-
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
serversurfer
Member
Sorry, but are you saying these ridiculous party clauses may be in place simply to make Windows seem comparatively awesome? =/
"We have a product for people who don't like freedom; it's called the XBox One"? Srsly?
HighResTomato
Member
The fact that he sees it from the other business point of view. Instead of going on about how evil Phil Spencer is. When indie's release their games 6-12months before on the PS4, from Microsofts perspective thats 6-12months of the game being an exclusive therefor it can stay exclusive and doesn't bring the notion of Microsofts own platform getting "old games".
MS has a lot of work to do on the perception of their consoles, this policy might get them an angry indie scene but your console being known as the one that always gets games last is even worse.
BrokenEchelon
Banned
Microsoft is on another roll recently with the anti-consumer actions and words apparently.
Obviously the tweet doesn't guarantee anything will be done, but I'm not going to sit here assuming Phil is some evil non-gamer who wants to destroy indie gaming. It's worth trying.
Oh, I see. The old "cutting off your nose to spite your face" technique. Very sensible. Definitely worth applauding.
Mikey Jr.
Member
Ohh Jesus, that digital section...
You know after Microsoft fixes their current perception problems (if they ever fix them), their new perception problem is going to be that the Xbox One doesn't get as many cool small games as the PS4. And that's due to this. From a business standpoint, you want more content on your platform because every little game helps.
Dear god, no! Please just leave this shitty clause as it is and keep your greedy, restricting hands off Unity, MS!
The "other business point of view" = the one that's not supported by anything
So I guess this is a bit like climate scientists vs. climate skeptics then. Amir0x can post data and reactions to back his up points and people can doubt because reasons (supported with little to evidence).
Maybe you can respond to me with an inappropriate GIF for maximum effect.
This was the only part of the (IMO, solid) interview that I didn't like. While it was probably made with a few good intentions, this is playing a role in the PS4 getting more indie games.
Yeah, many of those games may not be things that will make many people determine what console to buy, but it's still disappointing if you are a big indie game fan. Indie games helped the 360 greatly back when the system when through droughts of big AAA titles (Summer months).
Yeah, many of those games may not be things that will make many people determine what console to buy, but it's still disappointing if you are a big indie game fan. Indie games helped the 360 greatly back when the system when through droughts of big AAA titles (Summer months).
BlackBuzzard
Banned
God no.
No not make Xbox worse, but different.
Openness has its advantages and disadvantages. Microsoft may be thinking "we want one platform with the advantages of a closed platform, and one platform with the advantages of an open one."
Again, I freely admit I'm shooting from the hip here. The other explanation would be that Microsoft thought this would be good -- that Xbox gamers would be treated better -- but it hasn't worked out. That explains why they initially tried it, but doesn't explain why they doubled down when then numbers are showing clearly negative results of this policy.
It really sucks you've been turned away from a platform (and potential revenue) due to this clause. I'm thinking maybe I was wrong in my arguments earlier so I tweeted Phill Spencer rather than joining in on the sony fanboy circle jerk express #yolo
https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/520266267534438401
hopefully something good can come of this
Right of course it's only them /s
We have seen this reply before nothing changed. Results speak louder than words.
"As the platform holder we want to make sure that the best games come to our platform and make sure we're supporting the developers creating the best games for the platform."
While Spencer did not offer any solutions, he did reference previous policy changes concerning the Xbox One.
"We've taken feedback and changed course before and today I'd say this is an ongoing discussion with the independent developers and I've had discussions here at GDC," he said.
"So really I want to hear from them [the studios] on what policy they want. 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, and they have some business needs and bandwidth needs that they need to deal with in order to survive. We want to meet them."
Dragonborn
Member
I don't think there's anyone who doesn't understand why MS is doing this, but it doesn't make it any less shitty. If MS is so worried about stuff like that, they can go about courting indie devs rather than setting limits. Make it more appealing for them to work on X1 first, rather than PS4. Instead, they basically say release on our platform first or not at all....unless you're popular in which case, rules fly out the window.
And you know, if devs still decide to pick PS4 over X1 then so be it, MS made their bed, they get to lay in it now.
But what do they gain from not having the game at all? Sure it may be 6-12 months late, but I'm sure those games would still bring some form of revenue to Microsoft's distributive platform. It just seems very nonsensical that they would choose the "no-money" option.
Steverulez
Member
This is interesting. Im against the clause because of obvious reasons but I also don't think its executed nearly as rigidly or intending to bully as people suggest.
I got a response from him on twitter a while back about the clause and said they should drop it and they he never replied, perhaps he should have listened to me back then haha
HighResTomato
Member
From the position Microsoft are in those indie titles don't really equate to their face. Business is ruthless, and yeah Indie's deserve help which both Sony and Microsoft are willing to give. If the reason for the gaming being on one platform and not the other because of financial reasons they can be given financial help. But like Aeqvitas said if it's for other reasons the responsibility lies with the indie dev.
EDIT:
If Microsoft has enough money bouncing around in their overseas accounts to buy Mojang for 2.x billion dollars I don't think they'll miss the revenue from those indie titles.
"lol it's da free market u kno" is the most hand-waving excuse out there short of "you're just salty console warriors who hate the xbox", both of which BruiserBear used in his flimsy defense of indie parity.
The realistic options at this point are that the Xbox One gets the games late or it doesn't get them at all. I fail to see how the reputation of "Xbox gets a lot of late games" is better than the reputation of "the Xbox doesn't get the games at all."
I'll say this, people always claim we are the 1% and our over reaction doesn't effect the larger market, but these guys (spencer/devs) they see how we are reacting, it's not like it goes unnoticed, they're aware we are mad (and make up more than the 1%)
I feel like..... microsoft has a bunch of rules and policies in place, that would have worked well if the xbone was the market leader and doing the ps4 #'s in sales. But they're not, so they kind of have to go back to the drawing board and re-work some of these policies, otherwise they are just cutting off their own circulation. Change these policies and then heal over time. Be realistic, you lost this year, try again next year. New year, new message. Idk.. They're not in the position to be pulling this crap.
I feel like..... microsoft has a bunch of rules and policies in place, that would have worked well if the xbone was the market leader and doing the ps4 #'s in sales. But they're not, so they kind of have to go back to the drawing board and re-work some of these policies, otherwise they are just cutting off their own circulation. Change these policies and then heal over time. Be realistic, you lost this year, try again next year. New year, new message. Idk.. They're not in the position to be pulling this crap.
Quadraphonic
Member
Hubris. Microsoft thought they controlled the market going into this, and by having this clause, they could scare the shit out of indie devs trying to go elsewhere.
Unfortunately, they fucked up, and it is an evil fucking thing to do, anyway. So they're getting their ass handed to them for it.
For indie games? Almost all of them have been on PS4 late. Maybe not almost all, but I'd definitely say over 50%.
Exactly. I definitely feel that this was made with the assumption the that the Xbox One would be the top selling console in North America (how could indie devs ignore us?).
That's the only thing that would make sense to me.
Acting out of pique isn't really mature course of action for a company in Microsoft's position. They should be wooing indies and diverse titles, not driving them away.
oldergamer
Member
All MS can do imo:
a) Grandfather in a change that any studios that are capable of supporting xbone in within a window of launch on PS4, make it something like 2.5 months is exempt from the old parity clause, but proof of the game at least running on Xbone be required before the launch date on PS4 for the exemption.
Or just go with the proof of the game running on xbone before the launch date on PS4 would be enough
b) New titles in development by indies after a specific date are fully exempt from the above clause.
At least having proof of the game running on the platform ( which shouldn't be too difficult considering the underlying hardware is the similar ) should be good enough to waive the current clause.
Even better would offering incentive for keeping the launch on both platforms closer together.
a) Grandfather in a change that any studios that are capable of supporting xbone in within a window of launch on PS4, make it something like 2.5 months is exempt from the old parity clause, but proof of the game at least running on Xbone be required before the launch date on PS4 for the exemption.
Or just go with the proof of the game running on xbone before the launch date on PS4 would be enough
b) New titles in development by indies after a specific date are fully exempt from the above clause.
At least having proof of the game running on the platform ( which shouldn't be too difficult considering the underlying hardware is the similar ) should be good enough to waive the current clause.
Even better would offering incentive for keeping the launch on both platforms closer together.
BlackBuzzard
Banned
Octodad was one of them and Broforce but there are likely dozens more.
SerTapTap
Member
Dust, Braid, Fez, Minecraft
edit: derp, that's 360 > PS platform, but you get the point. Sony isn't holding anyone back
Doctor_Thomas
Member
This is all Phil Spencer ever does. "We want to hear feedback". Since he took over, it's just constant "we want to hear feedback". A few forced changes, because of "the sony fanboy circle jerk express"/sales figures but, ultimately, nothing of note comes of anything he does. Spencer is still part of the old guard and he tows the line, but with a little more charisma. Nothing has changed in Redmond because of him, only because the market demanded it.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Hollow words. Remember when he said that Xbox, Screenshot was on the list of features they want to add to X1?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=827248
Nearly four months and counting and it's apparently not coming now until next year.
Expecting anything from Phil is pointless, he will say exactly what he thinks you want to hear and that's pretty much it.
Hollow words, hollow man.
Do you work for MS? This is an appallingly accurate representation of their shortsighted and awful mode of thinking..
Or they could simply drop the clause all together so there's no more public hand-wringing and shellacking on this issue they're having trouble with.
A LOT... for example:
* Minecraft
* Towerfall: Ascension
* Outlast
* Don't Starve
...and a long etc...
And I can easily wait for a game I want... Vanishing for example... and I'd like to have games like Gone Home or Stanley Parable on PS4 too...
Oh, but it absolutely is.
This policy means that instead of Xbone owners getting an indie title eventually, they never get it at all. Developers in this thread - and more that I talk to outside of here - have stated flat out that they're ignoring the platform precisely because of the bureaucratic and financial headache that it causes.
That doesn't bring value to your platform. It is a policy that is demonstrably hurting it.
So sure, a point is being proven and yada yada yada, but it's having the opposite effect. As the sales gap continues to grow, it'll become easier and easier for developers to make that decision. Caretaking of the platform should revolve around getting as many games on it as possible. Saying "we either get it on day one or not at all" is petulance by any reasonable standard.
Goodacre0081
Member
when this new policy was first reported it created a big stink for a few days and quietly went away without any change. I see the same happening again here.
I believe the only people that can change MS's opinion on the matter is XB1 owners themselves. it's too bad most of them don't see a problem with it or outright support it.
I believe the only people that can change MS's opinion on the matter is XB1 owners themselves. it's too bad most of them don't see a problem with it or outright support it.
This policy makes sense if you are the market leader, it will help you crush the opposition even further. But when you're behind, it will just put you even further behind. It just doesn't make sense for Microsoft, for the developer or for the consumer.
Hopefully he actually does something. There are way too many times when people ( in business) say "we will look at it" then forget about it a few months later.
oldergamer
Member
I figure there is going to be many Indie games that will never see the light of day, but at least give more a chance of success and its better for all parties.
Miles Q. has pointed out that Phil is notoriously bad about doing anything with the feedback they "accept".
Steverulez
Member
Hes had his job as head of Xbox for 6 months, before that tasks were shared with other people (such as Marc Whitten) or he just plain had people above him making decisions. If you had been given the gargantuan task of turning round the Xbox One from the position it was in back then, don't you think it would take you a while to make your mark on the division?
They want feedback so they see what people want and make plans spanning short-term and long-term, Rome wasn't built in a day
SerTapTap
Member
Hell, I've replayed games I already owned because they hit PS4 (on PS+ mostly). I actually played Fez on PS4 after giving up an hour in on PS4, I think I'll play Dust on PS4 instead of PC too, I even bought Octodad after getting a review copy on PC because I wanted to see the Move support (and support the dev). I may buy AAC on PS4 as well just because of simple local co op (and again I got a free review copy and would like to support the dev in this case)
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll