• 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 on indie parity clause "I want people to feel like they're first class"

jcm

Member
Thanks pepe silva.gif

I don't understand the reference.

Thanks, so anyone hinting that the clause has to do with graphical parity is just speculating, joking or trolling.

Sorry, I was definitely just speculating. I apologize if I gave the impression I had some insider info. I just find it hard to square the attitude in the OP with the idea that MS will throw millions of dollars at a publisher who is producing an inferior port of a AAA game.
 

HariKari

Member
just accept MS were late to the indie party and build goodwill by saying 'Hey I know we're late with the love but we're here and we still want your awesome games'.

Why break a little bread to make things right when you can moneyhat Tomb Raider and pay the NFL $400 million to advertise a competitor's product?
 

SSReborn

Member
xmen_first_class_ver6.jpg

C'mon Bros

Someone has to photoshop something using this.
 
Sorry, I was definitely just speculating. I apologize if I gave the impression I had some insider info. I just find it hard to square the attitude in the OP with the idea that MS will throw millions of dollars at a publisher who is producing an inferior port of a AAA game.

NVM, just wanted to be sure what do we certainly know and what-not.
 
ID@Xbox does give two free devkits as well as free Unity, so it seems like a give more and ask for more back kinda thing.
Yeah I never understood why it is such a bad thing for microsoft to expect you to release a game at the same time as or before the PS4 version when they're giving you all these benefits. It would just be weird for them to say "here's a dev kit and unity. It's perfectly fine for you to release this on our main competitor's machine before ours."

That being said it is a bit of a problem when this clause stops games from coming out on Xbox just because they were released on PS4 first. I don't know how many games have encountered that specific issue, but it also seems that MS is willing to work with them if they have a discussion. I don't know what kind of discussion it is exactly, but I'm willing to bet it's a discussion more about business than it is about bullying the dev.
 

M.D

Member
Well, this make me start to believe they may be enforcing resolution parity for games with co-marketing deals.

I don't know why people find this idea so outrages.

I'm pretty sure I remember Jeff Gerstmann talking openly about third parties being paid to make one version of a game worse in one of the podcasts leading up to the PS4 & One launch, and he sounded pretty convinced that the co-marketing deal is the reason behind the resolution parity in the last Bombcast
 

Rebel Leader

THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Yeah I never understood why it is such a bad thing for microsoft to expect you to release a game at the same time as or before the PS4 version when they're giving you all these benefits. It would just be weird for them to say "here's a dev kit and unity. It's perfectly fine for you to release this on our main ckmpetitor's machine before ours."
Ckmpetitor... HAHAHAHA
 

Xando

Member
Yeah I never understood why it is such a bad thing for microsoft to expect you to release a game at the same time as or before the PS4 version when they're giving you all these benefits. It would just be weird for them to say "here's a dev kit and unity. It's perfectly fine for you to release this on our main ckmpetitor's machine before ours."

Because most indies dont have the money or manpower to develop two versions at the same time. So either they release first on Xbox or have one version laying around.
 
I don't know why people find this idea so outrages.

I'm pretty sure I remember Jeff Gerstmann talking openly about third parties being paid to make one version of a game worse in one of the podcasts leading up to the PS4 & One launch, and he sounded pretty convinced that the co-marketing deal is the reason behind the resolution parity in the last Bombcast

I just find too fucking shady that those co-marketing deals have clauses that clearly state 'don't make my game worse than the competition'.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
I don't know why people find this idea so outrages.

I'm pretty sure I remember Jeff Gerstmann talking openly about third parties being paid to make one version of a game worse in one of the podcasts leading up to the PS4 & One launch, and he sounded pretty convinced that the co-marketing deal is the reason behind the resolution parity in the last Bombcast
Jeff Gerstmann doesn't really have a flawless insider record. He was also convinced PS4 would get the same DRM as Xbone and Sony changed the price of the device after hearing the E3 conference.

The conviction with which you say something isn't indicative of the accuracy of what you say.
 

James Coote

Neo Member
But surely it's Microsoft's fault for being so slow in getting their shit together in regards to indies. These people have families to feed, lives to live. They can't just hold off on releasing their game on all platforms because one platform holder twiddled their thumbs for too long.

That's the bed they made though. They are an after-thought now. They should be courting them back, not making rules to scare small developers into delaying the launch of their titles. Developers that rely on the return of their one game to eat and survive.

Spencer is doing this to Indie Devs, because he thinks he can get away with bullying them.

Indie devs can't afford PS4 or Wii U devkits. How about Sony and Nintendo give them away for free to help those poor starving indies?

Reality is that if you approach these guys and have a conversation, they probably will be able to find an arrangement that can accommodate both sides needs. That's exactly what MS are saying here, but with parity clause rather than devkit cost.

They should be welcoming every damn game with open arms. Late release or not. As a console developer, having to jump through hoops to get your game on Xbox seems absurd when the platform is not the market leader in the slightest.

Currently they are not in the position to bully indies around just to appear less inferior to the competition. It's a straight up arbitrary hurdle and it fucks both developers and consumers.
I'm hoping more indies continue to give them the finger.

As a console developer on any platform, the number of hoops you have to jump through is enough to put most indies off. For example, Sony's stupid fixed IP rule. I know indies who have had to stop working on their games for PS4 because of it. You can bet there are hidden hurdles aplenty for all 3 console makers, but you only find them out once you've signed the NDA. Why single out MS/Xbox just because one of those happens to have come out in public?
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
Indie devs can't afford PS4 or Wii U devkits. How about Sony and Nintendo give them away for free to help those poor starving indies?
But they've given out loaner devkits for years. Last status from the indie department at Sony (that I've read in an interview) is that they haven't charged for a single devkit yet.

As a console developer on any platform, the number of hoops you have to jump through is enough to put most indies off. For example, Sony's stupid fixed IP rule. I know indies who have had to stop working on their games for PS4 because of it. You can bet there are hidden hurdles aplenty for all 3 console makers, but you only find them out once you've signed the NDA. Why single out MS/Xbox just because one of those happens to have come out in public?
You don't know about the loaners but there is some IP rule. What is that IP rule?
 

Ultimatum

Banned
I reject your premise that more market share means better sales for each and every game.

If that was true, every developer would make iOS games. But in reality there are a lot of factors and getting ad space and E3 space on Xbox increases the attachment value.
That means even if the PS4 is selling more, the bigger amount of games released every month means you have a bigger competition on that platform in comparison to the Xbone.

obviously 99% was an exaggeration...

How many devs would choose to develop for windows phone over iOS/Android? I'd be very surprised if it were even 1%. Market share is very important. Yes, if Xbox is starved that much then the few games on there will receive much more promotion, however that argument is irrelevant, as we are discussing what'd happen if the clause were to be removed. Without the clause, devs would prioritise PS4 due to higher market share, and then later port to Xbox. That means the high competition is still there, so unless you can become one of the 1% that gets to be promoted as exclusive (timed or otherwise), market share (and attach rate I guess, but I don't think it's that different this gen) is the most important factor on deciding which platform to go for.

Link



Link



Link



Link



Link



Link

But no MS isn't bullying anyone, they just want to treat their customers as FIRST CLASS CITIZENS

how is it possible to reference so many devs and still address absolutely nothing

none of these devs talk about what is going on behind the scenes in regards to communication and negotiation with MS, which is likely down to how old these articles are
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
They just don't want devs to treat X1 as an afterthought or a given. If you can shoehorn in some use of platform unique features (i.e. Kinect), and talk to them upfront (i.e. before you release on PS4), then they'll probably be cool with you releasing later.

Also, is it better to launch first on X1 and get a free devkit or pay for a PS4 and/or Wii U devkit and be locked out of X1?

Devs won't want to treat X1 as an afterthought. Just because they might financially need to choose PS4 first, doesn't make an XB1 version less important for them.

MS already offer free dev kits and tools, which should be incentivising developers to target XB1 first. They shouldn't need the stick of potentially blocking release.

As for 'talk it through with MS'. Isn't having to negotiate special features or a waiver of the policy kind of against the whole idea of 'self' publishing? Basically MS do not have a policy of self publishing, only lip service towards it.
 

Sir TapTap

Member
I can't remember which thread it was but someone posted a picture with releases on both consoles . It was pretty one sided in Sony's favout iirc.

