Support NeoGAF

[Spyder_Monkey]

3 options

Two of them are basically the same thing and the other one requires more work for the dev's. This is such a shitty policy either way.

 

[Justified]

I read it as MS wants them to add "Play Anywhere" as the exclusive content (due to the Parity Clause), and they dont have the man-power/resources to do that right now

 

[Weltall Zero]

It was monumentally stupid, but they were a market leader and could get away with it somewhat. They aren't in the position to be alienating indies in their current climate anymore. I wholeheartedly agree though, that it was awful from inception.

But the parity clause was introduced this generation. There has never been a time when the clause was active and Microsoft was in the lead.

 

[toddhunter]

Didn't Spencer said that the parity clause was gone?

I think he said it never even existed.

 

[ViciousDS]

I swear the clause was gone.....what the hell

 

[watdaeff4]

Didn't Spencer said that the parity clause was gone?

He alluded to it IIRC thus making it seem like it was. But if you looked at things like Rocket League it was very obvious it still existed.

He might not have outright lied but he definetly intended deceit. Up until a couple of years ago I trusted him but between this and FFXIV and his regurgitation about first party, no more.

Glad to see someone speak up and say the parity clause still exists

 

[Kayant]

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.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?p=92400277 Nuclear Throne - Any other game that had to do that would be blocking. Which if you watch E3 2013,2014 you will know is quite a few.

Axiom Verge
The Witness
Binding of Isaac
Firewatch
Towerfall Ascension

All released months later with no extra Xbox specific content, and im sure there is more.

Axiom Verge was funded through pubfund so had an exclusive deal of 1yr with Sony if the loophole Vlambeer used still works then it would have been fine. Check first reply for source.
The witness is the same as it was announced to be a timed exclusive on PS4.
Binding of Isaac can't find anything so that very well could be one or an exception.
Firewatch as already been explained and was another console debut title that would be exempt from the parity clause.
Towerfall ascension is also another with a exclusive deal -

Thorson signed a contract to release the new game on PlayStation 4 and Steam as soon as the exclusivity deal with Ouya lapsed. Between June 2013 and March 2014, he could continue to make TowerFall.

https://www.polygon.com/features/2014/7/2/5858032/towerfall-matt-thorson
Adam boyes - https://youtu.be/DIRfRPTGBgE?t=3072

Also about don't Starve it would have been a console debut title so wouldn't have needed exclusive content - https://youtu.be/5Fy3oapyqng

 

[wapplew]

Just give Phil Spencer a call.

 

[OniBaka]

I read it as MS wants them to add "Play Anywhere" as the exclusive content (due to the Parity Clause), and they dont have the man-power/resources to do that right now

That's also how I read it, the parity clause would be xb1 and window store version releasing at same time.

 

[miller.skippins]

I think he said it never even existed.

Phil Spender: "Parity Clause is fake news."

/S

 

[Rob2K19]

MS gonna MS. Lol

 

[BitStyle]

But the parity clause was introduced this generation. There has never been a time when the clause was active and Microsoft was in the lead.

Huh. I had thought it existed beforehand.

 

[Neuromancer]

But the parity clause was introduced this generation. There has never been a time when the clause was active and Microsoft was in the lead.

It seems that there's been something like it since the 360 days:

"Titles for Xbox 360 must ship at least simultaneously with other video game platform, and must have at least feature and content parity on-disc with the other video game platform versions in all regions where the title is available," it reads.

"If these conditions are not met, Microsoft reserves the right to not allow the content to be released on Xbox 360."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-08-24-why-microsoft-wont-publish-psn-firsts

 

[Kayant]

Besides a comment from Phil saying that they don't enforce it anymore, I agree with you that Microsoft hasn't made it clear to devs. If this policy is no longer in place, they should make sure that any potential developers openly know. Lack of evidence either way is what I'm talking about here.

In this case, the dev stated that they've started conversation with Microsoft and that's where the relation to the parity clause ends. Their comments after that indicate that they can't commit to a release "if" Microsoft imposes restrictions. That does not tells us that Microsoft is indeed imposing the restrictions the dev mentioned.

Indeed it doesn't but I guess we won't know for sure with the NDA in place.

Huh. I had thought it existed beforehand.

It did -

Except it's older than that. Here's Eurogamer's article from August 2011 about it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-08-24-why-microsoft-wont-publish-psn-firsts

That applied to XBL/Arcade btw.

Edit - beaten

 

[Weltall Zero]

It seems that there's been something like it since the 360 days:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-08-24-why-microsoft-wont-publish-psn-firsts

It did -

That applied to XBL/Arcade btw.

Edit - beaten

I stand corrected! I wonder why it was in this generation that it blew up in the media. Perhaps precisely because of what BitStyle said, that it was perceived as something they could get away with because of being in the lead?

