• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Phil Spencer: Parity is a hell of a Clause

Chobel

Member
Quite a few devs did - see my edit for why :)

Which dev said they want extra content for TR2?

Also in TR2 thread, people are asking for content that was released in Xbox version as DLC, not an exclusive content specifically for PS4 version. Pretty/very different than what's happening here.
 
justsomeguy should've put a parity clause on that post backfire.

Well granted it wasn't my greatest post :-/

But hey, I've listened, accepted where and why I was wrong, and stayed around for the discussion instead of bailing or throwing around insults.

Hopefully that counts for something?

(edit: and I did edit some extra content into it)
 
Well granted it wasn't my greatest post :-/

But hey, I've listened, accepted where and why I was wrong, and stayed around for the discussion instead of bailing or throwing around insults.

Hopefully that counts for something?

Course it does, around these parts we call that 'Doing an Artisan' :)
 
edit: editing this out now - for the original text see the many quotes below.

Quoting myself from further down:

Really? They are not comparable at all. The extra content being asked for, by the platform manufacturer is due to indies releasing late on their console, which in turn are late mainly to a 'parity clause' introduced by said platform manufacturer.

With regards to tomb raider, its the fans who want the extra content. Not only this, but the reason it is releasing late is due to the aforementioned platform manufacturer paying for it to be released late on their rivals console.

Edit. Just seen the modified post.
 
This looks to me like you're doing the typically passive aggressive tattle-tale post here 'Gaf told me [this], so how come Gaf is now saying [this]' and trying to stir up shit.

Sorry, missed this originally but it warrants a reply. Check my post history, I simply don't make that kind of post. Plus my intention of wording the post like that was to try and say "it's really not meant to be one of those kinds of posts.
 

Orca

Member
Which dev said they want extra content for TR2?

Also in TR2 thread, people are asking for content that was released in Xbox version as DLC, not an exclusive content specifically for PS4 version. Pretty/very different than what's happening here.

People are asking for a delayed game to be made special to account for the delay. They expect it to be the GOTY version because it's a year late. It's the same principle - if it's arriving late, it better be a unique version to make up for that.

Edit - I'm not talking about from the publisher perspective, but the consumer's. If they can't buy a game on their platform when it comes to another one, they don't want to just get the game late - they'd like it to be different.
 
tumblr_n660rqJ0kL1qdtn3qo1_500.gif



As your leader, I encourage you from time to time, and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced that a particular policy is the wisest, tell me so, but allow me to work with you to make it special because I promise you right here and now, no one wants your old game. Unless, of course, you actually add new content to it. The price you pay for bringing up parity clause as a negative is... I collect your fucking head. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the fucking time!

lol that is perfect.
 

nynt9

Member
Bish you know me better than that, I hope :( I'd edit it out but hell it's been quoted a billion times already which is fair enough. Gonna PM you something too.

I have to head home from work soon so I'm not gonna be able to keep up with replies unfortunately.

Sorry, missed this originally but it warrants a reply. Check my post history, I simply don't make that kind of post. Plus my intention of wording the post like that was to try and say "it's really not meant to be one of those kinds of posts.

"Gonna head home soon so can't reply, bye"

50 minutes later

*keeps replying*

I guess your definition of "soon" is "somewhat different" than ours?

Honestly, the reason the parity clause sucks is because it's MS taking something away from indies who are underprivileged developers for the most part, the TR comparison is totally unwarranted because there MS is taking the game away from gamers.

And as I said, the clause is antagonistic towards developers because it forces them to work more. It strains them. Squeenix won't be strained by making a GOTY edition for other platforms. And it's not a hard requirement anyway. They can afford to put the game on whatever platform they want.
 
Sorry, missed this originally but it warrants a reply. Check my post history, I simply don't make that kind of post. Plus my intention of wording the post like that was to try and say "it's really not meant to be one of those kinds of posts.

Ironically though, that's what made it seem like one of those posts.

No harm done though, you've had your ribbing.

"Gonna head home soon so can't reply, bye"

50 minutes later

*keeps replying*

I guess your definition of "soon" is "somewhat different" than ours?

Honestly, the reason the parity clause sucks is because it's MS taking something away from indies who are underprivileged developers for the most part, the TR comparison is totally unwarranted because there MS is taking the game away from gamers.

And as I said, the clause is antagonistic towards developers because it forces them to work more. It strains them. Squeenix won't be strained by making a GOTY edition for other platforms. And it's not a hard requirement anyway. They can afford to put the game on whatever platform they want.

He's reasoned why he got it wrong, there's nothing to gain from continuing to pick at this.
 

Kayant

Member
I think it's clear when you step back. They evaluate games that have launched on other platforms to see if they can ask for more content or features to help there platform. The way they see the problem with the word 'clause" is that it makes developers not even try to release on Xbox. Sony probably evaluates games the same way, it's just that the messaging, and perception on Xbox right now sucks.

They can't say "There is no parity evaluation or clause or anything!" because they still want to curate games for their platform on their terms. I honestly think all platform holders do this.

Yes what is in the OP is very much alike the below /s

BikFsIHCEAAYR_9.jpg
 
Genuinely - why? What in my post history makes it sound like I'm one of those people. I always welcome constructive feedback. edit: oh sorry you mean the way I worded it? Ok. Doh.

Yeah, the last bit. Time you went to the pub, I think :) (for your own good, do not reply to this. There is no panda-zebra-donated prize up for grabs!)
 

Chobel

Member
People are asking for a delayed game to be made special to account for the delay. They expect it to be the GOTY version because it's a year late. It's the same principle - if it's arriving late, it better be a unique version to make up for that.

Edit - I'm not talking about from the publisher perspective, but the consumer's. If they can't buy a game on their platform when it comes to another one, they don't want to just get the game late - they'd like it to be different.

Some people and not all people, and if these people really want to play the game but don't like the price, then they'll wait when it discounted.
 
People are asking for a delayed game to be made special to account for the delay. They expect it to be the GOTY version because it's a year late. It's the same principle - if it's arriving late, it better be a unique version to make up for that.

Edit - I'm not talking about from the publisher perspective, but the consumer's. If they can't buy a game on their platform when it comes to another one, they don't want to just get the game late - they'd like it to be different.

The analogy still doesn't work, because modern AAA games have add-on content already factored into their budgets, and we know before the game releases that a) there will be $30 or more worth of DLC and b) there will eventually be a GOTY edition released with all or most of that content.

Most indie games might get a few patches but few will have that level of post-launch content adding hours onto the base game. They certainly don't get many double dipping customers on the original platform, as they are confined to the digital space by and large.
 

Amir0x

Banned
When I get time today and I'm back at my desk I'll post some thoughts again. I am not about to go nuclear on some of you on my phone.

I need to call you out, Amirox. You'd better have a shitload of links from all these devs on neogaf changing their tune, links and verification that MS does secretly call up every loud dev and interviews with Chris and Phil to back up your claims.

A lot of your rhetoric is bullshit "pile on" to the nth degree. I hate the fucking clause and I even told you a while ago, personally, that I had enough reason from devs to sit back and watch this play out over time. And no - Chris or Phil never contacted me or MANY fucking devs that were loud. I sat back because I'm the guy that needs to be 100% sure before I do or say something publicly. I give people the time of day because that's who I am. When I needed to sit back and watch - I did. I didn't continue my tirade.

I guess not doing anything but yelling at an old cloud is a lot fucking easier than reaching out to people and asking questions eh?

Firstly, you are not the only dev that has complained, and when I made my post I was actually referencing a different indie dev specifically who made such comments. But the general mood is not much different from the way you're now going around telling people to relax, and you shouldn't take it personally.

Because let's say things were fixed? Well then they should start being fully damn open. The reason many indie devs have even stopped engaging is because they still give interviews like this fucking atrocious one in the OP. They say there's no parity clause, and then go on to list a specific example of such a clause. It's ridiculous, and everyone has a right to be furious at this point at how they're intentionally trying to deceive their fans and developers alike..


Because that's the problem right there. You're telling people not to "yell at an old cloud", and yet Phil Spencer and Microsoft are content to continue this atmosphere of secrecy and utter fucking bullshit whilst other companies are far more open and engaging. If they didn't have some nonsense in place, then interviews would not be going down the way they are going down. You may say it's "better", but I don't give a fuck because it's not GONE. It needs to be gone, completely. Devs should never have to ever talk to Phil Spencer at any point except the obvious steps in the process. There needs to be no such things as exemptions.

And it needs to all stop being piled behind the world's most insulting coded language and secrecy, because then everyone is right to assume they're hiding something. Because they are. And if an NDA prevents you from talking about the details, then what value can that have? People are not dumb, they can read these interviews and see between the lines that something bad is still up. And so nobody is going to take at face value anything else until these things stop happening.

Here's the actual answer to this question:

"Hey Phil Spencer, is the party clause still around?"

"Nope. Devs have to do nothing at all in order to release a product on our system (except for the basic stuff like make sure the game runs), even if they have a deal with another company. Ya know, like Sony. The end."

There we go! The problem is solved, Absinthe! This isn't rocket science. No, I'm not going to be kind to these people. They are grown ass adults. They are the one obfuscating the message. They are the one putting barriers in place and answering interview questions like the fucking Iraqi Information Minister. That's their fault.

And so far the way they've been quelling this problem is every time a dev complains about it on neoGAF, suddenly they open doors and make things happen. I'm not saying that is the exact scenario that has played out every time or even in your case, but it has been a big happening multiple times (and was the case with the indie dev I was referencing, which wasn't you). We hear things like "they reached out to me on twitter and..." or "they said my application got lost in the shuffle" and etc etc. It's an extremely common theme amongst all these developers who were complaining. You don't hear this thing about the other parties because they don't have a fucked up system in place.

Edit: You know? Not going to go nuclear at anyone. Instead I'll just say a few things.

Most devs today that still believe the parity clause is hardcore, actually don't know and simply regurgitate what they hear and read online and not actually engaging on their own to get details from the horse's mouth. We've seen this unfold on Twitter as we've seen ID call out several devs who never approached them and said they'd love to have them.

Most of you will probably take that as making one-off exceptions and I can see that. But today is different than even a few months ago.

I'm not bagging on devs, either. We are a busy bunch and the small time (like me) sometimes don't bother even approaching because hey - we're fucking nothing.
It would seem a fool's errand to try and attack that tank with a toothpick.

For transparency I did speak with Phil and Chris EXTREMELY briefly recently. THEY DID NOT APPROACH ME AND WE DID NOT DISCUSS ANY EXCEPTIONS NOR DO I HAVE ONE. I won't go into detail but they get nobody likes the clause (plus there's not many details).

Read the OP and stop reading it through your hyperbole between the lines goggles and take what Phil said at face value. Shit is different and yes - shit falls through the cracks. You can't very well bag on ID for that statement when developers aren't even trying to contact them about it - letting those details "fall through the cracks" and continue the same song and dance because they did not do their due diligence and follow up.

What Phil said at face value is offensive. No goggles required. Sorry, I'm not buying any of their nonsense. This is the simplest thing in the world to fix, and they choose not to. Instead, they continually choose the course of obfuscating the reality. Say there's no parity, and then go on to list a specific example still in that realm.

We want parity clause GONE, full stop. And that includes features that still act as some form of parity even if they decide to pretend it's something else. Enough is enough. This isn't rocket science and I'm not going to treat any one of these soulless corporations as if they're not smart enough to know better.

This isn't your fault, but believe me they know they benefit by sowing disorganization and disunity among this group of people who understand how fucked up it is Microsoft is acting.


But that is yet ANOTHER fucking problem Phil needs to solve. Get that fucking messaging out to developers. If they have no clue the climate is changing - they won't bother to research. Its not about how to deliver that message - its about delivering it in the first fucking place. It should be dead as a doornail and developers still don't know. Consumers still don't know. That's a fucking problem they need to solve. They need to take that on their shoulders and get the word out that it's a much friendlier environment.

And by friendlier I feel they need to step up and lead with the carrot, not the stick. There's a lot they can do go incentivise developers to make exclusive content that might not have anything to do with a moneyhat. It can simply be REALLY going to bat for devs with PR and game announcements, making sure every last Xbox owner knows who the fuck is making Lotion Boy 8: The Lotioning. Or when Super Buttmuncher Prequel is about to drop. The most important thing for any small dev is getting out there and getting known which is very hard. That does a LOT more for devs than free devkits.

Bottom line is they get you, they get devs, they are making changes and they are piss poor at making sure devs know how they are TODAY - because devs still think it's fucking yesterday.

Again, so everyone gets it, I have no exemptions. I was never approached and I never asked for one. I like both indie programs from Sony and MS. Sony's is still better and I don't think MS needs to make theirs "better" as it is really good at the moment - but they can right just this one ship and with a little bit of planning do enough to differentiate themselves from the competition. Again, will be hard to beat Sony from my personal experience but they don't have to - they just have to do right and differentiate themselves a bit and they will be fine.

Peace!

If they got devs and they get me, then they need to stop bullshitting in interviews, end the NDAs on this subject, and end every single element of their "talk to us" clause. It's garbage and it will never be appropriate, ever. Full stop.
 
This good ass post

I would love for more developers to speak up about this, but you are definitely right - if things are so good, why the fuck is there an NDA? Why do things get "lost" some how?

The Skullgirls incident is straight up embarrassing. "Whoops, you said some shit on NeoGAF making us look like idiots better help you out, sorry someone must have dropped the files somewhere or something."

Here's the only way this clause is going to get better:

1. They remove it.

Simple! No "we are working on it, guys, I promise", because that's just trying to lessen the blow without actually dealing with the issue at hand. So far, the biggest fixes I've seen are "exceptions are made".

If someone could point out how this benefits developers and the majority of consumers, I'm all ears. The latter can't be satiated by stupid shit like a hat or a MC skin if the game comes out either late or not at all. MS is trying their damndest to make this work out when it has no business being around in the first place. That's incredibly telling to me.
 

jelly

Member
The NDA is the odd thing, what are they hiding ?

Saying it's all good after speaking to MS but can't say anything more because NDA. What can't they speak about which isn't just standard legal dribble that nobody wants to know. If it's meaningless why do they always bring it up, what have Microsoft made them or want them to agree to ?

Do Microsoft call the shots on release dates, promotion, first dibs on sequels and whatever else devs have cooking, performance parity, demand a Windows 10 Store version ?

It's very odd.
 
"Hey Phil Spencer, is the party clause still around?"

"Nope. Devs have to do nothing at all in order to release a product on our system (except for the basic stuff like make sure the game runs), even if they have a deal with another company. Ya know, like Sony. The end."

Did Sony drop their clause because they definitely had one on the PS3? I do agree with everything else, Microsoft needs to stop mincing words and because they are no longer the lead platform and have fallen behind the PS4 they will continue to struggle having any clause in place. A lot of devs. will simply say 'well piss on you then'.
 

SornyGAF

Banned
Spencer:

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.

But isn't the same way Sony does? All Games I know, that came out first on Xbox and after that on PS always had like DLCs included or new modes etc.
 

Abdiel

Member
But isn't the same way Sony does? All Games I know, that came out first on Xbox and after that on PS always had like DLCs included or new modes etc.

Sony does not require anything of the sort. They make deals for marketing and such if a dev wants those things for extra content, but it's not required at all. Purely at the whim of the dev.
 
Sony does not require anything of the sort. They make deals for marketing and such if a dev wants those things for extra content, but it's not required at all. Purely at the whim of the dev.

During the early years of the PS3 it was well known Sony required added content of some sorts.

http://www.1up.com/news/quakecon-carmack-dishes-dirt-sony

When reminiscing on Quake Wars' "depressing" development cycle and launch, Carmack notes that Sony demands that games coming out on their platform after they've already been released on other platforms must have significant bonus content.
 

xxracerxx

Don't worry, I'll vouch for them.
During the early years of the PS3 it was well known Sony required added content of some sorts.

http://www.1up.com/news/quakecon-carmack-dishes-dirt-sony

When reminiscing on Quake Wars' "depressing" development cycle and launch, Carmack notes that Sony demands that games coming out on their platform after they've already been released on other platforms must have significant bonus content.

We are talking currently though, not PS3 era. It sucked in the PS3 era, and it sucks now.
 
People are asking for a delayed game to be made special to account for the delay. They expect it to be the GOTY version because it's a year late. It's the same principle - if it's arriving late, it better be a unique version to make up for that.

Edit - I'm not talking about from the publisher perspective, but the consumer's. If they can't buy a game on their platform when it comes to another one, they don't want to just get the game late - they'd like it to be different.

It is only delayed when a launch date is communicated. Developers, especially indies, do not owe you anything. You wait for the title to be released, and you simply decide to buy it or not. The makers of a game are not contractually obliged to compensate the holders of a machine their project does not run on fr God's sake...The idea is just preposterous.
 

Kayant

Member
During the early years of the PS3 it was well known Sony required added content of some sorts.

http://www.1up.com/news/quakecon-carmack-dishes-dirt-sony

When reminiscing on Quake Wars' "depressing" development cycle and launch, Carmack notes that Sony demands that games coming out on their platform after they've already been released on other platforms must have significant bonus content.

Sony Too... Also like improvements can't be made /s
 
During the early years of the PS3 it was well known Sony required added content of some sorts.

http://www.1up.com/news/quakecon-carmack-dishes-dirt-sony

When reminiscing on Quake Wars' "depressing" development cycle and launch, Carmack notes that Sony demands that games coming out on their platform after they've already been released on other platforms must have significant bonus content.
Ah yes Quake Wars. That is certainly relevant to today's issues.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Did Sony drop their clause because they definitely had one on the PS3? I do agree with everything else, Microsoft needs to stop mincing words and because they are no longer the lead platform and have fallen behind the PS4 they will continue to struggle having any clause in place. A lot of devs. will simply say 'well piss on you then'.

They dropped it during PS3's lifetime.

And now it doesn't exist at all for PS4. Because Sony realized it was toxic. Microsoft can continue being assholes about this if they want, adding red tape and exploiting the most vulnerable devs on the market... but it's a grave of their own digging. They'll now perpetually be massively behind on indies until they drop all pretense of the TALK TO US™ clause, and their customers who purchased Xbox One in good faith will have significantly less games accessible to them. I own an Xbox One and it never fails to amaze me how far behind they are on the market compared to PS4. Like a complete reverse of the 360 era. I made well over 90% of my purchases last gen on 360 (and spent like 95% of my online time on 360), now it's flipped to PS4. And that is entirely a position of Microsoft's own making.
 
They dropped it during PS3's lifetime.

And now it doesn't exist at all for PS4. Because Sony realized it was toxic. Microsoft can continue being assholes about this if they want, adding red tape and exploiting the most vulnerable devs on the market... but it's a grave of their own digging. They'll now perpetually be massively behind on indies until they drop all pretense of the TALK TO US™ clause, and their customers who purchased Xbox One in good faith will have significantly less games accessible to them. I own an Xbox One and it never fails to amaze me how far behind they are on the market compared to PS4. Like a complete reverse of the 360 era. I made well over 90% of my purchases last gen on 360 (and spent like 95% of my online time on 360), now it's flipped to PS4. And that is entirely a position of Microsoft's own making.

Totally agree. The thing is they will likely be pushed to drop the clause entirely eventually because of how they've fallen behind so much not just in sales but in software support. Looks to me Sony learned a lot during the PS3 while Microsoft keeps taking things for granted.
 
The video is Flash, so I can't/won't watch it, but how did the topic of Sony asking for extra content for late ports even come up? Quake Wars was a simultaneous release on console. Were they wanting to delay the PS3 version or something?
 
The video is Flash, so I can't/won't watch it, but how did the topic of Sony asking for extra content for late ports even come up? Quake Wars was a simultaneous release on console. Were they wanting to delay the PS3 version or something?

John Carmack was digging up dirt on both Microsoft and Sony at the time. Microsoft charged extra if games required more than 1 disc on the XBox 360 (because DVD was inferior to blu-ray and having multiple disks looked bad) and Sony had a clause that required additional content if they got later ports on the PS3. It was brought up because someone else mentioned Microsoft should change their parity clause policy to be like Sony's and it was unknown when Sony changed their own policy. In other words Sony realized it wasn't very proactive and Microsoft is still in denial about it.
 
John Carmack was digging up dirt on both Microsoft and Sony at the time. Microsoft charged extra if games required more than 1 disc on the XBox 360 (because DVD was inferior to blu-ray and having multiple disks looked bad) and Sony had a clause that required additional content if they got later ports on the PS3. It was brought up because someone else mentioned Microsoft should change their parity clause policy to be like Sony's and it was unknown when Sony changed their own policy. In other words Sony realized it wasn't very proactive and Microsoft is still in denial about it.
Gotcha. Thanks. <3
 
Top Bottom