Crayon
Member
I thought you had read the thread?
No. He's going to read the thread and then he's coming back to tell us what he learned.
I thought you had read the thread?
No. He's going to read the thread and then he's coming back to tell us what he learned.
Somewhat offtopic, but for what reasons could a developer not be able to release their indie on PS4 and Xbox One at the same time? Budget/time constraints?
Budget is a huge reason, it isn't easy to develop for two different systems.Somewhat offtopic, but for what reasons could a developer not be able to release their indie on PS4 and Xbox One at the same time? Budget/time constraints?
The infamous "my opinion" disclaimer after posting something like it is a fact. Then victim play and chosen ignorance to the discussion at hand.
Well done.
Read this thread.Way to assume my intentions. I have a viewpoint on the matter that is not the majority opinion (which is not a set in stone opinion, I welcome a discussion that may change my stance on a subject), then I get accused of victim play?
It's not a disclaimer. It is not my opinion as fact. It is a fact that it is just my opinion. One that can be swayed, but I guess you would rather accuse me of something.
My question to xxracerxx was a real question. I wanted a summary of (just a list) indie devs opinion on the matter in the past year or so, which I was going to in turn do research on myself to see if I was in the wrong.
I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, and I'm sorry if I offended you, as it was not my intent.
I'm not feigning ignorance on the matter, my initial post was a quick answer to the OP. Then I asked xxracerxx a question, to expand my knowledge on the subject as clearly some details I am not aware of may change my view.
Okay, and I am not implying anything by this, but having both consoles on X86, what else other than RAM allocation is different about them? GPU wise, they would just scale back graphical effects, but RAM allocation you have to change scope not scale, right?Budget is a huge reason, it isn't easy to develop for two different systems.
Nobody writes x86 or x86_64 assembler*, so them using the same CPU architecture doesn't matter.Okay, and I am not implying anything by this, but having both consoles on X86, what else other than RAM allocation is different about them? GPU wise, they would just scale back graphical effects, but RAM allocation you have to change scope not scale, right?
Okay, and I am not implying anything by this, but having both consoles on X86, what else other than RAM allocation is different about them? GPU wise, they would just scale back graphical effects, but RAM allocation you have to change scope not scale, right?
In his opinion he already read the thread. And you can't dispute opinion.
That's the gist of how I feel on the topic.
Okay, and I am not implying anything by this, but having both consoles on X86, what else other than RAM allocation is different about them? GPU wise, they would just scale back graphical effects, but RAM allocation you have to change scope not scale, right?
If you'd read the thread before commenting, you'd have seen the evidence you were asking for, including posts from dev "this year" who take issue with this clause.Way to assume my intentions. I have a viewpoint on the matter that is not the majority opinion (which is not a set in stone opinion, I welcome a discussion that may change my stance on a subject), then I get accused of victim play?
As has been stated by developers already in this thread, it's a "big deal" that requires development support. Beyond that, however, it's an extra cost that's being placed on companies that can afford it the least - and the competitive platform doesn't make the same demands. The competitive platform that is running away with the console market and is ideally positioned to strong arm devs in this manner chooses not to.adding an Xbox related avatar in a game doesn't seem like it'd that big of a deal, but depending on how much more "special" MS wants their version of the game to be, it could be a bit of a bother.
Nobody writes x86 or x86_64 assembler*, so them using the same CPU architecture doesn't matter.
They are different systems with different amount of game engine support and different certification requirements.
* Not literally nobody. But it's a non-factor when discussing where to publish first in the context of small budget indie games.
You still have 2 different OS's and API's on each console. Don't forget a lot of the small indie teams are barely a handful of dudes. When you only have 2 or 3 programmers, doing more than one platform at a time becomes really difficult.
Oh, I see. I thought they went X86 to unify PC/Xbox/PS development and make it easier for developers to develop, spend less time figuring out code and more time doing creative work.The fact that they are both on x86 is trivial. At no point is an indie dev programming to the instruction set. They are working at higher levels than that. At the api level. Playstation and XBox are going to both have their own proprietary (secret) apis with limited sources of documentation and running on very specific debugging units. And don't fuck it up because if you didn't read that doc carefully your shit has got to get back in line.
It's just not easy for an individual/cash strapped team/anyone who didn't see the headache coming. Just not easy times two if you want to do it for two consoles simultaneously.
Okay, and I am not implying anything by this, but having both consoles on X86, what else other than RAM allocation is different about them? GPU wise, they would just scale back graphical effects, but RAM allocation you have to change scope not scale, right?
Sounds like it's still a thing.
Source: interview with Edge magazine, #282.
Oh, I see. I thought they went X86 to unify PC/Xbox/PS development and make it easier for developers to develop, spend less time figuring out code and more time doing creative work.
If you'd read the thread before commenting, you'd have seen the evidence you were asking for, including posts from dev "this year" who take issue with this clause.
There's no assumption here. Your post was transparent.
As has been stated by developers already in this thread, it's a "big deal" that requires development support. Beyond that, however, it's an extra cost that's being placed on companies that can afford it the least - and the competitive platform doesn't make the same demands. The competitive platform that is running away with the console market and is ideally positioned to strong arm devs in this manner chooses not to.
That speaks volumes.
I'm not arguing that it's not a big deal, but if the devs are being compensated for their extra work, then I'm fine with it. Depends on how much extra work they did in relation to how much they're getting paid though. They state "we make deals too" and hopefully there's money in those deals rather than just "here's your spot and an ad on the XBLM". If it's the latter, then yeah, fuck off with that shit MS.
From what I can gather from the thread, there's not much talk about devs being compensated for extra work. That could be because there's not much details about compensation that we're hearing but it is happening or they're simply not being compensated. If it's the latter, again, fuck off with that shit MS.
If you'd read the thread before commenting, you'd have seen the evidence you were asking for, including posts from dev "this year" who take issue with this clause.
There's no assumption here. Your post was transparent.
As has been stated by developers already in this thread, it's a "big deal" that requires development support. Beyond that, however, it's an extra cost that's being placed on companies that can afford it the least - and the competitive platform doesn't make the same demands. The competitive platform that is running away with the console market and is ideally positioned to strong arm devs in this manner chooses not to.
That speaks volumes.
Wait, you were working under the assumption that MS was paying for the "something special" additions?
Wait, you were working under the assumption that MS was paying for the "something special" additions?
Oh shit, they're really not? Well, fuck off with that shit MS.
Some still would, because they don't want Microsoft to dictate that the their games on different platforms should have different content.Why would they be? The point of a clause is that devs have to do these things in order to release. I don't think they'd be complaining if they were receiving funding for it.
More developer feedback speaking directly to that, for those who missed it:Some still would, because they don't want Microsoft to dictate that the their games on different platforms should have different content.
That post is from this year, btwIt sounds reasonable, yes, but it really all comes down to the specifics.
It's MS that gets to determine what will be needed to make your release "feel fresh." They have no idea what those additions will cost you, if your team has the time or manpower to do it before moving on to their next project, etc. In essence, they get to block your release despite coming from a place of ignorance.
Also, some genres and their communities do not react well to platform-exclusive content. So in those cases, they're basically asking you to burn your community for the priviledge of publishing on their platform. Even timed exclusives aren't acceptable for some genres and situations.
In short, MS needs to trust developers to market their own game and accept the limitations they have.
I assure you that I know what my game and its community want better than MS does. And I don't like being told by people completely unfamiliar with our situation what we should do to please them.
Why would they be? The point of a clause is that devs have to do these things in order to release. I don't think they'd be complaining if they were receiving funding for it.
It's not the customers problem that the developer a) did an (timed) exclusive deal with MS/Sony or b) isn't able to release a game on two platforms at pretty much the same time.
So what if it is a year old release, it is still a new experience for you.Seriously any developer trying to charge the same price for exactly the same game they released a year ago on a different plattform won't get my money.
Either lower the price or give me more. It's not the customers problem that the developer a) did an (timed) exclusive deal with MS/Sony or b) isn't able to release a game on two platforms at pretty much the same time.
To be honest, if they want to say it doesn't currently exist and ignore it ever existed, it's not very hard to say "everyone is welcome on our platforms, no strings attached. We love having you guys".
.
.
.
And for the record, gaf, I still think the policy is changing when I hear this statement. But I don't have a leg to stand on because the propaganda and doublespeak is constantly so thick. I still get the impression that phil's trying to insinuate that it never existed, which I recognize as a natural bullshitter's redaction.
From a consumer standpoint, the unintended effect of the policy and this line of thought is essentially "well, everything comes to PS4/Steam first, while I'm not even sure it's releasing on Xbox, so why bother?"Seriously any developer trying to charge the same price for exactly the same game they released a year ago on a different plattform won't get my money.
