• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

chubigans
y'all should be ashamed
(12-04-2013, 07:50 PM)
chubigans's Avatar
So it was kind of weird to see a lot of indie games announced as being "exclusive console debut on PS4" thingys during various press conferences and announcements. A few wondered if this had to do with maybe some moneyhats of some sort, or simply because XB1 hadn't had their indie stuff ready in time, etc.

As it turns out, Vlambeer signed an exclusive one month debut with Sony because that was the only way Nuclear Throne would be accepted onto the ID@Xbox program w/o having to do a simultaneous XB1/PS4 launch.

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/12/04/xb...lshare_twitter

Indie developers in the Xbox One publishing program, ID@Xbox, get two console development kits, a Unity license and the opportunity to self-publish their games – in return, Microsoft asks that the games launch same-day on Xbox One and other console platforms. Launch parity, rather than exclusivity.

Building a game for multiple launch platforms can be hazardous for indie developers, transferring energy from building games to bureaucracy, Vlambeer co-founder Rami Ismail tells Joystiq. When Vlambeer learned about Microsoft's launch parity clause, it immediately contacted Sony to set up launch exclusivity on PS4 for its next-gen game Nuclear Throne.

"Microsoft was doing reach-out to certain developers back in the early days of ID@XBOX, and we discussed potentially bringing Nuclear Throne to Xbox One with them," Ismail says. "There had been mentions beforehand that there was a launch parity clause in the contract, with the exception of games that were already signed to another platform during the announcement of their self-publishing program. Thus, before we signed with Microsoft, we e-mailed Sony that we quickly wanted to sign Nuclear Throne with them with a month of exclusivity."

This move wasn't out of spite for Microsoft, Ismail says, and Nuclear Throne is slated for both PS4 and Xbox One – it'll just hit PS4 first.

"Honestly, we've had enough trouble with our promise for a simultaneous release for Luftrausers, so by getting rid of parity we'd be able to focus on one platform for Nuclear Throne first. We also liked that we got to honor our long and super-pleasant cooperation with the people at Sony that way."

Much more at the link.

This is a pretty funny loophole, and could explain all the "exclusive launch" wording we saw at Gamescom.


Update: Vlambeer guy tha_rami stopped by the thread to explain more:

Originally Posted by tha_rami

As for those tweets earlier tonight, I posted that because I genuinely had a good talk with Chris Charla. It wasn't awkward or upset, just congratulations with the announcements and some talk about the whole thing that went down. After that, we switched back to talking future plans and Nuclear Throne. It was super pleasant, especially considering we had just semi-broken NDA (apparently Microsoft had already mentioned launch parity before, so I guess legally we're fine anyway) and told them how that deal came to be.

If Microsoft had thrown any threats around, you'd be reading about those in the press right now. We really don't take lightly to legal nonsense like that. If we gave at all about Microsoft getting upset we would not have mentioned that story at all, but we don't, really. We care about letting the indie developer scene know what string are attached to which deal. If Sony ever turns sour, we'll let you know. If OUYA is being a pain, we'll let you know. We like transparency. Our whole involvement at ID@Xbox is trying to go through the gauntlet to let developers know what's what. So far, with the exception of the parity clause, our experiences have been quite positive.

You got to hand Chris that compared to the situation a year ago it's sort of amazing that at this point we're talking specific points of improvement over 'well, Microsoft is anti-indie'. The thing is that Chris Charla genuinely cares about indie games. We've been quite happy with how things at ID@Xbox are going so far, we received our dev-kits last week and the team has been super responsive and pro-active. We obviously don't have the level of trust with them that we have with Sony (and it might be that we never will, because we really love Shuhei, Adam, Shahid, Nick and their teams at Sony) - but we do trust that the folks at the ID@Xbox program are trying to do the right thing here. We don't know what caused this particular clause in the contract, but we do believe (and this is based on nothing) that if they could get rid of it, they would.

