Good to hear.
-
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
Good to hear.
If you're willing to AbsintheGames can you confirm what Skyrise said about the contract still being the same as it was day one?
Edit -
Sorry for the late reply but looking forward to it.
Edit -
Sorry for the late reply but looking forward to it.
serversurfer
Member
Truth.
Also probably true; most people seem to have fairly short memories.
Sangria posted a link to a copy back on Page 2. The relevant clauses:
So, basically the same as what Eurogamer leaked back in the 360 days, except it was a lot easier to read back then:
Because no one ever complained about having their bills paid?
By forcing developers to agree to deliver parity while promising not to ask it of them, MS are effectively saying, "Oh, we're going to fuck you over. But not today, so drink up!!" That's why I don't understand those who are so eager to forgive; MS have made their attitudes and intentions clear, and they're just as willing and eager to do damage to the industry as you are to forgive them for it. Your eagerness to forgive and forget is why they're still doing it to us, 40 years on
No, they explicitly do not. Don't comment on things you have no knowledge of.
I can kinda see where MS is coming from with the whole "add something for Xbox players" but it should absolutely not be a requirement. Shovel Knight should be the exception not the rule. The whole clause is just stupid to begin with. I really don't understand why it's still in place.
justsomeguy
Member
I remember the same post, it was on the lines of "MS said 'add a character', then we said 'wtf? do you realise how much work that is?', and they said 'erm... oops no we didn't - forget that idea'".
But as you say it would be better with a source post!
serversurfer
Member
It was in the last(?) parity thread
I implored him not to take the exception regardless of what the accountants said because not only would he be pulling up the ladder behind him for other devs, he's actually weakening his own position in the future. He said he wasn't sure if he could take such a "principled stand" because he had to worry about feeding his team, but he was scheduled to discuss the parity clause with Phil, so he was gonna see how that went. To my knowledge, he hasn't commented on the issue since, but I haven't gone through his posts or anything.
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JamesCoote/20131009/202022/Sony_Developer_Open_Day_Summary.php
So you saying this is inaccurate or nah?
Portugeezer
Member
A lead wall is more transparent.
fallingdove
Member
That is in context of Strategic Content - no? Of course games with features not available on other platforms is more strategic than an identical port. That is not a requirement to publish your game on a Sony Platform though.
There at not a requirement to publish games on Sony systems.
The article you quoted specifically states that this is a team that goes out to scout indies and offer them certain advantages in return for these, and that it's just one of at least three routes one has of getting on the platform.
If anything these policies and stances on self publishing make MS's look even worse.
Neuromancer
Member
Your original wink wink comment implied that Sony does the same thing, just less overtly. There is a huge difference between asking devs if they want to put in extra work, versus forcing them, which is the way the Xbox parity clause has been portrayed.
Also, that blog post goes on to explain that the team that suggested the additions, Strategic Content, is a small team of people at Sony with a specific focus and that not all self-published indie games even go through them.
Well....that was exactly my interpretation of what was written there. There's no strict policy or enforcement but it seems that it might be suggested to devs to add PS specifics.
Its the only similarity i've seen written out there thus my answer to the dudes question as to whether there was anything similar. That is, if the meaning of the word similar still equates to having a slight resemblance while being different...
Out of curiosity, did you read the entire article you linked? Because it explicitly states Strategic Content isn't policy, and that they aren't the gatekeepers. They are a small team offering incentives for titles that they find interesting in exchange for strategic content, not withholding access to the platform unless those demands are met. That is completely dissimilar to MS's.
Excuse me if I misread the article, but it seemed to me the parity paragraph was listed under the items of consideration for the GPP. The GPP is required of all games that are to be published on Sony systems, not just ones singled out as Strategic Content. Strategic Content being titles that are the cream of the crop.
Sure did. I think you may have misread what "Strategic Content" is considered as.
