Support NeoGAF

[Rlan]

Microsoft's older policy was:

- If we publish you (the only "self publishing" you had), you have to give us some timed exclusiveness.
- If you want to release on Xbox 360 after the other versions, we need some exclusive content, otherwise we're not interested.

In this case you don't need to do either now, but their request is to be released at the same time.

It's kind of reasonable IMO, but the actual issue is when this shit doesn't come together at all. A game like Retro City Rampage was totally going to do this, but then Microsoft's "slot" system made this impossible for XBLA which meant getting dicked around.

The same can go the other way as well, when the PSN version cannot be released for months because of their own annoying slot system, which is made worse when you have to deal with the US and EU versions of PSN, which have their own slot systems and own frustrations that a developer has no control over.

Dev: "Okay, all versions are ready to ship!"
Xbox: "Cool guys we have a slot ready in 8 weeks!"
PSN: "Cool, we have a slot ready in 6 weeks on EU, 7 weeks on US"
Xbox: "Well we have this system that we have to be on parity!"
PSN: "Well the next time after that is 9 weeks, which means we're behind! Can't do that!"
Xbox: "Well the only time we have both a free slot is in 12 weeks, on the release of Call of Duty Black Ops 3"
PSN: "Cool! Done!"
Dev: "But releasing then will mean nobody will care for our game!"
PSN & Xbox: "Oh well!"

 

[Blackage]

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.

Again, only way to prove that is if a significant amount of successful indie games don't come out on the One. This again, requires Indie developers to not play ball. How many can afford to do that? My guess is not many, most of them will fold, and as such it will be good for Microsoft.

 

[Seance]

Pretty fortunate turn of events for Sony there lol.

 

[TheRealTalker]

So I guess as a PS4 owner I have to ask, are a lot of those games at E3 that were touted as debuting on PS4 first now going to get delayed to achieve parity with Xbone releases?

Watching the gamescom presser as well and you ha e an extra 9+ games to add since E3

Can someone ask Shahid on twitter or even on here... he has a GAF account (just don't remember the name)

 

[SapientWolf]

Microsoft's older policy was:

- If we publish you (the only "self publishing" you had), you have to give us some timed exclusiveness.
- If you want to release on Xbox 360 after the other versions, we need some exclusive content, otherwise we're not interested.

In this case you don't need to do either now, but their request is to be released at the same time.

It's kind of reasonable IMO, but the actual issue is when this shit doesn't come together at all. A game like Retro City Rampage was totally going to do this, but then Microsoft's "slot" system made this impossible for XBLA which meant getting dicked around.

The same can go the other way as well, when the PSN version cannot be released for months because of their own annoying slot system, which is made worse when you have to deal with the US and EU versions of PSN, which have their own slot systems and own frustrations that a developer has no control over.

Dev: "Okay, all versions are ready to ship!"
Xbox: "Cool guys we have a slot ready in 8 weeks!"
PSN: "Cool, we have a slot ready in 6 weeks on EU, 7 weeks on US"
Xbox: "Well we have this system that we have to be on parity!"
PSN: "Well the next time after that is 9 weeks, which means we're behind! Can't do that!"
Xbox: "Well the only time we have both a free slot is in 12 weeks, on the release of Call of Duty Black Ops 3"
PSN: "Cool! Done!"
Dev: "But releasing then will mean nobody will care for our game!"
PSN & Xbox: "Oh well!"

If this happens I predict a lot of renewed indie interest in Steam.

 

[Family Fry]

If this happens I predict a lot of renewed indie interest in Steam.

Yeah they can all queue up to get on steam via the great pile of shit that is Steam Greenlight.

 

[SapientWolf]

Yeah they can all queue up to get on steam via the great pile of shit that is Steam Greenlight.

I think they're pretty much letting everything in now.

 

[viveks86]

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.

Thanks, Paz! This should go in the OP as well.

 

[coolasj19]

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.

I was waiting for you to post. That sucks. For... everyone. Hopefully your still able to do what you need to do and I look forward to AAC on the Vita. I'm extremely curious, but not necessarily enthusiastic, about how this will continue in the future. It's just like last generation, except the tables ( as of now ) are turned. Best case scenarios, MS drops this ASAP.

And, I don't think people are ignoring Nintendo, as much as they're almost an assumption at this point. And plus, as it stands, Nintendo doesn't have a lot of vinegar to throw around when it comes to policies. The best way for them to make money, is honey.

Watching the gamescom presser as well and you ha e an extra 9+ games to add since E3
Can someone ask Shahid on twitter or even on here... he has a GAF account (just don't remember the name)

I'd love to but, that question requires a specific kind of wording and language that I'm not capable of putting together. Read : Not It.

 

[shem935]

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.





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 don't see them as charities. I see them as the only creative force left in this industry outside of select devs that are lucky enough to be in that position. I see them as hardworking people that bust their asses to deliver unique and creative content to as wide an audience as possible.

The fact that you have money and microsoft has weight in the industry they can throw around gives you and them the right to dictate when a developers game can come out? No it doesn't.

Yes this is launch and things suck. However how should these sucky situations be fixed? What situation does this address for microsoft? The lack of indie devs on their platform. How do they do it? By making themselves better? By improving their policies? No. They enforce draconian bullshit that hurts the devs that you could give two shits about.

Edit: And by no means am I saying the ID@Xbox program is bad. In fact it's great. But as always 1 step forward 2 steps back.

 

[Family Fry]

I think they're pretty much letting everything in now.

I admit they have been increasing the overall intakes of greenlit games, which can only be a good thing. Also they need to ramp up that indie selection for SteamBox.

 

[Margalis]

ID@ seems bad in a number of ways. The verbiage around the program is very off-putting and basically says they aren't interested in developers that haven't already made established hits.

It's cool for Vlambeer and Mojang I guess - other people not so much. Seems pretty silly to have an indie program where you're only interested in games from studios that are already successful.

And by no means am I saying the ID@Xbox program is bad. In fact it's great

It seems like it's pretty much the worst indie program on a console.

 

[Nightengale]

Seems pretty silly to have an indie program where you're only interested in games from studios that are already successful.

"We'll let Sony waste the money and booth space promoting those lesser known indies like Octodad... We'll swoop in if they're popular, otherwise, why should we care?"

 

[shem935]

ID@ seems bad in a number of ways. The verbiage around the program is very off-putting and basically says they aren't interested in developers that haven't already made established hits.

It's cool for Vlambeer and Mojang I guess - other people not so much. Seems pretty silly to have an indie program where you're only interested in games from studios that are already successful.



It seems like it's pretty much the worst indie program on a console.

I mean the basic deal of "Get a dev kit, and a license on unity" part. Not the rest.

 

[TheRealTalker]

I'd love to but, that question requires a specific kind of wording and language that I'm not capable of putting together. Read : Not It.

No prop it would be hard for him to know IMF some of these titles are being pushed do to MS NDA anyway

 

[EDarkness]

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.

This is my feeling and why I won't be doing XBox versions of my game. It's already hard enough trying to manage multiple versions of the game and then having to add in extra features because I was somehow late to the party with the XOne version is not something I want to worry about.

 

[shem935]

This is my feeling and why I won't be doing XBox versions of my game. It's already hard enough trying to manage multiple versions of the game and then having to add in extra features because I was somehow late to the party with the XOne version is not something I want to worry about.

Genuinely curious what is your game? Unless you can't/don't want to say.

 

[Paz]

It seems like it's pretty much the worst indie program on a console.

Entirely dependent on your scenario, a start up with little experience and no money would be over the moon getting 2 free devkits + Unity console for free guaranteed, they could then produce for one console and later bring it to others if they wanted to (Since no long term exclusivity is in play).

Right now it appears to be focused on established indies because the program has been very slow to start and they prioritized the big names people will recognize, if that trend continues then yes it will be bad but the program itself is a very good one.

For my situation it doesn't make any sense at all and isn't a good deal, but that doesn't make it a bad program, for many it could even be considered the best.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Microsoft's older policy was:

- If we publish you (the only "self publishing" you had), you have to give us some timed exclusiveness.
- If you want to release on Xbox 360 after the other versions, we need some exclusive content, otherwise we're not interested.

In this case you don't need to do either now, but their request is to be released at the same time.

It's kind of reasonable IMO, but the actual issue is when this shit doesn't come together at all. A game like Retro City Rampage was totally going to do this, but then Microsoft's "slot" system made this impossible for XBLA which meant getting dicked around.

The same can go the other way as well, when the PSN version cannot be released for months because of their own annoying slot system, which is made worse when you have to deal with the US and EU versions of PSN, which have their own slot systems and own frustrations that a developer has no control over.

Dev: "Okay, all versions are ready to ship!"
Xbox: "Cool guys we have a slot ready in 8 weeks!"
PSN: "Cool, we have a slot ready in 6 weeks on EU, 7 weeks on US"
Xbox: "Well we have this system that we have to be on parity!"
PSN: "Well the next time after that is 9 weeks, which means we're behind! Can't do that!"
Xbox: "Well the only time we have both a free slot is in 12 weeks, on the release of Call of Duty Black Ops 3"
PSN: "Cool! Done!"
Dev: "But releasing then will mean nobody will care for our game!"
PSN & Xbox: "Oh well!"

PSN hasn't used slots for years now.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Yeah I don't get how some people think this is good for Xbox fans. It doesn't get games on that platform faster. It just makes others on PS4 wait longer.

Imagine you work at a job where you are paid less than your co-workers but you do just as much work. You talk to your boss about why you should be getting the same pay as everybody else. Your boss says he agrees and says "You're right. All of you should be paid the same. How about this, I'm going to drop everybody's pay to exactly your current level. Better?"

How could you possibly walk out of that room feeling any better?

 

[Callibretto]

not defending xb1 policy, but people here saying indie dev have hard time doing multiplatform release, but isn't there a lot of PS3/Vita or PS4/Vita release for upcoming indie games? pretty much most of kickstarter games are all multiplatform too and I'm under impression they'll release at the same time or around the same time too.

 

[Xenon]

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.

No they are trying to avoid their store being devalued by getting ports of old games from a competing platform. It's a prudent move but it could backfire on them if they don't get the numbers to make it worth the extra time and effort it would require.

 

[IHaveCandy]

not defending xb1 policy, but people here saying indie dev have hard time doing multiplatform release, but isn't there a lot of PS3/Vita or PS4/Vita release for upcoming indie games? pretty much most of kickstarter games are all multiplatform too and I'm under impression they'll release at the same time or around the same time too.

Sony supplies tools to make it easy for indie games to play across all 3 platforms.

 

[hawk2025]

not defending xb1 policy, but people here saying indie dev have hard time doing multiplatform release, but isn't there a lot of PS3/Vita or PS4/Vita release for upcoming indie games? pretty much most of kickstarter games are all multiplatform too and I'm under impression they'll release at the same time or around the same time too.

Yes, and then they release the PS3/Vita versions together or not, as they see fit.

It has happened multiple times already.

No they are trying to avoid their store being devalued by getting ports of old games from a competing platform. It's a prudent move but it could backfire on them if they don't get the numbers to make it worth the extra time and effort it would require.

Why does it devalue the store?

 

[ClearData]

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.

But consider this -- Sony and Nintendo are not using these restrictive and damaging policies. I read Shahid Kamal's twitter and he is a firm believer that there is space for everyone to make money and foster a healthy ecosystem.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

Bang goes the advantage of having the easiest platform to program for.

 

[LiquidSolid]

PSN hasn't used slots for years now.

Sony's never had slots, they always left the release date up to the developers/publishers so long as the game had passed cert (which was and still is often a source of long delays on the EU PSN). No clue what Rlan's talking about.

 

[SapientWolf]

Not really. As people in this thread have pointed out, most indie developers only have the resources to develop for one or the other. If this policy forces people to pick Sony, so be it. The indies pick Sony. Whatever.

A lot of indies will have another team do the port for them if they're successful on their launch platform. It seems like this clause would close off that option for devs that plan to launch on the PS4.

 

[EDarkness]

Genuinely curious what is your game? Unless you can't/don't want to say.

http://skullforge.omc-games.com

Everything is still early, but things are shaping up well enough.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

This makes no sense.

Their program was late, and so the only way to get into it is to either launch simultaneously, potentially delaying the other platform, or to explore a loophole where you *can* launch later, *if* you have a previous exclusivity contract.


It makes no sense. Who designed this contract? We must be missing some crucial information.

What if development goes faster on the PS4 version in the future for some devs?

The game gets delayed ... This is a very divisive policy and rather convenient for a console with a longer development time. The PS3/Vita/PS4 is quite a big market so let's hope that some Indies realise they could gain faith with consumers by supporting all three rather than lose faith with consumers by delaying their games because of ONE console.

 

[unknownstranger]

No they are trying to avoid their store being devalued by getting ports of old games from a competing platform. It's a prudent move but it could backfire on them if they don't get the numbers to make it worth the extra time and effort it would require.

You could make this argument for almost every game that got a late port to a system, yet it seems Microsoft is the only one complaining about it. Sony was in this position (getting late ports) for most of last gen. When more indies got on board with Sony's indie policy, Microsoft stayed firm with theirs, to the point that indies are now completely jumping the ship to Sony's and Nintendo's side. Unless Microsoft changes their policy, that ship will keep slowly sinking.

 

[Xenon]

Why does it devalue the store?

If Xbox One versions consistently came later than the PS4 release, it would affect how people perceived the store. I see nothing wrong with MS requiring devs to make them a equal priority to the competition to publish on their platform. But developers have every right to tell them to fuck off if they choose.

Again this could backfire on them.

 

[IHaveCandy]

If Xbox One versions consistently came later than the PS4 release, it would affect how people perceived the store. I see nothing wrong with MS requiring devs to make them a equal priority to the competition to publish on their platform. But developers have every right to tell them to fuck off if they choose.

Again this could backfire on them.

Competition that involves embargoing your competitor is shit.

 

[coolasj19]

http://skullforge.omc-games.com
Everything is still early, but things are shaping up well enough.

Got a Twitter?

No prop it would be hard for him to know IMF some of these titles are being pushed do to MS NDA anyway

What does IMF mean?
I went ahead and Tweeted Adam Boyes and Shahid. Maybe I'll get a response. I'll update if I do, and I won't if I don't.

 

[BigDug13]

Is this why the Vita's indie releases that were promised seem to be nowhere to be found as well? Does MS also prevent these guys from releasing on portable systems first?

 

[Hydrargyrus]

I hope we will see a lot of indie games launched only on PS4/PC/WiiU.


These policies really sucks!

 

[Zephyx]

Is this also the reason why Minecraft for PS platforms were delayed?

 

[travisbickle]

Is the PS4 indie scene on hold because of this? I thought a lot more games were going to be ready for launch?

 

[Dan]

If Xbox One versions consistently came later than the PS4 release, it would affect how people perceived the store. I see nothing wrong with MS requiring devs to make them a equal priority to the competition to publish on their platform. But developers have every right to tell them to fuck off if they choose.

Again this could backfire on them.

Or, you know, Microsoft could just compete to make their development and marketplace environments as attractive or more attractive as Sony and Nintendo's. Make developers want to release on Xbox One first or at the same time.

 

[Replicant]

The game gets delayed ... This is a very divisive policy and rather convenient for a console with a longer development time. The PS3/Vita/PS4 is quite a big market so let's hope that some Indies realise they could gain faith with consumers by supporting all three rather than lose faith with consumers by delaying their games because of ONE console.

This is BS but not surprising coming from MS. All the more reason I want them out of this business. Hope most people will vote with their wallet and do not reward this kind of behavior.

 

[sono]

Isnt putting in clauses about what you can do and cant do on other systems anti competitve.

 

[BigDug13]

Isnt putting in clauses about what you can do and cant do on other systems anti competitve.

Microsoft? Anti-competitive?

 

[DBT85]

Anyone else think it's much easier to get devs to eat this when you are the easier to program platform and have a larger install base like the 360 was?

 

[IHaveCandy]

Isnt putting in clauses about what you can do and cant do on other systems anti competitve.

It's probably easy to justify legally when they are making it an agreement for free dev kits.

 

[mrklaw]

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?

And for the devs that don't have resources to work on two platforms at the same time? Sit on a completed game that could be bringing in money to help fund the next version simply because a platform holder mandates parity? The alternative is being arbitrarily excluded from the audience on Xbox one.

 

[Nightengale]

Anyone else think it's much easier to get devs to eat this when you are the easier to program platform and have a larger install base like the 360 was?

Just because it's easier doesn't mean devs would be happy with the idea that they have to throw out millions of a potential market.

Which is why the biggest concern is that devs accept the Option 3, which is choose to launch on Xbox first, and Playstation afterwards.

 

[Faustek]

*a few stupid posts*

Dude seriously? So you just care about yourself and even thou you admit that it sucks you're OK with it?

I so want to be bunkmates with you if i ever go to prison so when the other bigger and meaner inmates comes to give us a cockmeat sandwich I can just point to you because you're so totally OK with bigger entities throwing their weight around. Yeah you'll probably cry a bit if you don't get the biggest and meanest inmate but hey you can probably work you're way up there.

See you in jail mate.

Spoiler

I don't see the benefit of trying to construct a sane argument since you clearly refused to read/understand the posts before you but hey I work hard and posting is my only joy so I shouldn't care about YOUR feelings and stuff.

 

[coolasj19]

It's probably easy to justify legally when they are making it an agreement for free dev kits.

I don't think this works how you think it works...

And for the devs that don't have resources to work on two platforms at the same time? Sit on a completed game that could be bringing in money to help fund the next version simply because a platform holder mandates parity? The alternative is being arbitrarily excluded from the audience on Xbox one.

He already saw the light further up the page.

Just because it's easier doesn't mean devs would be happy with the idea that they have to throw out millions of a potential market.

Which is why the biggest concern is that devs accept the Option 3, which is choose to launch on Xbox first, and Playstation afterwards.

Well, unless the market isn't there. And if this is to be taken as an example, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad decision to release only on PS4, WiiU, and Steam. He used the figure %85, and the %15 percent lost was from complications with Xbox. Why not cut MS out of the equation? They'd only be worth %15 from a timed release. Because as far as I can tell, two reasons :
1. To make enough money to make more games
2. For as many people to play as possible.

MS gets in the way of both of those. And only leaves you one path if you want to satisfy both. It's just like last generation, where games like Brothers launched on XBL 1-2 weeks early because... reasons. And Spelunky took a year to come out on PSN, because... reasons.

Spoiler

It did have to get ported by a different studio but still...

Only this time, instead of the 360 having a numbers advantage over the PS3, the PS4 might have the numbers advantage and the friendlier policies. Right now, MS doesn't have weight to throw around, it's still the early game. They only have as much power as the gamers who buy the system, and the devs that make games for it give them.

 

[polyh3dron]

So Microsoft gave indies anti-moneyhats. lol

 

[Brad Grenz]

Anyone else think it's much easier to get devs to eat this when you are the easier to program platform and have a larger install base like the 360 was?

Obviously. Back in the heyday of XBLA MS could make indie devs choke it down, but for the last few years self publishing on PlayStation+Steam has made a lot more sense than signing over half your sales to a publisher or agreeing to Xbox exclusivity. With the way XBLA sales have flagged you can make more money getting 70% on two platforms than 40% on all three.