Crayon
Member
No. He's going to read the thread and then he's coming back to tell us what he learned.
-
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.
Phil Spencer: Parity is a hell of a Clause
- Thread starter Neuromancer
- Start date
No. He's going to read the thread and then he's coming back to tell us what he learned.
Ninja Scooter
Member
In his opinion he already read the thread. And you can't dispute opinion.
BlackBuzzard
Banned
Both mostly budget though.
Budget is a huge reason, it isn't easy to develop for two different systems.
SolarMystic
Member
Way to assume my intentions. I have a viewpoint on the matter that is not the majority opinion (which is not a set in stone opinion, I welcome a discussion that may change my stance on a subject), then I get accused of victim play?
It's not a disclaimer. It is not my opinion as fact. It is a fact that it is just my opinion. One that can be swayed, but I guess you would rather accuse me of something.
My question to xxracerxx was a real question. I wanted just a list of indie devs opinion on the matter in the past year or so, which I was going to in turn do research on myself to see if I was in the wrong.
I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, and I'm sorry if I offended you, as it was not my intent.
I'm not feigning ignorance on the matter, my initial post was a quick answer to the OP. Then I asked xxracerxx a question, to expand my knowledge on the subject as clearly some details I am not aware of may change my view.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I did no assume. Proof is in the evidence of your posting.
Read this thread.
Okay, and I am not implying anything by this, but having both consoles on X86, what else other than RAM allocation is different about them? GPU wise, they would just scale back graphical effects, but RAM allocation you have to change scope not scale, right?
Nobody writes x86 or x86_64 assembler*, so them using the same CPU architecture doesn't matter.
They are different systems with different amount of game engine support and different certification requirements.
* Not literally nobody. But it's a non-factor when discussing where to publish first in the context of small budget indie games.
You still have 2 different OS's, API's and cert requirements on each console. Don't forget a lot of the small indie teams are barely a handful of dudes. When you only have 2 or 3 programmers, doing more than one platform at a time becomes really difficult.
SolarMystic
Member
I read the OP, I was (still am) in the process of reading through the thread.
Opinions can absolutely be disputed.
Zeuanimals
Member
Well, I shouldn't say it like it's so cut and dry. Apparently, if you had a deal with Sony, you need to do something extra for MS. That seems a bit petty to me. Just take it if you can get it, but if MS is willing to pay for extra bells and whistles, then I'm all for it. I don't think devs should be forced to do something extra for another platform unless they accept a check and are asked to do so.
Indie devs go through a lot of crap and I guess that is a hoop they'd have to jump through, but I need more details to get a full picture of it. From one perspective, it's not too bad, adding an Xbox related avatar in a game doesn't seem like it'd that big of a deal, but depending on how much more "special" MS wants their version of the game to be, it could be a bit of a bother if nobody's getting paid for the extras.
Crayon
Member
The fact that they are both on x86 is trivial. At no point is an indie dev programming to the instruction set. They are working at higher levels than that. At the api level. Playstation and XBox are going to both have their own proprietary (secret) apis with limited sources of documentation and running on very specific debugging units. And don't fuck it up because if you didn't read that doc carefully your shit has got to get back in line.
It's just not easy for an individual/cash strapped team/anyone who didn't see the headache coming. Just not easy times two if you want to do it for two consoles simultaneously.
If you'd read the thread before commenting, you'd have seen the evidence you were asking for, including posts from dev "this year" who take issue with this clause.
There's no assumption here. Your post was transparent.
As has been stated by developers already in this thread, it's a "big deal" that requires development support. Beyond that, however, it's an extra cost that's being placed on companies that can afford it the least - and the competitive platform doesn't make the same demands. The competitive platform that is running away with the console market and is ideally positioned to strong arm devs in this manner chooses not to.
That speaks volumes.
Oh, I see. I thought they went X86 to unify PC/Xbox/PS development and make it easier for developers to develop, spend less time figuring out code and more time doing creative work.
The same can be said of iOS and Android, or of Windows OSXand Linux. Development is done on top of an OS, which will generally result in platform specific APIs. CPU frameworks are only relevant for emulation and porting to OSes with similar APIs.
Never change MS, never change.
Crayon
Member
It does help tremendously. But that is due to lower-level softwares that do interact more directly with the x86.
So for game developer, using a single api that supports 3 different cpu types would be easy. At least easier than having to port to 3 different apis all to run on the same cpu.
Zeuanimals
Member
I'm not arguing that it's not a big deal, but if the devs are being compensated for their extra work, then I'm fine with it. Depends on how much extra work they did in relation to how much they're getting paid though. They state "we make deals too" and hopefully there's money in those deals rather than just "here's your spot and an ad on the XBLM". If it's the latter, then yeah, fuck off with that shit MS.
From what I can gather from the thread, there's not much talk about devs being compensated for extra work. That could be because there's not much details about compensation that we're hearing but it is happening or they're simply not being compensated. If it's the latter, again, fuck off with that shit MS.
Wait, you were working under the assumption that MS was paying for the "something special" additions?
SolarMystic
Member
My apologies, my initial post was in response to just the OP, having not read through the thread yet. I'm reading through it now.
Zeuanimals
Member
Oh shit, they're really not? Well, fuck off with that shit MS.
Crayon
Member
.
.
.
And for the record, gaf, I still think the policy is changing when I hear this statement. But I don't have a leg to stand on because the propaganda and doublespeak is constantly so thick. I still get the impression that phil's trying to insinuate that it never existed, which I recognize as a natural bullshitter's redaction.
Why would they be? The point of a clause is that devs have to do these things in order to release. I don't think they'd be complaining if they were receiving funding for it.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
It's fun how this is hurting the industry and we still have people chiming in declaring that it's their opinion that it's not without the slighest insight into the situation. Regardless of facts, too. I guess we'll never get around it.
Welfare
Member
Honestly it's all bullshit. Phil, Xbox is not the top console right now, stop acting like it, and even then, this shouldn't be a thing. I'm surprised that some indies are putting up with this bullshit, but somewhat glad as I have some more games to play on the Xbox One, but they shouldn't have to, to begin with.
Some still would, because they don't want Microsoft to dictate that the their games on different platforms should have different content.
More developer feedback speaking directly to that, for those who missed it:
That post is from this year, btw
Zeuanimals
Member
I was hearing that some devs didn't have to go through the same hoops as other devs depending on how popular their game is. I thought that was the main issue, but I didn't think the issue was too big since I thought devs would be compensated for the extra hoops...
I mean, Phil Spencer says "we make deals too". Deals normally infer that there's money or marketing (beyond a spot on XBLM) for the game, but I dunno, I guess they're using some new meaning of the word that I wasn't aware of.
Seriously any developer trying to charge the same price for exactly the same game they released a year ago on a different plattform won't get my money.
Either lower the price or give me more. It's not the customers problem that the developer a) did an (timed) exclusive deal with MS/Sony or b) isn't able to release a game on two platforms at pretty much the same time.
Either lower the price or give me more. It's not the customers problem that the developer a) did an (timed) exclusive deal with MS/Sony or b) isn't able to release a game on two platforms at pretty much the same time.
So what if it is a year old release, it is still a new experience for you.
Whatever though, do what you want. I just think your stance is ridiculous.
Palette Swap
Member
To be honest, if they want to say it doesn't currently exist and ignore it ever existed, it's not very hard to say "everyone is welcome on our platforms, no strings attached. We love having you guys".
.
.
.
And for the record, gaf, I still think the policy is changing when I hear this statement. But I don't have a leg to stand on because the propaganda and doublespeak is constantly so thick. I still get the impression that phil's trying to insinuate that it never existed, which I recognize as a natural bullshitter's redaction.
As long as they're not pulling some asshole policy, explaining things is pretty easy. The need to sugarcoat things comes from the fact it's hard to explain why you want to be the only game in town when the other guys don't do that.
From a consumer standpoint, the unintended effect of the policy and this line of thought is essentially "well, everything comes to PS4/Steam first, while I'm not even sure it's releasing on Xbox, so why bother?"
Ninja Scooter
Member
I thought you had to be at least 13 to get a GAF account?
.
.
.
And for the record, gaf, I still think the policy is changing when I hear this statement. But I don't have a leg to stand on because the propaganda and doublespeak is constantly so thick. I still get the impression that phil's trying to insinuate that it never existed, which I recognize as a natural bullshitter's redaction.
This is where I am with this. It does sound like it is changing, but then he messes things up by pretending it was never really an issue and MS loves everyone. If he'd just left out that damage control part and the need to defend any of it, it would have been a much more positive comment.
HighResTomato
Member
Really wish some one would leak documents containing this infamous policy.
And still it's a product that was released to the market over an year ago. Also in that year the game is highly likely already discounted on that other platform. So why should I pay more than these other guys? For those discount customers it's also a new experience. So they should pay the full price, right?
You get to choose whether to buy a game that comes late to a platform you own. Shouldn't you extend that courtesy to developers to choose whether they can afford to court you? I'm sure they would be disappointed to lose a sale, but maybe they need to prioritise resources on their next game?
Zeuanimals
Member
Indie games don't cost much compared to other releases and they often don't have price drops on consoles in the first place...
Ninja Scooter
Member
You don't have to buy anything. Nobody is saying you should be forced to buy anything.
Do you pay for games on the XBO that may have been discounted on Steam in the past?
Considering you have to sign an NDA to even Have the Discussion (Y2Kev original), it's not likely. Another way that the comparison doesn't work in their favour - Sony speaks plainly and everybody knows where they stand.
The narrative would switch to 100% positive so quickly, your head would spin.
Crayon
Member
More like a subpoena. You can go find some older versions if you do some googling. Software is jihad, baby!
Dyson Industries
Banned
It's like you haven't read any of the dev comments in this thread, or worse you've read them and just don't give a damn. What an utterly entitled, assholish stance...which says a lot about which side of the equation you're cheering for.
Wickerbasket
Member
Or they could just not put it on Microsoft's platform at all, which is what a lot of developers are choosing to do.
In the end, it just mean's less games for Xbox owners.
First of all I play most of my games on consoles. I only use my PC for PC-exclusive games.
But to be honest I often struggle to buy a game on a console if it's WAY cheaper on Steam. First source is to check the different XBO country stores which is the cheapest.(German one is always a no-go) Then I'll compare the price with the Steam version. If it's still too far away, then I'll way for a discounted price.
After all it's still the same game on either platform...
To be honest I didn't read all of those comments.
And I'm only standing on MY side of the equation. I seriously don't give a damn about any other side. I'm the customer, so all I care for is my money. I don't owe the devs or MS/Sony anything...
Ninja Scooter
Member
What does that shitty stance have to do with anything, honestly? Nobody is saying developers are entitled to your money, or that you should have to buy their games. That's not what's at issue here at all.
Similar threads
- Locked