FranXico
Member
No. What they are doing is sabotaging the competition to make themselves look good, by interfering with third parties business plans as a side effect.
-
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
No. What they are doing is sabotaging the competition to make themselves look good, by interfering with third parties business plans as a side effect.
And somehow imposing an arbitrary launch condition increases the likelihood of a game being produced?
Huh? How does that work?
Divekick, skullgirls, and spelunky are some off the top of my head I am sure there is more. I love the Multi-console specification you have added there I wonder how microsoft will handle it when steam machines are released because you know those are technically consoles I wonder if they will start to want parity with those releases. The issue this generation was with the stupid complexity with the ps3 you know that with the change to x86 there will be quite a bit more multi console development and if what we have heard is true the ps4's shorter dev times would allow you to release your game sooner to start earning income while you finish the other versions. Also what if you get your game out the door and end up with enough to expand to another console so you want to port your older game before working on a new multi console game under their rules this would not be allowed.
UpUpDownDown
Member
I'd say you sound more like a communist, but whatever
....and I love that they use NDAs to cover/hide these policies. Stand behind your shit Microsoft.
Takamura-San
Member
Like it was stated countless of times before, there are many indie developers that dont have the luxury of releasing on 2 platforms or more at the same time.
TetraGenesis
Member
Very clearly followed that up with "Although it shouldn't be their responsibility." The whole point was that it isn't a rational frustration. Part of me wants all indies to take some great stand and force MS to change, but-again-that isn't your responsibility. Your responsibility is to make your art, expose it to as wide an audience possible, and make as much money as you can to enable the furthering of your lifestyle. What is frustrating is how MS is strong-arming the indie development community again with practices that are harmful to the community at large.
I'm legitimately sorry if I appeared to be blaming indies in my post, that couldn't be further from the truth and my little parenthetical didn't do enough to express that. The whole situation and the thread was just frustrating. I became upset for the sake of being upset, which is why I need to leave the thread for a while. And that is what I was trying to say.
TetraGenesis
Member
A good number games had minimum one month exclusivity contracts, didn't they? Maybe I'm making that up. That would result in a lot more developers taking advantage of the loophole while it was there.
I agree. As much hate MS has been getting lately....this seems like a nice thing.
And if it's anything like how it was for the 360, launching first on Microsoft is financially terrible.
So if you can only afford to launch on one console. You can either launch on Xbone and try to stay afloat until you can get the game on to other platforms. Or launch on PS4 and hope that it does well enough on a single console indefinitely.
FranXico
Member
Microsoft is not enabling their own costumers, they are disabling everyone else to experience games when they originally expected.
As others have pointed out, there is no parity when most devs really can only target one platform at a time.
Yeah, how nice of them to put pressure on small indie teams to stretch their budgets even more and delay getting paid.
No, Nintendo was WAY worse at those times, though they were likely also more justified given what they were coming off of. This seems closer in style to Sony of the PS1 and PS2 days at least, where they were restrictive about what you could release. With PS3 they eased just because whatever they wouldn't allow at retail could just hit digital instead (see the recent Japanese-only Musou games.)
I actually wouldn't be surprised if traces of that Sony were still around, but Nintendo's mellowed out big time and PC seems to be a more viable option even for Japanese releases now, so it's a better situation than the late 90s/early 2000s, and those were infinitely better than the late 80s/early 90s in most regards anyway.
Hey the world isnt a nice place. This is nothing but a positive for their customers. Why should they care about PS4 owners?
And for the record I would completely agree with you if this was in regards to graphics/resolution or if Microsoft required games to launch on their platform first. But this isnt the case.
Takamura-San
Member
When you look at the 3 options you can clearly see what is microsofts aim with this policy.
1. Release on all platforms at the same time ( not possible to many indies)
2. Release on competitor and not on xbox. (Cutting revenue for indies)
3. Release on xbox and competitors later.
Microsoft basically is trying to force indies to opt for 3. Which is basically forcing indies to give microsoft timed exclusives with no marketng investment, no development dollars and for the lowly price of a dev kit and a unity license.
