Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

10. It was Cross Buy and Vita owners really appreciated it.

11. Let's make our new game, now we have more cash, for PC, PS4, Vita and Wii U since those platforms worked for us.

Dominoes baby

 

[Patroclos]

It all boils down to this. Microsoft and a large part of it's fan base are suffering from gaming hubris. When you have the most powerful/best performing (I know, PS3 vs. 360 is arguable) system for two gens running, you and your fan base can enter into a certain mode of thought. This mode of thought results in a severe case of stunned shock and dismay amongst fans and most likely in Redmond itself when the reality of the situation becomes apparent that the tables have indeed turned this gen.

My hope was that Microsoft would adapt by improving it's first party lineup and being creative. It appears this won't be the case. Microsoft appears to be business as usual, strong-arm tactics, parity and moneyhatting still seem to be the order of the day. These tactics will fail if you are not the market share leader. The tone deaf attitude and inability to adapt to the new market will kill the Xbox One faster than any FPS/Res debate ever will.

That, my friends, is hubris defined.

 

[jayu26]

Indies coming in and talking about how awful this clause is for them is great, but I find following to be more interesting...

This argument of 'market share' can only apply to the Parity clause at the moment, so what was the argument for the Parity clause before they lost market share? It doesn't add up. He's lying.

First/second class "market share" thing doesn't make any sense, when you realize that this clause has existed since before the consoles released.

I don't know about lying, but they do seem to come up with ridiculous reasons to keep this clause.

 

[SerTapTap]

"Our goal is not to limit developers who are interested in Xbox One. In instances where games have signed a timed exclusive with another platform, we'll work with them on a case by case basis. We encourage them to get in touch at id@xbox.com."

I didn't even see this quote but knew they would do it this way. Has anybody checked on any dev studios that released first on xbox one and if sony made it more difficult for them to release on PS4? I know for a fact MS is much more forgiving to indies in the submission phase compared to sony.

Sony has explicitly stated they do not require release date parity

 

[NoMoChokeSJ]

Why would an indie dev, a small group, want to miss out on ANY sales? The X1 may be smaller, but it's by no mean small or stagnant in terms of user base.

They probably don't want to. But those are the stipulations of the platform. Maybe I just look at it a little different. If you don't have a legacy to stand on in any industry you rarely get to dictate the terms of your product. This is the same in the music industry, commodities industry, and pretty much any industry where you are asking a company to take a risk with your product. Publish something immensely successful, ala Minecraft, and you gain the leverage to dictate your own terms.

Also, just because a title isn't published on a platform doesn't mean the developer loses the entire consumer base. The consumer base is not an absolute number, I would imagine a lot of XB1 owners also own PS4s and/or PCs, so the entire consumer base is not excluded. If I'm going to buy an indie I typically buy on PC, even though I own both consoles. Honestly, to me I think both Sony and MS look at indies as free cheap give aways to satisfy their PS+ and Live communities, since that seems to be the current trend.

Side note maybe a developer can answer.. With the similarities to both PC and PS4, how much work is it to port a small indie title to the XB1? Are the system architecture similar enough to do so relatively simply?

Anyways.. This seems like a good stopping point for me.

 

[hawk2025]

If a late game is popular and would likely generate decent sales, they'll let it through.
If a late game is not popular and would likely generate poor sales, they won't.

Last thing they want is for the Xbox store to look like the $5 DVD bin in the supermarket. You could say 30% of $5 is a "sale", but they are rich as hell and don't care about the last dollar as much as they do the perception of their store. Hence the "second class" comment.

Ah, yes.

Hence Nutjitsu being published. This awful logic doesn't pass muster.

 

[Amir0x]

Sony has explicitly stated they do not require release date parity

They even released an image

Sony has done bad shit in the past, we know. No one is making any argument that they have not.

This thread is about the specific subject of ID@Xbox parity clause being complete bullshit. But many of these folks are desperate to try to change the subject due to how obvious it is.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

Indies coming in and talking about how awful this clause is for them is great, but I find following to be more interesting...

First/second class "market share" thing doesn't make any sense, when you realize that this clause has existed since before the consoles released.

I don't know about lying, but they do seem to come up with ridiculous reasons to keep this clause.

'Lying' is harsh, I agree, but it's a reasonable fit. Let's be honest here, it's to enable MS to hold back release of Indie games on the platform that's easier to develop for. It's a 'preventative' clause, not a 'empowering' clause. But it's backfired because Sony has twice the userbase which has lead to Spencer having to redefine what the intentions of the Parity clause are in as positive a way as he can: to guarantee quality over quantity. The only problem is, some people actually research which Indie games are not coming to the XB1 because of this clause and his whole argument disintegrates.

His statement is for the Misterx crowd.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Sony has explicitly stated they do not require release date parity

No. Which is nice as I am enjoying Dust on PS4 right now. I also enjoyed Fez, Castle Crashers and others in the past. I am glad Sony didn't stop me playing these titles.

 

[BruiserBear]

the clause seems to be waived for the games that garner hype and a following. that's even more of a slap in the face to the less known studios.

the more the Xbone division changes the more it stays the same. I can't believe people were so sure that Spencer was going to bring some real changes to the way the division was run

Microsoft bundled Minecraft in with the 360 a while back. That was the biggest slap in the face of all. Why no other indie games get bundled with the console?

Spoiler

/s

 

[Ricky_R]

Funny how a few indie developers have expressed their disdain towards the clause in here and most detractors just ignore them by continuing to reply only to those who share their sentiments.

Actually, it's quite sad.

 

[Patroclos]

New button available.

Fucking perfect. Dat snake-oil salesman grin.

 

[mcrommert]

Microsoft bundled Minecraft in with the 360 a while back. That was the biggest slap in the face of all. Why no other indie games get bundled with the console?

Firstly, Minecraft was published by Microsoft...so it was in reality a first party game

There is no secondly

 

[bishoptl]

so much for changing things. It's apparently PR disaster week on GAF.

 

[hoos30]

Not sure where you got the idea that a parity clause somehow prevents shit games from being released. If a dev is capable of releasing a shit game on multiple platforms at the same time, then XBO gets that shit game all the same. This policy is not a measure of quality except the exceptions to parity granting.

A multiplatform game being shit is one thing.

A late port being shit is entirely preventable and is clearly one of the benefits that MS sees from this policy.

 

[Amir0x]

Edit: ^ lol bish

Funny how a few indie developers have expressed their disdain towards the clause in here and most detractors just ignore them by continuing to reply only to those who share their sentiments.

Actually, it's quite sad.

Extremely sad. Every link, every indie post, every obvious bulletpoint proving they have absolutely no merit to their arguments is just casually cast aside because they can't admit it's bullshit.

These remaining few also have echoed a bunch of times about how this is somehow good for Microsoft's business, but curiously when pressed, not a single one has backed up how with anything even tangentially related to real world facts. But everyone on the other side keeps dropping a mountain of facts.

This conversation has been so one sided it's hilarious

 

[hoos30]

Microsoft bundled Minecraft in with the 360 a while back. That was the biggest slap in the face of all. Why no other indie games get bundled with the console?

Are you really asking why Microsoft bundled Minecraft?

 

[Toki767]

Luckily nothing ever really happens on a Friday. That counter might actually hit 1.

 

[benny_a]

Extremely sad. Every link, every indie post, every obvious bulletpoint proving they have absolutely no merit to their arguments is just casually cast aside because they can't admit it's bullshit.

At least we have identified a group of people that are going to leap to Sony's defense if they ever feel like playing flex-the-leadership-muscle when it comes to this shit.

 

[Marcel]

At least we have identified a group of people that are going to leap to Sony's defense if they ever feel like playing flex-the-leadership-muscle when it comes to this shit.

Yeah you know BruiserBear is going to definitely pat Sony on the back for having a "curated marketplace", lol.

 

[BruiserBear]

Are you really asking why Microsoft bundled Minecraft?

I have edited my post to make things more clear.

At least we have identified a group of people that are going to leap to Sony's defense if they ever feel like playing flex-the-leadership-muscle when it comes to this shit.

I'm generally a free market kind of guy. If Sony announced tomorrow that all indies must be exclusive to their console for a week, I wouldn't bat an eye.

 

[Amir0x]

Luckily nothing ever really happens on a Friday. That counter might actually hit 1.

Not true! Corporations love to dump bad PR on Fridays because the news gets drowned out on the weekends. It's a classic bad PR tactic!

 

[Stone Ocean]

Luckily nothing ever really happens on a Friday. That counter might actually hit 1.

Considering Ubisoft's PR department is apparently on vacation, I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Toki767]

Yeah you know BruiserBear is going to definitely pat Sony on the back for having a "curated marketplace", lol.

