• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

In light of ID@Xbox Policy, should we join in solidarity to change it?

A

Amir0x

Banned
As shown in this thread, some of the policies forced upon devs who want to be part of ID@Xbox are problematic and are counterintuitive to the type of free and open environment with the easiest bar of entry that small developers need to thrive across all platforms.

This is not about shitting on one console over another. It's about supporting small developers.

To summarize the issue, Theecliff wrote this succinct post:

Theecliff said:
They're allowed to release a game through the programme only if:

● They release on Xbox before any other platforms.
● They release on Xbox on the same day as other platforms.
● They had a previous exclusivity deal on another platform (But this loophole might have been closed).
Click to expand...

The bolded is the clause we really want to disappear. Microsoft is obviously doing this because they want to be able to stop Sony or Nintendo from getting a indie game that is unexpectedly popular before they do. But this goes beyond system wars nonsense. For small devs, this should only be seen as stifling and anti-developer. The choice should be theirs as to what is financially feasible. Small devs often have to focus on one platform or another first because they can't afford to spread themselves so thin. Sometimes Small developers often get help from one of the platform holders because otherwise they'd be unable to afford their vision, but they still eventually want to come to other platforms.

It should not matter that they had to make this small choice! What should matter is supporting small developers in as healthy an environment as possible!

I propose a twitter campaign, much like #NoPS4DRM and #NoXboxDRM, with the much less elegant #NoLaunchParityClause, which we could forward to individuals like Chris Charla @iocat, Albert Penello @albertpenello, and so on. People can list other important members of Microsoft that they feel would need to hear this.

Or we could hear arguments why such a campaign is not necessary, if you so choose. But I believe supporting small developers is essential for the health of this platform, and that such a clause not only negatively impacts the Xbox One's potential future game library, but also impacts the small development community in its entirety. What do you think?
 
yes.

Partly to try and get MS to change it, but partly to avoid Sony and Nintendo trying to follow suit to protect their existing relationships with indies

and it should include not only 'no timing parity required' but also no requirement for exclusive content if you're late to a platform. Self-publishing should mean that - publisher gets to choose when to launch and with what content
 
Amir0x said:
Or we could hear arguments why such a campaign is not necessary, if you so choose. But I believe supporting small developers is essential for the health of this platform, and that such a clause not only negatively impacts the Xbox One's potential future game library, but also impacts the small development community in its entirety. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I would love to see it reversed, but I feel in this case the best thing devs can do is release first on the PS4 and WiiU and then become popular there first.

I think then the policy would change very, very quickly, especially in the inevitable post launch drought.
 
I think it's a good idea, but unlike the #NoDRM campaign, the payoff isn't immediately obvious to MS (which is why they think the clause is a good idea in the first place) so I wonder how interested they will be.

I'm also very concerned about giving them what basically amounts to free PR.
 
mrklaw said:
yes.

Partly to try and get MS to change it, but partly to avoid Sony and Nintendo trying to follow suit to protect their existing relationships with indies

and it should include not only 'no timing parity required' but also no requirement for exclusive content if you're late to a platform. Self-publishing should mean that - publisher gets to choose when to launch and with what content
Click to expand...
This is important, IMHO.
 
I'd say "no".

They created this program based on a set of rules.

Now it is up to developers to choose if they want to join it or not.
 
Doombacon said:
Isn't this something MS pushes on all studios not just indies?
Click to expand...

Not sure, but that can't be true since exclusive games that came to Sony have come to Xbox platforms later. Haven't they? I'd love to know more.

S¡mon;93021868 said:
Nice idea, but that hashtag... argh, too long.
Click to expand...

I know! Someone needs to be more elegant than I am. Any ideas?
 
I'd like to see MS stick with this, and reap the consequences.
Actually, I wish MS hadn't done their DRM 180 for the same reason.
 
I feel like the only people who could affect this are developers. The more that sign up for the program, the more Microsoft doesn't have to worry about anything.
 
It's important that the policy is changed, and not just individual vocal developers get special treatment.

It sucks for the developers that got funding via Kickstarter because of WiiU stretch goals because that audience was willing to rally behind them when not much was on the WiiU horizon.
Now the developer can't release on Xbone, which means the developer lose out on potential revenue and the Xbone audience loses out on potential good games.

Looking at Game Theory, the best strategy now that Microsoft has done this is for Nintendo and Sony to also do this. Thereby everyone loses.
 
Amir0x said:
Not sure, but that can't be true since exclusive games that came to Sony have come to Xbox platforms later. Haven't they? I'd love to know more.
Click to expand...

From what I can gather, MS still have the clause in place that requires extra content, which as I recall, Sony used to have but have now dropped.
 
Castef said:
I'd say "no".

They created this program based on a set of rules.

Now it is up to developers to choose if they want to join it or not.
Click to expand...

really? It is clearly a set of rules designed to paint devs into a corner and force parity. It is good only for MS. If someone wants to release on Xbox one, they are forced to sit on code they may already have finished, which costs money that they may not have. Devs don't have the flexibility to release on one platform first and use the income from that to help them bring it to other platforms.

Also this creates a clear conflict between devs and Sony/Nintendo. Both have been much more open and engaged with indies, but MS' requirements could lead to devs releasing *first* on xbox and then later on Sony/Nintendo consoles. If I was an indie dev I would not appreciate MS putting me in that awkward situation, but the reality of business may require me to do it.
 
That would be really bad if MS was the dominant platform to publish independent games. Until this is the case, the developers can always choose not to submit to that policy, which in the end, will prevent MS from being the dominant platform for publishing independent games.

The issue needs to be known, but really, there is no need for another angry Internet mob.
 
Hugh Buelow said:
That would be really bad if MS was the dominant platform to publish independent games. Until this is the case, the developers can always choose not to submit to that policy, which in the end, will prevent MS from being the dominant platform for publishing independent games.

The issue needs to be known, but really, there is no need for another angry Internet mob.
Click to expand...

But the problem is Microsoft Xbox One may be a platform that can further the revenue for small developers. Forcing a small developer to make that stand also potentially hurts future revenue streams!
 
Let MS rot. They've been doing "same date or never" this last generation and it's absolutely disgusting.
 
I won't take part in this. MS will change when/if it doesn't work out for them. Let the Indie Dev market decide naturally.
 
I would go with something like #TrueIndyDev or something else for a hashtag that basically signifies that this is the point of independent development and publishing. Choice.

I won't take part in this. MS will change when/if it doesn't work out for them. Let the Indie Dev market decide naturally.
Click to expand...
You've got an odd idea of "naturally" here.
 
Let the developers choose. A developer does not have to release anything on the Xbox. If Microsoft starts missing out on games then they will change the policy.
 
Amir0x said:
But the problem is Microsoft Xbox One may be a platform that can further the revenue for small developers. Forcing a small developer to make that stand also potentially hurts future revenue streams!
Click to expand...

I miss the "forcing" part of your theory.

The developer can freely decide whether or not sign an exclusivity deal with a publisher.

At the same time, a developer can freely decide wheter join a program with this set of rules or avoid it and publish just on other platforms.

Judging by the list of developers who applied to the ID@xbox program they are probably (and I say "probably") evaluating this as a good thing.

What if, instead of mounting a protest movement, we try to get more deveoper's point of view about this, with an open call here on NeoGaf?
 
mrklaw said:
Also this creates a clear conflict between devs and Sony/Nintendo. Both have been much more open and engaged with indies, but MS' requirements could lead to devs releasing *first* on xbox and then later on Sony/Nintendo consoles. If I was an indie dev I would not appreciate MS putting me in that awkward situation, but the reality of business may require me to do it.
Click to expand...

It's more likely that devs will have to delay their games, which is very risky when you're just a tiny indie studio. In the other thread there was a dev that mentioned that they could release the Wii U version of their game in January with the PS4 version coming soon after, but because they're in that MS program they can't release either of them until they eventually finish the Xbox One version.
 
Tashi said:
I won't take part in this. MS will change when/if it doesn't work out for them. Let the Indie Dev market decide naturally.
Click to expand...

but the point is that most don't really have a real choice short of excluding the second largest console platform ... that's alot to ask
 
Castef said:
I'd say "no".

They created this program based on a set of rules.

Now it is up to developers to choose if they want to join it or not.
Click to expand...

Except developers will throw up the middle finger to Microsoft and just release on PS4 and PC. As someone who's going to be a majority Xbox One player for the foreseeable future I don't want to see that happen. There are way too many amazing looking indie games out there for Microsoft to play hardball with the developers.

I don't care is these games are hitting PS4 or PC first, I just want to eventually be able to play them. That's the most important part. Microsoft needs to have policies in place that allow these developers to bring their games to Xbox One. Pure and simple. No more bullshit.
 
MS should just scrap all absurd restrictions and open up XBL for anyone who wants to pay a license fee and develop games for it. It feels like their efforts to accomodate indies is so token and still so restrictive that they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.
 
andromeduck said:
but the point is that most don't really have a real choice short of excluding the second largest console platform ... that's alot to ask
Click to expand...

Guys... do we realize that this is an "issue" related to just the first months of existance of the new consoles?

A time period in which developers have already developed games and are busy porting them here and there?

From now on the development of other indie games from developers interested in publishing on Xbox One and other platform will simply take the rules for publishing into account and plan development accordingly.

Most probabily in 2/3 months this won't even be regarded as an issue in the indie community.

Of course, maybe I'm totally wrong and there are biggest issues in this, yet I'd really like to hear more from the developers about this.

I repeat: so far the feedback I read about the ID@xbox program has been quite positive.
 
Triggerhappytel said:
MS should just scrap all absurd restrictions and open up XBL for anyone who wants to pay a license fee and develop games for it. It feels like their efforts to accomodate indies is so token and still so restrictive that they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Click to expand...

I thought that was their plan for 2014 and one of the main reason i bought an X1.
 
Tashi said:
I won't take part in this. MS will change when/if it doesn't work out for them. Let the Indie Dev market decide naturally.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the clause is vile, but it's not sufficiently restrictive that it will prevent all indie developers from joining the program. Moreover, if mid-sized developers who want to self-publish (e.g. Crytek) join the program it could be kept alive indefinitely.

The big problem with the idea, I think, is that there's no general interest in it. There are a large number of people who think MS have made their bed and now they must lie in it (completely ignoring the fact that it's indies who suffer here). There's the PS4 owners for whom this isn't an issue and whom hence have no interest in change for Xbone. There's the Xbone owners who, after six months of their fave getting smashed on every front are ready to defend every crappy MS decision going. Take all of those slices out of the pie and the result is a very small group of people who have any interest.
 
May I ask one question that what is wrong with those policies?

MS wants to protect the Xbox platform and Xbox gamers. They wanna Xbox gamers are capable of playing games at the same time as gamers from other platforms. They even wanna Xbox gamers are capable of playing games before gamers from other platforms.

In my eyes, this brings benefits to the platform and Xbox fans.

I could be wrong. So anyone can explain the negative impact about those policies? Of course, from a Xbox gamers' point of view.
 
Castef said:
Guys... do we realize that this is an "issue" related to just the first months of existance of the new consoles?

A time period in which developers have already developed games and are busy porting them here and there?

From now on the development of other indie games from developers interested in publishing on Xbox One and other platform will simply take the rules for publishing into account and plan development accordingly.

Most probabily in 2/3 months this won't even be regarded as an issue in the indie community.

Of course, maybe I'm totally wrong and there are biggest issues in this, yet I'd really like to hear more from the developers about this.

I repeat: so far the feedback I read about the ID@xbox program has been quite positive.
Click to expand...

We have to indie devs here in GAF who are not OK with this.

EDIT: Just because the feedback is positive doesn't mean ID@Xbox is perfect and what we're doing here is making it even better.
 
I will reiterate my prior points.

What if the market rewards policies like this? What would those implications say?

Right now, it does not seem like a big deal. But what if Sony follows suit with a similar policy?

Whether or not MS is justified to enforce this because of their free dev kits is only the tip of the iceberg.
 
zhao3gold said:
May I ask one question that what is wrong with those policies?

MS wants to protect the Xbox platform and Xbox gamers. They wanna Xbox gamers are capable of playing games at the same time as gamers from other platforms. They even wanna Xbox gamers are capable of playing games before gamers from other platforms.

In my eyes, this brings benefits to the platform and Xbox fans.

I could be wrong. So anyone can explain the negative impact about those policies? Of course, from a Xbox gamers' point of view.
Click to expand...

It's a negative for developers. They either have to delay their game when it's ready for other platforms or they have to compromise the development of their game in order to get it out on all platforms as soon as possible. Neither are particularly preferable.

In theory it's good for Xbox gamers but in the end, there will be quite a few developers that won't jeopardize the development of their game because Microsoft wants to play hardball. So if some of these games never make to the Xbox platform then that's why it's bad for Xbox gamers.

I get that Microsoft wants the platform parity. It makes sense. In the end though this program needs to be to the majority benefit of the developer. Make your program easy to gain access to and less stressful to the developers and in turn they will flock to it.
 
Amir0x said:
But the problem is Microsoft Xbox One may be a platform that can further the revenue for small developers. Forcing a small developer to make that stand also potentially hurts future revenue streams!
Click to expand...

I don't think the small developers have the resources to port their games to multiple platforms at launch anyway. In that case, they still have 7 other platforms to choose from.

Also, it's their business so I think it's their duty to fight against such policies so they can continue to do business in the future. If it's not MS, it could be another platform holder who will abuse their position. They did raise their middle finger to Nintendo last gen.
 
zhao3gold said:
May I ask one question that what is wrong with those policies?

MS wants to protect the Xbox platform and Xbox gamers. They wanna Xbox gamers are capable of playing games at the same time as gamers from other platforms. They even wanna Xbox gamers are capable of playing games before gamers from other platforms.

In my eyes, this brings benefits to the platform and Xbox fans.

I could be wrong. So anyone can explain the negative impact about those policies? Of course, from a Xbox gamers' point of view.
Click to expand...

It's bad because:
It will cripple the other platforms.
It also means less indie games to Xbox One. (This the one you're looking for)
More importantly Sony and Nintendo are not doing it and they're more than OK.
 
As a Xbox gamers, I think the negative impact will be mainly on the games that already announced/developed right now for other platforms. ID@XBOX is kind of late for MS and indies.

In a long run, I still think these policies can bring benefits to Xbox platforms and gamers. In 360 era, I really enjoyed the XBLA lineups more than PSN lineups because many games were launched exclusive or exclusive firstly on 360.

I think it is too early to judge those policies.

Well, I could be wrong....
 
zhao3gold said:
As a Xbox gamers, I think the negative impact will be mainly on the games that already announced/developed right now for other platforms. ID@XBOX is kind of late for MS and indies.

In a long run, I still think these policies can bring benefits to Xbox platforms and gamers. In 360 era, I really enjoyed the XBLA lineups more than PSN lineups because many games were launched exclusive or exclusive firstly on 360.

I think it is too early to judge those policies.

Well, I could be wrong....
Click to expand...

So basically fuck other consoles? Geez

What happen when all of other platform holders do the same like MS?
 
I've already thought it was bullshit due to how these policies seem to have hurt Nintendo's own 3rd party support for the Wii U (Rayman Legends being completed but still delayed to go multiplat being the most obvious example, but delayed releases of the Wii U version, lack of features/DLC, etc seem to sometimes have similar motivation behind some of those decisions, even if it is much harder for us to know for sure).

I would make sense that these policies would make things very difficult for small indies since these policies seem to be made for large publishers.

I hate this kind of shit because it seems to be anti-competitive to me and even if it isn't illegal, it seems unethical, especially since moneyhats seem to be a real thing as a way to do nothing but bribe people to make games for your system or grant you some minor exclusivity. A developer practically can't just choose to make a game for another system without closing off their options, with indies especially who don't have the money/resources to make every possible version of the game at the same time, it kills their choices.

These practices should be completely done away with.
 
The best would actually be for Microsoft to leave it like that and for devs to ignore the Xbox One. Now that would have an effect into, yet again, showing Microsoft they aren't in touch with their clients.
 
Castef said:
Guys... do we realize that this is an "issue" related to just the first months of existance of the new consoles?

A time period in which developers have already developed games and are busy porting them here and there?

From now on the development of other indie games from developers interested in publishing on Xbox One and other platform will simply take the rules for publishing into account and plan development accordingly.

Most probabily in 2/3 months this won't even be regarded as an issue in the indie community.

Of course, maybe I'm totally wrong and there are biggest issues in this, yet I'd really like to hear more from the developers about this.

I repeat: so far the feedback I read about the ID@xbox program has been quite positive.
Click to expand...


ok, lets put aside games currently in development - there will be some problems with those.

For future development, MS is still strongarming developers.

If you can afford to develop 2-3 versions simultaneously, great. Release all three at the same time. But you'd have done that anyway to take maximum advantage of launch buzz, reviews, and get the biggest addressable market. MS' rules don't really apply here.

If you can't afford to do all three at once, and perhaps have to do one at a time - that is still a bad situation. Sony and Nintendo have spent time engaging with indies and given them opportunities to publish. Yet here comes MS effectively forcing you to launch first on Xbox one or never publish on Xbox one. The fact that Sony and Nintendo don't have launch parity clauses means you can technically do that, and it is the only way to get your game out to all three consoles. But it also means basically shitting on Sony and Nintendo when they have been supporting you in the past and they get the games last.

If that is what happens, I can completely see Sony retaliating with a similar policy - shit but understandable. Nintendo less so, I'm not sure they are in a strong enough position to do that.

Thats why this needs to change. Indie developers should not be put in this position. Self publishing should mean exactly that
 
Doesn't Sony have some similar policies regarding exclusivity and multiplats? I don't know if they apply to indies in the same way but I think the practice is toxic to the industry.
 
Chobel said:
So basically fuck other consoles? Geez

What happen when all of other platform holder do the same like MS?
Click to expand...

Well, this is part of console wars, isn't it? The console manufacturers wants to ensure their own platforms being better than others, don't they?
 
zhao3gold said:
Well, this is part of console wars, isn't it? The console manufacturers wants to ensure their own platforms being better than others, don't they?
Click to expand...

What the fuck am I reading? You can't be serious?

That will hurt indie devs.
-------

Cuburt said:
Doesn't Sony have some similar policies regarding exclusivity and multiplats? I don't know if they apply to indies in the same way but I think the practice is toxic to the industry.
Click to expand...

All those restrictions (to indie) are gone now.
 
Hugh Buelow said:
Let's bully the poorest developers for console war sake!
Click to expand...
And instead of being a positive force for indies by giving you guaranteed royalties for a period of exclusivity, we just force parity if you want to publish on our platform at all.

Same effect without any of the risk as others pay for the development. We're so smart! And the end justifies the mean, because if we're successful with strong-arming developers everything is good.
 
zhao3gold said:
I could be wrong. My comments are just from the point of view as a Xbox gamers. I didn't think the impacts to the devs.
Click to expand...
Your comments are from the point of view of a Xbox gamer that lives in a hypothetical world where Microsoft has succeeded in strong-arming developers to accept these policies en masse.

That is not the case at this point. So I wouldn't go around celebrating just yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Can we live in a world without Xbox?
Drama  2 3
122
864
Hector Hall replied
Positron - Should we run to gamestops used bin?
14
336
simpatico replied
Should I buy an Xbox?
2
79
824
Parazels replied
ID @ Xbox show starting soon
17
623
Tobimacoss replied
Apogee/3D Realms founder: id Software lost most of its software developers in today’s layoffs
2 3 4
173
1K
Panajev2001a replied
Top Bottom