I'll admit that I don't own an X1 and I think this shit is wack. I understand the OP doesn't seem to care for MS much but so what? As a gamer it's still a legitimate concern and maybe if MS had done better with all of their nonsense i would have an X1 next to my PC, PS4 and Wii U.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
C. Charla on promoting ID@XB titles - Why the infamous parity clause isn't a big deal
- Thread starter John Bender
- Start date
Now just imagine if they world work that way.
Why?
Because the games need to feel fresh!
I have an Xbox One, Ive learned to keep my head down on GAF unless its a Xbox specific thread, and I certainly dont go into Digital Foundry threads because that stuff doesnt bother me. I have a nice PC and if I really want the best its usually (key word) there. This gen Ive gone One, WiiU and PC. The Parity Clause is troublesome, more so if I only had an xbox, but I dont. I played Shovel Knight D1 on Wii U, I was excited to play it again with Battletoads content on Tuesday, if it didnt have that content I probably wouldnt have bought it, but at least I would have already played it? I guess thats a win for a broken policy.
I do agree it needs to go. I couldnt imagine only going with a One this gen, Id probably be pretty salty.
HighResTomato
Member
Because as a store (XBL) I shouldn't accept that my closest competitor would get exclusivity to a product without a marketing/permanent exclusivity contract.
Dealership A shouldn't have to stock a certain model of a car if the manufacturer is giving it exclusively to Dealership B for months. It would be reasonable that the manufacturer does something to differentiate it so it's easier for the dealership to sell.
Obviously customers are going to buy it where it is first available and as some people in this thread said, they own multiple consoles. So they would get it on PSN which is more revenue for Sony.
Didn't they say they were making the parity clause less restrictive already?
So what's this puff-piece for?
Is it to make the vocal discontent seem like an unwarranted reaction?
MS once again trying to rewrite history.
It's like the whole "family share program" all over again.
It was announced but never explained. It was then rumored you could share with anyone, anywhere. Then it was rumored that it was only a timed demo.
MS never specifically dismissed any rumors, except for the latter, saying "it wasn't just a timed demo", and not saying anything else. I believe it was a Kotaku interview where Spencer started interrupting the interviewer and being vague and cryptic.
"we're working on getting the family share program implemented because it was well received".
6 months later....
Yes, MS. Your policies were actually great. It was an overreaction by everyone.
So what's this puff-piece for?
Is it to make the vocal discontent seem like an unwarranted reaction?
MS once again trying to rewrite history.
It's like the whole "family share program" all over again.
It was announced but never explained. It was then rumored you could share with anyone, anywhere. Then it was rumored that it was only a timed demo.
MS never specifically dismissed any rumors, except for the latter, saying "it wasn't just a timed demo", and not saying anything else. I believe it was a Kotaku interview where Spencer started interrupting the interviewer and being vague and cryptic.
"we're working on getting the family share program implemented because it was well received".
6 months later....
Yes, MS. Your policies were actually great. It was an overreaction by everyone.
Sangetsu-II
Member
Keyword
Ah, a car analogy.
No one pays a $300 or so fixed cost to do business with a dealership, and there is no marginal cost involved in making the exact same car available to different dealerships. Your analogy is completely pointless, as car analogies tend to be.
You didn't give a reason, by the way, your answer is quite literally "because not".
Dyson Industries
Banned
Indeed. It is working out incredibly well for them so far. That increasing gap in marketshare and negative PR will be just the ticket to pull the fat from the fire.
Stellar strategic thinking all round - hurrah!
/s
justsomeguy
Member
Why? Why does it matter to you if a game also comes to xbox, if it's on your platform of choice?
First rule.
I actually look forward to the day when the "indie games don't count" argument dies.
And yet other stores (PS, Steam, WiiU, Apple, android) can and do accept it without enforcing anything similar.
And as aspiegamer says:
Big Green Anus
Member
This honestly is somewhat turning me away from buying the Xbox One and joining my PS4 and Wii-U.
I understand that Microsoft wants developers to treat their platform the same as other platforms in terms of release, but not every developers has the resource to ship on all devices at the same time. Why can't they understand this?
I thought Phil Spencer would get rid of this feature after Don Mattrick left, but apparently he didn't
I understand that Microsoft wants developers to treat their platform the same as other platforms in terms of release, but not every developers has the resource to ship on all devices at the same time. Why can't they understand this?
I thought Phil Spencer would get rid of this feature after Don Mattrick left, but apparently he didn't
aspiegamer
Member
This only makes sense if Sony were paying for the original exclusivity. They're not. Hell, "exclusivity" isn't even the correct word. It's "published when finished". They're choosing to publish with Sony first because 1) they have no such stupid rules, and 2) they're the market leader so their revenue potential is higher.
There is zero justification for this policy. Period. To be blunt, Microsoft as beggars can't be choosers. This is all 100% preventable.
I don't have a platform of choice.
Regardless, it matters for several reasons, personal and not:
1) I can play in my bedroom instead of the living room, if I so choose to buy it on Xbox instead of PC, Wii U or PS4.
2) Devs I like may profit more, and make better/more games.
3) With a more robust offering, perhaps we can get better Games with Gold.
4) As someone whose livelihood comes from studying and researching competition and vertical contracts, Most Favored Nation clauses are an odious feature of bargaining contracts that has had significant negative impacts in Cable TV, for example, and is frequently under review by the DOJ and researchers regarding its negative impact on competition:
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/division-update/2013/workshops.html
HighResTomato
Member
No one forces you to buy content of Xbox Live, go retail if you want. They want to use Microsofts store, then they have to engage in dialogue with them. Charla has communicated time after time that they are willing to compromise but if the dev rather goes and airs their dissatisfaction of affairs held behind closed doors, thats up to them.
Even without the parity clause, re-releasing a game on a platform months later without offering the gamers on that platform something is fucking scummy and the devs could shove that game up theirs.
R3TRODYCE
Member
Agreed.
Although I usually just grab them on the ps4 instead of waiting but I like the idea.
ShockingAlberto
Member
They shouldn't be demanding content for being late, they should be working with developers to get the game on day one.
The more they insist on the former, the less likely developers will want to work work them on the latter.
The more they insist on the former, the less likely developers will want to work work them on the latter.
You're being offered the game. Seriously, what is wrong with you?
HighResTomato
Member
It's an offer, buy it, or don't.
Indie devs who can't afford the time or money to simultaneous release or create extra "fluff" are scummy?
Yeah great....
Jesus wept.
TheSpoiler
Member
Still waiting on dehnus' evidence like
Neuromancer
Member
The first rule of parity clause is, you do not talk about parity clause. The second rule of parity clause is, you DO NOT talk about parity clause.
RedAssedApe
Banned
still need to work a bit on that PR or just stop talking.
The devs are offering you their work of art, something they probably have used a ton of hours and a shitton of money to make.
Devs aren't gods with unlimited money, iron health and unlimited time. They are people who tried to make the best game they can and you feel they should shove the game up their ass or whatever?
smh
ScatheZombie
Member
# short term cash loans
Junior Member
entitled gamer alert
BabyFaceKillah
Member
Still waiting on dehnus' evidence like
he dead bro
Of what if the devs want everyone to get the same experience?
This "exlusive stuff" is idiotic no matter how you turn it.
Xbox should take games with open arms.
Veritigo_X
Member
So if a new Xbox game that was on PS4 first doesn't have Battletoads in it you won't buy it?
HighResTomato
Member
Oh yeah so entitled, because I'm getting the games for free right?
I don't care for Battletoads, but if there was a game that I liked and it was on PS4 and PC first I would get it on PC and not buy it on the Xbox one.
justsomeguy
Member
Im sorry I must have completely misunderstood your previous post which sounded like more games coming to xbox was a bad thing?
Oh no!
The exact opposite, I was being completely facetious due to the previous posts in the conversation that were asking if any of us even owned Xboxes
It's supremely frustrating to genuinely care about this issue for real reasons, and read people mention how surely the people complaining must not own the platform -- even though if that was really the case, it would make NO sense for me to try to get *more* games released on the platform I didn't have and was supposedly "fighting against".
Does that make more sense? Sorry I wasn't clear.
You didn't answer his question. So you will never buy Axiom Verge, for example?
While you are at it, here:
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2015/04/30/the-escapists-launches-on-ps4-june-2nd/
You can tell the dev how scummy he is and to "shove it" for releasing it later with no additional content.
He's actually answering comments on the blog, too, so that will teach 'em.
Goodacre0081
Member
as a PS4 only owner it really irks me that the policies of MS are dictating when certain indie games hit my current platform. this is one reason why I feel the need to voice my displeasure. the second would be that it's in the best interest of my fellow gamers. lastly would be that I'm a potential future owner of the platform.
thewhitehawk
Member
Microsoft is keeping their tradition of treating Xbox One owners like first-class when it comes to indie games.
Well, it's not like treating indie developers poorly costs them anything... oh, wait.
Well, it's not like treating indie developers poorly costs them anything... oh, wait.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
First thing I thought of.
Personally I've viewed this as a storm in a teacup anyway. Forgetting the mass market who barely know indie games exist, but even on GAF it seems like many act like they give a crap about indie games but actually don't. The number of posts about people complaining about indie games being given away FOR FREE via GwG and PS Plus (including some from myself) tells me people don't see them as a draw card to either console. Just a nice bonus.
It seems maybe Microsoft is viewing them the same way? So I guess this is their method of....curating? (For want of a better word) their marketplace rather than just flooding it with everything. Maybe Microsoft saw the way XBLA games sales dropped off a cliff towards the end of last gen and didn't think they needed to focus on that stuff as much anymore. Who knows.
There has to be SOME reason behind it because of all the 180s they've done on this console, it seems interesting that THIS is the one they refuse to budge on.
Curating what?
Releasing Nutjitsu instead of Skullgirls?
Is your argument really that people are pretending to like videogames?
Its always an offer, no matter when its released. So why should a Dev be "blocked" for offering it to gamers because they same product was offered in a different market?
Hoho for breakfast
Member
I don't know why they have such thick heads. They need to drop the clause, full stop. And it should have been done ages ago. Period. It 's like the paywall bullshit. It was inevitable that it was dropped at some point because it didn't make any damn sense, and this is the same way. They will drop the clause. I don't get how they themselves don't see it.
It reminds me of lyrics from a song..."swallow your pride, or choke till you die"...
It reminds me of lyrics from a song..."swallow your pride, or choke till you die"...
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
It's not my argument, just an observation. I'm trying to think of why they would keep the clause when I'm not reseeding a real reason to have it. Did you read all of my post?
I don't own an xone, but that's really dissapointing. Get rid of it, and gamers might even change their minds about the system.
yurinka
Member
It is pretty dumb. What is the reason that makes MS prefer to give the competition full exclusives games that can be only timed exclusives? What is the benefit on MS side?
Always there will be people who will do it, even more considering the market share. Why don't they allow to publish the games later on XBO, and for those who do it with extra content they highlight them with their ID@Box saying that is 'Better on XBO' because of it?
Temporal exclusives in indie games aren't a big deal for gamers, even more in the case that for waiting they get extra stuff. But for sure, all players prefer to have the game late without extras than to don't have it.
Always there will be people who will do it, even more considering the market share. Why don't they allow to publish the games later on XBO, and for those who do it with extra content they highlight them with their ID@Box saying that is 'Better on XBO' because of it?
Temporal exclusives in indie games aren't a big deal for gamers, even more in the case that for waiting they get extra stuff. But for sure, all players prefer to have the game late without extras than to don't have it.
As an Xbox One owner, I do wish more indie games came to the platform but I'm really not caring for the games that people are bitching about. I see more people bitching about the clause than game devs are. I mean, at the end of the day, it's a business. They (MS) want a fresher game if you can't release at the same time as others. I see why they would say that. It makes sense. Wonder what devs are gonna do with Universal apps are Windows 10 and they want to release...probably will see an influx of games anyways...they'll make those changes soon enough I believe.
Triggerhappytel
Member
This bullshit clause isn't going anywhere. "Come talk to us" is the line they're gonna tow for the rest of the generation.