Support NeoGAF

[bishoptl]

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.

Let me walk you through this again.

If a developer does not have the resources, bureaucratic or financial, to launch simultaneously on multiple platforms, it won't happen. Nobody is going to bankrupt themselves just to make sure they hit Xbone as part of the launch window. A staggered release allows a developer to monetize their game from the jump using the resources available to make the best possible game they can. Once it hits the market, the monetization of that initial release allows them to eat, pay bills and work on ports to other platforms. This is why we've seen so many Steam/PC -> PS4 and PS4 -> Steam/PC releases over the last year.

This policy takes none of that into account, and the fact that it can be waived under "certain circumstances" proves that it's not necessary.

there is no evidence 1000 indies titles are not launching on XBO because of this clause.

Ah, but there is evidence of 1000 indies being licensed or actively developing for PS4, in comparison to one-third of that for Xbone. Your anecdotes don't mean anything.

I've run an independent studio before. It's fucking hard. You're squeezed on all sides and finding the financial and mental wherewithal to work on your own dream game is exhausting at the best of times.

If a platform holder is putting up artificial barriers that clearly benefit them and not me...
If that same platform's market position is significantly behind their competition (in this case, PC and PS4)...
If I observe that platform holder making exceptions on this artificial barrier for other developers based on their popularity...

Why on earth would I bother developing for that platform?

 

[Marcel]

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 into it.

There's plenty of reaction from developers that account for this. You don't need to look far as Amir0x plainly stated. What you "suspect" or guess at is not relevant.

 

[BruiserBear]

But don't use the free market argument.

As I pointed out to you, MFN clauses are not pro free market.

I said I'm a free market kind of thinker, for the most part. That means console makers can do what they want, with their console platforms. What are you trying to do bringing world politics into this discussion?

 

[oldergamer]

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.

I would actually argue that 360 had more interesting indie games, but that is personal choice, let's not cloud the argument with that. As a single console owner, you want games on your platform without a delay. Of course they are always open to late "popular ports", it's always been that way. Still doesn't help me in anyway.

 

[Marcel]

Let me walk you through this again.

If a developer does not have the resources, bureaucratic or financial, to launch simultaneously on multiple platforms, it won't happen. Nobody is going to bankrupt themselves just to make sure they hit Xbone as part of the launch window. A staggered release allows a developer to monetize their game from the jump using the resources available to make the best possible game they can. Once it hits the market, the monetization of that initial release allows them to eat, pay bills and work on ports to other platforms. This is why we've seen so many Steam/PC -> PS4 and PS4 -> Steam/PC releases over the last year.

This policy takes none of that into account, and the fact that it can be waived under "certain circumstances" proves that it's not necessary.


Ah, but there is evidence of 1000 indies being licensed or actively developing for PS4, in comparison to one-third of that for Xbone. Your anecdotes don't mean anything.

I've run an independent studio before. It's fucking hard. You're squeezed on all sides and finding the financial and mental wherewithal to work on your own dream game is exhausting at the best of times.

If a platform holder is putting up artificial barriers that clearly benefit them and not me...
If that same platform's market position is significantly behind their competition (in this case, PC and PS4)...
If I observe that platform holder making exceptions on this artificial barrier for other developers based on their popularity...

Why on earth would I bother developing for that platform?

Hey, guy with the "BOOM" GIF. Now's the time for that.

 

[chubigans]

So let me explain my end of things as it relates to PS4 and XB1 development.

The ID@Xbox team is fantastic. I got my test kit in a little under two months, and the team seems a bit more put together and I feel are very communicative. Sony's side is considerably busier, and a harder platform to get on. But I'm finally on both now, just awaiting PS4/Vita kits soon.

My situation is that the engine I use, GM Studio, only supports PS4/PS Vita export on the console side. XB1 support is coming "soon," sometime later this year it seems. Right now I'm studying up on PS development docs and getting ready for a potential port of my current game, but mainly its for getting my next unannounced game ready for console releases.

