DiiGoliath
Banned
I can smell a lot of hate towards the Xbox brand here.
-
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
Mr. Giggles
Member
No, just people fed up with the extra hoops one platform has or is perceived to have.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
To me, this is just business. MS is making their console more desirable and enticing more people to buy their product over the competition. Yeah it sucks for other people, but he's doing his job.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
What did I just read?
TheSpoiler
Member
He's not doing a very good job when the competition has a bigger selection of indie titles.
Yes, it's business. But it's shitty for many consumers and shitty for many developers; hence it results in so many people being upset about it.
Night Angel
Member
This would be the case if indies were fighting to get on the platform with extra content and whatnot, but song as they're not... seems like this clause has really backfired (whether or not it's gotten better in recent months, the perception hasn't changed).
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
That's ok, I've got a PS4 -_-
Wtf is this shit?
They are doing to Opposite by keeping indie games off their system.
So why don't they get rid of it? Then clearly state they have got rid of it.
Then, in a simple act of transparency this type of discussion stops.
How, exactly? The Xbox One is becoming more like PS3 in which they've received less indie titles in comparison to the competition.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
It's clearly working. I've got to hand it to MS for their savvy business decisions.
It's quite clear why it exists- to force indies to release on Xbox first. However it would seem that the majority of indie devs are happy creating content on platforms who don't give them ultimatums...can't blame them there. Why should they have to "talk" to MS if they can't release at the same time? It should be open and "transparent" which it isn't, despite what Phil says. His inability to scrap this stupid policy reeks of Mattrick.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
It was NEVER Mattrick, it was Microsoft. It's the oldest trick in the book to have a fall guy when a company makes a mistake.
justsomeguy
Member
I hope that the same people who held your words in such esteem when you were rightly hammering Id@xbox will hold your words in the same esteem now you're defending them.
I really appreciate you weighing in on this. Yeah, I'm notionally biased because I'm an MS employee - but actually that's not why I'm so interested in what you wrote - I'm interested in information being accurate and current which is why the bit I've quoted stood out especially.
I still don't get why there is any clause, or why they don't go full guns blazing on a positive PR dev-supporting approach as you suggest... but I am mightily relieved that the regressive policy as previously understood does genuinely appear to be effectively dead.
LOL wut? So you are saying there's a robot running MS that is making these stupid decisions? PEOPLE make decisions, not a company name. Mattrick is one of many who made poor decisions that affected the Xbox business- he's not a fall guy- he was paid a butt load of cash to make important decisions, and he made the wrong ones.
This is clearly a person enjoying the first class Xbone experience.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
A robot? What a silly comment to make. It's the company that make the decision in the end and it's the company that are responsible for their mistakes, not just one person. It's convenient to shift the blame to one person and then get rid of them in the hope it makes them look 'clean' again.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Microsoft have always had anti-consumer, antitrust practices as a whole long before Mattrick, and they still have these policies in place. Not just in the gaming division.
They only reverse them when it effects the bottom line (when people catch on), or in lawsuits. Hopefully their new CEO is as genuine as he comes off as so far, because this company has a lot of cleaning up to do with those destructive practices.
Mattrick was a guy that fit their policies perfectly, they just didn't expect the backlash to be as strong as it was. We gamers are not as naive as they thought, and they realized "fanboys" are not their adoption populace. They replaced him with a more likable "gamer like" guy to turn their image around when Mattrick left for Zynga.
The company will have strict hierarchies with people on set levels making strategic business decisions, Mattrick was one of these levels.
Besides, Mattrick left to go to zynga why do you call him a fall guy?
Edit:
Are you implying that Microsoft blamed Mattrick? Must have missed that one...
This. Unless what they do starts affecting their profits, Microsoft just doesn't give a shit, nor do they care if what they do affects their customers in a bad way.
That should be very telling towards everybody.
You are speaking as if the "company" itself makes decisions. The company is nothing more than a name. People are hired to work for a company, and those people have different levels of power and responsibility. Mattrick was the fucking President of the Xbox division. All decisions that were made fall back on him. Either you need to reword your posts, or your have no clue.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
No.
Neuromancer
Member
Absinthe, if I understand your posts correctly, you're telling us you never got an exemption to the clause, and it's really easy to get an exemption to the clause. So I guess my question is, how do you know that it's so easy if you haven't had to do it yourself? Or are you speaking more to the general vibe of the program, that they're getting better about reaching out to devs?
A joke?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I can't even tell anymore on here. :/
The clause is still understood the only way it can be understood and will continue to be understood.
Increasing exemptions to the clause by say 30%-50% doesn't change its core/heart/what's written on a sheet of paper that's legally binding - the same thing that keeps the devs mouth shut into coming clean and spouting the details - simple as. The lack of transparency is palpable.
MS is getting differentiation alright...and Sony loves it.
This part is what kinda should worry indie developers that end up going to Microsoft after they get contacted and they want to play nice. With a large multinational company just up and misplacing so many applications, the incompetence should be a huge red flag.
justsomeguy
Member
Did you actually read the post I quoted? It doesn't appear so.
Chobel
Member
While MS gives exceptions for devs, they still don't want to get rid of the parity clause. My guess is: they either want to reinforce it at some point, or they want to create doubt and fear in the minds of devs,"but what if they don't grant me an exception?" or something like that.
There's an other possibility, someone(s) high up in MS is imposing this policy, and Spencer and Charla are trying to sidestep them by giving exceptions to indies. This one sounds ridiculous to me though.
There's an other possibility, someone(s) high up in MS is imposing this policy, and Spencer and Charla are trying to sidestep them by giving exceptions to indies. This one sounds ridiculous to me though.
Yh not especially with his first class comments.
I think the biggest take away from your post here, is that the problem isn't just the nature of the clause itself, it is that MS has refused to take the necessary steps to make it clear to everyone what the status of this all is.
If the clause isn't a driving force in negotiations with indie devs anymore, then they need to make it clear, and actually transparent. Making wishy-washy statements and leaving devs to make statements of their own limited experiences on both sides of a still confused fence, helps no one.
I personally don't think it is okay to make any kind of scorn against you or your comments, as you said, you are being outspoken because if something proves you wrong, you try to publicly take ownership of that, and I respect that. At the same time, when other devs are saying that they are still frustrated by the same situations, it means that things need to get better.
I want everyone to be able to have access to these games, for devs to feel like they can find their own time and situations and not require special permission to be allowed to do something. That's my hope.
It's just so frustrating to feel like there's no consistency, no transparency. I don't think it is wrong to want those things.
Jacksinthe
Banned
By esteem I think you mean loudmouthed
As to your very last statement - as excited as I am to see the policy hanging by a thread, it needs to come from the horse's mouth.
I'm still keeping my ear to the ground to see how far devs have come in trying to reach out even in the last few months alone. As I stated earlier - many are just flat out too busy to continually seek affirmation every time Phil talks to the media. That's a messaging problem they have to shoulder, themselves.
I'm not so sure - The OPs quote made it pretty clear. What I do think, however, is that there is a reluctancy to admit failure. Its a difficult thing to do, for sure. Even I admit fault for sitting on my ass and regurgitating so when I caught some wind I just took it upon myself to do some digging. I piled on Phil and Chris plenty of times and when I saw enough was there to recognize an effort I did. I am not here to hurt anyone with words but I do give lumps when i think they are deserved and applaud the right moves being made, even if the shift is slow.
And to anyone really wanting more proof, answers and transparency - even calling on the media to "do their job" - how about directing some of these pages of energy AT the media to get them asking questions instead of yelling at absolutely nothing here but opinion validation page after page? THEN we can get down to some real discussion when the media reports on their findings.
Again- it shouldn't be up to the media but I can't rightfully hate on something in the midst of changing for the better. ID will get credit from me for stepping it up.
Hate me all you want, peeps. I'm just shooting from the hip.
Go on..
By esteem I think you mean loudmouthed
As to your very last statement - as excited as I am to see the policy hanging by a thread, it needs to come from the horse's mouth.
I'm still keeping my ear to the ground to see how far devs have come in trying to reach out even in the last few months alone. As I stated earlier - many are just flat out too busy to continually seek affirmation every time Phil talks to the media. That's a messaging problem they have to shoulder, themselves.
I'm not so sure - The OPs quote made it pretty clear. What I do think, however, is that there is a reluctancy to admit failure. Its a difficult thing to do, for sure. Even I admit fault for sitting on my ass and regurgitating so when I caught some wind I just took it upon myself to do some digging. I piled on Phil and Chris plenty of times and when I saw enough was there to recognize an effort I did. I am not here to hurt anyone with words but I do give lumps when i think they are deserved and applaud the right moves being made, even if the shift is slow.
And to anyone really wanting more proof, answers and transparency - even calling on the media to "do their job" - how about directing some of these pages of energy AT the media to get them asking questions instead of yelling at absolutely nothing here but opinion validation page after page? THEN we can get down to some real discussion when the media reports on their findings.
Again- it shouldn't be up to the media but I can't rightfully hate on something in the midst of changing for the better. ID will get credit from me for stepping it up.
Hate me all you want, peeps. I'm just shooting from the hip.
I'll reply to your last statement before anything else: I don't hate you in the slightest. In fact I'm glad you're being as outspoken as you are. People were acting like I was trying to push some specific narrative, as though my participation was in opposition to a particular platform, which is simply not true.
You finding that you have greater freedom as a dev is awesome to me. That's what I want in the first place. To have you, and other indie devs not feel like there's shackles or barriers just waiting to be thrown at you. I hope that that continues to be the case for more and more devs. I want you to be the one dictating when and where your games are released. Like you said before. Motivating with a carrot rather than a stick.
My concerns over transparency and lack of straightforward messaging ties right back to your statement though, you took the time to really dig and research. Devs are busy folks, there's a lot on your plates, so if a platform wants to get a message out and advertise themselves as a great place to bring games, they need to do their best to make that messaging clear, to make sure there's no reason to hesitate about even 'talking to them'. Otherwise, it goes in circles, and as you said, a 'pile on' effect can happen. I'd love for this to be the last thread with any discussion of the parity clause.
Weltall Zero
Member
It does sound ridiculous. It also sounds like standard corporate practice. And I talk from experience.
panda-zebra
Member
Interesting... but did you consider that since the console launched, "nothing at all" is likely what you've received most of thanks to this very policy? Plenty of "nothing at all" with the occasional "something unique".
You found the golden ticket.
Meh, what's one more 180 given the rest? It's not "hanging by a thread" as you put it just to save face, that's naive isn't it? If it's still there, it's there for a strategic reason, not because Big Phil can't remember where he put the scissors.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Wait until the XBox ecosystem gets fully integrated with Windows 10.
Maybe there is a reason they are giving the OS away for free. Possible licensing for games in that environment in the future?
*takes off tin foil hat*
SerTapTap
Member
It's not dead until they officially confirm it and stop with the "release at the same time or talk with us" shit. You think a 1 person garage studio wants to "talk with" literally anyone they aren't completely required to in one of the biggest companies in the world? Every barrier is potentially a deal breaker with indies. I bet even the shadow of this policy discourages a fair number of developers from even bothering to try and talk to MS, and that's probably where the most harm is done.
It's funny because Phil is basically saying it doesn't exist (while confirming it does) and defenders are still pretty much accepting that it does exist (because it does). Despite all their "work" it's clear it's still in effect, and as long as it is, it's a problem. Both because of what I said above, and because they can potentially fuck over anyone they want at any time. "talk with us" means every situation is unique, and if they decide that they want to twist your arm they totally can because the policy is still totally there.
They've got a gun and they're not putting it away. They're just saying they're not using it right now.
Is it not obvious (see prior 2 paragraphs) how having the policy but pretending not to have the policy serves both goals of looking friendly while still having the big scary veto vote at the same time?
Crayon
Member
Wait until the XBox ecosystem gets fully integrated with Windows 10.
Maybe there is a reason they are giving the OS away for free. Possible licensing for games in that environment in the future?
*takes off tin foil hat*
Every speculation is not a conspiracy theory. You can recycle that hat.
The changes to windows, specifically the free version license with mandatory updates and the closed windows store point to a strategy that is anticipating the contraction of the desktop/laptop market. Windows and microsoft/partner devices can be a little more specialized and they can fit in better with apple and google who have been doing quite well.
An xbox product that ran a slightly more closed version of the free windows 10 is not out of the question. If that point comes, this parity clause will be in full effect as they can wield the combined usership of xbox devices and the windows app store to manipulate support.
Interesting theory but that's a fairly complex plan to pull off even if we did know what they want to do. Time will tell.
get2sammyb
Member
If there's one thing that Microsoft's done a brilliant job of over the past couple of years, it's the PR job on Phil Spencer. They've really made the guy look like a saviour in some posters' eyes.
I was wondering this same thing after reading Absinthe's post.
Went to your website and saw that your game is for IOS and Android. Are you planning to approach Sony and MS soon? Perhaps you could offer more insight into both soon if you haven't approached them already.
CircleOfFire
Member
The parity clause is great for them if they were in the dominant position, it's something that would keep their hold on the market strong. As developers would always want to bring a game to their platform because that's where the money is, so that means either releasing your game first there or making a better version.
But they're not in the dominant position, which as people have said here has a negative effect, people release stuff on the PS4 first and then just don't bother with the Xbox One.
It seems like this is one of those things that they're sticking with now because they stuck behind it in the past. If they give up on it, then it means people would say "So you were lying/talking rubbish before about the parity clause then?".
But they're not in the dominant position, which as people have said here has a negative effect, people release stuff on the PS4 first and then just don't bother with the Xbox One.
It seems like this is one of those things that they're sticking with now because they stuck behind it in the past. If they give up on it, then it means people would say "So you were lying/talking rubbish before about the parity clause then?".
You smell what you want to, I guess. This thread is about the Xbox One Parity Clause, not about the Xbox brand in general.
Yes, having less games than the competition as the result of a shitty policy is really enticing.
SerTapTap
Member
The only reason it makes sense to not drop it while allowing loopholes is if they plan to use it again later from a stronger position, and or/selectively enforce (this is pretty clearly the intent of "talk to us"). There would be way more backlash if they suddenly added the policy after formally dropping it as opposed to developers suddenly having to "talk to us" more.
Not really sure when they'd actually be able to flex muscle any time soon though. Not this gen unless they plan to enforce it for Win 10 integration which could potentially be annoying...but that'd be a REALLY risky move since the win 8 app store is a wasteland to this day and anything that kills the win 10 app store could be really damn costly for MS. And as a Surface owner I really hope they don't kill yet another attempt at the app store.
Dyson Industries
Banned
It sucks for his customers, too, since developers are bringing more games to his competitor. Great job, Phil!
Similar threads
- Locked