Support NeoGAF

[twobear]

And they'll almost certainly lose games because of it, which is why they should drop the clause. Right now, I would imagine most indie devs would be prioritising the PS4, due to being the more popular console and having the more established support infrastructure for indies. Ultimately, as far as indies are concerned Microsoft is behind, and they don't need the millstone of the parity clause around their neck.

I don't think MS care, or they'd never put it there in the first place.

 

[Unknown One]

Crash and burn as long as you have that Parity Clause. MS loves to throw a middle finger to gamers that doesn't buy their platforms.

 

[soul creator]

I wonder if this policy will still apply when they do the "retail Xbox as devkit" thing.

Does Apple/Google/MS (on the Windows Store) do anything like this for their app stores? This type of policy would seem pointless if all you have to do is buy a regular ass Xbox and PC and then pay a yearly fee to do all your development. But from the perspective of "we have to manually ship you hardware", it sorta kinda makes sense to be more selective (though it still has obvious drawbacks)

All of the id@xbox stuff in general though seems really...stopgappy, lol

 

[Skilletor]

I don't think MS care, or they'd never put it there in the first place.

I wouldn't consider a lot of the decisions MS has made about the XB1 particularly well-thought out, so I wouldn't jump to the conclusion you've reached. Far more likely that they thought their console would be the go-to console and that indie devs wouldn't have the option of going to other platforms and missing out on the XB1 userbase.

 

[skitzyzim]

Holy shit! Some people are defending this?

For me it's not a matter of defending the practice. My thought is that MS won't change it because it doesn't benefit them. In fact it may prove to do the opposite if they don't try to enforce parity. The big thing I see with this practice on this thread on a few others that have preceeded it, it that the developers aren't screaming about it en mass. If it is as huge of a problem that some make it out to be why aren't more developers speaking out about it?

 

[coolasj19]

Really? I'm a shill now? Grow up. I've been gaming since the 1980s, and being almost 40 I understand that the world, especially the corporate world, doesn't revolve around what I think is right or wrong. It revolves around money. So you need to check your accusations. .

Also being an adult with a good job has allowed me the ability to own a PS3, 360, XB1, and a gaming PC. I'll pick up a PS4 when they publish some games that I actually want to play. Make no mistake I don't have a console warrior vested interest in any one platform.

As for the rest of your comments you are completely wrong. IT ABSOLUTLEY IS MS's decision as to what they do or don't allow on their platform. They invested the millions of dollars in the development and production of their console and infastructure, and they are able to make the terms for indie publishers to have access to it. When you invest millions of your own dollars to create a gaming platform you will be able to make whatever rules you want, but those of us who live in the real world realize that all business deals have terms.

Fine. But don't say this is good for consumers. Because in my opinion all the negatives that come with it, piled against some dumb positive of "at least it comes out at the same time as the other console" , don't add up to a net gain for anyone that has only purchased and Xbox One. It is a purchase that every individual person is in their right to make, but this doesn't help anyone sway that decision over to the Xbox One camp.

Spoiler

Trying to find some way to say you type like your forty without be snarky. But there it is. Not a dig, but I found it interesting you type like other people I know around that age speak.

For me it's not a matter of defending the practice. My thought is that MS won't change it because it doesn't benefit them. In fact it may prove to do the opposite if they don't try to enforce parity. The big thing I see with this practice on this thread on a few others that have preceeded it, it that the developers aren't screaming about it en mass. If it is as huge of a problem that some make it out to be why aren't more developers speaking out about it?

Plenty developers are. They always have. There's articles just like this one listing Twitter quotes and responses about not liking the parity clause. There's responses where the parity clause has a direct source of games being delayed. There's even developers that have gone on recorded saying because of it then can not or will not publish on the platform. It's a well documented problem that's long boiled over here at GAF because we keep coming to the conclusion that it's not a fight that us consumers can have a heavy hand in. This is the developers fight.

 

[Delusibeta]

I don't think MS care, or they'd never put it there in the first place.

That's true, but I suspect that pretty much all of Microsoft's policies have been on the assumption that they're going to dominate the market (for example, the parity clause makes sense if it was essential for developers to put the game on the Xbone, and there's little evidence to suggest that is actually the case). In either case, I think this policy will hurt Microsoft in the long run ("no gaems").

 

[skitzyzim]

Fine. But don't say this is good for consumers. Because in my opinion all the negatives that come with it, piled against some dumb positive of "at least it comes out at the same time as the other console" , don't add up to a net gain for anyone that has only purchased and Xbox One. It is a purchase that every individual person is in their right to make, but this doesn't help anyone sway that decision over to the Xbox One camp.

Spoiler

Trying to find some way to say you type like your forty without be snarky. But there it is. Not a dig, but I found it interesting you type like other people I know around that age speak.

