benicillin
Banned
All that stuff was released in an update for PS4 and PC as well though.
Microsoft still shooting themselves in the foot with this dumb stuff. Thanks Phil.
-
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.
Gang Beasts can't commit to XB1 release due to parity clause, considering Switch
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
All that stuff was released in an update for PS4 and PC as well though.
Microsoft still shooting themselves in the foot with this dumb stuff. Thanks Phil.
MadJackChurchill
Banned
Think they should focus on getting it out of early access first.
There would be cool but in some cases it will be hard to see if that was just the devs doing it because they wanted or if they needed it i.e RL as it would probably have gotten an exception either way but given PS4/PC got exclusive items(Not always cars) it makes sense Xbox got something too.
hydrophilic attack
Member
The best methodology would probably be to compare the percentage of late releases on XBO receiving extra content, compared to the same number for XBO
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
RichiRamjag
Member
Please tell that to Sony when they go to pick their ps plus games for the month.
I imagine that would be interesting but without the dev straight up saying they added the content specifically due the parity Clause you still wouldn't know anything for certain.
Okami Haundo
Member
Am I missing something in this article? I know that MS had that whole parity clause, but I also remember Phil saying they weren't enforcing it anymore.
While reading the article I didn't see any statements that seemed to suggest they talked to Xbox and were told they need to do X, Y, or Z thing to get approved for release. Just that they've started talking and said they can't commit if Microsoft were to ask them to do those things. Help me Gaf.
As an example:
Right after that they mention that "if" Microsoft wants to enforce requirements, they can't commit to a release this year. Doesn't sound to me like Microsoft already told them they need to do certain things to get approved.
While reading the article I didn't see any statements that seemed to suggest they talked to Xbox and were told they need to do X, Y, or Z thing to get approved for release. Just that they've started talking and said they can't commit if Microsoft were to ask them to do those things. Help me Gaf.
As an example:
Right after that they mention that "if" Microsoft wants to enforce requirements, they can't commit to a release this year. Doesn't sound to me like Microsoft already told them they need to do certain things to get approved.
GankzyMcfly
Member
So its safe to say there is currently no exclusive content in the xb1 version of Firewatch ?
outunderthestars
Banned
So much this. I swear this game has been in early access for almost half a decade at this point....
LordBaztion
Member
I hope Chris reachs to them and find a way out. The last thing MS needs is to lose indie developers.
RiggityRice
Member
Oh my god..please be on the switch pleaseeeeee be on the switch. One helluva party game, would buy day 1 dammit.
Hatefilled Vengeance
Member
Actually, considering how long this game has been in early access and the fact that MS has an early access program, not really sure why that wouldn't be the console version they prioritized anyway. This game's development has been weird. Seems like forever ago that I was watching it on GB.
Well free roam mode was on Xbox One first. Then other platforms later on. So at the time of release, there was exclusive content.
Bits N Pieces
Member
So this developer has confirmation in writing, I assume, that confirms they needs parity with release dates in order to launch their game on Xbox?
I read the article but I cant see anything concrete, is there more to this?
I read the article but I cant see anything concrete, is there more to this?
Okami Haundo
Member
I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed their weird wording. Their statements say that they're concerned about the clause, but not that Microsoft imposed anything on them before getting approval. I'd love to know if there's something I missed here.
GankzyMcfly
Member
So Firewatch currently has no exclusive content for the xb1?
BigBeauford
Member
This right here. I was so hyped for this game about 2 years ago. What the hell is going on?
Sword Of Doom
Member
This bullshit policy is still in place? I'm glad double fine is considering taking their business elsewhere
Miniature Kaiju
Member
Zombie James
Banned
Why is this garbage policy still a thing? For fuck's sake, Microsoft.
LightningXCE
Member
So many of the most recent updates just break game flow and feel, it's a shame.
Rounds NEED to be fast paced without these long wait times inbetween rounds, and just add a lives/score counter ingame on the bottom like it did in the super early builds. That worked find and was great.
Not to mention some of the....strange mechanic changes, like knockouts being recoverable nearly instantly, grabbing being much worse now, and overall wonkyness of the controls now vs. months ago. The game was great before (sans the crashing after certain stages), and now I don't even want to play the thing because of al of the questionable design changes.
By default parity clause comes in if you don't do a simultaneous release on console or release on XB1 first. As the dev says in the first quote whilst they have Xbox dev kit they can't commit to it because they are unsure if they can get an expection. They don't want to do exclusive content which is the straight forward way to get an expection. Needing a Win store verison(Assuming that's what open windows version means) is them speculating in terms of what is needed to release with ID@Xbox from the sounds of things. No sure what
exactly means.
The point being made is that the fact they are blocked from releasing on a platform because of releasing somewhere else first is causing issues with them fully committing to an XB1 release despite having a devkit at hand.
They are likely being vague about some things because of the NDA you sign once you're an ID@Xbox dev.
SinCityAssassin
Member
When they mean low friction, they mean no tedious back and forth regarding what they would need to do to avoid the parity clause.
I don't think so the point is you need something "fresh" if you're coming late to XB1 without an explicit exception.
Ha thanks that makes sense now.
Okami Haundo
Member
You highlighted exactly what I'm asking though. The developer openly stated that they can't commit to a release "if" Microsoft imposes those requirements on them. What they don't seem to say is that Microsoft "is" actively imposing those requirements. It just seems to me like we're freaking out about the Parity clause when even the developer hasn't fully stated that they're being restricted by it. Their comments seem to say that they're being cautious because of how those rules were, but not that Microsoft denied them already.
The Parity clause seems like a real pain for developers, and I really hope that Microsoft is actually done with it. I just don't see proof here that they're still using it.
They don't need to be explicitly denied though because we already know they wouldn't be allowed on id@xbox without something "fresh" at release for XB1(If releasing on XB1 late) which they are against doing. As they already have a PS4 build in the works they can't fully commit to an XB1 release because of not knowing if they will get an expection(As in being allowed on the platform but not needed to have anything "fresh" for XB1 at release) and if negotiation will be quick enough for them to get it out this year.
I suspect it probably doesn't really apply any more as Sony aren't handing out "support" for indie devs anymore, which was kind of what the parity clause was intended to fuck with.
Gangbeasts is probably one of those devs that soaked up that support, which is why PSVR support has been announced "for the sake of it"
Dyson Industries
Banned
Surely our man Good Guy Phil would never have this regressive clause still in place? That totally goes against the narrative!
lol
lol
OverturePT
Member
I'd buy it in an instant for the Switch. The game is a lot of fun.
KnightimeX_Legacy
Banned
MS yet again does everything it can to remain a joke.
Okami Haundo
Member
You're operating under the assumption that the parity clause is still in effect, which is what I'm asking about. People are (understandably) angry about the idea that Microsoft is still enforcing that, but we don't really have any proof that they are.
This is a statement from a developer that states they can't commit to a release if the clause is still in effect. It isn't confirmation that Microsoft is enforcing anything on them, just that they're worried they will be. The impetus is on Microsoft here to openly tell devs that they want their games without restrictions. I just don't understand the knee-jerk reactions about something that may or not even be a limitation right now.
As I said, the parity clause is a POS, but this article isn't proof that Microsoft is still enforcing it.
As I stated above, the article in OP doesn't confirm that the policy is still in place. All of the wording suggests that the dev is just unwilling to commit because they're worried it's still there.
Aztechnology
Member
It doesn't even have multiplayer in the non beta version afaik. I've owned and have been following this game for years. Great party game, would be great on Switch. But as it is, they've barely made measurable progress. Maps are very limited and online while it works, is very limited due to servers.
michaelius
Banned
Microsoft is calling UWP version as Open Windows? That's some "1984" double speak territory.
LukasTaves
Member
I'm not spinning they never blocked anyone big or small.
If they had there would be at least one Dev saying they were actually blocked and as far as I'm aware none ever showed up.
Well there is no evidence suggesting it has changed since Chris Charla update in 2015, none would there be a reason for the devs to be talking to MS about it atm.
No, this developer is calling it open windows for some unknown reason. That phrase doesn't exist anywhere else online.
Boneloaf should probably refrain from commenting on the parity clause not being fair for them as they are financial tied to Sony, as they have taken cash from Sony according to their own website.
Last we heard Skullgirls XBO wasn't coming because of the parity clause.
Can you name one? Most I have seen are either simultaneous or have exclusive or timed extras.
Hatefilled Vengeance
Member
Axiom Verge
Guess that explains why the Early Access game hasn't taken advantage of MS' early access program.