No, the situation is not the same.Originally Posted by Salvor.Hardin
Wouldn't they be in the same exact situation - working on one console before the other?
Edit: Assuming they signed with MS first. Not sure how they would not know about the clause.
Yep. Same old Microsoft bullshit.Yes, and in turn could turn other games into pseudo timed exclusives for Xbox because it doesn't say anything about launching first on Xbox then going elsewhere. At least that's how I'm seeing it.
They can only get away with it as long as they have a competitive sized install base. Will be interesting to see if Microsoft is forced to change their tune in a year from now.So, moving forward -- indie devs will either be delaying their games on the Wii U and PS4 in order to get it on the X1 (in case they had decided to focus on one platform at a time, for example), or it won't get there at all?
Well, that really fucking sucks.
I thought they were done strong-arming indies.
If you want to release on XB1 you have to release it at the same time as all other platforms unless you already have a deal with another platform (loophole). Otherwise you wont be accepted into ID@Xbox.Originally Posted by Insane Metal
Uh. I don't understand this. What does it mean?
The one-month exclusivity to Sony's platforms is so they can actually release a game that's already nearly done. If they didn't they'd be sitting on the PS4 version and unable to release it until the XB1 version is done.Still makes no sense to sign an exclusive with Sony.
By doing so, you've reduced your option set to 1 - launch exclusively on one and wait out Sony's exclusivity period.
How is that better than signing up for development on both platforms, and retaining the option to launch on one platform (XB1) or both concurrently? Unless you're getting some finanical support or other benefits from Sony for signing an exclusive, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
BF4 launched at 900p on PS4.Where does it say only launch date parity?
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.
Isn't that obvious though? How could you sign a time exclusive after you've already signed up for another platform? I don't think any company would take kindly to that and it would be prerty underhanded of a dev to do.The important thing I think you're missing is that microsoft is only willing to make an exception for indies who made a deal with sony before microsoft announced their ID@Xbox program, unless I'm reading it wrong.
Thanks. Finally got it.Originally Posted by alatif113
If you want to release on XB1 you have to release it at the same time as all other platforms unless you already have a deal with another platform (loophole). Otherwise you wont be accepted into ID@Xbox.
Simply:
1) Release on XB! first or at the same time as other platforms = accepted for ID@Xbox
2) Otherwise (except for the loophole mentioned above) = not accepted for ID@Xbox
*Thats what im getting from it
So, if a game was in development on a PS4. And launches next month.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.
Because, the 1 month of exclusivity is not necessarily how long it takes to port the game. Maybe it will come out 2 months after it ends, maybe a year, but because they have a contract with Sony already, they are exempt from the rule.Still makes no sense to sign an exclusive with Sony.
By doing so, you've reduced your option set to 1 - launch exclusively on one and wait out Sony's exclusivity period.
How is that better than signing up for development on both platforms, and retaining the option to launch on one platform (XB1) or both concurrently? Unless you're getting some finanical support or other benefits from Sony for signing an exclusive, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
See, that's what I'm wondering. What happens if a dev makes way more than enough money on the PS4 and PC? Then they have to balance out for the next game whether to even bother with an XB1 port. Is the audience there? Will it sell enough to compensate for the time and energy? Will it hamper the game? All dumb and unnecessary questions that only arise because of the parity clause.Currently there is no other announced way to be an indie developer with Microsoft so they may not ever change this clause because it is helpful to them and most indies will not want to miss out on the revenue of the XBO.
Also Robert does this mean that the pc/ps4 versions of Cosmic Star will be delayed from the kickstarter estimates?
Fine, so you sign with Sony if Sony offers a better deal for exclusity. That has nothing to do with the launch parity clause.Because signing an exclusivity deal probably gets you some upfront money too or extra promotion.
Launching day and date on both consoles doesn't get you this.
If it applies to PC then MS is really screwing themselves over. So many breakout hits start on PC.Applies to PC as well I am sure. We will see.
Ugh, that's awful.This launch parity is also the reason Forced was delayed on Wii U. Devs said they could've had the game out early, but because of this crap they have to delay the release until it's ready for the Xbox.
It has everything to do with the launch parity clause. You can start gaining income from one while you work on the port for the other. Otherwise you are splitting man hours between both consoles and delaying possibly income from one of those consoles.Fine, so you sign with Sony if Sony offers a better deal for exclusity. That has nothing to do with the launch parity clause.
As a small developer, you most likely won't have the resources to work on both concurrently, which translates into working on one first and then the other. Considering how difficult it is to keep the lights on at the best of times, if you can get one version out and generating revenue for you immediately while working on the subsequent versions, that's a much better scenario than having a finished product sitting in the can while you work on another version due to the Xbone parity clause.Still makes no sense to sign an exclusive with Sony.
By doing so, you've reduced your option set to 1 - launch exclusively on one and wait out Sony's exclusivity period.
How is that better than signing up for development on both platforms, and retaining the option to launch on one platform (XB1) or both concurrently? Unless you're getting some finanical support or other benefits from Sony for signing an exclusive, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
That's how I read it, and that's lame.So this has the potential to delay games on the ps4 that could have launched weeks in advance.
Also straining indies to develop on two systems simultaneously.
I'd argue that it does. Have you seen Indie Game: The Movie by any chance? Releasing on one platform is enough pressure as it is for a small team of a handful of people or less. Signing an MS contract and being forced to release two or three (or more) versions at the same time sounds like hell to me.Still makes no sense to sign an exclusive with Sony.
By doing so, you've reduced your option set to 1 - launch exclusively on one and wait out Sony's exclusivity period.
How is that better than signing up for development on both platforms, and retaining the option to launch on one platform (XB1) or both concurrently? Unless you're getting some finanical support or other benefits from Sony for signing an exclusive, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
My understanding is that you can choose which console to publish on first.No, the situation is not the same.
Would they still be working on one console before the other, yes. Would they still be releasing on one console before the other? No. That flexibility has been removed.
Yeah. Pretty much so. I do agree that it does give time to polish others version in that time but with limited resources this becomes a problem.This is fucking terrible.
If a small dev wants to focus on one version at a time and pushing out the game as fast as they'd like, they are basically being strong-armed into developing for the Xbox One and putting that version out first.
I can't see MS not letting a dev release a game if it was initially developed for PC. I think this is more of an attempt to prevent devs signing exclusivity deals with Sony.Originally Posted by chubigans
If it applies to PC then MS is really screwing themselves over. So many breakout hits start on PC.
Ugh, that's awful.
That was only true back in August when games were being announced for PS4.Originally Posted by Salvor.Hardin
My understanding is that you can choose which console to publish on first.
If you prefer to release on the PS4 first, you sign a time exclusive deal with Sony and then go to MS. If you want to go MS first, you can do that as well. And if you have the capacity to do both, you can do that too.
The only thing this changes is how an indie approaches the signing process. If he signs with MS first, and doesn't have the capacity to work on two consoles at the same time, then he's obligated to release on MS first.
In other words, nothing really changes fkr the dev.
I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say? Do you mean how could you sign a timed exclusive when you've already signed up for timed exclusivity with another platform? Obviously that would be breach of contract, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about being able to publish a game on the xbox one at all, ever, in any future time on planet earth, if you, for whatever reason, publish somewhere else first.Originally Posted by Salvor.Hardin
Isn't that obvious though? How could you sign a time exclusive after you've already signed up for another platform? I don't think any company would take kindly to that and it would be prerty underhanded of a dev to do.
Originally Posted by GravityMan
Thinking ahead to the future, this seems like an attempt by Microsoft to get indies to release timed exclusives for Xbox One. Taking advantage of the fact that most indies don't have the resources to handle simultaneous development. Indies would either concentrate on the Xbox One version first, or delay all versions (PS4/Wii U/PC) until the X1 version is ready and then release all same day and date.
You understand wrong. The window of opportunity is now closed.Originally Posted by Salvor.Hardin
My understanding is that you can choose which console to publish on first.
If you prefer to release on the PS4 first, you sign a time exclusive deal with Sony and then go to MS. If you want to go MS first, you can do that as well. And if you have the capacity to do both, you can do that too.
The only thing this changes is how an indie approaches the signing process. If he signs with MS first, and doesn't have the capacity to work on two consoles at the same time, then he's obligated to release on MS first.
In other words, nothing really changes fkr the dev.
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.
That was a loophole that worked before ID@Xbox contracts got out there. If you signed with sony already they can't stop you from launching first.Originally Posted by Netherscourge
I've read this three times and I still don't understand what the hell happened.
Why would Microsoft have language in their Indie ToS that would encourage Indie developers to sign a timed-exclusive contract with Sony before coming over to the XB1?
Does this only applies to indies or big 3rd party publisher also? Because it actually hurts indie more.As a small developer, you most likely won't have the resources to work on both concurrently, which translates into working on one first and then the other. Considering how difficult it is to keep the lights on at the best of times, if you can get one version out and generating revenue for you immediately while working on the subsequent versions, that's a much better scenario than having a finished product sitting in the can while you work on another version due to the Xbone parity clause.
From the MS side, I totally get it. From the developer's side, not so much. I'm glad it worked out for Vlambeer.
That clause is now removed. The dev in the OP took advantage of the loophole because ID@'s terms were not set yet.Originally Posted by Salvor.Hardin
My understanding is that you can choose which console to publish on first.
If you prefer to release on the PS4 first, you sign a time exclusive deal with Sony and then go to MS. If you want to go MS first, you can do that as well. And if you have the capacity to do both, you can do that too.
The only thing this changes is how an indie approaches the signing process. If he signs with MS first, and doesn't have the capacity to work on two consoles at the same time, then he's obligated to release on MS first.
In other words, nothing really changes fkr the dev.
I agree but I really don't know. If you started development today on a game and it was going to be ps4/xbo/pc but you could get the pc game out sooner as a beta on steam for example would microsoft let you do that or would they make you hold that version as well since it would not have release day parity or is it strictly console oriented? Can any of the developers let us know this or would that be under NDA.Originally Posted by chubigans
If it applies to PC then MS is really screwing themselves over. So many breakout hits start on PC.
| Thread Tools | |