We'll continue to argue with Microsoft to try and convince them to drop launch parity, because it'd be a shame if we could only release future titles through ID@Xbox through a contractual exception to be negotiated on a case-per-case basis. It would be stupid if games have to be delayed on one platform because of another. It is wrong for a platform to think that they have the position to affect, by default, how someone does business with another platform. If somehow, they can be convinced to drop that, that'd remove one of the really problematic aspects of the program.

In the meanwhile, we're also just really happy that Nuclear Throne is doing so well on Steam Early Access and working with the amazing team at Sony to get LUFTRAUSERS to Vita and PS3 and Nuclear Throne to PS4 and Vita. For Nuclear Throne, it's nice that we now have the time to develop the game properly for all platforms, including Xbox One.

In the end, it does seem that openness is always the best option, but instead of simply slamming ID@Xbox as a bad program for this one clause, we like to see if we can improve those sort of flaws from the inside. As you noticed we do feel we have the moral obligation to be open about our experiences if those affect others in any way. In the end, we do want to see ID@Xbox succeed. We want games on there to be successful. But we don't want them to be successful because of Microsoft, we want them to be successful for the indie scene. The more available development platforms that treat indie developers as a serious part of their business, the better. While there are some flaws left, ID@Xbox is a really, really big step in that direction.

Basically, the reason I'm typing this is because ID@Xbox isn't "all bad" and I just felt it'd be fair to at least offer that perspective for a moment.

That's all for fireside talking with grandpa Rami about indie games today, I guess. I'd love to spend some more time on GAF, but making games as a two-man team sort of confines me to one social medium (and that ended up being my Twitter) and my metric ton of e-mail. If anybody has any questions or so, feel free to throw them that way. We love this place and super-thank you for all the support over the years <3

Last edited by chubigans; 12-05-2013 at 02:52 AM.
shagg_187
lapdance transform pants
(12-04-2013, 07:51 PM)
shagg_187's Avatar
Thanks Mircosoft for providing such greatness to gamers. We would gladly love to beta test the game for you.
bernardobri
Steve, the dog with no powers that we let hang out with us all for some reason
(12-04-2013, 07:52 PM)
bernardobri's Avatar
Genius.
shinobi602
(12-04-2013, 07:52 PM)
shinobi602's Avatar
I'm not really surprised.
Ouren
Member
(12-04-2013, 07:52 PM)
Ouren's Avatar
buahahaha

Why EVEN BOTHER trying to get on Xbone then? :P

Fucking brilliant.
JLeack
Banned
(12-04-2013, 07:52 PM)
I can't wait to play these games on XB1. Thanks for sharing!
joe2187
owns a house that doesn't even have piss-covered floors.
(12-04-2013, 07:52 PM)
joe2187's Avatar
I cant help but read ID@Xbox as IDI-at-Xbox and sound like Idiot xbox
shagg_187
lapdance transform pants
(12-04-2013, 07:53 PM)
shagg_187's Avatar

Originally Posted by joe2187

I cant help but read ID@Xbox as IDI-at-Xbox and sound like Idiot xbox

Whenever I read it, It seems like Id Software is doing some Xbox thing.
instinct6142
Banned
(12-04-2013, 07:53 PM)

Originally Posted by Ouren

buahahaha

Why EVEN BOTHER making more money?

Fucking brilliant.

fixed.
Ouren
Member
(12-04-2013, 07:53 PM)
Ouren's Avatar

Originally Posted by joe2187

I cant help but read ID@Xbox as IDI-at-Xbox and sound like Idiot xbox

ahhhhhhahaha
oh my god im going to use this at GDC, thank you
Paskil
Member
(12-04-2013, 07:54 PM)
Paskil's Avatar
Glad to see that MS went with launch parity rather than exclusivity in the ID contract. It's a good move on their part and won't alienate anyone like they did in the past with indies on XBL although they were publishing the games then.
gofreak
GAF's Bob Woodward
(12-04-2013, 07:54 PM)
gofreak's Avatar

Originally Posted by chubigans

So it was kind of weird to see a lot of indie games announced as being "exclusive console debut" thingys during various press conferences and announcements. A few wondered if this had to do with maybe some moneyhats of some sort, or simply because XB1 hadn't had their indie stuff ready in time, etc.

As it turns out, Vlambeer signed an exclusive one month debut with Sony because that was the only way Nuclear Throne would be accepted onto the ID@Xbox program.

I think it might be more correct to say that it was the only way to get onto XB1 without being forced into a simultaneous release, which they wouldn't have had the resources for. By quickly signing with Sony, before MS made their programme public, they were able to get out of that clause.

If they had waited on signing with Sony, MS would still have accepted them...but they'd have had to get the game ready for XB1 for a simultaneous launch.
USC-fan
aka Kbsmoker
(12-04-2013, 07:55 PM)

There had been mentions beforehand that there was a launch parity clause in the contract

Wait a fucking minute...

is this is why all these game on ps4 got post launch patches that "unlocked" 1080p! WTF!!! That some bullshit....

This is fucking terrible... wow...
oVerde
Banned
(12-04-2013, 07:56 PM)
I had to read the title and OP a couple of times to get it. I was thinking the OP stated something and title other.
BigDug13
Member
(12-04-2013, 07:56 PM)
BigDug13's Avatar
Yeah this is better than what it used to be where you were required to have something exclusive to Xbox to even get your game approved.
Nirolak
Mrgrgr
(12-04-2013, 07:56 PM)
Nirolak's Avatar

Originally Posted by USC-fan

Wait a fucking minute...

is this is why all these game on ps4 got post launch patches that "unlocked" 1080p! WTF!!! That some bullshit....

Launch date parity.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
(12-04-2013, 07:56 PM)
Salvor.Hardin's Avatar
So does that finally confirm that the ID program wasn't a knee jerk reaction to Sony's indie announcement? Because it seems like MS were discussing their ID program well in advance.
Bsigg12
Member
(12-04-2013, 07:56 PM)

Originally Posted by USC-fan

Wait a fucking minute...

is this is why all these game on ps4 got post launch patches that "unlocked" 1080p! WTF!!! That some bullshit....

No....this only applies to ID@Xbox games...
WolfForager
Member
(12-04-2013, 07:56 PM)
Anyone else confused as hell until about half way through the OP?
Monosukoi
Member
(12-04-2013, 07:57 PM)
Monosukoi's Avatar

Originally Posted by joe2187

I cant help but read ID@Xbox as IDI-at-Xbox and sound like Idiot xbox

Really? I always read it as I DAT XBOX
Eusis
Member
(12-04-2013, 07:57 PM)
Eusis's Avatar
I don't even like forced parity with big third parties (even if it is kind of grating for something like MP to be sliced off a Wii U game), but it's worse for indies where it's literally doing the best with what resources they have, and tackling one before the other. At least you can reasonably expect bigger companies to have the resources to handle both at once, even though many that aren't on AAA budgets can easily have issues. Probably not as much as last gen though, with storage and architectures being more or less a non-issue this time.

... Though given some of the other policies Microsoft can have at times it probably isn't a bad idea to leave them out in the cold even for bigger publishers if said policies still persist and get in the way of the game, like what seemingly happened with Elder Scrolls Online.
chubigans
y'all should be ashamed
(12-04-2013, 07:57 PM)
chubigans's Avatar

Originally Posted by gofreak

I think it might be more correct to say that it was the only way to get onto XB1 without being forced into a simultaneous release, which they wouldn't have had the resources for. By quickly signing with Sony, before MS made their programme public, they were able to get out of that clause.

If they had waited on signing with Sony, MS would still have accepted them...but they'd have had to get the game ready for XB1 for a simultaneous launch.

Ah your right, fixed.
Tobor
Look!
A crack addict with a tag!
(12-04-2013, 07:58 PM)
Tobor's Avatar

Originally Posted by Paskil

Glad to see that MS went with launch parity rather than exclusivity in the ID contract. It's a good move on their part and won't alienate anyone like they did in the past with indies on XBL although they were publishing the games then.

Most indie devs don't have the resources for launch parity. What this contract means in reality is that you can't release on Xbox unless you release on Xbox first or delay launching elsewhere until your Xbox port is ready.

Vlambeer got a loophole this time, what about the next time around?
Argyle
Member
(12-04-2013, 07:59 PM)
Argyle's Avatar
So wait, what they are saying is that in the future, if I wanted to launch first on PS4 (or Wii U for that matter) for any reason (Sony pubfund, simply limited resources, etc.) then I would not be able to release on Xbox at a later date?

Originally Posted by Salvor.Hardin

So does that finally confirm that the ID program wasn't a knee jerk reaction to Sony's indie announcement? Because it seems like MS were discussing their ID program well in advance.

Let's put it this way, it'll probably be several months to a year before we see any self published games on Xbone, whereas I'm pretty sure there were a few available at launch on PS4. That should tell you what you need to know.
Last edited by Argyle; 12-04-2013 at 08:02 PM.
justsomeguy
Member
(12-04-2013, 07:59 PM)
justsomeguy's Avatar

Originally Posted by gofreak

I think it might be more correct to say that it was the only way to get onto XB1 without being forced into a simultaneous release, which they wouldn't have had the resources for. By quickly signing with Sony, before MS made their programme public, they were able to get out of that clause.

If they had waited on signing with Sony, MS would still have accepted them...but they'd have had to get the game ready for XB1 for a simultaneous launch.

They could have launched first on XB1 and later on PS?

I guess either a) maybe Sony are insisting on parity-or-first, or b) maybe they are just further along on their PS4 code.
Insane Metal
Dispensed Internet Salt
(12-04-2013, 07:59 PM)
Insane Metal's Avatar
Uh. I don't understand this. What does it mean?
chubigans
y'all should be ashamed
(12-04-2013, 08:00 PM)
chubigans's Avatar

Originally Posted by Argyle

So wait, what they are saying is that in the future, if I wanted to launch first on PS4 (or Wii U for that matter) for any reason (Sony pubfund, simply limited resources, etc.) then I would not be able to release on Xbox at a later date?

Correct. It sucks.

In the past, MS allowed devs to do this but only if they offered new content in their ports. Now I don't think that's even an option anymore.
aly
Member
(12-04-2013, 08:00 PM)
aly's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tobor

Most indie devs don't have the resources for launch parity. What this contract means in reality is that you can't release on Xbox unless you release on Xbox first or delay launching elsewhere until your Xbox port is ready.

Vlambeer got a loophole this time, what about the next time around?

That's what it means? That would completely suck though.
USC-fan
aka Kbsmoker
(12-04-2013, 08:00 PM)

Originally Posted by Nirolak

Launch date parity.

Where does it say only launch date parity?

Originally Posted by Bsigg12

No....this only applies to ID@Xbox games...


That we know about.... Way too much smoke at this point...

Let albert said, you think MS will give up 30% in power to sony.... Yeah they will force devs to make the game equals by holding back PS4 version. This is shitty any way you look at it.
Last edited by USC-fan; 12-04-2013 at 08:08 PM.
gofreak
GAF's Bob Woodward
(12-04-2013, 08:00 PM)
gofreak's Avatar

Originally Posted by Argyle

So wait, what they are saying is that in the future, if I wanted to launch first on PS4 (or Wii U for that matter) for any reason (Sony pubfund, simply limited resources, etc.) then I would not be able to release on Xbox at a later date?

Yeah, I honestly am not sure how that will work. If a game becomes HUGE -say on PC and PS4 - will MS really turn away a XB1 version later?

Maybe there are workarounds...like slightly tweaked versions or new content.
coolasj19
Why are you reading my tag instead of the title of my post?
(12-04-2013, 08:01 PM)
coolasj19's Avatar
Goddamit all. I thought we could get out on the right foot and get MS to shove it with the forced parity. Or at the very least we wouldn't hear about it. Thankfully, it's at least a downgrade of you have to release on our system first or some other things. Then again, I'm sure Sony does it too and we just don't know about it. <-- This sentence is irrelevant because multiple people at Sony have said they don't do that. Adam Boyes and the like. I've always thought that that clause ran the risk of pushing developers away but, apparently that's never gonna happen.

Gonna expand on the pushing away. If the PS4 ends up having all of the popular indie games, which might happen. There might be no audience for the XB1 crowd and thus, not profitable to port it over at any point in time. Right now I see big people like Jonathon Blows studio ( The Witness ) and SuperGiantGames ( Transitor ) missing. Does that mean that right now, if they can't work out a deal, those games are forever exclusive unless they can bend the rules for those specific developers?

There's also other stuff going on that makes this awful, indie devs are alright walking tightropes developing for consoles, Greg Kassivin has said it a few times, even porting can destroy you ( Projekt CD Red, Introversion ) so MS is forcing a decision. Be on XB1 and PS4 ( if you have the resources ), be on XB1 only ( launch on PS4 later ), or be on PS4 ( possibly never launch on XB1 ). I want to see who makes what decision.

Then again, there are indie devs in NeoGAF that can bring more insight than my wild speculation...
Last edited by coolasj19; 12-04-2013 at 08:08 PM.
V_Ben
Member
(12-04-2013, 08:01 PM)
V_Ben's Avatar
Glad they were able to get out of that loophole, but it's supremely weird of Microsoft to have a clause like that. Surely the whole point of a program to allow self publishing is to let developers release content on your platform when they want to. Ugh.
AkelisRain
Member
(12-04-2013, 08:01 PM)
AkelisRain's Avatar
Can someone put this in simpler terms, I am not sure if I am understanding what is being said.
Rhindle
Member
(12-04-2013, 08:01 PM)
Rhindle's Avatar
I don't get the logic. You have the ability/resources to do a simultaneous launch on both platforms, or you don't.

If these guys did not, how did signing up for exclusive launch with Sony help their cause? They could have just as easily (or more easily) signed the MS agreement and left their options open (either release on both platforms or just one).
justsomeguy
Member
(12-04-2013, 08:02 PM)
justsomeguy's Avatar
Anyone know what Sony insists on in this area, if anything?


Note: Lest it be misconstrued, I am asking from genuine interest rather than any kind of trolling or agenda, given my employer.
oVerde
Banned
(12-04-2013, 08:02 PM)

Originally Posted by Argyle

So wait, what they are saying is that in the future, if I wanted to launch first on PS4 (or Wii U for that matter) for any reason (Sony pubfund, simply limited resources, etc.) then I would not be able to release on Xbox at a later date?

not throught ID@Xbox, you might go find a publisher or keep trying.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
(12-04-2013, 08:03 PM)
Salvor.Hardin's Avatar

Originally Posted by Insane Metal

Uh. I don't understand this. What does it mean?

In order to publish a game under the ID program, you must make sure that the game will come out on the XBO on the same day as it will on the PS4. However, if you happened to sign a time exclusive deal with Sony before entering into an agreement with MS, you're not bound to release the game on the XBO on the same day.

Indies are small and tend not to have enough resources to develop for two consoles at the same time. That's why a bunch of companiea quickly signed a time exclusive with Sony first so that they could work on the games onw at a time.
FullMetaltech
Member
(12-04-2013, 08:03 PM)
FullMetaltech's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tobor

Most indie devs don't have the resources for launch parity. What this contract means in reality is that you can't release on Xbox unless you release on Xbox first or delay launching elsewhere until your Xbox port is ready.

Vlambeer got a loophole this time, what about the next time around?

Next time around means then they have no choice but to do a simultaneous release if they sign a contract.
BigDug13
Member
(12-04-2013, 08:03 PM)
BigDug13's Avatar

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Anyone know what Sony insists on in this area, if anything?


Note: Lest it be misconstrued, I am asking from genuine interest rather than any kind of trolling or agenda, given my employer.

They probably insist on something if you want to be published by them. Probably not for pure indies.
Wereroku
Member
(12-04-2013, 08:03 PM)
Wereroku's Avatar

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Anyone know what Sony insists on in this area, if anything?


Note: Lest it be misconstrued, I am asking from genuine interest rather than any kind of trolling or agenda, given my employer.

They don't. Their stance is that it hurts developers. The only exception is if you get pubfund money then they get exclusivity for I think a year.
MThanded
Banned
(12-04-2013, 08:04 PM)
MThanded's Avatar

As it turns out, Vlambeer signed an exclusive one month debut with Sony because that was the only way Nuclear Throne would be accepted onto the ID@Xbox program w/o having to do a simultaneous XB1/PS4 launch.

I have read this sentence 10 times. I still don't understand it.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
(12-04-2013, 08:04 PM)
Salvor.Hardin's Avatar

Originally Posted by Argyle

Let's put it this way, it'll probably be several months to a year before we see any self published games on Xbone, whereas I'm pretty sure there were a few available at launch on PS4. That should tell you what you need to know.

Wow. It's like you didn't read the OP at all.
Barkley's Justice
Member
(12-04-2013, 08:04 PM)
Barkley's Justice's Avatar
I could see how the clause is fair if you want the 2 free dev kits and the Unity license. Otherwise, if you don't want to participate in the parity clause, MS should then simply not offer the free shit, but perhaps make it available at a discounted rate.
electroshockwave
Member
(12-04-2013, 08:04 PM)
electroshockwave's Avatar

Originally Posted by Salvor.Hardin

So does that finally confirm that the ID program wasn't a knee jerk reaction to Sony's indie announcement? Because it seems like MS were discussing their ID program well in advance.

As far as I can tell Nuclear Throne/Wasteland Kings was only announced a few months ago so I don't see how this indicates that the ID program wasn't a reactionary move by MS.
Raymo
Member
(12-04-2013, 08:05 PM)
Raymo's Avatar
I don't understand this. It's says this would only work for games that had exclusivity before the announcement of ID@Xbox. So, these talks were had before ID@Xbox was announced? It's a smart move by the developers, but the loop hole no longer exists. Doesn't seem like a misstep by MS. This developer just had early access to the program.

Edit: I'm saying ms didn't misstep by including a loophole. That was temporary. I agree the forced day one parity is shitty.
Last edited by Raymo; 12-04-2013 at 09:08 PM.
MThanded
Banned
(12-04-2013, 08:06 PM)
MThanded's Avatar
Does this mean going forwards if you launch on ps4 first you cant launch on xbox 1 at a later date?

I'm still confused. That sentence in the OP confused me.
USC-fan
aka Kbsmoker
(12-04-2013, 08:06 PM)

Originally Posted by AkelisRain

Can someone put this in simpler terms, I am not sure if I am understanding what is being said.

If you launch a game on both consoles after this program was started. You have to have launch parity on both platform. So for PS4 owner you game would have to nerf to match the xbone version. So devs couldnt use the extra power of ps4 unless it was patched in after launch. For indie dev this would have to be tough.

Like how cod ghost and AV4 got post launch patches to 1080p. Its so silly and shitty...
FullMetaltech
Member
(12-04-2013, 08:07 PM)
FullMetaltech's Avatar

Originally Posted by MThanded

I have read this sentence 10 times. I still don't understand it.

Developing for 2 different systems would take alot of resources and time which they dont have. So focusing on one platform to launch first then work on the next one helps them out. Thats the loophole before signing the contract though.
Last edited by FullMetaltech; 12-04-2013 at 08:09 PM.
chubigans
y'all should be ashamed
(12-04-2013, 08:07 PM)
chubigans's Avatar

Originally Posted by MThanded

Does this mean going forwards if you launch on ps4 first you cant launch on xbox 1 at a later date?

That is correct. However I'm not quite clear if that also includes PC releases. Surely it doesn't.
Bsigg12
Member
(12-04-2013, 08:07 PM)

Originally Posted by MThanded

I have read this sentence 10 times. I still don't understand it.

They were worried that they wouldn't be able to handle simultaneous launch between Xbox One and PS4. The ID@Xbox program has a clause saying if you want in, and you're launching on another system, you have to have parity at launch. So before the program started, they signed the 1 month exclusivity deal with Sony to avoid the parity clause but still be under the ID@Xbox umbrella.

Thread Tools