Support NeoGAF

[Ghost]

Asking for parity on unreleased games is one thing, its impossible to imagine them agreeing to anything else for 3rd party games so it could potentially complicate those negotiations if 3rd parties are seeing Indies get better deals than they do ("We'll just publish through ID@Xbox thanks anyway")

But adding that to them also controlling the release date itself is madness, how can you think it's ok to say to any company "Ok at some point we'll let your product go on sale until then don't try and sell it anywhere else"?

 

[viveks86]

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.

Good to know. Welcome to the 20/20 club!

 

[xxracerxx]

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.

And you don't see an issue with this? Do you personally feel devs should "just work harder?"

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.

You're right, I will stop with him, he obviously doesn't get it.

 

[Majmun]

Why do devs agree with this shit?

 

[Wereroku]

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?

I say that too sounds like there was some kind of discussion but who knows how much Chris Charla can ultimately do about corporate policies. It would be best for everyone if microsoft dropped this stupid shit but it would take high profile indies just not releasing on there to make them change i think but who knows.

 

[viveks86]

Asking for parity on unreleased games is one thing, its impossible to imagine them agreeing to anything else for 3rd party games so it could potentially complicate those negotiations if 3rd parties are seeing Indies get better deals than they do ("We'll just publish through ID@Xbox thanks anyway")

But adding that to them also controlling the release date itself is madness, how can you think it's ok to say to any company "Ok at some point we'll let your product go on sale until then don't try and sell it anywhere else"?

Exactly. Imagine if they opt for QA and MS rejects it for a silly one in a million bug. "Sorry, we can't approve your product, and according to our contract, you are obligated not to release the game on other platforms even if their QA approved it."

 

[Feep]

Why do devs agree with this shit?

Because we want our games on the Xbox One, as well as the PS4?

 

[IRQ]

And you don't see an issue with this? Do you personally feel devs should "just work harder?"

You're right, I will stop with him, he obviously doesn't get it.

Read my other posts please.
I got it bro. I was mainly talking about the same release date on all platforms. Didn't see your other explanation and where the problem might accrued on that policy. My apologies.

 

[nampad]

That clause sucks and Microsoft should get rid of it. It seems they have build up some goodwill with their recent indie announcements but then they still have this backwards restrictions.

 

[Eusis]

It's something that makes sense from the perspective of the platform holder, to an extent anyway, but for anyone who values availability and proliferation of games it really is just abhorrent. It basically means one system can never, EVER play a certain game for an arbitrary, completely political reason, rather than just letting it get around when it can within reason. That's primarily from a consumer view with only understanding that sometimes development is rough, and so this really only benefits Microsoft's PR... and only if stories like this don't come out and just make them look like villains instead.

Really, it's kind of crap period and Sony hasn't really been innocent there, though at least there's has been "well fine, BUT you need to offer us something to justify taking longer" which can still be pro-consumer at least in that we get more and they look better, so long as it doesn't just sink the game entirely anyway. But it seems they're more lenient there for indies regardless of what the case is for bigger developers/publishers at worst, and it seems more likely it's just not there at all now or at least doesn't apply when coming from mobile or PC.

 

[Jotaka]

That friendly contract!
Release your game before in your console /at least in the same day as other console OR never.

 

[cleveridea]

wow, sony should jump on this and be offering excellent incentives and promoting freedom of such constraints.

imagine if other platforms (say sony) followed suit, a developer could theoretically be delayed indefinitely if eg Microsoft pushed back to release date X but then Sony couldnt make that date so they push back to Y, Microsoft "oh you cant release on Y, and if you miss date X you have to wait till even later, date Z' etc etc

 

[Killroyskbg]

How can they claim to support indies in the same regard as Sony while having this clause. This benefits neither the video game industry, gamers or the indie community. MS once again proves that they deserve the anger pointed at them.

 

[FranXico]

How can they claim to support indies in the same regard as Sony while having this clause. This benefits neither the video game industry, gamers or the indie community. MS once again proves that they deserve the anger pointed at them.

And sadly, the amount of gamers supporting them is growing daily...

 

[Majmun]

Because we want our games on the Xbox One, as well as the PS4?

So basically they have you by the balls and you can't do anything about it...

I'll never understand how devs can put up with some of the Sony/MS bullshit rules. These companies need the devs as much as the devs need the companies. But the devs seem to be the ones that get fucked in the end.

 

[FranXico]

So basically they have you by the balls and you can't do anything about it...

I'll never understand how devs can put up with some of the Sony/MS bullshit rules. These companies need the devs as much as the devs need the companies. But the devs seem to be the ones that get fucked in the end.

Except that this time around, the bullshit rules are all coming from MS. You are probably thinking of Sony in the long gone PS2 days.

 

[Fox_Mulder]

This is really bad for indie developers.

 

[Brohan]

Indies should be given freedom instead of being limited by Microsoft, hope this backfires in Microsofts face and makes the indies flock to Sony first instead.

Awful business MS.

 

[LQX]

Ugh, I read that article and I still don't get it. Will read it again in a few hours.

 

[viveks86]

So basically they have you by the balls and you can't do anything about it...

I'll never understand how devs can put up with some of the Sony/MS bullshit rules. These companies need the devs as much as the devs need the companies. But the devs seem to be the ones that get fucked in the end.

It's simple, actually. The devs have a handful of platforms. But the platform manufacturers have too many potential devs. Imagine a singles bar with 1,000 guys and 3 girls.

 

[kaching]

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

Hey now, let's not go all scorched earth here. Sony's hand is much stronger this time around: they've got a much more accessible dev environment, hardware that's cost effective enough to practically loan out at will, have made their policies much less restrictive across the board and have generally made themselves much more approachable all around.

It's the carrot vs the stick and I'll wager that the carrot wins out more often than not.

 

[Iacobellis]

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.

I learned after watching Indie Game: The Movie that Super Meat Boy didn't automatically go live at the time Microsoft promised. It took a few emails from Tommy Refenes to get that worked out. On top of it all, the game was hidden beneath many older games on the Marketplace. Microsoft didn't have high hopes for the game, so they simply did little to promote it.

 

[TetraGenesis]

I've read so much of this thread and now I'm just mad. Mad at stupid fucking Microsoft, mad at all the people who repeatedly misinterpret the OP and try to downplay it, mad at the indies that would actually stand for this and don't just say "NOPE." (Although it shouldn't be their responsibility.)

I need to abort this thread for my health.

 

[twobear]

They likely might change this at GDC

They literally just put this in place. We know from experience that MS won't change it unless it starts to affect their bottom line. Who knows how long that might be.

 

[coolasj19]

Read my other posts please.
I got it bro. I was mainly talking about the same release date on all platforms. Didn't see your other explanation and where the problem might accrued on that policy. My apologies.

Didn't know whether or not you were serious earlier. Use the plus sign next to the quote button to multi-quote.

wow, sony should jump on this and be offering excellent incentives and promoting freedom of such constraints.

imagine if other platforms (say sony) followed suit, a developer could theoretically be delayed indefinitely if eg Microsoft pushed back to release date X but then Sony couldnt make that date so they push back to Y, Microsoft "oh you cant release on Y, and if you miss date X you have to wait till even later, date Z' etc etc

They already do. They offer free development help, devkits, counseling and more other stuff. Though I ID@Xbox could do the same thing. But Sony has made a really big deal out of it. Adam Boyes has also gone on record with this.http://gamasutra.com/view/news/2017...exclusivity_says_Sonys_dev_relations_boss.php

And no, Sony shouldn't do the same. That'd probably be even worse. Maybe the indie devs will halt support and force MS's hand. Hell, some of them are already if Curve Studios is any indication. Maybe the loophole will be as simple as a naming convention. Minecraft : Xbox One Edition and Minecraft : PlayStation Edition.

I've read so much of this thread and now I'm just mad. Mad at stupid fucking Microsoft, mad at all the people who repeatedly misinterpret the OP and try to downplay it, mad at the indies that would actually stand for this and don't just say "NOPE." (Although it shouldn't be their responsibility.)

I need to abort this thread for my health.

I agree. But I went through that cycle a while ago with Kinect and Nu-Ads. I've sense settled at disappointment. Which I can make a case for being the worst emotion.

 

[viveks86]

Hey now, let's not go all scorched earth here. Sony's hand is much stronger this time around: they've got a much more accessible dev environment, hardware that's cost effective enough to practically loan out at will, have made their policies much less restrictive across the board and have generally made themselves much more approachable all around.

It's the carrot vs the stick and I'll wager that the carrot wins out more often than not.

This. Let's not compensate for bad policies with more bad policies. It's just better if Sony sticks to their friendlier stance. MS will eventually be forced to adapt. What pisses me off is that it sucks for the devs until that happens.

 

[twobear]

One of the devs posted this a while ago:

Just previously he'd retweeted the Joystiq story. 'This whole thing' is presumably the exclusivity clause horseshit.

I'm not really sure what to say, frankly. I'm ranging from a cynical 'what threats were made to make him pretend everything is okay' to a hopeful 'maybe Chris Charla knows it's bullshit and wants to change it'.

 

[FranXico]

This. Let's not compensate for bad policies with more bad policies. It's just better if Sony sticks to their friendlier stance. MS will eventually be forced to adapt. What pisses me off is that it sucks for the devs until that happens.

In retrospective, I think now I understand why Shahid was venting on Twitter shortly after the ID@XBox announcement. A good chunk of those indie games making an "exclusive console debut" on the PS4 are now getting delayed because of Microsoft's "indie friendly" program.

This is not friendly to indies, it is anti-competitive, and it is certainly not friendly to consumers either.

 

[Blackage]

So the only way this changes is if Indie developers collectively say they won't be putting their games on the Xbone.

Or a significant number refuse to play ball.

Basically if all Indie devs see this and say "ok, we'll do as you please Microsoft" Microsoft wins.

If a significant number of Indie devs refuse to play ball, then over time the Xbone will miss out on alot of games, and will be forced to change their policies, then those same indie developers can go back after the policy is reversed and publish those games they were denied due to forced parity. Indie devs win long run.

Unfortunately I don't know if Indie Devs as a collective can come to an agreement like that, or even if any of them care to.

 

[coolasj19]

One of the devs posted this a while ago:

Just previously he'd retweeted the Joystiq story. 'This whole thing' is presumably the exclusivity clause horseshit.

I'm not really sure what to say, frankly. I'm ranging from a cynical 'what threats were made to make him pretend everything is okay' to a hopeful 'maybe Chris Charla knows it's bullshit and wants to change it'.

http://www.oxm.co.uk/63096/microsoft-coy-about-timed-ps4-indie-exclusives-hitting-xbox-one/

Mr.Charla knows what's up. Right now I have a little bit of hope instead of no hope because he's running this.

"focusing on doing the right thing for developers is really another way of focusing on doing the right thing for players, and that's what it's all about."

I like to think he turned the timed exclusivity clause of the 360 clause, into the launch day parity of the ID@Xbox. Then again, that's just what I tell myself to keep from going a tiny bit insane.

 

[viveks86]

In retrospective, I think now I understand why Shahid was venting on Twitter shortly after the ID@XBox announcement. A good chunk of those indie games making an "exclusive console debut" on the PS4 are now getting delayed because of Microsoft's "indie friendly" program.

Quite possible!

 

[BigDug13]

In retrospective, I think now I understand why Shahid was venting on Twitter shortly after the ID@XBox announcement. A good chunk of those indie games making an "exclusive console debut" on the PS4 are now getting delayed because of Microsoft's "indie friendly" program.

This is not friendly to indies, it is anti-competitive, and it is certainly not friendly to consumers either.

Is that why the available indie selection is so much smaller than I expected at launch? Microsoft basically forced everyone to hold off?

 

[PrivateWHudson]

It's simple, actually. The devs have a handful of platforms. But the platform manufacturers have too many potential devs. Imagine a singles bar with 1,000 guys and 3 girls.

Sounds like one of them is a high maintenance bitch who's not nearly as pretty as she thinks she is. The other one is hot and giving everyone blowjobs.

 

[Wereroku]

Quite possible!

It gives minecrafts delay a new twist.

 

[adixon]

I wonder if other writers will pick this up in the press? Seems like most devs probably wouldn't want to speak up about it for fear of upsetting microsoft, but I think there's enough to go on in this thread alone for a pretty good followup to the last we heard about microsoft's indie policies, which was that they hadn't finalized the details, but they were going to be really good.

If they're still not up to snuff with Sony for something basic like this, it kind of warrants a follow up, doesn't it?

 

[BlackBuzzard]

It gives minecrafts delay a new twist.

I never even thought of that.

 

[ionicbluebird]

Correct. It sucks.

In the past, MS allowed devs to do this but only if they offered new content in their ports. Now I don't think that's even an option anymore.

Wow, if true... that's underhanded.

 

[TheRealTalker]

In retrospective, I think now I understand why Shahid was venting on Twitter shortly after the ID@XBox announcement. A good chunk of those indie games making an "exclusive console debut" on the PS4 are now getting delayed because of Microsoft's "indie friendly" program.

This is not friendly to indies, it is anti-competitive, and it is certainly not friendly to consumers either.

Shahids tweets... I see

It all makes sense now

Edit: Wonder how much phone calls he got for month exclusivity mentions before gamescom

The Guy was saying the phrase back to back at The Gamescom presser

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

I think I've everything to understand that this is a non issue when more information is put out. But of course we are going to make it seem like it's our issue when it not.

If devs are okay with this then what does it matter? If this is what it is, that still means that these indies will still be able to be played on PS4 bypassing this whole jumbled mess.

 

[viveks86]

It gives minecrafts delay a new twist.

:'(

 

[hawk2025]

It gives minecrafts delay a new twist.

Oof. That one came out of nowhere, didn't it?

Huh.

I think I've everything to understand that this is a non issue when more information is put out. But of course we are going to make it seem like it's our issue when it not.

If devs are okay with this then what does it matter? If this is what it is, that still means that these indies will still be able to be played on PS4 bypassing this whole jumbled mess.

What are you talking about?

We already have two devs saying they are NOT ok with this. And the one that is happy about the program still saying they are trying hard to have MS change the policy.


Read the whole thread.

 

[Steverulez]

In retrospective, I think now I understand why Shahid was venting on Twitter shortly after the ID@XBox announcement. A good chunk of those indie games making an "exclusive console debut" on the PS4 are now getting delayed because of Microsoft's "indie friendly" program.

This is not friendly to indies, it is anti-competitive, and it is certainly not friendly to consumers either.

What did he say?

 

[adixon]

I think I've everything to understand that this is a non issue when more information is put out. But of course we are going to make it seem like it's our issue when it not.

If devs are okay with this then what does it matter? If this is what it is, that still means that these indies will still be able to be played on PS4 bypassing this whole jumbled mess.

Where did you see a dev saying they were ok with this? The article has people complaining but saying they got lucky with a loophole, the tweets have someone else complaining, and there are devs in the thread saying tersely that they need to go along with this if they want their games to reach people who have an xbox one. Where's the developer approval of this policy you've read?

 

[tha_rami]

As for those tweets earlier tonight, I posted that because I genuinely had a good talk with Chris Charla. It wasn't awkward or upset, just congratulations with the announcements and some talk about the whole thing that went down. After that, we switched back to talking future plans and Nuclear Throne. It was super pleasant, especially considering we had just semi-broken NDA (apparently Microsoft had already mentioned launch parity before, so I guess legally we're fine anyway) and told them how that deal came to be.

If Microsoft had thrown any threats around, you'd be reading about those in the press right now. We really don't take lightly to legal nonsense like that. If we gave at all about Microsoft getting upset we would not have mentioned that story at all, but we don't, really. We care about letting the indie developer scene know what string are attached to which deal. If Sony ever turns sour, we'll let you know. If OUYA is being a pain, we'll let you know. We like transparency. Our whole involvement at ID@Xbox is trying to go through the gauntlet to let developers know what's what. So far, with the exception of the parity clause, our experiences have been quite positive.

You got to hand Chris that compared to the situation a year ago it's sort of amazing that at this point we're talking specific points of improvement over 'well, Microsoft is anti-indie'. The thing is that Chris Charla genuinely cares about indie games. We've been quite happy with how things at ID@Xbox are going so far, we received our dev-kits last week and the team has been super responsive and pro-active. We obviously don't have the level of trust with them that we have with Sony (and it might be that we never will, because we really love Shuhei, Adam, Shahid, Nick and their teams at Sony) - but we do trust that the folks at the ID@Xbox program are trying to do the right thing here. We don't know what caused this particular clause in the contract, but we do believe (and this is based on nothing) that if they could get rid of it, they would.

We'll continue to argue with Microsoft to try and convince them to drop launch parity, because it'd be a shame if we could only release future titles through ID@Xbox through a contractual exception to be negotiated on a case-per-case basis. It would be stupid if games have to be delayed on one platform because of another. It is wrong for a platform to think that they have the position to affect, by default, how someone does business with another platform. If somehow, they can be convinced to drop that, that'd remove one of the really problematic aspects of the program.

In the meanwhile, we're also just really happy that Nuclear Throne is doing so well on Steam Early Access and working with the amazing team at Sony to get LUFTRAUSERS to Vita and PS3 and Nuclear Throne to PS4 and Vita. For Nuclear Throne, it's nice that we now have the time to develop the game properly for all platforms, including Xbox One.

In the end, it does seem that openness is always the best option, but instead of simply slamming ID@Xbox as a bad program for this one clause, we like to see if we can improve those sort of flaws from the inside. As you noticed we do feel we have the moral obligation to be open about our experiences if those affect others in any way. In the end, we do want to see ID@Xbox succeed. We want games on there to be successful. But we don't want them to be successful because of Microsoft, we want them to be successful for the indie scene. The more available development platforms that treat indie developers as a serious part of their business, the better. While there are some flaws left, ID@Xbox is a really, really big step in that direction.

Basically, the reason I'm typing this is because ID@Xbox isn't "all bad" and I just felt it'd be fair to at least offer that perspective for a moment.

That's all for fireside talking with grandpa Rami about indie games today, I guess. I'd love to spend some more time on GAF, but making games as a two-man team sort of confines me to one social medium (and that ended up being my Twitter) and my metric ton of e-mail. If anybody has any questions or so, feel free to throw them that way. We love this place and super-thank you for all the support over the years <3

 

[Dreams-Visions]

the thread title is confusing as all fuck. can someone who speaks english translate?

edit: oh, does it mean that any games that developers want appearing on the One AND PS4 must launch at the same time on both platforms? Ergo, the PS4 can't have any timed exclusives?

 

[PFD]

I cant help but read ID@Xbox as IDI-at-Xbox and sound like Idiot xbox

I thought it had something to do with iDOLM@STER

 

[StoopKid]

This sounds so shady by Microsoft.

But I might be reading it wrong. Sorta confusing.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Snip

Goodluck and looking forward to Luftrausers on my Vita.

 

[Chuck Norris]

This is incredibly dodgy, hope MS's indie program burns for this. Absolutely ridiculous

 

[FranXico]

[...]

If Microsoft had thrown any threats around, you'd be reading about those in the press right now. We really don't take lightly to legal nonsense like that. If we gave at all about Microsoft getting upset we would not have mentioned that story at all, but we don't, really. We care about letting the indie developer scene know what string are attached to which deal. If Sony ever turns sour, we'll let you know. If OUYA is being a pain, we'll let you know. We like transparency. Our whole involvement at ID@Xbox is trying to go through the gauntlet to let developers know what's what. So far, with the exception of the parity clause, our experiences have been quite positive.

You got to hand Chris that compared to the situation a year ago it's sort of amazing that at this point we're talking specific points of improvement over 'well, Microsoft is anti-indie'. The thing is that Chris Charla genuinely cares about indie games. We've been quite happy with how things at ID@Xbox are going so far, we received our dev-kits last week and the team has been super responsive and pro-active. We obviously don't have the level of trust with them that we have with Sony (and it might be that we never will, because we really love Shuhei, Adam, Shahid, Nick and their teams at Sony) - but we do trust that the folks at the ID@Xbox program are trying to do the right thing here. We don't know what caused this particular clause in the contract, but we do believe (and this is based on nothing) that if they could get rid of it, they would.

We'll continue to argue with Microsoft to try and convince them to drop launch parity, because it'd be a shame if we could only release future titles through ID@Xbox through a contractual exception to be negotiated on a case-per-case basis. It would be stupid if games have to be delayed on one platform because of another. It is wrong for a platform to think that they have the position to affect, by default, how someone does business with another platform. If somehow, they can be convinced to drop that, that'd remove one of the really problematic aspects of the program.
[...]

Thank you for dropping by and sharing your experience, tha_rami.

We sincerely hope that you and your partners succeed at dropping that clause from the ID@XBox program contract, because we also feel affected by it as consumers.

EDIT: Please update the OP!