What those posters are failing to realize is that the policy that Sony had with the PS3 was only for full retail games, NOT for digital only games or indie games.
-
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
What those posters are failing to realize is that the policy that Sony had with the PS3 was only for full retail games, NOT for digital only games or indie games.
Also "the other guy used to do it" isn't a valid reason to have a bad policy. That argument is just SonyToo-ing to deflect the issue instead of addressing valid concerns.
Sorry, didn't see you edited, I shall remove my comment.
Haha no problem, don't worry, it shall act as a reminder for me not to jump to conclusions
The problem is they are required to invest time, money and resources on something they're forced upon them by a contract (the requirements of which no other publisher supports); resources that could be spent by the team further developing their business and future games.
All of this does nothing more than hurt indie developers, and customers of Xbox One who miss out on these games.
Triggerhappytel
Member
I don't think this is true; especially not as a general rule. Unless you can provide some links to devs who've said this, but even so I don't think we can take any general assumptions from it unless it's dozens of devs saying the same thing.
alexandros
Banned
That is extremely informative, thank you. It seems clear to me that Microsoft is operating as if Xbox Live is still the only viable platform for indies when the truth is that Steam and PSN have left it well behind. I used to think it was logical to ask for something extra in the case of an exclusivity deal with another party but your post makes it clear that the parity clause is a blanket policy for every delayed release, which is incredibly stupid. I was wrong about it, plain and simple.
As others have said, Ravi posted it before. My thinking is that he's seen financial reports from his fellow devs.
if i remember he just said that it was small talk with one developer. There was actually others that said that their game sold more on xbox so i dont think we can just go by that. Im sure there are games that sell extremely well on it.
tattooed_dwarf
Member
One thing I hate is Xbox marketplace or store. They should have own page for ID@xbox games there. Super confusing search those smaller games.
The only time extra content seems justified on a new release is when DLC has been released and by the time it reaches the other platforms, the dev/publisher might decide to give new owners all content released so far or a complete edition. Also, if the dev feels like adding something specific to the platform that's their decision not because the platform holder demands it.
Plague Doctor
Member
Thank you for posting this info. I completely agree that MS stands to only benefit from ditching this policy. Good luck with your projects and I look forward to hearing more news about them!
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Making a lot of assumptions on games that may sell 20k lifetime at full price.
If it was Ubisoft porting an Assassin's Creed game, they've probably got dozens of missions and assets and areas set aside for DLC that they can throw in a a bonus. Not so much for the garage developer. You know, the ones that have repeatedly voiced their displeasure with the policy. They don't have the luxury of giving people free or heavily discounted shit. They don't have the luxury of sitting on a finished game for 6 months. They don't have the luxury of adding 20% new content to what might be a 5 hour game. The policy bones them.
justsomeguy
Member
It feels like he's arguing semantics. There is nothing we have named or call the parity clause, therefore there isn't one. I don't mind it existing, although it seems to do them more harm then good. I don't understand how developers cite it as a reason not to port to XB1 yet Microsoft says it doesn't exist. Happened too many times now to suggest Microsoft doesn't have it in some form.
Microsoft has also said that they will work with any developer that reaches out to them. Sounds like they either aren't or are pretending they haven't reached out to these developers citing it trying to get them in the fold.
That they have lost any developers to their competition because of this, parity clause existing or no, speaks to how their org is run. They'll let indies walk away but pay buckets to get short term exclusive DLC etc for AAA.
Microsoft has also said that they will work with any developer that reaches out to them. Sounds like they either aren't or are pretending they haven't reached out to these developers citing it trying to get them in the fold.
That they have lost any developers to their competition because of this, parity clause existing or no, speaks to how their org is run. They'll let indies walk away but pay buckets to get short term exclusive DLC etc for AAA.
SEGAvangelist
Member
So is Phil Spencer lying about the clause not pertaining to staggered releases (no console exclusivity windows for competing platforms)?
Maybe it's a phase all console manufacturers go through. You become the dominant player, you create shitty policies to try and consolidate your dominance, then you lose that dominance and have to reverse your policies as developers find greener pastures. Happened with Nintendo in the cartridge days, happened with Sony and the PS3, and apparently is happening with Microsoft.
