Support NeoGAF

Shpeshal Nick · Jan 16, 2015

Nafai1123 said:
Conversely, Chris or someone at ID@Xbox could be reaching out to devs actively to try to get games on their system like the competition is doing regardless of whether they're releasing on other platforms first or not.

Both Chris and Phil DO reach out to Devs when they see games they like. They're just obviously picking different games. There's nothing wrong with that.

Neuromancer · Jan 16, 2015

Collingwood said:
Who said beg?

All they had to do was drop Chris an email saying "Hey, want Broforce on Xbox?" I'm fairly confident Chris would have made it happen. Same as Outlast, same as Stick it to the Man and the same as all the other indie games that seemingly haven't been affected by this clause.

No need to be upset. I'm not arguing the clause should remain. Read my first post in this thread. But I'm now talking about this very specific case. This particular case seems less like the parity clause being the issue than it first appears.

Ok, so 'beg' is probably hyperbole. How about 'ask really nicely and hope they break their own rule for you?'

Jimmyfenix · Jan 16, 2015

Ravidrath said:
The perception issue is real.

Between our (extremely negative) experiences with MS on Skullgirls and this perception issue, we didn't really pursue Xbox One. I was about to start looking into it, but then Sony aggressively pursued us.

So it's not only that the parity clause, MS's policies, etc. make people slow to act, it's that Sony is extremely proactively aggressive about approaching devs and signing agreements.

I do have legitimate concerns about the Xbox One just as a platform for indies, though.

My impression is that indies, even high profile ones, just don't sell very well on there. Maybe it's a store / placement issue, but I'm more concerns that Xbox players are only interested in AAA games and no amount of push from MS will change their minds on that.

At some point devs may start even foregoing MS's exclusivity offers because the advance just isn't enough to justify delaying on a platform that sells better.

MS is amazingly awful at this sort of thing, to be sure.

Like, did you know they started waiving their $10,000 patch fee for digital games on the 360? That was a huge thing that was keeping some devs (like Polytron) from updating their games.

But MS never announced it publicly, and told devs that they couldn't talk about it, either. So they did something good, and no one was allowed to discuss it.

This waiver was, in particular, hugely important to my game, because it freed up a lot of money we had saved for patch fees. But we couldn't talk about it, and just kinda had to say "Oh, hey, uh... we found $40,000! We can do that stretch goal we just missed now!"

This needed to be reposted

Neuromancer · Jan 16, 2015

EvB said:
In this situation it might as well be. They have no first hand experience of said clause, they said this themselves and Charla has confirmed this. They know as much about this much cited parity clause as you or I it seems.

They've taken a kickback and then in the same breath suggested that they CAN'T release their game due to a clause which for all they know, may have been a non issue.
They've avoided the awkward question by blaming someone else for them choosing to take said benefit.

Care to clue us in to what this kickback entails, since you seem to know a lot about it? How much money was it exactly, and for what? Are you sure that Sony's offer wasn't another studio to help port the game and no actual money changed hands?

Shpeshal Nick · Jan 16, 2015

Neuromancer said:
Ok, so 'beg' is probably hyperbole. How about 'ask really nicely and hope they break their own rule for you?'

I'm not understanding this. Are emails suddenly really difficult to send these days?

"Hi Chris, I'm Joe Bloggs from Indie Studio 73, we made Broforce which we think is a pretty good game. Want to help us bring it to Xbox One?"

Was that really that difficult? Chris would have said yay or nay. In the end, do indie Devs not need to contact one of the big three to get their game on there in the first place? Clause or no clause? For like a dev kit or something?

tuna_love · Jan 16, 2015

How do Indies normally get a game on PS or Xbox if neither Sony or microsoft reaches out?

krypt0nian · Jan 16, 2015

Jimmyfenix said:
This needed to be reposted

For some here, it needs to be taught as a class with an exam at the end.

SodiumBenzoate · Jan 16, 2015

Ravidrath said:
MS is amazingly awful at this sort of thing, to be sure.

Like, did you know they started waiving their $10,000 patch fee for digital games on the 360? That was a huge thing that was keeping some devs (like Polytron) from updating their games.

But MS never announced it publicly, and told devs that they couldn't talk about it, either. So they did something good, and no one was allowed to discuss it.

This waiver was, in particular, hugely important to my game, because it freed up a lot of money we had saved for patch fees. But we couldn't talk about it, and just kinda had to say "Oh, hey, uh... we found $40,000! We can do that stretch goal we just missed now!"

Holy shit, wow.

That entire division needs to hire a Czar of Common Sense

PeskyToaster · Jan 16, 2015

bishoptl said:
This internet hearsay from the head of the division?

This internet hearsay from a developer who's been involved with ID@Xbox (in his words) "since launch"?

Mmmmm. Please continue.

I love this picture.

Also why have the clause when you're so willing to break it? Just dump it.

Uno Venova · Jan 16, 2015

Not surprising they didn't want to deal with Microsoft's gatekeeper-esque mentality and just went the easier route of developing for a platform with a larger userbase and no bullshit clauses.

bishoptl · Jan 16, 2015

Neuromancer said:
Care to clue us in to what this kickback entails, since you seem to know a lot about it? How much money was it exactly, and for what? Are you sure that Sony's offer wasn't another studio to help port the game and no actual money changed hands?

Tales From His Ass

Jomjom · Jan 16, 2015

ccharla said:
Hey, I just wanted to come in here to say that Broforce looks rad, and it's cool they have a good deal with Sony. As far as I can tell from checking this afternoon, they have never contacted ID@Xbox about coming to Xbox, so our policies don't really come into it, not really sure why they brought that up.

We've said before we want to make sure every game that wants to come to Xbox One can do it, and if developers have any questions they should get in touch with us at id@xbox.com. (And yes, I’d love to see Broforce come to Xbox One!)

Hey if you think Broforce looks rad and would "love to see [it] come to Xbox One!" and you think it would be a good fit for Xbox One owners, why not shoot the devs an email instead of asking them to come to you and ask for an exception? That is kind of your job no?

Altima · Jan 16, 2015

Ravidrath said:
The perception issue is real.

Between our (extremely negative) experiences with MS on Skullgirls and this perception issue, we didn't really pursue Xbox One. I was about to start looking into it, but then Sony aggressively pursued us.

So it's not only that the parity clause, MS's policies, etc. make people slow to act, it's that Sony is extremely proactively aggressive about approaching devs and signing agreements.

I do have legitimate concerns about the Xbox One just as a platform for indies, though.

My impression is that indies, even high profile ones, just don't sell very well on there. Maybe it's a store / placement issue, but I'm more concerns that Xbox players are only interested in AAA games and no amount of push from MS will change their minds on that.

At some point devs may start even foregoing MS's exclusivity offers because the advance just isn't enough to justify delaying on a platform that sells better.

MS is amazingly awful at this sort of thing, to be sure.

Like, did you know they started waiving their $10,000 patch fee for digital games on the 360? That was a huge thing that was keeping some devs (like Polytron) from updating their games.

But MS never announced it publicly, and told devs that they couldn't talk about it, either. So they did something good, and no one was allowed to discuss it.

This waiver was, in particular, hugely important to my game, because it freed up a lot of money we had saved for patch fees. But we couldn't talk about it, and just kinda had to say "Oh, hey, uh... we found $40,000! We can do that stretch goal we just missed now!"

OMG WTF is that ??? Is something like that really happened ??

Elvin Atombender · Jan 16, 2015

ccharla said:
Hey, I just wanted to come in here to say that Broforce looks rad, and it's cool they have a good deal with Sony. As far as I can tell from checking this afternoon, they have never contacted ID@Xbox about coming to Xbox, so our policies don't really come into it, not really sure why they brought that up.

We've said before we want to make sure every game that wants to come to Xbox One can do it, and if developers have any questions they should get in touch with us at id@xbox.com. (And yes, Id love to see Broforce come to Xbox One!)

It would be nice to know if Broforce (and other games) can be released on Xbox after they have been released on another platform first?

RespectThySole · Jan 16, 2015

ccharla said:
Hey, I just wanted to come in here to say that Broforce looks rad, and it's cool they have a good deal with Sony. As far as I can tell from checking this afternoon, they have never contacted ID@Xbox about coming to Xbox, so our policies don't really come into it, not really sure why they brought that up.

