SuperSonic1305
Member
Yeah I was about to say. Just went through the entire list of September articles and there is one mention of Ori and that's it.
-
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
Yeah I was about to say. Just went through the entire list of September articles and there is one mention of Ori and that's it.
So you're a multi platform owner. You're not affected by these games never reaching your platform, but what about those that only have an xbox? It's dumb to say they're better off never having the game at all
Could have sworn that sixty second shooter got an entry. I may be wrong though.
Buying things instead of creating them is why they have a dearth of first party games for the foreseeable future. Isn't that obvious?
Your argument is self-defeating: if late ports weren't economically feasible, they wouldn't exist, which in turn also makes the parity clause moot.
And life becomes so much more fulfilling, especially as one ages. Even Bill Gates found this out.
OT: anyone know what his stake in MS currently is? Is he still selling 1% per year until out?
SEGAvangelist
Member
Yeah this is pretty ridiculous. It would be pretty easy to get just a small writeup for each ID@Xbox release. I bet some people here would even do it for free.
I get the "second-class citizen" argument, but MS is going about it the wrong way. Drop the clause and support the indies. Sony is bearing the fruit of efforts that were started a long time ago. MS should to do the same. It also be a another positive step forward in rebuilding their image.
ChosenPredator
Banned
I noticed I've been reading and seeing people blowing gaskets at each other. I listened to the interview and what he said didn't sound like bullying just openly discussing his thoughts about it , he seems like he'd be open to change... Lots of over blowing doom
And gloom
Coming from here lol
Yes, developers are burdened by it and are doing the opposite, and if so, Xbox will work with them if they reach out.
The parity clause's purpose is to ensure the game will launch on Xbox One at the same time. It's your opinion that it turns developers away, sure in some cases yes, but there is no evidence 1000 indies titles are not launching on XBO because of this clause. It helps the platform gain simultaneous launches when possible.
The weird thing about Xbox Wire not doing indie stuff is that Jeff Rubenstein is part of that team and he was probably the man responsible for the PS Blog having so much indie coverage to begin with.
Phils responds is just bullshit to me.
I can even understand that you don't want to be the place that gets every indie title much later than your competitor. However this happening has simple reasons that MS just fails to acknowledge. Instead they just pull out the asshole card and say that if you don't release on our platform first/at the same time, chances are your title won't come to our console ever.
This is exactly the "spirit" I loathe from MS, instead of funding their own IPs/studios they decide to buy exclusivity like in the Tomb Raider case, essentially taking something away instead of adding something to the market. Instead of giving indies an incentive to release in a timely manner on their platform they rather prevent the title from getting released at all if they do not follow the way MS wants.
It's really like MS has not realized that they are quite behind the console race, and they are loosing ground every day. This is not 2008 anymore where they were leading by a lot and could dictate how indies come to their platform. You know ... instead of wasting millions on a stupid Tomb Raider deal they could have used that money to support indies, fund games, help with certification or any other needs small studios have. Give people a real reason to actually consider your platform as viable.
Imho every game not released on your platform means that someone might decide against your console, or if he already own it it's a reason to buy your competitors product.
I can even understand that you don't want to be the place that gets every indie title much later than your competitor. However this happening has simple reasons that MS just fails to acknowledge. Instead they just pull out the asshole card and say that if you don't release on our platform first/at the same time, chances are your title won't come to our console ever.
This is exactly the "spirit" I loathe from MS, instead of funding their own IPs/studios they decide to buy exclusivity like in the Tomb Raider case, essentially taking something away instead of adding something to the market. Instead of giving indies an incentive to release in a timely manner on their platform they rather prevent the title from getting released at all if they do not follow the way MS wants.
It's really like MS has not realized that they are quite behind the console race, and they are loosing ground every day. This is not 2008 anymore where they were leading by a lot and could dictate how indies come to their platform. You know ... instead of wasting millions on a stupid Tomb Raider deal they could have used that money to support indies, fund games, help with certification or any other needs small studios have. Give people a real reason to actually consider your platform as viable.
Imho every game not released on your platform means that someone might decide against your console, or if he already own it it's a reason to buy your competitors product.
It more likely ensures that the XB1 doesn't get the game at all, while the other platforms do.
oldergamer
Member
...but from a consumers point of view, you would admit it has merit?
