Support NeoGAF

[Xando]

Out of curiosity, how many of the games on PS4 are late? How many are on PC or iOS or Wii U or whatever else first before being release on PS4? Would people prefer that "The Vanishing of Ethan Carter" not come out on PS4 at all, for example?

Thats my problem in this whole controversy.

Why is it so important to have a Indie game first or at the same time like everyone else?

I love indie games but i rarely buy them day one.

As long as games that i want like No Mans Sky or Hotline Miami come to PS4 i couldnt care less if they release first on PC,XB1 or Wii U.

 

[HighResTomato]

God I hate this argument.

How mature.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Dust, Braid, Fez, Minecraft

Castle Crashers.
Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons launched a month earlier on XBox.
Castlevania: Harmony of Despair
Spelunky

Probably more.

 

[xxracerxx]

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

What? All I hear about is how well Spencer has done already and made his mark on the brand for the better.

 

[fantomena]

I

https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/520266267534438401

Most of his Tweets where he comments about ngeativity and positivity are "We read your feedback".

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

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

This is the technology industry, 6 months is a ridiculous amount of time.

 

[Impeccable]

What? All I hear about is how well Spencer has done already and made his mark on the brand for the better.

He doesn't take credit for the bad, only the good.

That happens to our idols.

 

[Marcel]

How mature.

Because you posting GIFs to agree with baseless nonsense is so much better.

 

[Bgamer90]

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.

The thing is though that many console gamers period don't really care about indie games so they wouldn't even know about this policy to begin with.

Would say that's different from "supporting it". I mean, the question about this was asked on an Xbox focused podcast -- I doubt that most who actually know about it are 100% in favor of it.

 

[benny_a]

Hollow words, hollow man.

 

[keit4]

Do you work for MS? This is an appallingly accurate representation of their shortsighted and awful mode of thinking..

How so?

 

[hoos30]

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.

MS is not really tripping off of revenue from indie games.

What they get is mid-sized and larger indie devs hustling to keep XB1 projects "on par" (read: on time) with PS4 projects. What they lose is projects from smaller devs. unless, again, that game is likely to have good enough sales to overcome the handicap (no media, buzz, etc.).

Cost/benefit. I know, crazy.

 

[Beefy]

Miles Q. has pointed out that Phil is notoriously bad about doing anything with the feedback they "accept".

Yeah just seen his post. So it seems it is just words to get people off his back until the next big screw up happens.

 

[Kayant]

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.

I dunno with OS updates it seems they listen to feedback there quite well feedback but with this it means nothing he said the same thing at GDC, nothing has happened so far and he is still defending it with no signs of wanting to remove it - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=133614941&highlight=#post133614941

 

[QaaQer]

Well, this make me start to believe they may be enforcing resolution parity for games with co-marketing deals.

.

IMO, the mindset comes from the decades of stack ranking where only the most astute and vicious political players would rise. EEE, afterall.

They have said they have gotten rid of it, although I don't know hwat has replaced it. If they have actually gotten rid of it, it will take probably a decade for the toxins to be flushed away.

 

[Steverulez]

This is the technology industry, 6 months is a ridiculous amount of time.

How long did it take Sony to turn themselves around from the early PS3 days? I think it took them longer than 6 months, and I think Microsoft are probably in a worse position

What? All I hear about is how well Spencer has done already and made his mark on the brand for the better.

I think he has done well in the past 6 months: Kinectless sku, changes to Xbox Live Gold, their press conferences being about games now, but there is obviously a lot more he can do and probably not all of those were specifically his decision but they happened when he was in charge

 

[bishoptl]

How mature.

Nearly as mature as saying who's going to miss that indie revenue, they've got Mojang? That attitude does explain a lot.

 

[hwateber]

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.

c'mon mayne you can just say BruiserBear, he's not Voldemort

 

[BitStyle]

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.

That may be the case currently, but as the amount of games they miss out on increases, so does their potential revenue, and it will only increase exponentially in this case.

 

[oldergamer]

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.

As a consumer I don't want games to appear on my platform 6 - 12 months later. Not when I could have played them already. If they appear that late, I likely won't bother with them, as there will be something newer that could appeal to me or I have already played it.

Basically this comes down to financials. MS needs to throw some funding money back to indies to support their platform. Or more incentive. Just waiving the clause will not get me games day & date with the PS4 release.

All imo, but I want choice of the platform I can play these games on! If I can't get it on one, then I will get it on the other. Gamers are typically impatient ( or at least i am ) lol.

 

[RowdyReverb]

Why is it so important to have a Indie game first or at the same time like everyone else?

Because indie games live or die based on buzz. They tend to get very popular, very quickly, and then wane in popularity just as quickly. If the game comes out on Xbox One after it's already had its time in the spotlight, it's a missed opportunity.

 

[DangerMouse]

Well I guess that's our confirmation that Spencer isn't just ambivalent towards the parity clause but actually thinks it's a good thing. If you needed any more proof that his shit stinks nearly as bad as Mattrick's, there it is.

Ironically, as long as the PS4 has a commanding lead over the Xbone the clause is going to make Xbone a third class citizen when it comes to indies.

Bingo.

 

[SerTapTap]

Because indie games live or die based on buzz. They tend to get very popular, very quickly, and then wane in popularity just as quickly. If the game comes out on Xbox One after it's already had its time in the spotlight, it's a missed opportunity.

"late ports" seem to sell quite well enough for the devs themselves to consider them worth it. I don't think the problem is the absolute sales, but rather Xbox wants to steal any advantage from Sony they can.

 

[Goodacre0081]

As a consumer I don't want games to appear on my platform 6 - 12 months later. Not when I could have played them already. If they appear that late, I likely won't bother with them, as there will be something newer that could appeal to me or I have already played it.

well, it looks like the clause is working as intended for some people

 

[BlastProcessing]

I'm sure you would admit, staggered releases can also hurt sales on one platform. Every independent developer needs to make platform decisions. Large or small. I've tried the indie thing back before the first iphone existed with a 4 person studio. much harder back then then it is now. Sony & MS wouldn't even give you a dev kit if you didn't have a publisher backing you.

With a two man team, could you even realistically consider more then one platform?

I really don't think staggered releases hurt sales. I would argue the opposite actually. Games like Spelunky, Bastion and Super Meat Boy all made more money on their secondary platforms.

The most important currency a indie has is attention. Combine that with the fact that sales on a platform are still frontloaded and you can see how useful it is to take the exposure you gained from one platform release and use it to raise awareness for the next. It is so much easier to get coverage when your game is already known.

I agree that console platforms are way more open than they were last gen. Which is exactly why this parity thing rankles.

And yes, with a two man team we can realistically support multiple platforms as long as we can stagger the releases. The most common piece of advice I have gotten when I have been able to pick the brains of successful devs is: Focus on one platform and build a great game. Then, if it isn't immediately successful don't give up; instead get it out on other platforms because you never know which one it will catch on with.

Seriously, I have heard multiple stories of games (games that people just assume were immediate successes) that were only profitable with ports.

 

[Nightengale]

Because indie games live or die based on buzz. They tend to get very popular, very quickly, and then wane in popularity just as quickly. If the game comes out on Xbox One after it's already had its time in the spotlight, it's a missed opportunity.

Missed opportunity for who?

If a dev simply cannot support releasing multiple SKUs at one-go, then a tiered release is the only way they can go about things.

That means they live with the fact that the late-ports will make less money... but you know what? They're still making money from those late-ports.

The dev's financials should be the priority here, because the only reason that these parity clause shouldn't be there is that we want these devs to profit.

 

[Xando]

Because indie games live or die based on buzz. They tend to get very popular, very quickly, and then wane in popularity just as quickly. If the game comes out on Xbox One after it's already had its time in the spotlight, it's a missed opportunity.

That might be true but why doesnt MS generate some buzz for them then?

Don't they have something like the PS Blog?

I feel like i see a new indie game on PS blog everyday but i rarely read anything about indies outside of conferences and ID@Xbox trailers with 10 games in one trailer.

 

[btkadams]

If you're an Xbox One owner with no other console, would you prefer getting a game late or not getting it at all? Getting less games is shittier for Xbox One owners, and that's who Phil is supposed to be thinking of. This clause is stupid, and I say it as an owner of the system. Fortunately, I have a Wii U, vita, 3DS, and PS4 to play games that don't hit it. I just wish I had a gaming PC!

 

[Marcel]

As a consumer I don't want games to appear on my platform 6 - 12 months later. Not when I could have played them already. If they appear that late, I likely won't bother with them, as there will be something newer that could appeal to me or I have already played it.

Basically this comes down to financials. MS needs to throw some funding money back to indies to support their platform. Or more incentive. Just waiving the clause will not get me games day & date with the PS4 release.

All imo, but I want choice of the platform I can play these games on! If I can't get it on one, then I will get it on the other. Gamers are typically impatient ( or at least i am ) lol.

You're not getting them at all by a large margin. You think the parity clause will make that better? All evidence points to indies going away from Xbox One until they drop the clause.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

That might be true but why doesnt MS generate some buzz for them then?

Don't they have something like the PS Blog?

I feel like i see a new indie game on PS blog everyday but i rarely read anything about indies outside of conferences and ID@Xbox trailers with 10 games in one trailer.

Do you read Xbox Wire?

EDIT: Shit I take that back. There is NO indie presence on Xbox Wire! LOL

WTF?

 

[oldergamer]

"late ports" seem to sell quite well enough for the devs themselves to consider them worth it. I don't think the problem is the absolute sales, but rather Xbox wants to steal any advantage from Sony they can.

Based on what games? I mean its one thing to think they sell well, and actually have them do so. If you look at big publishers, I think they look at it the opposite. You're better off selling on multi-platforms at once, as later releases hurt sales.

Games are often impulse purchases. if you couldn't get that game when it first came out, your chance of getting it later lowers ( specifically when you have more to compete with ).

 

[Xando]

Do you read Xbox Wire?

No thats why im asking.

 

[Marcel]

Based on what games? I mean its one thing to think they sell well, and actually have them do so. If you look at big publishers, I think they look at it the opposite. You're better off selling on multi-platforms at once, as later releases hurt sales.

Games are often impulse purchases. if you couldn't get that game when it first came out, your chance of getting it later lowers ( specifically when you have more to compete with ).

Until you provide data to make your case in the same way that Amir0x did, you're pissing in the wind. This anecdotal stuff doesn't mean jack.

 

[Patroclos]

Saying "we either get it on day one or not at all" is petulance by any reasonable standard.

It's the hubris of a Company used to dictating industry policy for a whole console gen while being the, arguably, more powerful option in the console world for two gens. The problem I see now is an inability to quickly adapt to what the market dictates and desires presently.

Microsoft has been far behind the curve in responding to consumers and getting the proper tone and mindset down within it's Xbox division. The ham handed attempts to act as if it is business as usual are worrying for the future of the brand. The policies that made you successful in the past will no longer work. We are almost a year in now and every week it appears that Microsoft has learned nothing from past errors.

 

[oldergamer]

You're not getting them at all by a large margin. You think the parity clause will make that better? All evidence points to indies going away from Xbox One until they drop the clause.

Well it's like I said, if i can't get them on one platform, i will on the other. It doesn't benefit me as a consumer having a 6 - 12 month delay. If I don't have a choice where to get it.

 

[Kayant]

Ok Phil, i think it's time to drop the parity clause and look for other ways to make the Xbox One the indies console. A great starting point would be to buy Unity Technologies and ease the development for the Xbox platforms with those tools.

What's the point of that? Xbox devs already get Unity Pro license for free what else will they be getting from that?

