Support NeoGAF

[Banjo-Kazooie]

Wow

So High Calabar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPzIF7wM43U

Way to take the high road bud

Yeah, the parity clause does not matter if you release on mobile or PC. Only on consoles.
It is made to purely spite console developers. Also it must have made good money to get published on XB. I hear ID isn't cheap.

What?

Besides the cost of making your game, the only thing you need to pay for is ratings. Sony requires this too though, so not sure what you mean.

 

[serversurfer]

Wake me up when the One gets a 2:1 on the PS4 at this point. Maybe another "promotional" price drop will do it.

You're missing the point. MS don't need a dominant position; just a significant position. Let's say they're only at 1:2, with 30M XB3 and 60M PS4 in the wild. Writing off 30M users is a lot harder to swallow than writing off 10M. If and when developers have "no choice" but to support XBox, then the policy will be doing exactly what it was designed to do; stifling development on rival platforms.

Sony with the PS4 has twice the install base of the X1 and they don't seem to need a parity clause. Your logic, and Microsoft's, is very flawed Serversufer.

See above, but this isn't my logic. I'm just explaining Microsoft's logic in implementing forced parity in the first place, and their reluctance to give it up.

I think forced parity is a cancer on the industry, and that anyone who disagrees should be shunned, for the good of us all. If someone threatening people with a knife, obviously you're gonna avoid them — unless they're standing between you and dinner for your family — but even if they agree to put it away, it's probably wisest to steer clear of them anyway, lest they start doing it again once they think the coast is clear.

I would like to argue that in this specific case, of the Broforce devs and the deal they made with Sony, the parity clause is offering the proper response to their decision to accept the moneyhat. I would also argue that in cases of moneyhatting in general the parity clause is useful to deter indie devs from accepting said moneyhats from the competition as much as possible.

If, as you suggest, the real problem here is Sony's deep pockets, then it seems that MS would be able to counter with their own, far deeper pockets rather than a policy that does nothing more but harm developers, gamers, and the industry as a whole.

No, but I am in favor of coming up with some way to keep moneyhats in check. It's a really shitty practice.

So I get to develop my game for the platform that's more popular, more powerful, easier to use, and I get to do so at no risk? Yeah, that sounds like a real dick move.

How is Pub Fund any worse than any publishing deal one might sign with Activision, or any other publisher? At least with Pub Fund I retain my IP.

 

[_machine]

And thats the issue with this situation. Bro Force has a deal in place with Sony and that, as they stated, was the main reason they are not coming on X1. " A deal with Sony so good they couldn't refuse". This situation has almost nothing to do with the parity clause and everything to do with a deal made with Sony.

As repeated throughout the thread that is not the issue. Sony allows any and all Pub Funded titles to be released on any other platforms, but since the Pub Fund -initiative requires the game to be exclusive for a short period it automatically disqualifies them from ID@Xbox. Now the deal is the reason why the game is not coming to Xbox, but if the parity clause would not exist the game could come to Xbox.

Seriously, I recommend reading this about the Pub Fund -initiative: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...ay__Sonys_approach_to_working_with_indies.php

EDIT: Drinkbox Studios (developers of Guacamelee) on Pub Fund:

Guacamelee! was part of the Sony Pub Fund initiative. The Pub Fund works as follows: in exchange for a period of exclusivity Sony pays an agreed-upon amount to the developer after the game ships -- typically something approaching the budget of the project. This means the developer must fund their own project, but after the game ships they can be confident that they will at least make their budget back. The developer keeps ownership of their IP, and once Sony's payment is recouped the developer receives further royalties. This is a great model for developers who: A) can fund their own project, and B) greatly value a solid minimum return on their game.

In the end we were very happy with the Sony arrangement. It mitigated our financial risk and provided on-the-floor exposure for the game at trade shows we wouldn't have otherwise attended (E3, Gamescom, etc).

As mentioned, this came at the price of some exclusivity. To weigh the options we created a spreadsheet to work out the financial break-even point of an exclusive versus non-exclusive arrangement. That analysis, plus various intangibles (like placement at shows in the Sony booth and the risks associated with working with third party publishers), told us that the Pub Fund was the way to go.

In practice, working with Sony was fantastic. The Sony team focused on indie developers is passionate and in touch with the state of the scene. We never experienced undue pressure from them or unreasonable requests. Quite the opposite, what they offered were a series of excellent opportunities. For example, Sony put Guacamelee! in Vita kiosks at Best Buy stores, which no third party publisher could have accomplished.

 

[Jacksinthe]

Way to take the high road bud

We are all joking. Its all good

I would certainly hope ID wouldn't approve of my 1-finger mobile game

 

[Dragonborn]

The whole "there is an exception part" is just more insulting. Like,yea we canmake an exception but only if you're popular. If not then go screw yourself. I truly do hope more indies start skipping the X11 until this stupid clause is gone.

Anyways, is this what first class is supposed to feel like?

 

[hawk2025]

We are all joking. Its all good

I would certainly hope ID wouldn't approve of my 1-finger mobile game

Someone asked before, but -- I'm struggling to put this in a nice way, which is actually my intention! -- did your rant on the current Indie situation on Xbox get cancelled by signing with ID@XBOX?

If so, do you think they signed with you partly because of the attention you got on GAF?

 

[alexandros]

Do you honestly believe any of this is Microsoft's attempt to cut down on paying developers for exclusivity and timed exclusivity on games?

Lolno! I'm not that naive.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

Everyone who says 'oh this will obviously hurt MS' is missing the point.

MS are not interested in bringing indie games to the platform unless there's immediate money to be made out of it. They don't want a game that only shifts 10k units, they only want the indies that are going to be breakout hits.

So they don't care that they're getting less than half the number of games, what they care about is making sure they get the 'right' indie games. If ever a game does come along that looks like it's going to be that breakout hit (a la Minecraft) you bet they'll be there ready to swoop in with a moneyhat and lock that exclusivity down.

MS is one of the most short-term orientated tech companies out there. They're infamous for not getting aboard the long-term trends in tech until they've already passed. They either haven't cottoned on to what Sony have already realised (that a diverse indie portfolio has a halo effect for your brand) or they don't care about it. What they want are the indie games that sell millions of units, nothing less.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

 

[JP]

This situation has almost nothing to do with the parity clause and everything to do with a deal made with Sony.

It has a lot to do with the parity clause if this doesn't appear on the Xbox One due to the parity clause rather than exclusivity being a part of whatever deal they've agreed with Sony. At least that's what they believe to be true.

 

[serversurfer]

Can someone tell me what this "parity clause" is?

Read this.

 

[vesvci]

“As far as I know Microsoft has a clause in their contract where they won’t accept an indie game if it launches on Xbox after Playstation.”

wow. just wow...talk about arrogance.

 

[Jacksinthe]

Someone asked before, but -- I'm struggling to put this in a nice way, which is actually my intention! -- did your rant on the current Indie situation on Xbox get cancelled by signing with ID@XBOX?

If so, do you think they signed with you partly because of the attention you got on GAF?

Its currently in limbo since we haven't gone through a submission process yet. Time will tell if my views change pending on specifics.

Nope.

 

[RiverKwai]

Devs are also held to feature parity, meaning if some feature is present on the PS version of your game, then you need to have the same feature on the XB version. If you can't have that feature on XB — either because it's technically infeasible or MS simply don't allow it — then you need to get Microsoft's permission before you can include it on the PlayStation version.

I wonder, is this affecting things like interesting touchpad mechanics on more games?

 

[serversurfer]

I wonder, is this affecting things like interesting touchpad mechanics on more games?

It might. Basically, you implement the feature, demo it for MS, and hope they say, "Yeah, that's stupid. Do whatever you want."

The problem is, sometimes they say, "This is amazing. You must never speak of it to anyone."

 

[Marvel]

This clause has got to go, it's doing more harm than good.

 

[hawk2025]

Its currently in limbo since we haven't gone through a submission process yet. Time will tell if my views change pending on specifics.

Nope.

Got it, thanks for answering. I really do hope my post didn't come off as combative, it's just that I've been reading and participating in these parity clause threads for the better part of a year, so hopefully it's understandable that I'm actually interested in having a peek at the full picture

 

[Odrion]

If Sony reached out with Pub Fund money this has little to do with parity clause.

It might be, but I remember hearing from Giant Bomb that Sony's "Deal that indies can't refuse" is that Sony takes the game off their hands and then gets it ported by a different company, all for just a slice of the profit.

If that's the case, I imagine it's a REAL fucking good deal.

 

[RiverKwai]

It might. Basically, you implement the feature, demo it for MS, and hope they say, "Yeah, that's stupid. Do whatever you want."

The problem is, sometimes they say, "This is amazing. You must never speak of it to anyone."

One wonders then, if it's going to affect the adoption of VR-modes in games for both Oculus and Morpheus?

That's kind of nuts. I guess I just missed or glossed over the potential ramifications for feature parity.

 

[PhatSaqs]

It might be, but I remember hearing from Giant Bomb that Sony's "Deal that indies can't refuse" is that Sony takes the game off their hands and then gets it ported by a different company, all for just a slice of the profit.

If that's the case, I imagine it's a REAL fucking good deal.

Agreed. It could definitely be that as well.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

You are one insecure console warrior.

Oh please, I'm sure you can do better than name-calling.

Then the game would still be coming on PS4, but a later date. Again, Sony allows the developers to publish the game on any platform and funds the development, taking the risk away from the developers. Microsoft does not do this and if they made a similar deal the game would never be coming PS platforms. Simple as that.

We have no idea of the nature of the deal they have with Sony. Sony have done some great things for indie developers over the past several years, and Pub Fund is a wonderful initiative with no direct counterpart on Microsoft's side, at least to my knowledge. However, there have been many, many indie games that were first published on Xbox due to deals (again, of unknown nature) with Microsoft, and that later went on to appear on other platforms, including PlayStation consoles. In fact, many independently made games published by Microsoft Studios later get a PC release, and even some of their own studios get to release their titles on Steam. Yes, the parity clause is particularly bad, but both companies have had their better and worse practices when it comes to dealing with developers, and trying to paint one of them as an angel, and the other one as the devil is absurd.

Regardless, I already explained what I was getting at, and the thread title has since been adjusted.

 

[Elandyll]

And thats the issue with this situation. Bro Force has a deal in place with Sony and that, as they stated, was the main reason they are not coming on X1. " A deal with Sony so good they couldn't refuse". This situation has almost nothing to do with the parity clause and everything to do with a deal made with Sony.

No. The deal with Sony is one that made them want to launch first and with a "window of exclusivity" on Playstation.
The deal itself could be a wide variety of things, from a Marketing push to a $ deal, through a good ol' Pint of Beer at the local Pub with Shu.

THEN they note that what would thus prevent them from going on the XB1 would not be Sony, but the parity clause of the Xbox Indie program.

 

[twobear]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Great explanation of what's wrong about it.

MS have shown time and again that they're only really interested in indies they think they can get money out of. They make a show of their extremely tokenistic indie support but in general they only care about the indie games, like Minecraft, which have a chance to make them millions in direct revenue.

 

[SerTapTap]

Devs are also held to feature parity, meaning if some feature is present on the PS version of your game, then you need to have the same feature on the XB version. If you can't have that feature on XB — either because it's technically infeasible or MS simply don't allow it — then you need to get Microsoft's permission before you can include it on the PlayStation version. As mentioned above, sometimes MS are generous enough to allow it, but if not, that extra development effort you put in to the PS version goes right down the drain.

I think feature parity is actually the more harmful clause — since it doesn't merely delay games, but actively stifles innovation in the industry — but for whatever reason, launch parity is the one that gets all the press.

Man I didn't even know about that, that's some evil shit. The DS4 has some really cool features in some games, would suck if games passed on them. REcent good uses of the DS4 for indies include swiping to open/move the map in BOI Rebirth and the DS4 light/speaker turning your controller into the Transistor in Transistor. Both brilliant, subtle uses I really like and wouldn't have thought of.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Because Phil hasn't given up on XBone. If and when they gain significant market share and become too big to be ignored, then the parity clause will be awesome for them, because it means developers will have no real choice but to delay their PS4 games. If they don't have the resources to develop two versions of their games simultaneously, then that's even better for MS, because now that game becomes an XBox exclusive for a period of time.

It's like the DRM stuff. There's no reason to give it up unless it prevents people from buying the hardware. If people are buying the hardware, then the clause needs to stay, because the larger their install base, the more effective the clause becomes.


Granting exceptions allows them to demonstrate how generous and reasonable they are. Plus, it lets them get the "big" games on to their platform as needed.



This particular parity clause is launch parity. Basically, if your game comes to PlayStation first, then it's not welcome on XBox, ever. Simultaneous launches are permitted if you have the resources to deliver them, but if not, then you need to release on XBox first.

Devs are also held to feature parity, meaning if some feature is present on the PS version of your game, then you need to have the same feature on the XB version. If you can't have that feature on XB — either because it's technically infeasible or MS simply don't allow it — then you need to get Microsoft's permission before you can include it on the PlayStation version. As mentioned above, sometimes MS are generous enough to allow it, but if not, that extra development effort you put in to the PS version goes right down the drain.

I think feature parity is actually the more harmful clause — since it doesn't merely delay games, but actively stifles innovation in the industry — but for whatever reason, launch parity is the one that gets all the press.

Wait, what?! Is that a thing... wow, that needs to go too then

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

Great explanation of what's wrong about it.

MS have shown time and again that they're only really interested in indies they think they can get money out of. They make a show of their extremely tokenistic indie support but in general they only care about the indie games, like Minecraft, which have a chance to make them millions in direct revenue.

Do you think games like Nutjitsu and Threes! are money makers?

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I think the clause is stupid and makes little sense, but the wording of the quotes makes it seem as if this is clickbait and has nothing really to do with the clause itself.

Sounds like they have a deal with Sony and have not even looked into putting it on Xbox at all.

 

[serversurfer]

This clause has got to go, it's doing more harm than good.

If the policy was benefitting MS — by retarding development on the PlayStation — would you then be in favor of it?

One wonders then, if it's going to affect the adoption of VR-modes in games for both Oculus and Morpheus?

It could do, yes. Depends on how generous MS are feeling.

That's kind of nuts. I guess I just missed or glossed over the potential ramifications for feature parity.

It's pretty terrible, yes.

 

[kaching]

You're missing the point. MS don't need a dominant position; just a significant position. Let's say they're only at 1:2, with 30M XB3 and 60M PS4 in the wild. Writing off 30M users is a lot harder to swallow than writing off 10M. If and when developers have "no choice" but to support XBox, then the policy will be doing exactly what it was designed to do; stifling development on rival platforms.

We're talking about small dev houses though - they can't help but "write off" large swathes of potential customers at any given time because they simply haven't got the resources to pull off a massive multiplatform release like the big pubs can. So somebody's platform of choice is always going to be waiting for their turn with the projects of this scope. Seems increasingly obvious that devs are just going to take their chances with being the "exception" to MS' parity clause and/or wait for it to die a quiet death.

 

[Jacksinthe]

Got it, thanks for answering. I really do hope my post didn't come off as combative, it's just that I've been reading and participating in these parity clause threads for the better part of a year, so hopefully it's understandable that I'm actually interested in having a peek at the full picture

Oh hell its not combative - it's just a question. Hell I've had indie devs here straight up mock one of my games on the front page of the SSS thread and I just quietly chuckle

Legit questions or criticism are gravy!

 

[RayMaker]

Are you really asking this after there have been threads about this issue before? Manpower. Resources. Time.

yeah at the start of the gen the x1 had sdk issues, however it does run vanilla dx11 and soon dx12. so if developing on PC it would be a very simple port to the x1.

i dont know why an indie dev would choose to develop on ps4 first when this is the case.

 

[Neuromancer]

Another developer whining and bitching, when all they have to do is ask King Spencer for an exemption. Once they kiss his ring and wait for his decree to come down from on high, they can do whatever they want (as long as he says yes of course, but I don't see why he wouldn't as he is known to all as a benevolent man.)

 

[Dragon Puncher]

You people have it all wrong. The deal they couldn't refuse is obviously related to getting Brohei Broshida in the game.

 

[shadowstar35]

Yeah, I do find the spin in the article weird. MS's policy does have problems, but Sony coming along with blatant Moneyhats is definitely not a thing we should be condoning.

The fact us we know nothing about what deal they may have. If the devs is pun fund then Sony fronts royalty money to help devs publish there games. They can then go and release at a later date on other systems. This is why most PSN indies will make it to pc, but xbox has the parity clause preventing that for them.

For myself, I could care less, Sony is courting devs to get indies onboard, that's great for me as I don't own xbox machines, and they aren't preventing xbox only owners from playing, Microsoft themselves are doing that. The more indies on psn the better, as that usually mrans crossbuy too, and vita love.

 

[Chobel]

Do you think games like Nutjitsu and Threes! are money makers?

I'm not really agreeing with him, but how does this disprove his point? Playing the devil's advocate here, I could argue that MS had no choice but to show support for some games otherwise their program won't got traction, and thus not achieving their real goal for securing big indie games for themselves.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I wonder if this is yet another way that the parity clause inflicts self-ownage on MS. The clause seems to be designed so that MS can have it both ways. They want to bully developers into releasing their games on XBO on day one, yet if a game is a huge success, they would be willing to make an exception. The thing is, they want to keep developers uncertain of whether they will get the exception or not to prevent the situation from happening in the first place, so they won't tell you whether you are eligible for the exception until the latest possible moment.

But this inserts an interesting dynamic. Let’s say that you are working on PS4 and PC versions of a game. You want to release an XBO version down the line, but MS won't let you know whether you can, so you just push it out of your mind and concentrate on finishing the game in the present. Now, in this situation, where you don't know whether you can go on XBO in the future or not, wouldn't you be more likely to accept a deal from Sony? After all, you may not actually be giving anything up, because MS won't tell you whether you can launch there later or not.

So even though MS hopes to be able to earn money from super-succesful games by being open to offer exceptions from the parity clause, the very way they go about it still leads indies into Sony's hands. I think this is what the developers are talking about when they seem to imply that this deal with Sony is partly due to the parity clause.

 

[Rymuth]

Oh hell its not combative - it's just a question. Hell I've had indie devs here straight up mock one of my games on the front page of the SSS thread and I just quietly chuckle

Legit questions or criticism are gravy!

You answered his query but you didnt answer mine. Doest that mean my post was combative?

 

[Chobel]

yeah at the start of the gen the x1 had sdk issues, however it does run vanilla dx11 and soon dx12. so if developing on PC it would be a very simple port to the x1.

i dont know why an indie dev would choose to develop on ps4 first when this is the case.

It's not that simple, XB1 still has a different architecture plus some exclusive API (only for XB1), devs still has optimize their games for XB1 and there's also this

The coding is one thing, but there's also implementing all the platform holder requirements and going through the whole submission process, which can be very time consuming. Especially for a small team.

 

[xxracerxx]

I bet all XBO only owners are feeling like some first class citizens right now.

 

[justsomeguy]

They are also other reasons why Indie games are skipping Xbox if you forget the parity clause

Salt and Sanctuary by Ska Studios is skipping xbox due to the system not supporting .NET

Is it coming to ps4 btw? Which doesn't have .net either?

 

[Chobel]

Is it coming to ps4 btw? Which doesn't have .net either?

Probably using Mono in PS4.

 

[justsomeguy]

Probably using Mono in PS4.

Is that a thing? How ironic is that, lol.

 

[Jimmyfenix]

Is it coming to ps4 btw? Which doesn't have .net either?

It is coming to PS4 & Vita

 

[BobTheFork]

"As far as I know"?
Shouldn't they know everyhting about it?

MS doesn't even know everything about their policy.

 

[Chobel]

Is that a thing? How ironic is that, lol.

Mono is quite popular, even more now that MS ditched XNA.

 

[MrxDemix]

THis parity clause will end biting them in the ass.

It already has multiple times.

 

[Tidus_Great]

with ps4 on top MS authority means nothing now.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Did they have this clause back in the OG Xbox days? I honestly started hearing about this clause with this new gen of consoles!

 

[Con_Smith]

I hope The Behemoth showed some love to Sony systems. Not a full Devolver but something. Hopefully I have a One by the time they drop something.

 

[Goodacre0081]

I wonder if this is yet another way that the parity clause inflicts self-ownage on MS. The clause seems to be designed so that MS can have it both ways. They want to bully developers into releasing their games on XBO on day one, yet if a game is a huge success, they would be willing to make an exception. The thing is, they want to keep developers uncertain of whether they will get the exception or not to prevent the situation from happening in the first place, so they won't tell you whether you are eligible for the exception until the latest possible moment.

this is why it's such a slap in the face to every developer that doesn't get some hype and following for their game. we all know No Man's Sky will have the clause waived due to simply being popular among gamers, not because they realized the potential of an amazing game.

IMO it all stems back to the Mattrick era where they fell out of touch with what we wanted the Xbox to be. how could they not see the indie phenomenon from a mile away? shit, they helped build it on console with XBLA.

 

[SMOK3Y]

Did they have this clause back in the OG Xbox days? I honestly started hearing about this clause with this new gen of consoles!

I'm pretty sure they had it on 360