So now we wait to see if Microsoft changes. Unfortunately, I don't think they will because the indies most hurt by policies like this are also the indies that matter the least. The popular titles will get passes (Microsoft's "generosity") or comply with the clause because they can afford to, and the small indie teams will continue to suffer.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Appreciate the extra insight from another dev which further illustrates that this needs to go.
One thing I'm confused on though is this extra content stuff. Phil said it, and the devs have said it but it just isn't happening. I rifled off a list of 15 indies that have launched first on Ps4 and later on XB1 that DO NOT have any extra content. In fact, I can't think of any that do, other than Shovel Knight but that's a different case entirely.
What Phil is saying and what is happening is not adding up
One thing I'm confused on though is this extra content stuff. Phil said it, and the devs have said it but it just isn't happening. I rifled off a list of 15 indies that have launched first on Ps4 and later on XB1 that DO NOT have any extra content. In fact, I can't think of any that do, other than Shovel Knight but that's a different case entirely.
What Phil is saying and what is happening is not adding up
Birgitte2004
Member
Did it really?
Sony said some stupid stuff, and they seriously outpriced their console's target audience, but I'm not aware of any policies which actively hurt either the consumer or developers related to the PS3.
panda-zebra
Banned
Those devs obviously sat down for coffee with Big Phil and his reassuring smile. They talked then he waved his hand and made it so.
Maybe the developers talked to Microsoft and Lord Spencer waived the parity requirements for those games. But then we'll get into some weird logic where you will say "So if it's that easy to get around it, why is it a problem?" without you realizing that the developers shouldn't need to talk to Microsoft about it in the first place. Nintendo rightfully gets a lot of flack from people who feel like they shouldn't have to call Nintendo to manage their own online account. And a lot of apologists who think it's not a big deal because it's just a phone call away.
They had a parity clause in the early PS3 days where late ports required extra content. And they had some weird rules regarding 2D games in the PS1 and PS2 days. Maybe even into the early PS3 days as well.
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/game...d-sony-really-have-an-anti2d-policy-29000461/
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77553
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They have been confusing since this gen started. DRM spin explanations were all smoke and mirrors to keep people confused, and this is no different.
Throw in catch phrases like, "first class" and "extra content" and you can take the heat off of you with your loyalists going to bat because they feel special. Yet they lack the same amount of game support the competition has and their fans forget that major part.
I wish they were just straight about it. History tells you, a company that keeps giving a runaround with information about policies that ultimately effect the consumer, do it on purpose to hide their intent.
I do not see nearly as many, "what da fuq is their message" threads from the other platforms.
Really hope all these viewpoints (that just concrete everything weve been told multiple times before) means that people that defend the vagueness of MS PR on the parity clause moves far more from 'give them the benefit of the doubt' to 'why the fuck does this need to exist'.
Just annoys me how this affects those indie outfits that arent that far from us gamers that just have such a passion for the medium to want to make games when its those teams that probably more in need of concessions.
What MS offers under ID@XBOX is a good thing, why tie it up in needless red tape irrelevant if you are the market leader or not...
Just so disappointing seemingly making the existence of an indie revival a marketing battleground.
ps3ud0 8)
Just annoys me how this affects those indie outfits that arent that far from us gamers that just have such a passion for the medium to want to make games when its those teams that probably more in need of concessions.
What MS offers under ID@XBOX is a good thing, why tie it up in needless red tape irrelevant if you are the market leader or not...
Just so disappointing seemingly making the existence of an indie revival a marketing battleground.
ps3ud0 8)
Reminds me of that Simpsons gif, Russia/USSR. Microsoft biding their time until plan A can be implemented.
By being vague on purpose, and saying the "need to talk to us" thing, he avoids going in plain lie territory.
Basically, he considers that there is not a clause preventing a staggered release because once you "talk to them" and sign an NDA you can then release on XBLive, with a "few" conditions attached. So it's "From a certain point of view"...
Said conditions are probably variable depending on how much demand there is for your title is my guess.
I'd totally agree with you, but MS has never been the dominant player.
Skyrise, thanks for this.
We'll add you to the list of developers who don't know what they're talking about and just need to whip up some extra skins on their lunch break.
What I find most interesting about Skyrise's post is that Microsoft advertise a ton of developers joining ID@Xbox, but how many of them are actually making an Xbox One game rather than just signing up for the program and then being stopped at this barrier?
Because it's plain as day that the Xbox One isn't getting near the same amount of indie games even though Microsoft tries to keep telling us hundreds of developers have already joined.
Because it's plain as day that the Xbox One isn't getting near the same amount of indie games even though Microsoft tries to keep telling us hundreds of developers have already joined.
While the store is definitely poop, they do have a section for ID games.
Birgitte2004
Member
The anti-2D policy was actually an attempt to improve the experience for the consumer, and prevent developers from releasing a substandard product for full price. And it came about when Sony was not the dominant player...it happened early on in the Playstation 1 days.
They hung on to it too long granted, and it was probably somewhat misguided to begin with, but I can't compare this in any way to what MS is doing with the parity clause on indie development.
As to Sony's parity clause, I have far less of a problem with it as applied to the Ubisofts and EAs of the world. My main opposition to the parity clause is who it's targeted at, as opposed to the concept.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
With the caveat of "overall western sales", "US sales" or "digital software sales" or "console indie sales" the Xbox 360 was #1 at various points last generation.
It is clear with the performance of the XboxOne that they grossly overplayed their hand, so whatever perceived advantages they had in all of those areas have evaporated. As with Sony and Nintendo's previous gaffes, they tried to leverage their dominance instead of solidifying it, because they were operating under the assumption that dev and consumer loyalty was a certainty.
Neuromancer
Member
Ultimately the market will determine the value of a game, whether it was released a year ago on a different platform or not. Most reasonable people, I believe, know that a good game is a good game regardless of when it came out. I bought the Vanishing of Ethan Carter even though its been out for a year on PC and I enjoyed it and feel like I got my money's worth.
Zombie James
Banned
Thanks a lot for the insight. So the clause is basically the same as what's been out there for a while and Phil Spencer is full of shit when he says the clause is dead.
tattooed_dwarf
Member
Really? Must have missed it then. Well I stand corrected if that's the case.
With you here, I plan on getting Ethan Carter myself, thinking about Hatoful birds also both on PS4. I'm not really concerned with who got the game for what platform/price first. If I like I'll buy, but everyones different.
Question to any dev. What if a studio has moved on to newer projects? Is that a likely scenario? I can see some of the problems if this came up.
Skyrise, thanks for this.
We'll add you to the list of developers who don't know what they're talking about and just need to whip up some extra skins on their lunch break.
This is the part that annoys me.
I'm not a dev, but i'm good friend of several (not indie, mind you) and i still know how hard is to create a single "skin" of a character. Maybe not a big problem for a big studio/pub to create something extra for the port, but for a team of 5 (or less people); it's a huge problem.
That and the part where he says that they have been transparent about it.
Neuromancer
Member
Wow thanks for the write up and for clarifying Spencer's comments for anyone who may have thought anything had actually changed.
Triggerhappytel
Member
The transparency claim was the funniest part about it. When everything's hidden behind tight-lipped NDAs and even developers aren't clear on the terms of your requirements, clearly you're not being transparent.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Thread got crickets real quick.
Primethius
Banned
Wow, reading Skyrise's post, I didn't realize that MS hadn't even budged on the clause. I thought, given the various PR releases, that they had made some underlying changes. But it sounds like pretty much the same thing that was always there continues to exist today.
TrebuchetGames
Member
Pretty sure I've covered some of this before in a previous post somewhere (seems like Deja VU), apologies if so...
Even for big teams it's still a lot of work to get games out on multiple platforms, what with TRC/approvals, age ratings etc. The only reason it's easier is that they have more staff to throw at it. So imagine if you are an indie studio with very few staff.
In my case, I am a single person studio (yay for me)... using freelancers to do art, some code help etc. I work full time, have a family and am trying to make an indie game. Not only am I doing all the design but i am doing most of the programming and putting the art assets into the game engine. Add onto that the fact that I am also doing all/any marketing and PR as well as all the business documentation that needs to be done (accounts etc - which all take time).
So anything that takes away from the core process of making the game or diverts time and attention from it can mean serious delays (and serious delays is a massive negative for indie creators).
Multiple platforms are an essential ingredient to being success, the more platforms the more customers you can reach, but if your team is small then trying to get the game onto any platform is still a process you have to follow and time that you are spending away from making the game. When you are not making a game you are not getting a product released and are not making money. Not making money could mean the end of your indie studio.
I don't want to have to worry about 4 different platforms on day 1, I want to make sure the game works as intended on the easiest platform for me to develop on, and then once that's done move onto the next platform. It's more logical and easier. Hopefully cash then from the 1st platform helps pay for improvements across the next platform/patch etc.
If I only have to add some additional content to make it feel fresh on that platform, then I don't mind that at all (because I might be making changes to the game on the next platform to better suit it anyway).
But it depends on how much extra content and the additional process of more time/money needing to get it onto the platform... and even more approvals. I think it's that grey area that is of concern to me, with all the other stuff you have to worry about, having something that's not clear cut is more red tape to have to deal with is something a small studio doesn't necessarily want to worry about.
Once I've completed my game I guess I'll find out how easy/hard it is to do this
Even for big teams it's still a lot of work to get games out on multiple platforms, what with TRC/approvals, age ratings etc. The only reason it's easier is that they have more staff to throw at it. So imagine if you are an indie studio with very few staff.
In my case, I am a single person studio (yay for me)... using freelancers to do art, some code help etc. I work full time, have a family and am trying to make an indie game. Not only am I doing all the design but i am doing most of the programming and putting the art assets into the game engine. Add onto that the fact that I am also doing all/any marketing and PR as well as all the business documentation that needs to be done (accounts etc - which all take time).
So anything that takes away from the core process of making the game or diverts time and attention from it can mean serious delays (and serious delays is a massive negative for indie creators).
Multiple platforms are an essential ingredient to being success, the more platforms the more customers you can reach, but if your team is small then trying to get the game onto any platform is still a process you have to follow and time that you are spending away from making the game. When you are not making a game you are not getting a product released and are not making money. Not making money could mean the end of your indie studio.
I don't want to have to worry about 4 different platforms on day 1, I want to make sure the game works as intended on the easiest platform for me to develop on, and then once that's done move onto the next platform. It's more logical and easier. Hopefully cash then from the 1st platform helps pay for improvements across the next platform/patch etc.
If I only have to add some additional content to make it feel fresh on that platform, then I don't mind that at all (because I might be making changes to the game on the next platform to better suit it anyway).
But it depends on how much extra content and the additional process of more time/money needing to get it onto the platform... and even more approvals. I think it's that grey area that is of concern to me, with all the other stuff you have to worry about, having something that's not clear cut is more red tape to have to deal with is something a small studio doesn't necessarily want to worry about.
Once I've completed my game I guess I'll find out how easy/hard it is to do this
Neuromancer
Member
Lying is a strong word. Let's go with 'willfully misleading.'
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
First class misleading!
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Again as I said before in this thread. OOT is like one of the best games of all time. Doesn't mean the average joe is gonna pay $60 for the N64 version these days. Nor do I think GAF wouldn't be up in arms if say PS1 classics were all the original price they were when they launched.
Neuromancer
Member
Sure but we're not talking about 15+ year old games in this thread. The context is ~1 year old games (at most, generally) on new platforms.
I was trying to be generous. =)
Again, why can't consumers, developers and publishers work that out themselves? Why is Microsoft getting in the middle of it and making demands claiming to know what's best for everyone else?
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Yep everything about this is confusing and just downright backwards.
What does releasing a port of a huge, first party AAA game 18 years and three generations later have to do with releasing an indie game one year later on similarly-powered hardware?
I'm not paying £30 for a PSOne game on my Vita these days either but I'lI happily be paying full price for Banner Saga the day it's released. Game looks awesome, I've been eyeing it up for ages and I don't expect to get it for peanuts just because of a bizarrely short, arbitrary amount of time that means some people think a game is obsolete in a matter of months before it can get ported to their system of choice.
There's plenty of time for a game to be reduced in price on a platform in the months and years following it's release there, why not give devs a fighting chance to make some sales at full price for a bit?
That's totally disingenuous. Comparing titles released over a decade ago on a specific platform, or bc titles like ps1 games, to ports of indie games limited by platform is crap. Your example is fishing for a flimsy way to justify your comments.
These devs are limited by budget, manpower and time.
Similar threads
- Locked