FranXico
Member
And Braid. And FEZ. Years late. Neither of these games had any kind of extra content. And you know what? I enjoyed them all the same.
-
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.
C. Charla on promoting ID@XB titles - Why the infamous parity clause isn't a big deal
- Thread starter John Bender
- Start date
And Braid. And FEZ. Years late. Neither of these games had any kind of extra content. And you know what? I enjoyed them all the same.
And recently bastion. No one gave a shit that it was years late.
You are wrong. The only way you are happy that you get to play Shovel Knight is because of the added GoW stuff. The only reason!
krypt0nian
Banned
Yup. Totally new to me the day they hit the store and I was grateful to the devs for bringing them. Imagine that!
I didn't even know there was anything added. Wow NOW I'm first class! Tier 1!
Bastion just got released on the ps4, first time in any Sony platform. A game that came out in 2011 and has been on pretty much everything else. As far as I know, nothing new was added, yet people are not slighted by the wait. No one feels second class because of the wait. This is some construct you built for yourself.
Bastion was the ultimate example of this I think.
PlayStation owners didn't get the game until 4 YEARS later.
You didn't see anyone complaining that the game was old they didn't want it. Most people who didn't own a 360 or PC were excited to finally get a chance to try it.
You would think the same logic would apply to Xbox One owners with games that aren't 4 years old.
It goes beyond that:
It was even featured on the Spring Fever, with prime blog marketing, prime real estate on the PS Store, and a featured PS+ discount.
His argument is nonsense. If people feel slighted by a later release, especially if it runs and looks exactly as intended, it's a construct of their own mind.
Feel free to contribute, rather than doing meta-commentary sandwiched between lols.
These are relevant examples of how adding content is not a necessity for late releases -- let the devs decide if they think they should to incentivize double dipping or if they think it will add some goodwill towards the game.
BabyFaceKillah
Member
Lol the last few comments in this thread have turned to real shit lol
Talking about Bastion is shit?
The only thing I was complaining about was that it took so long. I was perfectly content to play it as the developers originally intended 4 years after release..
BlastProcessing
Member
My last game was Ephemerid. It came out on iPad first (which, in hindsight, wasn't the best idea from a marketing point of view) then on Steam. Don't worry that you've never heard of it, most people haven't all though it did win an IGF award.
krypt0nian
Banned
Calling actual points shit is not really conducive to posting.
Veritigo_X
Member
Don't forget to close your lol tags! Like this: lol [shit post] /lol
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
Elephant in the room with Bastion is how well will it sell on the PS4 after a 4 year gap? I won't buy it because I already bought it on 360 4 years ago.
From a consumer stand point it is great to have access to the game. From a business stand point the costs associated with promotion and development may not make sense.
krypt0nian
Banned
Since we don't get digital sales numbers this really is moot.
I'm a gamer. I want Bastion.
Why is this relevant?
It's on the devs to decide and internalize their sales projection. If Sony or Microsoft want to incentivize simultaneous release, by all means, pay up. The paternalistic argument that MS knows better -- and should, rather than provide incentives, block releases based on this kind of thinking -- has been thoroughly debunked by devs like Ravdeath, that have argued conclusively that no, they don't know best on how their game's community will react to this.
It's an elephant in the savannah that you are trying to drag into the room.
Who cares? If even one person bought it that means at least the dev served that person's needs. If the dev feels that's worth it that's all that matters.
This is exactly what MS doesn't get. Stop thinking for the devs, stop mandating things. Let them make their own decisions on how best to serve their audience. Ms just needs to provide that store and collect that money.
FranXico
Member
Or, Sony may have gave them free promotion and the port development might have been so cheap (maybe Bastion and Transistor share the same game engine), there basically would be no risk. Who knows for sure?
I keep seeing this class issue pop up and can't see how anyone would fall for that talking point marketing bullshit, let alone repeat it as if you're making a point. Indie devs don't always have the money for a simultaneous release, so of course they will choose to develop on the dominant console first. The market has decided that the PS4 is that console. So until MS pulls out a sales lead, studios on a limited budget will continue to go to Sony first, unless they're offered some kind of assistance. Saying that you're being treated as a second class citizen because a dev can''t afford to cater to your (trailing in sales) platform of choice is some entitled gamer, first world problem, whiny bullshit and you should hesitate to call yourself an adult. If you wish to vent your childish rage, direct it at MS. Their habit of putting foot in mouth had a huge impact on the launch of the X1, and now their constant stuffing of head up ass is preventing their all-too-loyal customers from playing games that others are enjoying.
Plenty of us said we were excited for the game in the official thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1024768 I know I bought it on day one.
You do realize, most devs aren't targeting ports to people who already bought the game on another platform, right?
And again, as everyone else is saying, Microsoft shouldn't be trying to make business decisions on behalf of other developers/publishers. That's on them.
sturgboski
Member
Look Mr. Charla, just because you dont like the posts for refuting your narrative does not make the posts shit. It means your argument is shit.
Yes I know you arent Chris Charla.
I think Special Snowflake Syndrome is the PC term nowadays. Symptoms include foot in mouth disease, frequent mouth flatulence, inability to empathize, and general chronic douchebaggery as a result of inflated self worth. You should really seek treatment. I hear it's a symptom of more severe deep seated issues. With the proper time and regular injections of common sense you too can learn to accept that the world revolves around the sun not you.
CaviarMeths
Member
The point that people are driving at is that this is your opinion as a consumer and it is your choice whether or not a game, late or not, extra content or not, has value to it and deserves your dollars. This is base consumerism.
What's wrong about the whole thing is Microsoft taking this choice out of your hands and out of the hands of other consumers. Microsoft is deciding for you whether or not these games have value. That is anti-consumer and wrong.
I love this!
Newtype-001
Member
I cant believe some people were using that C-grade PR of "first class citizens" to justify a clause which has taken more games away from them than the opposite...
PoweredByHentai
Member
I think you should consider using some demotivational posters to better illustrate your point.
This one is perfect for the Special Snowflake Syndrome that you were discussing:
Despair.com is a hilarious site.
serversurfer
Member
Platform curation can actually be a good thing, depending on the curator. But MS dictating what happens on their own, closed platform isn't the problem here. The problem is that they dictate what happens on other platforms. It's anti-competitive behavior, and it damages the entire industry, from developers to gamers. It's indefensible. Supporting XBox whether by making games for it or buying one in the first place just gives Microsoft more power to damage the industry.
I wish Ubisoft flat out refused to make XBox games. Then I'd be able to do some Minority Report shit in a fucking video game; a toy hooked up to my television, SEVEN YEARS AGO. But I didn't get to, because someone at MS decided it was too awesome to let me have, and someone at Ubi decided it wasn't awesome enough to flush away all of the money they'd already spent developing the XBox version of their game, not to mention missing out on half of the market.
Why would you ever support any decision which gave MS more power to make those kinds of decisions? The less support MS get, the better off the rest of us are.
Sorry to bump a thread after a few hours just to highlight a post, but gotdamn that ether.
El-Pistolero
Member
Why should you expect something extra when you have not paid a dime? You are not entitled to anything before you engage in an "implicit" contract; aka, when you buy a game.
What about if the indie team does not have the funds or the manpower to release their game on two or three platforms simultaneously . Should they be penalized for it because you and MS feel the need to get some little bonus? Ridiculous...
I also wonder how it affects the production pipeline, since producing new content involves a whole range of different people like artists.
It's a completely different process to subcontract someone to make, say, a Vita version of a Vita game, and it happens very very often. Once it becomes a necessity to add new content, that's no longer the case: You need to either have half-assed, inconsistent content created by different people, or necessarily have the original creators go back (potentially interrupting their schedule for their next game) and creating features that will be unique to just one platform -- which in turn, doesn't even represent a majority of the market share.
I can see why a lot of devs simply don't bother. It's one thing to be incentivized to have someone else port your game to the Vita -- it's another altogether to be strong-armed into creating brand new content.
Furthermore, I think we all learned just how expensive a "little bonus" can be once it involves new art, new design, new voices, etc: A lot of people were surprised at the cost of kickstarting a new Skullgirls character, for example.
To try to regulate and mandate that just seems ridiculous, and all platform holders need to move past that outdated idea.
Yeah, most of our port work is done by contractors. We have a few people handling the new stuff internally, but for the most part is all external. And there isn't a lot of new art required - just UI, which we contract out.
Exactly.
The other thing is that, at least according to the friends I've talked to, indie sales on Xbox One aren't that good.
So, hypothetically, if we somehow agreed to a new character for the Xbox One port, we'd be looking at around $350k just to be able to release on that platform. And who knows if we'd even make that back? And we'd piss off the majority of the Skullgirls community, since some people wouldn't be able to learn how to play against that character for tournaments, etc.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Yes.
Neuromancer
Member
Mmm so that's why it felt so fresh!
I can't find anyone making this argument, nor is GAF some hivemind (which Y2Kev funnily pointed out).
People who are saying Microsoft are being obscene on this score are directly, unreservedly saying that there is no problem whatsoever with them receiving games 6 months late. That's the whole result we're eventually trying to arrive at, the bulk of us: At a solution wherein indie devs are not taken advantage of/pushed around by faceless bully corporations with massively more power and money than they have, and are allowed to themselves decide when they want to add extra content and the time in which a release is feasible. Where XBO gamers are allowed to themselves decide which games are worth playing and which are not, from a vastly expanded collection of indie titles.
There should be absolutely no stipulations that because the indie devs made the smart strategic decision to go to the platform with the higher install base first before they turned to XBO that now they have to go through all this red tape to be allowed to release on the system. No penalties because the two man team who made the astonishingly high quality product as a labor of true love decided they couldn't afford two platforms at once and so, due to superior policies and userbase, aimed at one with the intent always to expand as money pours in from the original release. It could be very well said that such a strategy is actually subsidizing more content for the gamers on these other platforms.
I've always said indies are one of the most important cornerstone in this industry, because they're filling it all the idiosyncratic niches that "AAA" developers ignore because the fans of such genres are too small or it's too risky. And because the indie developer of today can also turn into the "AAA" developer of the future, meaning those that treat them right now may very well be at a strategic advantage to secure important exclusive content in the future.
But here Microsoft is, trying to strong-arm vulnerable devs who are sometimes literally only a few months away from bankruptcy, and failing miserably at it. Now they have a fuckton less indie games due to, and it has neither helped their console secure more content nor has it made XBO owners feel like first class citizens (I can say that even more definitively now that I own one, not that I ever needed to own one to state this clear fact).
It's been a while since I've seen you post.
Glad to see you back weaponizing truth in the best of forms again.
It saddens me that this clause seems to have dropped off of the mass radar. It's never going to change at this rate.
boredandlazy
Member
We? You own an XBOne now?
It's just been a very hard month and a half for me, sorta drained my desire for posting (or doing anything online) too much. But I've been posting every now and then, just less frequently. Thanks for the compliment man
Chobel
Member
Thanks for your insights!
A great example of why this is a bad policy and how it should work is Bastion. Game never even made it to PS3, but SG decided to put it on PS4 a long while later. Did Sony demand a fresh version to allow it? Nope, and I would bet if they did, SG would not have bothered. Instead I got to play it and enjoy it.
Am I insulted I had to wait or not get exclusive content because I did? Nope, and I could care less. A game is better than no game.
Am I insulted I had to wait or not get exclusive content because I did? Nope, and I could care less. A game is better than no game.
Nightengale
Member
Not to mention Bastion wasn't just 'rolled out & dropped randomly' on a random week.
It got top-billing as one of the headliner games for the Spring Fever.
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
And Supergiant Games and Transistor happened, timed console exclusive for PS4 and one of the best games on the PS4 early into the systems life (and still today).
Fostering good relationships with companies, holding no grudges this can lead to all sorts of opportunities. Because putting indies first on 360 was the intelligent strategy last generation for the most part indies who had to make the difficult decision to focus on one platform over another should not have been penalized in the first place by one console manufacturer or another. But even if a developer chose to put their indie game first on some obscure platform that nobody even heard of except on hardcore gaming forums (let's say the indie game is some genius local multiplayer game involving bows and arrows and up to 4 players), there should still be no penalty for the title on any platform that accepts indies. It's common sense.
Microsoft is playing the game like they have any control over the market, but they're intentionally hurting developers for which opening a second revenue stream may sometimes mean the difference between o an indie staying open or it closing its doors forever. And Microsoft thinks it's no big deal to take already stressful, painfully overworked developers and add one more impediment in their path to bringing games to a platform, to perhaps force them to take that much longer to add an extra feature thus adding that much more already impossibly tight budgeting issues for these small indies.
Barkley's Justice
Member
When Fez was originally released on 360, however, there was this entire metagame going on online to decipher the hidden messages and stuff...If you weren't playing it during release week, you missed out on all that stuff. And with Fez, especially, it was all very interesting to be a part of.
I'm just saying...sometimes playing game "when they're hot" makes a difference. But a great game should ultimately be timeless, don't get me wrong.
Triggerhappytel
Member
It's just a shame that it no longer feels fresh. Even though I've never played it before, I feel cheated because I know it came out on other platforms years ago.
It's just been a very hard month and a half for me, sorta drained my desire for posting (or doing anything online) too much. But I've been posting every now and then, just less frequently. Thanks for the compliment man
Sorry to hear you've been having a rough go of things. Hope things turn out well. For what it's worth your absence has been noticed
As far as the subject at hand goes I think the results speak for themselves and no amount of repeating "it's no big deal" is going to change those results. Either be transparent or change the policy but for gods sake you have to stop pompously preaching how wrong everyone else is about the policy in question. It reeks of the same smug attitude that gave us "you just weren't ready for our vision of the future" during the DRM 180.
It's funny, but I always call you AmiRexNovis in my head these days
Hah! I'm flattered.
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
I started Bastion up on my friend's PS4 (we'd never played it before - couldn't wait!) and the fan suddenly went into overdrive and blew out a horrendous gas, some foul-smelling serous fluid spilled out of the drivebay, then the PS4 coughed, spluttered and died. I think the game had died and gone rotten by the time we got to it.
It's fresh, organic-only games for me from now on.
Nightengale
Member
I noe rite?
How dare Sony try to sell us Bastion like it's fresh spring vegetables!? Putting it so prominently is so misleading, like telling us it's new!