Support NeoGAF

[Version 3.0]

Seems weird to sign a contract with the parity clause in it, and, then complain about it.

What's to stop MS from changing the clause if it obviously doesn't stop devs from signing up with it?

It's very normal. You take the deal you can get, and then improve it if you can. You've never heard of, say, refinancing? Renegotiating?

Most of those contracts were probably signed before it became clear that the PS4 is most likely this gen's market leader. Now, with that looking to be the case, that clause could potentially hurt the Xbox One. Dropping it may be a win/win for Microsoft and developers.

 

[mrklaw]

In the industry there are two major platforms. Releasing in both means you make more money. Won't you sign it to make more money? Its all about the money. That does not mean that the contract they are signing is shit. We've all done it and have all signed shit contracts whether it be phone service or other permits, but we do it because that's the most feasible option no matter how shit it is.

Make your platform easier to develop for, with better developer support and access to devkits, and you'll get the game first. Incentivise to achieve that, don't twist arms

 

[The Flash]

https://twitter.com/XboxP3

#noparityclause

 

[skitzyzim]

Microsoft is not in the business of ensuring that people who buy a competing platform have access to the same indie games earlier than their own platform. The idea that some people have that MS is wrong for this clause with their developers just shows that people are out of touch with how business really works in the world. MS is in the business to make money. By having a successful platform with the XB1, parity clauses, bought exclusives, exclusive dlc, ect they are taking steps to make their platform more desirable and to ensure it will succeed. Business 101..

 

[PhatSaqs]

Microsoft is not in the business of ensuring that people who buy a competing platform have access to the same indie games earlier than their own platform. The idea that some people have that MS is wrong for this clause with their developers just shows that people are out of touch with how business really works in the world. MS is in the business to make money. By having a successful platform with the XB1, parity clauses, bought exclusives, exclusive dlc, ect they are taking steps to make their platform more desirable and to ensure it will succeed. Business 101..

I tend to agree with this.

 

[TheUnsunghero26]

The parity clause is dumb, indies already are going to want to put there game on as many platforms as possible, and ironically, the clause makes that harder.

 

[mrklaw]

Microsoft is not in the business of ensuring that people who buy a competing platform have access to the same indie games earlier than their own platform. The idea that some people have that MS is wrong for this clause with their developers just shows that people are out of touch with how business really works in the world. MS is in the business to make money. By having a successful platform with the XB1, parity clauses, bought exclusives, exclusive dlc, ect they are taking steps to make their platform more desirable and to ensure it will succeed. Business 101..

By being behind in sales, and late to the market with a self-publishing offering, they are clearly on the back foot. Strong arm tactics are the simplest approach, but they risk alienating developers and some will simply not be able to afford to sit on one version until the Xbox version is ready.

 

[Mask]

MS still way behind the rest in terms of indie games, which is odd considering how many exclusives XBLA had last gen.

I'm working on my own game, and although I don't expect it to get far, if I somehow managed to get enough interest to port it to consoles, I'd be unlikely to make any Xbox ports due to these stupid contracts.

 

[Version 3.0]

Microsoft is not in the business of ensuring that people who buy a competing platform have access to the same indie games earlier than their own platform. The idea that some people have that MS is wrong for this clause with their developers just shows that people are out of touch with how business really works in the world. MS is in the business to make money. By having a successful platform with the XB1, parity clauses, bought exclusives, exclusive dlc, ect they are taking steps to make their platform more desirable and to ensure it will succeed. Business 101..

Sure - when that contract was written, it made sense. But now, they need to question:

1. Is the visibility and small controversy around this clause worth it? They've had enough bad PR of late.

2. Will this clause result in a significant number of games passing on the Xbox One platform entirely? Now that it looks like the XB1 will have significantly less market share than its predecessor, this is more likely.

Of course the decision is going to come down to what they think is better for their platform, ie. money. But that doesn't mean it's as simple as "it's better to have parity".

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Microsoft is not in the business of ensuring that people who buy a competing platform have access to the same indie games earlier than their own platform. The idea that some people have that MS is wrong for this clause with their developers just shows that people are out of touch with how business really works in the world. MS is in the business to make money. By having a successful platform with the XB1, parity clauses, bought exclusives, exclusive dlc, ect they are taking steps to make their platform more desirable and to ensure it will succeed. Business 101..

Yes, but why should Microsoft being a less viable option mean games are delayed for me? I didn't buy an XBox One, why should I have to suffer it's nonsense?

Indie developers are small, they don't have the ability to just make the game on every platform, they have to prioritise. If they want the game to come out on X1, they have a few options.

1. Release on X1 first, release elsewhere later as they only have the resources to focus on one at a time and no one else enforces such assinine clauses on indies.
2. Release on all platforms at the same time, delaying the game even if the game was already finished for the other platforms resulting in financing issues.

I will tell you right now, as a PS4 owner, I shouldn't be impacted by whatever choices Microsoft make on their platform and, yet, here they are. Disgusting.

 

[Frayne Daddy]

Well being as I have an x1 I'm happy that games will release the same time as everyone else. I dont have to worry about a game coming out months after others have played it.

As a ps4 owner you should be asking Sony why this is allowed to happen. It's a business tactic and MS is protecting their product.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Well being as I have an x1 I'm happy that games will release the same time as everyone else. I dont have to worry about a game coming out months after others have played it.

As a ps4 owner you should be asking Sony why this is allowed to happen. It's a business tactic and MS is protecting their product.

So, we should be asking Sony why they are not restricting small studios instead of firing massive restrictions on a game they are not publishing or funding?

Wow.

 

[Frayne Daddy]

So, we should be asking Sony why they are not restricting small studios instead of firing massive restrictions on a game they are not publishing or funding?

Wow.

Well u act as if MS is out to destroy these companies. They are protecting their product first and foremost. From a business stand point I don't see the problem. From a consumer standpoint I don't see how this really affects u. From a a developer stand point I can see where it can cause issues and u know what? Developers don't have to sign the contract. They can make games just for sony and PC..... But the scales haven't tipped that far so it must not be to bad for them either.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Well u act as if MS is out to destroy these companies. They are protecting their product first and foremost. From a business stand point I don't see the problem. From a consumer standpoint I don't see how this really affects u. From a a developer stand point I can see where it can cause issues and u know what? Developers don't have to sign the contract. They can make games just for sony and PC..... But the scales haven't tipped that far so it must not be to bad for them either.

The games aren't their product though, they aren't funding or publishing them. No one should have a say in how someone decides to release their game. From a consumer point of view, I have to wait for a game that could have been released earlier, just for them to finish another version to get parity. It's anti-consumer, unless you're their consumer and, since I'm not their consumer, why should I be impacted by their contracts? I see this being relaxed anyway as more and more indie developers go where the user base is and then Microsoft will be forced to relax it or just not have the games.

 

[Nafai1123]

Well u act as if MS is out to destroy these companies. They are protecting their product first and foremost. From a business stand point I don't see the problem. From a consumer standpoint I don't see how this really affects u. From a a developer stand point I can see where it can cause issues and u know what? Developers don't have to sign the contract. They can make games just for sony and PC..... But the scales haven't tipped that far so it must not be to bad for them either.

And every developer that doesn't sign on doesn't release games for you to play. How exactly does this benefit you as a Xbox owner?

And the idea that the scales haven't tipped is very much up for argument. There are over 1k developers signed on with Sony. MS has about half that.

 

[Frayne Daddy]

The games aren't their product though, they aren't funding or publishing them. No one should have a say in how someone decides to release their game. From a consumer point of view, I have to wait for a game that could have been released earlier, just for them to finish another version to get parity. It's anti-consumer, unless you're their consumer and, since I'm not their consumer, why should I be impacted by their contracts? I see this being relaxed anyway as more and more indie developers go where the user base is and then Microsoft will be forced to relax it or just not have the games.

Well that hasn't really happened yet so I guess we will have to see. Time will tell on how this plays out. Also I'm sure the company can have a say on what and how something gets put on their product. Do you complain that not every app gets put on the App Store? It's MS product they can put whatever restrictions they want on it. Now it's up to the developer community to decide how they want it to play out.

I agree if developers all flock to Sony then we will see it ease up, but that hasn't really happened yet.

