Support NeoGAF

[Jigorath]

Are we angry as Xbox One owners because we're missing out on games we have to get elsewhere or are we angry on behalf of developers because they're choosing to forgo a presence on Xbox when they're unable to comply?

There are a lot of indie developers on GAF, and a lot of Xbone owners as well who probably want more games on their platform. And all this parity clause is doing is getting them less games.

 

[LewieP]

I don't accept this argument at all.

Publishers already have the resources for simultaneous development, indie developers don't. Publishers' marketing spend rely on maximizing cross-platform sales, which is why it would be cutting their own throats to deliver a late version of AAA Open World Jankfest at $69.99 a pop. Indie developers rely much more on word of mouth and fan marketing, which is why a title like Super Meat Boy or Bastion can come to PlayStation years after the initial release and still be prepped for success.

Ironically, it's the agility of indie development in today's marketplace that allows for them to move around as they see fit. PS3 coming out late? Xbox 360 has the platform and spotlight you need! Xbone fucking up? PS4 is outselling it 2:1 and Sony doesn't care if you bring your game to PC as well. Hell, take it to Xbone at your own time if that'll help your financial situation. Big publishers don't have that option, not if they want to succeed at that level.

End of the day, the people at MS are incredibly smart and can't be using a blanket policy for both AAA and indie. This is a powerplay against a group that can least afford it, and it's incredibly fortunate for indie devs that this generation's market breakdown has turned out the way it has.

To be clear, I'm not saying this is the right way for MS to operate, just what I think they are doing. Imagine a reverse Tomb Raider scenario, they'd want to get some kind of substantial DLC if the game came out on PS4 first.

Bear in mind that they have smaller publishers on ID@Xbox, too. It's not just developers, it's also the route that primarily digital publishers take to Xbox, and with the general direction of the industry right now, this is going to be a bigger portion of games later into the Xbox One's lifecycle.

Yes it's about coercing smaller developers to treat their platform better than they would without this policy, but it's also about maintaining the status quo with bigger games.

I think this a poor strategy, and it is causing headaches for a lot of developers who really don't need it, but it's Microsoft's platform so I guess it's their call. It makes the Xbox One unattractive to me, but there you go.

 

[vpance]

I just feel as though that's probably what guides Microsoft's thinking. They see every game everyone hopes to bring out as an asset, and they want to manage things so that its harder to argue their platform is a second class system. Even when it comes to indie games.

I understand the arguments that it is backfiring, and that it's manifestly not working for them, I guess I just kind of feel like thats where the motivation comes from. A protectionist tendency towards the reputation of the library.

One part protectionary, one part pride, and a dash of salt?

Maybe they realize a high portion of the Xbone user base have it as a second console and they would've bought the game on PS4 first anyways, and they might as well keep on trucking with that first class charade for the core owners. Misguided perhaps, but maybe they have numbers that we aren't privy to which supports their thinking. /shrugs

 

[Abdiel]

Neat.

This thread isn't about tentpole releases. It's about those "little guys". The ones being bent over for a policy that benefits nobody but the platform holder, and the ones who can least afford it. I wonder how happy those customers are thanks to the significant numbers of games that aren't coming to their platform, and the devs who aren't even bothering to have "a talk" with Microsoft.

It is an asinine, anti-competitive policy designed to strong arm devs.

Nobody is talking about AAA releases in this thread. Why do you keep bringing those up as if it's relevant to this discussion?

Your attitude regarding indies is toxic. Thanks to the openness of PC/PS4 development, marketing and sales, MS needs indies this generation more than indies need MS. Why jump through (independently established, mind!) hoops to get on a platform that's being outsold 2:1 at minimum when other options are readily available to make money?

Let me make this clear - this isn't last generation anymore. The clause would work great for Microsoft if they were the market leader and able to leverage that arm-twisting to either keep games from PS4 or force simultaneous launches - financial damage to developers be damned.

I swear these regurgitated arguments are so tired at this point.

Yes, Microsoft is trying to keep their customers happy - by ensuring they get significantly less games and being awful to the most vulnerable devs in the industry.

Bravo, Microsoft. How altruistic of you. Fucking absurd.

I want to make it clear that even though bishoptl is right that the strategy would work if they were in first and had command of the industry, even that's a nasty way to be. And this gen Sony proves you don't have to be that way to be successful. So it'd still be fucked up.

Do you know how much something like a new character skin costs to implement?

