Support NeoGAF

[TheSpoiler]

How is this still a good thing if you still aren't seeing nearly as many indie games as another competitor? You can sit there and say, "it's real nice of MS to pick and choose what we play and give us extra content!", but the results are clear - indie developers hate this clause, and therefore, you aren't seeing nearly as many indies on MS, either first, or at all.

"I don't see how this is bad."
"There are far less indies today and coming for this platform than the other one."
"I don't see how this is bad."

It's like this every topic.

 

[Stormy]

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.

What then is MS's true motive? What nefarious plan is this?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Should I believe [in] Phil Spencer?

Only if he comes to your house first, if he goes to another person's house first, you better make sure he brings extra cookies for that insolence.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

How is this still a good thing if you still aren't seeing nearly as many indie games as another competitor? You can sit there and say, "it's real nice of MS to pick and choose what we play and give us extra content!", but the results are clear - indie developers hate this clause, and therefore, you aren't seeing nearly as many indies on MS, either first, or at all.

"I don't see how this is bad."
"There are far less indies today and coming for this platform than the other one."
"I don't see how this is bad."

It's like this every topic.

"I didn't want those games anyway."

 

[Nzyme32]

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.

This has nothing to do with Microsoft and everything to do with the practice of this clause and the content that is additional to make the game "special" on its late arrival.

What games have released under this system that have genuinely meaningful and valuable content brought to them vs their counterparts on other platforms, that makes then "special" and worth that wait, putting the game "back on the radar"? I understand this is entirely subjective, but I can't think of a single one

 

[Neuromancer]

What then is MS's true motive? What nefarious plan is this?

It's pretty obvious to me. They want indie developers to be afraid of publishing anywhere else first, lest they not be allowed to put their game on Xbox One.

 

[TheSpoiler]

What then is MS's true motive? What nefarious plan is this?

I see you are trying to sidestep the issue, but asking him what a company is doing is ridiculous. It's been explained that their system is obtuse and strong arming developers.

But hey, you got that concern going and now gamers have to suffer.

 

[hawk2025]

What then is MS's true motive? What nefarious plan is this?

It's not a nefarious plan, but it is an anti-competitive bargaining tactic.

It involves muddying the waters and making a series of exceptions to negotiate deals separately, while encouraging simultaneous releases through punishment in the case it doesn't happen to actively diminish support in the competing platform. The purpose is to shift the balance of indie releases in their platform (a self-inflicted wound, by the way, given how late their program started) by using a stick rather than a carrot with devs.

Strong-arming tactics can be quite effective in bargaining and negotiation situations. But with their current market share, it's just plain not working.

 

[David___]

What then is MS's true motive? What nefarious plan is this?

Pressure devs to release first on Xbox or at the very least simultaneously with PS4. At best they would've gotten the former if they had the lion share of the market since the latter is harder to do due to the resources available to most indie devs, which is why you see them staggering the release dates in the first place.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

What then is MS's true motive? What nefarious plan is this?

Exerting control over publishers and partners with the goal of gaining and holding a monopoly?

i.e. their modus operandi in every market they've entered since the company was founded?

 

[Specter316]

If a company has success on one platform and wishes to branch out to another, isn't it theoretically true that they would be able to affordsome additions, even though they may be minor? If they can't afford these then should they even invest more in a port with a smaller user base? These questions are left to the companies in question, I guess. Just something to think about...

 

[Abdiel]

What then is MS's true motive? What nefarious plan is this?

When you're the dominant force in an industry, a policy like this is excellent leverage to push people to prioritize your platform first. Reinforcement of market position.

But when you're not, it just strangles your own platform even more.

If a company has success on one platform and wishes to branch out to another, isn't it theoretically true that they would be able to affordsome additions, even though they may be minor? If they can't afford these then should they even invest more in a port with a smaller user base? These questions are left to the companies in question, I guess. Just something to think about...

This is horse shit. Why should a dev *have* to put in those things to want to introduce their game to another platform? And how the hell do you think those little additions should determine whether they can make the port? Christ, the ignorance these threads bring out is so frustrating.

I wish Ravidrath were posting in here to cut out some of this inane bullshit.

 

[hawk2025]

If a company has success on one platform and wishes to branch out to another, isn't it theoretically true that they would be able to affordsome additions, even though they may be minor? If they can't afford these then should they even invest more in a port with a smaller user base? These questions are left to the companies in question, I guess. Just something to think about...

Sounds like a lose-lose proposition.

If they can't afford the additions, customers lose the port.
If they can and it would significantly impact their sales, why wouldn't they do it in the first place?

 

[Sakura]

Personally I don't care about any of this parity clause stuff, but why would you say "I think so"? That's a terrible answer.

 

[xxracerxx]

If a company has success on one platform and wishes to branch out to another, isn't it theoretically true that they would be able to affordsome additions, even though they may be minor? If they can't afford these then should they even invest more in a port with a smaller user base? These questions are left to the companies in question, I guess. Just something to think about...

Want to read reactions to this from actual developers? Read this thread.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Exerting control over publishers and partners with the goal of gaining and holding a monopoly?

i.e. their modus operandi in every market they've entered since the company was founded?

Short and simple.

If you took out Nintendo from the 80's and made them Microsoft... gaming would not be anything as positive/healthy as it is today.

 

[Easy_D]

Technically he's right. There's no way for the Xbox One to reach parity with the PS4.

 

[boredandlazy]

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.

So you're pretty much accusing indie devs posting in this thread of being Sony fanboys?

 

[Specter316]

Sounds like a lose-lose proposition.

If they can't afford the additions, customers lose the port.
If they can and it would significantly impact their sales, why wouldn't they do it in the first place?

thats a good question, but what I'm saying is that the sales on the first platform should be able to pay for the port to the second. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to port it at all.

 

[Fat4all]

What then is MS's true motive? What nefarious plan is this?

Pfft, what a bait.

There's no "true motive", it's just a shitty practice.

 

[Specter316]

Also, wouldn't additional content theoretically boost resales of the game for people that want the "true experience?"

 

[xxracerxx]

thats a good question, but what I'm saying is that the sales on the first platform should be able to pay for the port to the second. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to port it at all.

Sure, but adding additional content may not be feasible.

Also, wouldn't additional content theoretically boost resales of the game for people that want the "true experience?"

Probably by a very small margin.

 

[Hatchtag]

I don't own a PS4, but I do own an Xbox One and I haven't bought a single indie game outside of 'free' GWG stuff. Considering how many indies I've bought on PC, handhelds and past gen systems, I do have to wonder if that would be different if the parity clause didn't exist.

 

[Stormy]

It's not a nefarious plan, but it is an anti-competitive bargaining tactic.

It involves muddying the waters and making a series of exceptions to negotiate deals separately, while encouraging simultaneous releases through punishment in the case it doesn't happen to actively diminish support in the competing platform. The purpose is to shift the balance of indie releases in their platform (a self-inflicted wound, by the way, given how late their program started) by using a stick rather than a carrot with devs.

Strong-arming tactics can be quite effective in bargaining and negotiation situations. But with their current market share, it's just plain not working.

It's fine if you see it that way, I view it differently. I see no problem with a company trying to get more for their customers if they can. I want them always trying to do so, no matter the company. Will it always happen? No, not at all. But I want them to try at the very least, and that is what I got from quote. They will work with the devs to get that if they talk to them, which I do not see as unreasonable.

 

[The Boom Camel]

This has nothing to do with Microsoft and everything to do with the practice of this clause and the content that is additional to make the game "special" on its late arrival.

What games have released under this system that have genuinely meaningful and valuable content brought to them vs their counterparts on other platforms, that makes then "special" and worth that wait, putting the game "back on the radar"? I understand this is entirely subjective, but I can't think of a single one

I get what you are saying, and I actually agree. All I was trying to say is that unless a game is completely blackballed, what does it hurt to add something (previous DLC for free, a new level) if you are so inclined? Especially if you can get on the system either way. You are also speaking here to a completely different crowd here, and casual players sometimes do need a nudge (for better or worse) to rethink about a game that may have escaped their personal zeitgeist.

Like I said, if a game has really been completely banned or unreleased specifically because MS didn't get what they wanted, then MS deserved to be derided for it. I just haven't see that yet.

 

[hawk2025]

thats a good question, but what I'm saying is that the sales on the first platform should be able to pay for the port to the second. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to port it at all.

Well, regardless.


(Cost of porting + cost of adding content) > (Cost of porting)


Mathematically, more ports will be expected to be profitable by not requiring additional content, which in turn will lead to more ports. And if the additional expected profits of adding such content is greater than the cost of doing so, devs are free to make that analysis and do so.

It's fine if you see it that way, I view it differently. I see no problem with a company trying to get more for their customers if they can. I want them always trying to do so, no matter the company. Will it always happen? No, not at all. But I want them to try at the very least, and that is what I got from quote. They will work with the devs to get that if they talk to them, which I do not see as unreasonable.

Well, you view it wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of Economics and competition.

Fixed.