We've said before we want to make sure every game that wants to come to Xbox One can do it, and if developers have any questions they should get in touch with us at id@xbox.com. (And yes, Id love to see Broforce come to Xbox One!)

Then why not make it even easier for that to happen by removing the damn clause that benefits absolutely no one other than your competitor?

Just take a look at this: http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=947986

The clause is obviously not working as intended so why even have it?

Neuromancer · Jan 16, 2015

Collingwood said:
I'm not understanding this. Are emails suddenly really difficult to send these days?

"Hi Chris, I'm Joe Bloggs from Indie Studio 73, we made Broforce which we think is a pretty good game. Want to help us bring it to Xbox One?"

Was that really that difficult? Chris would have said yay or nay. In the end, do indie Devs not need to contact one of the big three to get their game on there in the first place? Clause or no clause? For like a dev kit or something?

They shouldn't have to do that just to get around MS's publicly stated policies on the matter.

Shpeshal Nick · Jan 16, 2015

bishoptl said:
Tales From His Ass

As a dev, can you let me know because I genuinely don't know. Do indie Devs not need to contact one of the big 3 to make a game there anyway?

I'm not arguing the clause isn't stupid and I'm not saying there isn't a perception issue. There clearly is, my earlier post intimated as much. But in the end, it really seems this issue would have been solved with a very simple email.

Haunted · Jan 16, 2015

krypt0nian said:
THEY SHOULD NOT NEED TO BEG FOR EXCEPTIONS.

Jesus.

I'll say it again. MS and MS apologists are still stuck in 2008/2009. The distribution of power has changed.

Archaix · Jan 16, 2015

Collingwood said:
As a dev, can you let me know because I genuinely don't know. Do indie Devs not need to contact one of the big 3 to make a game there anyway?

I'm not arguing the clause isn't stupid and I'm not saying there isn't a perception issue. There clearly is, my earlier post intimated as much. But in the end, it really seems this issue would have been solved with a very simple email.

Or it would have been prevented entirely if Microsoft got rid of the policy instead of making everybody feel as though they have to fight for exceptions that nobody can actually talk about.

Nafai1123 · Jan 16, 2015

Collingwood said:
Both Chris and Phil DO reach out to Devs when they see games they like. They're just obviously picking different games. There's nothing wrong with that.

There's nothing wrong with picking games, but when your competitor is getting significantly more indie devs signing up with them, you have to question your approach. Maybe they need more people reaching out.

slavesnyder · Jan 16, 2015

Ravidrath said:
(...)
I do have legitimate concerns about the Xbox One just as a platform for indies, though.

My impression is that indies, even high profile ones, just don't sell very well on there. Maybe it's a store / placement issue, but I'm more concerns that Xbox players are only interested in AAA games and no amount of push from MS will change their minds on that.

No wonder! Playstation has no real games, so they have to play surrogates.

But I would love to know if this statement is true. Does data like "indie games bought/console" exist?

EvB · Jan 16, 2015

Altima said:
OMG WTF is that ??? Is something like that really happened ??

Yeah, both companies charged for patches to be released. They dropped the fees and famously Phil Fish found out via Twitter rather than direct from MS

Robot Carnival · Jan 16, 2015

so, I'll drop this useful little tool here. maybe someone will use this to "provide us some insight" on this policy that everyone is so confuse about...

all joking aside, as someone who doesn't own any XBox related product and not really the biggest fan of MS, I still wish they drop that stupid sounding policy since all it does is alienates ppl and brings ill will amounts all parties involve. maybe some of these idie titles aren't the biggest seller, but there are still ppl who's interested in them, and denying them to your customers, no matter how small the market, will only damage yourself. and in this day and age of instant information availability, these sort of things can and most certainly will come back to bite you in the butt. it might be small but small things add up quick, and before you know it you'll be neck deep in negative publicity (or as I thing of MS at this point, already are).

Broforce is a fun game, and I think it deserve to see wilder acceptance from ppl of all platforms (for reference I already own it on PC so I don't plan on double dipping).