 

[Mass Effect]

Microsoft is not in the business of ensuring that people who buy a competing platform have access to the same indie games earlier than their own platform. The idea that some people have that MS is wrong for this clause with their developers just shows that people are out of touch with how business really works in the world. MS is in the business to make money. By having a successful platform with the XB1, parity clauses, bought exclusives, exclusive dlc, ect they are taking steps to make their platform more desirable and to ensure it will succeed. Business 101..

Sure, but then some developers might opt to just skip the Xbox altogether and just go to the other systems, which has already been happening in non-insignificant numbers.

By being behind in sales, and late to the market with a self-publishing offering, they are clearly on the back foot. Strong arm tactics are the simplest approach, but they risk alienating developers and some will simply not be able to afford to sit on one version until the Xbox version is ready.

Exactly. It may do more harm than good as time goes on. It already has actually.

 

[Frayne Daddy]

And every developer that doesn't sign on doesn't release games for you to play. How exactly does this benefit you as a Xbox owner?

And the idea that the scales haven't tipped is very much up for argument. There are over 1k developers signed on with Sony. MS has about half that.

And how many of those 1000 developers are building something of worth? Don't kid yourself. Last time we saw a flock of indie titles on consoles majority of them were shit.

Also the quality indie developers with something of worth will develop for them both. And if they don't then it will be mine and MS loss and I'll hope they ease up... But we aren't seein that. Very high quality indie games are coming to both systems.

 

[Banfield]

Well being as I have an x1 I'm happy that games will release the same time as everyone else. I dont have to worry about a game coming out months after others have played it.

As a ps4 owner you should be asking Sony why this is allowed to happen. It's a business tactic and MS is protecting their product.

Sony is attracting developers in other ways that make more sense. It looks like Xbox will be missing out on some good games because of this, and I would hate the PS4 to suffer the same fate.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

The whole point with indie games is that nothing everything is gold, but that's no different from AAA titles.

You don't know when an indie game will be the next Minecraft, Super Meat Boy, Fez, Braid or whatever, but when it hits, it will have absolutely amazing weight and restrictions easily crumble which just begs the question, why even have the restrictions?

 

[mreddie]

Laugh it up Phil, you're still getting your ass kicked.

 

[turcy]

edit: nevermind.

 

[mrklaw]

Well u act as if MS is out to destroy these companies. They are protecting their product first and foremost. From a business stand point I don't see the problem. From a consumer standpoint I don't see how this really affects u. From a a developer stand point I can see where it can cause issues and u know what? Developers don't have to sign the contract. They can make games just for sony and PC..... But the scales haven't tipped that far so it must not be to bad for them either.

The natural endgame of following your route, is that Sony and Nintendo apply similar restrictions, which is to good for developers. But if they did, you could argue that devs would opt to release on PS4 with the larger userbase, and where Sony engaged with them earlier.

The only reason MS might get away with this is if Sony and Nintendo keep their open policies.

 

[PanicFreak]

By being behind in sales, and late to the market with a self-publishing offering, they are clearly on the back foot. Strong arm tactics are the simplest approach, but they risk alienating developers and some will simply not be able to afford to sit on one version until the Xbox version is ready.

The good thing is that the requirement will probably be waived for all the good games. The crappy games are probably the only ones that will be affected by the parity clause.

 

[boredandlazy]

And how many of those 1000 developers are building something of worth? Don't kid yourself. Last time we saw a flock of indie titles on consoles majority of them were shit.

Also the quality indie developers with something of worth will develop for them both. And if they don't then it will be mine and MS loss and I'll hope they ease up... But we aren't seein that. Very high quality indie games are coming to both systems.

And every indie game published on XBox will be a masterpiece?

 

[The Faceless Master]

Pretty sure Target and Kmart would want products to be on their shelves day and date with competition.

Deadlines are deadlines.

indeed. Target fired a warning shot at other artists by not carrying Beyonce's album

And every indie game published on XBox will be a masterpiece?

"biggest and best"

 

[mrklaw]

The good thing is that the requirement will probably be waived for all the good games. The crappy games are probably the only ones that will be affected by the parity clause.

but then it isn't a self-publishing policy, it's MS applying rules that favour it (apply restrictions, who cares if the chaff falls through, we can waive the parity clause for the good stuff)

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

indeed. Target fired a warning shot at other artists by not carrying Beyonce's album

It was also not sold on Amazon. It was also a number 1 selling album. Refusing to stock it later just resulted in lost potential sales for Target and Amazon proving she didn't need the retailers at all.

 

[Nafai1123]

And how many of those 1000 developers are building something of worth? Don't kid yourself. Last time we saw a flock of indie titles on consoles majority of them were shit.

Also the quality indie developers with something of worth will develop for them both. And if they don't then it will be mine and MS loss and I'll hope they ease up... But we aren't seein that. Very high quality indie games are coming to both systems.

Now you're getting into a subjective argument, which is impossible to define....and no, it doesn't take a indie studio with a ton of resources to make a quality game. One of the most anticipated indie games (No Mans Sky) is only being made my 3 or 4 people. Minecraft was originally created by one person. That idea is ludicrous.

Look, developers are making the games you want to play. When a developer says it's bad (even in this very thread), who are you to claim otherwise? It's a outdated policy and it needs to go.

The good thing is that the requirement will probably be waived for all the good games. The crappy games are probably the only ones that will be affected by the parity clause.

That will probably happen, and XB1 owners will likely end up waiting even longer for the games to come out since developers won't start spending money developing for it until they get approved by MS.

 

[The Faceless Master]

It was also not sold on Amazon. It was also a number 1 selling album. Refusing to stock it later just resulted in lost potential sales for Target and Amazon proving she didn't need the retailers at all.

"fired a warning shot at other artists"

the point being sure B doesn't need them, but many other artists do and if they'll drop B and lose money you better not fuck with Target if you're less than B since they'll drop you too.

 

[Chobel]

Well u act as if MS is out to destroy these companies. They are protecting their product first and foremost. From a business stand point I don't see the problem. From a consumer standpoint I don't see how this really affects u. From a a developer stand point I can see where it can cause issues and u know what? Developers don't have to sign the contract. They can make games just for sony and PC..... But the scales haven't tipped that far so it must not be to bad for them either.

Really? delaying games for other platform owners doesn't affect them?

Well being as I have an x1 I'm happy that games will release the same time as everyone else. I dont have to worry about a game coming out months after others have played it.

As a ps4 owner you should be asking Sony why this is allowed to happen. It's a business tactic and MS is protecting their product.

WTF am I reading?

 

[Chuck Norris]

Microsoft is not in the business of ensuring that people who buy a competing platform have access to the same indie games earlier than their own platform. The idea that some people have that MS is wrong for this clause with their developers just shows that people are out of touch with how business really works in the world. MS is in the business to make money. By having a successful platform with the XB1, parity clauses, bought exclusives, exclusive dlc, ect they are taking steps to make their platform more desirable and to ensure it will succeed. Business 101..

Only works if you are the market leader. Most indies have only got the capability to develop for one system at a time, they are obviously going to choose the bigger userbase with the easier development environment and welcoming indie stance. Meanwhile Microsoft wll be cutting themselves out of late port opportunities because of their launch parity clause

It would be like Sony last gen denying Minecraft coming to PS3 because it wasn't there at launch

Well being as I have an x1 I'm happy that games will release the same time as everyone else. I dont have to worry about a game coming out months after others have played it.

As a ps4 owner you should be asking Sony why this is allowed to happen. It's a business tactic and MS is protecting their product.

In some cases you will get it at the same time. In many cases you're not going to get the game at all

 

[Loudninja]

Well being as I have an x1 I'm happy that games will release the same time as everyone else. I dont have to worry about a game coming out months after others have played it.

As a ps4 owner you should be asking Sony why this is allowed to happen. It's a business tactic and MS is protecting their product.

Take the devs that worked on Octodad they could not deliver the PC version and PS4 version at the same time because they are very small.

If they did not release the PC version first t would have been a disaster for them to wait any longer.

 

[boredandlazy]

"biggest and best"

Marketing /= Reality.

 

[skitzyzim]

Yes, but why should Microsoft being a less viable option mean games are delayed for me? I didn't buy an XBox One, why should I have to suffer it's nonsense?

Indie developers are small, they don't have the ability to just make the game on every platform, they have to prioritise. If they want the game to come out on X1, they have a few options.

1. Release on X1 first, release elsewhere later as they only have the resources to focus on one at a time and no one else enforces such assinine clauses on indies.
2. Release on all platforms at the same time, delaying the game even if the game was already finished for the other platforms resulting in financing issues.

I will tell you right now, as a PS4 owner, I shouldn't be impacted by whatever choices Microsoft make on their platform and, yet, here they are. Disgusting.

Sorry but this is a ridiculous notion to me. MS doesn't prevent you from having access to the games, the developer who agreed to their terms are the ones who limit your access. If they don't like the terms, they don't have to develop for the XB1. Its a simple risk/gain scenario for a business.

By the same logic of your point #2 you should be advocating for non-exclusivity on everything by ANY developer, but you aren't.. why is that? Exclusivity on Sony's platform impacts people who only own MS consoles as well. MS isn't in the business of ensuring that you have the same experience on their competators console. And if you have zero interest in purchasing an MS console, why would they care?

 

[coolasj19]

Microsoft is not in the business of ensuring that people who buy a competing platform have access to the same indie games earlier than their own platform. The idea that some people have that MS is wrong for this clause with their developers just shows that people are out of touch with how business really works in the world. MS is in the business to make money. By having a successful platform with the XB1, parity clauses, bought exclusives, exclusive dlc, ect they are taking steps to make their platform more desirable and to ensure it will succeed. Business 101..

But this is not good for you as a consumer. Are you a Microsoft stockholder? Or do you just love corporations? You are a consumer, you should want to raise the quality of the things you buy. I don't care if you think this is a good business move, I care about what games I'll be able to buy on an Xbox. And so should you. Unless you have literally zero stakes in the state of this industry. Which unless you're a shill of sorts, you should. Seeing as how you have a neogaf account.

It's not that. Well, not as such.

-snip-

And from a "gamer" perspective, that means a store of higher quality (polish/production values wise) indie games, and consistency in that quality. And if some indie has the latest crazy-shit-hot game blow up on social media, or get a mazillion greenlight votes, they'll probably get approached by MS anyway, so not like you'll be missing out.

But yeah, just whining because "when can I haz my free xbox devkitz?!11" I mean the whole thing makes sense. MS don't owe me anything, and I'm probably being stupid and slightly naive letting myself get towed along by the hope of getting on the program, when really I ought to be out there making a really cool PC game that then gets picked up on by MS, or that I can go to them with and say "look, I haz gaem! Shiny!"

From a gamer perspective, if there's an indie game that gets locked out that's not mega popular, if you only have an Xbox, you don't get to play it. The there are completely average games that I've enjoyed much more than other widely heralded great games. That's hardly MS's decision to make. It defies the concept of self-publishing.

It's not the being denied for free devkits part that gets people, it's that the only way you're going to get devkits is if it is free. We wouldn't be having this problem if ID@Xbox wasn't the only way to self-publish on the Xbox platform. Perhaps if there was a second option, like being allowed to purchase one. But as its stands, the only doorway in, is this way. And right now the doorknob has splinters on it and it creaks everytime the wind blows.

 

[skitzyzim]

Sure - when that contract was written, it made sense. But now, they need to question:

1. Is the visibility and small controversy around this clause worth it? They've had enough bad PR of late.

2. Will this clause result in a significant number of games passing on the Xbox One platform entirely? Now that it looks like the XB1 will have significantly less market share than its predecessor, this is more likely.

Of course the decision is going to come down to what they think is better for their platform, ie. money. But that doesn't mean it's as simple as "it's better to have parity".

1. The controversy surrounding this is not coming from a large amount of developers, instead you have a small amount of developers and a bigger amount of forum posters ( some console warriors) screaming the loudest.

2. In todays world of popular games that die off in a matter of weeks or months, if you aren't on the ground floor you will miss the profitability. You don't want to get the greatest thing when the next greatest thing is already out on your competitor's platform.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Sorry but this is a ridiculous notion to me. MS doesn't prevent you from having access to the games, the developer who agreed to their terms are the ones who limit your access. If they don't like the terms, they don't have to develop for the XB1. Its a simple risk/gain scenario for a business.

By the same logic of your point #2 you should be advocating for non-exclusivity on everything by ANY developer, but you aren't.. why is that? Exclusivity on Sony's platform impacts people who only own MS consoles as well. MS isn't in the business of ensuring that you have the same experience on their competators console. And if you have zero interest in purchasing an MS console, why would they care?

Firstly, by having contracts like this when no one else does, I can directly blame the only company with a contract. Microsoft are not the only game in town but have decided, like every other aspect of the X1, for poor choices and knee jerk reactions in spite of everything else that is going on, this is just another example of it.

We're talking about self-publishing. Sony aren't forcing developers to make that choice, if a developer wishes to publish on a Microsoft console first, they can do that and then work on a PlayStation console later, the reverse isn't true. Like I said, if they're sitting on a finished PS version, they may make the choice to delay it rather just to get another version ready. Microsoft don't have to care as I am not their consumer, but their actions directly affect me as a consumer all because they want to lock indie developers into contracts just to publish on their platform.

 

[twobear]

They won't drop the launch parity clause.

 

[licktheenvelope]

It's not that. Well, not as such

I applied in October, went to the ID@London event in December, demoed my game informally to various Xbox folks whilst there. Have had a number of conversations with people in the Xbox team about how my game would use SmartGlass (one of the technologies they keep mentioning along with Kinect, that they keep telling us devs we should be making to help them shift Xboxes). I ended up part of a little community on facebook of other developers who are on or trying to get on ID@Xbox, and have made efforts to actively participate in that, contribute etc.

But what MS really want are teams with a history of shipping titles, that they can rely on to actually come up with the goods. "Independent" studios of 3 or 4 AAA veterans who've now formed their own new venture with that awesome-yet-slightly-too-crazy-for-publishers idea that they've had brewing for the last few years. Not one-man indie devs straight out of college who take a devkit only to 6 months later mumble something about cancelling their project and going back to making Ludum Dare games "for the art". (I'm slightly exaggerating here )

Thing is, the game I was working on in December, and showed to the Xbox guys; the other indie dev I was working with on that had to get a day job to support his family. And since it was a job in games industry, his employment contract said he couldn't work on his own games during his spare time. So that game fell through and never came to anything. So MS were right not to give us a devkit!

And from a "gamer" perspective, that means a store of higher quality (polish/production values wise) indie games, and consistency in that quality. And if some indie has the latest crazy-shit-hot game blow up on social media, or get a mazillion greenlight votes, they'll probably get approached by MS anyway, so not like you'll be missing out.

But yeah, just whining because "when can I haz my free xbox devkitz?!11" I mean the whole thing makes sense. MS don't owe me anything, and I'm probably being stupid and slightly naive letting myself get towed along by the hope of getting on the program, when really I ought to be out there making a really cool PC game that then gets picked up on by MS, or that I can go to them with and say "look, I haz gaem! Shiny!"

I'm gonna say this is partially true both ways. Yes you should probably get your name known for some work first (if you haven't) but at the same time Microsoft should be encouraging development wherever possible.

 

[Chobel]

Holy shit! Some people are defending this?

 

[jamiept]

He laughed.

That's nice for him.

Well, Sony execs are becoming renowned for trying to get laughs - and win brownie points - by antagonizing the Xbox brand

Laughter is the best response

 

[krypt0nian]

Well being as I have an x1 I'm happy that games will release the same time as everyone else. I dont have to worry about a game coming out months after others have played it.

As a ps4 owner you should be asking Sony why this is allowed to happen. It's a business tactic and MS is protecting their product.

Enjoy less games.

 

[Delusibeta]

They won't drop the launch parity clause.

And they'll almost certainly lose games because of it, which is why they should drop the clause. Right now, I would imagine most indie devs would be prioritising the PS4, due to being the more popular console and having the more established support infrastructure for indies. Ultimately, as far as indies are concerned Microsoft is behind, and they don't need the millstone of the parity clause around their neck.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

"fired a warning shot at other artists"

the point being sure B doesn't need them, but many other artists do and if they'll drop B and lose money you better not fuck with Target if you're less than B since they'll drop you too.

The music retail market is in a serious decline anyway though. Artists are seeking alternative ways to sell their music and doing it quite sucessfully (Radiohead and Prince come to mind). A store dropping CDs is drop the ocean stuff right now for bigger artists who can effectively sell their albums through one service or their own website and make a tidy fortune. Smaller artists won't have the clout to make that choice themselves if they're signed to any sort of major lable. The music industry shifting is quite interesting, especially when self-publishing available on the likes of iTunes and Google Play.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Holy shit! Some people are defending this?

Are you really surprised? Some people's heads are so stuck up that they don't realize how draconic this is for developers.

 

[coolasj19]

Holy shit! Some people are defending this?

I Refuse to believe they are normal people. It keeps me sane if I rationalize everything that too insane to be justified as people being paid to say that. I wonder if some people feel bad for oil companies. Or banks. I don't want to meet them.

Well being as I have an x1 I'm happy that games will release the same time as everyone else. I dont have to worry about a game coming out months after others have played it.

As a ps4 owner you should be asking Sony why this is allowed to happen. It's a business tactic and MS is protecting their product.

Other peoples fun has a direct negative impact on your fun. I don't have a reaction gif or snarky response to that. I hope, in real life, outside of this forum, that you function as a relatively normal human being. If I prayed, I'd be keeping you in them.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I wonder if indie developers on here are able to comment on this in more detail, just to get personal views. Anyone about want to throw themselves in the firing line?

 

[skitzyzim]

But this is not good for you as a consumer. Are you a Microsoft stockholder? Or do you just love corporations? You are a consumer, you should want to raise the quality of the things you buy. I don't care if you think this is a good business move, I care about what games I'll be able to buy on an Xbox. And so should you. Unless you have literally zero stakes in the state of this industry. Which unless you're a shill of sorts, you should. Seeing as how you have a neogaf account.

From a gamer perspective, if there's an indie game that gets locked out that's not mega popular, if you only have an Xbox, you don't get to play it. The there are completely average games that I've enjoyed much more than other widely heralded great games. That's hardly MS's decision to make. It defies the concept of self-publishing.

It's not the being denied for free devkits part that gets people, it's that the only way you're going to get devkits is if it is free. We wouldn't be having this problem if ID@Xbox wasn't the only way to self-publish on the Xbox platform. Perhaps if there was a second option, like being allowed to purchase one. But as its stands, the only doorway in, is this way. And right now the doorknob has splinters on it and it creaks everytime the wind blows.

Really? I'm a shill now? Grow up. I've been gaming since the 1980s, and being almost 40 I understand that the world, especially the corporate world, doesn't revolve around what I think is right or wrong. It revolves around money. So you need to check your accusations. .

Also being an adult with a good job has allowed me the ability to own a PS3, 360, XB1, and a gaming PC. I'll pick up a PS4 when they publish some games that I actually want to play. Make no mistake I don't have a console warrior vested interest in any one platform.

As for the rest of your comments you are completely wrong. IT ABSOLUTLEY IS MS's decision as to what they do or don't allow on their platform. They invested the millions of dollars in the development and production of their console and infastructure, and they are able to make the terms for indie publishers to have access to it. When you invest millions of your own dollars to create a gaming platform you will be able to make whatever rules you want, but those of us who live in the real world realize that all business deals have terms.

 

[PanicFreak]

but then it isn't a self-publishing policy, it's MS applying rules that favour it (apply restrictions, who cares if the chaff falls through, we can waive the parity clause for the good stuff)

Yes. Exactly.

That will probably happen, and XB1 owners will likely end up waiting even longer for the games to come out since developers won't start spending money developing for it until they get approved by MS.

I see this as a problem for the first round of indie games. Going forward, I don't think it will be a huge issue because there will be very few instances where a game is 100 percent finished on the PS4 but work has barely just begun on the Xbox One.

The cards are on the table now, it's only an issue now because development was at an advanced stage on the PS4 but there was no roadmap for the Xbox One.