Hmmm...must have been another developer here then. Sorry about that.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.
Hmmm...must have been another developer here then. Sorry about that.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.
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.
No idea what is so funny.HAHAHAHAHAHA!
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.This hoop jumping still has a whiff of paternalism. On what scale from Valve to Apple would you rate MS in this particular instance?
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.No idea what is so funny.
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.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.
Okay, we get it.
We really, really do.
can't wait for next months inevitable thread on this subject.
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.
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
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.
I was just replying to his comment. Why make a big deal about it?
He is obviously upset by it. Please take that into consideration when you post next time.
He is obviously upset by it. Please take that into consideration when you post next time.
Now all we need is Absinthe Games Ravidrath, and Chubigans to make their voices as clearly heard, and maybe we'll have a more cohesive archive to make the apologists or ignorant folks pay attention.
I love you guys.
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.
He is obviously upset by it. Please take that into consideration when you post next time.
That's pretty loud and clear but is it what you want to hear?
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.
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.
That's pretty loud and clear but is it what you want to hear?
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
Doesn't fit the narrative.
Doesn't fit the narrative.
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.
Doesn't fit the narrative.
If it is nothing - then why don't they erase it completely and avoid misunderstandings?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?
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.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.
You mean this narrative?Doesn't fit the narrative.
Even without the parity clause, re-releasing a game on a platform months later without offering the gamers on that platform something is fucking scummy and the devs could shove that game up theirs.
If it is nothing - then why don't they erase it completely and avoid misunderstandings?
It would be so easy.
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?"
Do we know for certain that Sony doesn't have the same type of clause? Goat Simulator launched on XBox One and when it launches on PS4, it will have content that was not in the XBox One version (GoatVR).
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?
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"
Do we know for certain that Sony doesn't have the same type of clause? Goat Simulator launched on XBox One and when it launches on PS4, it will have content that was not in the XBox One version (GoatVR).
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."
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"
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...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).
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...
Sony does more of a 'wink wink' suggestion instead of writing it in a contract.Do we know for certain that Sony doesn't have the same type of clause? Goat Simulator launched on XBox One and when it launches on PS4, it will have content that was not in the XBox One version (GoatVR).
Sony does more of a 'wink wink' suggestion instead of writing it in a contract.
Do we know for certain that Sony doesn't have the same type of clause? Goat Simulator launched on XBox One and when it launches on PS4, it will have content that was not in the XBox One version (GoatVR).
A bit of context: I'm the cofounder of MixedBag Games, a super small italian studio. We've released Futuridium EP (PC/Mac/iOS) and then Futuridium EP Deluxe (PS4 / PSVita) last year as a two people team, and now we're working on the action adventure forma.8 (PS4/PSVita/Wii U/iOS/PC/Mac/Linux) and on Futuridium VR for Project Morpheus.
MixedBag is now a 5 people studio, so still crazy small considering that we're working on multiple projects and multiple platforms at the same time.
We've been part of the PlayStation and Nintendo indie program since late 2013 and we've been accepted in ID@Xbox in March 2014 (we've applied the first day it was announced, at GDC Europe 2013 if I remember correctly).
[...]
What's different with Sony and Nintendo?
Neither Sony nor Nintendo have something like that. You want to release your already released game on PS4 / Vita / Wii U? Go on, you don't have to add anything at all, there are no requirements. A straight port is fine. If you want to add extra stuff, it's up to you.
[...]
Oh he knows.
Sony nor Nintendo do not have an Indie parity clause.
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.
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.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.
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).