I never said it was good for consumers, I said it was good for MS. As for the almost 40 thing.. no offense taken here. Age adds a broader perspective, something I think these boards at times lack. The world rarely works the way we believe it should.

I read the some of the other threads on here including the one when this practice was actually found out about on here. While a handful of developers have expressed dislike of this clause, it was not a huge of an out cry as some have made it. The outcry has mostly come from people who lack the authority to truely speak on it. I have no idea what the contract explicitly says, or how MS is willing to work with develpers who found themselves with ready to publish games on the PS4 who also wanted to publish on the XB1. Honestly, I doubt very few, if anybody on here actually does.

 

[Skilletor]

I never said it was good for consumers, I said it was good for MS. As for the almost 40 thing.. no offense taken here. Age adds a broader perspective, something I think these boards at times lack. The world rarely works the way we believe it should.

How is it good for MS if they get less games?

 

[Cave Johnson]

Well being as I have an x1 I'm happy that games will release the same time as everyone else. I dont have to worry about a game coming out months after others have played it.

As a ps4 owner you should be asking Sony why this is allowed to happen. It's a business tactic and MS is protecting their product.

You really feel like you're entitled to games. Tell me how and why the developers (indies in general) should be subject to you or your core interest? If anything, the exact opposite as about to happen since more developers aren't willing to support such a clause. I wouldn't feel sorry for you since you willingly constrict yourself to the whims of a company's venture.

 

[Delusibeta]

As I understand it, Strike Suit Zero Director's Cut releases on both the Xbone and the PS4 this week. If the PS4 version destroys the Xbone version in terms of sales, then the pressure to drop the release parity clause will increase. Indeed, if there's a trend of the ID@Xbox games getting outsold by their Playstation counterparts, I wouldn't be too surprised if the release parity clause is dropped this year in order to prevent the scheme from being abandoned.

[Edit] I guess skitzyzim was banned for being a shill.

 

[bishoptl]

Holy shit! Some people are defending this?

Post history explains all

 

[PhatSaqs]

So skityzim.......shilling? Lol

 

[twobear]

I wouldn't consider a lot of the decisions MS has made about the XB1 particularly well-thought out, so I wouldn't jump to the conclusion you've reached. Far more likely that they thought their console would be the go-to console and that indie devs wouldn't have the option of going to other platforms and missing out on the XB1 userbase.

That's true, but I suspect that pretty much all of Microsoft's policies have been on the assumption that they're going to dominate the market (for example, the parity clause makes sense if it was essential for developers to put the game on the Xbone, and there's little evidence to suggest that is actually the case). In either case, I think this policy will hurt Microsoft in the long run ("no gaems").

I don't think MS just assumed they would dominate the market and built their policy accordingly. MS's general strategy with indies has always been to try and choose winners. Launch parity clause is part of that.

Unlike Sony, MS clearly do not think that the 'halo effect' of having good indie policies and a lot of indie games is as beneficial to them as the possibility of securing 12 months exclusivity of the next Minecraft. They're two fundamentally different ways of thinking about the indie ecosystem and how to make value for the consumer.

[edit] and there you go, MS are still paying people to claim that the parity clause is good. Zero intention of dropping it.

 

[Skilletor]

I don't think MS just assumed they would dominate the market and built their policy accordingly. MS's general strategy with indies has always been to try and choose winners. Launch parity clause is part of that.

Unlike Sony, MS clearly do not think that the 'halo effect' of having good indie policies and a lot of indie games is as beneficial to them as the possibility of securing 12 months exclusivity of the next Minecraft. They're two fundamentally different ways of thinking about the indie ecosystem and how to make value for the consumer.

Eh, them saying that the clause will be on a case by case basis would be them trying to choose a winner. I see the policy as MS just assuming the previous generation would play out similarly to the last.

 

[twobear]

Eh, them saying that the clause will be on a case by case basis would be them trying to choose a winner. I see the policy as MS just assuming the previous generation would play out similarly to the last.

But ID@Xbox was cooked up late last year in response to Sony kicking the shit out of them at E3. There's no way at that point that they still assumed they would run away with the generation.

 

[outunderthestars]

Getting rid the parity clause should be the first big thing Spencer does to show he really means business and isn't blowing hot air when he talks about the Xbox being a gaming platform/brand.

Agreed. Would go a long way to showing the core audience that MS is listening and changing.

 

[Skilletor]

But ID@Xbox was cooked up late last year in response to Sony kicking the shit out of them at E3. There's no way at that point that they still assumed they would run away with the generation.

I think it's all related. I don't think MS thought Sony would be so ready for this launch. They probably thought they had some time to announce future policies. I don't think they saw the market trend these past few years with indies (which is confusing since a lot of the success could be attributed to XBL). I don't think ID@Xbox was "cooked up." I think it was something they'd been planning but were forced to reveal because Sony had gained so much momentum.

There has been a lack of foresight at MS regarding the XB1's launch and policies. There's a lot of things you could point to and say, "How did you not see that?" but MS didn't.

 

[RE_Player]

Phil Harrison basically laughing in the face of anyone who wants this clause to be gone.

“I laughed,” he said, when asked what he thought of Sony exec Adam Boyes calling Microsoft out on the policy, seeing as Sony has no equivalent. “Taking aside competitive positioning and all of that, the winners in all of this are game players. There are more games coming out for these platforms, there are more developers creating for these platforms, there are more fresh minds coming into our industry than any time in recent memory. And that’s so, so important to the future of our industry.

 

[Biker19]

Phil Harrison basically laughing in the face of anyone who wants this clause to be gone.

And there we are, folks. Proof that MS hasn't changed their stance one bit.

Holy shit! Some people are defending this?

I agree. It's just laughable.

Crash and burn as long as you have that Parity Clause. MS loves to throw a middle finger to gamers that doesn't buy their platforms.

Exactly. And some posters here wonder why I'm against Microsoft in the gaming industry.

 

[PhatSaqs]

And there we are, folks. Proof that MS hasn't changed on that one bit.

That was in the OP....

 

[Chobel]

Phil Harrison basically laughing in the face of anyone who wants this clause to be gone.

What am I supposed to see in that quote? Sorry, English isn't my native language and all I'm seeing is some PR non-answer that doesn't even talk about the parity clause.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Phil Harrison basically laughing in the face of anyone who wants this clause to be gone.

Huh?

He was saying he laughed at the joke and not "the face of anyone who wants this clause to be gone."

 

[RE_Player]

What am I supposed to see in that quote? Sorry, English isn't my native language and all I'm seeing is some PR non-answer that doesn't even talk about the parity clause.

He goes on to talk about the clause in the article but I didn't want to quote the whole thing. I just find it laughably embarrassing that the competitor that is currently beating them in the market when it comes to these new machines doesn't have a clause like the one they do and his response is to laugh and give a PR song and dance.

 

[Biker19]

That was in the OP....

Sorry about that, I just quoted RE_Player on what he said back a while ago.

 

[Mass Effect]

Oh shit, I just noticed that Hyper Light Drifter won't be delayed after all for that parity garbage. This is great. Can't believe I didn't notice that.

I hope more devs decide to follow suit.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

He goes on to talk about the clause in the article but I didn't want to quote the whole thing. I just find it laughably embarrassing that the competitor that is currently beating them in the market when it comes to these new machines doesn't have a clause like the one they do and his response is to laugh and give a PR song and dance.

He was laughing at the joke. That's a good natured laugh.

 

[fedexpeon]

My mind is blown away from some of these posts.

Are some of these "gamers" seriously think that the PS policy is a failure, and are suggesting that Sony should have a parity policy written into the contract as well to match with MS "great business 101" mindset?
The eff is going on...Why would you want devs to be gated out so that both platforms can arm race against each other to "protect their brand" while gamers/devs suffer?
Unless you are a PC gamer...and have a secret hatred for console gamers and want them to burn >.>
But yeah, make no sense to ask for a SonyToo! on such a stupid policy.

 

[polyh3dron]

You laughed?

Good thing I buy all my multiplatform stuff on PS4, I feel vindicated after reading shit like that.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

Pretty sure Target and Kmart would want products to be on their shelves day and date with competition.

Deadlines are deadlines.

Your argument would be true if one version of a video game ran on all platforms but that's not the case. Any way you look at it this policy hurts small indie developers. If your policy to "help" indies is bullying them into postponing their games then you have a problem. There's also public perception.

 

[Bessy67]

How is it good for MS if they get less games?

I don't have strong feelings on this issue either way, so I'm not disagreeing with you, but it also wouldn't be good for MS if they get all indie games 6 months to a year after Sony.

 

[Steverulez]

I can see why they originally thought of the parity clause but in execution its something they need to get rid of.

Trying to force developers into parity (or even exclusivity if there way round it is to launch on Xbox One first) just gives them bad press and pisses everyone involved off.

They should be giving incentives to go for parity (and I dont mean moneybags) such as development assistance, promotional opportunities, tools and good relationships rather than force it.

 

[Nafai1123]

I don't have strong feelings on this issue either way, so I'm not disagreeing with you, but it also wouldn't be good for MS if they get all indie games 6 months to a year after Sony.

Except that won't happen. There are inherent advantages to releasing on multiple platforms at once (aka marketing push) without platform holders resorting to bullying practices. The only studios this affects are those that are two small to do that, not ALL indies.

 

[Bessy67]

Except that won't happen. There are inherent advantages to releasing on multiple platforms at once (aka marketing push) without platform holders resorting to bullying practices. The only studios this affects are those that are two small to do that, not ALL indies.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that.