Support NeoGAF

[Rhindle]

1. PS4 version is complete.
2. Xbone version is in development.
3. PS4 release is now delayed until the Xbone version is ready thanks to this clause.

If that's the scenario you're looking at - finished or almost finished PS4 version and unfinished X1 version - then I agree. It makes sense to sign up with Sony and exploit this loophole, if you want to call it that.

Even in that scenario though, the MS policy isn't affecting your behavior, because you were going to release on PS4 first whether MS had the parity clause or not. The point is that I'm not seeing a scenario where anyone has an incentive to alter their development path based on this MS clause.

 

[graywolf323]

Did you guys even read the OP? It's why vlambeer decided at the time to sign with Sony first. There were "mentions". This isn't official confirmation this is even the case.

As for those saying the loophole is closed. Why would Microsoft say this TODAY:

"In instances where games have signed a timed exclusive with another platform, we'll work with them on a case by case basis."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ls-loads-of-indie-devs-signed-up-with-id-xbox

because it's going to be the same as last gen where if something gets really big they'd rather find a way to get it on Xbox One than lose out completely

this hurts the smaller devs whose games don't explode into the next big indie thing

 

[dragonelite]

Do you have to become a ID@Xbox enrollee to utilize your retail unit as a dev kit? Once that functionality is rolled out of course.

With xna you needed an $99/year developer account if im not mistaken to debug your C# game on the 360.

Hope they this they will have native support and give access to the mono driver and esram control i want it all.

 

[tkalamba]

you don't get an interpretation of parity, it's in the dictionary.

what is going on in this thread. it's very straightforward.

considering parity can be used to discuss features, versions, etc. I still don't see how this could be exclusively launch date parity.

Most business contracts in my experience need to actually state terms like "market date" or "launch date" and/or definitions of the terms to have any meaning.

If the actual clause doesn't refer to a date, the term parity IS technically open to interpretation.

 

[adixon]

Wow, there is some really selective reading going on in this thread

 

[viveks86]

As for exclusivity deals, he said, "We do not require exclusivity agreements. However, we do ask for day one parity with other console game platforms."

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/198528/

That quote is there in jim2011 link as well. For some reason he decided to selectively highlight the second part of the quote.

 

[jim2011]

Did you gloss over the sentence just before that one?


That's the discussion we're having, day and date parity.

I know. Just stating that it seems like signing a deal with Sony first before going to id@xbox still works.

 

[kpaadet]

Isn't this just a continuation of MS 360 policy? I seem to remember something about PSN exclusives not being allowed to come to XBLA, there were loopholes though like making a new "edition" like Joe Danger did. Anyway its a shitty policy, I thought MS said there would be no strings attached with this new ID@Xbox program.

 

[MThanded]

If that's the scenario you're looking at - finished or almost finished PS4 version and unfinished X1 version - then I agree. It makes sense to sign up with Sony and exploit this loophole, if you want to call it that.

Even in that scenario though, the MS policy isn't affecting your behavior, because you were going to release on PS4 first whether MS had the parity clause or not. The point is that I'm not seeing a scenario where anyone has an incentive to alter their development path based on this MS clause.

How is it not clear?

You can't launch on ps4 before xbox one. Even if you like the dev tools more. You have to either make the xbox one version launch first or both versions.

There is no loophole.It's done. That only worked before the details were set.

 

[alr1ght]

If that's the scenario you're looking at - finished or almost finished PS4 version and unfinished X1 version - then I agree. It makes sense to sign up with Sony and exploit this loophole, if you want to call it that.

Even in that scenario though, the MS policy isn't affecting your behavior, because you were going to release on PS4 first whether MS had the parity clause or not. The point is that I'm not seeing a scenario where anyone has an incentive to alter their development path based on this MS clause.

THE LOOPHOLE IS CLOSED. You can no longer exploit it like the developer in the OP did.

 

[jim2011]

That quote is there in jim2011 link as well. For some reason he decided to selectively highlight the second part of the quote.

To highlight the loophole apparently still open

 

[tkalamba]

Then it doesn't make sense why vlambeer would need to avoid this. Most companies would release the newest version of their code on each respective platform. This is concerning the release to market date specifically. If they do not coincide you cannot release on XBO its hard to misinterpret.

I still don't see why the term parity pertains specifically to launch date, what about day one version parity (same feature set and updates as other releases and the like) so that MS doesn't get an unupdated version that is basically gimped in comparison.

I would like to actually see the clause if at all possible (which is unlikely) but anything referring to market dates or launch dates actually use those terms in the clause from my experience.

 

[viveks86]

To highlight the loophole apparently still open

I know. Just stating that it seems like signing a deal with Sony first before going to id@xbox still works.

No it seems that signing a deal with Sony first may or may not work. If it "still works" then there is no reason to say "case by case". They are basically suggesting that all popular games/developers that MS wants on their platform will be open for negotiation while the rest can take a walk.

 

[bishoptl]

If that's the scenario you're looking at - finished or almost finished PS4 version and unfinished X1 version - then I agree. It makes sense to sign up with Sony and exploit this loophole, if you want to call it that.

Even in that scenario though, the MS policy isn't affecting your behavior, because you were going to release on PS4 first whether MS had the parity clause or not. The point is that I'm not seeing a scenario where anyone has an incentive to alter their development path based on this MS clause.

No.

Without the parity clause in place, indie devs would be free to develop and release on the platforms in a sequence that made sense for their financial health. With the parity clause in place, that development path is completely altered.

 

[RugbyPlayer]

Where does it say only launch date parity?




That we know about.... Way too much smoke at this point...

Let albert said, you think MS will give up 30% in power to sony.... Yeah they will force devs to make the game equals by holding back PS4 version. This is shitty any way you look at it.

I cant believe people are still posting this type of bullshit. Tin Foil Hat crowd

 

[Argyle]

If that's the scenario you're looking at - finished or almost finished PS4 version and unfinished X1 version - then I agree. It makes sense to sign up with Sony and exploit this loophole, if you want to call it that.

Even in that scenario though, the MS policy isn't affecting your behavior, because you were going to release on PS4 first whether MS had the parity clause or not. The point is that I'm not seeing a scenario where anyone has an incentive to alter their development path based on this MS clause.

If you were counting on making any money on the Xbone version, and then you release on PS4 first... you simply won't make any money on the Xbone as you will not be allowed to release the Xbone version at all.

 

[MThanded]

I cant believe people are still posting this type of bullshit. Tin Foil Hat crowd

What, there is no tin foil hat. That is explicitly what is happening with this contract.

Publish on xbox one first or delay your ps4 launch. This isn't even conspiracy theory stuff.

 

[Nafai1123]

So much for giving small devs open paths to self-publishing.

 

[twobear]

How many times is this that MS have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory since February, now?

 

[instinct6142]

1. develop and release for ps4 first, cant release on X1
2. develop for both, release both same day
3. develop and release for X1 first, then release ps4

the only ones who this is really going to hurt are devs with games later into development now on the ps4 or devs who have a bigger audience on the ps4. This ensures for ms that they either get the game first(due to cost and time) or on the sameday.

 

[Wereroku]

If that's the scenario you're looking at - finished or almost finished PS4 version and unfinished X1 version - then I agree. It makes sense to sign up with Sony and exploit this loophole, if you want to call it that.

Even in that scenario though, the MS policy isn't affecting your behavior, because you were going to release on PS4 first whether MS had the parity clause or not. The point is that I'm not seeing a scenario where anyone has an incentive to alter their development path based on this MS clause.

Like bishop was saying if you project that the ps4 version will take 6 months to release and the xbo would take 8 month to release in most cases an indie will release the ps4 version when it is done then continue working on the xbo version. With this clause even if they could get the ps4 version to market first it wouldn't matter because they couldn't release it so microsoft is forcing devs to prioritize the xbo version since sony is not forcing release date parity.

 

[KMS]

If that's the scenario you're looking at - finished or almost finished PS4 version and unfinished X1 version - then I agree. It makes sense to sign up with Sony and exploit this loophole, if you want to call it that.

Even in that scenario though, the MS policy isn't affecting your behavior, because you were going to release on PS4 first whether MS had the parity clause or not. The point is that I'm not seeing a scenario where anyone has an incentive to alter their development path based on this MS clause.

Except you can't do that anymore!

You could only exploit that loophole before they finalized the id@xbox terms of agreement. They only made it up in the last half of this year. Now that they have the id@xbox program up and running they won't accept any game being released before the XBO's version.

 

[viveks86]

What, there is no tin foil hat. That is explicitly what is happening with this contract.

Publish on xbox one first or delay your ps4 launch. This isn't even conspiracy theory stuff.

I think he is referring to USC-fan's suggestion that this is not necessarily launch date parity but visual parity at launch as well. That is pure tin foil hat-tery.

 

[kaching]

This clause really doesn't benefit anyone at all except MS.

I'm not even sure I agree with that. It's a clause built for short-term gains that does more to damage the market in the long term and hence the prospects for growth all around. It's not really any more in Microsoft's best interest, they just seem to be stuck in making these kind of knee-jerk reactions to a market that's shifting around them.

 

[adixon]

I know. Just stating that it seems like signing a deal with Sony first before going to id@xbox still works.

To highlight the loophole apparently still open

Working with developers on a "case by case basis" could just mean minecraft gets a pass while small developers have to jump through hoops or get completely turned away.

The entire value of these improved self-publishing policies this generation is that they guarantee certain official rules which developers can plan their businesses around. No responsible person in their right mind is going to plan their company's life around Microsoft showing them mercy after they've released a finished version on ps4, Wii U, or Steam.

For all intents and purposes, unless you make an official policy, the loophole is closed.

 

[MThanded]

I think he is referring to USC-fan's suggestion that this is not necessarily launch date parity but visual parity at launch as well. That is pure tin foil hat-tery.

Well someone should clear up that parity wording. That gamasutra article does not say date just says parity. That could mean a lot of things.

 

[Nafai1123]

1. develop and release for ps4 first, cant release on X1
2. develop for both, release both same day
3. develop and release for X1 first, then release ps4

the only ones who this is really going to hurt are devs with games later into development now on the ps4 or devs who have a bigger audience on the ps4.

Which, if the PS4 outsells the XB1, will be every dev that can't afford to develop a game on two consoles at once.

 

[thepotatoman]

Reminds me of the entirely too restrictive OnLive developer contracts that ended up killing the company.

 

[twobear]

And there's pretty much no chance of this being changed any time soon since it's a brand new policy/scheme.

Do you think the success of PS4 will cause MS to revise their awful fucking policies at any point? I'm beginning to wonder.

 

[viveks86]

1. develop and release for ps4 first, cant release on X1
2. develop for both, release both same day
3. develop and release for X1 first, then release ps4

the only ones who this is really going to hurt are devs with games later into development now on the ps4 or devs who have a bigger audience on the ps4.

Or devs who release one platform at a time and had planned to do the ps4 or Wii U first. This is actually very common amongst indies. They don't release on all platforms at the same time.

 

[EatMyDong]

Good for MS

 

[prwxv3]

I wonder what the catch is going to be for the retail console cand be a devkit feature.

 

[Doc Evils]

Oh damn. If that sales gap continues to grow in Sony's favor, this could turn out to be disastrous for MS, with indies choosing to forgo XBO completely.

Why develop for the console that is sitting on the shelves, when the other one is sold out everywhere.

 

[MThanded]

Good for MS

What are we doing with your dong?

 

[Crawl]

Maybe developers should just say fuck you to xbone and just roll with PC/PS4 and mobile.

 

[viveks86]

Well someone should clear up that parity wording. That gamasutra article does not say date just says parity. That could mean a lot of things.

I think that's a given. It's impossible to have any other form of parity in a legal sense. There are always going to be differences between each platform. PS4 may use the touchpad, xbox may use kinect, one might have better resolution, other might have better frame rate. MS can't enforce any other form of parity and openly admit it without confusing everyone and potentially being sued by the competition.

 

[instinct6142]

isn't this limited to just consoles though? wouldn't an indie dev prefer to launch on pc then to the next-gen consoles?

Microsoft asks that the games launch same-day on Xbox One and other console platforms

 

[FinalStageBoss]

so basically they have to launch first on xbox. either that or develop for all at the same time, which would be impossible for some of the really small teams.

 

[Eusis]

Reminds me of the entirely too restrictive OnLive developer contracts that ended up killing the company.

Well, that seemed to be outright petty spite, while this seems like it MAY have the long term intended effect of exploiting Sony being more generous and trying to make XB1 the place for indies to go first. If that actually works it could have the nasty effect of Sony adopting the same measure to stay competitive and thus they retreat back to PC afterall, or this and maybe other policies we don't know about will just drive them to PS4 only and leave Microsoft to rot. Guess it depends on the size of the developer and when it hits them, and perhaps also if Microsoft tries their hardest to make the effort of hitting both as minimal as possible, in that case there admittedly wouldn't be much excuse so long as Microsoft didn't try to play games and delay the game anyway as the case was going on with Retro City Rampage.

 

[adixon]

isn't this limited to just consoles though?

Steambox?

Spoiler

(Yeah I know, Steam Machine -- Steambox sounds better though.)

 

[twobear]

Maybe developers should just say fuck you to xbone and just roll with PC/PS4 and mobile.

I feel as though at this point only massive fall-off in developer and consumer support is going to actually make them rethink anything. Until then I am not going to consider buying this disaster of a product.

 

[instinct6142]

I feel as though at this point only massive fall-off in developer and consumer support is going to actually make them rethink anything. Until then I am not going to consider buying this disaster of a product.

judging from most of your posts, you were never going to buy it.

 

[Rhindle]

No.

Without the parity clause in place, indie devs would be free to develop and release on the platforms in a sequence that made sense for their financial health. With the parity clause in place, that development path is completely altered.

If you were counting on making any money on the Xbone version, and then you release on PS4 first... you simply won't make any money on the Xbone as you will not be allowed to release the Xbone version at all.

I'll take one lats stab at laying this out. There are three possible scenarios:

1. You're planning on a day and date release on both platforms. If so, MS clause is irrelevant.

2. You're planning on release on X1 pltform first. If so, MS clause is irrelevant.

3. You're planning on releasing on PS4 first. You conclude you have to sign up with Sony first to get around the MS clause. Fine, but you were releasing on PS4 first ANYWAY, so you haven't changed your plans.

In none of these instances have you altered your game plan based on the existence of this MS clause. So I'm still not seeing what substantive impact this clause has on anyone.

 

[rmanthorp]

What a weird thing.

 

[Black Mantis]

As Microsoft provide a free/cheap dev kit and a Unity license, isn't it kind of fair for them to demand this?

 

[xxracerxx]

As Microsoft provide a free/cheap dev kit and a Unity license, isn't it kind of fair for them to demand this?

No.

3. You're planning on releasing on PS4 first. You conclude you have to sign up with Sony first to get around the MS clause. Fine, but you were releasing on PS4 first ANYWAY, so you haven't changed your plans.

And yet that loophole is closed...so all future indie titles are fucked. That is where your understanding is messed up.

edit: I just want to shake you until you get this point.

 

[bishoptl]

3. You're planning on releasing on PS4 first. You conclude you have to sign up with Sony first to get around the MS clause. Fine, but you were releasing on PS4 first ANYWAY, so you haven't changed your plans.

You cannot sign up with Sony to get around the clause.

That loophole is closed.

Repeat, with emphasis - that loophole is closed.

We have been talking about that key aspect for the last 3 pages. What thread are you reading?

 

[UraMallas]

I cant help but read ID@Xbox as IDI-at-Xbox and sound like Idiot xbox

Wait. How do you pronounce it?

 

[twobear]

judging from most of your posts, you were never going to buy it.

Well, you're wrong.

 

[Argyle]

As Microsoft provide a free/cheap dev kit and a Unity license, isn't it kind of fair for them to demand this?

If there was a way to pay for your own kits and licenses and still publish on the Xbone, perhaps. I don't think you can get around it, though.