Hmmm...must have been another developer here then. Sorry about that.
-
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.
Phil Spencer: Parity is a hell of a Clause
- Thread starter Neuromancer
- Start date
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
No. That's not the solution. It's not to just "take that corporate". The solution is to look at side A and look at side B and remind yourself that they BOTH have hoops you need to jump through. It's 6 of one and half dozen of the other. Pick your enemy (or, in this case, let the 'net pick it for you) and pile on, I guess.
He never did. I said to ease up on piling up on him because he has a job to do like everyone else and doesn't make those rules: don't shoot the messenger.
When did I say exceptions were made for us?
This little game of "telephone" everyone on the net keeps playing better start getting it right. It's one of the reasons we and other devs have been largely silent.
I've been accused of a lot of shit that never happened, I never said and would never say. Especially here on GAF - and this shit is my home base
It's not fun. So I don't talk about shit like this much more. I just act like an idiot in other treads.
This hoop jumping still has a whiff of paternalism. On what scale from Valve to Apple would you rate MS in this particular instance?
No idea what is so funny.
Jacksinthe
Banned
No. No dev ever thinks this is for their own good. Period. Its very fucking clear why it exists and everyone agrees on that. I have no favorites because I have more important things to care about like people who will play my game. Picking favorites has fuck all to do if I do gamers wrong with my game so I try to do the business stuff as quickly as possible. Its energy I prefer to direct elsewhere.
Assumptions. Taking on "Super Lotion Boy HD Ultra III: The Lotioning" just to silence people isnt good business. I certainly wasn't silent for a long fucking time even after we were accepted into ID - I still kept yelling.
-
And that's it - all I will ever say on this again.
I don't how you get to "silencing" when all I said was that due to the NDA set up and unclear public policy you don't know if whatever contact you had was representative about a random developer who hasn't been outspoken on this topic.
While you were perfectly representative last year before any comments have been made on this topic. Quite easy concept to grasp, no "silencing" or other conspiratorial wording necessary.
I was just replying to his comment. Why make a big deal about it?
Goodacre0081
Member
can't wait for next months inevitable thread on this subject.
*shrug* until the policy is as clear as they say it is, or its existence or lack thereof; Round and Round ...
The problem is this particular hoop belonging to MS seems to be causing a lot of problems for small devs, who don't seem to have those problems on other platforms. And it's a hoop that is completely fucking unnecessary.
I understand why they are doing it even though it's creating so much negative PR. What pisses me off is how MS pretends that it's "no big deal" and doesn't impact anyone when clearly many devs are still affected by it.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
I suspect I know why hut its not something Microsoft will EVER admit to, and not something you can say on GAF without it coming out the wrong way.
slavesnyder
Member
You can't write Nadella without NDA.
Neuromancer
Member
Sorry, I guess I misread your post.When did I say exceptions were made for us?
This little game of "telephone" everyone on the net keeps playing better start getting it right. It's one of the reasons we and other devs have been largely silent.
I've been accused of a lot of shit that never happened, I never said and would never say. Especially here on GAF - and this shit is my home base
It's not fun. So I don't talk about shit like this much more. I just act like an idiot in other treads.
He is obviously upset by it. Please take that into consideration when you post next time.
lol...
Pathfinder
Member
Oi... sad to see a thread take this kind of turn.
I guess I should stop being surprised.
Family Fry
Member
I apologize.
What he said wasn't what I expected, based on his previous comments in threads like this. But that's fine? The point of my comment was to stop the people being apologists for the policy itself.
His statement is that they're getting better, and as I replied to him already (which you seemed to have ignored for the sake of making some kind of point? Fell flat, if so) is that I'm glad that they've made some progress. But the fact that they continue to lack any transparency and still leave so much of the wording and expectations lost in a fog of PR BS, that they still can do better. Is there something wrong with just dropping the damn thing entirely?
My entire hope for this thread and this policy is to remove any and all barriers for Indie devs. Nothing in his statement is contradictory to that. Cheers though, for trying to twist my purpose.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Was it as unpleasant as the internet would have me believe?
justsomeguy
Member
THIS is also really good insight. Thanks for sharing this too.
edit: why don't they literally just drop it then?! (rhetorical question to an extent) - sounds like they have done in practical terms from that, just not in literal terms
HighResTomato
Member
Doesn't fit the narrative.
Because if they become the preferred console platform again they will find it very useful to screw over Sony/Nintendo/A.N.Other. "Effectively dropping it" by asking peeps to "speak to them (tm)" means they can have their cake and eat it. Dropping it is indeed the best action for them currently, but they realise if they drop the clauses it will be very difficult to re-introduce it again later from a position of dominance without a HUGE backlash. So they would seemingly like to ride out the negativity now with weasel words and promises of it "not applying" to serve longer term plans.
