Support NeoGAF

[Fox Mulder]

Are there even any Xbox One owners bitching in this thread? I get that this clause sucks and they should ditch it as soon as possible, but I'd rather see some actual Xbox One owners speaking up about this instead of the usual circlejerk of people who aren't even interested in the console to begin with.

And on topic: as I've said before, I'd rather have a game late than never. Why should I as an Xbox One owner care that a game like Binding of Isaac was released on PS4 way earlier? I'm just glad I can play the game. I can see why MS thinks they're getting 'leftovers', but as they even say in this statement, they understand when developers cannot work on all platforms at once. What gives?

I'm an xb1 owner and have loved the xbox consoles since 2002. I hate this if it's costing me great games, especially when the console sales gap is ever growing and further pushing more indies to the ps4 first anyways.

my gamertag is Fozzie Bear for further proof.

 

[Lamptramp]

First thing I thought of.

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.

They aren't curating bugger all, its a touch old now but Chubigans made an extensive post a while ago addressing reasons for why this clause still exisits (see below for the relevant part, though the whole thread is great for feedback from actual devs).
Theres no clever reason for this clause to exist, it exists to get "free" timed exclusives to help market the store as Rav mentioned earlier.

I like that Microsoft is curating indie releases, saving the best for XB1, unlike PS4.

They aren't doing that. There's no curation whatsover, and in fact, they'll accept any game you want to put on the store, same as Sony (as long as it's at a minimum acceptance quality, on par for both PS4 and XB1). The idea that MS is cherry picking games to release on XB1 is completely false.

Similarly though its a bit "list war" people have posted metacritic scores to show that not only does sony get more indie titles they are of a consistant high quality.

[fake edit] same thread and bottom of Amirox's post

 

[FStop7]

Are there even any Xbox One owners bitching in this thread? I get that this clause sucks and they should ditch it as soon as possible, but I'd rather see some actual Xbox One owners speaking up about this instead of the usual circlejerk of people who aren't even interested in the console to begin with.

And on topic: as I've said before, I'd rather have a game late than never. Why should I as an Xbox One owner care that a game like Binding of Isaac was released on PS4 way earlier? I'm just glad I can play the game. I can see why MS thinks they're getting 'leftovers', but as they even say in this statement, they understand when developers cannot work on all platforms at once. What gives?

What does ownership have to do with dissatisfaction over a shitty policy? It's a shitty policy, full stop.

 

[Juanfp]

I really don't understand what MS win with this clause. If the want extra content for games that come late I think its better to allow the devs to release the game without any restriction and try to convince the devs without any type of agreement or something.
People are more willing to help you or do things if you treat them in a correct way.

 

[PoweredByHentai]

This bullshit clause isn't going anywhere. "Come talk to us" is the line they're gonna tow for the rest of the generation.

The impression I'm getting from Charla's various statements is that the ID@Xbox group is either disorganized or doesn't really have the sort of authority that they claim to have or both.

It would be nice to have an org chart of the Xbox division.

 

[protomouse]

Microsoft, just stop.

 

[Welfare]

Still waiting on dehnus' evidence like

Dead men tell no tales.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

They aren't curating bugger all, its a touch old now but Chubigans made an extensive post a while ago addressing reasons for why this clause still exisits (see below for the relevant part, though the whole thread is great for feedback from actual devs).
Theres no clever reason for this clause to exist, it exists to get "free" timed exclusives to help market the store as Rav mentioned earlier.



Similarly though its a bit "list war" people have posted metacritic scores to show that not only does sony get more indie titles they are of a consistant high quality.

[fake edit] same thread and bottom of Amirox's post

I know its not curating per se. I just couldn't think of a better word.

 

[mrklaw]

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.

The escapists is out now on PS4 - woo!

Shovel knight is coming out on xbox one - woo!

See? Why can't people just look forward to a game coming out on their system? If they don't have the other console, why should they care it was out there first?

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

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.

I don't care about most "indie" games either. That misses the point though imo. The only thing the clause is doing as far as I can tell is souring relationships with devs, making the PS4 look like a better purchase (more games...it's a perception even if you have no actual interest), and making MS look arrogant. All so they can have the "best" version of a particular title?

So MS is going to pass up the opportunity (and oh yes, it is an opportunity) to have games a and b just so they can get the superior version of game c, which already released anyway on the competing platform?? No sense.

And personally if I was a dev I may not come right out and say anything too nasty as I wouldn't want to burn any bridges. Even though the reality may be that MS is the one starting the fire in the first place.

 

[mrklaw]

They aren't curating bugger all, its a touch old now but Chubigans made an extensive post a while ago addressing reasons for why this clause still exisits (see below for the relevant part, though the whole thread is great for feedback from actual devs).
Theres no clever reason for this clause to exist, it exists to get "free" timed exclusives to help market the store as Rav mentioned earlier.



Similarly though its a bit "list war" people have posted metacritic scores to show that not only does sony get more indie titles they are of a consistant high quality.

[fake edit] same thread and bottom of Amirox's post

If they aren't curating, then why have the parity clause? Saying 'come talk to us, maybe we can come to an arrangement' smacks of curating. Exclusions if you're good enough smacks of curation.

You either support self-publishing or you don't. If you support it, then you let consumers choose whether a game is worth buying or not.

 

[SkullHydra]

Some of the opinions in this thread seem crazy to me.

Let's say I'm making a game. I unfortunately don't have the time/resources/staff to create said game for every console at the same time, so I focus on the one with about twice the install base. Once I've released it on said console and have freed up said time/resources/staff, I decide to focus on releasing it for the other console in order to get the game into as many hands as possible. But wait! In order to release it on that other console, I have to get specific permission from their company, as well as creating additional exclusive content, just for them to allow me to release my game.

And some people think this is okay?

 

[BananasWithGuns]

Some of the opinions in this thread seem crazy to me.

Let's say I'm making a game. I unfortunately don't have the time/resources/staff to create said game for every console at the same time, so I focus on the one with about twice the install base. Once I've released it on said console and have freed up said time/resources/staff, I decide to focus on releasing it for the other console in order to get the game into as many hands as possible. But wait! In order to release it on that other console, I have to get specific permission from their company, as well as creating additional content just for them to allow me to release my game.

And some people think this is okay?

Isn't exactly how it works. If you can't release on both simultaneously then you should be fine to put it on XB1 later without additional content.

But say, if you sign a deal with Sony so that your game appears on PS4 first before any other platform, regardless of whether you have the resources to put it on another platform, then MS is asking you to create some additional content in order to make up for that.

I mean, either way it's still dumb. The additional content is rarely meaningful and Microsoft needs to realize that their consumers would rather have the ability to buy the game regardless of whether it has additional content or not as opposed to just not having the game available to them at all.

 

[atbigelow]

Compare this to when Nintendo actually removed their office requirement from their developer requirements. They shouted that one straight forward and loudly.

 

[Ravidrath]

I think this is quite reasonable.

It sounds reasonable, yes, but it really all comes down to the specifics.

It's MS that gets to determine what will be needed to make your release "feel fresh." They have no idea what those additions will cost you, if your team has the time or manpower to do it before moving on to their next project, etc. In essence, they get to block your release despite coming from a place of ignorance.

Also, some genres and their communities do not react well to platform-exclusive content. So in those cases, they're basically asking you to burn your community for the priviledge of publishing on their platform. Even timed exclusives aren't acceptable for some genres and situations.

In short, MS needs to trust developers to market their own game and accept the limitations they have.

I assure you that I know what my game and its community want better than MS does. And I don't like being told by people completely unfamiliar with our situation what we should do to please them.

 

[RedSparrows]

If I were MS I'd open it all up. Seems like a waste of good opportunities, and they could do with being more open, or so it seems.

There are some weird things, though - like that Aarhu's (sic?) Awakening. That was PS4 first, then X1, and asfaik, there's no difference between the versions. Why not? Who cares? C'est la vie, get them games out!

 

[Artorias]

Isn't exactly how it works. If you can't release on both simultaneously then you should be fine to put it on XB1 later without additional content.

But say, if you sign a deal with Sony so that your game appears on PS4 first before any other platform, regardless of whether you have the resources to put it on another platform, then MS is asking you to create some additional content in order to make up for that.

This is what MS keeps repeating anytime a mic is put in front of them, yet in practice it doesn't seem to be that simple. The key part of their bi-weekly speech appears to be "come talk to us", and it seems like thats often where negotiations stop.

 

[Lamptramp]

If they aren't curating, then why have the parity clause? Saying 'come talk to us, maybe we can come to an arrangement' smacks of curating. Exclusions if you're good enough smacks of curation.

You either support self-publishing or you don't. If you support it, then you let consumers choose whether a game is worth buying or not.

Sorry matey its late in the day and my brain has turned to mush, do you think that the clause is curating the store?

When I think "curation" I think of the assumption that MS uses the clause to ensure a certain level of quality or a certain consistent flow is available for sale which is counter to chub & amirorxs' evidence as well as feedback from devs we've seen in these previous threads. Quality is seemingly not a decisive factor.

This sounds like rather than curating anything they are dictating what devs have to do.

Unless of course you have *not released on playstation first in which case "do whatever you want".

It's MS that gets to determine what will be needed to make your release "feel fresh." They have no idea what those additions will cost you, if your team has the time or manpower to do it before moving on to their next project, etc.

Ye gods, really??

Ugh...

 

[Impeccable]

So stubborn.

 

[BobTheFork]

Maybe I've just become Tone deaf to MS saying something 'isn't a big deal'. That doesn't seem to work out for them.

 

[Silvard]

Isn't exactly how it works. If you can't release on both simultaneously then you should be fine to put it on XB1 later without additional content.

Do you have a source for that? All I've seen is "come talk to us".

 

[test_account]

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.

Not stocking an item at all will leave to zero sales though, and it will also result in less items for the consumers to choose from, so that isnt exactly better. Many people also only support basically one platform. Anecdotal, but if Shovel Knight didnt come out for Playstation, its a big possibility that i would never have gotten around to play it (my PC is too old, and i'm satisfied enough with one console and one handheld). I also think there is a very small amount of people who double-dip because of exclusive content. I think most sales are done because people havnt played the game before (probably an expection when it comes to remasters that are being released a longer time afte the original release).

 

[funkystudent]

"Its there but if your game is a big enough deal we will wave you past"

 

[Jomjom]

Do you have a source for that? All I've seen is "come talk to us".

Well in the article they make it pretty clear if it's a matter of resources you're ok to release later. You only need additional content if the later release is due to some agreement with a competitor. Even then, we've seen plenty of games that HAD an exclusivity deal with Sony release on Xbox without any kind of additional content, so even that "rule" has exceptions.

 

[Ravidrath]

Even then, we've seen plenty of games that HAD an exclusivity deal with Sony release on Xbox without any kind of additional content, so even that "rule" has exceptions.

As near as I can tell, many of those games got a pass because ID@Xbox didn't exist when they were initially released on PS4. Parity was an impossibility, so they didn't have to do anything extra.

But now that ID@Xbox is more established, they're being more aggressive.

And, yes, it seems like bigger / more popular games can probably get waived through. So the policy hits smaller game and devs harder. And also isn't really even a "policy," since it's applied unevenly and politically.

 

[Percy]

Some of the defense forcing in this thread is genuinely shocking.

If I was in Charla I'd do exactly the same thing. Either refresh the product if you are going to re-release it, or don't at all.

Paging Dr Freud.

 

[PoweredByHentai]

As near as I can tell, many of those games got a pass because ID@Xbox didn't exist when they were initially released on PS4. Parity was an impossibility, so they didn't have to do anything extra.

But now that ID@Xbox is more established, they're being more aggressive.

And, yes, it seems like bigger / more popular games can probably get waived through. So the policy hits smaller game and devs harder. And also isn't really even a "policy," since it's applied unevenly and politically.

That sounds like favoritism/nepotism.

 

[Jawmuncher]

Not a big deal, XBL is getting like half if not less of the indies PSN gets.

 

[Toki767]

Maybe I've just become Tone deaf to MS saying something 'isn't a big deal'. That doesn't seem to work out for them.

The last time MS PR amounted to something along the lines of "the internet is making a big deal and doesn't know the truth", Albert Penello was still posting on here trying to downplay the power difference. Dude was seriously expecting people to apologize if the power difference wasn't major when the consoles came out. And he never offered a single apology for lying.

That seems to be the Microsoft way.

 

[Jomjom]

As near as I can tell, many of those games got a pass because ID@Xbox didn't exist when they were initially released on PS4. Parity was an impossibility, so they didn't have to do anything extra.

But now that ID@Xbox is more established, they're being more aggressive.

And, yes, it seems like bigger / more popular games can probably get waived through. So the policy hits smaller game and devs harder. And also isn't really even a "policy," since it's applied unevenly and politically.

Ah, I see. I didn't know they were actually being more aggressive now. My outside perception of the situation from all of MS's comments has basically been that the parity clause technically exists, but is basically never enforced.

I hope they eventually see that this makes no logical sense. Enforcing an "extra content" requirement on smaller devs, while waiving it for big "must have" indies makes no sense. Smaller devs are the ones that have the most hurdles already to release on multiple platforms and requiring them to make some extra content just adds one more hurdle. On the other hand, for big name indies, that extra content would be easy to do, as they have more resources, and they would likely do it anyway. I mean look at a game like Axiom Verge where all the music, art, programming, bug testing, etc. etc. is all done by one man. We know that game is coming to Xbox, are MS really going to require him to put more content in? The game took him what, 5 years of his life?? How much is that extra content, no matter how small, going to take?

Requiring devs with scant resources to expend more resources and obviating the requirement for devs who don't need it?? jackiechanwtf.jpg

 

[PoweredByHentai]

The last time MS PR amounted to something along the lines of "the internet is making a big deal and doesn't know the truth", Albert Penello was still posting on here trying to downplay the power difference. Dude was seriously expecting people to apologize if the power difference wasn't major when the consoles came out. And he never offered a single apology for lying.

That seems to be the Microsoft way.

The whole stint with the Technical Fellow seemed incredibly dishonest.

I think people would have reacted better if they were speaking directly with the Technical Fellow instead of having the Fellow's responses be coached or moderated by Penello.

 

[Pejo]

I actually had to check the dates on this thread to make sure it wasn't the other one I read regarding almost this same exact stuff. It's a shame they haven't canned the Parity Clause at this point. I don't see any xbox owners going "yea we don't want those filthy games unless it's got a bonus level!" so I'm not sure who they really believe they're championing here.

 

[HighResTomato]

Some of the defense forcing in this thread is genuinely shocking.



Paging Dr Freud.

 

[xxracerxx]

I actually had to check the dates on this thread to make sure it wasn't the other one I read regarding almost this same exact stuff. It's a shame they haven't canned the Parity Clause at this point. I don't see any xbox owners going "yea we don't want those filthy games unless it's got a bonus level!" so I'm not sure who they really believe they're championing here.

Ahem....

If I was in Charla I'd do exactly the same thing. Either refresh the product if you are going to re-release it, or don't at all.

 

[BananasWithGuns]

Do you have a source for that? All I've seen is "come talk to us".

Just going off what Charla said in the article in the OP.

 

[Pejo]

Ahem....

Haha, I stand corrected. Well played.

 

[RedSparrows]

Not a big deal, XBL is getting like half if not less of the indies PSN gets.

Isn't that the point? Devs don't not release games because they think 'huh, 10+ million potential customers, haha, no big deal', as if the X1 market is irrelevant, they don't release games because 'huh, gotta do what?!'.

 

[Jomjom]

If I was in Charla I'd do exactly the same thing. Either refresh the product if you are going to re-release it, or don't at all.

You sir are truly a 1st class gamer.

 

[RedSparrows]

Re-reading what he said, he does say 'if you can't simultaneously ship, that's cool'. He's saying the parity thing is more about TEH EXCLUSIVES then ending up on Xbox (say) 6 months later.

Still seems a bit silly, but that's not as bad - if that is indeed the way it actually works.

 

[unknownstranger]

Isn't exactly how it works. If you can't release on both simultaneously then you should be fine to put it on XB1 later without additional content.

But say, if you sign a deal with Sony so that your game appears on PS4 first before any other platform, regardless of whether you have the resources to put it on another platform, then MS is asking you to create some additional content in order to make up for that.

I mean, either way it's still dumb. The additional content is rarely meaningful and Microsoft needs to realize that their consumers would rather have the ability to buy the game regardless of whether it has additional content or not as opposed to just not having the game available to them at all.

Many of these devs who sign deals with Sony can't afford releasing on both consoles at the same time anyways. Signing a deal with Sony gives them extra security which is why most do it.

 

[Neuromancer]

If I was in Charla I'd do exactly the same thing. Either refresh the product if you are going to re-release it, or don't at all.

That's a shitty attitude. Do you work for MS too?

 

[Mael]

No wonder some indies are skippin the xbone,
why would you want to deal with that kind of headache?

 

[HighResTomato]

That's a shitty attitude. Do you work for MS too?

Shitty Attitude™ platform exclusive to Microsoft Corporation right?

Is that how you talk to everyone that doesn't agree with you?

 

[Neuromancer]

Shitty Attitude™ platform exclusive to Microsoft Corporation right?

Is that how you talk to everyone that doesn't agree with you?

This particular shitty attitude certainly seems exclusive to MS.

 

[Chobel]

If I was in Charla I'd do exactly the same thing. Either refresh the product if you are going to re-release it, or don't at all.

Jesus Christ! How many Xbox owners are like you? That could explain why MS is so stubborn about this.

 

[tuxfool]

Jesus Christ! How many Xbox owners are like you? That could explain why MS is so stubborn about this.

I don't think many are.

 

[Jomjom]

This particular shitty attitude certainly seems exclusive to MS.

Gotta get exclusives somehow.

 

[krypt0nian]

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.

This whole post is TERRIFYING.

 

[Goodacre0081]

And, yes, it seems like bigger / more popular games can probably get waived through. So the policy hits smaller game and devs harder. And also isn't really even a "policy," since it's applied unevenly and politically.

this is such a slap in the face to the smaller devs I honestly expected someone to speak out and give MS shit over it. the possibility of MS enforcing this clause for NoMansSky are zero when the time comes to bring it over.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Yes, they actually have.

<3

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.

What? Just...what?

No.