CambriaRising
Member
So..it's still not dead.
So Rocket League ever gonna come to Xbox, because they need to court that game they are missing out.
edit: probably not...
So..it's still not dead.
So basically the platform leader gets the game first and the secondary platforms want a little extra to sell the game. I see can understand the frustration, but when Sony did it for PS3 games, where was the outrage? They are leading this generation and all of sudden this practice is now seen as a bad one.
So basically the platform leader gets the game first and the secondary platforms want a little extra to sell the game. I see can understand the frustration, but when Sony did it for PS3 games, where was the outrage? They are leading this generation and all of sudden this practice is now seen as a bad one.
Finally, some progress. A little denial mixed in still, but a huge improvement.
but that's before release vs after. has microsoft not helped any indie devs before release vs asking for extra content because they went exclusive because of external deals?
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.
So basically the platform leader gets the game first and the secondary platforms want a little extra to sell the game. I see can understand the frustration, but when Sony did it for PS3 games, where was the outrage? They are leading this generation and all of sudden this practice is now seen as a bad one.
https://twitter.com/RocketLeague/status/619973340405481473
I read that as yes, but we can't talk about it.
Q: "Is the parity clause dead?"
A: "Yes, it never existed! All we do is require the things people say are in the parity clause!"
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.
I recall the PR spin a while back about how the parity clause was about giving XBO users a "first class" experience, yet PSN has almost double the digital / downloadable / indie titles on it's store.
The irony that XBO users are second-rate citizens because of these shitty policies.
huh? Am I missing something? His answer seemed pretty damn clear and made 100% sense to me. I dont understand what people are mad about, someone help me please.
Eh doesn't seem so bad tbh.
"It's dead. Yeah. There is no clause."
[Goes on into to contradict the statement entirely]
If you go to PS4 first, you gotta wait a year for XBone + some exclusive features to spice it up.
No one is upset. What he stated is an unofficial parity clause. Nothing has changed.
During the PS3 days yeah, PS4 no.
If it ever comes to xbox all they'd really need to do is have like an xbox car themed skin (warthog) or w.e which wouldn't be that hard to do. Unless I'm incorrect and it'd need to be something more substantial than that. Either way doesn't really change the fact that it shouldn't be a requirement.So Rocket League ever gonna come to Xbox, because they need to court that game they are missing out.
edit: probably not...
I guess I dont understand then. I didnt see anything in that quote that points to there being a parity clause still, even an unofficial one.
That's not what he said, though. He says if you're shipping a game on PS4, but the Xbox One version won't be ready for another year, that's fine. Let's work together to make it something special when it's ready to release.
Why sigh for adding extra stuff? Isn't that the same thing Sony does when exclusive terms end with Xbox?
So basically the platform leader gets the game first and the secondary platforms want a little extra to sell the game. I see can understand the frustration, but when Sony did it for PS3 games, where was the outrage? They are leading this generation and all of sudden this practice is now seen as a bad one.
I guess I dont understand then. I didnt see anything in that quote that points to there being a parity clause still, even an unofficial one.
Is it because they dont want to release a game that isnt ready on their platform and want to stagger it? seems logical to me
Finally, some progress. A little denial mixed in still, but a huge improvement.
My guess is that MS strongly encourages devs to add something special if they can, but they don't require it. A very large number of indies have released on XB1 over the past year with no exclusive content, despite releasing on PS4 (or Wii U) first.
TMU, the original parity clause was that if a game released on PS3 first, forget about releasing it later on Xbox 360 later, you either release it on both, or you're locked out.
Is that gone? yes, but there are those that refuse to let it go. "Parity Clause" description has evolved from what I described above, to:
"If you can't release on both, come talk to us first and we'll help you make it happen"
To: "If you released on Sony first and want to come to Xbox later, that's fine, but lets talk about making that title exciting again by adding extra content"
To: insert the next "Goal Post Parity Clause meaning Here"__________________.
TMU, the original parity clause was that if a game released on PS3 first, forget about releasing it later on Xbox 360 later, you either release it on both, or you're locked out.
Is that gone? yes, but there are those that refuse to let it go. "Parity Clause" description has evolved from what I described above, to:
"If you can't release on both, come talk to us first and we'll help you make it happen"
To: "If you released on Sony first and want to come to Xbox later, that's fine, but lets talk about making that title exciting again by adding extra content"
To: insert the next "Goal Post Parity Clause meaning Here"__________________.
It's always been like this (at least that's what they always saying).
lol no, Sony haven't done it for like 5 years. They might suggest a developer add something to a late port (like Super Time Force Ultra) but they don't force them to do so, like Microsoft does.
Not really, unless you know what his definition of "special" and why so many developers failed to meet it.
A clause that demands something extra, and them wanting something extra, are not the same thing. His statement seems pretty clear to me.
Maybe it's careful language, but I doubt it. There is no absolute requirement.