I found out in this thread that Super Meat Boy is coming to PS4 and couldn't be happier. I've always wanted to play it and now I can. The idea that Xbox fans won't take well received indie games unless they come with a Master Chief skin is asinine.
-
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
I found out in this thread that Super Meat Boy is coming to PS4 and couldn't be happier. I've always wanted to play it and now I can. The idea that Xbox fans won't take well received indie games unless they come with a Master Chief skin is asinine.
PS4 will most likely get Rise of the Tomb Raider down the line and I doubt it will be a GotY edition and I would be perfectly fine with picking it up as it would be a new experience for me (if I haven't gotten an XBO by that time).
Also, please do not say "as simple as..." when talking about additional content.
By definition, no. Weird question.
Heh, you ain't kidding.
1. Because it is unclear what is sufficient to get around that clause
2. These are all extra hoops that developers are required to jump through (which don't exist on other platforms)
3. Not all developers are in a position to add new items etc.
As many have said if people keep making suggestions on ways to get around the clause, why is it there in the first place?
I was asking because there are numerous exceptions to MS demanding extra content and I'm sure they've said before that if a dev got in contact with them, they could work something out; possibly skipping the whole clause. and it seems, I may be wrong, but MS is willing to help devs out when it comes to developing the extra content (and idk if we know how extensive that is, so it could range from an extra skin/character a la shovel knight to whole new chapters). It doesn't sound entirely as bad as some people make it sound, but I think its because I haven't heard too much of a dev perspective from conception to release.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Just FYI, the Battletoads inclusion in Shovel Knight wasn't a simple addition at all. It's a full level with multiple boss fights, a separate time attack-style stage, and a new outfit for Shovel Knight, with new abilities. It's easily the best version of the game because of these additions.
Not trying to pile on or anything...just pointing that out. Anyone with an XB1 who loves Shovel Knight (or hasn't played it yet) needs to check out this version of the game!
Can't say I feel the same way. Although I will likely own a PS4 by year's end, if for some reason I don't by the time Axiom Verge hits XB1 (it'll probably be out sometime after April of next year according to Happ), I'll gladly buy the game without any extras.
If I was in that situation, have both consoles though so I am not, I would not buy the game without extras. Simple as that. They made me wait, so I want extras. Could be GOTY version, enhanced, PS4/XB1 version, call it what you will. But no extras, no money from me at all. AAA or Indie games, big or small.
As your post illustrates, therein lies the issue: There's nothing "very clear" about this whole situation.
It's as murky as it gets.
hi Orbital
I will find out with the physical release!
Well, that's strange.
You should compile a list of every single PC release, early access game, and japanese/european staggered release out there -- lest you end up buying something that somehow came out to you after it was out elsewhere.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
So much this.
The only thing transparent are the fans flocking to defend this destructive practice.
However this is on a case by case basis and seemingly tied to the strategic goals of Xbox. These are hoops which shouldn't be required.
Take it from us that developers have all made negative statements in regard to this clause in previous threads.
This isn't a confirmed thing. That line is the same as what he said a year ago with the "first class" statement. "Let's work together" also means let's talk what content we can get for the launch on our platform.
And I think that is ridiculous. It is like saying if a game was on sale on Steam for a low price you would never consider picking it up on console, even if you didn't have access to Steam.
true, but I can understand it varying on a game to game basis, as shitty as that is. It's strange they've went from the embracing indies last gen to potentially turning them away because of this.
OrbitalBeard
Member
hi Orbital
I will find out with the physical release!
You will love it! As will anyone else with any connection to the Battletoads franchise (or heck, anyone who just wants more Shovel Knight goodness!).
Even though it was psychically impossible at the time for them to do so???
Gentleman Jack
Member
It's not good business. The parity clause creates a negative feedback loop as indies will always develop for the largest platform first (which isn't any console atm) and then work their way down from there.
I think it is pathetic. Any "extras" would not be a part of the original vision for the game, and just ends up as tacked on crap to make people feel a bit special. I see that reality and simply decide to steer clear because it adds nothing of importance, so there is no need for me to wait and I see no selling point or anything "special" there.
As for the staggered release, in that they want to get it on the platform but cannot afford to, this is the quote from Phil:
"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."
For something that they have a deal with Sony, for example, where they cannot do an XB1 version for either 6 months - 1 year after initial release, this was his quote:
"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."
Now, I am not the smartest man on the planet. However, I do not think you need to be in order to see what they are talking about. Can't afford release on both at launch, fine. Let use know and we will work with you to help where we can.
If you got paid by Sony to make a game for their platform, then when you want to release on our platform, let us help you to get something new in that game for our fans. I see this as good business, whether it is MS or Sony. If I was just a PS4 owner, I would want the same thing. Does not have to be major, some extra skins, DLC content added in to that platforms initial release. Just something is all I ask for.
Sigh. I don't like to read through people's post histories. But when people make statements that are so blatantly defensive for no reason, maybe I should start reading them...
Anyone who says that this sort of behavior is anything other than a negative fits into two categories:
Ignorance - People who have no concept of dev process/time/costs, who are speculating without a leg to stand on. Speaking with any confidence from this position is laughable.
Shamelss Fandom - Choosing to go to the defense of a corporation for being a toxic force in the development scene because it reflects poorly on their favorite platform is bullshit.
If you can't separate yourself from your affection for a brand/system to recognize how this negatively impacts devs and gamers, and even the owner of that very platform, then you need to step back. And please don't join in the conversation if you're just throwing bullshit around to further obfuscate the conversation.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
It's the same damn thing. All he's doing is rewiring the narrative. It's designed to make developers think twice about releasing early on the PS4. Any developer who CAN suck up that loss for longer is likely to delay the PS4 version in order to release it simultaneously on both console and so avoid any extra work.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
I seriously laughed. My employees are throwing me weird looks now.
In that quote he specifically states that if you just cannot get the game out for both, that is fine. Talk to them so they can help. If however you were paid for a 1 year exclusive version of the game on their platform, when it comes time to put it on the XB1, they would like something new in it for their fans. They will even help with that as well. I see nothing wrong with that what so ever.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I remember people did the same shit in the Genesis/Nintendo days defending Nintendo's horrendous practices as well. I know, I was guilty of it on the school playgrounds myself. Thankfully I got more aware as I grew older. And that is the only thing I truly thank and will defend Sony for changing in our hobby.
Other than that, da fuq people, ahem, grow up.
So, how do they judge who couldn't afford and who could?
Do developers need to open their books to Microsoft?
I am neither, have all 3 major platforms (PS4, XB1, and PC) and I see nothing wrong with this. And, shockingly, the quote in the OP did not confuse me one bit. Seemed pretty clear to me to be honest.
Neuromancer
Member
That's just PR. They're not really asking for extra content. They're demanding it, and if devs don't want to do it they can't publish on the Xbox One. Otherwise the parity clause wouldn't exist and despite what Phil says, it absolutely does.
But you would still not buy the game if it came out later because of time-constraint reasons, correct?
LowerLevel
Member
TBH, a large part of me agrees with the majority in that it is a crappy practice, but as an MS fan, why wouldn't I want the best for that platform? Me, personally, am looking forward to a game like NMS and am also going back and forth if I should go PC for possible performance or Ps4 for other reasons. But I also know that if it did come to the Xb1 at some later date, I'd "possibly" pick that version up too. What would probably make that "possibly" got to a "most likely/definitely" would be exclusive content. For consumers on the fence, so to speak, might need the platform holder to ask for something to pull them off the fence is all I'm saying.
And far too many times have people in this forum said "I'll wait for the GOTY edition" when the Xb1 has some type of exclusivity (see RotTR for example) and when all these practices were reversed last gen, there didn't seem to be as much outrage...
I've been chasing my son around and I wouldn't be surprised if I have a few more quotes but I leave with this for now, if your team signed exclusivity window to one platform (especially if it is a year long) the assumption is that company compensated you financially on top of any profits you make from sales. None of those "extra" funds couldn't be used to maybe program a skin/hat? This isn't a smart-ass question but a real one and I'm hoping for a real non smart-ass answer because I assume that a game programmer can do something like that in their sleep but I could be mistaken.
"There is no parity clause. It never existed. That don't make no damn sense..."
"Yes there's a parity clause"
Perfect. lol
paragonpro
Banned
It's a bummer that this thing is still lingering, I feel like it's preventing a lot of titles I'd like to play from coming to Xbox one.
Emulated Hype
Member
More games on your platform > Less games on your platform
I honestly don't see how this is something worth being stubborn over. I don't expect new content when an indie ports their titles from PC to mobile or console. It's a silly notion, a port is a port.
Also, the "work with us to make your game feel fresh" argument is really weak. If your userbase hasn't been exposed to the game yet then it'll be a fresh experience to them regardless, Phil.
but with marginally more content
I honestly don't see how this is something worth being stubborn over. I don't expect new content when an indie ports their titles from PC to mobile or console. It's a silly notion, a port is a port.
Also, the "work with us to make your game feel fresh" argument is really weak. If your userbase hasn't been exposed to the game yet then it'll be a fresh experience to them regardless, Phil.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Having all the platforms does not exonerate one from having bias towards or against one.
I had all consoles when I was younger, and I still favored Nintendo and was a fanboy for them no matter how much I enjoyed the Genesis as well.
Not saying you are like that (however agreeing with this practice does bring up question marks), but starting a sentence like that is as silly as saying, "I have black friends so I am not a bigot, but..."
Just sayin'.
You probably fit in number uno then, if you truly do not align with a specific brand.
They have to contact them at some point to get the SDKs. I would imagine that these devs know who to talk to in the dev relations dept. Talk to them and let them know. And no, I am not saying to open their books, but just something along the lines of we are a small 2 man team, and we would like to get it out for your system, it just may take us a little longer.
I am constantly shocked that people seem to think it is such a hassle for these devs to simply pick up a phone, send an email, or whatever method of communication they prefer to simply talk to someone. Like that is the most difficult thing in the world and these poor devs should not be subjected to such torture. Talking is not that hard folks.
The Boom Camel
Member
You say pathetic, but I don't think so. Personally, as someone who primarily games on XB1, but has and uses a PS4; unless a game is out of this world great it only has a certain window of time before it just falls completely off the radar. There are just too many good games that are out on the system I play most of my games on to wait for merely good game to make it my way. So anything MS can do to help devs put it back on the radar is a good thing if the dev's goal is sell me their game.
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. However, if MS is banning indie titles because of this, I will happily call them out for it.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
To play Devil's advocate, Xbox Platform holders are being told "we want to treat you like first-class citizens" and so forth. So, sure, the indie library on the system is paltry compared to the competition, but...you know...feeling like First Class...and all that. From that perspective, I can understand why some might just swallow the PR and go with it.
This is "A frozen banana that won't make you sick and kill you", and the Xbox One owners go "oh whew! Thanks for keeping those games off our system until they shape up and add some content. I believe in Phil Spencer"
Well, you imagine wrong.
The "talking" bit itself involves signing an NDA.
You are buying the PR narrative hook, line, and sinker. None of this is as simple and straightforward as you make it sound.
What utter nonsense.
Again no where does Phil say they will "help" with the development of the content. Let's work together is a similar phrase to what he used last year.
Last year -
Phil Spencer - So I was just saying let's have a conversation and it's worked
I was asking more about your thoughts. So again if a dev wasn't able to do a simultaneous release then you will never buy their game?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Because clearly they fit that narrative to a T.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1080941
Should have made sure it shaped up... oh wait, it's about hindering Indies, not big Publishers. Got it.
The first one seems to fit you pretty well, I'd say. You seem to have no idea of why this would impact the larger audience or the development scene.
So... Try again?
I see your point. If someone wants to think that, I am fine with that. Doesn't hurt me at all. I simply do not see a problem with this and never have. Work to try and get something special if you can for your fans if it is at all possible seems like a great plan. We still see releases that do not, but I would be upset if MS, or Sony for that matter, did not at least talk to them about it and try.
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.
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.
Neuromancer
Member
I buy games all the time that came out on other platforms first. I may be disappointed from time to time for having to wait, but I would never refuse to buy a game I am interested in because of it. That's like taking poison and hoping the other guy dies.
Now if the developer wants to throw in some extra platform specific tchotchkes, that's fine, but it should be their choice. Not the platform holder's.
Now if the developer wants to throw in some extra platform specific tchotchkes, that's fine, but it should be their choice. Not the platform holder's.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It may not hurt you, but it is unhealthy for the industry, and definitely unhealthy for Indie development.
The second part is the unicorn shitting rainbow sprinkles to get their fans to defend the practice. That is not MSFT's true motive with all of this. Do not buy into it.
Tallshortman
Member
Should I believe [in] Phil Spencer?
If it is just a month or three later, sure I would buy it. I understand that they may need to put it out there, get sales so they can afford to do so.
If however, they were paid for 6 - 12 months exclusivity, then when that game comes out I would like something extra. Not a whole new game, but something. I don't see a problem with that. And if it was simply the same game after that exclusive period? No, I would not buy it.
Goodacre0081
Member
I think so