It is completely out of my hands that I'll be developing for PS4 first, despite the fact that I've had a XB1 kit longer and much, much earlier. By the time XB1 export support gets here, I should be well versed in the functionality of PS4 and deploying to that platform. In essence I should be ready for PS4 submission of my current game, which is just in time as I'll be ready to jump into my next game as the artwork side should be done in a few months. Then once I get another lull in development on my new game, XB1 export support should be available and I should be able to publish my previous game to that system during that time.

...theoretically, that's how it would work. Instead, I have to make the decision of delaying the PS4 version to some unforeseen time when I'll have XB1 export support and knowledge on how to publish on that platform sometime next year. And I'm not about to do that. My game isn't a big enough one to get a free pass from MS. I'm half tempted to announce my game for both platforms, with the XB1 version coming in at a later date, just to see if MS would have enough gall to cancel it. If they do, they can have their dev kit back.

The ID@Xbox team are great people. MS has grown leaps and bounds from where they were on the indie scene a year back. Phil has the power to get rid of the one stupid development hurdle, and he very clearly doesn't give a fuck what I think or any other indie dev thinks. And that's a real damn shame, because at the end of the day my game will literally be on every single major platform except XB1, and I have a XB1 development kit right in front of me. Now, if I told all this to Phil, showing him how completely out of my hands all of this is, he might give me a free pass. I don't want a free pass. I want this stupid rule to be knocked down.

 

[Patroclos]

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....

Are you being serious? Buying everything under the sun and running it into the ground, while gutting/hamstinging/disbanding your own internal development, is a large part of the reason Microsoft's Xbox division is backed into the corner fighting for it's survival now.

So your solution is to.. keep doing the same thing? Why stop there? Perhaps you should put a clause in there that for developers to utilize Unity all titles developed on it must come to Microsoft's platform first?

 

[serversurfer]

Diablo was aligned with Sony I believe, as was Destiny. I think they (MS) put extra effort into bringing those titles up to par. That is commendable, handicapping titles on other systems, allegedly Unity, is not.

Destiny was gimped in that Bungie's performance target seemed to be, "Whatever the Bone can accomplish," which is exactly the performance target Ubi say they set for Unity.

Blizzard wanted Diablo to run at 900p on XBone so they could maintain frame rates. MS told them that was "unacceptable," and said Blizzard needed to change the resolution. They complied, and the XBone version of the game was already dropping frames by the time you had barely scratched the surface, much less actually stressed the engine. Of course, the frame rate issues were mostly glossed over by Microsoft's good friends over at Digital Foundry.

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.

Fair enough. I suspect they're now doubling down because leveraging monopoly positions is the only thing they've ever been particularly good at.

 

[Amir0x]

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 into it.

Indie studios will receive two free devkits on XBO, Unity free for indie devs on XBO

Both of these announcements were in 2013 for XBO. In some ways the incentives outside of the ID@Xbox Parity clause are superior on XBO. Yet PS4 still, to this very day, receives a mountain load of more indie announcements and more indie devs coming on board.

Maybe there's something else at play?

 

[cripterion]

Thread title should read "Phil Spencer wants to make you feel good!"

 

[QaaQer]

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.

If your goal is to kill the competition, you will have policies in place to make that happen. The indie parity clause, imo, is one of those types of policies.

Given Sony's track record in the last 10 years it is a miracle the PS4 is actually a good product. If the PS4 was PS3 levels of shitastic @ launch, and the wii u was the wii u, this policy would make a lot more sense; as would all the other stuff pre-2013 e3.

MS just went too fast, they needed a weaker Sony to pull it off. And if they had, they'd be in control of the console industry and making the 90%+ margins they are used to within 5 years.

MS hasn't lost, nothing is over and I'm not betting agianst MS. Minecraft could turn out to be the nuclear option in this fight.

 

[libregkd]

As a single console owner, you want games on your platform without a delay.

As a single console owner, I would want games period. When they come out means nothing to me.

 

[xxracerxx]

I would actually argue that 360 had more interesting indie games, but that is personal choice, let's not cloud the argument with that. As a single console owner, you want games on your platform without a delay. Of course they are always open to late "popular ports", it's always been that way. Still doesn't help me in anyway.

Again with the if it doesn't come out day one, fuck it. What a shitty way to think.

 

[BruiserBear]

Let me walk you through this again.

If a developer does not have the resources, bureaucratic or financial, to launch simultaneously on multiple platforms, it won't happen. Nobody is going to bankrupt themselves just to make sure they hit Xbone as part of the launch window. A staggered release allows a developer to monetize their game from the jump using the resources available to make the best possible game they can. Once it hits the market, the monetization of that initial release allows them to eat, pay bills and work on ports to other platforms. This is why we've seen so many Steam/PC -> PS4 and PS4 -> Steam/PC releases over the last year.

This policy takes none of that into account, and the fact that it can be waived under "certain circumstances" proves that it's not necessary.


Ah, but there is evidence of 1000 indies being licensed or actively developing for PS4, in comparison to one-third of that for Xbone. Your anecdotes don't mean anything.

I've run an independent studio before. It's fucking hard. You're squeezed on all sides and finding the financial and mental wherewithal to work on your own dream game is exhausting at the best of times.

If a platform holder is putting up artificial barriers that clearly benefit them and not me...
If that same platform's market position is significantly behind their competition (in this case, PC and PS4)...
If I observe that platform holder making exceptions on this artificial barrier for other developers based on their popularity...

Why on earth would I bother developing for that platform?

Have we seen a lot of XB1 owners upset about this though? Certain games not coming to XB1, and people upset about it?

 

[benny_a]

I would actually argue that 360 had more interesting indie games, but that is personal choice, let's not cloud the argument with that. As a single console owner, you want games on your platform without a delay. Of course they are always open to late "popular ports", it's always been that way. Still doesn't help me in anyway.

I think as a single console owner you want games on your platform.

Maybe that is the crux of the argument. For you games seemingly cease to be of note as soon as the release date of the first published version is over.
The day that PSN switched to Tuesday store updates must have been horrible. ;-P

 

[Marcel]

So let me explain my end of things as it relates to PS4 and XB1 development.

The ID@Xbox team is fantastic. I got my test kit in a little under two months, and the team seems a bit more put together and I feel are very communicative. Sony's side is considerably busier, and a harder platform to get on. But I'm finally on both now, just awaiting PS4/Vita kits soon.

My situation is that the engine I use, GM Studio, only supports PS4/PS Vita export on the console side. XB1 support is coming "soon," sometime later this year it seems. Right now I'm studying up on PS development docs and getting ready for a potential port of my current game, but mainly its for getting my next unannounced game ready for console releases.

It is completely out of my hands that I'll be developing for PS4 first, despite the fact that I've had a XB1 kit longer and much, much earlier. By the time XB1 export support gets here, I should be well versed in the functionality of PS4 and deploying to that platform. In essence I should be ready for PS4 submission of my current game, which is just in time as I'll be ready to jump into my next game as the artwork side should be done in a few months. Then once I get another lull in development on my new game, XB1 export support should be available and I should be able to publish my previous game to that system during that time.

...theoretically, that's how it would work. Instead, I have to make the decision of delaying the PS4 version to some unforeseen time when I'll have XB1 export support and knowledge on how to publish on that platform sometime next year. And I'm not about to do that. My game isn't a big enough one to get a free pass from MS. I'm half tempted to announce my game for both platforms, with the XB1 version coming in at a later date, just to see if MS would have enough gall to cancel it. If they do, they can have their dev kit back.

The ID@Xbox team are great people. MS has grown leaps and bounds from where they were on the indie scene a year back. Phil has the power to get rid of the one stupid development hurdle, and he very clearly doesn't give a fuck what I think or any other indie dev thinks. And that's a real damn shame, because at the end of the day my game will literally be on every single major platform except XB1, and I have a XB1 development kit right in front of me. Now, if I told all this to Phil, showing him how completely out of my hands all of this is, he might give me a free pass. I don't want a free pass. I want this stupid rule to be knocked down.

I made it bold so the people who are asking "but how do the developers really feel?" don't have an excuse to miss it.

 

[PhatSaqs]

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.

The biggest reasons to choose PS4 over X1 are install base & mindshare parity clause or not. If roles were reversed I highly doubt many of these devs would be making the same decisions. But I guess we'll never know.

 

[Bgamer90]

As a single console owner, I would want games period. When they come out means nothing to me.

I'm not a single console owner but this is spot on.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I would actually argue that 360 had more interesting indie games, but that is personal choice, let's not cloud the argument with that. As a single console owner, you want games on your platform without a delay. Of course they are always open to late "popular ports", it's always been that way. Still doesn't help me in anyway.

If you are a single platform owner, then the game is still new to you regardless of when it launches. I am playing Dust for the first time and really enjoying it, years later. Has my opinion of it been affected by the fact it was on 360 before PS4? Not at all, it was just another game on my ever growing PS4 library to enjoy, not a game that came late to my platform of choice.

 

[Patroclos]

Ori is first class, son!

Is it? I didn't even know it was out. I would love something cool and original on the One before Sunset Overdrive. This actually says it all. I hadn't heard shit about Ori since E3.

 

[justsomeguy]

the XBone version of the game was already dropping frames by the time you had barely scratched the surface, much less actually stressed the engine.

This is completely utterly and demonstrably untrue!

Edit: And completely off topic

 

[Marcel]

The biggest reasons to choose PS4 over X1 are install base & mindshare. If roles were reversed I highly doubt many of these devs would be making the same decisions. But I guess we'll never know.

And how is your rhetorical fantasy where MS and Sony are switched helpful again? Is this some roundabout "console warrior" accusation?

 

[QaaQer]

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.

They've done evil shit. US DoJ even said so.

 

[greenegt]

So let me explain my end of things as it relates to PS4 and XB1 development.

The ID@Xbox team is fantastic. I got my test kit in a little under two months, and the team seems a bit more put together and I feel are very communicative. Sony's side is considerably busier, and a harder platform to get on. But I'm finally on both now, just awaiting PS4/Vita kits soon.

My situation is that the engine I use, GM Studio, only supports PS4/PS Vita export on the console side. XB1 support is coming "soon," sometime later this year it seems. Right now I'm studying up on PS development docs and getting ready for a potential port of my current game, but mainly its for getting my next unannounced game ready for console releases.

It is completely out of my hands that I'll be developing for PS4 first, despite the fact that I've had a XB1 kit longer and much, much earlier. By the time XB1 export support gets here, I should be well versed in the functionality of PS4 and deploying to that platform. In essence I should be ready for PS4 submission of my current game, which is just in time as I'll be ready to jump into my next game as the artwork side should be done in a few months. Then once I get another lull in development on my new game, XB1 export support should be available and I should be able to publish my previous game to that system during that time.

...theoretically, that's how it would work. Instead, I have to make the decision of delaying the PS4 version to some unforeseen time when I'll have XB1 export support and knowledge on how to publish on that platform sometime next year. And I'm not about to do that. My game isn't a big enough one to get a free pass from MS. I'm half tempted to announce my game for both platforms, with the XB1 version coming in at a later date, just to see if MS would have enough gall to cancel it. If they do, they can have their dev kit back.

The ID@Xbox team are great people. MS has grown leaps and bounds from where they were on the indie scene a year back. Phil has the power to get rid of the one stupid development hurdle, and he very clearly doesn't give a fuck what I think or any other indie dev thinks. And that's a real damn shame, because at the end of the day my game will literally be on every single major platform except XB1, and I have a XB1 development kit right in front of me. Now, if I told all this to Phil, showing him how completely out of my hands all of this is, he might give me a free pass. I don't want a free pass. I want this stupid rule to be knocked down.

Thanks for your input. MS, get rid of that clause!

 

[PhatSaqs]

And how is your rhetorical fantasy where MS and Sony are switched helpful again?

Just as helpful as your unnecessary question for some apparently. Read what I said...

 

[harSon]

Let me walk you through this again.