Oh yeah, I recall something like that. Not sure about indie vs non-indie but I can't imagine too many AAA or first parties tipping the scales nearly as much in terms of absolute numbers.
 

Amir0x

Banned
how is it possible to reference so many devs and still address absolutely nothing

none of these devs talk about what is going on behind the scenes in regards to communication and negotiation with MS

And I'm the fucking fanboy? Every last dev said the parity clause is a huge problem. Every.Last.One.

But I guess we should keep it because, why? Because Microsoft is pathetic on this score?
 

Arcblast

Neo Member
Ohhh, so MS wants to make xbox owners feel special. That's very nice of them. No wonder they keep on spending money to downgrade the experience on other platforms.
 
Oh yeah, I recall something like that. Not sure about indie vs non-indie but I can't imagine too many AAA or first parties tipping the scales nearly as much in terms of absolute numbers.

Yeah the big releases will be about even I bet but the it's the indies that make the difference. There seem to be a few dropping every week for the PS4.
 

Rebel Leader

THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
As a console developer on any platform, the number of hoops you have to jump through is enough to put most indies off. For example, Sony's stupid fixed IP rule. I know indies who have had to stop working on their games for PS4 because of it. You can bet there are hidden hurdles aplenty for all 3 console makers, but you only find them out once you've signed the NDA. Why single out MS/Xbox just because one of those happens to have come out in public?

Please link to information about the 'fixed ip' rule

I never heard of it
 
how is it possible to reference so many devs and still address absolutely nothing

none of these devs talk about what is going on behind the scenes in regards to communication and negotiation with MS
Well, the fact that so many devs said it was unlikely that their games would release on xb1, along with the fact that the xb1 has missed out on several indies, kind of points to the conclusion that such discussions did not go well, dontcha think?
 
Anyone got actual numbers of indie releases per month by console/platform? Feels like there's multiple indies dropping every week on PS4 and I seldom hear a peep about recently released Xbox One indies.

As of today there's 22 self-published games on xbox one. Think there is over 50 on PS4 at least, don't know how many are self-published. I would say majority of them as Sony pushed that heavily with indies before id@xbox came about.
 

Maztorre

Member
how is it possible to reference so many devs and still address absolutely nothing

none of these devs talk about what is going on behind the scenes in regards to communication and negotiation with MS

Maybe because if there was "communication and negotiation" actually taking place with these devs they would have alluded to it rather than basically laying out how much the policy fucking sucks?
 
All its doing is keeping some games away. What's utterly laugable is they'll gladly bend the rule for indie titles that are big enough.

It's bullying, plain and simple and I truly hole indie devs take the road of ignoring MS, at least until they drop this stupid clause.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Indie devs can't afford PS4 or Wii U devkits. How about Sony and Nintendo give them away for free to help those poor starving indies?

Reality is that if you approach these guys and have a conversation, they probably will be able to find an arrangement that can accommodate both sides needs. That's exactly what MS are saying here, but with parity clause rather than devkit cost.

That should be reason enough for MS to *not* need the parity clause.

MS: Hey devs, we give you free dev kits and unity licenses. No strings attached

Sony: Pony up for devkits.

Dev: Hmm, I'm really broke right now. Maybe I'll go with MS because my investment to start is zero, get the Xbox version out and then hopefully make some money to get the PS4 version done.

See how that can work?
 

Ricky_R

Member
how is it possible to reference so many devs and still address absolutely nothing

none of these devs talk about what is going on behind the scenes in regards to communication and negotiation with MS, which is likely down to how old these articles are

Am I missing something here? Those indie devs (the ones Amir0x quoted) are simply and clearly not happy with the clause.
 

Wereroku

Member
I don't know why people find this idea so outrages.

I'm pretty sure I remember Jeff Gerstmann talking openly about third parties being paid to make one version of a game worse in one of the podcasts leading up to the PS4 & One launch, and he sounded pretty convinced that the co-marketing deal is the reason behind the resolution parity in the last Bombcast

Jeff didn't have any insider knowledge on the Unity situation he was just saying that contract enforced parity wouldn't be that outrageous compared to some of the stuff he has seen while he has been covering games.
 

TechnicPuppet

Nothing! I said nothing!
I have no issue with this approach. Plenty games came out on PS4 first are now on XB1 and I haven't heard of any devs saying the game isn't on XB1 because of the parity clause.

It's an internal thing that should only concern consumers if it actually affects games coming to XB1 and it isn't.
 

NHale

Member
If he cares so much about making Xbox owners feel like first class then why did the Xbox One only launched in 13 countries?

So he doesn't care for all of those living countries that only got the console 10 months later? Great job Phil! You gave an interview that make you seem exactly like Yusuf Mehdi. Congrats.
 
All console manufacturers have to treat indies with care. They put their games out no hassle on PC or iOS and make money. We've seen some devs attempting more ambitious projects on the consoles, but they don't want to be embroiled in console politics.
 

Ultimatum

Banned
Maybe because if there was "communication and negotiation" actually taking place with these devs they would have alluded to it rather than basically laying out how much the policy fucking sucks?

Well, the fact that so many devs said it was unlikely that their games would release on xb1, along with the fact that the xb1 has missed out on several indies, kind of points to the conclusion that such discussions did not go well, dontcha think?

And I'm the fucking fanboy? Every last dev said the parity clause is a huge problem. Every.Last.One.

But I guess we should keep it because, why? Because Microsoft is pathetic on this score?
The only recent article says this:

The clause (if enforced) means it might not be possible for us to release on Xbox One, even though we wanted to.

http://gamingbolt.com/among-the-sleep-ps4-interview-xbox-one-parity-clause-resolutionframe-rate-debate-and-more#IRHxxg8Tq0Eb2wK4.99

note that he says "if enforced"

there's clearly more going on behind the scenes

but ignore that if you want

#fanboys
 

Afrodium

Banned
If I'm a prospective console buyer who cares about indie games, why would I go for the Xbox One? With the PS4 I know that I'll get to play the indies that release first on PS4 and sometime down the road I'll be likely to play the indies that released first on the Xbox One. If I were to buy an Xbox One, I'd get the indies that release on it and then nothing else. Every trailer I saw for an indie releasing on PS4 would just make me regret my purchase because the parity clause prevents me from ever playing it.
 

Amir0x

Banned
I have no issue with this approach. Plenty games came out on PS4 first are now on XB1 and I haven't heard of any devs saying the game isn't on XB1 because of the parity clause.

It's an internal thing that should only concern consumers if it actually affects games coming to XB1 and it isn't.

except it factually already has impacted games coming out to XB1 and I've already posted a huge post full of links which prove it

do you guys just want to plug your ears from the truth? Does it make it easier to support bullshit?

Ultimatum said:
note that he says "if enforced"

there's clearly more going on behind the scenes

but ignore that if you want

Wow. Holy fuck. You are so comically disingenuous that the fact you ever thought it was appropriate to call me a fanboy makes you a true legendary joke character.
 
That should be reason enough for MS to *not* need the parity clause.

MS: Hey devs, we give you free dev kits and unity licenses. No strings attached

Sony: Pony up for devkits.

Dev: Hmm, I'm really broke right now. Maybe I'll go with MS because my investment to start is zero, get the Xbox version out and then hopefully make some money to get the PS4 version done.

See how that can work?
Well apparently is isn't enough because a lot of devs are still releasing first on PS4. I don't know what kind of point you're trying to make.
 

Wereroku

Member
I have no issue with this approach. Plenty games came out on PS4 first are now on XB1 and I haven't heard of any devs saying the game isn't on XB1 because of the parity clause.

It's an internal thing that should only concern consumers if it actually affects games coming to XB1 and it isn't.

Amirox just posted a bunch of links to devs saying that on page three.

Post in question
 

Maztorre

Member
It's an internal thing that should only concern consumers if it actually affects games coming to XB1 and it isn't.

Except it concerns customers because it obviously affects releases on other platforms as well as placing additional arbitrary burdens on the developer.
 

JP

Member
Perhaps the best way of dealing with this would have been for Microsoft to have made a "first class" console like they did in the previous two generations?
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
note that he says "if enforced"

there's clearly more going on behind the scenes

but ignore that if you want

#fanboys
What's the argument here?

The policy is good because they are only selectively enforcing it at their own behest?
 
Top Bottom