Either lower the price or give me more. It's not the customers problem that the developer a) did an (timed) exclusive deal with MS/Sony or b) isn't able to release a game on two platforms at pretty much the same time.
Seriously any developer trying to charge the same price for exactly the same game they released a year ago on a different plattform won't get my money.
Either lower the price or give me more. It's not the customers problem that the developer a) did an (timed) exclusive deal with MS/Sony or b) isn't able to release a game on two platforms at pretty much the same time.
.
.
.
And for the record, gaf, I still think the policy is changing when I hear this statement. But I don't have a leg to stand on because the propaganda and doublespeak is constantly so thick. I still get the impression that phil's trying to insinuate that it never existed, which I recognize as a natural bullshitter's redaction.
So what if it is a year old release, it is still a new experience for you.
Whatever though, do what you want. I just think your stance is ridiculous.
Seriously any developer trying to charge the same price for exactly the same game they released a year ago on a different plattform won't get my money.
Either lower the price or give me more. It's not the customers problem that the developer a) did an (timed) exclusive deal with MS/Sony or b) isn't able to release a game on two platforms at pretty much the same time.
Seriously any developer trying to charge the same price for exactly the same game they released a year ago on a different plattform won't get my money.
Either lower the price or give me more. It's not the customers problem that the developer a) did an (timed) exclusive deal with MS/Sony or b) isn't able to release a game on two platforms at pretty much the same time.
And still it's a product that was released to the market over an year ago. Also in that year the game is highly likely already discounted on that other platform. So why should I pay more than these other guys? For those discount customers it's also a new experience. So they should pay the full price, right?
Do you pay for games on the XBO that may have been discounted on Steam in the past?And still it's a product that was released to the market over an year ago. Also in that year the game is highly likely already discounted on that other platform. So why should I pay more than these other guys? For those discount customers it's also a new experience. So they should pay the full price, right?
Considering you have to sign an NDA to even Have the Discussion (Y2Kev original), it's not likely. Another way that the comparison doesn't work in their favour - Sony speaks plainly and everybody knows where they stand.Really wish some one would leak documents containing this infamous policy.
The narrative would switch to 100% positive so quickly, your head would spin.To be honest, if they want to say it doesn't currently exist and ignore it ever existed, it's not very hard to say "everyone is welcome on our platforms, no strings attached. We love having you guys".
Really wish some one would leak documents containing this infamous policy.
It's like you haven't read any of the dev comments in this thread, or worse you've read them and just don't give a damn. What an utterly entitled, assholish stance...which says a lot about which side of the equation you're cheering for.Seriously any developer trying to charge the same price for exactly the same game they released a year ago on a different plattform won't get my money.
Either lower the price or give me more. It's not the customers problem that the developer a) did an (timed) exclusive deal with MS/Sony or b) isn't able to release a game on two platforms at pretty much the same time.
Or they could just not put it on Microsoft's platform at all, which is what a lot of developers are choosing to do.Seriously any developer trying to charge the same price for exactly the same game they released a year ago on a different plattform won't get my money.
Either lower the price or give me more. It's not the customers problem that the developer a) did an (timed) exclusive deal with MS/Sony or b) isn't able to release a game on two platforms at pretty much the same time.
Do you pay for games on the XBO that may have been discounted on Steam in the past?
It's like you haven't read any of the dev comments in this thread, or worse you've read them and just don't give a damn. What an utterly entitled, assholish stance...which says a lot about which side of the equation you're cheering for.
First of all I play most of my games on consoles. I only use my PC for PC-exclusive games.
But to be honest I often struggle to buy a game on a console if it's WAY cheaper on Steam. First source is to check the different XBO country stores which is the cheapest.(German one is always a no-go) Then I'll compare the price with the Steam version. If it's still too far away, then I'll way for a discounted price.
After all it's still the same game on either platform...
Seriously any developer trying to charge the same price for exactly the same game they released a year ago on a different plattform won't get my money.
Either lower the price or give me more. It's not the customers problem that the developer a) did an (timed) exclusive deal with MS/Sony or b) isn't able to release a game on two platforms at pretty much the same time.
To be honest I didn't read all of those comments.
And I'm only standing on MY side of the equation. I seriously don't give a damn about any other side. I'm the customer, so all I care for is my money. I don't owe the devs or MS/Sony anything...