If a developer does not have the resources, bureaucratic or financial, to launch simultaneously on multiple platforms, it won't happen. Nobody is going to bankrupt themselves just to make sure they hit Xbone as part of the launch window. A staggered release allows a developer to monetize their game from the jump using the resources available to make the best possible game they can. Once it hits the market, the monetization of that initial release allows them to eat, pay bills and work on ports to other platforms. This is why we've seen so many Steam/PC -> PS4 and PS4 -> Steam/PC releases over the last year.

This policy takes none of that into account, and the fact that it can be waived under "certain circumstances" proves that it's not necessary.


Ah, but there is evidence of 1000 indies being licensed or actively developing for PS4, in comparison to one-third of that for Xbone. Your anecdotes don't mean anything.

I've run an independent studio before. It's fucking hard. You're squeezed on all sides and finding the financial and mental wherewithal to work on your own dream game is exhausting at the best of times.

If a platform holder is putting up artificial barriers that clearly benefit them and not me...
If that same platform's market position is significantly behind their competition (in this case, PC and PS4)...
If I observe that platform holder making exceptions on this artificial barrier for other developers based on their popularity...

Why on earth would I bother developing for that platform?

Because it doesn't make sense for an independent developer to forgo a legitimate install base if they think there's a chance they'll come out of the ordeal in the green. At least no legitimate business reason.

 

[oldergamer]

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.

Well of course they exist, I'm also not arguing that "all" late ports don't make money. What I'm saying is, how many late ports for indie console games do we actually know of that made money and were not high profile titles to begin with? I'd say not many.

 

[TetraGenesis]

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.

How's that sweet, sweet Koolaid taste?

 

[Amir0x]

I made it bold so the people who are asking "but how do the developers really feel?" don't have an excuse to miss it.

we've already had multiple indie devs come on GAF and say it's a problem in this very thread, 3 before chubigans great post. Not one indie has said anything contrary.

It's just never enough. These people keep wanting to find a window, some infinitesimal little exception that allows them to say maybe MS is doing the right thing.

 

[Patroclos]

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.

Yes but this form of control only works effectively if you have market dominance.

 

[justsomeguy]

So let me explain my end of things as it relates to PS4 and XB1 development.

The ID@Xbox team is fantastic. I got my test kit in a little under two months, and the team seems a bit more put together and I feel are very communicative. Sony's side is considerably busier, and a harder platform to get on. But I'm finally on both now, just awaiting PS4/Vita kits soon.

My situation is that the engine I use, GM Studio, only supports PS4/PS Vita export on the console side. XB1 support is coming "soon," sometime later this year it seems. Right now I'm studying up on PS development docs and getting ready for a potential port of my current game, but mainly its for getting my next unannounced game ready for console releases.

It is completely out of my hands that I'll be developing for PS4 first, despite the fact that I've had a XB1 kit longer and much, much earlier. By the time XB1 export support gets here, I should be well versed in the functionality of PS4 and deploying to that platform. In essence I should be ready for PS4 submission of my current game, which is just in time as I'll be ready to jump into my next game as the artwork side should be done in a few months. Then once I get another lull in development on my new game, XB1 export support should be available and I should be able to publish my previous game to that system during that time.

...theoretically, that's how it would work. Instead, I have to make the decision of delaying the PS4 version to some unforeseen time when I'll have XB1 export support and knowledge on how to publish on that platform sometime next year. And I'm not about to do that. My game isn't a big enough one to get a free pass from MS. I'm half tempted to announce my game for both platforms, with the XB1 version coming in at a later date, just to see if MS would have enough gall to cancel it. If they do, they can have their dev kit back.

The ID@Xbox team are great people. MS has grown leaps and bounds from where they were on the indie scene a year back. Phil has the power to get rid of the one stupid development hurdle, and he very clearly doesn't give a fuck what I think or any other indie dev thinks. And that's a real damn shame, because at the end of the day my game will literally be on every single major platform except XB1, and I have a XB1 development kit right in front of me. Now, if I told all this to Phil, showing him how completely out of my hands all of this is, he might give me a free pass. I don't want a free pass. I want this stupid rule to be knocked down.

This is an awesome post thank you for writing it. Wondering if I have the guts to send Phil a copy.

 

[QaaQer]

I said I'm a free market kind of thinker, for the most part. That means console makers can do what they want, with their console platforms. What are you trying to do bringing world politics into this discussion?

You do not understand what a free market is. What you are advocating is private property rights.

 

[bishoptl]

The ID@Xbox team are great people. MS has grown leaps and bounds from where they were on the indie scene a year back. Phil has the power to get rid of the one stupid development hurdle, and he very clearly doesn't give a fuck what I think or any other indie dev thinks. And that's a real damn shame, because at the end of the day my game will literally be on every single major platform except XB1, and I have a XB1 development kit right in front of me. Now, if I told all this to Phil, showing him how completely out of my hands all of this is, he might give me a free pass. I don't want a free pass. I want this stupid rule to be knocked down.

When the rubber meets the road, this is what the parity clause gets you at the end of the day. Less games for your platform, and the collective side-eye from developers.

 

[Methamatics101]

So let me explain my end of things as it relates to PS4 and XB1 development.

[...]

And another one. The parity clause is dumb, plain and simple.

The devs who have responded in this thread should have their posts quoted/highlighted in the OP, in my opinion. Some interesting reads.

 

[Marcel]

Just as helpful as your unnecessary question. Read what I said...

I don't see how it's relevant to a situation that's happening now. Explain to me how it isn't just navel-gazing that doesn't address anything.

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

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.

It's kinda funny reading this stuff after that whole "I believe in Phil" crusade a few months ago. I mean, wake up people, these folks are out there to sell their devices, they will tell you what you want to hear until it's too late to deny the facts if the situation isn't in their favor.

 

[Majmun]

Isn't MS afraid that this ridiculous policy is going to bite them in the ass? It's not as if they're currently the market leader to make such crazy policies. Ps4 is vastly outselling the X1 worldwide. Developers would rather make use of PS4's momentum and release their games immediately instead of agreeing with MS' parity rule...

Ps4 is very lucrative business nowadays. No wonder so many Ps4 indie games are being announced...
Devs will eventually stop caring about MS' parity rule and release more Ps4 exclusive games.

 

[CambriaRising]

So let me explain my end of things as it relates to PS4 and XB1 development.

The ID@Xbox team is fantastic. I got my test kit in a little under two months, and the team seems a bit more put together and I feel are very communicative. Sony's side is considerably busier, and a harder platform to get on. But I'm finally on both now, just awaiting PS4/Vita kits soon.

My situation is that the engine I use, GM Studio, only supports PS4/PS Vita export on the console side. XB1 support is coming "soon," sometime later this year it seems. Right now I'm studying up on PS development docs and getting ready for a potential port of my current game, but mainly its for getting my next unannounced game ready for console releases.

It is completely out of my hands that I'll be developing for PS4 first, despite the fact that I've had a XB1 kit longer and much, much earlier. By the time XB1 export support gets here, I should be well versed in the functionality of PS4 and deploying to that platform. In essence I should be ready for PS4 submission of my current game, which is just in time as I'll be ready to jump into my next game as the artwork side should be done in a few months. Then once I get another lull in development on my new game, XB1 export support should be available and I should be able to publish my previous game to that system during that time.

...theoretically, that's how it would work. Instead, I have to make the decision of delaying the PS4 version to some unforeseen time when I'll have XB1 export support and knowledge on how to publish on that platform sometime next year. And I'm not about to do that. My game isn't a big enough one to get a free pass from MS. I'm half tempted to announce my game for both platforms, with the XB1 version coming in at a later date, just to see if MS would have enough gall to cancel it. If they do, they can have their dev kit back.

The ID@Xbox team are great people. MS has grown leaps and bounds from where they were on the indie scene a year back. Phil has the power to get rid of the one stupid development hurdle, and he very clearly doesn't give a fuck what I think or any other indie dev thinks. And that's a real damn shame, because at the end of the day my game will literally be on every single major platform except XB1, and I have a XB1 development kit right in front of me. Now, if I told all this to Phil, showing him how completely out of my hands all of this is, he might give me a free pass. I don't want a free pass. I want this stupid rule to be knocked down.

Thanks for sharing this. ^^ This is the reason, for all you warriors out there, why this policy sucks.

And you should care about this, and stop defending this bullshit. It is LITERALLY taking games from your console of choice.

 

[Hubble]

I'll take a look into it. It sounds like it may be having a much more negative impact than its intention, and if that's the case, changes should be made. I think Phil did not intend for the clause to draw a lot of developers away and quite the opposite actually but can be a miscalculation and he doesn't realize it. In general, the more restrictions the worse. Thanks for all the information. Perhaps I hastily jumped into the thread without reading much of it.

 

[bishoptl]

Because it doesn't make sense for an independent developer to forgo a legitimate install base if they think there's a chance they'll come out of the ordeal in the green. At least no legitimate business reason.

There's no business reason to take a chance on that when the terms dictated mean either leading development on the platform with the much smaller install base OR bankrupting the company to hit multiple platforms at once.

That's not good business. Multiple developers have already stated why it's a shitty policy. If reality doesn't fit the narrative, it's not reality's fault.

 

[Xando]

So let me explain my end of things as it relates to PS4 and XB1 development.

The ID@Xbox team is fantastic. I got my test kit in a little under two months, and the team seems a bit more put together and I feel are very communicative. Sony's side is considerably busier, and a harder platform to get on. But I'm finally on both now, just awaiting PS4/Vita kits soon.

My situation is that the engine I use, GM Studio, only supports PS4/PS Vita export on the console side. XB1 support is coming "soon," sometime later this year it seems. Right now I'm studying up on PS development docs and getting ready for a potential port of my current game, but mainly its for getting my next unannounced game ready for console releases.

It is completely out of my hands that I'll be developing for PS4 first, despite the fact that I've had a XB1 kit longer and much, much earlier. By the time XB1 export support gets here, I should be well versed in the functionality of PS4 and deploying to that platform. In essence I should be ready for PS4 submission of my current game, which is just in time as I'll be ready to jump into my next game as the artwork side should be done in a few months. Then once I get another lull in development on my new game, XB1 export support should be available and I should be able to publish my previous game to that system during that time.

...theoretically, that's how it would work. Instead, I have to make the decision of delaying the PS4 version to some unforeseen time when I'll have XB1 export support and knowledge on how to publish on that platform sometime next year. And I'm not about to do that. My game isn't a big enough one to get a free pass from MS. I'm half tempted to announce my game for both platforms, with the XB1 version coming in at a later date, just to see if MS would have enough gall to cancel it. If they do, they can have their dev kit back.

The ID@Xbox team are great people. MS has grown leaps and bounds from where they were on the indie scene a year back. Phil has the power to get rid of the one stupid development hurdle, and he very clearly doesn't give a fuck what I think or any other indie dev thinks. And that's a real damn shame, because at the end of the day my game will literally be on every single major platform except XB1, and I have a XB1 development kit right in front of me. Now, if I told all this to Phil, showing him how completely out of my hands all of this is, he might give me a free pass. I don't want a free pass. I want this stupid rule to be knocked down.

Thats exactly what you find when you inform yourself about this topic.

A lot of indies says really good things about ID@Xbox but most of them won't release their game on XB1 because they will finish the PS4 or PC version first.

I hope your trouble get solved soon.

 

[SerTapTap]

So, bottom line (from an indie dev perspective): if you aren't one of those handful of well-known "indie" dev darlings whose games get hyped years in advance, you're just shit out of luck with MS. Great.

Or rather if you're one of THOSE Indies, ms wants you to suck up to them and take a marketing deal with them instead, but big Indies don't have to kiss the ring

 

[Marcel]

I'll take a look into it. It sounds like it may be having a much more negative impact than its intention, and if that's the case, changes should be made. I think Phil did not intend for the clause to draw a lot of developers away and quite the opposite actually but can be a miscalculation and he doesn't realize it. In general, the more restrictions the worse. Thanks for all the information. Perhaps I hastily jumped into the thread without reading much of it.