Thank you, double fixed

 

[xxracerxx]

(Cost of porting + cost of adding content) > (Cost of porting)

Fixed.

 

[BigDug13]

It's shit like this that makes me hope they continue to be destroyed in sales. Because apparently only a starving Microsoft is willing to loosen their bullshit policies.

 

[Crayon]

What then is MS's true motive? What nefarious plan is this?

I'm sorry I was supposed to tell everyone about the nefarious plan but I forgot you.

 

[Fat4all]

It's shit like this that makes me hope they continue to be destroyed in sales. Because apparently only a starving Microsoft is willing to loosen their bullshit policies.

That seems a little iffy. I dunno how much leeway Microsoft would be able to give the Xbox division if they fall too dramatically in sales. MS is in a very delicate position with the launch of Windows 10 around the corner.

I'm sorry I was supposed to tell everyone about the nefarious plan but I forgot you.

DAMMIT, WE WERE SO CLOSE!!!

 

[Stanng243]

I get what you are saying, and I actually agree. All I was trying to say is that unless a game is completely blackballed, what does it hurt to add something (previous DLC for free, a new level) if you are so inclined? Especially if you can get on the system either way. You are also speaking here to a completely different crowd here, and casual players sometimes do need a nudge (for better or worse) to rethink about a game that may have escaped their personal zeitgeist.

Like I said, if a game has really been completely banned or unreleased specifically because MS didn't get what they wanted, then MS deserved to be derided for it. I just haven't see that yet.

You don't see that because devs need to sign NDAs to talk to Microsoft.

 

[TomShoe]

Honestly, this clause has to be going over Phil's head. There's no way I think he can be this ignorant on the effect this is having, considering several developers have outright voiced their opinions on the subject. It speaks to his answer being a PR piece because he can't say how he really feels about it.

 

[Nzyme32]

Also, wouldn't additional content theoretically boost resales of the game for people that want the "true experience?"

Only if it was meaningful and valuable content - but that doesn't happen with this practise. The content is trivial because it is not in the best interest of the developer to prevent their already existing customers and fanbase from experiencing the "true experience".

The game when it originally released is the true experience, with a development plan to apply to all. All you get with this system is a frivolous bit of content since developers have no reason to not support their own customers elsewhere.

What games have this "true experience" with this system?

 

[TheSpoiler]

I get what you are saying, and I actually agree. All I was trying to say is that unless a game is completely blackballed, what does it hurt to add something (previous DLC for free, a new level) if you are so inclined? Especially if you can get on the system either way. You are also speaking here to a completely different crowd here, and casual players sometimes do need a nudge (for better or worse) to rethink about a game that may have escaped their personal zeitgeist.

Like I said, if a game has really been completely banned or unreleased specifically because MS didn't get what they wanted, then MS deserved to be derided for it. I just haven't see that yet.

That would imply that you have a choice in the matter, which MS is simply not allowing developers to do so.

 

[Abdiel]

Want to read reactions to this from actual developers? Read this thread.

Anyone and everyone trying to make excuses, please do read and reference that thread. It's a consistent deconstruction and breakdown of the crap double-speak this is all sourced as an issue.

 

[xxracerxx]

What games have this "true experience" with this system?

*crosses fingers no one says Shovel Knight*

 

[Stormy]

Well, apparently someone else's opinions are not welcomed here. I will see my way out of this thread. Enjoy being upset over nothing!

 

[Fat4all]

*crosses fingers no one says Shovel Knight*

Shovel Knight Wii U Confirmed "True Version".

Well, apparently someone else's opinions are not welcomed here. I will see my way out of this thread. Enjoy being upset over nothing!

Wow, talk about salty.
Thanks for telling us you're leaving, I guess?

 

[Abdiel]

Well, apparently someone else's opinions are not welcomed here. I will see my way out of this thread. Enjoy being upset over nothing!

I'm glad that you've decided to go passive-aggressive about people pointing out actual fallacies in your arguments.

Oh, wait.

If you want to debate, then debate, and at least acknowledge when people have trounced your stance, whether you like it or not. This isn't a matter of opinion, and acting like it is, is disrespectful.

 

[TheSpoiler]

Well, apparently someone else's opinions are not welcomed here. I will see my way out of this thread. Enjoy being upset over nothing!

"I was proven wrong various times by people here and developers in another thread. I've also ignored the simple fact that less indies are showing up as a whole but lol enjoy being upset at being a first class citizen I totally have all the consoles so this doesn't affect me "

 

[hawk2025]

Well, apparently someone else's opinions are not welcomed here. I will see my way out of this thread. Enjoy being upset over nothing!

The problem is that we are discussing the inner workings in practice of what is and isn't done and their impact on the actual content available, and you are stuck with the PR mentality of "doing as much as possible for your customers".

Frankly, if you don't want to dig into the trenches of the discussion, you won't be missed. We are not discussing opinions, we are discussing impact of a policy.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's fine if you see it that way, I view it differently. I see no problem with a company trying to get more for their customers if they can. I want them always trying to do so, no matter the company. Will it always happen? No, not at all. But I want them to try at the very least, and that is what I got from quote. They will work with the devs to get that if they talk to them, which I do not see as unreasonable.

If they want to do that, they should invest their own money into it. Not c-block the indie developers.

Well, apparently someone else's opinions are not welcomed here. I will see my way out of this thread. Enjoy being upset over nothing!

An opinion does not make it any less wrong.

 

[Fat4all]

"I was proven wrong various times by people here and developers in another thread. I've also ignored the simple fact that less indies are showing up as a whole but lol enjoy being upset at being a first class citizen I totally have all the consoles so this doesn't affect me "

I had a feeling it would happen when he accused everyone of thinking MS had NEFARIOUS SCHEMES!

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

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.

I don't think that it's an outright refusal based on it coming out somewhere first as much as it is the fact that a lot of your first-day purchaser crowd will have probably played it already if it was on PS4 and PC for a year before it hit X1. Even if they didn't, hype sells, and there is usually very little in the way of hype online for these late ports because the hardcore crowd has played it and moved on. People are focused on the new hotness. The thing is, even if released at the same time, most of that same hardcore, first-day crowd will be playing on PS4 or PC anyway due to better graphics and the "my library's here" effect, but the hype and activity they generate online will help the more casual gamers jump onboard with whatever system they have at home. That activity would help the X1 version to sell better, regardless, but only if it's there for people to buy. If it's not, then those users just get sad.

Furthermore, they will be releasing on X1 at a "new" price when the game will already be discounted (perhaps heavily) on the competing platforms. Even if they don't own the other platforms, people are aware of the pricing, and it's distasteful to pay $14.99 for a year old game when the other platforms have already discounted it to $10 or had a sale for $5. I've seen threads in this very forum where people have made comments to this effect: "A year old game for full price? LOL no." or "It's only $10 on <competing platform>. WTF?!". However, I don't think including pointless extras is going to help this problem in any conceivable way. Maybe it would be better to simply suggest parity pricing at the time of release so that doesn't happen. The port is going to suffer for being late no matter what but there's just nothing MS can do about it.

 

[demigod]

Strong-arming tactics can be quite effective in bargaining and negotiation situations. But with their current market share, it's just plain not working.

When you're the dominant force in an industry, a policy like this is excellent leverage to push people to prioritize your platform first. Reinforcement of market position.

But when you're not, it just strangles your own platform even more.

Glad i'm not the only one who knows MS did this on the 360 and tries to continue doing this for Xbone. Too bad it doesn't work when you're the loser!

 

[A_Gorilla]

I don't know whats funnier: That Phil still denies the clause's existence, or that people here are still defending it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Glad i'm not the only one who knows MS did this on the 360 and tries to continue doing this for Xbone. Too bad it doesn't work when you're the loser!

We definitely new. We just got chastised last gen for voicing it because of them being the leader.

Imagine the destruction they would have done if they were Nintendo of the 80's with their same global financial/OS situation they have today as a company. *shudders*

 

[Fat4all]

Glad i'm not the only one who knows MS did this on the 360 and tries to continue doing this for Xbone. Too bad it doesn't work when you're the loser!

I think the biggest appeal back in the day for indies was the fact that MS was catering a lot more towards them. Being a part of the 360 "Summer of Arcade" was a huge deal, and was extremely helpful when it came to indies gaining marketshare.

On the other hand, there was the indie-pit of nothingness, where few notable releases came from.

 

[Kayant]

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.

But we are not about situations with exclusive deals. Why do you keep going back to it?? For the third time -

If a dev was not able to do a simultaneous release at the time, you will never be buying their game after 3 months without some new content. Correct?
Edit - Don't worry...

Well, apparently someone else's opinions are not welcomed here. I will see my way out of this thread. Enjoy being upset over nothing!

Well at least you finally showed your true colours.

Also, wouldn't additional content theoretically boost resales of the game for people that want the "true experience?"

The "true experience" would be the original game.

 

[Bgamer90]

TMU, the original parity clause was that if a game released on (Playstation) first, forget about releasing it later on (Xbox) 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"__________________.

This seems to be the case. Big difference from "we don't want you on our platform at all."