In a way, Sony is curating Xbox Live's marketplace for them.

 

[Aeqvitas]

This was a pretty decent argument.

It was actually a shit argument because that is describing the situation where Phil says they can make an exception, if it is because of financial hardship. The available evidence directly contradicts the argument.

The times they might actually enforce it is if maybe Sony money hatted a financially stable indie studio, and that studio just don't care about the xbox platform except as an afterthought.

This actual parity clause has nothing to do with features, but is to give an incentive to developers not to treat the platform as a second-class citizen.

It is a good decision for a company to make on behalf of its own consumers. Developers that want to slight the xbox platform can, but they will be leaving money on the table. I personally appreciate it as a platform holder. If it didn't exist, then I see a lot of developers only coming out with an xbox version a year or so later, Sony gets a giant bag of free virtual exclusives, and fanboys will have more arrows in their quiver for saying the xbox is a shit platform that should die.

So I really don't see the outrage against this, especially if you claim to be of the belief that all gamers should be treated equally, regardless of platform.

The problem is the parity is now a hate-inducing buzzword that sends people flipping tables without actually reasoning the situation. Look at how many posters in this thread are talking about this "holding back other platforms" when the actual discussion is about release dates. But they spout off without thinking, thus further spreading FUD because they scream louder than anyone else.

I really wish gamers as a community would tend less to mob mentality.

 

[Amir0x]

In a way, Sony is curating Xbox Live's marketplace for them.

oh my god LOL

 

[Family Fry]

To be fair, the game had its own set of problems, chiefly among them the critical reaction and not being aware of your buying market.

Of course.

It had frame rate issues and didn't review well but the game headed to PS4 first, the developers had an xbox one dev kit and they decided after it's release they couldn't afford the risk of making the XB1 version.

These are problems that can occur when making games as an indie, I was just highlighting that. I think most are all aware of them though.

Edit- I meant most people on GAF rather than the devs.

 

[mcrommert]

It was actually a shit argument because that is describing the situation where Phil says they can make an exception, if it is because of financial hardship. The available evidence directly contradicts the argument.

The times they might actually enforce it is if maybe Sony money hatted a financially stable indie studio, and that studio just don't care about the xbox platform except as an afterthought.

This actual parity clause has nothing to do with features, but is to give an incentive to developers not to treat the platform as a second-class citizen.

It is a good decision for a company to make on behalf of its own consumers. Developers that want to slight the xbox platform can, but they will be leaving money on the table. I personally appreciate it as a platform holder. If it didn't exist, then I see a lot of developers only coming out with an xbox version a year or so later, Sony gets a giant bag of free virtual exclusives, and fanboys will have more arrows in their quiver for saying the xbox is a shit platform that should die.

So I really don't see the outrage against this, especially if you claim to be of the belief that all gamers should be treated equally, regardless of platform.

The problem is the parity is now a hate-inducing buzzword that sends people flipping tables without actually reasoning the situation. Look at how many posters in this thread are talking about this "holding back other platforms" when the actual discussion is about release dates. But they spout off without thinking, thus further spreading FUD because they scream louder than anyone else.

I really wish gamers as a community would tend less to mob mentality.

 

[Beefy]

It was actually a shit argument because that is describing the situation where Phil says they can make an exception, if it is because of financial hardship. The available evidence directly contradicts the argument.

The times they might actually enforce it is if maybe Sony money hatted a financially stable indie studio, and that studio just don't care about the xbox platform except as an afterthought.

This actual parity clause has nothing to do with features, but is to give an incentive to developers not to treat the platform as a second-class citizen.

It is a good decision for a company to make on behalf of its own consumers. Developers that want to slight the xbox platform can, but they will be leaving money on the table. I personally appreciate it as a platform holder. If it didn't exist, then I see a lot of developers only coming out with an xbox version a year or so later, Sony gets a giant bag of free virtual exclusives, and fanboys will have more arrows in their quiver for saying the xbox is a shit platform that should die.

So I really don't see the outrage against this, especially if you claim to be of the belief that all gamers should be treated equally, regardless of platform.

The problem is the parity is now a hate-inducing buzzword that sends people flipping tables without actually reasoning the situation. Look at how many posters in this thread are talking about this "holding back other platforms" when the actual discussion is about release dates. But they spout off without thinking, thus further spreading FUD because they scream louder than anyone else.

I really wish gamers as a community would tend less to mob mentality.

It's called having a opinion, why label it a mob just because you don't agree?

 

[hawk2025]

Boom

Repeating the same misguided, thoughtless drivel does not constitute a "boom".

 

[Patroclos]

I don't know about lying, but they do seem to come up with ridiculous reasons to keep this clause.

1.) Parity clause has always been there from long before the "Day One" release. Equal market shares at this time.

2.) Today 10/9/14; Article quotes Phil Spencer that the parity clause is in-fact to prevent a mentality amongst developers that Xbox One is a second class audience due to market share.

3.) Conclusion; Phil Spencer is either a time traveller who knew this would happen before release or a disingenuous liar and bullshit artist.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Marcel]

Boom

Where's the "boom"? Xbox is being starved out on indies directly because of their parity clause. They've chosen a strategy that will limit the variety of games that come to their platform significantly. Tell me again how that's good for customers other than kissing your own boo-boos because you're not the market leader anymore?

 

[oldergamer]

How do you know?

The independent studio owners I know surprised me by saying as much. I thought it would be the other way around.

 

[Toki767]

It was actually a shit argument because that is describing the situation where Phil says they can make an exception, if it is because of financial hardship. The available evidence directly contradicts the argument.

The times they might actually enforce it is if maybe Sony money hatted a financially stable indie studio, and that studio just don't care about the xbox platform except as an afterthought.

This actual parity clause has nothing to do with features, but is to give an incentive to developers not to treat the platform as a second-class citizen.

It is a good decision for a company to make on behalf of its own consumers. Developers that want to slight the xbox platform can, but they will be leaving money on the table. I personally appreciate it as a platform holder. If it didn't exist, then I see a lot of developers only coming out with an xbox version a year or so later, Sony gets a giant bag of free virtual exclusives, and fanboys will have more arrows in their quiver for saying the xbox is a shit platform that should die.

So I really don't see the outrage against this, especially if you claim to be of the belief that all gamers should be treated equally, regardless of platform.

The problem is the parity is now a hate-inducing buzzword that sends people flipping tables without actually reasoning the situation. Look at how many posters in this thread are talking about this "holding back other platforms" when the actual discussion is about release dates. But they spout off without thinking, thus further spreading FUD because they scream louder than anyone else.

I really wish gamers as a community would tend less to mob mentality.

Yeah...no. When indies were launching first on 360 last gen, I was happy they were coming out on PS3 even if it was a year later since it meant I didn't have to buy a 360 to play them. As a platform holder, this clause means you're getting less games. This is not for the consumer or the developers. It's for Microsoft.

 

[Impeccable]

Boom

When in doubt spout absolute crap, look silly in the process and claim to be the victim until the point you can latch on to the first decently written rebuttal without adding more than a gif. Well done.

 

[hoos30]

Ah, yes.

Hence Nutjitsu being published. This awful logic doesn't pass muster.

Was Nutjitsu a PSN game that got ported to XB1? I don't know that game, but I can't see how it fits into the topic.

 

[IAmRandom31]

lol

greatness

 

[TheRagnCajun]

So if the X1 didnt exist would they still be putting their livelihood in jeopardy by creating a game? Lets not get too over the top with our arguments here....


Because these types of games are severely unhyped, usually fall way short of any sales compared to their initial releases, and dont do as much for the console maker getting the game later than it does upon initial release. And in the current climate, it's pretty easy to just accept money from Sony for timed exclusive promotion and not mention an X1 version until after that period is up which i'm pretty sure I've read has happened at least a time or two.

I can see the argument for both sides tho. You have the devs that want the luxury to do what they want and release whenever wherever to turn as much profit as possible. And you have MS saying giving Sony defacto timed exclusives because you chose to release their first does them more favors than us so no thanks to your sloppy seconds.

In their (MS) eyes, they dont win or gain much simply from allowing EVERY game that goes defacto PS4 timed exclusive to be released on X1 whenever. Thus the clause.

I really don't think there's much 'luxury' on the side of the indie developer at all.

It pretty much is their livelihood. From what I have seen, most indie devs take on huge risk by working on their own project for 2+ years with no income. That risk is multiplied by other parties insisting on parity releases.

I know there may be some sweatheart deals between choice indie devs and Sony, but I think that is the exception to the norm. Most indie devs that are 'exclusive' to sony or PC do so for their own business plan. If MS isn't getting preferential treatment in this regard, it is because there is a problem with the xbox ecosystem. I think this whole 'now or never' parity approach from MS is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how indie development works.

 

[serversurfer]

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.

That's what he's trying to imply in this interview, but he also had this to say about their "conversations" with developers on the subject of parity.

"They’re going to have to understand that as a platform holder we have certain things that hold true to what we want to be as a platform…"

So it sounds like you're required to comply, but they're happy to explain to you why.

 

[benny_a]

The problem is the parity is now a hate-inducing buzzword that sends people flipping tables without actually reasoning the situation. Look at how many posters in this thread are talking about this "holding back other platforms" when the actual discussion is about release dates. But they spout off without thinking, thus further spreading FUD because they scream louder than anyone else.

I probably have read every post.

I don't think there were many people that talked about what you're talking about. It was about the release date.

The quote you use does not exist in this thread either. There were some people speculating that this reinforcement by Phil means that the other parity stuff might be true.

 

[Goodacre0081]

Luckily nothing ever really happens on a Friday. That counter might actually hit 1.

we might see some Driveclub shenanigans on Friday if they decide to open up the PS+ edition.

 

[Amir0x]

It was actually a shit argument because that is describing the situation where Phil says they can make an exception, if it is because of financial hardship. The available evidence directly contradicts the argument.

Show an example where they made an exception for financial hardship. Hard evidence only, please, not just Phil Spencer promising he has. And then, when you show us that evidence, demonstrate how that changes the policy still being bad.

But we have tons of examples where the parity clause has forced devs to be unable to release on the system, and tons of GAFers who are indies who said it has been hurtful

Indies all expressing displeasure with the policy
GAF Indie Devs Speaking Up

Let's see, so far...

games by metascore NOT available on the other console:

score   PS4     Xbox
90+       3        2
80+      21        3

Link

That's just for those games 80+ too. See that gap? That's mostly all indies. That have not come to Xbox One. Partly because of the parity clause.

Let's see... there are nearly 300 indie devs ready to make games for XBO; there are over 1000 ready to make games for PS4. Many of those decisions were also made due to the parity clause.

Is this parity clause helping sales? Not by any sales numbers we can see. Xbox One indies are not selling particularly better in any reports we got; Xbox One and the fans of XBO are indisputably receiving less good solid games because of it. And on top of that they keep opening up these horrible PR wounds and showing they're still total dicks sometimes. So, in what way in your estimation has this disastrous policy helped anyone, including MS?

Please, describe how our "mob mentality" is even remotely wrong based on the evidence before us?

 

[A_Gorilla]

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?

Well I understood all of that. One of the perks of being a History major.

 

[John Bender]

Wrong timing, dude. Nothing "Boom" here.

 

[Patroclos]

 

[Dragonborn]

I have edited my post to make things more clear.



I'm generally a free market kind of guy. If Sony announced tomorrow that all indies must be exclusive to their console for a week, I wouldn't bat an eye.

Doesn't make it any less of an irrelevant straw man argument. Minecraft is a totally different situation.

 

[Stone Ocean]

This actual parity clause has nothing to do with features, but is to give an incentive to developers not to treat the platform as a second-class citizen.

It is a good decision for a company to make on behalf of its own consumers. Developers that want to slight the xbox platform can, but they will be leaving money on the table. I personally appreciate it as a platform holder. If it didn't exist, then I see a lot of developers only coming out with an xbox version a year or so later, Sony gets a giant bag of free virtual exclusives, and fanboys will have more arrows in their quiver for saying the xbox is a shit platform that should die.

The idea of "second class citizens" is ridiculous. You're getting a game a bit later, likely with extra stuff in it, not getting some "leftovers"

This is not a good decision because Microsoft has absolutely no leverage for this. Indies don't depend on Xbox to exist, if Microsoft closes the gates they'll just look up to the much more open-minded competitors. Instead of getting the game afterwards, you'll not be getting the game at all. You don't get to play hardball and dictate the market when you're not leading and you're the only one trying rule with an iron fist.

All this clause is going to do is to force indie devs to choose a side, and 80% of them will not choose MS's. Microsoft wins nothing and XB1 players lose out on great games because of some stupid business decision.

 

[fantomena]

Spencer just got Mattricked.

 

[Phoenix Fang]

What bad PR has been going on this week?

 

[tmtyf]

What is MS's response when you ask for an exception?

i'm actually very interested in hearing if any of the devs that have posted here have tried to talk to MS and have gotten a response to see if MS really is willing to work with them or if its just bs.