 

[xxracerxx]

Based on what games? I mean its one thing to think they sell well, and actually have them do so. If you look at big publishers, I think they look at it the opposite. You're better off selling on multi-platforms at once, as later releases hurt sales.

Games are often impulse purchases. if you couldn't get that game when it first came out, your chance of getting it later lowers ( specifically when you have more to compete with ).

But we are discussing indies...usually not being published by big companies.

 

[Hubble]

Except the indies do, and have repeatedly said they do.

But hey no let's give indies an unfair burden because we're desperate to have games at the same time because we were so comically behind in courting indies that now we have to force them to be there day one! Way to go Xbox brand, you guys prove once again how much you care!

Seriously, you realize how selfish that is?

Listen to the full interview. This is nowhere as close to a PR blunder. And I doubt "all indies do", sure a few raised their objections just like on GAF, where people differ in opinions. A lot of indies understand the purpose of why it's there.

The parity clause exists for games launching on other platforms to simultaneously launch on Xbox One. It ensures its launch on Xbox One. People on GAF love to hate, that's all.

Phil also said he understands not all indies can afford it and if so, they work on a case by case basis.

 

[oldergamer]

Until you provide data to make your case in the same way that Amir0x did, you're pissing in the wind. This anecdotal stuff doesn't mean jack.

Sales data? Amir0x didn't provide that or I missed it. At least give the person who looked for that info in the original post credit.

 

[greenegt]

That clause needs to go. It will help MS more in the long run.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

No thats why im asking.

See my earlier edit. Xbox Wire seems to do nothing for indie game announcements. Steve's thread here seems to be the best place to go.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=717893

 

[TetraGenesis]

Laughed SO hard.

 

[oldergamer]

But we are discussing indies...usually not being published by big companies.

It was an example of different thinking that could lead to a different conclusion. regardless of indie vs big publishers.

 

[Toki767]

Based on what games? I mean its one thing to think they sell well, and actually have them do so. If you look at big publishers, I think they look at it the opposite. You're better off selling on multi-platforms at once, as later releases hurt sales.

Games are often impulse purchases. if you couldn't get that game when it first came out, your chance of getting it later lowers ( specifically when you have more to compete with ).

If late ports didn't do at least semi-decent, we'd never be having late ports.

 

[Marcel]

I have no problem with it. Listen to the full interview. This is nowhere as close to a PR blunder.

The parity clause exists for games launching on other platforms to simultaneously launch on Xbox One. It ensures its launch on Xbox One. People on GAF love to hate, that's all.

Phil also said he understands not all indies can afford it and if so, they work on a case by case basis.

Uh, the fact that Phil responded to this discussion at all means they at least acknowledge that it's a PR blunder. What they do from here remains to be seen.

 

[bishoptl]

I have no problem with it. Listen to the full interview. This is nowhere as close to a PR blunder.

The parity clause exists for games launching on other platforms to simultaneously launch on Xbox One. It ensures its launch on Xbox One. People on GAF love to hate, that's all.

Phil also said he understands not all indies can afford it and if so, they work on a case by case basis.

The parity clause doesn't ensure its launch on Xbone. In fact, it's doing the opposite. As referenced by developers in this thread.

There's no reason for it from a developer POV. Period.

 

[Sean*O]

Bully em if you can, buy em if you can't.

 

[keit4]

What's the point of that? Xbox devs already get Unity Pro license for free what else will they be getting from that?

Better performance, integration and ease of development for games made with Unity for the Xbox One.

 

[Stone Ocean]

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.

Yeah, this is about the money.

XB1 owners can all rest easy knowing that while they aren't getting cool indie games, Microsoft is filthy rich.

 

[Kayant]

Do you read Xbox Wire?

EDIT: Shit I take that back. There is NO indie presence on Xbox Wire! LOL

WTF?

The only time they do indie stuff if am not mistaken is if it's a complication of titles, GwG, showcase from an event rarely would you see a post about one single title with word's from the dev that you see for most if not all indie titles on the PS blog.