Again as I said before in this thread. OOT is like one of the best games of all time. Doesn't mean the average joe is gonna pay $60 for the N64 version these days. Nor do I think GAF wouldn't be up in arms if say PS1 classics were all the original price they were when they launched.
The transparency claim was the funniest part about it. When everything's hidden behind tight-lipped NDAs and even developers aren't clear on the terms of your requirements, clearly you're not being transparent.
Again as I said before in this thread. OOT is like one of the best games of all time. Doesn't mean the average joe is gonna pay $60 for the N64 version these days. Nor do I think GAF wouldn't be up in arms if say PS1 classics were all the original price they were when they launched.
The anti-2D policy was actually an attempt to improve the experience for the consumer, and prevent developers from releasing a substandard product for full price. And it came about when Sony was not the dominant player...it happened early on in the Playstation 1 days.
They hung on to it too long granted, and it was probably somewhat misguided to begin with, but I can't compare this in any way to what MS is doing with the parity clause on indie development.
As to Sony's parity clause, I have far less of a problem with it as applied to the Ubisofts and EAs of the world. My main opposition to the parity clause is who it's targeted at, as opposed to the concept.
Again as I said before in this thread. OOT is like one of the best games of all time. Doesn't mean the average joe is gonna pay $60 for the N64 version these days. Nor do I think GAF wouldn't be up in arms if say PS1 classics were all the original price they were when they launched.
Thanks for sharing, I really appreciate it when devs are able to provide us with the details (because it sure as hell isn't coming from MS directly, apparently). So despite all of Spencer's mincing of words, the clause is still in effect & still just as shitty.
Thanks for sharing, I really appreciate it when devs are able to provide us with the details (because it sure as hell isn't coming from MS directly, apparently). So despite all of Spencer's mincing of words, the clause is still in effect & still just as shitty.
Spencer imo, is up there among the best at PR play.
Whatever he says, he knows what the heck he's saying, with each word carefully chosen. He'll won't "lie", but if there's any amount of ambiguity in it, there's a reason for that.
You really need to read between the lines .... Reading this thread was convinced that Spencer actually meant this and couldn't understand the negativity. But then I saw those responses from acutal devs and I looked at this quote again.
If there's a developer who's building a game and they just can't get the game done for both platforms - cool. We'll take a staggered release. We've done it before, and we work with them on that.
All he's saying is: if you want a staggered release, you still need to talk to us first. The "We work with them on that" bit is the give-away that there's still something that needs to be worked out first. Why is there a need to "work" with devs on a staggered release, if there is no parity clause?
You really need to read between the lines .... Reading this thread was convinced that Spencer actually meant this and couldn't understand the negativity. But then I saw those responses from acutal devs and I looked at this quote again.
All he's saying is: if you want a staggered release, you still need to talk to us first. The "We work with them on that" bit is the give-away that there's still something that needs to be worked out first. Why is there a need to "work" with devs on a staggered release, if there is no parity clause?
And to add onto what you are saying, if they are compassionate to those developers who absolutely need to do staggered releases, why not... just assume all developers need it sans the "reach out to us" discussion. Drop the clause.
The Xbox One has been released in 21 markets in total, with a Chinese release on 29 September 2014. The head of Xbox is Phil Spencer, who succeeded former head Marc Whitten in late March 2014.[5][6]
I think that under Spencer's guidance, many of the necessary policy changes happened and that is good for him and XB in general.
But work needs to be done on their indie policy because it damages their image and limits the number of titles their console offers. And when that happens they also suffer from their awful PR which makes them appear dishonest.
That's totally disingenuous. Comparing titles released over a decade ago on a specific platform, or bc titles like ps1 games, to ports of indie games limited by platform is crap. Your example is fishing for a flimsy way to justify your comments.
These devs are limited by budget, manpower and time.
You can't make a blanket statement good games are good games. Yes what I said was wild, but that's why you can't make the good games are good games statement in the first place with regards to this topic.
Everyone is gonna have a different cut off time in their mind on how well this type of thing should be treated. It could be 6 months. It could be a year. It could be 5 years or 10.
That's why I took issue with the generalized statement I quoted and bolded though.
Everything's gonna be OK, devs. Stop sweating it. I know Phil and Chris probably don't like me much from my prior comments on the clause (Hi guys!) - but at this point, in today's landscape, in today's MS - stop sweating it. You will be fine.
It sucks that you have to bend a few rules and have a conversation to get the same end result with person A that person B gave you without any hassle - but business sucks. That's how it is. Otherwise "business" would be called "no sweat". MS is INSANELY easy to reach out to.
As a dev that signed with MS and Sony when the parity clause was crafted in stone and not silly putty like it is today - stop sweating it. You will be fine with a staged platform release.
Just saying. He meant exactly what he said. Don't read so far into it, everyone. Its not a huge hurdle anymore. I have to give credit where it is due. Still would love to see the language stripped completely but this will do for damn near everyone for now.
Everything's gonna be OK, devs. Stop sweating it. I know Phil and Chris probably don't like me much from my prior comments on the clause (Hi guys!) - but at this point, in today's landscape, in today's MS - stop sweating it. You will be fine.
As I've said a year ago. Every developer that identifiable posts in a thread that talks about this is tainted because Microsoft read these kind of threads.
And because everyone signs NDAs you don't know if you've been accommodated.
It's great that it all works for you, but to get real feedback new developers always have to post their experiences.
Everything's gonna be OK, devs. Stop sweating it. I know Phil and Chris probably don't like me much from my prior comments on the clause (Hi guys!) - but at this point, in today's landscape, in today's MS - stop sweating it. You will be fine.
It sucks that you have to bend a few rules and have a conversation to get the same end result with person A that person B gave you without any hassle - but business sucks. That's how it is. Otherwise "business" would be called "no sweat". MS is INSANELY easy to reach out to.
As a dev that signed with MS and Sony when the parity clause was crafted in stone and not silly putty like it is today - stop sweating it. You will be fine with a staged platform release.
Just saying. He meant exactly what he said. Don't read so far into it, everyone. Its not a huge hurdle anymore. I have to give credit where it is due. Still would love to see the language stripped completely but this will do for damn near everyone for now.
Yeah I agree, if the language wasn't there i think it would be less of an issue. No one wants to have to worry about such things when they have so many other things to worry about
Phil's comments are pure PR horse shit. Either that or he's incredibly out of touch with the indie community. This is one of those cases where the Xbox team has spent countless hours determining an appropriate level of fucking people over as long as it doesn't hurt the bottom line. They just assume that everyone will believe everything they say and no damage will come as a result. The fact that they are STILL trying to push this BS on people is just pathetic.
I don't know why so many people are willing to support a product from a company that treats its customers (and developers for that matter) like braindead morons. MS has assumed time and time again that we're all too stupid to understand their policies.
Everything's gonna be OK, devs. Stop sweating it. I know Phil and Chris probably don't like me much from my prior comments on the clause (Hi guys!) - but at this point, in today's landscape, in today's MS - stop sweating it. You will be fine.
It sucks that you have to bend a few rules and have a conversation to get the same end result with person A that person B gave you without any hassle - but business sucks. That's how it is. Otherwise "business" would be called "no sweat". MS is INSANELY easy to reach out to.
As a dev that signed with MS and Sony when the parity clause was crafted in stone and not silly putty like it is today - stop sweating it. You will be fine with a staged platform release.
Just saying. He meant exactly what he said. Don't read so far into it, everyone. Its not a huge hurdle anymore. I have to give credit where it is due. Still would love to see the language stripped completely but this will do for damn near everyone for now.
Absinthe has been a very vocal against this clause for months now, i don't think he meant as "shut up" but as "it's getting better"; so i will take his word for what it is.
However, i really wish the clause doesn't exist at all, rather than just getting more easy to pass now.
Absinthe has been a very vocal against this clause for months now, i don't think he meant as "shut up" but as "it's getting better"; so i will take his word for what it is.
However, i really wish the clause doesn't exist at all, rather than just getting more easy to pass now.
Fair enough, but people need to continue to be really vocal about this if they want it to change. Nothing will change with the "eh, it'll be fine" attitude.
This clause is so weird. Sometimes when a company has a policy I don't like, I still can understand it from a business aspect. I can't see why they feel they need this policy
Everything's gonna be OK, devs. Stop sweating it. I know Phil and Chris probably don't like me much from my prior comments on the clause (Hi guys!) - but at this point, in today's landscape, in today's MS - stop sweating it. You will be fine.
It sucks that you have to bend a few rules and have a conversation to get the same end result with person A that person B gave you without any hassle - but business sucks. That's how it is. Otherwise "business" would be called "no sweat". MS is INSANELY easy to reach out to.
As a dev that signed with MS and Sony when the parity clause was crafted in stone and not silly putty like it is today - stop sweating it. You will be fine with a staged platform release.
Just saying. He meant exactly what he said. Don't read so far into it, everyone. Its not a huge hurdle anymore. I have to give credit where it is due. Still would love to see the language stripped completely but this will do for damn near everyone for now.
This clause is so weird. Sometimes when a company has a policy I don't like, I still can understand it from a business aspect. I can't see why they feel they need this policy
By having this policy they suggest to developers that haven't yet decided where to spend their limited resources to spend them on releasing on XBL first over eShop and PSN, because eShop and PSN do not impose any restrictions.
It's basically abusing the openness of the marketplace competitors to gain timed exclusives without actually providing any support.
Why the supporters of this policy have never considered the hypothetical situation when both Sony and Nintendo also went for something like that is way more puzzling.
By having this policy they suggest to developers that haven't yet decided where to spend their limited resources to spend them on releasing on XBL first over eShop and PSN, because eShop and PSN do not impose any restrictions.
It's basically abusing the openness of the marketplace competitors to gain timed exclusives without actually providing any support.
Why the supporters of this policy have never considered the implication when both Sony and Nintendo also go for something like that is way more puzzling.
By having this policy they suggest to developers that haven't yet decided where to spend their limited resources to spend them on releasing on XBL first over eShop and PSN, because eShop and PSN do not impose any restrictions.
It's basically abusing the openness of the marketplace competitors to gain timed exclusives without actually providing any support.
They still benefit from it as long as Sony doesn't also implement such a policy.
This problem can be analyzed using a prisoner's dilemma table. As long as only one betrays the other they win. If they both betray each other they both lose.
Wasn't it around that time that Absinthe was going to create a thread with several quotes from several indies that were being affected by the clause and then that never came to pass?
Kinda of odd for Phil and Chris to hold a grudge after all this time even after Absinthe backed off.
So basically the platform leader gets the game first and the secondary platforms want a little extra to sell the game. I see can understand the frustration, but when Sony did it for PS3 games, where was the outrage? They are leading this generation and all of sudden this practice is now seen as a bad one.
No the leader vets the game. People love it so when it comes to those in second they want it because the leader players praised it and they wanted to experience it as well. The extra is those leader players who went in "blind"
Fair enough, but people need to continue to be really vocal about this if they want it to change. Nothing will change with the "eh, it'll be fine" attitude.
Wasn't it around that time that Absinthe was going to create a thread with several quotes from several indies that were being affected by the clause and then that never came to pass?
Kinda of odd for Phil and Chris to hold a grudge after all this time even after Absinthe backed off.
Yeah, i waited for that long post/rant for days. Shame he never came to post it, but i can understand that if Phil and Chris came to him and fixed his situation, he thought it was better to not post it.
Everything's gonna be OK, devs. Stop sweating it. I know Phil and Chris probably don't like me much from my prior comments on the clause (Hi guys!) - but at this point, in today's landscape, in today's MS - stop sweating it. You will be fine.
It sucks that you have to bend a few rules and have a conversation to get the same end result with person A that person B gave you without any hassle - but business sucks. That's how it is. Otherwise "business" would be called "no sweat". MS is INSANELY easy to reach out to.
As a dev that signed with MS and Sony when the parity clause was crafted in stone and not silly putty like it is today - stop sweating it. You will be fine with a staged platform release.
Just saying. He meant exactly what he said. Don't read so far into it, everyone. Its not a huge hurdle anymore. I have to give credit where it is due. Still would love to see the language stripped completely but this will do for damn near everyone for now.
It's good to hear that exceptions have been made for you. But that doesn't mean every developer will get an exception, right? Otherwise what's the point of the clause at all?
You really need to read between the lines .... Reading this thread was convinced that Spencer actually meant this and couldn't understand the negativity. But then I saw those responses from acutal devs and I looked at this quote again.
All he's saying is: if you want a staggered release, you still need to talk to us first. The "We work with them on that" bit is the give-away that there's still something that needs to be worked out first. Why is there a need to "work" with devs on a staggered release, if there is no parity clause?
Appreciate the extra insight from another dev which further illustrates that this needs to go.
One thing I'm confused on though is this extra content stuff. Phil said it, and the devs have said it but it just isn't happening. I rifled off a list of 15 indies that have launched first on Ps4 and later on XB1 that DO NOT have any extra content. In fact, I can't think of any that do, other than Shovel Knight but that's a different case entirely.
What Phil is saying and what is happening is not adding up
Well from the games that have come late so far, none that I know of have anything that I would call "special content"
1001 Spikes, Steamworld Dig, Rogue Legacy, Stealth Inc 2, OliOli, Blue Estate, Pinball Arcade, Thomas Was Alone, Stick it to the Man, Contrast, Outlast...ect (I'm sure I'm missing some)
And upcoming titles, to my knowledge don't have anything extra either
Octodad, Binding of Isaac, Don't Starve, Race the Sun, ect
Blue Estate previously an exclusive on Leap. Launched PS4(Jun 24, 2014), Xbox one(Feb 18,2015) - Maybe counts as staggered release and it being exclusive before ID@Xbox was announced made it an exception?
The Pinball Arcade staggered release as it was already available previously on PC, PS3,Xbox 360?
Conclusion
Looking at this especially due to the amount that have been PS+ titles. I wonder if they count as deals were made exceptions from the clause like so -
[URL="http://www.vg247.com/2013/12/05/idxbox-launch-parity-clause-called-out-by-vlambeer/]
Vlambeer said:
Microsoft was doing reach-out to certain developers back in the early days of ID@Xbox, and we discussed potentially bringing Nuclear Throne to Xbox One with them. There had been mentions beforehand that there was a launch parity clause in the contract, with the exception of games that were already signed to another platform during the announcement of their self-publishing program. Thus, before we signed with Microsoft, we e-mailed Sony that we quickly wanted to sign Nuclear Throne with them with a month of exclusivity.
[/URL]Although that does say "already signed during the announcement of ID@Xbox" which makes it hard to know with the 2014/2015 PS+ titles. If we go with what Skyrise has said then and if these PS+ deals count as exceptions then it valid his and Vlambeer words.
This clause is so weird. Sometimes when a company has a policy I don't like, I still can understand it from a business aspect. I can't see why they feel they need this policy
Since most of the Indie devs are small team and can't work on multiplatforms they would choose to launch first on Xbone and then work on PC or PS4 versions because both these platforms don't have any clause that prevent them from releasing late ports this way MS thought they are going to get most of the indie support first.
Good thing this didn't play out the way MS was hoping and i think sticking to their policy because they are still hoping that their plan might gain traction with time i mean if you think of it from devs point of view it is better to release their games on Xbone first without ruining their chances in releasing the games later in the other platforms while maintaining their low capacity output
By having this policy they suggest to developers that haven't yet decided where to spend their limited resources to spend them on releasing on XBL first over eShop and PSN, because eShop and PSN do not impose any restrictions.
It's basically abusing the openness of the marketplace competitors to gain timed exclusives without actually providing any support.
Why the supporters of this policy have never considered the hypothetical situation when both Sony and Nintendo also went for something like that is way more puzzling.
Fair enough, but people need to continue to be really vocal about this if they want it to change. Nothing will change with the "eh, it'll be fine" attitude.
Adding to that, gamers should be vocal about it. There's a perfectly good reason for gamers to hate MS's current policies without needing to bring in the livelihood of Developers into the mix: X1 is missing a ton of games.
While it is hard to quantify, it is clear that indies feel more comfortable putting their games on PS4 and less comfortable on Xbox One. The numbers don't lie, and that "indie release parity" clause certainly has something to do with it. There's a sizable disparity in the number and quality of indie games on both consoles. A We're not talking about one-off ported-from-mobile puzzle games. Off the top of my head:
- Transistor (Bastion devs)
- Apotheon (cool Metroidvania w/ Ancient Greek art style)
- Axiom Verge (basically the spiritual successor to Super Metroid)
- Hotline Miami 2 (sequel to one of the most critically-acclaimed indie games in the past few years)
- Nidhogg (very fun dueling game)
- Jamestown (shmup)
These sort of high-profile indies are the sort that 360 had on lockdown last gen (Castle Crashers, Geometry Wars, Braid, Fez, Bastion, etc) so it would be disingenuous to throw them aside. Xbox One is seriously missing out on some of the best indie games available on the market.
But hey. Despite missing some of the best indie games out there, I hope you still feel "First Class".
By having this policy they suggest to developers that haven't yet decided where to spend their limited resources to spend them on releasing on XBL first over eShop and PSN, because eShop and PSN do not impose any restrictions.
It's basically abusing the openness of the marketplace competitors to gain timed exclusives without actually providing any support.
Why the supporters of this policy have never considered the hypothetical situation when both Sony and Nintendo also went for something like that is way more puzzling.
So from what's been said. The language is there but Microsoft keeps letting people go around it. Also this type of policy only works well being the market leader, which they are not right now. Im wondering if they want to keep it in just in case they become market leader again and they can start enforcing it again. There no reason for the words to be there and then ignore it.
That said, I have a lot of friends who run small indie studios, and I get that time lines around when... they just can't get both games done at the same time or all 3 games, 4 games depending on how many platforms they're supporting. So I was just saying let's have a conversation and it's worked.
Blue Estate previously an exclusive on Leap. Launched PS4(Jun 24, 2014), Xbox one(Feb 18,2015) - Maybe counts as staggered release and it being exclusive before ID@Xbox was announced made it an exception?
The Pinball Arcade staggered release as it was already available previously on PC, PS3,Xbox 360?
Conclusion
Looking at this especially due to the amount that have been PS+ titles. I wonder if they count as deals were made exceptions from the clause like so -
[URL="http://www.vg247.com/2013/12/05/idxbox-launch-parity-clause-called-out-by-vlambeer/][/URL]Although that does say "already signed during the announcement of ID@Xbox" which makes it hard to know with the 2014/2015 PS+ titles. If we go with what Skyrise has said then and if these PS+ deals count as exceptions then it valid his and Vlambeer words.
Thanks a ton! I was actually meaning to go back and do an in depth analysis on the list and also on some upcoming titles such as Race the Sun, Don't Starve, Binding of Isaac, SuperMega Baseball, Awesomenauts Assemble, and some others to see if they have anything new or if they are the same content.
Really appreciate the effort put in on research and links. Seems I was also wrong about a few titles that actually launched first on Xbox.
I'll try and look into upcoming games when I get home later.
Everything's gonna be OK, devs. Stop sweating it. I know Phil and Chris probably don't like me much from my prior comments on the clause (Hi guys!) - but at this point, in today's landscape, in today's MS - stop sweating it. You will be fine.
It sucks that you have to bend a few rules and have a conversation to get the same end result with person A that person B gave you without any hassle - but business sucks. That's how it is. Otherwise "business" would be called "no sweat". MS is INSANELY easy to reach out to.
As a dev that signed with MS and Sony when the parity clause was crafted in stone and not silly putty like it is today - stop sweating it. You will be fine with a staged platform release.
Just saying. He meant exactly what he said. Don't read so far into it, everyone. Its not a huge hurdle anymore. I have to give credit where it is due. Still would love to see the language stripped completely but this will do for damn near everyone for now.
I am really glad to hear that things got better in your situation.
My concern is that they are still riding the same wording, andand still requiring an NDA to even have that conversation. Not only that, making claims of transparency reeks of inconsistency.
They just need to stop this. It's only hurting themselves and the devs in the long run. No one is winning from them keeping up this charade.
I am really glad to hear that things got better in your situation.
My concern is that they are still riding the same wording, andand still requiring an NDA to even have that conversation. Not only that, making claims of transparency reeks of inconsistency.
They just need to stop this. It's only hurting themselves and the devs in the long run. No one is winning from them keeping up this charade.
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.
It's good to hear that exceptions have been made for you. But that doesn't mean every developer will get an exception, right? Otherwise what's the point of the clause at all?
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.