Support NeoGAF

[viveks86]

"M$" was a bullshit meme back in 2000. If that's all you've got to offer, you're better off elsewhere.

Oh! Lol. I didn't event notice the $. Fair enough.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

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.

Could that be what the EDGE article was talking about, but third party publishers found a loophole around it. Its just too much of a coincedence, that every game that ran a higher resolution on PS4 required a patch to do so. Whats the next big third party game that could have different resolutions, Watch Dogs and Destiny?

 

[Jeels]

Well, as a PS4 user I look forward to more timed or untimed exclusives from the independent community.

 

[IRQ]

I don't see what's the problem with that. MS wants the game to be released at the same time as the others.

You don't have the resources to release on both? Chose one platform and make money on it.

you want to release on all platforms= More time and hard work, well make an effort and do it to make even more money.

Why would MS wants a game that has been out on another platforms before their own console? What's so positive about it?

They are not forcing anyone for exclusive deals. You have the freedom to choose. Choose what's best for you and your time efforts.

 

[kpaadet]

I'd say this is a smart business move, but not so good from a everything else POV.

How is it a smart business move when it caused alot of indie games to get a month of exclusivity on the PS4 and it will probably mean alot of future PSN exclusives will never come to their platform?

 

[Wereroku]

I don't see what's the problem with that. MS wants the game to be released at the same time as the others.

You don't have the resources to release on both? Chose one platform and make money on it.

you want to release on all platforms= More time and hard work, well make an effort and do it to make even more money.

Why would MS wants a game that has been out on another platforms before their own console? What's so positive about it?

They are not forcing anyone for exclusive deals. You have the freedom to choose. Choose what's best for you and your time efforts.

Dude read the thread this had been discussed there is no choice its either same time or never at all.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

isn't the entire point of a self-publishing program to put power back in the hands of the indies, giving the people with the least resources more flexibility so they can figure out the best arrangement for their unique situation?

guess they completely missed the point again

This.

 

[IRQ]

Dude read the thread this had been discussed there is no choice its either same time or never at all.

Dude, read my post. That's exactly what am saying.

Choose to release on one platform or work harder for two platforms.

Simple, Two are more then one = more work. The one's who can't, can actually just choose on one.

 

[adixon]

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.

It seems draconian because times have changed. Microsoft, in fact, had a leading role in changing everything on consoles. The 360 basically created the indie boom on consoles.

It's insane to think that a company with people as fucking awesome as the team who launched XNA* is now unable to catch up to the App Store, anything on Android, and even Sony and Nintendo. I've honestly never felt so sad about a giant corporation in my life, the company that got me started coding and making games is now just making themselves look bad.


*Not to mention the people who decided to set up Xbox Live Arcade and publish Castle Crashers and Braid, among many others. God the 360 was great.

 

[adixon]

Dude, read my post. That's exactly what am saying.

Choose to release on one platform or work harder for two platforms.

Simple, Two are more then one = more work. The one's who can't, can actually just choose on one.

In other words, tough cookies.

If you don't let microsoft release your game on xbox one when they feel like it, and then go ahead with the release on other platforms after they've given you the ok, just don't release your game on xbox at all.

It's fine to be happy with throwing indie devs you don't care about under the bus for your favorite team in the console wars, but don't try to make it look like a logical argument.

 

[viveks86]

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)

DopeyFish, you are digressing far too much and not addressing the issues raised in this thread:

ID@Xbox is, by the looks of it, old wine in a new bottle. It is XBLA with a few policy tweaks. There was no reason to introduce this as a brand new initiative. You seem to acknowledge this yourself, but don't seem to acknowledge the fact that it sucks. People were expecting these stupid restrictions to go away. They haven't. It's a new coat of polish on the same old turd that frustrated devs in the first place.

You keep bringing up 3 paths and try to define who is a "true indie" and who isn't. That's not the point of this thread. We are talking about what MS had been presenting to the world as their new initiative (ID@Xbox) to attract indies and redress the issues they faced towards the end of the last console cycle. By your own admission, it isn't all that different from what MS has been doing all along. Their other initiative, path 3 for the "true indies" as you call it, is merely a promise of the future that neither you nor I can fully grasp without reading the fine print. Let's set that aside until there are more details and talk about what can be discussed right now, which is ID@Xbox.

 

[BigDug13]

Dude, read my post. That's exactly what am saying.

Choose to release on one platform or work harder for two platforms.

Simple, Two are more then one = more work. The one's who can't, can actually just choose on one.

Ok but what if Sony came out with the same policy. "Us first or never" and MS also has the same policy "us first or never" and Steam decides to come out with the same policy "us first or never".

So what do indie developers do then if everyone starts trying to bully them like MS is doing?

In this instance you can't choose "just one" or else it will ONLY be that one and never anyone else. So it's ok for Microsoft to basically say "us first or never" to force those developers to only work on Xbox as their primary platform, even though its sales would be dwarfed by STEAM and PS4? And you would only see it as a problem if everyone else decided to enact those same policies at the same time?

 

[coolasj19]

I don't see what's the problem with that. MS wants the game to be released at the same time as the others.
You don't have the resources to release on both? Chose one platform and make money on it.
you want to release on all platforms= More time and hard work, well make an effort and do it to make even more money.
Why would MS wants a game that has been out on another platforms before their own console? What's so positive about it?
They are not forcing anyone for exclusive deals. You have the freedom to choose. Choose what's best for you and your time efforts.

Spoiler

You realize how far that attitude is gonna get you in this conversation right?

 

[Iacobellis]

It seems draconian because times have changed. Microsoft, in fact, had a leading role in changing everything on consoles. The 360 basically created the indie boom on consoles.

It's insane to think that a company with people as fucking awesome as the team who launched XNA* is now unable to catch up to the App Store, anything on Android, and even Sony and Nintendo. I've honestly never felt so sad about a giant corporation in my life, the company that got me started coding and making games is now just making themselves look bad.


*Not to mention the people who decided to set up Xbox Live Arcade and publish Castle Crashers and Braid, among many others. God the 360 was great.

The 360 singlehandedly put guys like Blow and Team Meat on the map.

 

[IRQ]

In other words, tough cookies.

If you don't let microsoft release your game on xbox one when they feel like it, and then go ahead with the release on other platforms, just don't release your game on xbox at all.

It's fine to be happy with throwing indie devs you don't care about under the bus for your favorite team in the console wars, but don't try to make it look like a logical argument.

This has nothing to do with console wars and I've never been apart of it either cuz I Own both.

It's a choice. I would have made the same decision my self. Why would I want a game to be released on others platforms except mine? Am I not equal to others?

If you can't or don't want to release on both then you do have a choice. Choose Sony , Nintendo or both, Or make an effort and release on all.

 

[xxracerxx]

Why would MS wants a game that has been out on another platforms before their own console? What's so positive about it?

Umm...money. This isn't sloppy seconds.

 

[PhatSaqs]

So basically for indies that can only financially afford to develop and release it for one platform at a time. They must release the Xbox version first (or with PC)
I guess it's a win for Microsoft.

Only if the dev feels as tho there's value in accepting free dev tools and the potential sales to be had within the MS marketplace.

 

[IRQ]

Ok but what if Sony came out with the same policy. "Us first or never" and MS also has the same policy "us first or never" and Steam decides to come out with the same policy "us first or never".

So what do indie developers do then if everyone starts trying to bully them like MS is doing?

In this instance you can't choose "just one" or else it will ONLY be that one and never anyone else. So it's ok for Microsoft to basically say "us first or never" to force those developers to only work on Xbox as their primary platform, even though its sales would be dwarfed by STEAM and PS4? And you would only see it as a problem if everyone else decided to enact those same policies at the same time?

Am against us first or never.

They are saying we want the games to release similarly on all platforms. Where in that do they say us first? I can understand that from a business stand point.

 

[coolasj19]

This has nothing to do with console wars and I've never been apart of it either cuz I Own both.

It's a choice. I would have made the same decision my self. Why would I want a game to be released on others platforms except mine? Am I not equal to others?

If you can't or don't want to release on both then you do have a choice. Choose Sony , Nintendo or both, Or make an effort and release on all.

Don't ever us that as a defense again. It means nothing and it will get you nowhere. Just a friendly tip.

No, but that's the problem. The Xbox platform should be equal to the others. Not given priority for arbitrary reasons and contract clauses.

 

[adixon]

If you can't or don't want to release on both then you do have a choice. Choose Sony , Nintendo or both, Or make an effort and release on all.

Ahhh effort, so we're getting back to lazy devs now.

In other words, microsoft makes a decision that has minimal benefit for them, screws up self publishing for small developers (worst case, how long until Sony adds the same requirement so they stop getting screwed by the asymmetry?) and it's the devs who have to bear the burden that puts on their company. And we're right back to #DealWithIt.

My apologies about the console wars remark. I assumed (too hastily) that it was that and not simply a lack of empathy.

 

[IRQ]

Spoiler

You realize how far that attitude is gonna get you in this conversation right?

Bro, My post has nothing to do with deal with it. They want to be apart of the release date as others.

 

[Slashlen]

DopeyFish, you are digressing far too much and not addressing the issues raised in this thread:

ID@Xbox is, by the looks of it, old wine in a new bottle. It is XBLA with a few policy tweaks. There was no reason to introduce this as a brand new initiative. You seem to acknowledge this yourself, but don't seem to acknowledge the fact that it sucks. People were expecting these stupid restrictions to go away. They haven't. It's a new coat of polish on the same old turd that frustrated devs in the first place.

You keep bringing up 3 paths and try to define who is a "true indie" and who isn't. That's not the point of this thread. We are talking about what MS had been presenting to the world as their new initiative (ID@Xbox) to attract indies and redress the issues they faced towards the end of the last console cycle. By your own admission, it isn't all that different from what MS has been doing all along. Their other initiative, path 3 for the "true indies" as you call it, is merely a promise of the future that neither you nor I can fully grasp without reading the fine print. Let's set that aside until there are more details and talk about what can be discussed right now, which is ID@Xbox.

It probably still is an improvement for the indies who were stuck in the indie getto of XBLIG last round. Assuming they don't invent a new getto for them as part of ID@Xbox. It seems to be XBLA-level crap, which is a significant improvment over XBLIG-level crap.

 

[Nafai1123]

Bro, My post has nothing to do with deal with it. They want to be apart of the release date as others.

If they are as open and easy to develop games for as they would have us believe, they don't need to push draconian release terms on small dev teams.

 

[xxracerxx]

Ahhh effort, so we're getting back to lazy devs now.

In other words, microsoft makes a decision that has minimal benefit for them, screws up self publishing for small developers (worst case, how long until Sony adds the same requirement so they stop getting screwed by the asymmetry?) and it's the devs who have to bear the burden that puts on their company. And we're right back to #DealWithIt.

My apologies about the console wars remark. I assumed (too hastily) that it was that and not simply a lack of empathy.

Sony, unlike MS will gladly take games that released first on XBLA. Such as Limbo, Lara Croft:GLA, etc. You know why? Because it brings them money.

 

[IRQ]

Don't ever us that as a defense again. It means nothing and it will get you nowhere. Just a friendly tip.

No, but that's the problem. The Xbox platform should be equal to the others. Not given priority for arbitrary reasons and contract clauses.

Am a proud gamer who owns all platforms and enjoy them equally and not afraid to say it. If its means nothing to you then a friendly tip: Don't waste time on something that doesn't mean anything to you.

 

[viveks86]

Am against us first or never.

They are saying we want the games to release similarly on all platforms. Where in that do they say us first? I can understand that from a business stand point.

Let's not argue semantics. Here, let me lay it out for you. Let's say a developer wants to release the game on December 4th. Following are the options the dev has:

1) Xbone - Dec 4th, PS4 - Dec 4th, Wii U - Dec 4th i.e. Xbone gets it day 1

2) Xbone - Dec 4th, PS4 - Dec 10th, Wii U - Jan 10th i.e. Xbone gets it day 1

3) PS4 - Dec 4th, Wii U - Dec 4th, Xbone - N/A i.e. Xbone never gets it according to this clause.

Guess what these 3 options tell you. 'Xbone day 1 or never'. Is it incorrect to say 'first' instead of 'day 1'? That's what you seem to be suggesting.

