Support NeoGAF

[Mostlypainless]

A poor selling game isn't getting ported , regardless of quality of game or removal of parity clause.

 

[Wynnebeck]

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?

 

[meppi]

He might try to spin it any way he wants to make it sound as a great thing for customers who choose his system, but I for one am not impressed with this blackmail clause.
And it certainly won't make me do a 180 again and switch back to MS side in the console race, that's for sure. Quite the opposite actually. It makes me realise that they are still playing to the same tune in the background.

 

[Toki767]

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 really all that needs to be said.

 

[harSon]

Knowing that timed exclusives tend to sell considerably better on the platform they release on first, from a purely business perspective, do you think it's worth pissing off a few select developers if it forces a decent amount of developers to abide by the parity clause?

Microsoft has backtracked on pretty much everything that consumers have considered idiotic and counter intuitive to success, but they've doubled down on this. Are they simply stupid, or does the data reinforce their position?

 

[Peltz]

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.

Really, when you read this, who is benefitting in the end? I don't even think Microsoft benefits from their own policy, let alone consumers of their marketplace. It's just bad business.

 

[Marcel]

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....

I'm not sure how it isn't a significant hurdle when there's a 700 developer disparity between you and the main competition. Your posited situation, again, has no relevance to actual reality and is only talking around the issue.

 

[banagher]

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.

So what you're saying is that all the indie devs are lying, gotcha.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

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.

Quality post. This is a perfect example of how it can hurt developers. I hope Phil reads it. And on that note...

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

 

[Stone Ocean]

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.

Unless they absolutely need said install base, why would they bother with a risk that could potentially cost them everything?

Porting a game costs money. Microsoft is basically asking devs that are likely on a really tight budget to cough up another console version of their game without being able to actually get money back by selling it on other platforms first. If you need to spend money you don't have to release a game, why would you even bother?

 

[Kssio_Aug]

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 dont want even know what do you think of Sony related to the suspend/resume feature.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

At the last count there were 255 Indie developers making games for the XB1 and 1000 Indie developers making games for the PS4. How is the parity clause helping XB1 consumers?

There's way more than 255 now, just saying

 

[harSon]

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.

That's not what you said though. You said in a scenario where a developer would seemingly be willing to release their game for the XB1 if it weren't for the parity clause, but is given an exception by Microsoft, why should that developer release their game for the XB1.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

I dont want even know what do you think of Sony related to the suspend/resume feature.

It's Miles. He'll be pissed until it happens and then he'll rejoice with a string of dancing gifs. Duh!

 

[Marcel]

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.

Every other platform is eating Microsoft's lunch on indies. Do you really think this is not an issue or are you saying that indies don't matter to the health of a platform?

 

[Crimson_Gold]

There's way more than 255 now, just saying

Care to share the new numbers?

 

[Mass Effect]

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.

Your willful ignorance does not negate the evidence that has been repeatedly provided. Seriously, have you even read the thread?

Unless you're implying that Microsoft and the Xbox don't "need" these indies, and that it losing some indie games doesn't affect its sales, which is another story.

 

[Raist]

This policy is not only incredibly stupid, it's also counter-productive.

The irony is that wouldn't exist in the first place if indies were all rushing to get their games out on XB1 ASAP. So many of them went for the more friendly PS4/PC platforms first, thinking, well, Xbox later. But no, MS is like "nuh-huh, if you don't release it for us at the same time, no xbox market for you!"

I'd imagine the reaction of many is "well OK then." and not "omgomg we have to work overnight to get the XB1 version done now D:"

 

[Peltz]

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

Eh... I'd argue that private property rights an essential aspect to a well functioning free market. But that's another discussion.

 

[keit4]

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?

I never said that.

Buying Unity Technologies doesn't imply to halt the development of internal tools or stop developing games with other engines. Far from it. If MS buys it is because is a widely used engine in the indie scene, they can provide a better set of tools for the development of Xbox One games taking full advantage of the hardware and improving performance, ease of development and integration. This would mean more and better games.

 

[chubigans]

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

Please do! Tell him I'm registered under Vertigo Gaming Inc, and that I'm an ID@Xbox dev, and I want nothing more than to develop games for Xbox, and that the ID@Xbox team is a fantastic group of people that are great to deal with. Ask him why he's making things for me as complicated as possible.

 

[Bsigg12]

Here's some more developer quotes about parity.

Hyper Light Drifter creator Alex Preston.



Drinkbox Studios co-founder Ryan MacLean


Tyrone Rodriguez, Nicalis.



Dave Lang, CEO of Iron Galaxy.


MS earlier in the year.



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

I think this brings up an interesting point. Depending on the size of the company making the game, forcing a simultaneous release can be beneficial and ultimately save you money on marketing because you are only handling 1 marketing push and can really drive your game.

On the other hand, smaller teams are burdened with trying to juggle multiple versions and trying to make sure their product is something they're proud of across each platform. I can totally see where for a small team, parity sucks ass and ultimately hurts Microsoft and Xbox One owners.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

I don't understand this mentality.

It just results in a ton of indie games not coming to XB1 and hence disappointed XB1 gamers. Ironically in the end XB1 gamers feel anything but first class.

 

[oldergamer]

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.

Yeah I see your point, totally out of your control. They do need to change the rules.

 

[justsomeguy]

Trying to get to the motivation behind this. As ever I am posting personal opinion not employer.

Let's imagine MS ditch the parity clause.

With no other changes it's easy to see how that will instantly become "Ps4 = the indies-first console, xbo = the port console".

So, is this a case of MS balancing "being the second choice and second to market" (a potentially damaging narrative) against the cost of bad publicity and missing out on some games altogether - on the hope/expectation that the xbox market is too big to ignore?

What if they changed it to say "Free dev kits, unity and highest level of support in exchange for launch date parity, OR pay for your dev kits at the same price as Sony, get 2nd tier (but still good) support, and have release date freedom"? Would that be an acceptable compromise, GAF?

IMO MS should be courting indie devs like crazy so that when Win10 launches with its unified store, we get massive benefit on both Windows and xbox.

 

[bishoptl]

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.

The platform is receiving significantly less indie games than the competition.

Developers are publicly stating that the parity clause is keeping them from bringing games to that platform.

What else do you need, exactly?

What if they changed it to say "Free dev kits, unity and highest level of support in exchange for launch date parity, OR pay for your dev kits at the same price as Sony, get 2nd tier (but still good) support, and have release date freedom"? Would that be an acceptable compromise, GAF?

It's better (and as a platform holder they can do whatever they want) but when compared to the competition, it's still coming up short. Still a huge improvement over the current situation.

 

[chubigans]

What if they changed it to say "Free dev kits, unity and highest level of support in exchange for launch date parity, OR pay for your dev kits at the same price as Sony, get 2nd tier (but still good) support, and have release date freedom"? Would that be an acceptable compromise, GAF?

I would be on board for that, absolutely. That's a totally fair set of rules, and I'd be willing to purchase my kit in exchange for release date control.

Looks like he's reading this thread (see twitter)... Maybe @ him on there and save me from a sacking ;-)

Hah I'm sure someone will get it to him eventually. Thanks for stopping by the thread btw.

 

[justsomeguy]

Please do! Tell him I'm registered under Vertigo Gaming Inc, and that I'm an ID@Xbox dev, and I want nothing more than to develop games for Xbox, and that the ID@Xbox team is a fantastic group of people that are great to deal with. Ask him why he's making things for me as complicated as possible.

Looks like he's reading this thread (see twitter)... Maybe @ him on there and save me from a sacking ;-)

 

[Marcel]

Trying to get to the motivation behind this. As ever I am posting personal opinion not employer.

Let's imagine MS ditch the parity clause.

With no other changes it's easy to see how that will instantly become "Ps4 = the indies-first console, xbo = the port console".

So, is this a case of MS balancing "being the second choice and second to market" (a potentially damaging narrative) against the cost of bad publicity and missing out on some games altogether - on the hope/expectation that the xbox market is too big to ignore?

What if they changed it to say "Free dev kits, unity and highest level of support in exchange for launch date parity, OR pay for your dev kits at the same price as Sony, get 2nd tier (but still good) support, and have release date freedom"? Would that be an acceptable compromise, GAF?

IMO MS should be courting indie devs like crazy so that when Win10 launches with its unified store, we get massive benefit on both Windows and xbox.

From many of the developer reactions, it's drop the parity clause or bust. They would probably need to do that first before a better dialogue can begin. As it stands indies seem to be happy to starve out the Xbox One until they do so.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

HI PHIL!!! U LIKE GAF? ARE YOU NTKRNL???

 

[Steverulez]

With no other changes it's easy to see how that will instantly become "Ps4 = the indies-first console, xbo = the port console".

Well thats the price you pay for doing something stupid to be honest. You just have to ride that period where you are the port-console and new games will always come.

Plus does being the port console really matter? With early access and stuff both of them are really just getting a lot of ports. MS should incentivise developers to get day and date or first on Xbox One with promotional help if they want to avoid that label.

Either way, as an Xbox One gamer, I couldn't give a shit if a few people on the internet label it the port console, i'll be too busy playing the games.

 

[TetraGenesis]

HI PHIL!!! U LIKE GAF? ARE YOU NTKRNL???

TROLOLOLOLOLOLO

 

[bishoptl]

That's not what you said though. You said in a scenario where a developer would seemingly be willing to release their game for the XB1 if it weren't for the parity clause, but is given an exception by Microsoft, why should that developer release their game for the XB1.

I never said that.

 

[justsomeguy]

It's better (and as a platform holder they can do whatever they want) but when compared to the competition, it's still coming up short. Still a huge improvement over the current situation.

How would it be coming up short if it's basically same price & release clause as Sony, and still good support (reflecting that ms' best support appears to be slightly better than sony's best support)? Genuine question, not being argumentative.

 

[4Tran]

Really, when you read this, who is benefitting in the end? I don't even think Microsoft benefits from their own policy, let alone consumers of their marketplace. It's just bad business.

Sony wins. They get de facto console exclusivity for a ton of indie games through Microsoft's hard work.

 

[Kayant]

Trying to get to the motivation behind this. As ever I am posting personal opinion not employer.

Let's imagine MS ditch the parity clause.

With no other changes it's easy to see how that will instantly become "Ps4 = the indies-first console, xbo = the port console".

So, is this a case of MS balancing "being the second choice and second to market" (a potentially damaging narrative) against the cost of bad publicity and missing out on some games altogether - on the hope/expectation that the xbox market is too big to ignore?

What if they changed it to say "Free dev kits, unity and highest level of support in exchange for launch date parity, OR pay for your dev kits at the same price as Sony, get 2nd tier (but still good) support, and have release date freedom"? Would that be an acceptable compromise, GAF?

IMO MS should be courting indie devs like crazy so that when Win10 launches with its unified store, we get massive benefit on both Windows and xbox.

That sounds fair and a bit like Pub fund basically in terms of they give you some extra support you in turn give them something back e.g Exclusive window in the case of Pub Fund.
http://us.playstation.com/develop/

 

[Patroclos]

I never said that.

Buying Unity Technologies doesn't imply to halt the development of internal tools or stop developing games with other engines. Far from it. If MS buys it is because is a widely used engine in the indie scene, they can provide a better set of tools for the development of Xbox One games taking full advantage of the hardware and improving performance, ease of development and integration. This would mean more and better games.

But who would make them? I am being serious, the stable of devs is looking pretty empty. Regardless, my point is that the whole buy things instead of create them mentality has been a contributing factor to a lack of internal devs and first party games for Microsoft.

 

[bishoptl]

How would it be coming up short if it's basically same price & release clause as Sony, and still good support (reflecting that ms' best support appears to be slightly better than sony's best support)? Genuine question, not being argumentative.

Looking at 2nd Tier support from MS vs 1st Tier support from Sony. All other things being equal, of course.

All of your questions are genuine as far as I'm concerned. Dev-bros, remember?

 

[Xando]

Either way, as an Xbox One gamer, I couldn't give a shit if a few people on the internet label it the port console, i'll be too busy playing the games.

Yeah, the most important thing for me would be that the games are coming to my plattform. Doesnt matter if they are on another plattform first.

 

[BruiserBear]

The platform is receiving significantly less indie games than the competition.

Developers are publicly stating that the parity clause is keeping them from bringing games to that platform.

What else do you need, exactly?

I just don't see the outrage in this thread matching up with the facts before us. That's what I entered this discussion asking. What is this outrage about?

Do we see XB1 owners with pitchforks in hand saying "we need more indies"? Do we see people saying "Man, I'd like to buy an XB1, but that lack of indies."?

I see a lot of very angry people in this thread, but I don't see a connection to anyone who actually owns the console.

 

[kaching]

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.

Oh, you were trying to speak a little more broadly than just for yourself, "as a consumer". And the point was that what you may want as a single platform owner is entirely irrelevant to what you clearly _accepted_. No amount of wanting is going to change the reality of your tradeoff.

I don't know about you, but I can't be wrong when its my opinion.

Really? So I guess all your arguing with others in this thread about their opinions isn't because you think they're wrong or anything...right?

 

[Toki767]

I just don't see the outrage in this thread matching up with the facts before us. That's what I entered this discussion asking. What is this outrage about?

Do we see XB1 owners with pitchforks in hand saying "we need more indies"? Do we see people saying "Man, I'd like to buy an XB1, but that lack of indies."?

I see a lot of very angry people in this thread, but I don't see a connection to anyone who actually owns the console.

Parity clause makes people angry for multiple reasons. Isn't that a sign in itself that it's a bad thing?

 

[Amir0x]

I don't know, but I certainly see no evidence suggesting it's being harmed by these rules.

you mean you're intentionally selectively avoiding acknowledging all the evidence already presented that demonstrably shows just that, because it allows you to stay on your little island and plug your ears to reality.

 

[bishoptl]

I just don't see the outrage in this thread matching up with the facts before us. That's what I entered this discussion asking. What is this outrage about?

Do we see XB1 owners with pitchforks in hand saying "we need more indies"? Do we see people saying "Man, I'd like to buy an XB1, but that lack of indies."?

I see a lot of very angry people in this thread, but I don't see a connection to anyone who actually owns the console.

Then you're willfully ignoring the developers who are unhappy they can't stagger their releases on Xbone like every other platform. Full stop.

edit: dammit Amir0x stop stealing my shine

 

[adixon]

How are you making anyone feel first class when your policy is keeping you from getting certain indie games?

This is so fucking backwards. lol

It's a policy for the one percent of customers who engage in list wars on forums and actually know when indie games release on a console they don't even own. Meanwhile it screws all the other customers out of a bunch of games and bullies indie devs with dat classic microsoft attitude that everyone else in the industry has abandoned.

I'm also wondering how this is being justified at this point. Lol!

 

[justsomeguy]

Looking at 2nd Tier support from MS vs 1st Tier support from Sony. All other things being equal, of course.

All of your questions are genuine as far as I'm concerned. Dev-bros, remember?

That's cool, I am just wary of text comms that can come across wrong.

By 2nd tier support I meant something akin to what chubbigans described as being sony's support - slightly busier, etc. So still v good as 2nd tier - but just simply 48h query response time vs. 24h response time, nothing drastically different.

 

[Wereroku]

How would it be coming up short if it's basically same price & release clause as Sony, and still good support (reflecting that ms' best support appears to be slightly better than sony's best support)? Genuine question, not being argumentative.

Why not just give everyone the same level of dev support but put the free dev consoles behind launch parity/exclusivity. That way you can reward someone for releasing on your console first instead of removing any ability for that game to ever be on the console. You might still get later ports but at least they would come and if they are successful their next game might just come at the same time.

That's cool, I am just wary of text comms that can come across wrong.

By 2nd tier support I meant something akin to what chubbigans described as being sony's support - slightly busier, etc. So still v good as 2nd tier - but just simply 48h query response time vs. 24h response time, nothing drastically different.

Ahh I read it wrong. I thought you meant like the tiers in Windows enterprise support which can be difficult if you don't have a premium plan.

 

[Marcel]

I just don't see the outrage in this thread matching up with the facts before us. That's what I entered this discussion asking. What is this outrage about?

Do we see XB1 owners with pitchforks in hand saying "we need more indies"? Do we see people saying "Man, I'd like to buy an XB1, but that lack of indies."?

I see a lot of very angry people in this thread, but I don't see a connection to anyone who actually owns the console.

You are just absolutely clueless or just willingly ignorant. Countless people have told you what this thread is about, myself included. Do you need it intravenously?

Seriously. Your myopia will be legendary. BruiserBear still doesn't know what the thread is about after 20 pages and lots of participation and people feeding you the answers like a baby.

 

[bishoptl]

That's cool, I am just wary of text comms that can come across wrong.

By 2nd tier support I meant something akin to what chubbigans described as being sony's support - slightly busier, etc. So still v good as 2nd tier - but just simply 48h query response time vs. 24h response time, nothing drastically different.

Then it's a much more equal proposition and one that I can get behind 100%.

 

[CambriaRising]

I just don't see the outrage in this thread matching up with the facts before us. That's what I entered this discussion asking. What is this outrage about?

Do we see XB1 owners with pitchforks in hand saying "we need more indies"? Do we see people saying "Man, I'd like to buy an XB1, but that lack of indies."?

I see a lot of very angry people in this thread, but I don't see a connection to anyone who actually owns the console.

You are ignoring the evidence presented. That's not the same as there being no evidence. What are you even arguing for at this point? In no way does this clause benefit a single person involved, not even Microsoft.

When Marcel mentioned "beating the drum until it breaks" above, he was referencing people like you.