BTW, I wasn't being malicious in posting or pointing out what I did. I bit of a cheeky attempt at responding, yes (as always) but all in all I was just answering the dudes question lol.
The parity paragraph yeah, but that's not what we're talking about (nor is it similar to the purported parity clause of MS). PhatSaqs wink wink and similarity claims were based on the Strategic Content part of the article.
Please elucidate.
A couple things. First off, the article is a couple years old. Not sure if things have changed or things are the same, but I can't think of a single time a developer has complained about a Sony parity policy. Meanwhile, you have developers in this very thread telling us that a parity policy does in fact exist for Microsoft.
Second, that article was written before the developer had interacted with Sony in any meaningful way. It's just his notes from what Sony was presenting to a group of developers.
You ignored the first part of the quote.
Absolutely. Even if it were still in play, it seems like it would never be an issue given the power gap between the consoles and the fact that they don't require extra content.
Would you prefer getting the same game as everybody else, or no game at all? Because that's effectively the result for a lot of devs, and is why MS is missing so many great indies already. Their parity clause ensures that often "nothing at all" is what you get.
Begaria
Member
The footage is almost a month old, but Lobos Jr had the developer of Salt & Sanctuary (Ska Studios - James) come on for a stream and James re-iterated a little bit on the parity clause:
https://youtu.be/TkIusfNY0eQ?t=2h16m23s
"Will it ever come to Xbox?" - the question asked on stream.
James: "Prooobably not. The whole Xbox 360 to Xbox One thing was such a shame because we had a really good relationship with Microsoft, and like the switch over went really screwy. So we started talking to Sony and things were way better. Microsoft has it set up that if you don't launch in the same week as a Sony game, you're not allowed to launch at all. I guess there's some stipulations. Yeah it was a pretty publicized thing, called the launch parity clause. So agreeing with exclusivity with Sony means that unless Microsoft changes their policy, we'll have trouble putting it on Xbox One."
He ends this statement around 2h:17m:18sec
I have no idea if James has had any further discussion with MIcrosoft since announcing Salt & Sanctuary, or if he's aware of any changes that has happened with the parity clause since then, outside of when he said this a month ago.
https://youtu.be/TkIusfNY0eQ?t=2h16m23s
"Will it ever come to Xbox?" - the question asked on stream.
James: "Prooobably not. The whole Xbox 360 to Xbox One thing was such a shame because we had a really good relationship with Microsoft, and like the switch over went really screwy. So we started talking to Sony and things were way better. Microsoft has it set up that if you don't launch in the same week as a Sony game, you're not allowed to launch at all. I guess there's some stipulations. Yeah it was a pretty publicized thing, called the launch parity clause. So agreeing with exclusivity with Sony means that unless Microsoft changes their policy, we'll have trouble putting it on Xbox One."
He ends this statement around 2h:17m:18sec
I have no idea if James has had any further discussion with MIcrosoft since announcing Salt & Sanctuary, or if he's aware of any changes that has happened with the parity clause since then, outside of when he said this a month ago.
So upsetting to hear that a good relationship went sour over this policy.
The 360 had this terrific marketplace of Arcade and Indie games and now the One is struggling to get Indie games because of this policy. I wish there was a tell all somewhere on how it even gained traction. It seems so absurd no matter the reasons behind it.
I think they should allow indies to release the game later exactly the same. They could incentivize developers on special Xbox versions by making marketing deals where in exchange for something extra they will feature their game on the dashboard, talk about it in weekly podcasts by Major Nelson or in PR releases by Xbox Wire, create a monthly sizzle reel of the new games coming this month, or some other spotlight promotion. All carrot, no stick.
Neuromancer
Member
That's a shame, why doesn't he just go Talk to Them?
Honestly they can't run their game on XB1 without major reworking. Apparently that was part of the reason they went with PS4 to begin with.
What they said was:
What my cynic side read: "You didn't do negative PR on me on twitter before", "Naturally, you got lost in the shuffle."
Gotta love business.
What my cynic side read: "You didn't do negative PR on me on twitter before", "Naturally, you got lost in the shuffle."
Gotta love business.
I find it so fucked up how this whole thing is playing out, because it's so transparently targeted to try to shush up critics.
If you ask about detail, they say they can't discuss it because everyone is NDA'd. You ask the other companies about their policies for indies, and they are open about much of this sort of stuff these days. If it was all sugar and rainbows, why is one company desperately trying to conceal the truth behind couched language and repeated garbage like what Spencer keeps saying?
Then every time a dev speaks about it on neoGAF, suddenly the next day they're contacted by Microsoft, told to sign an NDA, and then suddenly it's "oh it's not so bad anymore it used to be a lot worse but now they're working with us and we can put our game on the system."
At this point it seems the best route for any indie dev is basically to loudly go on neoGAF and complain about the red tape and nonsense and hoops and how many ways XBL on XBO is inconvenient compared to PSN, and then magically Phil Spencer will swoop to your twitter and caress you in his golden arms and tell you everything is going to be OK - and of course just enough swag so that you can come back on neoGAF and say it's not really that bad anymore, so people need to adjust their expectations cause it was once worse. Except of course they can't discuss specifically why, because NDA.
I'm sorry but these journalists need to do their damned job already and push back against this whole atmospheric of shady dealings. How come when Spencer does this wormy nonsense mealy speech for the billionth time about talking to them, the response from the game journalist wasn't "I'm sorry this is nonsense. You can't say you don't have a parity clause and then note a scenario in which a game comes out first for your competitor and needs to talk to you if they want an exemption for adding content." This TALK TO US™ clause is bullshit, full stop. This COMPLAIN ON NEOGAF FOR SUCCESS™ clause is obscene. This IF YOU WERE TIMED PS4/WII U EXCLUSIVE YOU REALLY SHOULD ADD SOMETHING TO YOUR RELEASE ON XBO BECAUSE DADDY KNOWS BEST FOR YOU™ clause is just offensive. Indies know what is best for Indies; Phil Spencer knows what is best for Phil Spencer alone.
In essence, this entire discussion as it stands shouldn't even have a reason to exist. But Microsoft keeps making reasons, because they're assholes on this subject and still don't get it.
If you ask about detail, they say they can't discuss it because everyone is NDA'd. You ask the other companies about their policies for indies, and they are open about much of this sort of stuff these days. If it was all sugar and rainbows, why is one company desperately trying to conceal the truth behind couched language and repeated garbage like what Spencer keeps saying?
Then every time a dev speaks about it on neoGAF, suddenly the next day they're contacted by Microsoft, told to sign an NDA, and then suddenly it's "oh it's not so bad anymore it used to be a lot worse but now they're working with us and we can put our game on the system."
At this point it seems the best route for any indie dev is basically to loudly go on neoGAF and complain about the red tape and nonsense and hoops and how many ways XBL on XBO is inconvenient compared to PSN, and then magically Phil Spencer will swoop to your twitter and caress you in his golden arms and tell you everything is going to be OK - and of course just enough swag so that you can come back on neoGAF and say it's not really that bad anymore, so people need to adjust their expectations cause it was once worse. Except of course they can't discuss specifically why, because NDA.
I'm sorry but these journalists need to do their damned job already and push back against this whole atmospheric of shady dealings. How come when Spencer does this wormy nonsense mealy speech for the billionth time about talking to them, the response from the game journalist wasn't "I'm sorry this is nonsense. You can't say you don't have a parity clause and then note a scenario in which a game comes out first for your competitor and needs to talk to you if they want an exemption for adding content." This TALK TO US™ clause is bullshit, full stop. This COMPLAIN ON NEOGAF FOR SUCCESS™ clause is obscene. This IF YOU WERE TIMED PS4/WII U EXCLUSIVE YOU REALLY SHOULD ADD SOMETHING TO YOUR RELEASE ON XBO BECAUSE DADDY KNOWS BEST FOR YOU™ clause is just offensive. Indies know what is best for Indies; Phil Spencer knows what is best for Phil Spencer alone.
In essence, this entire discussion as it stands shouldn't even have a reason to exist. But Microsoft keeps making reasons, because they're assholes on this subject and still don't get it.
Unless you are Nintendo.
They say motion controls are only optional and the whole industry decides they want to form the Ancient Society of No Nintendo where Nintendo can't even get parity of features with every other multiplat version, if they even get the multiplat game to begin with.
that's Nintendo's fault for releasing woefully underpowered platforms in which half the time to get feature parity is either near impossible or would require such stringent overhaul of the engine that it's not financially worth it with the amount of sales potential there. The industry thrives on ports, and Nintendo keeps placing itself outside the porting game. Even Gamecube had the special mini-discs with 1.8GB of space or whatever limiting certain things. If it's not one thing it's another w/ Nintendo.
NobleGundam
Banned
"There is. There isn't. I think so."
Mmmkay
Mmmkay
Who knew black would make Chief's helmet look so sick? Nice avy. You should do a .png for transparency.
Neuromancer
Member
Amir0x, you're on fire today. Haha
I really do wonder why more journalists don't push back against this more. I guess because they don't care or don't want to make MS angry.
I really do wonder why more journalists don't push back against this more. I guess because they don't care or don't want to make MS angry.
A fair share of both and in some cases one or the other. Aka it's what it's.
Of course it got "lost in the shuffle." Apparently there's a "shuffle folder" for whenever a dev complains loudly on neoGAF. Then suddenly they explain sarcastically to their secretary "woe is me, I wish we could figure out what is wrong with our relationship with X dev" *WINK*, to which the secretary coyly wheels her chair around and goes to the bottom draw of her file cabinet and takes out a folder labeled "shuffle."
Then Chris Charla calls the dev and it's all "well hello there you need to forgive us we're a heee----uggge company and sometimes we can lose a application in our process. I hope you understand. I understand you have concerns? Whatever they are, forget 'em. For the trouble of losing your folder, we're making a special exemption just for you!"
Then the next day on NeoGAF:
IndieDEV-Y said:
It's so awesome this process is so obvious and streamlined.
krypt0nian
Banned
Pure Amir0x brand ETHER
Brad Grenz
Member
Yeah. "Lost in the shuffle" like we're too stupid to read the patterns. So amazing that all these oversights get magically discovered as soon as a dev goes public with their dissatisfaction. I've said it time and time again: Phil Spencer is all talk.
Strategic Content pushing your game is not the same as releasing on a Sony platform, and this is all someone's opinion from a presentation and informal chat rather than an actual request to become a PlayStation developer.
I can't believe it's July 2015 and there are still massive threads debating a parity clause.
Edit - Also even with Strategic Content they aren't always insistent on you doing custom work for them to support your game, if they believe in it they'll support you anyway just as we have been despite our Wii U version (a competing platform) being an announced thing.
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
Once he's Talked to Them™, he'll never be able to talk to Us™ in the same way. They come back after Talking™ to MS, and they seem like pod people
Edit: Amir0x got there first it seems. And said it better.
Yeah, I regularly 'shuffle' emails I don't want into my junk folder, luckily Chris and Phil likely don't empty their 'shuffle' folder too often.- infinite OneDrive for the t-dogs.
Jacksinthe
Banned
When I get time today and I'm back at my desk I'll post some thoughts again. I am not about to go nuclear on some of you on my phone.
I need to call you out, Amirox. You'd better have a shitload of links from all these devs on neogaf changing their tune, links and verification that MS does secretly call up every loud dev and interviews with Chris and Phil to back up your claims.
A lot of your rhetoric is bullshit "pile on" to the nth degree. I hate the fucking clause and I even told you a while ago, personally, that I had enough reason from devs to sit back and watch this play out over time. And no - Chris or Phil never contacted me or MANY fucking devs that were loud. I sat back because I'm the guy that needs to be 100% sure before I do or say something publicly. I give people the time of day because that's who I am. When I needed to sit back and watch - I did. I didn't continue my tirade.
I guess not doing anything but yelling at an old cloud is a lot fucking easier than reaching out to people and asking questions eh?
Edit: You know? Not going to go nuclear at anyone. Instead I'll just say a few things.
Most devs today that still believe the parity clause is hardcore, actually don't know and simply regurgitate what they hear and read online and not actually engaging on their own to get details from the horse's mouth. We've seen this unfold on Twitter as we've seen ID call out several devs who never approached them and said they'd love to have them.
Most of you will probably take that as making one-off exceptions and I can see that. But today is different than even a few months ago.
I'm not bagging on devs, either. We are a busy bunch and the small time (like me) sometimes don't bother even approaching because hey - we're fucking nothing.
It would seem a fool's errand to try and attack that tank with a toothpick.
For transparency I did speak with Phil and Chris EXTREMELY briefly recently. THEY DID NOT APPROACH ME AND WE DID NOT DISCUSS ANY EXCEPTIONS NOR DO I HAVE ONE. I won't go into detail but they get nobody likes the clause (plus there's not many details).
Read the OP and stop reading it through your hyperbole between the lines goggles and take what Phil said at face value. Shit is different and yes - shit falls through the cracks. You can't very well bag on ID for that statement when developers aren't even trying to contact them about it - letting those details "fall through the cracks" and continue the same song and dance because they did not do their due diligence and follow up.
But that is yet ANOTHER fucking problem Phil needs to solve. Get that fucking messaging out to developers. If they have no clue the climate is changing - they won't bother to research. Its not about how to deliver that message - its about delivering it in the first fucking place. It should be dead as a doornail and developers still don't know. Consumers still don't know. That's a fucking problem they need to solve. They need to take that on their shoulders and get the word out that it's a much friendlier environment.
And by friendlier I feel they need to step up and lead with the carrot, not the stick. There's a lot they can do go incentivise developers to make exclusive content that might not have anything to do with a moneyhat. It can simply be REALLY going to bat for devs with PR and game announcements, making sure every last Xbox owner knows who the fuck is making Lotion Boy 8: The Lotioning. Or when Super Buttmuncher Prequel is about to drop. The most important thing for any small dev is getting out there and getting known which is very hard. That does a LOT more for devs than free devkits.
Bottom line is they get you, they get devs, they are making changes and they are piss poor at making sure devs know how they are TODAY - because devs still think it's fucking yesterday.
Again, so everyone gets it, I have no exemptions. I was never approached and I never asked for one. I like both indie programs from Sony and MS. Sony's is still better and I don't think MS needs to make theirs "better" as it is really good at the moment - but they can right just this one ship and with a little bit of planning do enough to differentiate themselves from the competition. Again, will be hard to beat Sony from my personal experience but they don't have to - they just have to do right and differentiate themselves a bit and they will be fine.
Peace!
I need to call you out, Amirox. You'd better have a shitload of links from all these devs on neogaf changing their tune, links and verification that MS does secretly call up every loud dev and interviews with Chris and Phil to back up your claims.
A lot of your rhetoric is bullshit "pile on" to the nth degree. I hate the fucking clause and I even told you a while ago, personally, that I had enough reason from devs to sit back and watch this play out over time. And no - Chris or Phil never contacted me or MANY fucking devs that were loud. I sat back because I'm the guy that needs to be 100% sure before I do or say something publicly. I give people the time of day because that's who I am. When I needed to sit back and watch - I did. I didn't continue my tirade.
I guess not doing anything but yelling at an old cloud is a lot fucking easier than reaching out to people and asking questions eh?
Edit: You know? Not going to go nuclear at anyone. Instead I'll just say a few things.
