, there would be LESS of a reason for this policy. Devs would just WANT to release on MS first or at the same time since that's where the gamers and the sales would be. Instead it just feels like it's an ego thing. They don't want to look like or treated like a second hand options. You are correct though, it feels like a Mattrick move that has been stuck with since his departure.

 

[gruenel]

Because this thread is already focused on lists of games, can anyone compile the up to date and accurate breakdown of how much games were released on PS4 and Xbone so far?

http://www.listwar.com

 

[Steverulez]

I for one don't mind, keeps the Marketplace from getting flooded by these subpar games, Sony relies way to heavily on Indies to fill their game Release Schedule, especially this year. But for the guys that do love Indies, i can see why this is annoying.

I find the concept of wanting less games on a platform you own bizarre.

Now, we could be discussing how the store is so horrendous for visibility that it might clutter things up, but the solution to that isn't to have less releases on the platform.

A lot of these games are far from "subpar" too

 

[Doukou]

I'll guess I'll play devil's advocate for a bit just to stir more interesting debate and for fun, even though I think it should go as it is ultimately ineffective, so I am arguing about the idea for it.

The reason for the parity clause is to force developers to try and make Xbox One one of the lead platforms. It's not so much that MS fears that a few or so games that come out will eventually get a port ala Shovel Knight and Super time Force Ultra but every indie game does. In this scenario developers would just make a PS4 version and release it and then work on Xbox One version and release that whenever. Once again fine for a few cases but what if eventually it turns to every or virtually every developer deciding to work on Xbox One platform later on. People are happy with getting some games later than others but how happy would they be if 70% of the indie games would take 6 or so months to release it?

But as I said earlier, I don't think this is how MS should do it. I feel a much better way would be try and seduce indie developers via perks to release parity, but I don't work at the Xbox Division so I can't really say if that is an viable way. I also believe that indie can't be forced via parity since generally speaking they either made a profit on PS4/PC and don't need to be forced, which empirical evidence seems to suggest is happening, so they don't see the need to jump through hoops.

So I can see why Xbox may think the parity clause benefits Xbox One users, it's one of the least effective ways to go about doing so. I hope that parity clause is just a band-aid to a more effective way to ensure that most indies release on Xbox One the same time without punishing them.

 

[DieH@rd]

I for one don't mind, keeps the Marketplace from getting flooded by these subpar games, Sony relies way to heavily on Indies to fill their game Release Schedule, especially this year. But for the guys that do love Indies, i can see why this is annoying.

Ah yes, the good old "subpar game flood" bullshit reasoning. The only flood of shovelware that is happening today is on Steam, which on daily basis gets 90%+ of really nonsense "gaming" products [and that is a very conservative percentage].

The fact of the matter is that Sony is actively curating game applications that are send to them, and they only give approval to potentially good games. They also did a very good job by actively contacting indie game devs and offering them streamlined way to get their games on PS4/Vita, without any strings attached.

 

[watership]

Sorry, I don't mean to come off as harsh. I apologize.

No worries. I apologize too. I should have read the whole OP, considering the work he put into it. I have read it now and I'm up to speed.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I for one don't mind, keeps the Marketplace from getting flooded by these subpar games, Sony relies way to heavily on Indies to fill their game Release Schedule, especially this year. But for the guys that do love Indies, i can see why this is annoying.

Flooded by subpar games?

What garbage reasoning is that?

 

[Steverulez]

If there were more indie games on the platform as well... theres a bigger chance we might get more than 1 new GwG each month too

 

[Jacksinthe]

*snip*

Thanks for the shout out, Amir0x and thank you Chubigans, for making this thread. I believe I can safely say that for all of us independent developers, it helps that this word is getting out there. Since my last post on that matter we have a new unannounced title and more movement towards multiple platforms and, again, X1 is not on that list (still). I have no pull to directly speak with Spencer so this whole thing does sting a little bit.

I'd love to see a change so that all of us can be better off with helping get that little push ahead by being on more devices. Just look at some of the awesome stuff in here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=491431 - completely ignore me for all I care. People over there are making dreams happen and could use as much support as they can get.

Ami, Chub - thanks again <3

 

[Servbot24]

I for one don't mind, keeps the Marketplace from getting flooded by these subpar games, Sony relies way to heavily on Indies to fill their game Release Schedule, especially this year. But for the guys that do love Indies, i can see why this is annoying.

As stated in the OP, MS doesn't filter the quality. They're just as likely to have bad games as anyone else.

Also PS4 and XB1 have about the same number of big exclusives, so indies are not getting in the way of PS4's AAA output. They're just on top of it.

 

[EGM1966]

It was always a stupid clause intended to put MS priorities ahead of developers.

MS really need to drop it as they're seeing no benefit from it and in fact arguably it's only prodocued negative results.

Just let the devs launch in whatever sequence they believe is best for them.

If they feel Xbox is best place to start they'll launch there first then move to other platforms. Sometimes they'll launcg PC or PS4 first.

Trying to force them to pick Xbox first or force them to try and cover costs while getting multiple versions ready just isn't working and like other aspects of the console that weren't working it should be changed.

 

[Garrett 2U]

I don't like the indie parity clause.
I understand the... justification?... behind the parity clause from a business standpoint, but it's obviously not effective and they need to re-evaluate.

There are many better ways of getting games on your system, like creating an environment that promotes independent developers.
I think that universal apps with Windows 10 will achieve just that and I believe Xbox will drop the clause when that happens.

Great OP to promote positive discussion =]