Support NeoGAF

[tattooed_dwarf]

The whole "Phil Spencer is just empty statements" narrative is beyond annoying at this point. And it's as if people have never worked a day in their life before. With headstrong people like Balmer and Mattrick calling the shots, you really think Phil Spencer was a crucial component of all things bad with Xbox? It's a top down business bruh. There's a reason Xbox changed significantly once Balmer and Mattrick were pushed.

Exactly.

No one knows here how much or how little Spencer was abe to use his own vision what Xbox should be. He might have supported every "bad" decision or tried to steer them other way, just to get shut off by higher ups. Or something between. But if you have worked in your life, you must have seen how even people high on hierarchy get often shut off by their bosses. But you shrug it off, try to make best of it and work for common goal. You don't go around press screaming how you didn't get your way.

That being said, I judge Spencer for his current actions. So far he has done lot of right moves, but I would love them to focus more on new interesting IP's and work on this clause so even small games could get through faster and easier.

 

[Biker19]

Why are people surprised? Microsoft have spent more time in anti-trust lawsuits than probably any other company on earth lol. This is their bread and butter, half of the reason they even still exist is due to business practices like this.

They're just too arrogant. They think that just because that they're one of the richest companies in the world, that everyone should automatically bow before them & just take what they say &/or do like puppets/slaves.

 

[EGOMON]

I like Phil, I really do. But he is the king of telling you what you want to hear.

I am glad am not the only one who think that way about this guy

 

[krang]

These timed exclusivity deals are made by indie developers because they wouldn't be able to afford or otherwise finish development.

The technical, financial and/or marketing assistance Sony provides in these deals makes it possible to play the final product.

Since Microsoft requires developers to sign an NDA before "coming to the table," we don't have much knowledge about what unfolds in these discussions. If Microsoft is helping developers offset the cost of porting a game to the Xbox One or adding extra content, then it's their responsibility to be transparent. A developer under an NDA can't spread the word for them.

Not necessarily. When no one at the dev knows how it will sell, it'll be a risk-free way of guaranteeing income.

 

[Head.spawn]

These timed exclusivity deals are made by indie developers because they wouldn't be able to afford or otherwise finish development.

The technical, financial and/or marketing assistance Sony provides in these deals makes it possible to play the final product.

Since Microsoft requires developers to sign an NDA before "coming to the table," we don't have much knowledge about what unfolds in these discussions. If Microsoft is helping developers offset the cost of porting a game to the Xbox One or adding extra content, then it's their responsibility to be transparent. A developer under an NDA can't spread the word for them.

If everything is done on a case-by-case basis (which is what they've said numerous times), then there is no standard 'word' to be spread.

 

[bishoptl]

Unless MS is actively banning titles, I believe this is a complete non-issue. If anything, the debates on this work better as a litmus test for who does and does not have a chip on their shoulder towards MS.

Brilliant insight, thank you

Are there any recent quotes from indie developers regarding the parity clause? It seems like a lot of indie titles already released or currently in the pipeline, which have released on other platforms and will not feature any additional content, are making their way to XB1 in decent numbers. It seems like the parity clause is a means of capturing indie studios in the pipeline, and getting the chance to make a pitch for additional/alternative content for its XB1 release.

I know there were developers whose experience showed it to be more of a roadblock in the past though, so it'd be interested to hear of their experiences in recent memory.

Feel free to check this very thread. Or do a search for any of chubigans', Ravidrath's or my own posts on the subject.

The parity clause is asinine for indie devs and Xbone owners.

 

[alexandros]

Is there any way to verify Spencer's claims? If I understand it correctly, he says that there is a clause for the cases where the developer has signed some sort of exclusivity deal. He makes it sound like a simple staggered release does not putthat clause into effect. Some developers are posting here, so I think we would all appreciate some more info. Specifically?

a) Was your game turned down by Microsoft for release on XB1?
b) Did you sign an exclusivity deal for another platform?

If there are reports that a developer without an exclusivity deal was turned down then Spencer is obfuscating the facts.

 

[Xion_Stellar]

Is there any way to verify Spencer's claims? If I understand it correctly, he says that there is a clause for the cases where the developer has signed some sort of exclusivity deal. He makes it sound like a simple staggered release does not putthat clause into effect. Some developers are posting here, so I think we would all appreciate some more info. Specifically?

a) Was your game turned down by Microsoft for release on XB1?
b) Did you sign an exclusivity deal for another platform?

If there are reports that a developer without an exclusivity deal was turned down then Spencer is obfuscating the facts.

They make you sign a Nondisclosure Agreement before any talk is made so even if there was devs here who have been in situation A they wouldn't be able to talk about it.

And as for situation B Sony has been announcing such thing with quotes like "Console Exclusive", "Exclusive DLC", "First on PlayStation" and "Exclusively on PlayStation" so it's no mystery when a developer signs some sort of exclusivity deal with Sony.

 

[CaviarMeths]

Maaan do I ever want a whistleblower on this one. I'd love to read all the juicy specifics hiding behind the NDAs.

 

[El-Pistolero]

Is there any way to verify Spencer's claims? If I understand it correctly, he says that there is a clause for the cases where the developer has signed some sort of exclusivity deal. He makes it sound like a simple staggered release does not putthat clause into effect. Some developers are posting here, so I think we would all appreciate some more info. Specifically?

a) Was your game turned down by Microsoft for release on XB1?
b) Did you sign an exclusivity deal for another platform?

If there are reports that a developer without an exclusivity deal was turned down then Spencer is obfuscating the facts.

Developers could not possibly speak at length on this issue for they did sign a NDA with the company. There still have been a couple of testimonies criticizing the whole practice, from some of our resident indie scene representatives; testimonies that paint a rather sad picture of the whole shtick...

 

[panda-zebra]

I'm fine with it.

I'm not buying a game a year later on another platform if it is just the same as elsewhere especially when I know if it's already old it'll be up for either a sale or a Subscription Freebie on the original platform.

Add in something unique though like what Yatch Club did with Shovel and I might consider it or Don't Starve being buy one get one free on the Wii U a year later.

*shrug*

It's easy to be fine with it when you are a consumer or looking at it from a solely consumer viewpoint, maybe more so if you are a multi-platform gamer.

From a dev standpoint, when you are creating these games and struggling to manage staggered launches over multiple formats, maybe it's a little less easy to be fine with it. For obvious reasons, smaller teams could have larger difficulties.

Really, what people's problems with this clause. Extra content doesn't mean devs have to put in some totally new mode or feature, it can be something small like Battletoads in Shovel Knight. I doubt that took much dev time, but was a nice bonus for Xbone users.

I'd hazard the bigger and more desired games have an easier time navigating the non-parity-clause rules and regulations. As for effort required to create such content, there might be a little more to it than you imagine, even tiny changes have larger impacts and knock-ons that go further than just generating the content.

has this turned into the obligatory its cool to hate Microsoft thread yet ?

It's definitely took a turn it seems, maybe not the one you're looking for.

 

[mrklaw]

Seems like he's differentiating between games that just release later because of resources - which they don't require special content added to them; and games that are releasing later because of a deal with Sony, which they do ask for special content.

This is what it sounds like to me too. And that does sound like a change of tone from MS -although Spencer than cocks it up be pretending there is no change and they've been doing that all along

My biggest problem was the 'we can waive that for selected developers' which means cherry picking. If that is gone then that makes me very happy. If MS require some additional content for a late game that Sony partly funded or did an exclusivity deal on, I'm fine with that too - not ideal but Sony has similar requirements.


I hope now we'll start to hear better noises from developers, especially the smaller ones with more niche titles which would be less likely to attract a waiver from MS

 

[derwalde]

If neogaf teached me anything then that theres a defense force for literally everything on gaf.

 

[DocSeuss]

Expect it is.

The bit you quoted, to me, makes it sound like "hey, we'd really like to do this with you." It doesn't sound required. If it is, well, okay, it is. But reading it the way I did, it sounded more like it's something they want to do, which seems fine, because everyone has an ideal way for the way things work.

Based on some of the posts from actual devs, however, I do find myself a bit more skeptical.

To me, it sounds like Sony's trying to shut out MS and MS is pushing back, perhaps not in the best way.

I've never played the game before. Why would I be upset?

Indies are the most vulnerable devs on the planet. They often choose to go to one platform or another because they have painfully limited funds and struggle just to develop on one. Maybe they would have the money after a release to make a lot of extra content, or maybe the cost of porting over is too prohibitive for the company. A giant corporation trying to strong arm the devs most likely to have trouble fulfilling such obligations and then adding red tape into the mix is a stupid idea and they deserve to be criticized at every step of the way.

And the significantly fewer indie products are their punishment in any event.

I seem to recall Sony fans being pretty mad about full-price Bioshock coming to PS3, and I definitely remember people getting really mad at the prospect of a full-priced Mass Effect 1 on PS3. They were all "if it comes, it better be heavily discounted because we had to wait." So I mean... yeah, customers do have a tendency to buy a game new or expect it discounted/new and improved. It's part of the reason Nintendo went with updated versions of a bunch of games--no one would re-purchase the new Batman or whatever if it weren't for those updated, WiiU-specific SKUs.

True, it's harder for indies.

But... the fact is, if a game's been out for a year on one platform, it probably won't do well. It's definitely a smarter business move for the indie to release the game in some new and improved way in order to get people to buy it.

 

[xxracerxx]

To me, it sounds like Sony's trying to shut out MS and MS is pushing back, perhaps not in the best way.

Haha, what? This is Sony's fault for being so open with indie support? What is this shit?

 

[John Bender]

Edge: Is the parity clause dead now?

Spencer: I think so. There's this idea that's been named 'parity clause', but there is no clause. We've come out and been very transparent in the last four or five months about exactly what we want.

If there's a developer who's building a game and they just can't get the game done for both platforms - cool. We'll take a staggered release. We've done it before, and we work with them on that. If another platform does a deal with you as a developer to build an exclusive version of your game for them, and you can't ship on my platform for a year, when the game comes out in a year let's just work together to make it special in some way. People complained about that, but you did a deal with somebody else and you got paid for it and I'm happy - we do those same deals, so I'm not knocking you. It's going to be better for you, actually, because people don't want last year's game, they want something special and new.

So the clause still exists.

To me, it sounds like Sony's trying to shut out MS and MS is pushing back, perhaps not in the best way.

lol what

 

[mrklaw]

It seems to me that in the long run it would help generate more profit from the port because of the boost in coverage. Take Shovel Knight for example. If that game was a straight port to XB1, it would have gotten a blurb on gaming news sites with a price and release date and a 3 page thread on GAF, but throw in a few small Battletoads levels and sprites and you can get news stories with a teaser video, screenshots, and new information and actually get people talking about your old game again.

Bear in mind that indie games live or die based on hype. There usually isn't a big advertising push for them, so word of mouth and press buzz is how those games get marketed. When a late, no-frills port gets produced, it's tantamount to releasing a product with little to no marketing. At that point, why bother porting at all? It needs something to get it back on people's radar.

Yes, MS is using this strategy to make more money from the game, but these sales also generate revenue for the developer, and the extra content is usually not very complex compared to the main games. By mandating this, MS is pushing the devs to shoot for a higher sales goal than they might have otherwise, which keeps their platform's store from looking like a desert of weakly-selling late ports and potentially grants the studio a greater return on their investment in the game.

I get that people dislike the notion of the platform holder telling people how to make or sell their games, but this is a business where image and marketing are vital to success. MS would rather have no release at all for a game that's going to make their platform look like the place to play games a year after everyone else has moved on, and that's their prerogative. I'm personally not a huge fan of the practice because it means that there are games I won't get a chance to play on Xbox One, but I can appreciate the logic of their stance and I wouldn't expect them to change it, at least not while they're behind in install base and desperately trying to make their platform look like an appealing place to play games.

Yes it might be better if you do this. But this is supposed to be developer self-publishing. MS are free to make suggestions on ways the developer might make a better return. But the final choice on what resources to commit and what to release should be the developers.

 

[Jigorath]

What games have they blocked?

Edit: Seriously, I'd like to know.
The Xbox One has been out for almost 2 years and I've never read anything about Microsoft actually blocking a game because of this.

Do you know how NDA's work?

 

[yodathesoda]

Doesn't seem to have an impact. Tons of great indies going to both platforms.

 

[mrklaw]

Yes, but how did it SELL compared to the 360 and PC releases? If it doesn't sell enough then what's the point for the platform holder or the dev? Especially in the case of X1 or WiiU where they are a secondary console to the market leader. Most people will not be interested, especially at new release price.

We are early in the generation. There are more people still to buy a PS4 than already have one. So even if a game doesn't sell as well as earlier releases, it is still present on the platform when people buy into that platform.

Anyway - who gives a shit about "what's the point for the platform holder"? The point is that both MS and Sony came out in 2013 talking loudly about freedom for indies and self-publishing. So far only Sony seems to be actually delivering on that.

 

[Toki767]

Doesn't seem to have an impact. Tons of great indies going to both platforms.

Except the PS4 is clearly getting way more indie games.

 

[John Bender]

Doesn't seem to have an impact. Tons of great indies going to both platforms.

Sony has a lot more indie games on the PlayStation.
So yes, it has an impact.

I'm in tears right now.

 

[TheHater]

Exactly.

No one knows here how much or how little Spencer was abe to use his own vision what Xbox should be. He might have supported every "bad" decision or tried to steer them other way, just to get shut off by higher ups. Or something between. But if you have worked in your life, you must have seen how even people high on hierarchy get often shut off by their bosses. But you shrug it off, try to make best of it and work for common goal. You don't go around press screaming how you didn't get your way.

That being said, I judge Spencer for his current actions. So far he has done lot of right moves, but I would love them to focus more on new interesting IP's and work on this clause so even small games could get through faster and easier.

Yeah I sure consumer backlash have nothing to do with the One PR turn around. IT WAS ALL PHIL. The same Phil that made the Tomb Raider deal to keep the game that was announce for the PC/PS4 off these systems for a set period of time.

Phil is the type that feeds you the bullshit you wanna hear.

 

[benny_a]

If you just look at the amount of games PS4 users have access to, over and above what Xbox One users have access to, it becomes pretty clear that for a variety of reasons, the PS4 is the more attractive console to publish on for devs in general, but especially indie devs.

But going where everyone is going is not automatically the best move to maximize revenue.

If there is less competition you may be able to make more money, because even if the total number of potential customers are higher the choices are reduced which makes you stand out more.

Devs have said that the perception in the industry is that MS makes you jump through hoops nobody else does in order to publish on the XBO.

Which is a shame. The Chris Charla team seems based on what you read to be very good. It's just that you have to participate in their song and NDA'd dance and instead of it merely being a suggestion that you add additional stuff, it seems mandatory like it has for years.

Indies want to have that choice for themselves and Microsoft's paternalistic behavior is not what is desired in this market.

 

[MotionBlue]

has this turned into the obligatory its cool to hate Microsoft thread yet ?

Strawman arguments against proven criticism is a sign of untenable opinions.

I seem to recall Sony fans being pretty mad about full-price Bioshock coming to PS3, and I definitely remember people getting really mad at the prospect of a full-priced Mass Effect 1 on PS3. They were all "if it comes, it better be heavily discounted because we had to wait."

Mass Effect was released five years later. It was heavily discounted. Most people were happy.

Phil is a PR mouthpiece. It is his job to sell the Xbox brand. He has been ambiguous, elusive, and deceptive on more than one occasion. He has been called out on it. Stop pretending he has your interest at heart, and not his own. He is just like every other corporate employee, be they Sony, Apple, or Microsoft.

 

[Vex_]

Kinda off topic but has to do with the topic title:

Why is that Rick James joke misinterpreted so much?

He was saying that he didn't remember just messing with Charlie Murphy for no reason.

Then he goes on to say yea I remember grinding my feet into his couch.

He wasn't denying that he did it; he was just denying that he did it for no reason at all. Big difference. It was probably to get back at CM for something we will never get clarification now. Rip.


---

Anyways, cocaine is a helluva drug, and so is the parity shit. Typical PR speak from Phil. I like the guy and all, but c'mon.

 

[CaviarMeths]

<tinfoil hat>

What if the reason that Microsoft doesn't talk about the specifics of the policy is because they tell every developer something different so if it ever leaks, they'll know who did it?

</tinfoil hat>

 

[mrklaw]

I'm fine with it.

I'm not buying a game a year later on another platform if it is just the same as elsewhere especially when I know if it's already old it'll be up for either a sale or a Subscription Freebie on the original platform.

Add in something unique though like what Yatch Club did with Shovel and I might consider it or Don't Starve being buy one get one free on the Wii U a year later.

*shrug*

Did you have one of those other platforms? Why didn't you buy it when it was fresh and new?
If you didn't have one of those platforms, then this is the first time you are able to play it, so it *is* fresh and new to you.

This 'best played before' expiration date shit needs to stop.


Also, this doesn't apply if you have a game that is popular and people are talking about. Then MS might let you through with no changes. So it isn't just unfair, it is disproportionately unfair towards the smaller devs that can't afford it.

 

[Abdiel]

Brilliant insight, thank you


Feel free to check this very thread. Or do a search for any of chubigans', Ravidrath's or my own posts on the subject.

The parity clause is asinine for indie devs and Xbone owners.

Ah, but Bish, that would require them to actually get rid of their ignorance that allows them to make sweeping statements like "This is MS pushing back against Sony the only way they can".

Honestly, no one can defend this practice. Seeing people doing so in these threads every damn time we get an update that shows that things are still the same, they're just being murkier about it, is incredibly frustrating.

Chubigans and Ravidrath have both done more than their fair share of speaking out on the subject to as much degree as they safely can without breaking their NDAs... But even in this very thread, people are like 'I'd need to see devs saying otherwise."

Or even saying "I'd need to hear that they were blocked." when the fact that they are still NDA'd just by having the conversation means they couldn't say anything to that effect.

It drives me crazy. It's a hostile, toxic policy, but people blindly defend.

 

[benny_a]

It drives me crazy. It's a hostile, toxic policy, but people blindly defend.

If it only was blind defense.

There goes some real thought into some of the defenses how it's ultimately good to trump and create great positive PR about freedom for indie developers while not offering said freedom.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Kinda off topic but has to do with the topic title:

Why is that Rick James joke misinterpreted so much?

He was saying that he didn't remember just messing with Charlie Murphy for no reason.

Then he goes on to say yea I remember grinding my feet into his couch.

He wasn't denying that he did it; he was just denying that he did it for no reason at all. Big difference. It was probably to get back at CM for something we will never get clarification now. Rip.


---

Anyways, cocaine is a helluva drug, and so is the parity shit. Typical PR speak from Phil. I like the guy and all, but c'mon.

True, true...

Rick:

See, I never just did things just to do them, c'mon I mean, what I'm gonna do just all of the sudden just jump up and grind my feet in somebody's couch like it's something to do? Come on, I got a little more sense than that. ...Yeah, I remember grinding my feet into Eddie's couch.

But I think it was mostly the confusion and how hilarious the statement was made just to say, yeah I did.

Parody Phil:

See, we never just did things just to do them, c'mon I mean, what are we gonna do just all of the sudden not allow Indie devs to release later on our platform because there is no master chief reference in there somewhere? Come on, we got a little more sense than that. ...Yeah, I remember we have a parity clause.

 

[justsomeguy]

How the hell is Windows 10, 'NT10'?
Fuckers skipped 7, 8, & 9.

Username checks out.

 

[Toki767]

Username checks out.

At least I would be able to correctly predict the next number in his name versus the next number in Windows.

 

[Abdiel]

If it only was blind defense.

There goes some real thought into some of the defenses how it's ultimately good to trump and create great positive PR about freedom for indie developers while not offering said freedom.

: /

I guess that's true. And that's even more disappointing. That people would rise to the defense with careful consideration...

 

[LewieP]

Also, this doesn't apply if you have a game that is popular and people are talking about. Then MS might let you through with no changes. So it isn't just unfair, it is disproportionately unfair towards the smaller devs that can't afford it.

