telltale is a publisher as well as a developer. They aren't bound to this clause.
-
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.
ID@Xbox launch clause has dev signing exclusive deal with Sony in order to be on XB1
- Thread starter chubigans
- Start date
telltale is a publisher as well as a developer. They aren't bound to this clause.
Yes they are all ID@xbox developers are bound by that clause. If they are on the list they are bound by it.
Substitute Telltale for *insert big indie dev here*
You can work around my error, but I will edit my post.
edit: might not be an error at all if the guy above me is right.
edit2: I am also still waiting for Rhindle to come back in here.
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
Oh boy, release managers. I understand the reason for them, but if they pull the same BS they did with the 360 (and they probably will), I can't imagine the indie community is going to put up with MS's bullshit.
Interesting you'd say that, because here's what a publisher/dev just told me on Twitter...
That's from Curve Studios. So it's affecting everyone.
Might make it worse really: if your release date is still at the whim of Microsoft, and not even a simple "ok we'll slot you in this month" but the kind of shit that hit Retro City Rampage, then indies really could be foolish to go with Microsoft over Sony/Steam/Nintendo first. That may LOOK smarter in that you hit all platforms, but if you kept getting it drawn out and undermining important revenue streams then they end up no worth the effort, doubly so since at this rate they probably won't have the allure of being the lead Western core platform again.
GoofsterStud
Member
This makes me angry. This kind of policy is bad for games, bad for the gamers, and bad for the developers.
I hope it changes soon.
I hope it changes soon.
If you don't mind my asking, your only answer to me asking for your sources so far has been that I should read between the lines from the Build conference.
Do you actually have information you are not revealing precisely regarding the remainder of the program for some other reason, or are your posts speculation based on what's publicly available?
say indie game releases on the upcoming unannounced marketplace- they won't be bound by this. They become big enough and good enough to attract publisher attention, they could then release a title in the big game store. Obv bound by publishing requirements (IE they may not green light your game as under this arrangement they fund dev costs)
they can a) release the title through ID@Xbox (and be bound by the clause) or release through the channel they previously released in. (less exposure but likely a less thorough cert process)
I'm not saying it doesn't suck now for Indies that want to release NOW or short term.
but in the future it should be fine
Vlambeer isn't part of the "true indie dev path"? What is the "true indie dev path"?
Nearly 20 years of games development and you've gifted me with one of most ridiculous turns of phrase I've ever heard. Kudos.
I don't even. Big enough and good enough? Fuck me.
"M$" was a bullshit meme back in 2000. If that's all you've got to offer, you're better off elsewhere.Banned after posting a grand total of 1 comment on Gaf! Bish, did your shill-o-meter go off the charts?
3rdamention
Member
If you are a ID@Xbox Developer, can you still create a different PS4 exclusive game on the side? Or are you straight up NOT allowed to launch a game on the PS4 unless it also launches on Xbox One the exact same date?
That cannot be right, I hope. My scenario/example would be Big John Stud Games is creating a game called Stud Muffin. They are an ID@Xbox developer, and will be releasing the game for both platforms on Feb 14th, for Valentine's Day. Can Big John Stud Games do a side project, which is PS4 exclusive and will not release on Xbox One, but still remain an Xbox One ID@Xbox developer, even if they have no plans to release their new game on Xbox One?
That cannot be right, I hope. My scenario/example would be Big John Stud Games is creating a game called Stud Muffin. They are an ID@Xbox developer, and will be releasing the game for both platforms on Feb 14th, for Valentine's Day. Can Big John Stud Games do a side project, which is PS4 exclusive and will not release on Xbox One, but still remain an Xbox One ID@Xbox developer, even if they have no plans to release their new game on Xbox One?
I don't like it - what if a developer doesn't have he resources to do both at once? They're forced to sit on one version and not earn money from it until they have the other platform ready?
But I hope Sony has something similar.
That might sound contradictory, but I don't want a situation where devs might end up being forced to release on Xbox first and delay PS4 versions just because Sony has a more lenient setup. That rewards MS being restrictive
But I hope Sony has something similar.
That might sound contradictory, but I don't want a situation where devs might end up being forced to release on Xbox first and delay PS4 versions just because Sony has a more lenient setup. That rewards MS being restrictive
3rdamention
Member
So Microsoft should give us an incentive to buy the game on Xbox One instead, such as exclusive content, higher resolution or frame rate, something to make everyone wait and buy the Xbox version of the game instead.
This is certainly what it seems like to me as well.
George Claw M.D.
Member
Nothing backfired on Microsoft. Those exclusivity agreements were just an inconsequential formality to satisfy the loophole requirement. Even without the clause forcing devs to sign those exclusivity agreements with Sony, those games would still launch later on Xbone, because those devs were already working on PS4 games long before they even got Xbone dev kits. But going forward, Microsoft is basically forcing devs to develop for Xbone first or delay a PS4 version until the Xbone version is finished, if they want to release on Xbone at all. So, the only entity that "wins" in this scenario are Microsoft.
For an example of how this could be limiting for indies, consider this scenario: PS4 pulls away with a sizable installed base lead. Instead of indies developing and releasing a PS4 version first, ensuring the biggest profits come sooner than later, they're forced to dev for the lower ceiling Xbone first, delaying PS4 profits. It's a shitty deal that only benefits Microsoft, unless Xbone somehow becomes the undisputed #1 platform this generation, in which case such a clause would be redundant because then it would make sense for indies to always develop for Xbone first. So, really, this clause is only designed to keep MS ahead or from falling behind on indie releases.
Well, if that happens, obviously Microsoft will have to scrap this clause, just like they scrapped their earlier DRM plans which was a much bigger deal than this. This clause is designed exactly to resist such a situation from happening in the first place.
Because Microsoft will make exceptions for the biggest games. Imagine if Mojang wanted to develop a Minecraft 2 for PS4 and Xbone, but told Microsoft, "Look. PS4 is quicker to develop for and has a larger installed base. So, we're going to launch the PS4 version as soon as it's ready. Either you're okay with the Xbone version launching later, or we won't bother with your system at all." Do you think Microsoft will say, "Okay. Then you can't make an Xbone version." Of course not. MS will make an exception the same way they made exceptions on XBL game sizes on 360 for the biggest games. See here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/capcom-exceeds-xbla-file-size-limit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal take:
It's shitty clause, but really there's no realistic way it can backfire on Microsoft. If PS4 dominates enough to force Microsoft to get rid it, then PS4 would have dominated without it also. It's like putting on armor. If you sustain a blow so great that it pierces your armor, it would not have been any better had you not been wearing armor at all. The ONLY way I can see it backfiring is if, like gamers, indies sour on Xbox altogether and decide not to dev for the platform out of spite. Sure, some devs may do that, but the majority will do things based on rational financial decisions and continue to develop for Xbone as long as it's profitable.
Also, following the above logic in the section preceding this one, there is still 1 loophole. Create a game important enough to get Microsoft to make an exception.
Deadstarone
Member
Self publishing, free Unity, and dev kits were the bait, launch day parity is the trap.
In the future devs who signed on for this will have to develop for Xbox One first, period.
If they want their games on Xbox without the bullshit, they have to find themselves publishers, and that's just a shitty.
In the future devs who signed on for this will have to develop for Xbox One first, period.
If they want their games on Xbox without the bullshit, they have to find themselves publishers, and that's just a shitty.
using publicly available information.
the ID@Xbox prog isn't what they were discussing at build (with unity etc)... They used an educational app (biology iirc) as their example... That is showing they fully intend to have a separate marketplace
they even talk about opening it up later here http://news.xbox.com/2013/08/gamescom-indie
The point is that a lot of these smaller developers can't do that. They can barely work on a single game on more than one platform at a time. By Microsoft forcing parity, they force developers to either focus solely on the Xbox and release there first then move on, or sit on a completed game release while they work on the Xbox version. Or they simply do not release on XBO.
I was talking about small Indies (aka the true Indies in peoples eyes) through the upcoming dev path
the larger Indies will go through publisher or self publish (either through the same path as publishers or the same path as the small Indies)
there's 3 paths (as stated in the link above)
Maybe if we knew the monetary value of the dev kits and Unity license (Hundreds? Thousands?) it would add some clarity.
From what I can tell, yes. But that side game cannot ever be released on Xbone unless Microsoft grants an exception.
Follow the path bish...follow the path.
Then stop talking about your scenario as if it was fact.
You do NOT know exactly how it will work.
lol
MS having free devkits, free unity and tools familiar to devs using directX. Those should be incentive enough for devs to consider leading with Xbox one. They shouldn't need restrictive contracts to force the issue
Sword Of Doom
Member
MS has forced "feature parity" with publishers big and small in the past so maybe a loophole for that is to release the game at the same resolution and then change the resolution with a patch. Of course there can be a number of reasons for why patches were needed but it's not completely out of the question.
Moneyhats2k5
Member
Well if it happens with Watchdogs and Destiny, then you know something shady is going on. Especially with the Sony marketing deals they have with those titles.
Big publishers could take a stand and just shun the XBO. EA vs Dreamcast/Wii-U style.
But they won't do it. Just like Netflix found a loophole to their contract with the 360 by releasing DVD's that contained the Netflix streaming software to Wii and PS3 owners, big publishers have found a loophole by simply patching in the non-parity performance post release.
It's bullshit though and I wish they would grow a pair and tell MS to stuff it with these forced parity policies.
But they won't do it. Just like Netflix found a loophole to their contract with the 360 by releasing DVD's that contained the Netflix streaming software to Wii and PS3 owners, big publishers have found a loophole by simply patching in the non-parity performance post release.
It's bullshit though and I wish they would grow a pair and tell MS to stuff it with these forced parity policies.
They've already said that the console itself can eventually be a devkit, so unless they attach some arbitrarily high price to the dev software, the only big cost would be the Unity license (which could be quite high, it's 1.5k for a pc or iphone license, and significantly more expensive for consoles I think).
However, that's kind of beside the point if you can't choose to pay for your own license. If you could self-publish without the release date parity clause by paying for your own unity license, no one would be complaining (except maybe big babies). Then it would be similar to what Sony does with pub fund -- self publish with no strings attached, or get a little bit of support with some light bondage.
Can anyone speak to how it was in the previous pre-360 era? PS2 and before? Have these agreements always existed and objecting to them was an unspoken rule? Given that the last 10 years the spread of info is faster and more pervasive, I have a feeling developers have more freedom than ever, but all this transparency makes it seem like it's draconian.
Zombie James
Banned
Is it really smart business when you're damaging the industry you're in?
BlackBuzzard
Banned
So this can potentially delay titles for PSN,eshop and Steam? Pluck me.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Shitty new policy.
What is true indies? Now there are even more classifications that absolutely are meaningless. Ridiculous.
What is true indies? Now there are even more classifications that absolutely are meaningless. Ridiculous.
HORRORSHØW
Member
Xbox <3 Indies.
What a sham.
What a sham.
Unless of course indies start saying fuck off and don't release on Xbox.
TheRealTalker
Banned
Does the control signing require you to ship at least one game before leaving the program or is it time orientated?
Takamura-San
Member
Ubisoft delayed Rayman legends on the wiiu to finish ddevelopment on the 360 and ps3 version of the game. That was ubisoft's choice and people gave them shit for it.
Niw imagine if you will that the wiiu ver of Rayman was delayed because od some contract clause from either sony or Microsoft...
Is this ok now?
Niw imagine if you will that the wiiu ver of Rayman was delayed because od some contract clause from either sony or Microsoft...
Is this ok now?
The loophole is done.
That only worked because ID@XBOX was not finalized yet.
Read earlier in the thread. This has been discussed at length.
Reread what you just bolded. The loopholes I was discussing was publishers of AAA titles patching in better performance after the fact like 1080p on AC4 and Netflix being able to bypass their 360 exclusivity by shipping Netflix streaming DVD's to PS3 and Wii owners.
I didn't mention the "release on Sony first before you sign the agreement" thing that some indie devs were trying.
My post that you quoted had nothing to do with the ID@Xbox, only other policies that are similar from MS.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll