Support NeoGAF

[Biker19]

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.

Blame Microsoft for the way that they have advertised their consoles as such.

They've always heavily marketed their platforms as, "the place to go" for FPS's, Sports, & AAA titles.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

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.

No need to apologize, just good to go back and forth with debates, that's why I like this place.

I would agree that the audience on Xbox is more dude-bro-ish than PS, but that doesn't mean that there still isn't a market for other genres and obscure indies.

I think the indie scene is healthy on all systems and it's a good thing for gamers no matter where they are.
I
Things like the parity clause definitely don't help the Xbox side though, and the .Net thing I just read about ska is something I had not known which is equally as sucky. . Microsoft still has a ways to go to be more developer friendly though as seen by this thread.

 

[Plague Doctor]

So I am still relatively new to these forums and greatly enjoy all the conversations and topic so far. What I don't understand is how a consumer of a product and service can actively support and defend this policy?

From what I am reading with the provided links upthread, developers have expressed the hardship it places on them to not only port but feel compelled to create new content to be released on another platform. Microsoft can disband this clause and get a larger library with a figurative flip of a switch. The statements explaining its further implementation from MS have been at best... vague.

Look, I have greatly enjoy the products and services of many corporations, yet when it comes to light they have questionable practices, I don't think I have ever once felt the need to defend them. I have not even necessarily stopped using their products and services but definitely have never put it out to the world a personal defense of it.

Xbox One user can love and enjoy what is a solid console but still feel this is an utter crap clause and deal. It doesn't benefit them and certainly places hardships on independent developers. Just drop it and expand the library.

 

[PeskyToaster]

So I am still relatively new to these forums and greatly enjoy all the conversations and topic so far. What I don't understand is how a consumer of a product and service can actively support and defend this policy?

From what I am reading with the provided links upthread, developers have expressed the hardship it places on them to not only port but feel compelled to create new content to be released on another platform. Microsoft can disband this clause and get a larger library with a figurative flip of a switch. The statements explaining its further implementation from MS have been at best... vague.

Look, I have greatly enjoy the products and services of many corporations, yet when it comes to light they have questionable practices, I don't think I have ever once felt the need to defend them. I have not even necessarily stopped using their products and services but definitely have never put it out to the world a personal defense of it.

Xbox One user can love and enjoy what is a solid console but still feel this is an utter crap clause and deal. It doesn't benefit them and certainly places hardships on independent developers. Just drop it and expand the library.

It's not as easy as flipping the switch for say, Kinect integration. This stuff is built directly into the console.

 

[Plague Doctor]

It's not as easy as flipping the switch for say, Kinect integration. This stuff is built directly into the console.

Ah wait... think I missed something. The parity clause is tied in with Kinect integration?

 

[Goodacre0081]

Blame Microsoft for the way that they have advertised their consoles as such.

They've always had it as, "the place to go" for FPS's, Sports, & AAA titles.

 

[Stanng243]

It's not as easy as flipping the switch for say, Kinect integration. This stuff is built directly into the console.

It's a corporate policy. It's not built into the console.

 

[Armaros]

Ah wait... think I missed something. The parity clause is tied in with Kinect integration?

It's a joke about how kinect was a fundamental part of the console until they were in dire straits and they unceremoniously dumped it. Almost like a flick of a switch.
In other words: if it gets really bad, MS will dump it and pretend it didn't exist.

 

[jelly]

Ah wait... think I missed something. The parity clause is tied in with Kinect integration?

A joke based on Xbox One reveal, always online, Kinect needs to be connected at all times for Xbox to work, you can't just flick a switch to remove Kinect but Microsoft did just that as everyone expected after the backlash.

 

[2MF]

I don't quite get why this clause gets so much hate on a GAF. It's like he said before. Owners of The One should feel like they are First Class. If you are going on a flight, living the life with a first class ticket, like a boss, how would you feel if those second-class losers got to board the plane before you did? Then you wouldn't be first class, and that's not how you should feel like a The One owner.

Another way to say first class is Tier One. If you are Tier One, you should get your stuff first. If you are a Tier One country, like the USA, of course you should get the The One before second tier countries like Japan or Europe. Similarly, if you are a The One owner, you shouldn't wait to get your games until after those Tier Two PS4 gamers.

Another way to say First Class is Alpha, because Alpha was the first letter of the Egyptian alphabet. If you're Alpha, and you're out partying with some Beta friend, of course the girls would choose to go with you before your friend. Sure, if your friend manages to convince her to do a threesome with both you and him (multi-platform game), then sure that's ok. Let him get in on some action. He doesn't get a lot of chances, so of course you are going to be a good friend and let him join. (But cross-platform multiplayer is out of the question because dicks touching each other is not how you roll.)

Now if this chick would go with your friend first, of course you won't chase after her to be with you later. First, you are Alpha, you don't do sloppy seconds, and second calling her to be with you, just because she was with your friend makes you look pathetic. But still, you are a nice guy. You know that the world gets better the more people get to be with you. So you are willing to make some exceptions. You may be able to forgive this stupid broad for going with your friend if she does something nice to make up for it. So you say: "Come talk to me. If you really want to be with me, give me a call and we will find a way to make that happen. We can get together and you can work something out to make it special in some way." And then maybe she will cook you a meal, or do some freaky shit with you that she would never do with your Beta friend. In this situation you can be with her without losing face.

I hope you all understand their position now. I realize that the last example may be a bit difficult to understand for PS4 owners, as they don't get to have much sex, but I did my best to explain.

Oh man...

 

[Plague Doctor]

Ah! Okay I understand completely. Thanks for the clarification. Well then, this is far more easier for them to just remove.

 

[Fafalada]

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

So JD was an established AAA and Hello Games were a publisher?
This is just another example of pushing indies around, not showing anything resembling this policy applied against the rest, which I believe was your argument for why MS is holding on to this.

 

[Weltall Zero]

So I am still relatively new to these forums and greatly enjoy all the conversations and topic so far. What I don't understand is how a consumer of a product and service can actively support and defend this policy?

From what I am reading with the provided links upthread, developers have expressed the hardship it places on them to not only port but feel compelled to create new content to be released on another platform. Microsoft can disband this clause and get a larger library with a figurative flip of a switch. The statements explaining its further implementation from MS have been at best... vague.

Look, I have greatly enjoy the products and services of many corporations, yet when it comes to light they have questionable practices, I don't think I have ever once felt the need to defend them. I have not even necessarily stopped using their products and services but definitely have never put it out to the world a personal defense of it.

Xbox One user can love and enjoy what is a solid console but still feel this is an utter crap clause and deal. It doesn't benefit them and certainly places hardships on independent developers. Just drop it and expand the library.

The answer is simple: on NeoGAF you will always, always find a defense force for everything, as well as critics for everything; no matter what it is, from pushing thumbtacks onto your eyeballs to breathing oxygen. It's like the E-rated version of Rule 34.

 

[Abdiel]

The answer is simple: on NeoGAF you will always, always find a defense force for everything, as well as critics for everything; no matter what it is, from pushing thumbtacks onto your eyeballs to breathing oxygen. It's like the E-rated version of Rule 34.

I'm all for debate. I'm all for opinions.

But when people found those opinions or debates on blatant bias and ignorance, then it's just double-speak and BS. It's not worth it. They're just trying to push aside what they don't want to hear.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

So reading this, it seems like the clause is only for developers who take exclusive deals with other consoles, right?

 

[serversurfer]

I'm angry because I've always wanted to make games but it has been to hard for me or perhaps I never wanted it enough. But I have tried so I have great respect for the people who are doing it. The though of these people being directly fucked around by the biggest software player in the world makes me angry.

My thoughts, almost exactly. Though unlike some, I don't think forced parity is "okay for AAA."

Fuck feature parity, fuck content parity, and fuck launch parity.

 

[Abdiel]

So reading this, it seems like the clause is only for developers who take exclusive deals with other consoles, right?

No. Anyone that releases on any other system prior to the XB1. Not a matter of exclusivity deals.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

No. Anyone that releases on any other system prior to the XB1. Not a matter of exclusivity deals.

But that's not what he said in the Edge quote. He said they accept staggered releases, but want something new for games that take deals from Sony/Nintendo if we are to believe his quote.

 

[Plague Doctor]

The answer is simple: on NeoGAF you will always, always find a defense force for everything, as well as critics for everything; no matter what it is, from pushing thumbtacks onto your eyeballs to breathing oxygen. It's like the E-rated version of Rule 34.

I'm all for debate. I'm all for opinions.

But when people found those opinions or debates on blatant bias and ignorance, then it's just double-speak and BS. It's not worth it. They're just trying to push aside what they don't want to hear.

That's my disconnect with some arguments being presented here. You can enjoy a console and still find the parity clause to be bullocks. The ideas aren't exclusive to one another. To buy into the PR just because, loses me. Even if this resulted with just the loss of one game for Xbox or causing one Developer to stretch beyond their business means, it's still crap and unnecessary.

 

[hawk2025]

But that's not what he said in the Edge quote. He said they accept staggered releases, but want something new for games that take deals from Sony/Nintendo if we are to believe his quote.

If the developer can show that they wouldn't afford to do it otherwise.

Which begs the question that, every time asked in these threads, no one ever answers:

Are indie devs expected to open their books to Microsoft?

Beyond that: Should Indie devs be discouraged from, say, taking Pub Fund money so that they can finish the game in a timely fashion because they are scared of what they will have to add to the Xbox version eventually? Under the logic presented on the quote, Microsoft is okay if this dev struggles like hell from delivering a game on the PS4 for the next year, and then releases later on Xbox. But if they take Sony money, release on PS4, say, 6 months before they would otherwise (see: Axiom Verge development reportedly speeding up after taking Pub Fund money), they still need to somehow find a way to add more Xbox content after the fact? Even though the way the situation washes out it may very well be the case that game makes it even to Xbox before it would otherwise?

The problem isn't just the direct impact of the policy per se -- but all of the waves that it creates to devs, both within and outside of the Xbox ecosystem.

 

[LiquidSolid]

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.

I'm guessing his comment was based off one Ravidrath made a while ago, that according to what he's heard, indie games don't do that well on Xbone.

 

[Melchiah]

It's going to be better for you, actually, because people don't want last year's game, they want something special and new.

So, Phil would also be completely ok with it, if the PS4 and PC versions of Tomb Raider had something special that wasn't coming to the earlier XB1 version? I find that very hard to believe.

 

[hawk2025]

It's also worth keeping in mind regarding indie games doing well or not on Xbox that we need to know which games we are talking about. I'm sure a few sold better on Xbox One, as Banjo-Kazooie mentioned above.

Sony frequently features indie games prominently on the store, on the blog, on their own podcasts and Let's Play videos (Super Time Force just got one -- and what do you know, it's been out for a long time on Xbox One), and more.

The amount of Indie games that get plopped into the the Xbox store with zero additional work is staggering. Hell, the last "big" move from ID@XBOX that I'm aware of was dumping 100 videos into a youtube playlist and a website at the same time -- which, of course, promptly made the website absurdly slow.

This kind of brings the next point: If they want to keep using this stick, they better make damn sure their carrot for your average release is better. And even in this point they are significantly behind. The amount of exposition that anything other the most major releases gets on the Xbox One is simply terrible, even though there are less of them being released. It doesn't mean the current audience is "dudebro" or whatever word we want to use, especially since there's evidence of other games doing very well. Maybe they just plain aren't getting enough exposure.

 

[Kayant]

But that's not what he said in the Edge quote. He said they accept staggered releases, but want something new for games that take deals from Sony/Nintendo if we are to believe his quote.

That is what the quote says at the same time devs shouldn't need to because nethier Sony or Nintendo ask for it.

At the same time are are staggered releases determined?

 

[Abdiel]

That's my disconnect with some arguments being presented here. You can enjoy a console and still find the parity clause to be bullocks. The ideas aren't exclusive to one another. To buy into the PR just because, loses me. Even if this resulted with just the loss of one game for Xbox or causing one Developer to stretch beyond their business means, it's still crap and unnecessary.

None of my statements in this thread have been motivated by a console bias, and I hope that's been communicated. I keep objective in my discussion in the sales threads as well, so I agree with your statement. It shouldn't have anything to do with your preferred system. These practices are bad for the industry in general. Indie devs being able to easily bring their games to more people is better for everyone!

 

[DeepEnigma]

So, Phil would also be completely ok with it, if the PS4 and PC versions of Tomb Raider had something special that wasn't coming to the earlier XB1 version? I find that very hard to believe.

And they can use MSFT "first class" monies to add stuff for the "second class" PS4 version.

Spoiler

That was hard to type with a straight face.

My thoughts, almost exactly. Though unlike some, I don't think forced parity is "okay for AAA."

Fuck feature parity, fuck content parity, and fuck launch parity.

This.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

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.

What're the actual demographic differences between PlayStation and Xbox gamers?

 

[Insane Metal]

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

Hahaha that was good.

 

[Crayon]

What're the actual demographic differences between PlayStation and Xbox gamers?

Xob users are more american. A greater percentage of them are american. Thats the only difference i know for sure.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Xob users are more american. A greater percentage of them are american. Thats the only difference i know for sure.

Yeah, but what about within the US? I'm always surprised that we don't have access to this sort of information - surely which console you own tracks closely with stuff like age, wealth, race, religiosity, politics, etc, like basically every purchase we make.

 

[VRMN]

Yeah, but what about within the US? I'm always surprised that we don't have access to this sort of information - surely which console you own tracks closely with stuff like age, wealth, race, religiosity, politics, etc, like basically every purchase we make.

They probably do, but it's proprietary information that they share with advertisers and their other partners, not the general public.

 

[Plague Doctor]

None of my statements in this thread have been motivated by a console bias, and I hope that's been communicated. I keep objective in my discussion in the sales threads as well, so I agree with your statement. It shouldn't have anything to do with your preferred system. These practices are bad for the industry in general. Indie devs being able to easily bring their games to more people is better for everyone!

I absolutely never got the impression of console bias from any of yours posts. You have been very impartial and consistently opposed to the parity clause specifically. Also, your insight in other threads has always made for fascinating reads for what's going on in retail.

 

[Crayon]

Yeah, but what about within the US? I'm always surprised that we don't have access to this sort of information - surely which console you own tracks closely with stuff like age, wealth, race, religiosity, politics, etc, like basically every purchase we make.

It's very valuable information. Can you imagine if there was a camera on every console to collect all this information directly at the source? Very valuable.

 

[VRMN]

It's very valuable information. Can you imagine if there was a camera on every console to collect all this information directly at the source? Very valuable.

They don't need the camera. The visual data the Kinect collects is nearly worthless and audio data is too hard to parse at a mass level. You provide so much more relevant data just by using their services.

(This is not exclusive to Xbox or PlayStation. Just using an Internet service while logged in gives them everything they need to know.)

 

[Crayon]

They don't need the camera. The visual data the Kinect collects is nearly worthless and audio data is too hard to parse at a mass level. You provide so much more relevant data just by using their services.

(This is not exclusive to Xbox or PlayStation. Just using an Internet service while logged in gives them everything they need to know.)

The visual data can tell you when the users heart rate rises. Recognize their face. See who they play with. It's far from useless. You're wrong.

http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2013/05/22/the-new-xbox-one-kinect-tracks-your-heart-rate-happiness-hands-and-hollers/

http://www.geekwire.com/2013/xbox-watch-kinect-detect-heart-rate-room/

There's a reason they bet the brand on this hail-mary move. It was worth it. If people fell for this (we will fall for it gradually) today, ms would have a whole new type of business on their hands.

 

[VRMN]

The visual data can tell you when the users heart rate rises. Recognize their face. See who they play with. It's far from useless. You're wrong.

http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2013/05/22/the-new-xbox-one-kinect-tracks-your-heart-rate-happiness-hands-and-hollers/

http://www.geekwire.com/2013/xbox-watch-kinect-detect-heart-rate-room/

There's a reason they bet the brand on this hail-mary move. It was worth it. If people fell for this (we will fall for it gradually) today, ms would have a whole new type of business on their hands.

The heart rate thing is interesting from an engagement standpoint, but they already know who you play with and they know you're logged in. Profiles accomplish this. Facial recognition in and of itself isn't that important. Facebook and Google know a lot more about you than Microsoft and Sony do without a camera watching you.

 

[Crayon]

The heart rate thing is interesting from an engagement standpoint, but they already know who you play with and they know you're logged in. Profiles accomplish this. Facial recognition in and of itself isn't that important. Facebook and Google know a lot more about you than Microsoft and Sony do without a camera watching you.

Would you say you're a ... a fan... of the mandatory biometric camera?

 

[VRMN]

Would you say you're a ... a fan... of the mandatory biometric camera?

No? I think the Kinect is basically worthless. But I don't think it accomplishes more than every other metric advertisers have. Maybe in an ideal scenario for Microsoft where the Xbox was more than a 100M unit seller where people used it to watch TV and had it always on...but even in that ideal scenario you provide more data using the console while logged in than the camera itself gathers. Facial recognition is more a mechanism to ensure you're always logged in.

Basically, you provide so much data willingly that taking it covertly isn't actually necessary. I always thought the spying concerns were overblown; we took our own privacy away years ago.

 

[Crayon]

Basically, you provide so much data willingly that taking it covertly isn't actually necessary.

That's one way to look at it no doubt. Nice talking but were on a 6 post derail.

 

[SolarMystic]

This has really gotten old. The only parity clause is the one the internet makes up. It may have been a thing in the past, but is not any longer.

 

[hawk2025]

This has really gotten old. The only parity clause is the one the internet makes up. It may have been a thing in the past, but is not any longer.

Or you can read.

 

[SolarMystic]

Or you can read.

I did read, thanks! I'm not going to try and make something out of nothing. Microsoft has shown over the past year or two that the parity clause has no meaning.

EDIT: That is my opinion and the way I feel about the situation. You are more than welcome to have your own opinion on the matter, just don't attack me for mine.

 

[xxracerxx]

I did read, thanks! I'm not going to try and make something out of nothing. Microsoft has shown over the past year or two that the parity clause has no meaning.

EDIT: That is my opinion and the way I feel about the situation. You are more than welcome to have your own opinion on the matter, just don't attack me for mine.

So, your opinion is to just ignore actual indie devs and their thoughts on MS and this clause. Got it.

 

[SolarMystic]

So, your opinion is to just ignore actual indie devs and their thoughts on MS and this clause. Got it.

What indie devs would that be? Within the past year.

 

[Zeuanimals]

You know, Major Nellie, this really (should) be the last of clause.

I did read, thanks! I'm not going to try and make something out of nothing. Microsoft has shown over the past year or two that the parity clause has no meaning.

EDIT: That is my opinion and the way I feel about the situation. You are more than welcome to have your own opinion on the matter, just don't attack me for mine.

Honestly, I don't know if I can disagree with you. "Come talk to us" is what they keep saying to indie devs who want their games on the console, but isn't that what indie devs who want to be on the PS4 do too? I mean, they can't just release their games on the PS4 without talking to 3rd party relations or whoever first, it's inevitable. If there's evidence of there being actual hoops to jump through when talking to the Xbox 3rd party relations people, then that's a problem, though that stuff will probably be under NDAs.

The main difference I see is that it seems like Sony approaches devs and asks them if they want their games on the PS4 more than MS does, but that's an entirely different topic.

Still, it would do them wonders if they just come out and say "no more parity clause" if it really has no meaning. The bad press and the negativity that generates from just mentioning the topic would be alleviated pretty much instantly.

 

[bishoptl]

No? I think the Kinect is basically worthless. But I don't think it accomplishes more than every other metric advertisers have. Maybe in an ideal scenario for Microsoft where the Xbox was more than a 100M unit seller where people used it to watch TV and had it always on...but even in that ideal scenario you provide more data using the console while logged in than the camera itself gathers. Facial recognition is more a mechanism to ensure you're always logged in.

Basically, you provide so much data willingly that taking it covertly isn't actually necessary. I always thought the spying concerns were overblown; we took our own privacy away years ago.

This shit again, Jesus.

This has really gotten old. The only parity clause is the one the internet makes up. It may have been a thing in the past, but is not any longer.

Tales from your ass. Literally.

What indie devs would that be? Within the past year.

Do your research, and you can start in this thread. We're not going to do it for you. Come back when you've finished.

 

[lifeexpectancy]

It's a corporate policy. It's not built into the console.

Someone missed the joke. ;p

 

[DeepEnigma]

I did read, thanks! I'm not going to try and make something out of nothing. Microsoft has shown over the past year or two that the parity clause has no meaning.

EDIT: That is my opinion and the way I feel about the situation. You are more than welcome to have your own opinion on the matter, just don't attack me for mine.

The infamous "my opinion" disclaimer after posting something like it is a fact. Then victim play and chosen ignorance to the discussion at hand.

Well done.

 

[SolarMystic]

You know, Major Nellie, this really (should) be the last of clause.



Honestly, I don't know if I can disagree with you. "Come talk to us" is what they keep saying to indie devs who want their games on the console, but isn't that what indie devs who want to be on the PS4 do too? I mean, they can't just release their games on the PS4 without talking to 3rd party relations or whoever first, it's inevitable. If there's evidence of there being actual hoops to jump through when talking to the Xbox 3rd party relations people, then that's a problem, though that stuff will probably be under NDAs.

The main difference I see is that it seems like Sony approaches devs and asks them if they want their games on the PS4 more than MS does, but that's an entirely different topic.

Still, it would do them wonders if they just come out and say "no more parity clause" if it really has no meaning. The bad press and the negativity that generates from just mentioning the topic would be alleviated pretty much instantly.

That's the gist of how I feel on the topic.

 

[xxracerxx]

What indie devs would that be? Within the past year.

I thought you had read the thread?