 

[Kayant]

Another game mentioned here abzu was a console debut title so was again exempt from parity clause - https://www.gamespot.com/articles/e...-s-studio-announced-called-abzu/1100-6420282/

And for LukasTaves another one to add to the list -

Assault Android Cactus - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ie-twin-stick-shooter-cant-launch-on-xbox-one

Also @Burdmayn the reason why parity clause more than likely still exists outside as mentioned by the devs here is by looking at the timeline of how it has changed.

First as shown now thanks to (Melchiah for the link!) it was a default block without launch parity
Then it become if you signed elsewhere before we will work on a case by case basis
To if you add something "fresh" you get an automatic exemption without needing to "talk to us".
Those are not signs of trying to change the policy for the better or drop it instead they show them trying to gain an advantage from the situation.

The way to think about it is that it is not enforced if MS determines you don't have the resources to do a simultaneous release then you're fine. However, if they determine you do have it and choose to launch late either you get an expection by talking to them or you add something "fresh" at release. Which is what this is saying - https://www.gamespot.com/articles/microsoft-exec-softens-stance-on-xbox-one-parity-c/1100-6425718/
Actually looking back it is exactly the same reasoning Phil uses with the first class nonsense in 2014 - http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=909272

Which is just backwards as they are acting as a publisher in that case. Just like it is wrong with Sony blocking EA access(As someone​ who doesn't like the idea of program) ultimately it should be the consumer to decide whether or not they are fine with a "straight port" coming "significantly" after. Although, in reality it is new content if you have never played it on other platforms.

I see a lot of people repeating this and it is 100% false.

I think it's a misinterpretation or straight twisting of this statement:


So it's encouraged, but not mandated.

Actually the link posted by ramoisdead -

Yes.

In the end, people just want games. The console makers denying games isn't helping out the consumer or themselves.

is a follow up after the GDC event from Devs speaking anonymously so nothing is being twisted or misinterpreted.

 

[00ich]

nvm - thx Kayant

 

[Oregano]

For what it's worth Sony had a policy where late ports needed extra content as recent as last gen and it applied to major releases. I think it's gone now at least.

 

[Cerium]

Actually the link posted by ramoisdead -
is a follow up after the GDC event from Devs speaking anonymously so nothing is being twisted or misinterpreted.

That's curation, not a parity clause as relates to the alleged Microsoft policy.

Nintendo is hand picking all the titles that get onto Switch right now, they're not throwing down a blanket ban on late ports with no exclusive features.

You could argue the merits or wisdom of Nintendo's policy, but it's not the same thing.

 

[RowdyReverb]

For what it's worth Sony had a policy where late ports needed extra content as recent as last gen and it applied to major releases. I think it's gone now at least.

Probably easier to ditch the clause when there are twice as many of your consoles out in the world. What dev would choose to release second on the platform with wider adoption (without incentive)

 

[Bits N Pieces]

So which devs have been refused to launch their game on the XB1 in say the last 18/24 months?

 

[patapuf]

Probably easier to ditch the clause when there are twice as many of your consoles out in the world. What dev would choose to release second on the platform with wider adoption (without incentive)

I'd say it's the other way round. If you are behind, putting up additional barriers for people to release games on your console might end up biting you more than it benefits you.

You'll certainly not get more ports than if you policy was more lenient.

 

[Oregano]

Probably easier to ditch the clause when there are twice as many of your consoles out in the world. What dev would choose to release second on the platform with wider adoption (without incentive)

I think some PSP game were blocked from Western release because of it though as SCEJ seems more lax about those things.

 

[00ich]

So which devs have been refused to launch their game on the XB1 in say the last 18/24 months?

Just to clarify: they were not refused, they said the process at Microsoft didn't work for them, so they reduced the priority of a XBone release.

 

[samuraidino]

But the parity clause was introduced this generation. There has never been a time when the clause was active and Microsoft was in the lead.

I believe the parity clause existed last gen as well. The parity clause that was talked about this gen was essentially the same thing,but was being brought up due to it being tied into the whole self publishing shit show during the early Xbone days.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

Just to clarify: they were not refused, they said the process at Microsoft didn't work for them, so they reduced the priority of a XBone release.

I suppose this is what im trying to understand, this particular Dev was told by ID@Xbox that they couldn't release on XB1 at a later date than the PS4 without new content? Cause im not really reading that in the article posted?

 

[The Greek Freak]

I think he said it never even existed.

Not to mention dozens of posters here called devs on gaf liars for saying yes it's a thing.

 

[Nev]

At what point are we expecting Microsoft to stop trying to make Windows 10 store happen?

It's not ever going to happen, Phil Spencer.

I'm actually glad Sony doesn't allow that EA-EA trash, only would encourage more of it.

You shouldn't need publisher exclusive subscriptions even if it was 5 cents a month.

As opposed to monopolized manufacturer paywall subscription. Good guy Sony. Thanks shu. EA bad!

At least Microsoft has the decency of allowing EA to have their much better service than PS+/Live on their platform. And you spin it as a positive for Sony? Jesus, the #4theplayers fallacy seems to be working out for them.

 

[The Greek Freak]

Which is just backwards as they are acting as a publisher in that case. Just like it is wrong with Sony blocking EA access(As someone​ who doesn't like the idea of program) ultimately it should be the consumer to decide whether or not they are fine with a "straight port" coming "significantly" after. Although, in reality it is new content if you have never played it on other platforms.

I'm actually glad Sony doesn't allow that EA-EA trash, only would encourage more of it.

You shouldn't need publisher exclusive subscriptions even if it was 5 cents a month.

 

[00ich]

I suppose this is what im trying to understand, this particular Dev was told by ID@Xbox that they couldn't release on XB1 at a later date than the PS4 without new content? Cause im not really reading that in the article posted?

"We have Xbox One dev kits, and we'd love to do Xbox One but because of the parity exemption stuff, it doesn't feel like we can prioritise it,"

The rest is speculation on their part what might lay ahead to meet the parity clause or get a complete exemption. To their credit: they'd be NDA'ed before they had clarity. So some of the "speculation" might be insider information they got themselves beforehand. They use press kit and sure have a lot of other (biggish) indie friends.

 

[Kayant]

I suppose this is what im trying to understand, this particular Dev was told by ID@Xbox that they couldn't release on XB1 at a later date than the PS4 without new content? Cause im not really reading that in the article posted?

Well that's the current policy so...

If it's a case where a game is coming out significantly later on Xbox One than another console, in that case we just ask them to add something to the game that makes it fresh for Xbox players

The whole problem these devs are facing is the fact they have the resources atm in that they can work on XB1 release but as they wouldn't be releasing simultaneously parity clause comes into play. As they don't want to be forced to do exclusive content just to be let through they are talking with MS atm(to get an exemption) and hope there isn't much back and forth that delays them working on their game.

I'm actually glad Sony doesn't allow that EA-EA trash, only would encourage more of it.

You shouldn't need publisher exclusive subscriptions even if it was 5 cents a month.

I too am happy but for better or worst it isn't Sony's job to determine what offers value to the consumer for services like that.

Edit - beaten

 

[Dr_LucienSanchez]

Furi was released not too long ago on Xbox One and it also had to have an exclusive boss (which was bullshit).

Doesn't really seem like too much has changed, with 'come talk to us' being the asinine way to approach things.

 

[meirl]

I'm actually glad Sony doesn't allow that EA-EA trash, only would encourage more of it.

You shouldn't need publisher exclusive subscriptions even if it was 5 cents a month.

Joke post?

 

[nOoblet16]

Someone in Microsoft made a decision that they would rather not have a game release on their platform than release without parity. Just think about that.

 

[ChryZ]

MS isn't really in the position to sport such an attitude.

 

[Rymuth]

Someone in Microsoft made a decision that they would rather not have a game release on their platform than release without parity. Just think about that.

According to Phil, it's to make them feel like First Class Citizens (tm)

 

[Kayant]

That's curation, not a parity clause as relates to the alleged Microsoft policy.

Nintendo is hand picking all the titles that get onto Switch right now, they're not throwing down a blanket ban on late ports with no exclusive features.

You could argue the merits or wisdom of Nintendo's policy, but it's not the same thing.

At this point in time MS policy isn't a blanket one either depending on the situation.

And going by

Nindie 1 is yet to get in the door with Switch, and argues that the eShop team - formally called the Publisher & Developer Relations department - in North America doesn't necessarily have the experience to perform the curation / gating role it has. They make the point, partly substantiated by another source later in the article, that the team is also using a curation remit to "try and force developers to create exclusive game modes or commit to some time-based exclusivity just for the right to release games on their system". The word "arrogant" is used when referencing the drive by Nintendo to gain some forms of exclusivity while offering little in return, a conflating of publication approval with "strongarm" demands for unique content.

it can be the same thing in the sense for some games they want new content at release just like MS does atm.

 

[RichiRamjag]

Furi was released not too long ago on Xbox One and it also had to have an exclusive boss (which was bullshit).

Doesn't really seem like too much has changed, with 'come talk to us' being the asinine way to approach things.

People fall for that shit too. I remember another small game mentioning that they couldn't release on Xbox immediately a couple weeks back and the comments on Reddit were "they just need to talk to MS! They don't value my money!".

MS has been very progressive on their service and policy side and they need to do the same here imo. These requirements hurt the platform more than anything (not implying ms is dead or anything like that).

 

[3rdamention]

If Phil isn't going to admit that a policy exists, despite many devs arguing to the contrary, dont hold any hope that the policy is going to change. Even when he tried to say the policy never existed, with evidence saying it does. This policy never went anywhere, and isn't changing anytime soon.

 

[Jagernaut]

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.

If I remember previous posts correctly, devs have to sign a nda before entering discussions with MS. If a game is not approved because of the parity clause they would not be able to talk about it.

 

[LordRaptor]

At this point in time MS policy isn't a blanket one either depending on the situation.

And going by it can be the same thing in the sense for some games they want new content at release just like MS does atm.

I mean, if you really want to believe anonymous developer mostly unsubstantiated claims about NintendoToo™ in a topic literally about an indie dev wanting to choose Nintendo over MS due to MS policies, that's your choice.

 

[sangreal]

But the parity clause was introduced this generation. There has never been a time when the clause was active and Microsoft was in the lead.

Not true at all. Parity clause is nothing new. It just gained attention this generation because of the boom of self publishing and the fact that it doesn't work financially for indies

 

[Yoshi]

I have more important shit to worry about in the world than what white corporate male #74675882758 has to say.

So would the situation change if he was a she or not white? I don't think this shitting on people for their sex or skin colour is fair or sensible in any capcaity.


I think one has to still consider, in regard to the parity clause (which probably is just a rule for the approval team at Microsoft, not a general clause for the developers) that Microsoft is having a larger risk with their approvals than Sony or Nintendo. It is publically known that Microsoft gives out two dev kits to all indie devs whose projects they approve, so I think being a bit more careful with approvals seems reasonable. Of course, they should probably be more lax with regards to team who already have a dev kit, when it comes to release parity.

 

[Kayant]

I mean, if you really want to believe anonymous developer mostly unsubstantiated claims about NintendoToo™ in a topic literally about an indie dev wanting to choose Nintendo over MS due to MS policies, that's your choice.

Just to clarify which I should have before I never 100% believe anonymous claims it was more of a point to highlight based on those claims the situation can be similar between the two.

 

[Okami Haundo]

I read it as MS wants them to add "Play Anywhere" as the exclusive content (due to the Parity Clause), and they dont have the man-power/resources to do that right now

I read it as that they just can't commit resources to anything "extra" Microsoft might ask of them, but that nothing happened yet. It's interesting because the OP title could really be "Gang Beasts can't commit to XB1 release due to possibility of parity clause, considering Switch" as nothing fully suggests that it is actually impeding them. They just stated that they can't commit to a release because they don't know yet.

 

[00ich]

I had a witty remark

 

[00ich]

Someone in Microsoft made a decision that they would rather not have a game release on their platform than release without parity. Just think about that.

Taken at face value that's not this case here. Boneloaf just rather let money on the table than to deal with Microsoft's bullshit.
I'm not saying that's more flattering for MS

 

[Okami Haundo]

Taken at face value that's not this case here. Boneloaf just rather let money on the table than to deal with Microsoft's bullshit.
I'm not saying that's more flattering for MS

But the article doesn't really say that. The dev said that they're starting conversations with Microsoft, but can't commit to a release "if" they impose the parity clause. Unless I'm misreading something, literally nothing happened besides the dev saying they're worried about what "could" happen.

If the parity clause isn't in effect anymore, this article shows that really they need to make that information more available to devs. They wouldn't be worried about it if Microsoft communicated better.

 

[Kayant]

I read it as that they just can't commit resources to anything "extra" Microsoft might ask of them, but that nothing happened yet. It's interesting because the OP title could really be "Gang Beasts can't commit to XB1 release due to possibility of parity clause, considering Switch" as nothing fully suggests that it is actually impeding them. They just stated that they can't commit to a release because they don't know yet.

Not exactly true because the point being made is they have the resources to work on XB1 atm but because of the parity clause and the unknown of the extra work they may need to do to get through(As they don't want to do exclusive content) they cannot commit to working on it hence the

It's backwards, it doesn't make sense.

It's already in effect which is why they are talking to them to get an exemption from having to do exclusive content to be on the platform.

 

[Okami Haundo]

Not exactly true because the point being made is they have the resources to work on XB1 atm but because of the parity clause and the unknown of the extra work they may need to do to get through(As they don't want to do exclusive content) they cannot commit to working on it hence the
It's already in effect which is why they are talking to them to get an exemption from having to do exclusive content to be on the platform.

Mate, let's stop with the whole Schrodinger's parity clause discussion. You believe that it's still fully in effect, and I don't believe that we have evidence either way. Unless someone opens that box we won't know if the parity clause is really still a thing or not. That's all I'm saying.