AmethystEnd · Jan 16, 2015

Ravidrath said:
This waiver was, in particular, hugely important to my game, because it freed up a lot of money we had saved for patch fees. But we couldn't talk about it, and just kinda had to say "Oh, hey, uh... we found $40,000! We can do that stretch goal we just missed now!"

That sounds ridiculous. Wonder why they wanted that under wraps when it seems like a positive thing.

PhatSaqs · Jan 16, 2015

Jomjom said:
Hey if you think Broforce looks rad and would "love to see [it] come to Xbox One!" and you think it would be a good fit for Xbox One owners, why not shoot the devs an email instead of asking them to come to you and ask for an exception? That is kind of your job no?

This seems to be biggest difference between Sony and MS in regards to indies. Sony is actively reaching out to any and everyone which kinda makes sense with their model of loaning dev kits. The MS model of dev kits for free doesnt really work there.

Haunted · Jan 16, 2015

Ravidrath said:
The perception issue is real.

Between our (extremely negative) experiences with MS on Skullgirls and this perception issue, we didn't really pursue Xbox One. I was about to start looking into it, but then Sony aggressively pursued us.

So it's not only that the parity clause, MS's policies, etc. make people slow to act, it's that Sony is extremely proactively aggressive about approaching devs and signing agreements.

I do have legitimate concerns about the Xbox One just as a platform for indies, though.

My impression is that indies, even high profile ones, just don't sell very well on there. Maybe it's a store / placement issue, but I'm more concerns that Xbox players are only interested in AAA games and no amount of push from MS will change their minds on that.

At some point devs may start even foregoing MS's exclusivity offers because the advance just isn't enough to justify delaying on a platform that sells better.

Quoted so more people can see this.

The quicker MS realises the positon they're in, the faster they can start to remedy their mistakes.

Kinyou · Jan 16, 2015

I always knew that Sony was the godfather

Shpeshal Nick · Jan 16, 2015

Nafai1123 said:
There's nothing wrong with picking games, but when your competitor is getting significantly more indie devs signing up with them, you have to question your approach. Maybe they need more people reaching out.

No argument there. I'm only viewing this as an outsider looking in. I'm not a dev. I'm aware the clause exists and on the surface seems like a barrier. But at the same time, I hear about this clause and then I see many PS4 indie games which should have been affected by this clause, release on Xbox One a short time later.

So it seems like, again, from the outside, this clause isn't water tight. It's very loose.

Duxxy3 · Jan 16, 2015

Maybe Microsoft should spend a little less on bundles and discounts, and spend that money on improving the ID@Xbox program. The skullgirls dev is right - indie games aren't even advertised on the store. Microsoft goes all in on AAA titles, but doesn't do shit for smaller titles.

A healthy lineup of games does no mean 4 months at the end of the year, loaded with AAA titles. I want something for the other 8 months of the year, even if it's smaller titles.

Jimmyfenix · Jan 16, 2015

Altima said:
OMG WTF is that ??? Is something like that really happened ??

Fez creator Phil Fish has fiercely criticized one-time co-publishing partner Microsoft for doing "nothing" to help sell his game.

"Microsoft was our publisher on X360, and they did nothing. No promotion, no festivals," wrote Fish in a Twitter stream earlier today. "Not a single mention in a newsletter or conference. They put us up on their shitty dashboard and somehow fuck that up too. They put us up on the game marketplace with no cover image.

"The file was missing for a whole week," he added. "The first week, the most important week. That's what we got from our publisher Microsoft Game Studios. When you went to buy Fez, there was just a big empty rectangle with a file missing icon in the middle, for a whole week."

Fish, who heads up Montreal-based developer Polytron, was responding to a news report that Microsoft has ceased its policy of charging developers $10,000 for each game-fixing patch or update. In July 2012, a save rule corruption bug was discovered on Fez affecting, by Fish's calculation, about one percent of players. But Fish refused to pay the minimum $10,000 charge levied by Microsoft required to implement a fix.

Subsequent to Fish's observations, Microsoft confirmed to Polygon that the policy of automatically charging developers for resubmissions was scrapped back in April.