 

[adixon]

Am against us first or never.

They are saying we want the games to release similarly on all platforms. Where in that do they say us first? I can understand that from a business stand point.

Whoa, sorry I missed this post!

I don't think you understand the implications of the news discussed in this thread so far, going by this post.

 

[viveks86]

It probably still is an improvement for the indies who were stuck in the indie getto of XBLIG last round. Assuming they don't invent a new getto for them as part of ID@Xbox. It seems to be XBLA-level crap, which is a significant improvment over XBLIG-level crap.

Well if that's all we expected from MS, then sure. It is an improvement. Unfortunately for them, the competition is far ahead

 

[IRQ]

Let's not argue semantics. Here, let me lay it out for you. Let's say a developer wants to release the game on December 4th. Following are the options the dev has:

1) Xbone - Dec 4th, PS4 - Dec 4th, Wii U - Dec 4th i.e. Xbone gets it day 1

2) Xbone - Dec 4th, PS4 - Dec 10th, Wii U - Jan 10th i.e. Xbone gets it day 1

3) PS4 - Dec 4th, Wii U - Dec 4th, Xbone - N/A i.e. Xbone never gets it according to this clause.

Guess what these 3 options tell you. 'Xbone day 1 or never'. Is it incorrect to say 'first' instead of 'day 1'? That's what you seem to be suggesting.

options one where the game will be released on all platforms at the same time, how can X1 get's it first then?

 

[MThanded]

options one where the game will be released on all platforms at the same time, how can X1 get's it first then?

The minimum barrier is parity. They will always allow you to bring it out first on their console.

 

[bishoptl]

options one where the game will be released on all platforms at the same time, how can X1 get's it first then?

Don't be thick.

 

[Frazley]

This makes me sad. Was hoping we reached the age of console choice. You choose the console you want to play and games can be on any console they want.

 

[Dan]

This has nothing to do with console wars and I've never been apart of it either cuz I Own both.

It's a choice. I would have made the same decision my self. Why would I want a game to be released on others platforms except mine? Am I not equal to others?

If you can't or don't want to release on both then you do have a choice. Choose Sony , Nintendo or both, Or make an effort and release on all.

Apparently not. If Xbox One were as attractive an environment or as easy to work with, Microsoft wouldn't have to play these contractual games.

This is just petty bullying. "If you won't play my way, you won't play at all"

 

[IRQ]

Don't be thick.

Am not bishoptl.

They way I understand it is that MS wants the game to release on all platforms equally, right?

The dev who can't will have to make a choice, either choose Sony, or work hard to release on both, right?

 

[viveks86]

options one where the game will be released on all platforms at the same time, how can X1 get's it first then?

Dude. Have you ever watched any form of sports? What do they say when 2 cars finish at the top at exactly the same time? They are tied for _______ place?

Answer below. Don't click till you figure it out and fill in the blank.

Spoiler

FIRST

 

[adixon]

This suggests that microsoft are still setting the date when they want, which means that setting an exact date across all platforms will not be an easy thing. So on top of being barred from releasing on xbox one if you've ever released on another platform (console? including steambox?) you probably won't even be able to line up simultaneous launches, if microsoft decides to move the date around.

 

[xxracerxx]

Am not bishoptl.

They way I understand it is that MS wants the game to release on all platforms equally, right?

The dev who can't will have to make a choice, either choose Sony, or work hard to release on both, right?

You should be ashamed. Really ashamed.

 

[jbug617]

Anybody know if Sony still require additional content if the game doesn't come out on the same day as Xbox version?

edit: Maybe they are changing something?

@tha_rami: Had a call with @iocat about the whole thing today. For those asking, we do really think @ID_Xbox is a super-pleasant experience so far.

@tha_rami: The longer this call goes on, the more exciting the long-term plans for @ID_XBOX sound.

 

[TheRealTalker]

It just cripples MS compared to what they initially thought was a brilliant idea

They are no longer the market leader of certain regions

Either they change their policies again or see multiple indie devs get fed up and ignore the XO entirely to save cost and to focus their resources on larger available markets

They likely might change this at GDC

 

[viveks86]

Anybody know if Sony still require additional content if the game doesn't come out on the same day as Xbox version?

There are no such requirements. Both Sony and Nintendo have confirmed it

 

[IRQ]

You should be ashamed. Really ashamed.

Bro, that's what I understood from MS policy.

 

[xxracerxx]

Bro, that's what I understood from MS policy.

Bro, guess what? The policy is fucking stupid. Say the game an indie dev has worked tirelessly is ready at launch on PS4 but the XBO version needs a few more weeks/months to get the bugs out. That dev has to sit on the version that is ready to launch on schedule but now have to delay it because MS needs theirs too.

Plus your whole attitude towards devs are lazy and just need to work harder is offensive.

 

[EmptySpace]

Unless of course indies start saying fuck off and don't release on Xbox.

with these kinds of policies? hopefully.

 

[Nafai1123]

Bro, that's what I understood from MS policy.

Your insistance on the term "work harder" is irritating. Like a team of 2 people on a limited budget can just "work harder" to release on all platforms at the same time.

 

[megalowho]

I linked Brian Provinciano to this thread and asked if this was the "strings attached" he was referring to when discussing the program a little while back. This is his response....

Don't think this anecdote can be reposted enough. Sounds like a real headache of a situation for small teams if they require launch date parity as well as a final say of when that launch date is, which is subject to be changed or delayed at Microsofts discretion.

 

[coolasj19]

Bro, My post has nothing to do with deal with it. They want to be apart of the release date as others.

You're taking this issue, classifying it as a non-issue, and then insinuating that it's something to be expected. And then you say, well, deal with it. It fits.

Am a proud gamer who owns all platforms and enjoy them equally and not afraid to say it. If its means nothing to you then a friendly tip: Don't waste time on something that doesn't mean anything to you.

I'm pointing it out so a mod doesn't have to. That language is the same as saying this.
"I have all the console's, so I can't be biased". Which isn't true. It's not a good defense. You can be a proud gamer, but being proud doesn't mean you can't be wrong or biased. Though, I'm not saying you're biased.

This isn't an issue of effort. It's an issue of independent developers being able to ship their games as soon as possible. The sooner they can make money the sooner they can make a better livelihood for themselves. It's also bullying, forcing a company or people into a certain action to make up for their own shortcomings. This is not the foot MS needs to put forward to get Indies to make games on their platform.

 

[NoMoreTrolls]

Bro, guess what? The policy is fucking stupid. Say the game an indie dev has worked tirelessly is ready at launch on PS4 but the XBO version needs a few more weeks/months to get the bugs out. That dev has to sit on the version that is ready to launch on schedule but now have to delay it because MS needs theirs too.

Plus your whole attitude towards devs are lazy and just need to work harder is offensive.

Lol dude might as well not bother. Either this guy is one of the thickest posters on GAF right now or he's doing it on purpose. Best to ignore posters like that... He's not worth the minuscule effort it takes to press keys on your kb.

 

[DBT85]

I prefer the "let devs do whatever the fuck they like" method.

 

[IRQ]

Your insistance on the term "work harder" is irritating. Like a team of 2 people on a limited budget can just "work harder" to release on all platforms at the same time.

Like I said bro, That's what I get from MS policy.

When you put it that way I can understand that it will be tough for some devs.

 

[IRQ]

You're taking this issue, classifying it as a non-issue, and then insinuating that it's something to be expected. And then you say, well, deal with it. It fits.


I'm pointing it out so a mod doesn't have to. That language is the same as saying this.
"I have all the console's, so I can't be biased". Which isn't true. It's not a good defense. You can be a proud gamer, but being proud doesn't mean you can't be wrong or biased. Though, I'm not saying you're biased.

This isn't an issue of effort. It's an issue of independent developers being able to ship their games as soon as possible. The sooner they can make money the sooner they can make a better livelihood for themselves. It's also bullying, forcing a company or people into a certain action to make up for their own shortcomings. This is not the foot MS needs to put forward to get Indies to make games on their platform.

Am not biased at all dude. Hopefully you could see that.

Actually when it's put that way I can understand the frustration about it. Thanks for clearing my mind.