Support NeoGAF

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

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

Absolutely

Spoiler

not

.

Microsoft has been simply shining this year with a metric fuckton of poor decisions.

 

[aly]

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

No. As far as I know there is no way to get your own kits/license and still publish. So they make this the only way.

 

[Dead Prince]

Wait. How do you pronounce it?

idiot box if you try hard enough.

 

[KillGore]

Disgusting.

 

[FullMetaltech]

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.

Resources. Thats the reason. Also the loophole is closed. Once you sign up for ID your bound to those terms.

 

[tusken77]

I linked Brian Provinciano to this thread and asked if this was the "strings attached" he was referring to when discussing the program a little while back. This is his response....

 

[Minions]

It is no wonder they took so long to announce a policy. If the Xbox One does not take off all that well, it may end up being better for Indies. Lack of Indy games due to this policy could force a change of policy... at least I would hope. Pretty much every policy (including the prior-180's) has been to maximize profit at the expense of anything else consumer/developer related.... Pretty poor showing.

 

[Dragonborn]

I linked Brian Provinciano to this thread and asked if this was the "strings attached" he was referring to when discussing the program a little while back. This is his response....

So another crappy move on MS' part. I'm not surprised at all, this will just alienate small indie devs all over again. What the hell is ms thinking?

 

[DopeyFish]

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.

from my understanding... ID@Xbox (currently) isn't exactly intended for small Indies... The windows/xbox dev path that they keep hinting heavily at? That would be for small Indies.

ID@Xbox is one of three dev paths and iirc was part of a compromise to the original requirement of needing a publisher.

first is developing with a publisher
second is ID@Xbox (basically exceptions to those without publishers) - these are vetted by MS and approved on a case by case basis.
third is assumed to be what replaces XNA (which isn't announced yet) but will be far more flexible than XNA could hope to be (thanks to the OS alignment... Everything running in VMs)

I believe its just confusing right now because they haven't fully announced or fully deployed their independent strategy

as a disclaimer -I'm just basing everything off hints and stuff said around build conference through gamescom

 

[viveks86]

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?

LOL

 

[MThanded]

I linked Brian Provinciano to this thread and asked if this was the "strings attached" he was referring to when discussing the program a little while back. This is his response....

Well damn.

They tried to prevent a steam release too.

Guess they are just continuing this on the next gen systems.

 

[TKR92]

this is really bad. SMH MS

 

[xxracerxx]

from my understanding... ID@Xbox (currently) isn't exactly intended for small Indies... The windows/xbox dev path that they keep hinting heavily at? That would be for small Indies.

ID@Xbox is one of three dev paths and iirc was part of a compromise to the original requirement of needing a publisher.

first is developing with a publisher
second is ID@Xbox (basically exceptions to those without publishers) - these are vetted by MS and approved on a case by case basis.
third is assumed to be what replaces XNA (which isn't announced yet) but will be far more flexible than XNA could hope to be (thanks to the OS alignment)

I believe its just confusing right now because they haven't fully announced or fully deployed their independent strategy

as a disclaimer -I'm just basing everything off hints and stuff said around build conference through gamescom

This still doesn't change the issue....like at all.

 

[hawk2025]

from my understanding... ID@Xbox (currently) isn't exactly intended for small Indies... The windows/xbox dev path that they keep hinting heavily at? That would be for small Indies.

ID@Xbox is one of three dev paths and iirc was part of a compromise to the original requirement of needing a publisher.

first is developing with a publisher
second is ID@Xbox (basically exceptions to those without publishers) - these are vetted by MS and approved on a case by case basis.
third is assumed to be what replaces XNA (which isn't announced yet) but will be far more flexible than XNA could hope to be (thanks to the OS alignment)

I believe its just confusing right now because they haven't fully announced or fully deployed their independent strategy

as a disclaimer -I'm just basing everything off hints and stuff said around build conference through gamescom

We also thought ID@XBOX would be more flexible.

I don't believe this at all anymore.

 

[FinalStageBoss]

I linked Brian Provinciano to this thread and asked if this was the "strings attached" he was referring to when discussing the program a little while back. This is his response....

That sucks

 

[coolasj19]

This is something I was thinking, as well.

Like, we can be mad at MS all we want for something like this, but, the more devs that sign up for it, the more it's enabled. Not exactly sure who wins, here.

Microsoft wins and literally everybody else lose. Except XB1 exclusive gamers. But I doubt that's why they're forcing this.

no i don't really see the irony, its a business plan, if they are giving you free dev tools that is not provided by the competitor, you would think they would want something in exchange. that is parity or exclusivity.

Nope. That's stupid. That proposition is dumb in so many ways. You owe nothing to a platform holder for them letting you develop on their platform. No.

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

That's what I'm saying. Maybe it'll happen. Maybe not. I'm rooting for it to happen because then MS will be forced to drop it.

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.

You have posted the exact same thing 3 times now. You. Are. Wrong.

Planning on releasing on PS4 first =/= planning on releasing exclusively on PS4.

 

[HoodWinked]

seems like a really poorly thought out policy...

they're trying to strong arm from a poor position, it would be something that could work if you're valve/steam or during the early xbla days when ms were on top.

 

[Dan]

Microsoft is just dead set on fucking people this time around.

I linked Brian Provinciano to this thread and asked if this was the "strings attached" he was referring to when discussing the program a little while back. This is his response....

This pains me to read.

 

[gamereck]

I think the Indie dev need to just stick with one system because M$ developed a inferior box PS4 owners should not have to suffer.

 

[fallingdove]

My god. Microsoft - would you just wisen the fuck up and quit with this ridiculous bullshit. Forcing console parity is the worst.

I really hope they drop this soon.

I appreciated the ability to pick up the superior versions of Multiplats on the 360 last gen. I'd like to have the same choice this gen too.

 

[Theecliff]

I linked Brian Provinciano to this thread and asked if this was the "strings attached" he was referring to when discussing the program a little while back. This is his response....

Christ, this sounds horrible. What the hell is the point of the policy? Does this actually benefit Microsoft in any way? I'd honestly like to know, because I don't understand the point of it. Surely if you want indie support on your console you wouldn't be trying with this bullshit?

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Jesus, even when MS take one step forward, they seem to take a dozen or so back...

For the love of all that is holy, just come the fuck back and save us from this seemingly never ending train-wreck...

 

[DopeyFish]

This still doesn't change the issue....like at all.

yes, it does... Actually.

ID@Xbox is essentially for dev teams without a publisher who are unwilling or unable to wait to be accepted by one or who are unwilling to wait for the proper dev path.

this release path is essentially the XBLA dev path. Difference here? You aren't limited to one platform and they aren't taking 50%+/- of the revenue.

stuff that is coming later for all? That's the true indie dev path. You know... For those 10 or less (or more!) employee dev teams.

its going to be like iOS most likely except with a clear separation of big indie/published games and small indie titles.
people keep making the weird assumption that the dev paths are remaining the same as 360 (they aren't and that is good)

 

[MThanded]

Christ, this sounds horrible. What the hell is the point of the policy? Does this actually benefit Microsoft in any way? I'd honestly like to know, because I don't understand the point of it. Surely if you want indie support on your console you wouldn't be trying with this bullshit?

MS doesn't want people buying the games on other consoles before it shows up on theirs.

Seems logical. However, there are better ways to do this that don't involve limiting developer freedom.

 

[Biker19]

Glad they were able to get out of that loophole, but it's supremely weird of Microsoft to have a clause like that. Surely the whole point of a program to allow self publishing is to let developers release content on your platform when they want to. Ugh.

MS got the same parity rule on the 360. It's nothing new (but it still sucks for developers)

Trying to handcuff indie developers like this is pathetic.

IMO, they should just make their future titles PC & PS4 exclusive. They don't have to worry about all of this BS from Microsoft.

 

[viveks86]

gamereck
Banned
(Today, 12:26 PM)

Banned after posting a grand total of 1 comment on Gaf! Bish, did your shill-o-meter go off the charts?

 

[hawk2025]

yes, it does... Actually.

ID@Xbox is essentially for dev teams without a publisher who are unwilling or unable to wait to be accepted by one or who are unwilling to wait for the proper dev path.

this release path is essentially the XBLA dev path. Difference here? You aren't limited to one platform and they aren't taking 50%+/- of the revenue.

stuff that is coming later for all? That's the true indie dev path. You know... For those 10 or less employee dev teams.

its going to be like iOS most likely except with a clear separation of big indie/published games and small indie titles.
people keep making the weird assumption that the dev paths are remaining the same as 360 (they aren't and that is good)

But why?

The distinction makes no sense.

Why is it called a different program, then, if it's the same old shit?
More importantly, do you have any actual evidence of this?

 

[xxracerxx]

yes, it does... Actually.

ID@Xbox is essentially for dev teams without a publisher who are unwilling or unable to wait to be accepted by one or who are unwilling to wait for the proper dev path.

this release path is essentially the XBLA dev path. Difference here? You aren't limited to one platform and they aren't taking 50%+/- of the revenue.

stuff that is coming later for all? That's the true indie dev path. You know... For those 10 or less (or more!) employee dev teams.

its going to be like iOS most likely except with a clear separation of big indie/published games and small indie titles.
people keep making the weird assumption that the dev paths are remaining the same as 360 (they aren't and that is good)

You seem to be missing what issue I am talking about....the release parity.

 

[Zombie James]

I linked Brian Provinciano to this thread and asked if this was the "strings attached" he was referring to when discussing the program a little while back. This is his response....

I read stuff like this and I'm thankful as fuck MS hasn't gotten control of the console business.

 

[viveks86]

You seem to be missing what issue I am talking about....the release parity.

He isn't missing it. He is ignoring it.

 

[DopeyFish]

But why?

The distinction makes no sense.

Why is it called a different program, then, if it's the same old shit?
More importantly, do you have any actual evidence of this?

watch the build conferences.

they were deploying educational metro apps on Xbox ones but then dancing around it by saying "you want to develop for Xbox one? Learn how to code on Windows 8 and you will be ready!"

 

[Ricerocket]

I linked Brian Provinciano to this thread and asked if this was the "strings attached" he was referring to when discussing the program a little while back. This is his response....

Parity enforcement at the same time MS sets the date. That is bullshit and shouldn't happen. Straight up bully tactics.

 

[jelly]

That's a very underhanded move from Microsoft. I can understand why they did it but I hope it blows up in their face.

 

[Kuro]

Does this mean games like Mighty No. 9 might get delayed just so they can do a simultaneous launch?

 

[Zombie James]

Does this mean games like Mighty No. 9 might get delayed just so they can do a simultaneous launch?

Yup. If you're in the ID program you either launch on Xbone first or everything launches at whatever date MS says you can launch.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

Does this mean games like Mighty No. 9 might get delayed just so they can do a simultaneous launch?

I was under the impression they were going to launch on all platforms simultaneously.

 

[hawk2025]

watch the build conferences.

they were deploying educational metro apps on Xbox ones but then dancing around it by saying "you want to develop for Xbox one? Learn how to code on Windows 8 and you will be ready!"

...yeah, I won't trust their vague language.


Sorry.

 

[Salex_]

Aren't they also controlling the prices as well? I can't remember where I read about that.

 

[TheRealTalker]

So judging by the posts and replies this loophole is no longer an option moving forward

Can't they temporarily leave the program re-do the loophole with said company and enter again if they are suffering from production fatigue

 

[SnakeEyes]

I linked Brian Provinciano to this thread and asked if this was the "strings attached" he was referring to when discussing the program a little while back. This is his response....

Dayum!
I hope people who were planning to dev for Xbone under this program get a chance to see this, because that's pretty ass.

 

[DangerMouse]

seems like a really poorly thought out policy...

they're trying to strong arm from a poor position, it would be something that could work if you're valve/steam or during the early xbla days when ms were on top.

This. And trying to strong arm indie devs no less with something like release date parity (plus MS still gets a say in the release date), who are ofcourse the least likely to be able to afford to be sitting on completed games that could be making them money especially if they can consistently get PS4/Wii U versions done faster.

This is ridiculous.

I linked Brian Provinciano to this thread and asked if this was the "strings attached" he was referring to when discussing the program a little while back. This is his response....

Damn, wow.

Does this mean games like Mighty No. 9 might get delayed just so they can do a simultaneous launch?

Yes.

 

[BigDug13]

I was under the impression they were going to launch on all platforms simultaneously.

Right, but isn't the launch date set by MS in this instance? If MS doesn't want to release your game for another month, you now have to wait another month before the PS4, PSV, Wii-U, and STEAM versions can release.

 

[xxracerxx]

He isn't missing it. He is ignoring it.

Obviously.

edit: Ooo a response below!

I am not ignoring it. Again. Its not intended for small Indies. Its for large Indies who want to self publish (on equal terms with big publisher games) that's why release parity is the bait.

the upcoming dev path you'd be able to self publish but may be a) limited in your retail pricing b) be limited in terms of discoverability.

this is the XBLA dev path originally in place where Microsoft locked the product to their platform and took higher revenue (as they took publishing rights)... MS vetted those too just like ID@Xbox... Instead of this they essentially drop the publishing rights and have parity clause which is a win all around for devs that previously needed to use this dev path.

Who is talking small indies only? This clause fucking sucks for big indies as well. Not really sure why anyone would be defending this. So the next *insert big indie dev here* (this is so DopeyFish can understand) game is done and ready to go for PS4, but needs a few more weeks/months on the XBO. Well fuck you PS4 owners.

 

[DopeyFish]

He isn't missing it. He is ignoring it.

I am not ignoring it. Again. Its not intended for small Indies. Its for large Indies who want to self publish (on equal terms with big publisher games) that's why release parity is the bait.

the upcoming dev path you'd be able to self publish but may be a) limited in your retail pricing b) be limited in terms of discoverability.

this is the XBLA dev path originally in place where Microsoft locked the product to their platform and took higher revenue (as they took publishing rights)... MS vetted those too just like ID@Xbox... Instead of this they essentially drop the publishing rights and have parity clause which is a win all around for devs that previously needed to use this dev path.

 

[Theecliff]

MS doesn't want people buying the games on other consoles before it shows up on theirs.

Seems logical. However, there are better ways to do this that don't involve limiting developer freedom.

Why should it matter to Microsoft if they appear somewhere else beforehand though?

These policies just seem childish; if they don't change them soon they'll just be driving these developers away.

 

[Biker19]

I read stuff like this and I'm thankful as fuck MS hasn't gotten control of the console business.

Exactly. And people still want Microsoft in the gaming industry "for the sake of competition & to keep the industry healthy?"

Please. Why not have another company take their place?

 

[DangerMouse]

Right, but isn't the launch date set by MS in this instance? If MS doesn't want to release your game for another month, you now have to wait another month before the PS4, PSV, Wii-U, and STEAM versions can release.

I was just thinking about this too based on those tweets. Disgusting.

 

[HappyHunting]

So judging by the posts and replies this loophole is no longer an option moving forward

Can't they temporarily leave the program re-do the loophole with said company and enter again if they are suffering from production fatigue

They are signing a contract so this will not be an option. Once you have signed they are subject to the policy for all games.

Devs are going to have to sit down and see how the additional costs due to delays and consumer reaction are going to affect them negatively. From the above twitter conversation it's not looking like having MS controlling things is a good thing.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

Right, but isn't the launch date set by MS in this instance? If MS doesn't want to release your game for another month, you now have to wait another month before the PS4, PSV, Wii-U, and STEAM versions can release.

Hmm... If MS is still going to control indie release dates like they did with the 360, that would be correct. This is insane.

 

[Wereroku]

I am not ignoring it. Again. Its not intended for small Indies. Its for large Indies who want to self publish (on equal terms with big publisher games) that's why release parity is the bait.

the upcoming dev path you'd be able to self publish but may be a) limited in your retail pricing b) be limited in terms of discoverability.

this is the XBLA dev path originally in place where Microsoft locked the product to their platform and took higher revenue (as they took publishing rights)... MS vetted those too just like ID@Xbox... Instead of this they essentially drop the publishing rights and have parity clause which is a win all around for devs that previously needed to use this dev path.

They have already said that the ID@Xbox program is for self publishing the terms will be the same even when they let smaller devs in so it doesn't matter who is getting into the program now. Do you really think they will drop a parity clause when they let in developers who have even less power and sway on the market? This is to ensure indies who had started development on ps4 with the plan to release on xbo later will hold the release of their game until they get an xbo version finished. As others have said it also lets microsoft control the timing and pricing of the content even on other platforms.