-
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
- Thread starter Neuromancer
- Start date
Something something snake oil salesman.
zeorhymer
Member
There isn't anything wrong with it. The controversy arises when MS keeps denying or going around in circles that there is that rule. It would be a non issue if MS just said, yes, there is this "parity" for games because we feel that a year old game released on a different console should have all the bells and whistles of a GOTY edition on our system.
Phil's quote literally contradicts itself. It doesn't help the case at all.
Dr. Zoidberg
Member
I already said they should ditch the policy, as it is apparently toxic with devs. I'm just saying I can understand the thought process behind the decision, flawed as it may be.
It may have sold great but this list may not mean a whole lot. NPD numbers have shown that there can be huge falloffs in sales numbers as we near the end of a top ten list. I'm just curious how it sold in comparison to the original releases.
As long as they shit it out on PS4 around the same time, there's no problem. And they did.
I bet that devs still have to sign an NDA just to have the damn conversation with them too.
How do people defend this crap with a straight face? I don't get it. This hurts everyone! No one wins from this.
I recently bought Bastion on my PS4. I have never owned it on any other platform. I received nothing 'special' for doing so. And I do not feel anything but glad that I was even able to get the damn game.
How do people defend this crap with a straight face? I don't get it. This hurts everyone! No one wins from this.
I recently bought Bastion on my PS4. I have never owned it on any other platform. I received nothing 'special' for doing so. And I do not feel anything but glad that I was even able to get the damn game.
Neuromancer
Member
The parity clause so far as I know is an id@xbox thing (indieself-publishing) so Prototype wouldn't fall under that.
According to devs here that's true.
That doesn't sound like a suggestion it's the same line that has been used since the "first class" statement. The requirement is only for games that have made a deal elsewhere.
I don't either apart from it being a requirement* if a deal has been made elsewhere before* meaning extra cost for devs, etc and it not being the case on with Sony or Nintendo.
Edit - Mods stay winning.
But you are just shifting points now, your original point was:
When in fact, an unknown number care.
Now the only value is if it sold as well as when it first released on the 360 and PC?
Goodacre0081
Member
the first thing he said was "I think so". kind of a red flag right there.
Correct, but what I was addressing was the logic of the policy itself. I understand that it doesn't hold for big-name publishers, but if the justification for it runs through the necessity of freshness, clearly the rest of the business doesn't agree that it's of utmost necessity.
Hell, not even ID@XBOX itself agrees 100%, given the multitude of examples of exceptions.
Just one of the many reasons why this policy is a disjointed, murky mess. Because the PR line is borderline nonsensical and the details are hidden behind NDAs, it makes the whole program sound disjointed.
The opposite of "very clear".
Last we heard, there is also an NDA to discuss the deal in the first place.You have to sign an NDA when you get accepted into ID@Xbox anyways. They might just be referencing that NDA. Or maybe they aren't
Perhaps I don't know enough about the game-making process, but unless the platform holder is publishing said title itself, what exactly does it have to lose?
Again, I think an important aspect is whether or not one currently needs a publisher or ID@Xbox in order to get their game on the system. Guess we'll never find out unless someone like chubigans speaks up again.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
You have to sign an NDA when you get accepted into ID@Xbox anyways. They might just be referencing that NDA. Or maybe they aren't
edit: There's actually a second NDA as discussed below, scratch that.
LiquidSolid
Member
Running to Microsoft's defence based on that post sounds more like fanboyism to me.
Note that I said IF Microsoft had the same view as Dr. Zoidberg, that late ports without anything new or extra in it are worthless, then yeah, it would say a lot about them as a company.
The comparison of Bastion sales is particularly terrible since, you know, there was no way to release it on the PS4 four years ago.
Nope, there's no PS3 version.
Nope, there's no PS3 version.
Well it released on PS3 too.
You have to sign an NDA when you get accepted into ID@Xbox anyways. They might just be referencing that NDA. Or maybe they aren't
No, Ravidrath has stated that there is a specific NDA just to have the conversation regarding any specific games, and any possible porting considerations.