Someone else in this thread yesterday was like "it'll just take a few minutes" (paraphrasing) and I had to get off the net and go outside. It all costs money and when your margins are thin or non-existent from the jump, you shouldn't have to do that to get on a platform that needs you more than you need it.

It's OK, the Titanic is sinking and he doesn't see a problem because he's sitting on the iceberg watching. I have no idea why those passengers are shrieking, it looks like a nice ship from here.

Now all we need is Absinthe Games, Ravidrath, and Chubigans to make their voices as clearly heard, and maybe we'll have a more cohesive archive to make the apologists or ignorant folks pay attention.

I love you guys.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

There are a lot of indie developers on GAF, and a lot of Xbone owners as well who probably want more games on their platform. And all this parity clause is doing is getting them less games.

I don't own an xbone yet (the Rare collection - if it lives up to its name - is making that a very difficult delay), but I'm more concerned that MS are keeping these shit policies for when/if they get the upper hand again. They benefit no one but MS.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

If anyone wants even a tiny sense of what the struggle for indie devs is like, read this overview written by Nine Dots Studio head Guillaume Boucher-Vidal.

Then add on top of this struggle things like "add red tape to talk to King Phil Spencer if it's OK not to add content" or "add in a new character or level so they can be happy."

Damn, I had heard it could get ridiculously tough for indie devs.

Informative read, thanks for linking

 

[Jigorath]

I don't own an xbone yet (the Rare collection is making that a very difficult delay), but I'm more concerned that MS are keeping these shit policies for when/if they get the upper hand again.

They'll never get the upper hand again with policies like this.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

They'll never get the upper hand again with policies like this.

Probably not, but there's always a chance.

 

[benny_a]

The issue is that if this strategy is so effective that it forces the hand of Nintendo and Sony to tit-for-tat it, because they also don't want to miss out on games by default.

And eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

 

[slavesnyder]

I wonder how well small indies sell on XboxOne anyway. As a DudeBro-centric machine with about half the install base worldwide I can imagine that especially for quirky stuff the Xbox is not the perfect place to be. We all love cuphead, but does it appeal to enough people who have The One at home?
Did we get numbers for Ori Pc vs Xbox for example? I would bet that the vast majority of sales was on Steam.
And those are the AAA indies. For smaller ones it should be even worse.
And if small developers see that you can make enough money on steam and PS4, they might leave Spencer and his bend-over-contract in the shame corner.
It's a pity, because all good games deserve access to all players and the other way round, but if microsoft wants to sabotage this, they deserve no better.
And to the users who argue: "but that was not their intention. They mean no evil."
Sorry, in this case they mean it and they do it on the back of the weakest.

 

[Silvard]

Edit: my apologies for reading this as a more broad issue and if I don't understand the historical context of this policy...

Nintendo are THE example that devs can't be trusted to treat audiences with respect, nor can they be trusted to act in the interests of maintaining a competitive marketplace. The PS2 should live long in the memory for companies like Microsoft, a reminder of how competitors can suck in content by virtue of every success and establish insane dominance. Publishers need Microsoft's platforms at the moment, as they are one half of the equation when it comes to their big AAA releases. I don't blame them for protecting themselves from shoddy late releases and abusive publishing practices.

Like I say, I appreciate that for Indies this is a whole other matter, and is causing Microsoft to lose games - but again - some indie games have value. If you're going to lay with a competitor and release at full price, why should I let you port that product late, again at full value, when its lost whatever value it had in the indie cultural zeitgeist and ceased to be 'new'? Better that you add value for any subsequent releases anyway. Not just for the benefit of the platforms you release late on, but for the benefit of keeping your game fresh IMO. Of course I'm aware that some games and development teams would see this as a burden. Perhaps there ought to be a system of exemption.

As for Wii U: Cash ins like the late Darksiders II and Mass Effect 3 ports were bad ideas that were manifestly damaging to the reputation of the platform in early days. They were late old games, running badly. I'm being hard on the developers actually as its not their fault, but when it comes to a publishers motivation, ME3 releasing at launch, so late after other versions, and with a trilogy around the corner - it was just cynical. Look at how they leveraged their EA Access issues with Sony to deliver benefits to Microsoft too. These publishers have agendas and they can be predatory sharks who would happily distort the market and play King-maker if you let them.

Holy shit...

 

[>-Baron-Spamedi-<]

So many parity clause defenders.
it's almost liike they haven't noticed how poorly the Xbox fares for Indies compared to PS4.

 

[Amir0x]

I wonder how well small indies sell on XboxOne anyway. As a DudeBro-centric machine with about half the install base worldwide I can imagine that especially for quirky stuff the Xbox is not the perfect place to be. We all love cuphead, but does it appeal to enough people who have The One at home?
Did we get numbers for Ori Pc vs Xbox for example? I would bet that the vast majority of sales was on Steam.
And if small developers see that you can make enough money on steam and PS4, they might leave Spencer and his bend-over-contract in the shame corner.
It's a pity, because all good games deserve access to all players and the other way round, but if microsoft wants to sabotage this, they deserve no better.
And to the users who argue: "but that was not their intention. They mean no evil."
Sorry, in this case they mean it and they do it on the back of the weakest.

Dude, games like Bastion, Braid and Super Meat Boy are as un-dudebro as can be, and all became massive successes due to XBL.

The whole "dudebro" idea is basically nonsense.

 

[slavesnyder]

Dude, games like Bastion, Braid and Super Meat Boy are as un-dudebro as can be, and all became massive successes due to XBL.

The whole "dudebro" idea is basically nonsense.

Okay. That was 360, or?

 

[Amir0x]

Okay. That was 360, or?

That was 360, of course.

And XBO just had Ori for example, which has already been a pretty sizable success for an indie game. Pretty dudebro game right there.

Dudebro is not the inhibiting quality for indie releases on XBO or anywhere else.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I wonder how well small indies sell on XboxOne anyway. As a DudeBro-centric machine with about half the install base worldwide I can imagine that especially for quirky stuff the Xbox is not the perfect place to be. We all love cuphead, but does it appeal to enough people who have The One at home?
Did we get numbers for Ori Pc vs Xbox for example? I would bet that the vast majority of sales was on Steam.
And those are the AAA indies. For smaller ones it should be even worse.
And if small developers see that you can make enough money on steam and PS4, they might leave Spencer and his bend-over-contract in the shame corner.
It's a pity, because all good games deserve access to all players and the other way round, but if microsoft wants to sabotage this, they deserve no better.
And to the users who argue: "but that was not their intention. They mean no evil."
Sorry, in this case they mean it and they do it on the back of the weakest.

I dont wonder about the audience. I do wonder about lack of demos and shit exposure keeping indies buried. I'm not into spending $20 on a game I've never heard of and can't demo.

Xbla had a deep variety of genres, and you could demo everything.

 

[bishoptl]

Okay. That was 360, or?

360 was routinely referred to as the Shooterbox, but indies thrived on that platform. My Xbox 360 is still hooked up partially due to the large amount of indie games I purchased. There was an audience there that was being served and served well.

 

[m_dorian]

Here is a beautiful documentary about the power and technological sophistication of PR:

http://freedocumentaries.org/documentary/bbc-the-century-of-the-self-happiness-machines-season-1-episode-1

And it's only four hours.

That is why i love being here. Thank you for this.

 

[Woo-Fu]

It is going to be a parody clause at this rate.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

That is why i love being here. Thank you for this.

You can't go wrong with any of Adam Curtis' documentaries, by the way, they're all brilliant - and have awesome soundtracks

 

[Sword Of Doom]

This was my first thought when I heard they make exceptions. It's a load of bull.

Yup. It's a win/win for Microsoft. They don't miss out on any of the popular games while bullying other devs into delaying their games on other platforms or releasing their games on XB1 first. This clause is still the reason I don't own an XB1. I just can't support these kinds of practices

 

[Dan]

The parity defense force has such a thinly veiled contempt for developers and their business realities. "If I can't get a game on my platform of choice on day one, then I deserve that game at dirt cheap prices and/or with exclusive features! Fuck devs and their 'limited resources' and financial need to stagger platform releases."

 

[The 8-Bit Raider]

360 was routinely referred to as the Shooterbox, but indies thrived on that platform. My Xbox 360 is still hooked up partially due to the large amount of indie games I purchased. There was an audience there that was being served and served well.

I was part of that audience on the 360 myself which is one of the reasons I chose the PS4 over the Xbox One this gen.

The PS4 is by far the best choice when it comes to indie gaming on home consoles at this time. I suspect some of that audience has moved over as well.

 

[LewieP]

Yes any early adopters for whom indie games on consoles was a big factor in their deciding whether to go with Xbox One or PS4 will have been more likely to go PS4. Not only are there more PS4 owners, but logic also suggests that those PS4 owners are more interested in indie games (and indeed spend more money on them).

Not to say no Xbox One owners are into indie games, that would be nonsense, just that at this stage the PS4 is the natural home for indie games on consoles, much like Xbox Live once was.

 

[jelly]

I think a lot of people theorize that MS stubbornly won't let this clause go because they still hope they'll be back in the number 1 position like with the 360.

You can see how this clause would be extremely powerful if the Xbone was the number 1 home console. Basically it would strongarm most of the indies to never release for PS4 first again.

Why use a carrot to incentivize developers to come to your platform, when you can act like a bully and swing a big stick instead. I guess. The stick doesn't cost them anything but the carrot does.

Is Windows 10 and Xbox on PC their alternative strategy to getting that 360 dominance back and then some to make the clause work as intended again?

Quite the scummy strategy. Hope Phil gets pulled up on it interview after interview. Not really being a fan of games.

 

[slavesnyder]

That was 360, of course.

And XBO just had Ori for example, which has already been a pretty sizable success for an indie game. Pretty dudebro game right there.
Dudebro is not the inhibiting quality for indie releases on XBO or anywhere else.

Relax. It was a question.
I know xbla was great, i know the 360 was cool for indies. I even know ori was profitable (just did not know it was explictely because of the Xbox and not because of steam). And i will not mention D4 here...

But when i hear statements that a lot of former 360-users went over to getting a Ps4 i imagine that those staying with the One are those primarily interested in the good old halo-gears-forza-canon, meanwhile a lot of "indie-lovers" would go where the most indies seem to be.

I was part of that audience on the 360 myself which is one of the reasons I chose the PS4 over the Xbox One this gen.

The PS4 is by far the best choice when it comes to indie gaming on home consoles at this time. I suspect some of that audience has moved over as well.

Something like this...

 

[Miles Quaritch]

It's not parity clause related, but it's very telling of how little MS cared about indie support in the beginning when one of the best exclusive indie developers of last gen pretty much threw their support behind Sony and the PS4 due to the lack of tools from MS...

I am of course talking about Ska. The amazing and very underrated developer of the Dishwasher series.

http://www.ska-studios.com/salt/

"And I know it bores everyone to tears and no one likes reporting on it, but the engineering side of it was an issue. All of our code is .NET/XNA, and, even though XNA support has ended, .NET games can use open source wrappers like Monogame and FNA to carry the torch. But Xbox One has no .NET support. PS4 does, with titles like Towerfall: Ascension and Transistor using Monogame in one form or another to deploy to PS4. Microsoft promised .NET support 4 months ago, but there haven't been any updates. Unity on Xbox One is an option, but that would require me to do major rewrites. I know our games probably look simple enough, but they always end up with hundreds of thousands of lines of code in them."

http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/28/ska-studios-shifts-to-sony-after-6-years-on-xbox/

 

[Fafalada]

Imagine a reverse Tomb Raider scenario, they'd want to get some kind of substantial DLC if the game came out on PS4 first.

Doesn't really work that way. Publishers have pretty much all the leverage in AAA space when it comes to established IPs, it's almost exclusively the platform holders that bend over in such deals. High-profile multi-platforms got special treatment even during PS2 era, let alone in generations with more competitive market-distribution.
Things like added DLC(or other extras) for late releases is common sense if you're trying to maximize sales, not really as favours for the platform holder.

 

[Amir0x]

Relax. It was a question.

I'm not sure what in my post suggested I wasn't relaxed. Dudebro is not the inhibiting quality for XBL releases. I was simply stating a fact.

I know xbla was great, i know the 360 was cool for indies. I even know ori was profitable (just did not know it was explictely because of the Xbox and not because of steam). And i will not mention D4 here...[

But when i hear statements that a lot of former 360-users went over to getting a Ps4 i imagine that those staying with the One are those primarily interested in the good old halo-gears-forza-canon, meanwhile a lot of "indie-lovers" would go where the most indies seem to be.

I mean it's fine to imagine whatever, but the evidence does not back it up. Indie games that have been successful on XBO so far have in no way been defined by "dudebro"-ness. Therefore, the hypothesis is incorrect.

 

[xxracerxx]

360 was routinely referred to as the Shooterbox, but indies thrived on that platform. My Xbox 360 is still hooked up partially due to the large amount of indie games I purchased. There was an audience there that was being served and served well.

I would have recommended anyone that buying the 360 was the right choice if they enjoy indies, what a fantastic system for them.

 

[Rymuth]

I would have recommended anyone that buying the 360 was the right choice if they enjoy indies, what a fantastic system for them.

Summer of arcade was amazing.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

It's not parity clause related, but it's very telling of how little MS cared about indie support in the beginning when one of the best exclusive indie developers of last gen pretty much threw their support behind Sony and the PS4 due to the lack of tools from MS...

I am of course talking about Ska. The amazing and very underrated developer of the Dishwasher series.

http://www.ska-studios.com/salt/

Salt and Sanctuary is looking fucking amazing. If I were an Xbox-only player and were to miss out on this game because of this stupid parity clause, I would be furious.

 

[jelly]

Summer of arcade was amazing.

Lost it's steam in the later years and then disappeared I think. It was great while it lasted. Maybe just me but I didn't buy much in the later years of 360. Didn't seem to be that focus or spotlight.

 

[SerTapTap]

How is it even possible that they keep parroting the same bullshit month after month and basically pretending it's gone then straight up confirming it is real and still there sentences later? How.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Summer of arcade was amazing.

A shame they stopped it. Provided excellent games a spotlight for success. Even offered a discount for buying multiple titles in the promotion.

Now it feels like you have to follow devs on twitter to even know what the hell is coming out.

 

[The 8-Bit Raider]

I would have recommended anyone that buying the 360 was the right choice if they enjoy indies, what a fantastic system for them.

I would have done the same. The 360 was a fantastic system for indies last gen and I certainly had my fill. That being siad, the question now is which home console would you recommend for indies this gen?

 

[tmtyf]

Now all we need is Absinthe Games, Ravidrath, and Chubigans to make their voices as clearly heard, and maybe we'll have a more cohesive archive to make the apologists or ignorant folks pay attention.

I love you guys.

 

[slavesnyder]

I'm not sure what in my post suggested I wasn't relaxed. Dudebro is not the inhibiting quality for XBL releases. I was simply stating a fact.
I mean it's fine to imagine whatever, but the evidence does not back it up. Indie games that have been successful on XBO so far have in no way been defined by "dudebro"-ness. Therefore, the hypothesis is incorrect.

Okay, maybe i am too deep in the land of hypothesis.
Anyway, these indie games that were successful on Xbox one, do you have a link or something?
And don't get me wrong. I do not think that dudebro is the only way to please an XboxOne-owner, i just say that the total amount of indie gamers, and even the relative percentage of them might be higher on Sony's machine. I don't know if Ori would have made more sales on PS4, it's all guesswork, but i think it's not improbable (even more when you take the rest of the world into account, too. Even poor Japan f.ex.).

The 360 was the market leader and therefore not only the dudebro-machine, but the console for most of the american gamers, including all kinds of tastes and preferences, with a great place for all kind of indie stuff. Now, marketshare has shrinked a lot and i just wondered who left the ship. Because there have to be people who left, it makes no sense otherwise. The console now is cheaper, has halo and all multiplat-AAA-games... and less indies, so i thought that it could attract promarily customers who want exactly this. Self-fullfilling blah.
Conclusion: less attractive demography for indies.
But if i am wrong i am wrong. Or only simplyfying too much.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

I wonder how well small indies sell on XboxOne anyway. As a DudeBro-centric machine with about half the install base worldwide I can imagine that especially for quirky stuff the Xbox is not the perfect place to be. We all love cuphead, but does it appeal to enough people who have The One at home?
Did we get numbers for Ori Pc vs Xbox for example? I would bet that the vast majority of sales was on Steam.
And those are the AAA indies. For smaller ones it should be even worse.
And if small developers see that you can make enough money on steam and PS4, they might leave Spencer and his bend-over-contract in the shame corner.
It's a pity, because all good games deserve access to all players and the other way round, but if microsoft wants to sabotage this, they deserve no better.
And to the users who argue: "but that was not their intention. They mean no evil."
Sorry, in this case they mean it and they do it on the back of the weakest.

Hard to tell what sales are really, but the whole dudebro generalization almost makes me disregard everything else you said as its so foolish.

And I had an indie dev at E3 tell me that their Xbox One sales have been "much better" than their PS4 sales for their title. (Don't read anything into this, just saying)

Generalizations are lame.

 

[LewieP]

Doesn't really work that way. Publishers have pretty much all the leverage in AAA space when it comes to established IPs, it's almost exclusively the platform holders that bend over in such deals. High-profile multi-platforms got special treatment even during PS2 era, let alone in generations with more competitive market-distribution.
Things like added DLC(or other extras) for late releases is common sense if you're trying to maximize sales, not really as favours for the platform holder.

I suggest you look into the situation regarding Joe Danger last generation.

The parity stuff has a long history, we're only having so much discussion of it now because it's being applied to a broad range of indie developers who will speak publicly about such things. Typically EA, Ubisoft and Activision don't take to Twitter when Sony or Microsoft have an objectionable policy.

Heck, the only reason we heard about the Joe Danger situation is because Hello Games were one of a handful of devs allowed to release on XBLA without a publisher. Pretty much all the other indie games either had an external publisher (likely bound to some kind of parity deal) or were published by Microsoft themselves.

 

[Goodacre0081]

If there's a developer who's building a game and they just can't get the game done for both platforms - cool. We'll take a staggered release.

I always wondered about the other side of this. what happens if your studio is big enough to do both versions simultaneously and simply choose to stagger releases anyway? is that where MS says "not cool" and might deny a release?

 

[Huff]

And I had an indie dev at E3 tell me that their Xbox One sales have been "much better" than their PS4 sales for their title. (Don't read anything into this, just saying)

Generalizations are lame.

Even Nintendo has their one indie game that has sold better. Doesn't mean much

 

[Y2Kev]

Salt and Sanctuary is looking fucking amazing. If I were an Xbox-only player and were to miss out on this game because of this stupid parity clause, I would be furious.

Why furious? All they have to do is come talk to usTM. It's really the devs fault if they can't even be bothered to come talk to usTM. Lol lazy devs!

 

[nynt9]

I just feel as though that's probably what guides Microsoft's thinking. They see every game everyone hopes to bring out as an asset, and they want to manage things so that its harder to argue their platform is a second class system. Even when it comes to indie games.

I understand the arguments that it is backfiring, and that it's manifestly not working for them, I guess I just kind of feel like thats where the motivation comes from. A protectionist tendency towards the reputation of the library.

If they cared so much about protecting the reputation of their library how do you explain Halo MCC?

This policy is just predatory and seeing people go out of their way to defend it shows just how strong Microsoft's branding and PR has succeeded in making people take leaps of faith.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

Even Nintendo has their one indie game that has sold better. Doesn't mean much

I mean, I specifically said "don't read anything into it". Just saying that Xbox owners should not be generalized as dudebro. I have confirmation from a non-dudebro dev that this is not the case.

Could be an outlier, doesn't mean much other than to point out that indie games of non "dudebro" calibre are still viable on the platform

 

[LewieP]

Even Nintendo has their one indie game that has sold better. Doesn't mean much

Aye, if part of your deal with MS was promotion/marketing support, the data says more about the deal the dev signed than it says about the platform health in general.


See Shovel Knight on Wii U, which Nintendo threw a lot of weight behind.

 

[Abdiel]

Um... Do you have a problem with me wanting there to be very recognizable, outspoken and well put together voices against this subject?

 

[_machine]

It's not parity clause related, but it's very telling of how little MS cared about indie support in the beginning when one of the best exclusive indie developers of last gen pretty much threw their support behind Sony and the PS4 due to the lack of tools from MS...

I am of course talking about Ska. The amazing and very underrated developer of the Dishwasher series.

http://www.ska-studios.com/salt/



http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/28/ska-studios-shifts-to-sony-after-6-years-on-xbox/

Yup, whilst .NET support certainly isn't the biggest problem developers are facing, it's still baffling that MS isn't support their own technologies on the platform despite the success we've seen from some of these technologies. MS is the only one here to blame on why Transistor isn't on the platform, or why Ska isn't making games for the platform, or why Fez or Bastion couldn't be ported easily. I can understand dropping XNA since it's support is nonexistant and people have picked up (with varying success) it's remains to a new environment, but no .NET support is still a baffling decisiong amongst others.

That said, Chris Charla is still leading a great team and I have heard a ton of good things about ID@XBOX and their support. The platform too could be an important market for indies and I'm sure the audience is there, but I wholhearteadly believe that the "Parity Clause" needs to come down. I certainly would think twice before accepting those "terms" (which I admittedly don't know in exact details due to them being unique) as an indie developer, because it can seriously hurt an indie business.

 

[slavesnyder]

Hard to tell what sales are really, but the whole dudebro generalization almost makes me disregard everything else you said as its so foolish.

And I had an indie dev at E3 tell me that their Xbox One sales have been "much better" than their PS4 sales for their title. (Don't read anything into this, just saying)

Generalizations are lame.

got enough feedback like your's (and still not banned, pew). So i rethink my standpoint. That's why i am here, as i have by far not the biggest experience around here. Cannot undo the dudebro-thing, as it seems to distract more than it helps. Sorry.

 

[Deepo]

This really is the Santa Clause; it just keeps on giving.