Support NeoGAF

[IHaveCandy]

Yes I am okay with it. Sony owe me nothing, Microsoft owe you nothing. Deal with it.


Did you really just use an analogy of me getting raped in prison because I think this is a positive for Xbox customers?



And your little rant at the end, I don't really understand what your getting at? You don't agree so your trolling me/neogaf?

This isnt about what we are owed. Nobody is making that argument. It's such a common strawman for people to make in these sort of arguments. When the argument is clearly about "Do you or do you not agree with this practice?" somebody almost always brings up the strawman argument "They are free to do what they want. It is their right and they owe us nothing no matter how entitled we think we are." Nobody is arguing that MS doesn't have the right for these policy. That is not the argument. That counter-argument has no place here because it's arguing a point nobody made. This is about whether or not you agree with the practice from your view. Do you think it was a good or bad choice? Please keep in mind that this policy will keep indie games off of Xbox One if they choose to maintain a release on PS4 first when they didn't sign a contract like Android Cactus Assault.

 

[Nafai1123]

It doesn't. And "Yeah but you can do this" is still admitting that there's a problem. Besides, I don't think that team has had particularly positive interactions with MS, Charla being able to talk or no. Making noise to solve a problem is not how it should go down.


The quote that basically says "Yeah, that's a problem. But everything else is really cool". Not dismissing his post, but it's not a solution to the problem. The only avenue (that I can see) for us to fix this problem is, developers not signing on, and consumers not buying Xbox games. Both of which are things I can't ask people to do. Well, I can but, this is hardly the DRM debacle. And both of those things negatively impact the person and MS inequally. I can only hope Sony lends a helping hand because the PS4 just got a whole lot more console exclusives.

I'm not commenting on a solution, I'm commenting on all those defenders in this thread saying this is an understandable policy to implement.

 

[kpaadet]

Since it seems tied to the free dev tools, MS should just allow those indies who don't want to adhere to the parity clause to borrow the tools and pay later like Sony does.

This policy is not something MS came up with the ID@Xbox program, it was also on the 360 where devs tools were not free. They should just scrap the parity completly, looking at Sony it seems to work better when you give indies carrots instead of sticks.

 

[coolasj19]

This policy is not something MS came up with the ID@Xbox program, it was also on the 360 where devs tools were not free. They should just scrap the parity completly, looking at Sony it seems to work better when you give indies carrots instead of sticks.

We'll see how it pans out in the coming months. Curve and Witch Beam seem to have confirmed they have no interest ( at current ) to playing by those rules.

I'm not commenting on a solution, I'm commenting on all those defenders in this thread saying this is an understandable policy to implement.

Understandable. Didn't exactly know what you were saying. I still wanted to make the point, regardless though.

 

[FranXico]

Couldn't resist the temptation of quoting here the gentle jab.

 

[keit4]

Cognitive dissonance at work, folks.

Nope, just common sense.

 

[Chobel]

Nope, just common sense.

Are Sony or Nintendo doing the same thing? Genuinely asking.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Nope, just common sense.

Common sense is not "Release on our console at the same time as others or don't ever release." Common sense would be to incentivize simultaneous releasing, not mandating.

Are Sony or Nintendo doing the same thing? Genuinely asking.

No.

 

[Raist]

Well, if you can't afford a PS4 devkit is a good deal, because you are not going to release a PS4 version of the game any time soon. Also, if we are talking about losing money, burning bridges is the worst decision you can make.

If you want to develop for the XB1 you will have to play under Microsoft's rules, but those rules are just asking for a simultaneous release (or a XB1 exclusivity for some time). The only thing you can't do is to release the game first on PS4. For new games (i mean games which development hasn't started yet) this rules won't harm the indie developers, only the PS4 users (i wonder why the most people complaining in this thread are Sony fans... oh wait!). So, from a indie dev standpoint, this is not a bad deal at all.

You do realize that a lot of indies want to stay this way precisely because they don't wanna have to deal with this kind of shackles, right? What MS is doing is counterproductive. Meanwhile, Sony's been giving dev kits for free to indies left and right.

 

[sol_bad]

Glad to see that MS went with launch parity rather than exclusivity in the ID contract. It's a good move on their part and won't alienate anyone like they did in the past with indies on XBL

Spoiler

although they were publishing the games then

.

Forcing parity isn't really a win over forcing exclusivity though. As I'm sure has been mentioned a thousand times in this thread, many indies don't have the money to release on two platforms.

Previously they forced exclusivity and Microsoft took on publishing rights. This eased the burden financially for indies, they didn't have to worry about paying Microsoft to get the game on their service AND they would have money rolling in as the game sold through the marketplace. This obviously allowed them to continue development on a PS3 version if they wanted to.

Now that they are forcing parity, the indies that can't afford to develop on 2 platforms at once have 3 choices to make.
1:- They release the game on PS4 and never on Xbone, less money made in the long run.
2:- Release the game exclusively on the Xbone and forget about the PS4 for a while, less money initially but eventually they can release on PS4 in the future.
3:- Delay release and release on both PS4 and Xbone, funds will be squeezed tight and development time will extended but hopefully they can make release and make money from both platforms.

Some indies will find the PS4 easier to work with, others will find the Xbone easier to work with. Obviously if they prefer programming on the Xbone this whole scenario won't matter as they would have leaned that way anyway.
It does royally screw over the indies that have a preference for PS4 initially though and it isn't fair to them.

 

[keit4]

Common sense is not "Release on our console at the same time as others or don't ever release." Common sense would be to incentivize simultaneous releasing, not mandating.

I'm not endorsing (nor attacking) this policy. I'm trying to put this from a resourceless indie dev perspective.

 

[Nafai1123]

I'm not endorsing (nor attacking) this policy. I'm trying to put this from a resourceless indie dev perspective.

We've heard the indie dev perspective from people that are actually indie devs. It's not a good thing for them.

 

[keit4]

We've heard the indie dev perspective from people that are actually indie devs. It's not a good thing for them.

Well, as i said before:

For new games (i mean games which development hasn't started yet) this rules won't harm the indie developers

The indie devs who are complaining are the ones that started the development of his game for PS4 way before the ID@Xbox program was announced, so if they want to release his game for the XB1 they have to delay the PS4 launch. And they are right, but i'm not talking about them.

 

[Nafai1123]

Well, as i said before:



The indie devs who are complaining are the ones that started the development of his game for PS4 way before the ID@Xbox program was announced, so if they want to release his game for the XB1 they have to delay the PS4 launch. And they are right, but i'm not talking about them.

You can't say that as if it's fact. Shouldn't a resourceless dev have the freedom to do what they believe is most beneficial to them? If it truly is more beneficial to get a dev kit from MS and release on XB1 first, they shouldn't need to use bullying tactics.

 

[EDarkness]

Got a Twitter?

Unfortunately, I don't. Something I'll be looking into as we get a bit further along.

The indie devs who are complaining are the ones that started the development of his game for PS4 way before the ID@Xbox program was announced, so if they want to release his game for the XB1 they have to delay the PS4 launch. And they are right, but i'm not talking about them.

I'm early enough in the process that I could probably release my game simultaneously on the XOne, but my group is small and we are basically focusing on one version at a time (Mac version at the moment) and making adjustments on other versions over time. I don't want the stress of trying to get all versions out at the same time. I'd like to, but I want the option to set my priorities when needed. Don't get me wrong, I understand where Microsoft is coming from, but it's just not a policy that I agree with.

 

[coolasj19]

Unfortunately, I don't. Something I'll be looking into as we get a bit further along.

I'm early enough in the process that I could probably release my game simultaneously on the XOne, but my group is small and we are basically focusing on one version at a time (Mac version at the moment) and making adjustments on over versions over time. I don't want the stress of trying to get all versions out at the same time. I'd like to, but I want that option to set my priorities when needed. Don't get me wrong, I understand where Microsoft is coming from, but it's just not a policy that I agree with.

That's the big question that I wanted to ask. Beta versions. Early Access. Extended Demos. All words that aren't technically the "Retail Game". How is MS going to enforce that? On a case by case basis? Maybe "Soft Launch" on other platforms.

 

[Eusis]

Did you really just use an analogy of me getting raped in prison because I think this is a positive for Xbox customers?

Let's look at it logically: this is only a net negative.

NO RESTRICTIONS: developers may get on PS4 first or XB1 first, then get to the other afterwards. Consumer will eventually be able to play the game on their system of choice if the developer wanted to do this.

XB1's current restriction: If XB1 is supported it will either get the game first, or in the same time frame as the PS4. But if they go with PS4 first for whatever reason then XB1 owners will never get the game.

It's better only if a developer would've been lax about hitting XB1, or to never close off options developers always hit one or both. Nevermind that if Microsoft wants to be dicks about schedules again they may not have the pressure to give indie developers a time slot favorable to them OR customers because they become de facto gate keepers on the game getting released period, even if Sony/Nintendo are ready to go.

 

[Possum]

I read ID@Xbox as "eye-dee-at (idiot)-Xbox," and thought it was some stupid new insult people had come up with.

EDIT: I guess I'm not the only one...

 

[Family Fry]

I just want to say with Chris Charla behind ID@XB it couldn't be in better hands. I am sure he will listen to what people have to say, so the more people tweet him directly @iocat and become more vocal about it I'm sure he will take it on board. With enough support from the indie community and developers, even the developers who have already signed up who may not exactly be happy about it should let him know.
I'm sure it will be sorted out in time, sooner rather than later hopefully.

 

[Paz]

Hah was wondering if people would find my tweet, if you have any questions you know I read this forum about as much as twitter

Actually Chris responded to that twitter thread, nothing specific was said but he's very aware of the issues (He's a smart guy in charge of a fairly great program so of course he's aware), hopefully it's something they can change in the future.

 

[coolasj19]

I just want to say with Chris Charla behind ID@XB it couldn't be in better hands. I am sure he will listen to what people have to say, so the more people tweet him directly @iocat and become more vocal about it I'm sure he will take it on board. With enough support from the indie community and developers, even the developers who have already signed up who may not exactly be happy about it should let him know.
I'm sure it will be sorted out in time, sooner rather than later hopefully.

A Twitter handle !! Thanks. I'll use that later.

Hah was wondering if people would find my tweet, if you have any questions you know I read this forum about as much as twitter

Actually Chris responded to that twitter thread, nothing specific was said but he's very aware of the issues (He's a smart guy in charge of a fairly great program so of course he's aware), hopefully it's something they can change in the future.

And yes. That's the only reason I have some hope right now that it can be changed. Because Mr.Charla is running the ship and I honestly doubt he likes the policy either. If there's enough of a rukus something is going to happen. What happens, I don't know.

 

[twobear]

Hah was wondering if people would find my tweet, if you have any questions you know I read this forum about as much as twitter

Actually Chris responded to that twitter thread, nothing specific was said but he's very aware of the issues (He's a smart guy in charge of a fairly great program so of course he's aware), hopefully it's something they can change in the future.

He's the director of the programme; if he's aware of the issues, why haven't they already been changed?

 

[Wereroku]

He's the director of the programme; if he's aware of the issues, why haven't they already been changed?

Probably because he is not fully in charge a business that big has protocols that have to be followed and even if he doesn't like it he does not have final say and on paper this policy sounds beneficial to Microsoft.

 

[Bsigg12]

He's the director of the programme; if he's aware of the issues, why haven't they already been changed?

It probably has to go through 3-4 different offices to get a policy like that changed. I still think the policy is a product of a suit coming in thinking it would be seen as fair for giving out free dev kits. Content parity is fine, launch day parity is not.

 

[zorlaczerohero]

Considering the amount of indie games that are developed on PC and hit steam first. Will the steambox be considered a "console platform" and thus be under these restrictions? It seems to me many indie developers will see the Steambox as a viable development platform, relative low cost, familiarity etc.

You just have to look at Greenlight to see the impact Steam has on Indie development. Are MS shooting themselves in the foot here? Or will they not count non windows PC based consoles and thus not require release schedule parity? Just genuinely curious.

 

[IHaveCandy]

I'm not endorsing (nor attacking) this policy. I'm trying to put this from a resourceless indie dev perspective.

The resourceless indie dev would not like this policy.