then develop for your system of choice and then sign up? its not like once you build for one system, you build from the ground up again considering the similar architecture they both have now to pc development.It's not just free tools, it's access to the program. If you aren't in the program, you aren't releasing self published games on Xbox.
Also, we don't know if this will apply to devs who use retail Xbox Ones as dev kits. This clause could be strictly for those receiving 2 full devkits. Since we haven't seen a full copy of the contract there is a lot of details missing.
ID@Xbox, more like IDi@Tbox am i right?
Fine, so assume you're only developing on one platform because you have limited resources and need to release some version of the game ASAP.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.
If you decide to develop exclusively on PS4, then you're developing exclusively on PS4 whether you signed an exclusivity deal with Sony or not. If you decide to develop exclusively on X1, then you're complying with Microsoft's contract language regardless.
The point is that the platform parity clause should not affect your behavior either way, and I don'd see what putative benefit they gained by signing an exclusivity deal with Sony.
I'd like to know if this parity contract says something about PC too. That would be wild. MS is too turnt up. Turn down fools.
Is this the ass storm?
You can always count on Microsoft to come up with some daft rules.
This is some bullshit.
Man! The more I think about it, the more annoying this is! The whole point of self publishing is to allow devs to release their game whenever they see fit, right? This is in complete contradiction to that! We are back to arbitrary restrictions that not only limit how and when developers release their games but hold back their earnings until they can release on the xbox as well, if that was part of the plan. The only option if you are not ready yet, is to not publish for the platform at all. WTF, MS? How is this supposed to attract more devs?
Yes that is how they whitelist your box.Do you have to become a ID@Xbox enrollee to utilize your retail unit as a dev kit? Once that functionality is rolled out of course.
This is specifically what they are disallowing. You have to start on XBO first if you can only do one platform at a time and you want it released while working on the others.Originally Posted by instinct6142
then develop for your system of choice and then sign up? its not like once you build for one system, you build from the ground up again considering the similar architecture they both have now to pc development.
I would too. I could see them getting away with strong arming developers into finishing the xbox versions before the ps4 versions (even though the MS tools for indies sound like they're a lot less far along), but if this applies to Steam and GoG as well... lol.I'd like to know if this parity contract says something about PC too. That would be wild. MS is too turnt up. Turn down fools.
While this is something you should always keep in mind without seeing the contracts for yourself, I do think a key difference this time is that the decision makers at Sony were forced to try and view this all from the perspective of a indie developer and what they need to worry about, so I suspect they'll be relatively tame or at least deals that compromise what a platform holder would want and what an indie developer needs to survive. Microsoft in contrast seems to ONLY be looking at this fromt he view of the platform holder, whether or not some of the staff tried to understand the indie standpoint (I do suspect a good chunk of them did actually) those who made the final calls either didn't try or didn't care.Originally Posted by RamzaIsCool
This can bite MS in the ass, especially when the PS4 keeps selling gangbusters. Then again who knows what kind of weird clauses Sony has.
You're missing the point. You either release on Xbox at the same time you release on other consoles, or you don't release on Xbox at all.Originally Posted by instinct6142
then develop for your system of choice and then sign up? its not like once you build for one system, you build from the ground up again considering the similar architecture they both have now to pc development.
Most indie devs don't have the resources to do multiple simultaneous releases.
Because otherwise they wouldn't be able to release their game on the XB1 without delaying the PS4 version. And delaying a completely finished game from going on sale is never really a smart thing to do.The point is that the platform parity clause should not affect your behavior either way, and I don'd see what putative benefit they gained by signing an exclusivity deal with Sony.
They only signed the exclusivity contract with Sony to get around MS's parity clause. That loophole is now closed. It's either release on Xbone first/day and date with PS4, or don't release on Xbone at all.Fine, so assume you're only developing on one platform because you have limited resources and need to release some version of the game ASAP.
If you decide to develop exclusively on PS4, then you're developing exclusively on PS4 whether you signed an exclusivity deal with Sony or not. If you decide to develop exclusively on X1, then you're complying with Microsoft's contract language regardless.
The point is that the platform parity clause should not affect your behavior either way, and I don'd see what putative benefit they gained by signing an exclusivity deal with Sony.
Nice, Microsoft. Mandate an effort from indie developers that fucking Respawn Entertainment, maker of your beloved TitanFall, said was a little too hard for them.
Makes sense from a biz standpoint for the console holder. I guess the free dev tools are the carrot for the developer but it kinda hamstrings them if resources are limited.
Exactly! :/Originally Posted by Salvor.Hardin
Oh damn. If that sales gap continues to grow in Sony's favor, this could turn out to be disastrous for MS, with indies choosing to forgo XBO completely.
(Though in that case hopefully they'll get rid of the clause before it hurts both indie developers AND themselves.)
You're not getting it.Fine, so assume you're only developing on one platform because you have limited resources and need to release some version of the game ASAP.
If you decide to develop exclusively on PS4, then you're developing exclusively on PS4 whether you signed an exclusively deal with Sony or not. If you decide to develop exclusively on X1, then you're compying with Microsoft's contract language.
The point is that the platform parity clause should not affect your behavior either way, and I don'd see what putative benefit they gained by signing an exclusivity deal with Sony.
By signing the exclusivity deal earlier in the year with Sony, Vlambeer maintained their flexibility to launch their game on their terms, ie. PS4 first and Xbone later. If they had not signed that exclusivity deal, that flexibility is no longer available and they're forced into a day and date release.
That platform parity clause will affect indie dev behaviour going forward, as the loophole is now closed. How do you not understand this?
This could backfire gloriously. Does the clause include PC into the mix too, because for some indie devs it might be better to just release ps4, PC versions and skip xbone.
It's almost as if you didn't read the OP :)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.
Do you not see the irony of a "self-publishing" program that forces indie developers to release on the XB1 first or at the same time as the other versions?Originally Posted by instinct6142
then develop for your system of choice and then sign up? its not like once you build for one system, you build from the ground up again considering the similar architecture they both have now to pc development.
Why would they have to delay the PS4 release again? The MS contract language doesn't require launch exclusivity, just parity.Because otherwise they wouldn't be able to release their game on the XB1 without delaying the PS4 version. And delaying a completely finished game from going on sale is never really a smart thing to do.
They specifically said other console platforms.This could backfire gloriously. Does the clause include PC into the mix too, because for some indie devs it might be better to just release ps4, PC versions and skip xbone.
Because the PS4 version may be ready but the Xbone version is not?Why would they have to delay the PS4 release again? The MS contract language doesn't require launch exclusivity, just parity.
No.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.
Here are your options going forwards
1. Release on xbox one first
2. Release on xbox one and ps4 at the same time
3. Release on ps4 without an xbox one version and you can't release an xbox one version at all.
Vlambeer's situation only worked because they exploited a loophole by singing an exclusivity contract early. You no longer can do that.
I actually raised this issue a few months ago:
Turns out the workaround is to ask Sony for a contract. LOL.Something I don't understand at the moment is that one of the requirements of ID@Xbox is release day parity, as noted in this Gamasutra article and elsewhere. So surely that rules out late ports? Would be nice to know how devs plan to work around that.
no i don't really see the irony, its a business plan, if they are giving you free dev tools that is not provided by the competitor, you would think they would want something in exchange. that is parity or exclusivity.Do you not see the irony of a "self-publishing" program that forces indie developers to release on the XB1 first or at the same time as the other versions?
1. PS4 version is complete.Why would they have to delay the PS4 release again? The MS contract language doesn't require launch exclusivity, just parity.
2. Xbone version is in development.
3. PS4 release is now delayed until the Xbone version is ready thanks to this clause.
This seems like a good way to turn down some good games that just might now have looked at xbox for various reasons.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
I assume they probably will have some "you can port a old game to xbox if you include some extra content" clause?
Parity means day and date release. So you can either release on Xbone first, you can release simultaneously, or you can release on Xbone exclusively. If you only have time to get one ready for release at a time and that one happens be the PS4 version, then only option 2 is available to you.Why would they have to delay the PS4 release again? The MS contract language doesn't require launch exclusivity, just parity.
Can anyone actually post the clause? I get that it is probably not possible, but I'm hoping the anonymity the internet allows will mean someone posts it.
I feel like there may be room for misinterpretation in what is being said. Any contracts I've ever read pertaining to market dates and the like specifically reference the term date so I want to know if launch day parity means means the game has to release at the same time, or the game has to be released at par (same version with updates applied) as a game previously released. I figure this makes more sense, as if a game that was previously exclusive was released on Xbox 1 months after the PS4, MS would want that game to be running with all the same updates and patches from day one to ensure the game is to par with the competitions version.
I feel like there may be room for misinterpretation in what is being said. Any contracts I've ever read pertaining to market dates and the like specifically reference the term date so I want to know if launch day parity means means the game has to release at the same time, or the game has to be released at par (same version with updates applied) as a game previously released. I figure this makes more sense, as if a game that was previously exclusive was released on Xbox 1 months after the PS4, MS would want that game to be running with all the same updates and patches from day one to ensure the game is to par with the competitions version.
Did you guys even read the OP? It's why vlambeer decided at the time to sign with Sony first. There were "mentions". This isn't official confirmation this is even the case.
As for those saying the loophole is closed. Why would Microsoft say this TODAY:
"In instances where games have signed a timed exclusive with another platform, we'll work with them on a case by case basis."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...p-with-id-xbox
As for those saying the loophole is closed. Why would Microsoft say this TODAY:
"In instances where games have signed a timed exclusive with another platform, we'll work with them on a case by case basis."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...p-with-id-xbox
Dude are you doing this on purpose? This is the only way to develop on the platform these devs cannot waive on the free stuff to allow you to waive the platform release parity. It is not in exchange for free stuff it is holding the program hostage.Originally Posted by instinct6142
not i don't really see the irony, its a business plan, if they are giving you free dev tools that is not provided by the competitor, you would think they would want something in exchange.
So it's better not to give developers choices and be locked in because why exactly? Because you prefer a specific platform?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.
Because MS doesn't want bad press?Did you guys even read the OP? It's why vlambeer decided at the time to sign with Sony first. There were "mentions". This isn't official confirmation this is even the case.
As for those saying the loophole is closed. Why would Microsoft say this TODAY:
"In instances where games have signed a timed exclusive with another platform, we'll work with them on a case by case basis."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...p-with-id-xbox
Don't most contracts have to actually use the word "Date" if that is what they mean by parity? My interpretation of parity is that the games need to have any patches or updates in the xbox one version so that it is at par with the competitions version.Parity means day and date release. So you can either release on Xbone first, you can release simultaneously, or can release on Xbone exclusively. If you only have time to get one ready for release at a time and that one happens be the PS4 version, then only option 2 is available to you.
Microsoft really needs to sit down and have a long talk with Microsoft.
And if you don't decide to develop exclusively and are rather just trying to prioritize limited resources to get your game out on as many platforms as and when revenue intake allows it?If you decide to develop exclusively on PS4, then you're developing exclusively on PS4 whether you signed an exclusivity deal with Sony or not. If you decide to develop exclusively on X1, then you're complying with Microsoft's contract language regardless.
As for exclusivity deals, he said, "We do not require exclusivity agreements. However, we do ask for day one parity with other console game platforms."Did you guys even read the OP? It's why vlambeer decided at the time to sign with Sony first. There were "mentions". This isn't official confirmation this is even the case.
As for those saying the loophole is closed. Why would Microsoft say this TODAY:
"In instances where games have signed a timed exclusive with another platform, we'll work with them on a case by case basis."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...p-with-id-xbox
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/198528/
you don't get an interpretation of parity, it's in the dictionary. "day one parity" means just that, they both launch on the same day. the date is the thing here, nothing else. you've just seen 'parity' tossed around too much in console war threads, maybe?Don't most contracts have to actually use the word "Date" if that is what they mean by parity? My interpretation of parity is that the games need to have any patches or updates in the xbox one version so that it is at par with the competitions version.
what is going on in this thread. it's very straightforward.
Then it doesn't make sense why vlambeer would need to avoid this. Most companies would release the newest version of their code on each respective platform. This is concerning the release to market date specifically. If they do not coincide you cannot release on XBO its hard to misinterpret.Don't most contracts have to actually use the word "Date" if that is what they mean by parity? My interpretation of parity is that the games need to have any patches or updates in the xbox one version so that it is at par with the competitions version.
This clause really doesn't benefit anyone at all except MS. Developers either have to sit on a finished product they could be earning money from or dramatically increase their workload. Developers and consumers both lose out, big time.1. PS4 version is complete.
2. Xbone version is in development.
3. PS4 release is now delayed until the Xbone version is ready thanks to this clause.
Did you gloss over the sentence just before that one?Did you guys even read the OP? It's why vlambeer decided at the time to sign with Sony first. There were "mentions". This isn't official confirmation this is even the case.
As for those saying the loophole is closed. Why would Microsoft say this TODAY:
"In instances where games have signed a timed exclusive with another platform, we'll work with them on a case by case basis."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...p-with-id-xbox
That's the discussion we're having, day and date parity."We do not require exclusivity agreements. However, we do ask for day one parity with other console game platforms," a Microsoft spokesperson told SavyGamer.
| Thread Tools | |