The thread with a bunch of indie devs in it last time was also in the same statement. They couldn't detail any of what went on, obviously, but that that was required just to discuss it with them.
LiquidSolid
Member
No it didn't.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Well that was nothing new. That "There's nothing to see here" gif from Naked Gun fits this perfectly.
OrbitalBeard
Member
You definitely don't need a publisher, as that's their main selling point for ID@Xbox (self-publishing).
I've been trying to think of what to say about this, but honestly, I don't know anymore. It doesn't surprise me that Phil continues to not get it. Maybe he thinks the upcoming Windows 10 and Xbox simultaneous publish initiatives will drive more indies back to Xbox.
Hoo boy I hope he doesn't think that.
walltowall
Member
I'm missing your point.
You pointed to Bastion as a game that enjoyed good sales even though it was released years later. So why is it not fair to compair sales to it's original platforms?
Userbase?
HighResTomato
Member
You should take that tinfoil hat off. You think he writes Microsofts legal shit? Of course not, he's an executive and has to watch what he is saying. To say some one you have never met is "incredibly dishonest" is truly the stupidest shit I've heard in a while.
Ehh, Sony never had a parity clause with the PS3, I don't know what Ray Down is talking about.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
That is absolutely ludicrous.
Ah, so devs still don't have the option to buy dev kits themselves? They must still sign onto ID@Xbox to self-publish? If so, then it doesn't sound like much has changed.
: /
Chubs, you've always struck me as a really fair minded person, not just as a dev. I've seen your responses in these threads, and it always really makes me disappointed, because I can see your frustration and exasperation.
I can only imagine how it is for the other devs out there in the same situation.
Dear lord, are you serious? The head of the division, who has been ON goddamn RECORD about the clause, acting like it's all just been some cosmic misunderstanding? This isn't about people attacking a console brand or something, this is just bullshit. Why the fuck do people defend this? Why are you defending him for something that is totally ridiculous? You owe him nothing, and he's accountable to the people that he expects to buy his product.
It really is. It's stupid as hell.
Mr Moose
Member
Spencer is the ultimate PR wizard of agreeing with everything and promising nothing.
Only reason I can think of is that the clause goes over the heads of Spencer and Co.
Only reason I can think of is that the clause goes over the heads of Spencer and Co.
Ivan Amiibo
Banned
The phil spencer effect
"I was also a huge fan of agreeing with everything and promising nothing as a kid. I'll pass the word on."
"I was also a huge fan of agreeing with everything and promising nothing as a kid. I'll pass the word on."
I keep hearing that misconception everywhere, I don't know why.
I'm not sure as of recently since I signed up last year, so that might have changed for all I know (as far as buying dev kits).
Thanks, and yeah, it's very frustrating.
HighResTomato
Member
Go ask any executive of any company about confidential information and disclosures and see if they will discuss them with the press.
Some people refuse to take it all out on one man and some use it every excuse they can find to personally attack Spencer.
Dr. Zoidberg
Member
Fair enough. I should have been more specific and I should know to never speak in absolutes. Obviously some people always care. My statement was in regard to whether enough people care to make it worthwhile from a business perspective, and whether it will bring appreciable value to the platform, which is how he/they probably look at it. But as others have said, why not leave that decision up to the publisher or self-publisher and stop trying to get devs to plus their platform with exclusive content. They are not in a position to do that any more so they should take what they can get.
I think they are trying to encourage same-week releases if at all possible. The X1 does not have the highest install base so they think they need to take steps to help avoid late ports. They think late ports makes the platform look bad or seem second-class. A second-place console where devs publish their games AFTER they put it on the PS4. That is the reality though and nothing will change it so they might as well stop trying.
No need to thank me. Just an honest assessment. You don't push any agenda or console war crap. It's frustrating for me to see people blatantly ignoring the insight of actual devs, showing how stupid this whole thing is.
How many threads have we had now? You had your dedicated thread, Amir0x made one, not just the threads of people being quoted about the parity clause...
And every time, people jump in to defend MS. To try and explain it away.
It's just crap. I'm all for games coming to other platforms as long as the dev is able to do so on their terms.
He's the head of the division. He's the face of the division, and he's been anything but transparent. Claiming that they've been transparent is a boldfaced lie, so calling him on blatant bullshit isn't just 'attacking Spencer'.
He's the responsible party for the direction of his division and their policies. People demanding more of them if they want to be perceived differently isn't attacking, so maybe you should stop trying to defend him for something he's accountable for. Making excuses about their outright contradictory actions is just sad.
what a shame because I would buy CSD2 on XB1 day one, but I can understand why you don't port to the system. Will buy on PC and android (make that port happen <3).
LowerLevel
Member
Serious question to the nay-sayers, if Arkham Knight was exclusive for 1 year to the Xb1 and next summer it came to the Ps4 at the same price point with nothing added (no GOTY edition) you wouldn't be upset that it wasn't a GOTY edition and the publisher expected you to pay full price for a year old game with nothing added other than a hundred and eighty extra "p's"? AAA or indie, a desired game that comes so much later than other platforms with absolutely nothing added gives very little desirability to normal gamers. And like someone mentioned earlier, if adding something as simple as a Warthog to Rocket League or Battletoads to Shovel Knight can get by on the "clause", then what is the issue?
IMO, adding Shu to STFU was a great idea as was adding the Battletoads to SK...
IMO, adding Shu to STFU was a great idea as was adding the Battletoads to SK...
Let them figure it out what should or shouldn't be done to, say, sell Rise of the Tomb Raider a year from now.
I don't know how many times this needs to be said -- no one is saying that late ports shouldn't receive additional content. The issue is with demanding it; which can be particularly harmful for small games.
Furthermore, adding something is not as simple as you make it sound. For one, ports are frequently given to other devs to complete the job. Designing new content on top of that might require a set of talent (art, animation, etc) that is very much perpendicular to coding up a port.
Was that really a rule? Did braid or limbo have something added to ps3 versions?
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.
boredandlazy
Member
Post history is a wonderful thing.
is it just as harmful if the company "demanding" extra stuff is willing to help develop it or offset costs?
I just recently bought Bastion with no special stuff added, and I didn't feel they needed to. I never owned it on any other system, so I was just glad I got the game.
My friend is eagerly awaiting Rise of the Tomb Raider next year on his PS4, and all he wants is the game. He doesn't expect them to put in extra stuff. He just wants the game itself.
The STFU stuff was at their own decision, they wanted to. It's great when a dev does so on their own prerogative, but as a coercion? That's bullshit. And not to mention, it makes working with your platform unattractive if you're going to be forced to do stuff. It makes it seem like your platform is a toxic environment for smaller devs.
What I read out of that is the following:
Staggered Release: Release game on another platform, but need another 1-3 months to get it ready for ours, good to go. No problem at all. See you then.
1 year later due to a contract that you signed with other platform holder: We want your game, but due to the fact that it is a year old, need to spruce it up a bit for our fans. We will even help you do that.
I do not see what the big problem with this is, and have never seen a problem with this. Sounds like good business to me to be honest, and someone trying to do right by their fans.
I have no dog in this fight either. Play on Xbox, PS4 and PC. If I was just on PS4 or Xbox, or PC for that matter and I had to wait a year for a game to come out, I would like to have something more than the vanilla game at that point.
Staggered Release: Release game on another platform, but need another 1-3 months to get it ready for ours, good to go. No problem at all. See you then.
1 year later due to a contract that you signed with other platform holder: We want your game, but due to the fact that it is a year old, need to spruce it up a bit for our fans. We will even help you do that.
I do not see what the big problem with this is, and have never seen a problem with this. Sounds like good business to me to be honest, and someone trying to do right by their fans.
I have no dog in this fight either. Play on Xbox, PS4 and PC. If I was just on PS4 or Xbox, or PC for that matter and I had to wait a year for a game to come out, I would like to have something more than the vanilla game at that point.