They keep it because it suits their agenda... a foul corporate agenda... but that is the way MS like to operate, apparently.
Birgitte2004
Member
Nothing said has changed the narrative. Microsoft is still not up front about the policy, denies it exists, and still requires the devs to reach out to them to work out a deal.
And just because one dev says it is now easy to reach out to them, doesn't change anything...is it so easy for all devs, or merely ones who've been public about it in the past?
And if it is so easy to do, on some level that makes the policy even worse. Why require a hoop at all if it's so easy?
If it were truly so transparent, I wouldn't have these questions.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Only narrative in here is apologist gamers.
I didn't see this until now. The bolded makes me think the parity clause isn't really a big deal at all. But then you have gigantic threads like this. Can any other devs back up what Absinthe is saying?
There were so many disaparaging comments about "Just talk to us" in this thread - is "talking with them" really that much of a hurdle?
Sounds more like this is a case of:
#1 Nintendo and Sony having the absolute best indie policies
#2 Microsoft having decent, but not amazing indie policies.
Don't get me wrong, the original policy (you can't release the game EVER on XB1 if it comes out elsewhere first) was awful. But that seems to be the opposite of the truth today.
Where does the truth lie? There was so much talk in this thread about MS preying on the most vulnerable devs in the industry. Skyrise had the very very insightful post stating how difficult it is to do a simultaneous release - but I don't think Skyrise ever said in his post that he would be forced to do a simultaneous release by MS, did he?
I'm just trying to get a handle on if this parity clause is legitimately a negative quality or if it's only theoretically bad.
Since you've also chosen to ignore my response to both Absinthe, and that poster, you've clearly demonstrated your own narrative.
My words and purpose in this thread have been completely clear. I don't give a shit about console war bullshit. This policy needs to go for the better of indie devs. Any unnecessary barriers need to go. I don't care who is propagating a policy like this.
I haven't attacked Phil. I've criticized his making claims about transparency that are anything but. Do you can take your defensive talk of a narrative, and piss off.
slavesnyder
Member
If it is nothing - then why don't they erase it completely and avoid misunderstandings?
It would be so easy.
I think you have to also consider their clarity when discussing such policies - a lot of the comments revolve around the fact that theres concerted obfuscation involved when there just doesnt need to be.
ps3ud0 8)
You mean this narrative?
Rather curious if you tweeted Phil Spencer about blocking Binding of Isaac from coming to XBone since they're not offering something new. Those scumbags must not be allowed to get away with it, right?
Doctor_Thomas
Member
I think the bigger concern is that the head of XBox doesn't know their own policies with certainty.
If this was a football match, we would be chanting "are you Mattrick is disguise?"
If this was a football match, we would be chanting "are you Mattrick is disguise?"
It just seems like, as Abdiel said, an unnecessary barrier. But having an unnecessary barrier is not necessarily catastrophic or toxic. You're right, they should just erase it completely. But all any of this says to me is that, as I mentioned before, Sony/Nintendo have the ideal indie policy, and Microsoft have a non-catastrophic, non-ideal, non-toxic policy that has room for improvement.
I agree Sony/Nintendo have the better indie policies but I just don't see how Microsoft's current policy, at least as AbsintheGames described, can elicit comments like "Just talk to us™" or "Preying on indie devs"
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Oh he knows.
Sony nor Nintendo do not have an Indie parity clause.
SerTapTap
Member
Because the ball is 100% in Microsoft's court. If they like you, like the time between your PS release and Xbox One release? Maybe it's no big deal. If they don't like you? This policy lets them say "fuck off or give us more content, with the dev time coming purely out of YOUR pocket". As long as it exists, they have the potential to fuck over anyone they want. Surely you can see how that's a problem.
"I'm not going to fuck you over" is a world of difference from "I'm PROBABLY not going to fuck you over. Wink."
The concern is that we've got definitive information from the legacy of the clause, and we've got a dev saying it's gotten better for them. I am not in any way disputing or doubting that. But the lack of transparency and the, honestly, underhanded way they have gone about handling the PR for this just makes me frustrated.
Drop the clause, and I'll immediately recognize that they made the best choice for the industry. As long as they keep using that same language, it means things are still being obfuscated. If devs are still getting that same impression, it is toxic. It doesn't destroy the industry; these games are getting made, for various systems, but it does nothing to inspire confidence. Helping devs make games that get to more people is better for everyone.
Sony definitively has no such policy. If devs wish to add additional content, they can, sometimes in exchange for additional marketing or so on. But nothing is required.
https://twitter.com/Skullgirls/status/593524998569992192
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Skullsgirls being blocked by the policy. Well here's a tweet from the Skullgirls devs plainly stating the parity policy is blocking their game.
How recently did the changes to the parity clause start? Is what AbsintheGames said applicable to Skullgirls - i.e. are they unblocked now?
Or is this simply a case of AbsintheGames being partially correct, but the existence of the clause itself, even if it can be bypassed by talking to MS, will inevitably block good games, through sheer incompetence (meaning incompetence on MS's part, not the Skullgirls devs)?
All I need is confirmation that the linked tweet refers to the CURRENT MS indie policy, and I will adopt the following position: "What AbsintheGames said may generally be correct, but the mere existence of the policy will prevent some good games from coming to XB1, and that alone is worth getting rid of the clause".
Because if not, this policy is just "theoretically bad" and nothing more. An unnecessary barrier is not cause for concern - I don't care about the "potential" for devs to get screwed over. I just care if they actually get screwed over (and from that Skullgirls tweet, that may be the case).
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Skullsgirls being blocked by the policy. Well here's a tweet from the Skullgirls devs plainly stating the parity policy is blocking their game.
How recently did the changes to the parity clause start? Is what AbsintheGames said applicable to Skullgirls - i.e. are they unblocked now?
Or is this simply a case of AbsintheGames being partially correct, but the existence of the clause itself, even if it can be bypassed by talking to MS, will inevitably block good games, through sheer incompetence (meaning incompetence on MS's part, not the Skullgirls devs)?
All I need is confirmation that the linked tweet refers to the CURRENT MS indie policy, and I will adopt the following position: "What AbsintheGames said may generally be correct, but the mere existence of the policy will prevent some good games from coming to XB1, and that alone is worth getting rid of the clause".
Because if not, this policy is just "theoretically bad" and nothing more. An unnecessary barrier is not cause for concern - I don't care about the "potential" for devs to get screwed over. I just care if they actually get screwed over (and from that Skullgirls tweet, that may be the case).
dancrane212
Member
I can understand wanting to try and get something that makes the late version on your platform stand out if you are sending out dev-kits for free but there should be an alternative out there. Prioritize the free dev-kits for those who will either give parity or extra features to Xbox One versions of the game but allow others to pay or for development hardware themselves and not have to worry about parity with previously released versions of their game.
This is essentially how I understand it, and it may be why some devs are saying "no big deal" while others are still fighting to get it removed. Recent indie releases show that MS is willing to take games on their system even if they came out on PS first. The question is how many are they saying "fuck you" to that we don't hear about.
Still someone earlier in the thread made a great point. Do XB1 owners feel special, or important to see devs pass over their system of choice because of stupid corporate policies? If it were me, I'd rather wait a bit longer to play something than never play it at all. These games are $5 - $15 in value more often than not- I think I'll get over it if it doesn't have "extra content" specially for me since I waited.
Again, this is MS trying to assert their power, but they no longer have power. It's backfiring big time.
slavesnyder
Member
No thorn in the finger is better than a small thorn in the finger.
Youre not going to get a definitive answer as its readily apparent the policy is intentional fluid dependent on the indie dev/game in question. You need to talk to MS while under a NDA to find out...
ps3ud0 8)
I think this is where people get confused.
Sony does more of a 'wink wink' suggestion instead of writing it in a contract.
You forgot 'nudge nudge.'
Persona RS
Member
As far as I know, Bastion don't have any type of new content.
Also this...
It seems like more work for MS to do this and results in bad PR, a reputation as being unfriendly to developers, and a smaller library of games. Weird.
I'm not sure how Xbox gamers can feel 'first class' or whatever if they're not getting the games that other platforms are Phil. I'm sure Steam gamers cry in their beer when a PSN game comes to Steam a few months later with no 'Steam specific content' to make them feel special.
I'm not sure how Xbox gamers can feel 'first class' or whatever if they're not getting the games that other platforms are Phil. I'm sure Steam gamers cry in their beer when a PSN game comes to Steam a few months later with no 'Steam specific content' to make them feel special.
Ah, I guess that's a change from last gen on the PS3. Still, it seems a lot of games do it, just to differentiate from the last version and so they can advertise new features and release new trailers.
Like the new characters in Super Time Force for the PS4.
Honestly, it seems like good business sense to do it.
Sure but that decision should not be forced by the platform holder. It should be up to the dev to decide.
It should be up to the company what they want to do with their own platform. Devs can decide if they want to accept the contract or not.
Ninja Scooter
Member
So what? So they can't be criticized for it? That's all anyone is doing in this thread.
Triggerhappytel
Member
One of the devs of Skullgirls is a regular on the forum and he said that MS asked him to add a new character for the Xbone release, to which he replied that wasn't a reasonable request as he'd have to re-balance the whole game to accommodate this new character, at which point MS agreed and relented. I don't know how serious a suggestion it was or how hard MS pushed for that addition, but I got the impression from his posts that they're much more open than they used to be. I'll try to find his post.
EDIT - I may have been mistaken as I can't find that quote from Ravidrath which I was thinking of. All I can find is this, and it appears to be a hypothetical scenario.
Similar threads
- Locked