Most devs today that still believe the parity clause is hardcore, actually don't know and simply regurgitate what they hear and read online and not actually engaging on their own to get details from the horse's mouth. We've seen this unfold on Twitter as we've seen ID call out several devs who never approached them and said they'd love to have them.
Most of you will probably take that as making one-off exceptions and I can see that. But today is different than even a few months ago.
I'm not bagging on devs, either. We are a busy bunch and the small time (like me) sometimes don't bother even approaching because hey - we're fucking nothing.
It would seem a fool's errand to try and attack that tank with a toothpick.
For transparency I did speak with Phil and Chris EXTREMELY briefly recently. THEY DID NOT APPROACH ME AND WE DID NOT DISCUSS ANY EXCEPTIONS NOR DO I HAVE ONE. I won't go into detail but they get nobody likes the clause (plus there's not many details).
Read the OP and stop reading it through your hyperbole between the lines goggles and take what Phil said at face value. Shit is different and yes - shit falls through the cracks. You can't very well bag on ID for that statement when developers aren't even trying to contact them about it - letting those details "fall through the cracks" and continue the same song and dance because they did not do their due diligence and follow up.
But that is yet ANOTHER fucking problem Phil needs to solve. Get that fucking messaging out to developers. If they have no clue the climate is changing - they won't bother to research. Its not about how to deliver that message - its about delivering it in the first fucking place. It should be dead as a doornail and developers still don't know. Consumers still don't know. That's a fucking problem they need to solve. They need to take that on their shoulders and get the word out that it's a much friendlier environment.
And by friendlier I feel they need to step up and lead with the carrot, not the stick. There's a lot they can do go incentivise developers to make exclusive content that might not have anything to do with a moneyhat. It can simply be REALLY going to bat for devs with PR and game announcements, making sure every last Xbox owner knows who the fuck is making Lotion Boy 8: The Lotioning. Or when Super Buttmuncher Prequel is about to drop. The most important thing for any small dev is getting out there and getting known which is very hard. That does a LOT more for devs than free devkits.
Bottom line is they get you, they get devs, they are making changes and they are piss poor at making sure devs know how they are TODAY - because devs still think it's fucking yesterday.
Again, so everyone gets it, I have no exemptions. I was never approached and I never asked for one. I like both indie programs from Sony and MS. Sony's is still better and I don't think MS needs to make theirs "better" as it is really good at the moment - but they can right just this one ship and with a little bit of planning do enough to differentiate themselves from the competition. Again, will be hard to beat Sony from my personal experience but they don't have to - they just have to do right and differentiate themselves a bit and they will be fine.
Peace!
IGN posted about the whole indy situation in May so it's not like it hasn't been covered.
VG247 also had a pretty good interview with Nuclear Throne developer Vlambeer about the whole parity clause. This was published way back in 2013 though so it seems like MS has loosened up some since then although unfortunately there's still some lingering problems to this day.
But someone *DID* contact you. You told me so yourself six months ago-
We missed you. What happened to the write up you were supposed to work on? Hope you weren't given a cease and desist from Phil Spencer.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and please do so if I am, I relish learning from my mistakes) but that doesn't sound like you reached a consensus and decided to sit back without outside influence.
FWIW, everything I've ever said on this subject stems from what little investigation I've done. I was planning to create my own thread about this subject but relented when I realized my rhetoric wasn't up to snuff. Still kept my findings and here is what one Dev had to say to me-
This was 2 months ago, by the way.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Just when you thought this thread was starting to beat a dead horse, it gets a whole new twist within the noise.
TheSpoiler
Member
I mean, that's kind of hard considering there's an NDA and all that.
Jacksinthe
Banned
Spencer and Charla are easy to reach. I still think they need to shoulder this but they are working towards making things better.
Only reason why I am adamant about quelling some hate is because I am not afraid to change my tune publicly. If I need to change my opinion for current events I have no shame in doing it.
Similar threads
- Locked