This is in no way a guarantee.
Impeccable
Member
Did you miss Amir0x's post that clearly laid out the fact that Playstation as it stands already holds an insane amount more of highly rated independant titles? This is only year one. It's not going to shift suddenly.
It has about as much merit as region-locking. Do you think that's defensible too?
That's your opinion. I think that's a bit of a reach. Indies and recent ones have been launching on Xbox One.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=133608044&postcount=692 yeah because numbers do not really show a clear trend? Added to that tons of developers on GAF/Internet clearly stating that this policy is a reason you won't find their title on the platform.
You asked for the Microsoft Buzz Generator? Wish granted in glorious Sub-HD!
Where HAS this guy been?
Why the need to create something when you can get the most widely used engine? More so when Unity Technologies are looking for a buyer....
Who are you really speaking for here? If you're a single platform gamer, then there's absolutely no way you can realistically think that, no matter how aggressive the platform owner is about content acquisition. The game market is too mature, too robust and too diversified for any single platform gamer not to be inherently accepting significant tradeoffs on content access. If you're a consumer who so desperately cares about day 1 access to as many games as possible, you're going to be a multiplatform consumer and this quaint notion of "my" platform has no bearing.
Wow, some indie games exist on Xbox One. Some earth-shattering revelations from the pro-parity crowd here.
Crimson_Gold
Member
No one wants those leftover games released in foreign languages
/s
There is nothing about this policy that benefits that consumer. PS3 owners, those without any other console or pc, had to wait for several games inlcuding Fez and Castle Crashers. I would hate Sony forever if the company had denied me the hours of fun I had playing Castle Crashers over some stupid parity clause.
TheSlySoul
Member
Honestly the indie parity clause hurts developers more than anyone else. Microsoft should drop the policy. It is better to be on Coach than not on the plane at all. Even with the case-by-case, Mousecraft is not going to be on XBO.
Steverulez
Member
I appreciate the shoutout for my thread
Xbox Wire does usually post stuff, the problem is that searching on the site is ridiculously awful, I typed in Sixty Second Shooter Prime - it didn't appear in the results yet if you go down to the Q2 list of articles at the bottom you have an article for it along with other indies:
SSSP - Contrast/Zombie Driver/RBI Baseball/Another World release - Hyper Light Drifter - Lovers in a Dangerous Spacetime - ID@Xbox @ E3 - Super Time Force
As you can see, they do post stuff and theres more but Ive made my point so didn't feel the need to go and find it but their search is crap and theres no specific section to browse for it. Their twitter account has less than 7k followers anyway (compared to the official Xbox account with 3.8m) so I'm not sure Xbox Wire posting stuff matters...
thomasmahler
Member
It's all the rage right now. That is, companies try to make consumers feel connected and engaged through social media. It's just marketing.
I know you're just joining the topic and have missed the fifty billion posts that prove every last aspect of your "position" wrong with actual hard evidence, but I'll still say you should read the topic. Badly. Not one aspect of your comment rings even remotely true based on the evidence we have, except that Phil does indeed say he'll give indies exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Which is a terrible argument for keeping a shitty policy around.
Additionally, please provide hard evidence with links for the indie developers saying this is a good policy or that they understand why and have no problem with it.
Stone Ocean
Member
What merit?
No games as opposed to late games. Microsoft is simply handicapping their own library because of some delusional pride. How is this helping customers? Oh, you might get half a dozen games at launch at the cost of two dozen other games never being released in your platform of choice, whoopdeefuckingdoo
SEGAvangelist
Member
I appreciate the shoutout for my thread
Xbox Wire does usually post stuff, the problem is that searching on the site is ridiculously awful, I typed in Sixty Second Shooter Prime - it didn't appear in the results yet if you go down to the Q2 list of articles at the bottom you have an article for it along with other indies:
SSSP - Contrast/Zombie Driver/RBI Baseball/Another World release - Hyper Light Drifter - Lovers in a Dangerous Spacetime - ID@Xbox @ E3 - Super Time Force
As you can see, they do post stuff and theres more but Ive made my point so didn't feel the need to go and find it but their search is crap and theres no specific section to browse for it. Their twitter account has less than 7k followers anyway (compared to the official Xbox account with 3.8m) so I'm not sure Xbox Wire posting stuff matters...
When I looked through the article archive nothing showed up, though. So strange.
Mass Effect
Member
BruiserBear
Banned
Are you really going to try and argue a huge part of this thread isn't people taking pot shots at Microsoft? Yes, there are some rational arguments in the mix, but a big part of these discussions is just people yelling about the evil empire that is Microsoft.
I simply see these platform holders as the gate keepers to their platforms. I have no problem with them placing rules on how games end up on their platforms.
Steverulez
Member
Yeh, its really stupid and shit, but it proves they do make an effort, its just you can't find it.
Doesn't help that visibility on the store is so poor as well but I've said enough about that over the last week
I disagree with that part. Square Enix and MS are partners in that deal and it made sense for both given the release timeframe. It's not like they bought Square Enix in a hostile takeover and cancelled the PS4 version.
I wouldn't. Last gen, many great originally-XBLA-only releases eventually found their way to PSN but not vice versa. These are games like Castle Crashers and Braid. As an Xbox gamer for the majority of the generation, that wasn't benefitting me. PSN ended up with more cool arcade-type indie games overall by the end of the generation, in my opinion. The reason why is because their doors were always open for ports.
Goodacre0081
Member
pretty much this. it's one of the last forms of control they have left after losing the NA market, DRM, always-on, Kinect and to a lesser extent XBL superiority.
But don't use the free market argument.
As I pointed out to you, MFN clauses are not pro free market.
That you see this as a thread of taking potshots is alarming and to be frank, pretty disappointing. I've always seen you as a reasonable person with a preference. This thread is showing instead a poster afraid of his own shadow and refusing to listen to basic economic knowledge and a mountain of compelling evidence.
oldergamer
Member
I'm speaking for MYSELF. I did say "IMO" as a single platform holder I wouldn't want titles to come out 6 - 12 months after other consoles ( which is true ) . A s multi-platform holder, I would want choice on which platform i could get a game. I don't know about you, but I can't be wrong when its my opinion.
There is evidence: multiple developers have been in this thread (or have been linked in other threads) explicitly stating that this clause is a significant contributor to their decision to skip the Xbox One.
Further, what other reason would you be proposing that they skip the platform? Yes, in the broadest sense, it's possible that the Xbox One getting 1/3 the support of the PS4 is just a coincidence. That seems very unlikely, however, and I can't come up with a plausible alternative explanation. And again, this is without relying on the direct evidence we already have, with indie developers on this site explicitly stating this policy is a problem.
YES. It is not. It is about a shitty ID@Xbox Parity clause.
That you see everything through the prism of system wars is extremely revealing. Ever hear that story about the person who always went around claiming others were something, but then they were just that something themselves?
SerTapTap
Member
Based on indie devs and indie publishers that continue to port games to platforms late. Indie != AAA, don't forget that. Marketing pushes are a big reason late AAA games don't do as well. Indie games do not HAVE marketing pushes, so their release on a later console isn't necessarily all that damaged by an earlier version. As has been mentioned, LOTS of devs have been doing these late ports, even "indie publishers" like Curve Digital, they clearly consider it worth it. MS's concern is almost certainly not the games not selling, it's their Brand.
Yeah, I did, just saw it now and it's really interesting. Maybe MS should rethink the policy but I need more evidence to suggest its the parity clause forcing developers away than a quick tally of games. Playstation has more indie titles and I contribute that to their wonderful marketing campaign at the beginning, better policies like Microsoft removed a charge to update their game, cheaper developer kits, and catering to them too at the beginning of the generation led to a reputation for being indie friendly leading a lot of such developers to the platform. I would like to see more evidence if these titles are not coming at all because of this parity clause. I suspect that's not the case and there is more to it.
Stone Ocean
Member
That doesn't mean people can't criticize shitty rules that bully startup devs because Microsoft can't be assed to compete otherwise.
Impeccable
Member
Name and shame, then. Tired of this pussy footing around approach people seem to do lately.
I've been reading and interacting with this thread the whole time and while there are a few random people taking "pot shots" it's just factually wrong to say "huge part of this".
I don't think Microsoft really care, wheel out Windows 10 with the so called unified app store and expect devs to bow at their feet. Who knows, In their dreams, might blow up in their face but they are going for the long game not the Xbox One indie game catalog. Everything hinges on Windows 10.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll