Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break, Cuphead, Ori even Minecraft to name a few. Basically, they're throwing money around a lot more these days.
-
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
Zeuanimals
Member
MS throwing money at AAA devs to make AAA exclusives is similar to paying for extra content for a late port of an indie? Minecraft, they straight up bought because it was extremely lucrative. Cuphead and Ori are also exclusive and won't ever go over to the PS4.
None of that tells us what they'd do for late ports of indies. Yes, they're throwing their money around a lot more, but more for exclusives and games that will debut on their console first.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Yeah man, fuck those devs. Why should I give a shit if they don't have the resources to release on more than one platform at a time?!
You don't want to be treated "equal" though. You agree that devs should offer something extra for making Xbone owners wait for the game. Hence your comment "lower the price or give me more." You want to pay less or get more, which in both instances is very much not equal.
BossDarkseid
Member
Nothing you describe is equality. It's Team A Getting NeoGAF The Game for $60 while Team B get NeoGaf GOLD The Game for $40.
None of those games would fit under this. Aside from Minecraft, they are all exclusive.
Yes, Microsoft is using their money a lot lately, but none of it is going towards indies when it comes to help them make "something special"
You said they have, which unfortunately has not been reported as being true by anyone. You could argue that no one would be able to talk about it because of the NDA, which is true, but if MS was really helping devs financially to make something special, thats something MS would've publicized everywhere by now.
Well since they're throwing a lot more money at games, and the wording in the original OP, it implies that they'd help with resource/subsidised costs. I'm not saying they 100% will, but it was implied they 100% won't.
AnthonypUK
Member
It always makes me wonder that Microsoft have 180'd on everything to do with the Xbox one DRM, price, kinect, always online TV,TV,TV etc and those are much larger items that have probably cost the company millions even billions, yet they stick with this parity clause, and it wouldn't cost them a penny, and win them favour with devs and gamers, it's nothing but a win. Yet they seem to have drawn a line in the sand and are refusing to budge for this.
I wonder why that is, is it because they think if they allow anyone to publish whatever version of their game, they want too and when, they might become the default number 2 for every smaller game, maybe this does work for the in getting some games to release day and date?
I wonder why that is, is it because they think if they allow anyone to publish whatever version of their game, they want too and when, they might become the default number 2 for every smaller game, maybe this does work for the in getting some games to release day and date?
Bewildering
Ugh, MS really just needs to create some fake dev and have them sign up to make a PS4 game, then copy+paste the exact experience that fake dev gets and make it their new indie policy.
Earlier in the thread I mentioned how it would be nice for XB1 owners to get something extra for late ports, but if this new amended policy STILL blocks games from coming to XB1 then that's not right...
Come on MS...
Earlier in the thread I mentioned how it would be nice for XB1 owners to get something extra for late ports, but if this new amended policy STILL blocks games from coming to XB1 then that's not right...
Come on MS...
AnthonypUK
Member
Indeedy, I just can't see any benefit, i know the narrative has been ps4 has no games, but as a PS4 player since March time, there's been at least an indie game Per week released for me to check on the store, sometimes even more, even if it's one like the escapists that had no extras and was on the Xbox last year, why wouldn't you want to give your players that constant supply of games, for sake of having to wait for some of them.
Small indie dev here, talking about this is pretty difficult because of NDAs and stuff, but will try my best to explain.
A bit of context: I'm the cofounder of MixedBag Games, a super small italian studio. We've released Futuridium EP (PC/Mac/iOS) and then Futuridium EP Deluxe (PS4 / PSVita) last year as a two people team, and now we're working on the action adventure forma.8 (PS4/PSVita/Wii U/iOS/PC/Mac/Linux) and on Futuridium VR for Project Morpheus.
MixedBag is now a 5 people studio, so still crazy small considering that we're working on multiple projects and multiple platforms at the same time.
We've been part of the PlayStation and Nintendo indie program since late 2013 and we've been accepted in ID@Xbox in March 2014 (we've applied the first day it was announced, at GDC Europe 2013 if I remember correctly).
First, you can read what Rami Ismail from Vlambeer had to say back in 2013 about the parity clause: it's still pretty much up to date.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/04/xbox-one-same-day-launch-clause-nudged-nuclear-throne-to-ps4/
About the clause
Let's put it this way: as far as I know the ID@Xbox contract was never changed and it's still the same we signed (and everyone else signed) from day one, so what was valid from the beginning is still pretty much valid today.
What the clause is about is written all over the internet, and you can still read about it in multiple places. It's very simple: release first on Xbox One, release simultaneously or you can't release the game unless you get a special pass (the 'talk to us' stuff).
Usually it means the game gets approved if you add enough extra content, you can't do a straight port.
Having previous monetary / marketing deals with Sony or Nintendo for timed exclusivity doesn't matter at all, there's no distinguo about that.
What's different with Sony and Nintendo?
Neither Sony nor Nintendo have something like that. You want to release your already released game on PS4 / Vita / Wii U? Go on, you don't have to add anything at all, there are no requirements. A straight port is fine.
If you want to add extra stuff, it's up to you.
Why it's very difficult for a small team to do a simultaneous release
I find it weird it needs to be explained at all, but anyway...
Hitting multiple platforms at the same time requires a LOT of efforts.
We're using Unity for our games, and thanks to the engine and the experience we've matured in the last years we can switch to a new platform and get a game running in a matter of hours. But having the game running is just the very beginning: you need to integrate the platform specific APIs, you need to get the game compliant with all the techinical requirements for each platform, you have to do all the bureaucratic procedures to get the game in Q&A, you need to actually pass Q&A, do (and pay for) age ratings for each platform and stuff like that.
It's HARD. Even for 'simple platform' as Steam it can require weeks of works, and every platform you add just complicate the matter further.
For a five person team like us, with me as the only full time programmer (and I'm also doing game / level design, business / PR stuff... the usual 'small indie team' things), it's simply impossible to guarantee a day one release on Xbox One too.
For forma.8 we're doing PS4 / PSVita / Wii U at launch and it'll already be a crazy amount of work. But we've already released a game on PlayStation platforms and the forma.8 demo on Wii U, so we already have experience with the procedure and we're quite confident that we can pull it off.
Add another console at launch, a console we've never worked on before? It's impossible for us.
Also, adding extra content later is not trivial at all.
My two cents: I really, really think this needs to go, it'll only benefits MS if they get rid of it.
But that's my opinion. It's Microsoft business so if it's fine for them, that's ok: they have their policies, I can disagree but in the end they've probably done their math about it.
Sorry for the long post, hope it helps to better understand what's all the fuss about.
A bit of context: I'm the cofounder of MixedBag Games, a super small italian studio. We've released Futuridium EP (PC/Mac/iOS) and then Futuridium EP Deluxe (PS4 / PSVita) last year as a two people team, and now we're working on the action adventure forma.8 (PS4/PSVita/Wii U/iOS/PC/Mac/Linux) and on Futuridium VR for Project Morpheus.
MixedBag is now a 5 people studio, so still crazy small considering that we're working on multiple projects and multiple platforms at the same time.
We've been part of the PlayStation and Nintendo indie program since late 2013 and we've been accepted in ID@Xbox in March 2014 (we've applied the first day it was announced, at GDC Europe 2013 if I remember correctly).
First, you can read what Rami Ismail from Vlambeer had to say back in 2013 about the parity clause: it's still pretty much up to date.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/04/xbox-one-same-day-launch-clause-nudged-nuclear-throne-to-ps4/
About the clause
Let's put it this way: as far as I know the ID@Xbox contract was never changed and it's still the same we signed (and everyone else signed) from day one, so what was valid from the beginning is still pretty much valid today.
What the clause is about is written all over the internet, and you can still read about it in multiple places. It's very simple: release first on Xbox One, release simultaneously or you can't release the game unless you get a special pass (the 'talk to us' stuff).
Usually it means the game gets approved if you add enough extra content, you can't do a straight port.
Having previous monetary / marketing deals with Sony or Nintendo for timed exclusivity doesn't matter at all, there's no distinguo about that.
What's different with Sony and Nintendo?
Neither Sony nor Nintendo have something like that. You want to release your already released game on PS4 / Vita / Wii U? Go on, you don't have to add anything at all, there are no requirements. A straight port is fine.
If you want to add extra stuff, it's up to you.
Why it's very difficult for a small team to do a simultaneous release
I find it weird it needs to be explained at all, but anyway...
Hitting multiple platforms at the same time requires a LOT of efforts.
We're using Unity for our games, and thanks to the engine and the experience we've matured in the last years we can switch to a new platform and get a game running in a matter of hours. But having the game running is just the very beginning: you need to integrate the platform specific APIs, you need to get the game compliant with all the techinical requirements for each platform, you have to do all the bureaucratic procedures to get the game in Q&A, you need to actually pass Q&A, do (and pay for) age ratings for each platform and stuff like that.
It's HARD. Even for 'simple platform' as Steam it can require weeks of works, and every platform you add just complicate the matter further.
For a five person team like us, with me as the only full time programmer (and I'm also doing game / level design, business / PR stuff... the usual 'small indie team' things), it's simply impossible to guarantee a day one release on Xbox One too.
For forma.8 we're doing PS4 / PSVita / Wii U at launch and it'll already be a crazy amount of work. But we've already released a game on PlayStation platforms and the forma.8 demo on Wii U, so we already have experience with the procedure and we're quite confident that we can pull it off.
Add another console at launch, a console we've never worked on before? It's impossible for us.
Also, adding extra content later is not trivial at all.
My two cents: I really, really think this needs to go, it'll only benefits MS if they get rid of it.
But that's my opinion. It's Microsoft business so if it's fine for them, that's ok: they have their policies, I can disagree but in the end they've probably done their math about it.
Sorry for the long post, hope it helps to better understand what's all the fuss about.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
I seem to recall a Sony exec complaining about the parity clause and how it had now filtered through to AAA titles. Perhaps MS are hoping they can do the same again.
Thanks for the insight Skyrise. As you say, this is all stuff that's been known about since Rami talked about it publicly, but it's useful to hear from developers in a situation like yours exactly why this is causing problems, and how despite Microsoft's public statements on the matter, their policies have not changed at all.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Thank you for the insight Skyrise - I realise you're held down by NDAs so can't give too much information, but it's interesting to hear from someone who this sort of policy directly affects.
I think basically the Parity Clause is only bypassed if it's a big well-known indie game like Outlast or Rogue Legacy or Don't Starve. Small studios like you are probably going to be hardest hit.
Really looking forward to forma.8, by they way!
Why should customers who supported a title day one on Steam, PS4, Wii U, etc get shafted out of additional content so MS can feel "special"? And why would indies buy into this when it could so easily draw the ire of their existing customers? For someone who is arguing the customers' perspective you are disregarding customers who have already put money down expecting "first class" treatment.
I put $150 into the Skullgirls indiegogo campaign, and I would be furious if it turned out Xbox was getting an exclusive character at any stage in that games' life. Thankfully Lab Zero actually value their customers enough not to engage in deals that blatantly go against their own and their customers' interests.
If they keep the clause on paper, they can still enforce it down the line if they return to a dominant position in the market (while arbitrarily not enforcing it now). Would cause less of a PR shitstorm than getting rid of the clause and then reimposing it down the line.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Thank you Skyrise. Anyone else speaking for this parity clause bullshit after reading that, don't bother responding with still supporting it. Your transparency is clear as glass.
It hurts smaller developers, and it hurts those first class consumers. Less games because you strong arm developers is anti consumer in a "free market".
It hurts smaller developers, and it hurts those first class consumers. Less games because you strong arm developers is anti consumer in a "free market".
Family Fry
Member
Since id@xbox has sign ups still going through and at e3 they showed around 120 game trailers under id@xbox category.
To me that looks like there are more developers who don't care about the policy and want to sign up, than do.
MS will continue to have the policy as long as they have support, that support may be 10% of Sony's but it's still support, support that is standing alongside the policy instead of against it.
Twist it around, if MS launched the id@xbox programme with a parity clause and developers didn't sign up because of the clause, which lead to no games the clause would be dropped faster than all the other decisions.
tattooed_dwarf
Member
I've been wondering this too. This only gives bad rep for them, scares small indie devs and hurts us who only own Xbone. I don't feel first class citizen if I get indie game with battletoads character. I could feel first class if I get as many or more games as PS4 owners. I want those small indie games too, not just those that blow up. I might not buy all of them I any, but I like possibility of buying them.
To be honest, MS isn't doing lot of moves to keep me invested only on their console. I know I often defend MS and Xbone but only when I think people are nitpicking or have bit too strong bias. But only reason I don't own PS4 is time. If I would own both, I know I would buy most games on PS, it would be logical thing to do. So MS should really think this even more, they aren't market leader (thank god) and not in position to strong arm small devs.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Unlikely the way this generation is going.
SerTapTap
Member
^Wasn't exactly policies like this the reason for weirdo re-releases like Ninja Gaiden Sigma on the later console?
"Nope sorry Square Enix, FF7 remake came out on PS4 first so get outta here"
(that's assuming FF7 remake doesn't already have a "no Xbox" clause)
"Nope sorry Square Enix, FF7 remake came out on PS4 first so get outta here"
(that's assuming FF7 remake doesn't already have a "no Xbox" clause)
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Betcha Phil won't request a Pelican skin when he tries to skeet all over NMS.
But lesser talked about, but still great games, sorry gamers and devs, we Xmen First Class.
But lesser talked about, but still great games, sorry gamers and devs, we Xmen First Class.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
Filtering through to AAA titles? I need that interview/article ASAP
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...crosoft-taking-pound-of-flesh-from-publishers
Vincent Grayson
Member
Man, I just don't understand this concept at all.
Where are the imaginary players who are upset when a game comes out, if by some chance it came out on another platform earlier? Like, I've been playing games on most major platforms for my entire post-NES life, and I've never once thought to myself "I won't buy game X, because it was on another platform first, and they didn't add anything".
I mean, unless I already played it on that other platform, but it sure sounds like this perspective is one that assumes all XBO owners only own an XBO and thus couldn't possibly play any of the games in question on other platforms first.
Where are the imaginary players who are upset when a game comes out, if by some chance it came out on another platform earlier? Like, I've been playing games on most major platforms for my entire post-NES life, and I've never once thought to myself "I won't buy game X, because it was on another platform first, and they didn't add anything".
I mean, unless I already played it on that other platform, but it sure sounds like this perspective is one that assumes all XBO owners only own an XBO and thus couldn't possibly play any of the games in question on other platforms first.
I talked to someone that held that opinion about GTA V and the time it took from PS360 to PC.
So there definitely is someone, or a small percentage of people that do feel that way.
Well it seems MS not being the market leader this gen has worked in literally everyone's favor.
They'll keep those paper tigers until they exit the industry if they so chose in the future.
? If it so happens that you're launching on Xbox first then you're unaffected by this. Looks to me like there are plenty of developers happy to do so.
This affects people who don't want to launch on Xbox first. They're forced to decide between a simultaneous release or forced to add extra content for a late release. That's the big problem.
Thank you for this.
hydrophilic attack
Member
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
Hey as a PS4 owner I'm really amused that some weird Xbox owners have decided selfishness is the new black. It's hilariously short sighted.
I mean personally I believe 'Good Guy' Phil should ditch the clause so indie devs can make more money and so Xbox owners get more games. I can't imagine why a rational person wouldn't want that. I mean I don't really care about the Xbox getting more games but devs making more money means more games for everyone.
But, if this band of selfish weirdos keep championing this clause it will actually be better for PS4 owners anyway, so, whatever.
I mean PS4 has by far the largest user base so it's always gonna be first choice for devs. If this clause makes them choose to not bother with an Xbox then they will probably spend the time that they would have spent on the Xbox version making dlc or even a new game for the PS4.
So, way to go parity clause!!!! Way to go weirdos - your console wars weirdness is actually beneficial to the opposition. Lol
I mean personally I believe 'Good Guy' Phil should ditch the clause so indie devs can make more money and so Xbox owners get more games. I can't imagine why a rational person wouldn't want that. I mean I don't really care about the Xbox getting more games but devs making more money means more games for everyone.
But, if this band of selfish weirdos keep championing this clause it will actually be better for PS4 owners anyway, so, whatever.
I mean PS4 has by far the largest user base so it's always gonna be first choice for devs. If this clause makes them choose to not bother with an Xbox then they will probably spend the time that they would have spent on the Xbox version making dlc or even a new game for the PS4.
So, way to go parity clause!!!! Way to go weirdos - your console wars weirdness is actually beneficial to the opposition. Lol
This is really informative and enlightening, thanks. I fear that the people who need to learn lessons from this post won't internalize this, though.
Where did you get that from?
clay_ghost
Member
It's telling when developers rather port to wiiu than xbone.
dugdug
Banned
I guess, I meant it more like: why support a platform that forces this kinda shit at all? If you're in a good enough position to meet the parity, why not release both at the same time? What's the benefit of releasing exclusively on XB1?
dugdug
Banned
I doubt that's entirely true, but, if you reach the darkest corners of YouTube fanboys, you'll find a growing subset of XB1 fanboys who hate Indies, primarily because PS has focused on them so heavily this generation.
Thought I recall a few devs on here saying that. I could be mistaken.
I don't think hating indies or non-AAA budget gaming has to do with any platform allegiance.
You find enough dislike for games that aren't big budget on PlayStation focused sites as well.
Haven't read every single post in this thread so maybe. I doubt it though and it depends on many factors whether or not your game is a financial success. Install base is but one of those.
SerTapTap
Member
That's always a bit odd ot see, but some devs really really love nintendo and/or the gamepad, in addition to the parity clause.
...oh man, I just realized, this is like a Scumbag 90s Nintendo style policy. If you could transplant SNES era Nintendo into the multiplat era I guarantee they'd do something like this.
slavesnyder
Member
1) Nobody knows as nobody knows digital sales data
2) Even if, where is the point related to this discussion?
3) I would not generalise here, as there are all kinds of indies. Ori is not the same as Super Hot, or?
Ravidrath said in one of the last threads about this subject that when he's spoken to other devs that released on Xb1, that they didn't sell very well. It wasn't his own game, but what he had been told directly.
Pretty sure that's what jagged read.
Wasn't speaking about this thread.
Regarding #2, if they don't sell well on the platform, that is even less incentive for a dev to spend the time and money to port a game, let alone have to add features.
MaxwellParrish
Member
If I have to guess is 'cause it's the simplest way to have your game reach as many people as it could : sure XBO users can be less than PS4's or PC's but nothing stops you from porting your game there later, while the parity clause could make difficult to do the opposite.
So "a few" indies indicates that an entire genre of games sells poorly on the Xbone?
slavesnyder
Member
Sure, but even if it was only 10% of the sales made on PS4 developers would happily offer their products. Indies can use every penny.
Only thing is they might not want to bend over and invest time, money and dignity in creating a special something...
P.S.: I had the same question as you, but already got my beatings a few pages ago...
I read the first 2 pages of thread, and a I saw lots of "but PS3 did it last gen" stuff. I did not play Braid or Limbo on Xbox 360, but did those get extra content for the PS3 release? Seems to me they didn't. There are probably many more that I didn't play so can't think of.
Sony may push the larger studios to compensate the PS3 owners for having to wait for the game because MS paid for them not to play it sooner, but that's different than holding indie studious to the same standard.
Sony may push the larger studios to compensate the PS3 owners for having to wait for the game because MS paid for them not to play it sooner, but that's different than holding indie studious to the same standard.
You got me
Similar threads
- Locked