I can't speak for everyone but I appreciate you re-evaluating your thoughts rather than banging the drum until it breaks.

 

[Family Fry]

Here's some more developer quotes about parity.

Hyper Light Drifter creator Alex Preston.

Sony was great to us initially so I don’t think we’re going to push the Xbox version before we do the Sony platform versions. The parity thing is a problem. It’s not a good policy for Microsoft and I definitely don’t think it helps small developers. There’s not really any reason to do it and it’s one of those old relic things…I think we’ll see it disappear eventually.

Drinkbox Studios co-founder Ryan MacLean

From the perspective of a developer the ideal thing would be complete freedom to release on any platform you want,” he said. “I can kind of understand the platform holder’s preference – I guess they don’t want to be second in line.”

Tyrone Rodriguez, Nicalis.

For us it’s a good thing because it forces us to be disciplined,” said Rodriguez. “If there wasn’t something like that in place, then we’d release it on different platforms over six months. It’s easiest for me as far as promoting and marketing the game goes to release them all simultaneously, because I only have to do it once and people won't lose interest in it.”

Dave Lang, CEO of Iron Galaxy.

We wanted launch parity – we’re a 70 person studio so we want to maximise our marketing money,” he said. “Getting the games ready all together isn’t the hard part for us, but I know that with someone like [Riptide GP2 developer] Vector Unit, there’s four of them - trying to get games to launch on multiple platforms at once is really hard.”

MS earlier in the year.

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.

Paints a few different pictures and MS continue to say the same thing.

 

[Mass Effect]

Because it doesn't make sense for an independent developer to forgo a legitimate install base if they think there's a chance they'll come out of the ordeal in the green. At least no legitimate business reason.

It does if you bleed more money delaying your game for an Xbox port than you think you would make from said Xbox port.

It's called opportunity cost.

 

[PhatSaqs]

I don't see how it's relevant to a situation that happening now. Explain to me how it isn't just navel-gazing that doesn't address anything.

Sigh...because If roles were reversed, jumping on the PS4 first wouldnt make financial sense...even with a parity clause. Point being I dont see the parity clause as a significant hurdle for there being as many indie games available for 1 vs the other. Not really that hard when you read what was being responded to....

 

[gaming_noob]

It's kinda funny reading this stuff after that whole "I believe in Phil" crusade a few months ago. I mean, wake up people, these folks are out there to sell their devices, they will tell you what you want to hear until it's too late to deny the facts if the situation isn't in their favor.

Wait a second breh, we caught on with that for different reasons. Personally I think Spencer seems to care more about the core games than Mattrick and that's what I was cheering for him about.

 

[p3tran]

so, they give two dev kits and a game engine for free, yet they demand day 1 release?
omg
how ...preposterous?

 

[walltowall]

Could have sworn that sixty second shooter got an entry. I may be wrong though.

They've done a few, Sixty second shooter, Strike Suit Zero, Contrast, Another World, Spectra, etc.

But no where near Sony's front and center approach.

I have to say though, and this IS a little OT, but to me, the indie offerings on both consoles
are lacking so far, save for a few like Octodad, Towerfall, or Rogue Legacy.

I don't feel compelled to play Fez, again, or Hotline Miami, again, or Divekick, again, or even Spelunky or Flow again (on a new platform without anything significant added).... All amazing games but they aren't old enough for nostalgia and I haven't gotten rid of my PS360 so they're all right there anyway.

Looking forward to 2015 though.

 

[BruiserBear]

You do not understand what a free market is. What you are advocating is private property rights.

Yes, I realize that's probably not the best phrase to describe my point of view.

I think they can do whatever they want to as a platform holder. We've got people in this thread saying this is an outrage, and my reaction is "uh, why?". Why would anyone assume a console maker must allow indie devs to release their games under whatever terms they want? It just seems like an odd stance.

Now do I think the parity clause is helping the Xbox platform? I don't know, but I certainly see no evidence suggesting it's being harmed by these rules.