"Microsoft never told us anything about it," wrote Fish. " will get in touch with them and see if their new policy is retro-active. But honestly, I feel it's kind of a long shot. Something tells me it won't be retroactive. You have no idea how much trouble I got into for talking about this and you never will so I'm pretty glad there's a happy ending here."

http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/27/4471162/phil-fish-slams-microsoft-over-lack-of-support-for-fez

SerTapTap · Jan 16, 2015

Collingwood said:
As a dev, can you let me know because I genuinely don't know. Do indie Devs not need to contact one of the big 3 to make a game there anyway?

I'm not arguing the clause isn't stupid and I'm not saying there isn't a perception issue. There clearly is, my earlier post intimated as much. But in the end, it really seems this issue would have been solved with a very simple email.

Exceptions have been pretty rare. I really doubt it's as simple as "a very simple email", the games we've seen bypass the clause have all been huge, like Rogue Legacy and Warframe. I don't think anyone's been brave enough to talk about being turned down yet though. Alternately they haven't bothered to ask, but I find it unlikely that no one has asked and been turned down.

And if all you have to do is ask...then the only point of the policy is to discourage devs who don't ask...which is, well, insane is one way to put it. But I doubt that's the case, most likely the policy is rigorously enforced unless you meet an unlisted quota of sales/press/etc, then you're in.

Altima said:
OMG WTF is that ??? Is something like that really happened ??

Yes. Fez was massively fucked over by it. Also Skullgirls had massive patch issues on 360, not sure if the patch fee was dead yet or not. Honestly it's kind of amazing that the parity clause is the most awful of MS' policies right now because last gen was...wow

Begaria · Jan 16, 2015

Ravidrath said:
My impression is that indies, even high profile ones, just don't sell very well on there. Maybe it's a store / placement issue, but I'm more concerns that Xbox players are only interested in AAA games and no amount of push from MS will change their minds on that.

I've seen this a lot. There's a reason why the PS4 has been panned as the "indie"station (like that's a bad thing). "Sony doesn't have the money for the AAA games", "indie games aren't even real games", "lol enjoy your atari looking games!", etc. I see it as Sony building a developer base. Today's indie developer could be tomorrow's mega star studio.

Just look at Mojang.

Lettuce · Jan 16, 2015

This Parity Clause Bullshit, one example is The Pinball Arcade that came out on the PS4 a good 6 months before the XB1 version!!

Hockeymac18 · Jan 16, 2015

LiquidSolid said:
What makes you think they wouldn't have had plans for the XB1 if the parity clause hadn't been there? Because that's one of the things about this clause, when you've put up such a huge roadblock for a lot of developers, they're just going to dismiss the idea from the very beginning. No point fucking around begging Microsoft for an exception if there's a pretty good chance it could lead nowhere.

You're right, I don't know that. I'm not trying to sound like I'm supporting the stupid parity clause at all, I'm just saying there might be better examples of it harming developers. Specifically ones that have come out and have spoken out about it (there are many).

That being said, I get the point about the perception issue (devs not even considering the XB1 because of the perception the parity clause creates), and that is a very good one.

If MS isn't going to get rid of the clause (it really seems like they want to keep it...), they could easily change the clause and fix their problems pretty easily. Some ideas:

1) Just change it to say:
"While we would like for you to release your game on Xbox One first, or at the same time as other competing platforms, we understand that is not always possible. If you must release later, we ask that you include a small amount of extra content when you release later on Xbox".

The extra content could be anything, really...extra outfits, colors for characters...anything. Just something small to show that the Xbox One users are getting a good experience.

This would be a win-win. Devs would be happy (they can now release on all platforms; more sales!), PS4 owners would be happy since they'd get all of the games (probably first), and Xbox One owners would be happy because they'd get a lot of games that would have never released before (and they'd get a "better" version, even if it's later).

2) And if they (MS) don't want to go that route for change in their clause...maybe just make it only apply to people that take development money from MS? So no parity clause if you're just a regular dev making games for all platforms, but if you accept some MS funding, you need to release on XB1 first, or at same time as PS4/PC versions.

Of course, the best option would just to get rid of it completely, but MS really seems insistent about keeping it. But they could so easily make it better, if they wanted to. I hope (as an Xbox One owner) they do.

bishoptl said:
Chris, if the perception of the program keeps developers from even bothering to contact you, that's a problem that needs fixing.

Is unfortunate that Chris has to deal with this since he seems like a good guy and probably hates this clause. I know if I were on the lower end of Xbox management and hated the policies that I have to deal with from above that I'd be upset, too. Even if I loved my job.

Then again, maybe he loves the clause...

Jomjom · Jan 16, 2015

Collingwood said:
As a dev, can you let me know because I genuinely don't know. Do indie Devs not need to contact one of the big 3 to make a game there anyway?

I'm not arguing the clause isn't stupid and I'm not saying there isn't a perception issue. There clearly is, my earlier post intimated as much. But in the end, it really seems this issue would have been solved with a very simple email.

You're not wrong, but MS should issue a very public statement notifying people that the parity clause is dead.

An email from a dev simply saying they are interested in releasing a game on Xbone with a reasonable expectation that it will be (as long as the game is of decent quality and meets all the technical requirements), is very different than an email coming from a more disadvantageous position where the dev is uncertain and having to feel like it needs to prove itself and earn some sort of special exception.

Just because both boil down to essentially an email, they are not the same at all when in one case the writer of the email is going in with the mindset that the two companies could be potential partners, equals mutually beneficial to each other, and in the other case the writer feels like it is in the subservient position groveling for permission, as if MS is doing them some huge favor by allowing their game.

Doctor_Thomas · Jan 16, 2015

Begaria said:
I've seen this a lot. There's a reason why the PS4 has been panned as the "indie"station (like that's a bad thing). "Sony doesn't have the money for the AAA games", "indie games aren't even real games", "lol enjoy your atari looking games!", etc. I see it as Sony building a developer base. Today's indie developer could be tomorrow's mega star studio.

Just look at Mojang.

Or Naughty Dog, remember them?

slavesnyder · Jan 16, 2015

Begaria said:
I've seen this a lot. There's a reason why the PS4 has been panned as the "indie"station (like that's a bad thing). "Sony doesn't have the money for the AAA games", "indie games aren't even real games", "lol enjoy your atari looking games!", etc. I see it as Sony building a developer base. Today's indie developer could be tomorrow's mega star studio.

Just look at Mojang.

... and who bought them in the end?

Khalifa Jayy · Jan 16, 2015

godelsmetric said:
Everyone who says 'oh this will obviously hurt MS' is missing the point.

MS are not interested in bringing indie games to the platform unless there's immediate money to be made out of it. They don't want a game that only shifts 10k units, they only want the indies that are going to be breakout hits.

So they don't care that they're getting less than half the number of games, what they care about is making sure they get the 'right' indie games. If ever a game does come along that looks like it's going to be that breakout hit (a la Minecraft) you bet they'll be there ready to swoop in with a moneyhat and lock that exclusivity down.

MS is one of the most short-term orientated tech companies out there. They're infamous for not getting aboard the long-term trends in tech until they've already passed. They either haven't cottoned on to what Sony have already realised (that a diverse indie portfolio has a halo effect for your brand) or they don't care about it. What they want are the indie games that sell millions of units, nothing less.

You can't be "all about games" and cherry pick the games so strictly. Let the consumer choose which games do well if you really care about them.

Shpeshal Nick · Jan 16, 2015

Sir TapTap said:
Exceptions have been pretty rare. I really doubt it's as simple as "a very simple email", the games we've seen bypass the clause have all been huge, like Rogue Legacy and Warframe. I don't think anyone's been brave enough to talk about being turned down yet though. Alternately they haven't bothered to ask, but I find it unlikely that no one has asked and been turned down.

And if all you have to do is ask...then the only point of the policy is to discourage devs who don't ask...which is, well, insane is one way to put it. But I doubt that's the case, most likely the policy is rigorously enforced unless you meet an unlisted quota of sales/press/etc, then you're in.

Yes. Fez was massively fucked over by it. Also Skullgirls had massive patch issues on 360, not sure if the patch fee was dead yet or not.

Stick it to the Man?
Outlast?
Terraria?
Pure Pool?
Guacamelee?
The Golf Club (indie?)
Divekick?

There's plenty of games that weren't affected by this. Now how easy was it for them to get around the clause? We don't know. Judging by Chris' earlier post, it seems an email would suffice. So while the clause's existence in the first place seems unnecessary, it seems easy enough to get around.

Jacksinthe · Jan 16, 2015

Collingwood said:
As a dev, can you let me know because I genuinely don't know. Do indie Devs not need to contact one of the big 3 to make a game there anyway?

I'm not arguing the clause isn't stupid and I'm not saying there isn't a perception issue. There clearly is, my earlier post intimated as much. But in the end, it really seems this issue would have been solved with a very simple email.

I can only speak personally from the side of 2 at the moment but I know all 3 of the console manufacturers have a rather simple process to apply for developer approval. That conversation at the onset to become approved has nothing to do with rules set in place once approved. More processes follow, naturally.

If I am to listen to other developers who have reached out beyond that process to help ease the parity clause a bit - it entirely depends on you/your game's status and most of my dev friends (save for a few devs who are on autopilot) don't have the best news.

Using this information, along with internet hearsay

had to, sorry

, I can deduce that simply reaching out isn't the key that unlocks the proverbial door.

krypt0nian · Jan 16, 2015

Collingwood said:
Stick it to the Man?
Outlast?
Terraria?
Pure Pool?
Guacamelee?
The Golf Club (indie?)
Divekick?

There's plenty of games that weren't affected by this. Now how easy was it for them to get around the clause? We don't know. Judging by Chris' earlier post, it seems an email would suffice. So while the clause's existence in the first place seems unnecessary, it seems easy enough to get around.

If they released before the policy they weren't even affected by it.

Crimson_Gold · Jan 16, 2015

Collingwood said:
Stick it to the Man?
Outlast?
Terraria?
Pure Pool?
Guacamelee?
The Golf Club (indie?)
Divekick?

There's plenty of games that weren't affected by this. Now how easy was it for them to get around the clause? We don't know. Judging by Chris' earlier post, it seems an email would suffice. So while the clause's existence in the first place seems unnecessary, it seems easy enough to get around.

What about the 47 games coming to PS4 that aren't coming to the one? There are far more games that aren't making it to the platform because of this clause than are. Also, the games you listed are successful titles. I'm sure that assisted in the exception decision.

Veritigo_X · Jan 16, 2015

Collingwood said:
Stick it to the Man?
Outlast?
Terraria?
Pure Pool?
Guacamelee?
The Golf Club (indie?)
Divekick?

There's plenty of games that weren't affected by this. Now how easy was it for them to get around the clause? We don't know. Judging by Chris' earlier post, it seems an email would suffice. So while the clause's existence in the first place seems unnecessary, it seems easy enough to get around.

If it's such a non-issue to get around the clause, it shouldn't be there in the first place. Especially if it causes developers to not even bother trying to get their game on Xbox if they are releasing on another platform first. The parity clause doesn't make MS look good and it apparently doesn't even do anything.

bishoptl · Jan 16, 2015

Collingwood said:
As a dev, can you let me know because I genuinely don't know. Do indie Devs not need to contact one of the big 3 to make a game there anyway?

Sure do. You can ping Gio, Shahid and Chris directly on Twitter to make introductions and let them know what you're working on. I don't know who to talk to at Nintendo, but that's a story for another day.

Here's the rub:

- if you already know that working with Microsoft means directing all your resources to support a much smaller marketplace first unless you have enough people to hit multiple platforms at the same time (not an option for most indies)

- if you know that working with Microsoft means after releasing on Xbone, you have to live on those smaller profits while scrambling to get your game on the larger marketplace

- if you know that working with Sony means directing all your resources to support a much larger marketplace first

- if you know that working with Sony means you can bring your game to other platforms without prostrating yourself before Boyes and co. because that team understands that more people buying your game means you get to eat and make more games

- if you're capable of reading the feedback from multiple developers about the negative effects of the parity clause on people doing the same thing that you do

Why would you even bother asking at this point? If I see someone burn their hand on a stove, I don't need to ask somebody to consider maybe turning it off. I'll go use the microwave.

#DropTheClause

1) Just change it to say:
"While we would like for you to release your game on Xbox One first, or at the same time as other competing platforms, we understand that is not always possible. If you must release later, we ask that you include a small amount of extra content when you release later on Xbox".

The extra content could be anything, really...extra outfits, colors for characters...anything. Just something small to show that the Xbox One users are getting a good experience.

This would be a win-win. Devs would be happy (they can now release on all platforms; more sales!), PS4 owners would be happy since they'd get all of the games (probably first), and Xbox One owners would be happy because they'd get a lot of games that would have never released before (and they'd get a "better" version, even if it's later).

2) And if they (MS) don't want to go that route for change in their clause...maybe just make it only apply to people that take development money from MS? So no parity clause if you're just a regular dev making games for all platforms, but if you accept some MS funding, you need to release on XB1 first, or at same time as PS4/PC versions.

These are both great and reasonable ideas.

Shpeshal Nick · Jan 16, 2015

AbsintheGames said:
I can only speak personally from the side of 2 at the moment but I know all 3 of the console manufacturers have a rather simple process to apply for developer approval. That conversation at the onset to become approved has nothing to do with rules set in place once approved. More processes follow, naturally.

If I am to listen to other developers who have reached out beyond that process to help ease the parity clause a bit - it entirely depends on you/your game's status and most of my dev friends (save for a few devs who are on autopilot) don't have the best news.

Using this information, along with internet hearsay

had to, sorry

, I can deduce that simply reaching out isn't the key that unlocks the proverbial door.

krypt0nian said:
If they released before the policy they weren't even affected by it.

Thanks to both for clarifying things further.

toddhunter · Jan 16, 2015

Collingwood said:
So while the clause's existence in the first place seems unnecessary, it seems easy enough to get around.

That still assumes you want to get around it. If you want to start doing deals with people out to screw over gamers for their own needs, you might as well partner up with Ubisoft or EA and be done with it.

Kusagari · Jan 16, 2015

Saying they should just email MS to see if they can subvert the clause is so ridiculous.

MS is the one that has the clause front and center known to everyone. If they're just going to subvert it when they feel like it then maybe MS should do the smart thing and just get rid of the fucking clause officially.

I'm amazed it still exists honestly. With all the negative things they've changed about the One, that still remains somehow.

ccharla · Jan 16, 2015

Collingwood said:
Stick it to the Man?
Outlast?
Terraria?
Pure Pool?
Guacamelee?
The Golf Club (indie?)
Divekick?

There's plenty of games that weren't affected by this. Now how easy was it for them to get around the clause? We don't know. Judging by Chris' earlier post, it seems an email would suffice. So while the clause's existence in the first place seems unnecessary, it seems easy enough to get around.

You forgot Piers Solar, Rogue Legacy, Oddworld, and Thomas Was Alone.

Golf Club was a sim ship, though. And Guacamelee was a special edition so that doesn't really count either.

Piers Solar wasn't a "big title form a big developer" either, since the reality is we treat every develop (big and small) exactly the same.

Shpeshal Nick · Jan 16, 2015

ccharla said:
You forgot Piers Solar, Rogue Legacy, Oddworld, and Thomas Was Alone.

Golf Club was a sim ship, though. And Guacamelee was a special edition so that doesn't really count either.

Piers Solar wasn't a "big title form a big developer" either, since the reality is we treat every develop (big and small) exactly the same.

Also, please don't post this PM and get me fired.

Thanks,

-Chris

Um...

FranXico · Jan 16, 2015

Kusagari said:
Saying they should just email MS to see if they can subvert the clause is so ridiculous.

MS is the one that has the clause front and center known to everyone. If they're just going to subvert it when they feel like it then maybe MS should do the smart thing and just get rid of the fucking clause officially.

I'm amazed it still exists honestly. With all the negative things they've changed about the One, that still remains somehow.

Why drop it now, when they just won NPD two months in a row?
If I was in their shoes, I would wait until E3 to announce that for the extra PR.

Support NeoGAF

Broforce skipping XBO due to Parity Clause, and "deal they couldn't refuse" w/ Sony

aka Collingwood

Member

Member

Member

aka Collingwood

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banstick Emeritus

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

aka Collingwood

Member

Drunky McMurder

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

aka Collingwood

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

aka Collingwood

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banstick Emeritus

aka Collingwood

Member

Member

Member

aka Collingwood

Member

Similar threads