Right. Are Microsoft really going to say no to No Man's Sky, Shenmue 3, The Witness, Volume and other similarly high profile games if the developer declines to make Xbox exclusive stuff? No they are not.

It's developers that are not so heavily established that are going to be the ones having to spend time and money jumping through Microsoft's hoops.

The policy is specifically targeting those developers who are in a position where Microsoft can push them around.

 

[Ombala]

This is the same thing we have heard them saying the whole time.

 

[Fortuneelsewhere]

Parity clause is dead... The new thing is control freak clause... Or daddy syndrome clause..

 

[Three]

because people don't want last year's game, they want something special and new.

Now take a look at our new feature, backwards compatibility and have I shown you this Rare game?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Now take a look at our new feature, backwards compatibility and have I shown you this Rare game?

 

[Newtype-001]

&#128561;

 

[Miles Quaritch]

They want to avoid the Mass Effect effect.

Where a game is so closely connected to one platform, its sales skew heavily towards that platform and the leave the other with scraps.

The idea behind exclusive/new content is to to say to gamers that sure you're getting the game late, but here's some additional content the others gamers didn't get, please buy the game so we can get our percentage cut and so the game sells enough to convince the developer not to wait a whole year in future...

It's not some malicious attempt to screw over developers, they just want their piece of the pie and don't want to be left out in the cold when a game blows up and their platform doesn't see a piece of that specific pie.

They only care about the bottom line. Getting that 10 or 30 per cent from each sale and if that means forcing developers to add new content so they can hopefully get more, they'll do it, even f it impacts their negatively.

 

[Newtype-001]

I really don't see what the big deal is...
Has this "clause" stopped any popular indie games from coming to the Xbox One?

Hmm, let's see...
Oddworld New & Tasty, Olli Olli, Velocity 2X, Thomas Was Alone, Rogue Legacy, Guacamelee, Binding of Isaac, The Swapper, Mousecraft, Steamworld Dig, Don't Starve

All of those have released or will release on Xbox One after releasing on PS4 first.

Im pretty sure skullgirls hasnt released cause of the parity clause for the X1

 

[alexandros]

Im pretty sure skullgirls hasnt released cause of the parity clause for the X1

Did the developer ever have a deal with Sony?

 

[Newtype-001]

Did the developer ever have a deal with Sony?

Im 99% sure there isnt since it released on the 360

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Im pretty sure skullgirls hasnt released cause of the parity clause for the X1

Hmm, way to avoid the parity clause or a sneaky way to get past any deal they have in place?

 

[geordiemp]

OK I came for this. Thankyou.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

So Rocket League ever gonna come to Xbox, because they need to court that game they are missing out.

edit: probably not...

Well,

Deal in place or parity clause holding them back?

 

[Newtype-001]

Hmm, way to avoid the parity clause or a sneaky way to get past any deal they have in place?

Id assume its their way to avoid the parity clause if 2E isnt going to be releasing. I mean if they already have a deal in place now i doubt theyd go this roundabout way.

 

[Kayant]

The bit you quoted, to me, makes it sound like "hey, we'd really like to do this with you." It doesn't sound required. If it is, well, okay, it is. But reading it the way I did, it sounded more like it's something they want to do, which seems fine, because everyone has an ideal way for the way things work.

Based on some of the posts from actual devs, however, I do find myself a bit more skeptical.

To me, it sounds like Sony's trying to shut out MS and MS is pushing back, perhaps not in the best way.

You seem to either miss or what to ignore that in that quote you're not given an option. It's "let's work together" not "would you like to work together on extra content". Adding to the fact that quote does/doesn't say whether they help with the development of the content. This is the same language he has used in the past.

Also Wtf are you on about with Sony??? Yes Sony is someout trying to shut out MS without having the same requirements. Neither does Nintendo by the way. You're acting like Sony is forcing all the devs the sign with to do so not forgetting Ms themselves do these deals.

 

[TheSpoiler]

Hmm, way to avoid the parity clause or a sneaky way to get past any deal they have in place?

I dunno, you tell me.

https://twitter.com/Skullgirls/status/593524998569992192