1. Release on all platforms at the same time ( not possible to many indies)
2. Release on competitor and not on xbox. (Cutting revenue for indies)
3. Release on xbox and competitors later.
Microsoft basically is trying to force indies to opt for 3. Which is basically forcing indies to give microsoft timed exclusives with no marketng investment, no development dollars and for the lowly price of a dev kit and a unity license.
A little blunt but basically I think that is what they are saying.
Yeah fuck those struggling independent developers and their money that they work endless hours for. Force release date parity, cost them more money, and risk their livelihood because of consumer entitlement!
FranXico
Member
No, there is no gain, because those games are not magically getting instantaneously ported.
How is PS4 costumers getting screwed over a positive for XB1 costumers if, like you say, they shouldn't care?
It is not a positive for anyone, unless you are referring to people who previously envied PS4 owners for getting more indie games sooner. But that would mean that they do care
.Whiteshirt
Member
That's the gist I get from this policy. The only problem is that 3 is only really a reality if the Xbox One was an indisputable leader in the console market, which seems increasingly doubtful. If Microsoft gives MORE than just a few bits and bobs like they're doing right now like massive exposure, then I can understand why 3 is attractive but I'm not really seeing it right now.
Number 2 would assume Wii U (lol), PS4, and PC which would cut revenue for indies but should still be a decent enough market in a lot of cases.
FranXico
Member
Aren't they generous!
Bingo, and if they still control release date they hold all the cards for when a game can release on any console. Pretty vile business practice.
Well, that's not my specification, it's theirs. This policy says nothing about Steam, though you bring up an interesting point with the Steambox. I personally doubt they'll count it, as it isn't a direct competitor, but you never know...
Well, um...
...apology accepted. = D
What excuse is there for them doing the same last gen, when they weren't giving away dev tools and Unity?
How much does it cost to buy a ps4 dev kit?
So....having them, forcing them to launch on competitors platforms...is bad. If the game is successful, isnt that win/win for the indie team? I'm pretty sure there are some successful PS exclusive indie games MS wishes it could have on their console.
If the game sucks, doesnt get any attention....it wont matter one way or another. I think both the PS and XBox have categories for indie games.
unknownstranger
Member
Isn't that basically what it was on 360?
I don't know honestly. There were stories around all the major conferences of sony handing them out to any dev that wanted one so I guess free?
Edit: Ah okay the guy below me
From my understanding this setup didnt exist "last gen".
Goodacre0081
Member
I said it before and I'll say it again. MS hasn't changed.
BlackBuzzard
Banned
Its like a wolf in sheeps clothting.
Goodacre0081
Member
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-08-24-why-microsoft-wont-publish-psn-firsts
sounds like the same policy to me. article from Aug 2011
FranXico
Member
IMHO, this should be added to the OP for perspective.
Wow. Looks like Microsoft still is very sure of owning the show.
FranXico
Member
This policy is their attempt to prevent PS4 indie games from being a big hit.
Having said that, if sales were much higher on the PS4 than any other platform, indies might not be so tolerant of this.
Takamura-San
Member
Yes. Not everyone can do it.
What this had to do with anything?
.
And sony payed for those, the same way that Microsoft payed for their 360 exclusives.
It seems the price for timed exclusives now is a dev kit and a unity license.
.
No one here is speaking about the wuality of the game. This is about the ability of the indie to decide how to release it without strings attached.
Nightengale
Member
This, pretty much. It's so transparent how they're taking advantage of a competitor's more relaxed policies. They obviously really really dislike hearing Shahid and Boyes say those 'console exclusive debut' lines at the games conferences.
I'm sure MS will make exceptions to any big hits that hit PS4 first.
Now, I don't like to get on the 'Sony/MS too! bandwagon, and Sony has not shown any indication that they're going to follow the same route by a long shot given who's leading their indie initiaves, but it's really annoying when there's distinct anti-competitive policies like this, because if it works, all it does is compel the market to go down the route of 'race-to-the-bottom.'
Policies should aspire to be better for everyone, and I hate the hypothetical scenario that MS actually manages to get devs to choose Option 3, and if it causes a competitive impact, may compel a perception that doing bad shit is more rewarding than being a good sport.
Brian Provinciano says yes. Well, at least in his specific case. Even though his case was plagued by specific issues. Quoting for relevancy, will address at bottom.
I wouldn't think so. There's a distinct lack of developers that Sony is actively working to promote on that list. That could be because of a lot of things but I'd wager it on them being part of the case-by-case basis crowd. It's highly possible some of those games will never reach Xbox now though. In my experience the biggest part of ports is demand. And I can't remember the last time ( if ever ) I saw a crowd of Xbox owners go and demand a game be ported to their system. The only reason I say that is because I feel like I see an insane amount of Vita games getting cultivated like that. Here's a decent example only because I can't find any better. Stereotypes exist for a reason and PS fans can get rabid for games. I went off on a tangent... I'll converge back to it at the bottom of my post.
I leave for an hour and shit blows up. I was about to come and post a defense for your post but you said exactly what I was going to say but in your own words. So that's great. Also, you said the additional things I was going to say not regarding your post.
This. Is. Frustrating. Obviously, ID@XBOX isn't all bad. The devkit thing is a really cool idea. But what's frustrating is this
This is awful. This is bad for Playstation fans, Xbox fans, everyone. This benefits nobody. Nobody excepts MS's bottom line. It's not good for this industry in any way, at all, whatsoever. Curve has always ( or at least recently ) had a great relationship with Sony it seems. But now, indie devs are being forced ( once again ) to make decisions. Right now, at this point in time, PlayStation will have the numbers, and demographic, that will buy indie games. In the same way games get put on the Vita, because they get bought, regardless of it's small sales numbers. There shouldn't be a "so be it" stance in this, because nobody benefits from that. A dev should be able to put out a game where it can make them the most money first, and then either move onto the next game, or start the porting process to the other platforms.
The effect this will have is either a wealth of timed exclusives for XB1 or PlayStation.
I say PlayStation and not PS4 because PlayStation incorporates Vita, PS3, and PS4. All viable platforms.
In a perfect world, all the independent developers would say "Nope, ain't doing it" and MS would reverse on this as fast as they reversed on the DRM policies. Then everyone would be able to develop as they please on an even playing field. And all the consumers would get to play all the games wherever they want. But, that's not gonna happen. I, or anybody for that matter, can't ask for a developer to put their livelihood on the line to make a point. And what's even more frustrating, are the people don't don't think it's a big deal, I worried about the same thing with the DRM too. What if it's one of those things where the dissatisfied are in the minority? That means it's a problem that can't ever be fixed, because there's no incentive to fix it.
Once again, MS has disappointed me. It's been 2 steps forward, 2 steps back, ever since May. There's nothing I can do about it except make my case to people that will listen and vote with my wallet, except right now, it's possible my vote may also be inadvertently passed on to the developers of games I really want to play.
This, pretty much. It's so transparent how they're taking advantage of a competitor's more relaxed policies. They obviously really really dislike hearing Shahid and Boyes say those 'console exclusive debut' lines at the games conferences.
I'm sure MS will make exceptions to any big hits that hit PS4 first.
Now, I don't like to get on the 'Sony/MS too!™ bandwagon, and Sony has not shown any indication that they're going to follow the same route by a long shot given who's leading their indie initiaves, but it's really annoying when there's distinct anti-competitive policies like this, because if it works, all it does is compel the market to go down the route of 'race-to-the-bottom.'
Policies should aspire to be better for everyone, and I hate the hypothetical scenario that MS actually manages to get devs to choose Option 3, and if it causes a competitive impact, may compel a perception that doing bad shit is more rewarding than being a good sport.
This is my major problem with this --
because it makes *me* feel like, if I were Sony, I couldn't help it but do the same damn thing, and that would suck for everyone involved. I'm genuinely concerned that they will follow suit, simply because they may have to in order to maintain a competitive edge.
It's a huge bummer.
rokkerkory
Member
I like the additional insight from the dev in the update...
from a biz perspective it makes sense for MS... ID@Xbox is pretty free after all.
from a biz perspective it makes sense for MS... ID@Xbox is pretty free after all.
Nightengale
Member
Nintendo is 'pretty free' as well, and yet they don't do shit like this.
Well considering i'm not paying them with chocolate coins, but paying with money I had to work endless hours for I think this gives me the right to an opinion/expectation. Life sucks, the sooner we stop seeing indies as charities the better.
No, there is no gain, because those games are not magically getting instantaneously ported.
How is PS4 costumers getting screwed over a positive for XB1 costumers if, like you say, they shouldn't care?
It is not a positive for anyone, unless you are referring to people who previously envied PS4 owners for getting more indie games sooner. But that would mean that they do care
In an ideal world PS4 owners are not getting screwed, both games are developed in tandem, and released on the same day.
And yes I admit this is crap for PS4 games that are near completion as we speak, and yes i think these should be exempt. But this is Microsoft throwing their weight around, and why shouldn't they, they have literally spent billions to get in the position they are in.
This is launch, a lot of things are crap. Especially my party chat.
I can't see Sony doing it, they worked very hard to build indie relationships and respect leading up to the PS4 launch and I just don't see them throwing it all away to match MS. I think even without implementing the policy indie devs would still show up on PS4 fairly quickly unless they made a deal with Microsoft.
rokkerkory
Member
But look where nintendo is...
FranXico
Member
Aye, on that we agree. A new generation launch is exciting, but a lot of shitty things happen during that period.
Nightengale
Member
Like I said, policies should aspire to be better for everyone. It doesn't matter how the policy makers are doing financially, or with the install base, or whatever.
If no one in the industry supported self-publishing, would we have ID@Xbox or Sony's Indie Initiative?
If Nintendo didn't give free Unity Pro licenses to devs/Sony loan out free dev kits, would MS had the initiative to take the best of both worlds from Nintendo/Sony's approach for their own programme?
If tomorrow, Ouya comes out with the best indie policy in existence, I would want Sony/MS/Nintendo to copy those policies, because then it would benefit everyone. It has nothing to do with how well those companies are doing.
This is policy, which is nothing more than a bunch of sentences typed out by lawyers after reaching a business decision at a corporate level.
It won't change unless it's made very clear that it's not good for them, as much as they would like to think it is.
To those of you thinking this is a good policy because it means you won't have to wait for your XB1 version of indie games:
The scenario in which that occurs is one where the PS4 version was ready first anyway, so you're not actually getting your version earlier, you're just denying others from having theirs. It's also far more likely that a developer (like me) will simply not be able to put their game on XB1 if they had already committed to other platforms first, so you just don't get the game at all. Devs can only make games so fast and I thnik most would have no intention of sitting on the Wii U or PS4 or Vita versions for months while porting to XB1.
Don't fool yourself in to thinking this policy means you get more/faster games. I'm glad some of the in the loop indies like Vlambeer were able to find a workaround (And those guys are awesome and will definitely be truthful about their experience, so keep an eye out) but again it seems Microsoft's policies are not helping the smaller less established indies, you can see this in the 'case by case' basis on which they apply waivers.
Most are ignoring Nintendo in this discussion but their agreements are in line with Sony's.
It is also simultaneously possible to say that this clause is a bad thing for players and developers but the ID@XBox program is a very good thing, try to avoid being absolute in your judgement of the situation. Although I will say that my interactions with Microsoft over the past year + this clause means it is unlikely you will see my game on XB1.
The scenario in which that occurs is one where the PS4 version was ready first anyway, so you're not actually getting your version earlier, you're just denying others from having theirs. It's also far more likely that a developer (like me) will simply not be able to put their game on XB1 if they had already committed to other platforms first, so you just don't get the game at all. Devs can only make games so fast and I thnik most would have no intention of sitting on the Wii U or PS4 or Vita versions for months while porting to XB1.
Don't fool yourself in to thinking this policy means you get more/faster games. I'm glad some of the in the loop indies like Vlambeer were able to find a workaround (And those guys are awesome and will definitely be truthful about their experience, so keep an eye out) but again it seems Microsoft's policies are not helping the smaller less established indies, you can see this in the 'case by case' basis on which they apply waivers.
Most are ignoring Nintendo in this discussion but their agreements are in line with Sony's.
It is also simultaneously possible to say that this clause is a bad thing for players and developers but the ID@XBox program is a very good thing, try to avoid being absolute in your judgement of the situation. Although I will say that my interactions with Microsoft over the past year + this clause means it is unlikely you will see my game on XB1.
rokkerkory
Member
From a consumer perspective sure, 100000% agree with you.
If you were either Sony/MS/Nintendo, no way, it's business, it's war. Might as well ask for console power parity as well.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll