Support NeoGAF

[serversurfer]

I'm not fully up on this, but would like to read up on it.

I post about it at some length in just about every thread where parity comes up. lol

You can start with my first post in this thread, which links to the policy itself and a couple of articles where Ubi said they could only include PlayStation-specific features in their games if MS said it was okay. I don't know if he ever spoke about it as openly as Gerighty's slip-up, but here Ono seemed to be hinting that not supporting XBox was what finally allowed them to have cross-platform play between PS and PC.

Anyway, features and content are covered in the parity clause just like the launch date, with the same implications; if you make the competition look too appealing, you'll forfeit your XBox publishing privileges.

What's controversial about this? That we're not taking a principled stand against Xbox until this policy is gone?

Well, it's not so much about "principled stands." It's about not harming the industry, as you've said yourself. Microsoft use the parity policy to not only delay games, but also to veto features on rival platforms. Now, they don't really have the clout to give teeth to that policy today — unless you're a company like Ubisoft who already have millions invested in to the XBox version of your game, and therefore need to "avoid debates and stuff" — and that's why they're so eager to call you guys up and give you an exemption now. Plus, you've attracted some attention for this, so by calling you up and offering you an exemption, they paint themselves as perfectly reasonable and accommodating, both attracting more support to their platform in general and simultaneously discrediting anyone who claims they actually ran afoul of the policy. But again, it's just an exemption; they don't want to repeal the policy completely, because then they can't use it to hold back the competition later.

If MS tried to pressure you in to removing cross-platform play on PS/PC because it's disallowed on XBox, you might feel comfortable telling them to take their 10M users and fuck right off, but what if other developers start supporting them too, and their ranks grow to 30M, or even 50M? Will you still be comfortable saying you don't need them? Will your publisher? What if you've been developing both versions of your new game side by side, and shortly before release, your MS rep comes to you and says he's super duper sorry because he's totally on your side, but he couldn't get the Powers That Be to approve cross-platform play on the PlayStation?

So by taking your exemption and publishing on XBox, you make XBox more appealing, which leads to a larger user base, which gives MS more ability to stop granting exemptions — even to you, since you are agreeing to deliver parity, mind — and start being anti-competitive again. They're happy to tell you how they're not like that anymore, but they're not actually killing the parity clause; they're saving it for when it'll actually work. Does that explain the "controversy"? Sorry if I seem like I'm going a little overboard here, but I've been fuming about this policy for the better part of a decade now, because like you, I find it to be anti-competitive and damaging to both developers and gamers.

Ultimately it's not my call, but Autumn's. But at least on Twitter, there seem to be a lot of consumers that want to play our game on that platform, and I think giving them the game (if it makes financial sense to do so) is better than telling they should buy a platform with better policies.

I actually didn't know you guys had a publisher; I thought you were fully independent. I see what you're saying about not wanting to abandon any customers at all, but again, that's what give the parity clause its teeth. Ultimately, gamers will follow the games. It's still early in the generation, and there's a lot more people who haven't made their purchase than have. Ono's fans know where to find his game this generation. Developers do have some say in which platforms should be considered, you know. I think consumers are able to figure out which platform(s) the games they wanna play are on, and understand why games may not come to a certain platform.

We never got a response from Capcom. I approached them in person at PSX, and we tried multiple times to reach them through e-mail.

Well, that's unfortunate.

Oh, hey, not to change the subject or anything, but can you comment at all on how much time it takes to do a port, in terms of man-hours or whatever? Looks like you guys have a fair amount of experience with that? Am I correct in assuming it's not a trivial task, even on comparatively similar platforms?

 

[justsomeguy]

I don't understand why they lost your game "in the shuffle" in the first place. Don't they have account managers who are supposed to prevent this sort of slip up?

Yeah, agreed. It just shouldn't happen.

Glad sanity has prevailed though.

 

[virtualS]

Microsoft and anti competitive conduct? What else is new.

I have a feeling that when someone has the balls (or stupidity) to blow the lid on what went down last gen there will be rioting in the streets. There have been whiffs here and there but no full blown expose.

Microsoft and forced parity is not a new thing.

 

[Ravidrath]

Ono seemed to be hinting that not supporting XBox was what finally allowed them to have cross-platform play between PS and PC.

So I dont think this is actually related to parity, I think it's because Xbox Live is closed to the greater internet.

The only time they've opened up, that I'm aware, was for FFXI. And once they got their token FF game to build that initial relationship with Square, they closed it again. That's why FFXIV isn't on there - MS refused to budge on the thing they allowed the first time.

Also, and I'm totally guessing here, but SF5 has to roll its own servers and networking code to do cross-platform play. That's expensive. So I would not be surprised if Capcom is going to try to recoup the dev and operation costs through some kind of premium subscription, since microtransactions didn't work out for SFxT.

In the past, MS has wanted a cut of stuff like this, which would be another dealbreaker for Capcom.

Well, it's not so much about "principled stands." It's about not harming the industry, as you've said yourself. Microsoft use the parity policy to not only delay games, but also to veto features on rival platforms. Now, they don't really have the clout to give teeth to that policy today — unless you're a company like Ubisoft who already have millions invested in to the XBox version of your game, and therefore need to "avoid debates and stuff" — and that's why they're so eager to call you guys up and give you an exemption now. Plus, you've attracted some attention for this, so by calling you up and offering you an exemption, they paint themselves as perfectly reasonable and accommodating, both attracting more support to their platform in general and simultaneously discrediting anyone who claims they actually ran afoul of the policy. But again, it's just an exemption; they don't want to repeal the policy completely, because then they can't use it to hold back the competition later.

If MS tried to pressure you in to removing cross-platform play on PS/PC because it's disallowed on XBox, you might feel comfortable telling them to take their 10M users and fuck right off, but what if other developers start supporting them too, and their ranks grow to 30M, or even 50M? Will you still be comfortable saying you don't need them? Will your publisher? What if you've been developing both versions of your new game side by side, and shortly before release, your MS rep comes to you and says he's super duper sorry because he's totally on your side, but he couldn't get the Powers That Be to approve cross-platform play on the PlayStation?

So by taking your exemption and publishing on XBox, you make XBox more appealing, which leads to a larger user base, which gives MS more ability to stop granting exemptions — even to you, since you are agreeing to deliver parity, mind — and start being anti-competitive again. They're happy to tell you how they're not like that anymore, but they're not actually killing the parity clause; they're saving it for when it'll actually work. Does that explain the "controversy"? Sorry if I seem like I'm going a little overboard here, but I've been fuming about this policy for the better part of a decade now, because like you, I find it to be anti-competitive and damaging to both developers and gamers.

I get where you're at with this, but I it's not realistic for most devs to not go along with it in some fashion.

The policy is hurting MS and ultimately I think they're going to have to change it.

I was hanging out with a friend the other day who got an Xbox One and he was so pissed at the games not coming to the system. He considers it an oversized Roku at this point, and is thinking about selling it for a PS4. He's not industry, and he's not even hardcore, but he still feels it. And I feel like if he's feeling it, then a lot of gamers are and souring on their purchases, which will lead to bad word of mouth.

I actually didn't know you guys had a publisher; I thought you were fully independent.

Yeah, Autumn Games is our publisher. We were all laid off from Reverge Labs (the original developer of Skullgirls) because Autumn's finances were destroyed by its lawsuit with Konami over Def Jam Rapstar.

We funded the DLC through the IndieGoGo out of desperation and love for the game and our community, but Autumn owns the IP and is the publisher.

Oh, hey, not to change the subject or anything, but can you comment at all on how much time it takes to do a port, in terms of man-hours or whatever? Looks like you guys have a fair amount of experience with that? Am I correct in assuming it's not a trivial task, even on comparatively similar platforms?

It really depends on the platform.

The Vita is a bear to dev for, which is why it probably won't be simultaneous. PS4 is better, but it's still pretty different from the PS3. And we expect that going from 360 to Xbox One, should we decide to do it, will be easier because it's all based on DirectX.

I have no idea how many man-hours we've spent on the ports, in part because it's contracted out. We could've saved a lot of time if we had been able to get the same contractors that did the PC port, but they weren't available, so the new guys had to ramp up and learn the code from scratch.

I will say that between PS4/Vita ports and the new features, it's going to be a couple hundred grand.

 

[Neuromancer]

I'm glad you got through the red tape and are allowed to release on their platform. The policy still sucks though.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

With Microsoft allowing PC/XB1 cross-play with Windows 10, hpefully we will see them open up more regarding PC/console cross-play.

I know World of Tanks is saying they have 360/XB1 cross-play, cross-voice, and cross-accounts as everything is being done through the wargaming.net cloud.

I''m curious to see how (or if) Microsoft will open up some of their horribly outdated policies such as closing off PC/console cross-play. This is a good time for them to do it, but expect it to only work with games that are in the windows store. Small steps I guess

 

[serversurfer]

So I dont think this is actually related to parity, I think it's because Xbox Live is closed to the greater internet.

The only time they've opened up, that I'm aware, was for FFXI. And once they got their token FF game to build that initial relationship with Square, they closed it again. That's why FFXIV isn't on there - MS refused to budge on the thing they allowed the first time.

Also, and I'm totally guessing here, but SF5 has to roll its own servers and networking code to do cross-platform play. That's expensive. So I would not be surprised if Capcom is going to try to recoup the dev and operation costs through some kind of premium subscription, since microtransactions didn't work out for SFxT.

In the past, MS has wanted a cut of stuff like this, which would be another deal breaker for Capcom.

Well, the servers are needed regardless, so I'm not sure why it would be significantly more expensive to let all of the users talk to each other instead of walling them off. Can you explain?

If your argument that this is all simply about expense rather than feature parity, then what about Endwar? Gerighty said they'd already implemented the gesture controls on PS3 — so not only were they willing to spend that money, they already had — but he still needed Microsoft's permission to include it, and oops, he actually wasn't even allowed to tell us the feature existed at all. It was never spoken of again, to my knowledge. I agree you kinda need to be in the know about the parity clause and read between the lines to see how it may have affected Street Fighter in years passed, but Gerighty was quite clear on how this stuff worked, specifically using the term "feature parity" to explain why he had to clear the PlayStation feature with Microsoft before he could include it. He actually said he was fairly confident he could get an exemption for the feature, but apparently he'd also gotten enough vetoes in the past that it was worth mentioning. And again, the feature was never spoken of apart from this slip-up.

So it certainly seems like feature parity is handled just like launch parity; if MS decide you need to hold back on the PS version of your game, either you do, or you say goodbye to the XB users. By bringing Skullgirls to the Bone, you're just helping to ensure devs have even more users to write off. Or more accurately, you're helping to ensure devs are "forced" to comply with Microsoft's anti-competitive demands.

I get where you're at with this, but I it's not realistic for most devs to not go along with it in some fashion.

The policy is hurting MS and ultimately I think they're going to have to change it.

I was hanging out with a friend the other day who got an Xbox One and he was so pissed at the games not coming to the system. He considers it an oversized Roku at this point, and is thinking about selling it for a PS4. He's not industry, and he's not even hardcore, but he still feels it. And I feel like if he's feeling it, then a lot of gamers are and souring on their purchases, which will lead to bad word of mouth.

Well, that's sorta my point here. Instead of changing the policy, they're offering blanket exemptions, hoping to lure developers such as yourself to their platform, which increases the platform's appeal, meaning less motivation for MS to offer future exemptions and more power to veto things happening on rival platforms.

Your friend is dissatisfied with the lack of games on the Bone. Would he find the platform more appealing if he found out it was now going to get Skullgirls? What about SFV, or DQH, or any of the other games not available on the Bone? Do you suspect your friend is alone in this regard? He finds the platform unappealing because developers aren't supporting it. With increased dev support comes increased appeal and install base, which then means fewer exemptions for devs. Again, they're not abandoning the policy; just granting exemptions while they try to build their installed base. Simply by virtue of signing on with MS, you explicitly agree to handicap rival platforms at their whim. But they'd totally never actually do that again, right?

It really depends on the platform.

The Vita is a bear to dev for, which is why it probably won't be simultaneous. PS4 is better, but it's still pretty different from the PS3. And we expect that going from 360 to Xbox One, should we decide to do it, will be easier because it's all based on DirectX.

I have no idea how many man-hours we've spent on the ports, in part because it's contracted out. We could've saved a lot of time if we had been able to get the same contractors that did the PC port, but they weren't available, so the new guys had to ramp up and learn the code from scratch.

I will say that between PS4/Vita ports and the new features, it's going to be a couple hundred grand.

Thanks for your input. <3 How does that figure compare to the cost of developing the original game? Does doing the port side-by-side with the original make the overall project easier, or harder? Why did you guys contract the ports instead of doing them yourself?

 

[Ravidrath]

Well, the servers are needed regardless, so I'm not sure why it would be significantly more expensive to let all of the users talk to each other instead of walling them off. Can you explain?

Normally, MP on PSN and XBLA are handled on MS and Sony's servers. In order to do PS/PC play, Capcom is going to have to run and maintain its own external servers instead of using the standard PSN architecture and networking libraries.

If your argument that this is all simply about expense rather than feature parity, then what about Endwar?

I need to read this thing before I can speak to it intelligently. I'm going to guess that the standards for this stuff is higher on higher retail profile titles than for indie games, though, because those are the things MS sees as system sellers.

Thanks for your input. <3 How does that figure compare to the cost of developing the original game? Does doing the port side-by-side with the original make the overall project easier, or harder? Why did you guys contract the ports instead of doing them yourself?

The original vanilla Skullgirls developed at Reverge Labs cost around $1.7M.

Porting alongside is probably easier for porting, since you have everyone familiar with the code, but it also likely adds time to the overall product schedule. Which means if you're spending more time on the game internally for programming purposes, you also have additional time you need to pay the rest of the team (art, etc.) that aren't working on the port. So I'd say contracting out ports is "safer" from a cashflow perspective.

And we contract out right now because our only programmer is MikeZ. Who is also the designer. And is already completely overwhelmed. And we couldn't keep a port-capable programmer on the payroll long-term right now anyway.

 

[Goodacre0081]

Ultimately it's not my call, but Autumn's. But at least on Twitter and FaceBook, there seem to be a lot of people that want to play our game on the Xbox One, and I think giving them the game (if it makes financial sense to do so) is better than telling they should buy a platform with better policies.

I find it crazy that the XB1 userbase isn't more up in arms about this. you would think they would move on this like they did with the DRM/always-on fiasco. actually this seems like it would be an easier hing to have changed.

 

[Ravidrath]

I find it crazy that the XB1 userbase isn't more up in arms about this. you would think they would move on this like they did with the DRM/always-on fiasco. actually this seems like it would be an easier hing to have changed.

Yeah, I don't understand it at all.

There was even a reply today to my Tweet at Phil Spencer:

don't end it... Doest that stop indies from flooding the marketplace... Like some other console are......

I really don't understand why people are against having more games and more on their platform.

A marketplace flooded with games is a good thing. And it's not like it could ever turn into an iOS / Android situation, just because the standards for publishing on consoles are much higher than that on phones.

 

[dehalcyone]

It seems like some people are worried more indie games = fewer big budget titles. Which is asinine.

Indie games and ports of indie games, especially native to pc, can be created quicker depending on who's involved, which makes it seem like there's an off ratio of aaa:aa titles. The reality is, the big name studio projects are coming, prolly en mass for holiday sales.

 

[Ravidrath]

It seems like some people are worried more indie games = fewer big budget titles. Which is asinine.

Yeah, it's not like digital marketplace slots are a finite resource that must be conserved.

And while they think they may not like indie games, it's not like they have to buy them. So why do they want to limit other peoples' choices?

 

[dehalcyone]

When you put it that way it sounds incredibly selfish.

I dunno though. Makes no sense.

 

[Justified]

Yeah, it's not like digital marketplace slots are a finite resource that must be conserved.

And while they think they may not like indie games, it's not like they have to buy them. So why do they want to limit other peoples' choices?

Yea I dont understand that, just like how some people defend not have the option for online voice chat in co-op games. They would rather not have it vs a mute option

 

[boredandlazy]

Yeah, I don't understand it at all.

There was even a reply today to my Tweet at Phil Spencer:



I really don't understand why people are against having more games and more on their platform.

A marketplace flooded with games is a good thing. And it's not like it could ever turn into an iOS / Android situation, just because the standards for publishing on consoles are much higher than that on phones.

It really just has to be some moronic form of Stockholm Syndrome. These sorts of people have just blindly accepted the 'First Class Citizen' narrative that Microsoft pushed without even thinking for themselves. It's unfortunately not out of line with other typical console warrior behaviour to be honest though(from both sides of the fence).

 

[mrklaw]

Yeah, I don't understand it at all.

There was even a reply today to my Tweet at Phil Spencer:



I really don't understand why people are against having more games and more on their platform.

A marketplace flooded with games is a good thing. And it's not like it could ever turn into an iOS / Android situation, just because the standards for publishing on consoles are much higher than that on phones.

I saw that twitter reply. I don't get it either. MS came out in public support of self-publishing. To me that means no restrictions on what you release, other than the technical requirements. If you curate, you're basically just doing a retread of last gen. If that is what you want to do, fine. But then say so.

My problem with the current situation is that MS appear to be trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to appear to be open to self publishing for the smaller indies, but only on their terms. You can't have both.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

Well ya can't say MS didn't learn from the XB1 DRM debacle. If ya don't talk about the specifics of the policies, its easy to characterize them as "no big deal." Go into specifics and you lose the ability to defend them.

 

[Goodacre0081]

It seems like some people are worried more indie games = fewer big budget titles. Which is asinine.

Indie games and ports of indie games, especially native to pc, can be created quicker depending on who's involved, which makes it seem like there's an off ratio of aaa:aa titles. The reality is, the big name studio projects are coming, prolly en mass for holiday sales.

that mindset is actually evident on the PS YouTube channel too. while the majority give lots of support for indie games and the devs, you have a number of people complaining that they want AAA games instead. It's odd but maybe they just don't understand how it all works, and that goes for the XB1 userbase too.

 

[serversurfer]

Normally, MP on PSN and XBLA are handled on MS and Sony's servers. In order to do PS/PC play, Capcom is going to have to run and maintain its own external servers instead of using the standard PSN architecture and networking libraries.

Right on. I was under the impression that most multi-player was P2P these days, so all the dev really needed to provide was matchmaking. Obviously, Capcom would need to roll their own matchmaking on PC — or contract a 3rd-party service — but once they added the ability to pass PlayStation IPs back and forth with PC users, it seems like it would be fairly trivial to nab IPs from XBox. Even if for some reason they really can afford it only on PlayStation — or if the vagaries of Live actually prevent it — the parity clause would explain why we never saw the feature on PlayStation prior to now.

I need to read this thing before I can speak to it intelligently. I'm going to guess that the standards for this stuff is higher on higher retail profile titles than for indie games, though, because those are the things MS sees as system sellers.

Please do, because with the NDA, this is likely the closest we'll ever come to having a smoking gun regarding feature parity. The articles are short, but between the two, Gerighty gives a fairly clear explanation of what he's up against, especially when you compare what he says with the full parity clause leaked by Eurogamer three years later.

With regard to your point about parity being even more important to MS when it comes to AAA games, that's actually another point I've been trying to drive home in these threads. lol It kinda chaps my ass when I see people refer to this as the "indy launch parity clause," because in fact, it's a blanket parity clause that covers all development on the platform, from indy to AAA. Most people seem to think the worst possible result from the parity clause would be tiny games getting delayed on PlayStation, but in fact, this clause can and does cause innovative features to be cut from AAA games. If you make PlayStation look "too good" — as determined by MS — you may lose your XBox publishing privileges, no matter how big you are.

This actually gets back to the point I was making about you getting an exemption now; right now, you're fairly inconsequential

Spoiler

<3

, but the irony is, as you become more influential in the industry — and attract more users to XBox — you'll actually have less freedom to do as you please. Well, if you choose to support Microsoft and their anti-competitive behavior, that is. Don't work with them, and you'll always be free to do whatever you like (within reason, of course).

The original vanilla Skullgirls developed at Reverge Labs cost around $1.7M.

Porting alongside is probably easier for porting, since you have everyone familiar with the code, but it also likely adds time to the overall product schedule. Which means if you're spending more time on the game internally for programming purposes, you also have additional time you need to pay the rest of the team (art, etc.) that aren't working on the port. So I'd say contracting out ports is "safer" from a cashflow perspective.

And we contract out right now because our only programmer is MikeZ. Who is also the designer. And is already completely overwhelmed. And we couldn't keep a port-capable programmer on the payroll long-term right now anyway.

Thanks for the insight! <3

Yeah, I don't understand it at all.

There was even a reply today to my Tweet at Phil Spencer:



I really don't understand why people are against having more games and more on their platform.

A marketplace flooded with games is a good thing. And it's not like it could ever turn into an iOS / Android situation, just because the standards for publishing on consoles are much higher than that on phones.

I'm guessing that's largely due to purchase justification/sour grapes. Basically, XBox owners — with a little prompting from Team Green, naturally — have convinced themselves that not only do games like yours not count, "padding" your library with them is downright shameful. Personally, AAA is generally my least-favorite development tier. lol

 

[mrklaw]

that mindset is actually evident on the PS YouTube channel too. while the majority give lots of support for indie games and the devs, you have a number of people complaining that they want AAA games instead. It's odd but maybe they just don't understand how it all works, and that goes for the XB1 userbase too.

If all those indie teams stopped making individual games, they could clump together into a Megazord and make Shenmue III

 

[Prototype Viktor]

Yeah, it's not like digital marketplace slots are a finite resource that must be conserved.

And while they think they may not like indie games, it's not like they have to buy them. So why do they want to limit other peoples' choices?

Can't rationalize with people who most likely went through 5+ 360's and their only indie game played was Bastion

 

[serversurfer]

*wonders what happened to Ravidrath*

 

[W.S.]

I'm guessing that's largely due to purchase justification/sour grapes. Basically, XBox owners — with a little prompting from Team Green, naturally — have convinced themselves that not only do games like yours not count, "padding" your library with them is downright shameful. Personally, AAA is generally my least-favorite development tier. lol

Well that's certainly a sweeping generalization.

 

[Abdiel]

Well that's certainly a sweeping generalization.

It's definitely an over-generalization, though I suspect there's some truth to the sentiment, though. From what we see at retail with the extremely limited scope of purchasing trends by XB1 owners there, and the commentary/mindset that seems to carry across regarding the perception of indie games on the platform.

I don't really get it, but there's also comments like what Rav said other indie devs have told him, where they don't sell very well on the platform.

I hope that the perception/impression changes/ends up being wrong, because having a fanbase that shows no interest in expanding their options would be a real shame.

 

[W.S.]

I can't see how any XBO owners wouldn't want more games on the console. More games equals a bigger library and wider diversity on top of potentially better GwG or Deals with Gold instead of the same damn games every month. You'd have to be a crazy person to not want the platform to grow.

The sad thing is that XBO's social integration of the games would be a total boon to indy's. People can get an impression of the game through the twitch integration, upload studio, the trending bar, and gamehubs which can only help spread the word better.

With regards to your store, I've switched to all digital so I don't shop at stores unless it's hardware/point card related so maybe there's some correlation to be had there?

 

[tuxfool]

I can't see how any XBO owners wouldn't want more games on the console.

There have been a few that have done just that. Even on this forum. There are also plenty of xb1 owners that do want all games, but as the other poster stated that there is some truth to the fact that there are xb1 owners that don't see more indies as beneficial. It also is my perception (perhaps in error) that Sony does a far greater job of promoting indie titles in general than MS.

 

[serversurfer]

Well that's certainly a sweeping generalization.

Sorry, I was referring to people who say stuff like Ravidrath quoted. Nothing applies to everyone, but it's certainly not the first time I've heard such sentiments.

I can't see how any XBO owners wouldn't want more games on the console. More games equals a bigger library and wider diversity on top of potentially better GwG or Deals with Gold instead of the same damn games every month. You'd have to be a crazy person to not want the platform to grow.

Right, that's what I was trying to explain. How someone becomes "crazy" enough to say they hope their platform gets fewer games. They think MS are just separating the wheat from the chaff for them.

 

[Abdiel]

There have been a few that have done just that. Even on this forum. There are also plenty of xb1 owners that do want all games, but as the other poster stated that there is some truth to the fact that there are xb1 owners that don't see more indies as beneficial. It also is my perception (perhaps in error) that Sony does a far greater job of promoting indie titles in general than MS.

It's a really weird trend I've seen; largely online, but sometimes from customers in store, where people talk about the XB1 as though it were better off by not having as many games, specifically less indies. Server's statement was sweeping, and he clarified below, but there's some truth to the larger attitude I've seen expressed around the net.

I can't see how any XBO owners wouldn't want more games on the console. More games equals a bigger library and wider diversity on top of potentially better GwG or Deals with Gold instead of the same damn games every month. You'd have to be a crazy person to not want the platform to grow.

The sad thing is that XBO's social integration of the games would be a total boon to indy's. People can get an impression of the game through the twitch integration, upload studio, the trending bar, and gamehubs which can only help spread the word better.

With regards to your store, I've switched to all digital so I don't shop at stores unless it's hardware/point card related so maybe there's some correlation to be had there?

Like I said, I agree with you, that it seems a ridiculous thing to say the don't want as many games, especially indies, as though the XB1 is better off for having less. And yet, the term "Indiestation 4" has had plenty of play around the internet, especially on youtube, and even things like the xbox reddit.

It IS crazy to want less games. In store, I have had customers purchasing XB1 games/hardware talk about how the Playstation has so many 'crappy indie games' or 'too many small games'. I can't really lecture customers, but I've tried to gently point out that the 360 was the system with the indie boon last generation. At least one of them replied with surprise, that they didn't know that at all. This isn't some kind of majority, as most of the customers buying those games don't talk about playstation at all, but the fact that I've had it expressed away from the polarizing effect of the internet, still stands out.

Maybe that's part of it? That the people aware and interested in indie titles have largely left the 360 for either PC or PS4, knowing that that would be the best market for them? That's purely speculation, and I make no claim of any serious knowledge there.

It's just weird, and I hope it doesn't become a lasting trend. Even if the XB1 never becomes successful to the same level as the PS4, I'd like to know that the devs that make the investment of time and money to put their efforts on the system are able to be successful.

 

[Neuromancer]

I've been playing Ziggurat on PS4, a game that came out two months ago on Xbox One. I'd say I'm enjoying it except that I can't help but feel like a second or maybe even a third class citizen. The small development team weren't even forced to shoehorn Nathan Drake or a Helghast in anywhere to freshen it up if you can believe that.

 

[BabyFaceKillah]

I've been playing Ziggurat on PS4, a game that came out two months ago on Xbox One. I'd say I'm enjoying it except that I can't help but feel like a second or maybe even a third class citizen. The small development team weren't even forced to shoehorn Nathan Drake or a Helghast in anywhere to freshen it up if you can believe that.

but im sure you will enjoy playing as Shu, Galahad, and Journey in Super time force.

 

[Abdiel]

but im sure you will enjoy playing as Shu, Galahad, and Journey in Super time force.

While it's cool that the dev decided to do that, it also isn't required that they add those things to launch the game on Sony platforms. What Neuro is saying that his enjoyment of the game isn't dependent on those little bonuses being added, he's just glad he is getting to play the game, which is the best attitude, I feel.

 

[kyser73]

Anyone reckon 'PS4 has too many small gamez' could replace 'PS4 has no games '?

 

[Nightengale]

Anyone reckon 'PS4 has too many small gamez' could replace 'PS4 has no games '?

I remember reading on 4chan a while back that 'less small games on Xbox' will surely mean that Games with Gold will get retail games earlier than PS4, and that PS4's 'too many small gamez' will make Sony complacent and rely on those games for PS+, and we'll never get retail games.

Which is a laugh looking at Xbox's recycling of Games with Gold.

 

[disastermouse]

It seems like some people are worried more indie games = fewer big budget titles. Which is asinine.

Indirectly it could. As gamers' time is split between more and more products, each gamer buys a smaller amount of the total number of games made. That means that some games may be left out for reasons related to time instead of quality.

 

[Ravidrath]

I'm guessing that's largely due to purchase justification/sour grapes.

Yeah, I think this is the source of all system wars throughout the ages - people feeling bad because the system they bought didn't get a game or something they wanted.

But this is the first time I can think of where proponents of one system as actively demanding fewer games on their platform out of spite for the other one.

Indirectly it could. As gamers' time is split between more and more products, each gamer buys a smaller amount of the total number of games made. That means that some games may be left out for reasons related to time instead of quality.

This is extremely unlikely.

I think the best way to think of this is TV and movies, with people playing indie games between the big tentpole releases. TV these days is generally more interesting and risk-taking than most movies, but there are still big mass-appeal blockbusters every now and then.

And, like with TV and movies, I think if people are going to play fewer AAA games because of indies, it's because they're bored of what AAA games have become. And that is a totally fair and necessary market signal.

AAA games cost more and take longer to develop than ever before, which has also made publishers extremely risk-averse when it comes to content and gameplay. Which, in the longer term, is risky because it means that AAA games are increasingly feeling the same.

But I think you'll also see good indie games start inspiring more AAA games with their gameplay, and then get the AAA treatment from there.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

i don't fuks with no indie's mayne. I holdin out fo that No Man's Sky, Drifter, Cactus thingermajig, Mañana Children, and shhite like that ymasayin

 

[Abdiel]

Yeah, I think this is the source of all system wars throughout the ages - people feeling bad because the system they bought didn't get a game or something they wanted.

But this is the first time I can think of where proponents of one system as actively demanding fewer games on their platform out of spite for the other one.




This is extremely unlikely.

I think the best way to think of this is TV and movies, with people playing indie games between the big tentpole releases. TV these days is generally more interesting and risk-taking than most movies, but there are still big mass-appeal blockbusters every now and then.

And, like with TV and movies, I think if people are going to play fewer AAA games because of indies, it's because they're bored of what AAA games have become. And that is a totally fair and necessary market signal.

AAA games cost more and take longer to develop than ever before, which has also made publishers extremely risk-averse when it comes to content and gameplay. Which, in the longer term, is risky because it means that AAA games are increasingly feeling the same.

But I think you'll also see good indie games start inspiring more AAA games with their gameplay, and then get the AAA treatment from there.

As I said in my statement before, it's so weird to me that such a weird narrative has spread so far, that I've even encountered it away from the internet, with real customers commenting on this "theory".

And honestly, it's really frustrating too, because even though I don't have an XB1, acting like having less indie games is somehow a victory for your system in the 'console war' is so inane and idiotic, because it helps NO ONE.

Devs don't get the extra revenue streams, it further discourages other devs from wanting to invest, existing devs are less likely to see success when they do publish on the platform, and gamers end up losing chances for unique games on their system of choice. It's just stupid all the way around.

 

[Nightengale]

Yeah, I think this is the source of all system wars throughout the ages - people feeling bad because the system they bought didn't get a game or something they wanted.

But this is the first time I can think of where proponents of one system as actively demanding fewer games on their platform out of spite for the other one.

Well, we're in the era of the internet now.

I'm pretty confident that if social media were as big in the PS1/2 era as it is now, we'll have a vocal community of fans who'll be defending Sony's dismissive attitude towards 2D games on said platforms, because of reasons.

 

[Ravidrath]

Well, we're in the era of the internet now.

I'm pretty confident that if social media were as big in the PS1/2 era as it is now, we'll have a vocal community of fans who'll be defending Sony's dismissive attitude towards 2D games on said platforms, because of reasons.

We had the internet then, and they did.

 

[FyreWulff]

Yeah, Sony got roasted on the internet over their anti-2D policies.

But it was the PS2, so they were like "that's nice, we just sold another million during lunch break so wutevs"

 

[Neuromancer]

but im sure you will enjoy playing as Shu, Galahad, and Journey in Super time force.

If I were interested in Super Time Force (I'm not, I played the demo on the 360 and it wasn't my cup of tea) maybe I would. It wouldn't influence my buying decision though. And the bigger point is not having those extras, that in some cases it sounds like MS is demanding, doesn't bother me and shouldn't bother any rational person.

 

[Fox Mulder]

There have been a few that have done just that. Even on this forum. There are also plenty of xb1 owners that do want all games, but as the other poster stated that there is some truth to the fact that there are xb1 owners that don't see more indies as beneficial. It also is my perception (perhaps in error) that Sony does a far greater job of promoting indie titles in general than MS.

There's just a real lack of communication and promotion from MS this gen regarding indie games. MS made a big deal on the 360 with the annual Summer of Arcade promotion that pushed games like Bastion, Limbo, Trials HD, Braid, Castle Crashers, Shadow Complex, and Brothers.

Now games seemingly drop from nowhere unless you read forums or twitter and there's no demos to sell people on $20 games they've never heard of.

 

[Ravidrath]

There's just a real lack of communication and promotion from MS this gen regarding indie games. MS made a big deal on the 360 with the annual Summer of Arcade promotion that pushed games like Bastion, Limbo, Trials HD, Braid, Castle Crashers, Shadow Complex, and Brothers.

Now games seemingly drop from nowhere unless you read forums or twitter and there's no demos to sell people on $20 games they've never heard of.

Yeah, MS's marketing in general is way behind Sony's now. What you are describing could explain why indies aren't selling as well - just a lack of awareness by less hardcore people.

The PS.Blog is a great platform for Sony and indies to advertise and talk about their games. It's really excellent that devs get to write and respond to their own posts. And getting on there is pretty easy - just like with a media site, you just need to give them something exclusively for a day. And anything you put up there will likely get a lot of additional pick-up, too.

The closest thing MS has is Major Nelson, which was a good start when the 360 launched, but they never evolved it any further.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

if for some reason i haven't heard of a game dropping the PS store, the email or the blog will end up showing it to me at least a day before it drops. How would someone find out passively MS stuff outside of following Major on twitter/Giant Bomb?

 

[Fox Mulder]

if for some reason i haven't heard of a game dropping the PS store, the email or the blog will end up showing it to me at least a day before it drops. How would someone find out passively MS stuff outside of following Major on twitter/Giant Bomb?

A game might be featured on the dashboard, or get a trailer on the Xbox YouTube channel.

 

[Somnia]

There's also The Xbox Wire. http://news.Xbox.com

 

[LewieP]

I suspect that the reason that a smaller proportion of the Xbox One userbase buy indie games is because any customers wanting to buy a console that would have lots of indie games available for it bought a PS4 instead.

 

[Ge0force]

We live in a world with Steam - any first party anything, including cert testing and TRCs, is going to feel onerous next to Steam. So any time you're adding more demands to devs, you're making Steam look more and more attractive by comparison.

Then why didn't you dicide to release your game on Steam first? I mean, if Steam is the most attractive platform, shouldn't it be "rewarded" that way?

I know that Valve doesn't give you the marketing that Sony can give you. But as Cities Skylines proved recently, good games don't need marketing on pc.

So I'm curious, is marketing the main reason for releasing first on PS4? Or are there other reasons like better sales on console or piracy on pc?

I own both PS4 and games-pc, but I prefer buying (indie) games on Steam so I don't have to buy them again when there's a new hardware generation.

 

[Ravidrath]

Then why didn't you dicide to release your game on Steam first? I mean, if Steam is the most attractive platform, shouldn't it be "rewarded" that way?

I know that Valve doesn't give you the marketing that Sony can give you. But as Cities Skylines proved recently, good games don't need marketing on pc.

So I'm curious, is marketing the main reason for releasing first on PS4? Or are there other reasons like better sales on console or piracy on pc?

I own both PS4 and games-pc, but I prefer buying (indie) games on Steam so I don't have to buy them again when there's a new hardware generation.

Skullgirls has been out on Steam for nearly two years now, and will probably be putting the extra content in the PS4 release out as DLC for that.

We didn't release on there initially because the dev team (Reverge Labs) didn't have the manpower to launch on three platforms at once, and there was some concern that there wasn't an audience for fighters at the time. The plan was to start on the Steam version as soon as the console releases were out, but Autumn ran out of money because of their legal battle with Konami over Def Jam Rap Star, and we were all laid off instead.

When I reformed the team as Lab Zero, Autumn had found a publishing partner to fund the development of the Steam port, Marvelous. So we contracted that out while we internally finished the first character funded by our Indiegogo campaign.

 

[W.S.]

There's just a real lack of communication and promotion from MS this gen regarding indie games. MS made a big deal on the 360 with the annual Summer of Arcade promotion that pushed games like Bastion, Limbo, Trials HD, Braid, Castle Crashers, Shadow Complex, and Brothers.

Now games seemingly drop from nowhere unless you read forums or twitter and there's no demos to sell people on $20 games they've never heard of.

Not true, the dashboard advertises indy's in several tiles:

Since ID@Xbox's been established indy's have also been featured on MS's Youtube channel, Xbox Wire, and their newsletter *e-mails:

*Hopefully the image linking works