seventynine
Member
I've seen it all now!
-
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
Exactly...and I posted a gif with my reaction and then got called out about it, like he has been Crystal Pepsi clear this whole time.
This talk whether or not it's a good idea to charge the same price across all platforms, even if the release date is different across them.
Or how do you reinvigorate sales across all platforms when you launch somewhere else are all important decisions to be made.
The point isn't that these are not important decisions. It's that this decisions should lie with the developer/publisher and not with Microsoft.
Or how do you reinvigorate sales across all platforms when you launch somewhere else are all important decisions to be made.
The point isn't that these are not important decisions. It's that this decisions should lie with the developer/publisher and not with Microsoft.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Oh, wow. I've often seen the term 'strawman', but don't think I ever understood what it meant until now.
And the Anti-2D policy only happened with SCEA, not with SCEI/SCEE or SCEJ.
Dyson Industries
Banned
What does this have to do with anything?
He's lying, period. Meet the new boss, same as the old one.
Glad to see that people in this thread are waking up to his BS.
Thanks for sharing, I really appreciate it when devs are able to provide us with the details (because it sure as hell isn't coming from MS directly, apparently). So despite all of Spencer's mincing of words, the clause is still in effect & still just as shitty.
Well you have to excuse him, I mean he did say he *thinks* and not *fer sure* He might be passing gas at the moment and was thinking something else.
Absolutely.
I wonder if MS has legal reasons why they don't just outright drop it, and are having to ride out the storm of shit they created for themselves.
This is the best Bone I can throw for them. Good luck Phil, you need to drop this shit fast.
Nightengale
Member
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
You really need to read between the lines .... Reading this thread was convinced that Spencer actually meant this and couldn't understand the negativity. But then I saw those responses from acutal devs and I looked at this quote again.
All he's saying is: if you want a staggered release, you still need to talk to us first. The "We work with them on that" bit is the give-away that there's still something that needs to be worked out first. Why is there a need to "work" with devs on a staggered release, if there is no parity clause?
Typical MS bullshit.
All he's saying is: if you want a staggered release, you still need to talk to us first. The "We work with them on that" bit is the give-away that there's still something that needs to be worked out first. Why is there a need to "work" with devs on a staggered release, if there is no parity clause?
Typical MS bullshit.
Plague Doctor
Member
And to add onto what you are saying, if they are compassionate to those developers who absolutely need to do staggered releases, why not... just assume all developers need it sans the "reach out to us" discussion. Drop the clause.
Zombie James
Banned
I think that under Spencer's guidance, many of the necessary policy changes happened and that is good for him and XB in general.
But work needs to be done on their indie policy because it damages their image and limits the number of titles their console offers. And when that happens they also suffer from their awful PR which makes them appear dishonest.
But work needs to be done on their indie policy because it damages their image and limits the number of titles their console offers. And when that happens they also suffer from their awful PR which makes them appear dishonest.
slavesnyder
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Oh damn.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
You can't make a blanket statement good games are good games. Yes what I said was wild, but that's why you can't make the good games are good games statement in the first place with regards to this topic.
Everyone is gonna have a different cut off time in their mind on how well this type of thing should be treated. It could be 6 months. It could be a year. It could be 5 years or 10.
That's why I took issue with the generalized statement I quoted and bolded though.
Jacksinthe
Banned
Everything's gonna be OK, devs. Stop sweating it. I know Phil and Chris probably don't like me much from my prior comments on the clause (Hi guys!) - but at this point, in today's landscape, in today's MS - stop sweating it. You will be fine.
It sucks that you have to bend a few rules and have a conversation to get the same end result with person A that person B gave you without any hassle - but business sucks. That's how it is. Otherwise "business" would be called "no sweat". MS is INSANELY easy to reach out to.
As a dev that signed with MS and Sony when the parity clause was crafted in stone and not silly putty like it is today - stop sweating it. You will be fine with a staged platform release.
Just saying. He meant exactly what he said. Don't read so far into it, everyone. Its not a huge hurdle anymore. I have to give credit where it is due. Still would love to see the language stripped completely but this will do for damn near everyone for now.
It sucks that you have to bend a few rules and have a conversation to get the same end result with person A that person B gave you without any hassle - but business sucks. That's how it is. Otherwise "business" would be called "no sweat". MS is INSANELY easy to reach out to.
As a dev that signed with MS and Sony when the parity clause was crafted in stone and not silly putty like it is today - stop sweating it. You will be fine with a staged platform release.
Just saying. He meant exactly what he said. Don't read so far into it, everyone. Its not a huge hurdle anymore. I have to give credit where it is due. Still would love to see the language stripped completely but this will do for damn near everyone for now.
As I've said a year ago. Every developer that identifiable posts in a thread that talks about this is tainted because Microsoft read these kind of threads.
And because everyone signs NDAs you don't know if you've been accommodated.
It's great that it all works for you, but to get real feedback new developers always have to post their experiences.
TrebuchetGames
Member
That's really good to hear....
Yeah I agree, if the language wasn't there i think it would be less of an issue. No one wants to have to worry about such things when they have so many other things to worry about
Newtype-001
Member
Thatsgood.gif
Phil's comments are pure PR horse shit. Either that or he's incredibly out of touch with the indie community. This is one of those cases where the Xbox team has spent countless hours determining an appropriate level of fucking people over as long as it doesn't hurt the bottom line. They just assume that everyone will believe everything they say and no damage will come as a result. The fact that they are STILL trying to push this BS on people is just pathetic.
I don't know why so many people are willing to support a product from a company that treats its customers (and developers for that matter) like braindead morons. MS has assumed time and time again that we're all too stupid to understand their policies.
Yeah, the solution is to just shut up and take that corporate D. Great idea!
I don't know why so many people are willing to support a product from a company that treats its customers (and developers for that matter) like braindead morons. MS has assumed time and time again that we're all too stupid to understand their policies.
Yeah, the solution is to just shut up and take that corporate D. Great idea!
Absinthe has been a very vocal against this clause for months now, i don't think he meant as "shut up" but as "it's getting better"; so i will take his word for what it is.
However, i really wish the clause doesn't exist at all, rather than just getting more easy to pass now.
Fair enough, but people need to continue to be really vocal about this if they want it to change. Nothing will change with the "eh, it'll be fine" attitude.
For the sake of disclosure, didn't Charla reach out to you via GAF because of your vocal discussions on the policy?
I am not saying they are not better than originally, but I just remember you in one of the other threads saying something along these lines.
By having this policy they suggest to developers that haven't yet decided where to spend their limited resources to spend them on releasing on XBL first over eShop and PSN, because eShop and PSN do not impose any restrictions.
It's basically abusing the openness of the marketplace competitors to gain timed exclusives without actually providing any support.
Why the supporters of this policy have never considered the hypothetical situation when both Sony and Nintendo also went for something like that is way more puzzling.
Oh! Wow dick move MS
It would make more sense if they were the market leaders, but not when they're being crushed by Sony.
They still benefit from it as long as Sony doesn't also implement such a policy.
This problem can be analyzed using a prisoner's dilemma table. As long as only one betrays the other they win. If they both betray each other they both lose.
The tragedy of the commons is probably a better analogy.
Wasn't it around that time that Absinthe was going to create a thread with several quotes from several indies that were being affected by the clause and then that never came to pass?
Kinda of odd for Phil and Chris to hold a grudge after all this time even after Absinthe backed off.
Prototype Viktor
Member
No the leader vets the game. People love it so when it comes to those in second they want it because the leader players praised it and they wanted to experience it as well. The extra is those leader players who went in "blind"
On that, i completely agree.
Yeah, i waited for that long post/rant for days. Shame he never came to post it, but i can understand that if Phil and Chris came to him and fixed his situation, he thought it was better to not post it.
Neuromancer
Member
It's good to hear that exceptions have been made for you. But that doesn't mean every developer will get an exception, right? Otherwise what's the point of the clause at all?
Hmm let's see here...
Chris Charla said:
Phil Spencer said:
From your list of games earlier.
We have...
Exclusive console debut -
Octodad
PS+ titles -
Contrast, Outlast, Steamworld Dig, Stick it to the Man, Rogue Legacy, Race the Sun, The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth, Don't Starve.
Launched first on Xbox one -
Thomas was Alone released first on Xbox one - 21 November 2014 and 25 on PS4.
Stealth Inc 2 - Xbox one(Apr 3, 2015), PS4(Apr 7, 2015)
Launch in the same month but not same date -
1001 Spikes - Xbox one(Jun 10, 2014), PS4(June 3, 2014)
Odd ones without a pattern -
Blue Estate previously an exclusive on Leap. Launched PS4(Jun 24, 2014), Xbox one(Feb 18,2015) - Maybe counts as staggered release and it being exclusive before ID@Xbox was announced made it an exception?
The Pinball Arcade staggered release as it was already available previously on PC, PS3,Xbox 360?
Conclusion
Looking at this especially due to the amount that have been PS+ titles. I wonder if they count as deals were made exceptions from the clause like so -
[URL="http://www.vg247.com/2013/12/05/idxbox-launch-parity-clause-called-out-by-vlambeer/]
[/URL]Although that does say "already signed during the announcement of ID@Xbox" which makes it hard to know with the 2014/2015 PS+ titles. If we go with what Skyrise has said then and if these PS+ deals count as exceptions then it valid his and Vlambeer words.Vlambeer said:
Or am I just crazy?
EGOMON
Member
Since most of the Indie devs are small team and can't work on multiplatforms they would choose to launch first on Xbone and then work on PC or PS4 versions because both these platforms don't have any clause that prevent them from releasing late ports this way MS thought they are going to get most of the indie support first.
Good thing this didn't play out the way MS was hoping and i think sticking to their policy because they are still hoping that their plan might gain traction with time i mean if you think of it from devs point of view it is better to release their games on Xbone first without ruining their chances in releasing the games later in the other platforms while maintaining their low capacity output
Benny explains it better
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
Adding to that, gamers should be vocal about it. There's a perfectly good reason for gamers to hate MS's current policies without needing to bring in the livelihood of Developers into the mix: X1 is missing a ton of games.
While it is hard to quantify, it is clear that indies feel more comfortable putting their games on PS4 and less comfortable on Xbox One. The numbers don't lie, and that "indie release parity" clause certainly has something to do with it. There's a sizable disparity in the number and quality of indie games on both consoles. A We're not talking about one-off ported-from-mobile puzzle games. Off the top of my head:
- Transistor (Bastion devs)
- Apotheon (cool Metroidvania w/ Ancient Greek art style)
- Axiom Verge (basically the spiritual successor to Super Metroid)
- Hotline Miami 2 (sequel to one of the most critically-acclaimed indie games in the past few years)
- Nidhogg (very fun dueling game)
- Jamestown (shmup)
These sort of high-profile indies are the sort that 360 had on lockdown last gen (Castle Crashers, Geometry Wars, Braid, Fez, Bastion, etc) so it would be disingenuous to throw them aside. Xbox One is seriously missing out on some of the best indie games available on the market.
But hey. Despite missing some of the best indie games out there, I hope you still feel "First Class".
So from what's been said. The language is there but Microsoft keeps letting people go around it. Also this type of policy only works well being the market leader, which they are not right now. Im wondering if they want to keep it in just in case they become market leader again and they can start enforcing it again. There no reason for the words to be there and then ignore it.
slavesnyder
Member
You order stupid policies that make life unnecessarily much harder for small indie studios and they are still your buddies.
I wish I was in a position to have friends like that, too.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Hmm let's see here...
From your list of games earlier.
We have...
Exclusive console debut -
Octodad
PS+ titles -
Contrast, Outlast, Steamworld Dig, Stick it to the Man, Rogue Legacy, Race the Sun, The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth, Don't Starve.
Launched first on Xbox one -
Thomas was Alone released first on Xbox one - 21 November 2014 and 25 on PS4.
Stealth Inc 2 - Xbox one(Apr 3, 2015), PS4(Apr 7, 2015)
Launch in the same month but not same date -
1001 Spikes - Xbox one(Jun 10, 2014), PS4(June 3, 2014)
Odd ones without a pattern -
Blue Estate previously an exclusive on Leap. Launched PS4(Jun 24, 2014), Xbox one(Feb 18,2015) - Maybe counts as staggered release and it being exclusive before ID@Xbox was announced made it an exception?
The Pinball Arcade staggered release as it was already available previously on PC, PS3,Xbox 360?
Conclusion
Looking at this especially due to the amount that have been PS+ titles. I wonder if they count as deals were made exceptions from the clause like so -
[URL="http://www.vg247.com/2013/12/05/idxbox-launch-parity-clause-called-out-by-vlambeer/][/URL]Although that does say "already signed during the announcement of ID@Xbox" which makes it hard to know with the 2014/2015 PS+ titles. If we go with what Skyrise has said then and if these PS+ deals count as exceptions then it valid his and Vlambeer words.
Or am I just crazy?
Thanks a ton! I was actually meaning to go back and do an in depth analysis on the list and also on some upcoming titles such as Race the Sun, Don't Starve, Binding of Isaac, SuperMega Baseball, Awesomenauts Assemble, and some others to see if they have anything new or if they are the same content.
Really appreciate the effort put in on research and links. Seems I was also wrong about a few titles that actually launched first on Xbox.
I'll try and look into upcoming games when I get home later.
I am really glad to hear that things got better in your situation.
My concern is that they are still riding the same wording, andand still requiring an NDA to even have that conversation. Not only that, making claims of transparency reeks of inconsistency.
They just need to stop this. It's only hurting themselves and the devs in the long run. No one is winning from them keeping up this charade.
Sony is, apparently. They must be sitting back bursting out in laughter.
Pathfinder
Member
Jacksinthe
Banned
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
No. That's not the solution. It's not to just "take that corporate". The solution is to look at side A and look at side B and remind yourself that they BOTH have hoops you need to jump through. It's 6 of one and half dozen of the other. Pick your enemy (or, in this case, let the 'net pick it for you) and pile on, I guess.
Yeah, the solution is to just shut up and take that corporate D. Great idea!
He never did. I said to ease up on piling up on him because he has a job to do like everyone else and doesn't make those rules: don't shoot the messenger.
When did I say exceptions were made for us?
This little game of "telephone" everyone on the net keeps playing better start getting it right. It's one of the reasons we and other devs have been largely silent.
I've been accused of a lot of shit that never happened, I never said and would never say. Especially here on GAF - and this shit is my home base
It's not fun. So I don't talk about shit like this much more. I just act like an idiot in other treads.
Similar threads
- Locked