Support NeoGAF

[Miles Quaritch]

Again, no one is disputing they have made some exceptions. In fact, that's the running joke - that King/Lord Phil Spencer is going to graciously allow a developer to get through the clause if they give a really really good reason and/or have an important enough game.

But the falsehood, the one you keep bizarrely arguing, is this:



Because they don't, and Phil Spencer is not. The numbers support he is not. The number of devs who are making games for PS4 and not XBO due to it support he is not. The number of games that are currently coming to PS4 and not XBO (and it's far more than 47, it's well over a hundred) support he is not. The vast number of developers who refuse to stop making a stink over it, many due to the fact they are not getting exceptions. On GAF. In the media.

The problem is you keep this charade up as if the only issue is that small developers can't speak up for themselves. The issue is the policy itself. Because Phil Spencer is NOT making exceptions for everyone. And nobody should even have to fucking explain in the first place why they can't bring the game day and date, as if indie devs don't have enough headaches to deal with so just throw some more red tape into the mix. Absurd.

I'm glad you want to get rid of it too and think indie devs should show solidarity, but we need to be clear here. Microsoft is not just making exceptions for everyone, big or small.

Fair enough. The only reason I'm arguing that point is based on games like Outlast, Contrast, Stick to the Man, Pure Pool, Olli Olli and Oddworld.

That gave the impression that should one of the bigger indie developers ask for an exception, they could get one. If that was inaccurate or in any way exaggerated on my part, I can only apologise.

 

[Crayon]

I'll guess I'll play devil's advocate for a bit just to stir more interesting debate and for fun, even though I think it should go as it is ultimately ineffective, so I am arguing about the idea for it.

The reason for the parity clause is to force developers to try and make Xbox One one of the lead platforms. It's not so much that MS fears that a few or so games that come out will eventually get a port ala Shovel Knight and Super time Force Ultra but every indie game does. In this scenario developers would just make a PS4 version and release it and then work on Xbox One version and release that whenever. Once again fine for a few cases but what if eventually it turns to every or virtually every developer deciding to work on Xbox One platform later on. People are happy with getting some games later than others but how happy would they be if 70% of the indie games would take 6 or so months to release it?

But as I said earlier, I don't think this is how MS should do it. I feel a much better way would be try and seduce indie developers via perks to release parity, but I don't work at the Xbox Division so I can't really say if that is an viable way. I also believe that indie can't be forced via parity since generally speaking they either made a profit on PS4/PC and don't need to be forced, which empirical evidence seems to suggest is happening, so they don't see the need to jump through hoops.

So I can see why Xbox may think the parity clause benefits Xbox One users, it's one of the least effective ways to go about doing so. I hope that parity clause is just a band-aid to a more effective way to ensure that most indies release on Xbox One the same time without punishing them.

It's not so much about benefitting xbox users. Phil gave it away when he said "1st class". If the clause worked, it would be making the ps4 and it's users feel "2nd class". This is fud 101.

Microsoft comes from the trenches of the software war, in which the console war is only one ongoing battle. Microsoft obviously isn't concerned with whatever percentage of market share they are losing by not having the games, or whatever licensing fees they are missing out on. They'd care if Sony was willing to use their tactics against them tho. Sony is not taking the opportunity to slit the enemy's throat here.

If sony was willing to threaten indies with the exact same clause, you would see microsoft leap into action. Developers would instantly have to choose which platform they released on, and MS would soon be handing out parity exceptions to anyone that asked, if no dropping the clause cold. As it is, Sony forfeits this opportunity at their own peril. They leave any possible benefit to their benevolence in the hands of developers and consumers who may or may not care to repay this with loyalty down the line. Amirox, for example, is taking a stand. But how many like him are there? Probably not many. Alas, there is little sense of responsibility among consumers in the videogame market.

 

[Marcel]

While I agree that they should open up the system to Indies, I don't believe this is what is causing the sales difference between PS4 and XboxOne.

No shit. Indie is the new middleware, which was always a sweetener even back in the day.

When I talk to people who bought PS4 instead of XboxOne, they list many reasons but lack of indies rarely comes up.

Your anecdotal evidence is not relevant to this discussion of actual data provided in the OP.

Any thoughts? Do indies sale platforms or just provide an added benefit?

My thought is why you bothered.

 

[bishoptl]

That gave the impression that should one of the bigger indie developers ask for an exception, they could get one.

They shouldn't have to ask. The policy is asinine and counterproductive for both developers and consumers - and long term, the platform itself.

 

[blakep267]

Why did op chose September 1st as the cutoff. MS showed 30 indie games at gamescom in August

 

[Amir0x]

Oh right I had no idea who I was dealing with, well everyone has its preferences but MS's backward policies can't be understated. They are in no position to enforce such policies and are making their customers loosing out on some genuine great games.

It's damning how Microsoft have completely lost the plot, they were so strong in the 360 days now they're trailing behind.

As a platform holder MS's job is to entice devs to invest in their platform not to punish them for launching on PS4 first because there is only so much work that can be done considering we're talking about more modest dev teams than AAA studios.
I get being served last sucks but this is better than putting devs in a difficult situation. Being indie is already hard enough in the market of today.

you're preaching to the choir man. I made almost all my purchases on 360 and played almost all my online games on 360 last gen. The bulk of my 360 purchases were indie games; that's where I purchased most indie games last gen

If I could see any logical reason remaining for them to keep this I could at least disagree with it but get the business thrust behind it. But I cannot see anything. Every person down the chain is harmed by this, including Microsoft and its gamers.

 

[Chû Totoro]

And people keep claiming and claiming the PS4 ha no games.

No games for now. Of course there's a lot of announced game for PS4 but I personally can't play games not out yet. Can you?

Now seeing that all these indie games are not announced on Xbox clearly shows that Microsoft has a lot of work to do before having the library PS4 is going to have by the end of 2015.

Why did op chose September 1st as the cutoff. MS showed 30 indie games at gamescom in August

lol if true

Spoiler

I would be so wrong in my post above

 

[bananafactory]

That gave the impression that should one of the bigger indie developers ask for an exception, they could get one. If that was inaccurate or in any way exaggerated on my part, I can only apologise.

This is another part of the problem, basically if your game is already quite successful, then you have a better chance of getting an "exception". The ones who REALLY need those exceptions are the ones that are struggling and need their games on other platforms. It's shit.

 

[Pyccko]

So gross. That's still my main reaction whenever I'm reminded this clause is still in effect. And the thinking that brought MS to that place is just as silly and arrogant. They obviously entered this gen thinking they were untouchable, and this clause is one of the last remnants of their hubris.

"Mnyes, what was that, Indie dev peon? You can't afford to develop your game on more than one console? Well I suppose could let you make it for me IF you kiss my ring and give me a defacto free exclusivity period on your game. But if that doesn't sound appealing to you, I'm afraid I'll have to banish you to the second-class wastes. Away with you to the inevitably trailing Sony! Ha ha hah! LORD MICROSOFT SHALL ALWAYS REIGN!"

I suppose we can only hope the fire under their ass gets too big for them to ignore any longer.

 

[kinoki]

The clause is stupid and against both consumers and developers. I do, however, get why they're doing it. They're doing it because if they didn't have it they'd be even further behind Sony in this console race.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

Stuff like this is why I continue to avoid Microsoft. Then again, I don't feel very brand-loyal toward them and I don't have to get my fix of Halo, Gears, whatever. I've simply said "no" to XB1 and I'm fine with that.

These headaches are for people who didn't make a good decision with their console of choice (obviously, otherwise they woulidn't be in here defending it or complaining about it). Sony said from the very, very beginning "we are going to get a ton of indies on the PS4, just so you know what to look forward to" and they have delivered that week after week, month after month. XB1's message has been in a constant state of flux. It's not very suprising that certain issues like this are sitting on the backburner while Microsoft crams consoles onto retailer shelves and makes deep discounts to sell what it can.

I hope for their own sake that Microsoft changes this policy, but it isn't going to change the course of the gen. Microsoft derped and they'll live with that derp for as long as the XB1 is a supported platform.

 

[bananafactory]

Why did op chose September 1st as the cutoff. MS showed 30 indie games at gamescom in August

From the OP:

To see if that was indeed the case, I've compiled a list of games announced after September 1st, 2014. These are games outside of Gamescom (of which MS and Sony had more than two dozen new indie reveals) announced on various social channels. To make it on this list, the games must fit the following criteria:

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I think the importance of indie developers in the future is almost offensively understated.

Hello Games is a prime example. They went from Joe Danger to No Man's Sky in the space of a few years. From a good series, but rather unknown, to one of the most anticipated games of 2015. This is where indie gaming is going.

 

[justsomeguy]

If the clause worked, it would be making the ps4 and it's users feel "2nd class". This is fud 101

It's a parity clause not a "release first" clause.

 

[Amir0x]

The clause is stupid and against both consumers and developers. I do, however, get why they're doing it. They're doing it because if they didn't have it they'd be even further behind Sony in this console race.

what evidence is there of this?

because all I see is tons of games now never coming to XBO (or less likely to come), and that leads to

- less revenue
- less potential games that might cause someone to buy XBO

where is the evidence in the camp of this helping prevent further trailing?

 

[Toki767]

Why did op chose September 1st as the cutoff. MS showed 30 indie games at gamescom in August

That's nice...but Sony showed off just as many indie games at Gamescom too.

 

[Stanng243]

Isn't this also affecting some bigger titles also? Bound By Flame skipped the Xbox one, and Tropico 5 is skipping the Xbox one, even though Tropico was PC/360 last gen.

I asked this before, but never got answered. Is the parity clause that some of these bigger games aren't coming to the Xbox one, or is there some other reasoning? Thank you for any responses.

 

[CaptNink]

Oh, we're talking about indie games here?

 

[Garrett 2U]

But what does windows 10 bring? A shitty app store from windows phone and windows 8.1 metro store? The windows phone store is probably better stocked than the full windows store - why release something through that when you can publish directly on windows already?

The current apps and games on the store aren't the reason I'm excited for Windows 10 and universal apps.

I'm assuming you can see the benefits of having the Windows 10 API on all devices. It provides libraries to support development on a multitude of devices with various input types (mouse/keyboard, gamepad, touch, motion, voice, etc).
Plus you have a powerful graphics API supported on all platforms, DirectX.
Those are huge benefits for indie developers, who rely on third party libraries to maximize productivity.

Then, of course, there's self publishing. It's already a thing on the Windows 8 stores, and with Windows 10 heading to Xbox, it's safe to assume self publishing will follow.

So by using the Windows 10 API, indies can easily develop and publish to PC, console (Xbox), and mobile (table/phone). And I'd assume it's going to be free.
Plus, at the end of the day, you're using C++ and DirectX, which is what developers are using already for PC. So porting your game to PS4 should be hardly any different than today.

 

[bananafactory]

I think the importance of indie developers in the future is almost offensively understated.

Hello Games is a prime example. They went from Joe Danger to No Man's Sky in the space of a few years. From a good series, but rather unknown, to one of the most anticipated games of 2015. This is where indie gaming is going.

Don't forget Ready at Dawn. Started with Daxter spinoff game on PSP and now look at what they have done with The Order: 1886.

Indies are the minor league prospects that may turn into superstars. You would be stupid not to want them to be on your platform.

 

[Herb Alpert]

And people keep claiming and claiming the PS4 ha no games.

They do?

 

[fantomena]

Oh, we're talking about indie games here?

Yes, we are talking about the games that have far more originally and risky ideas that the usual AAA blockbuster $$$$$$$$$ games.

 

[pastrami]

I asked this before, but never got answered. Is the parity clause that some of these bigger games aren't coming to the Xbox one, or is there some other reasoning? Thank you for any responses.

For Bound By Flame, I believe they claimed that they didn't get XBox One devkits in time. Not sure about Tropico, but they probably expect modest sales from the title. They chose XBox 360 last gen, and they have seemed to have picked the PS4 this gen. This does not mean that things won't change in the future though.

 

[Marcel]

Oh, we're talking about indie games here?

"We're talking about X thing? I have nothing to say or contribute."

great reply

 

[Carl]

Great thread chubs. Sad to see so many people come into the thread and proclaim that they don't care because they don't like indie games. I hope Phil pays attention to this problem. There are some fantastic indie games on PS4 that everyone deserves to play, and it would be sad for people to miss out on that chance purely because of MS's stupid policies.

 

[Neuromancer]

They really need to get rid of this clause. If Phil Spencer is the hero everyone wants him to be, he should do the right thing and abolish it sooner rather than later. It definitely appears to be hurting indie developers, and if less games are releasing on X1 because of it then it's hurting MS too.

This clause *might* have worked in the 360 days when Xbox was on top in the US and the UK, but these aren't the 360 days any more.

 

[tynestar]

No shit. Indie is the new middleware, which was always a sweetener even back in the day.</QUOTE>

No shit, thats my point. They don't have their first party stuff up to Sony standards, why focus on middleware

My thought is why you bothered.

Damn somebody's upset

 

[xxracerxx]

Could Phil Spencer or Major Nelson drop in on this subject please?

"We hear you."

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

The clause is stupid and against both consumers and developers. I do, however, get why they're doing it. They're doing it because if they didn't have it they'd be even further behind Sony in this console race.

That's highly questionable, but if that's indeed their main concern, then why not offer developers positive reinforcement instead? Give them a tempting reason to choose Xbox as their primary development platform, don't force it, because it's obviously not working.

 

[mrklaw]

The current apps and games on the store aren't the reason I'm excited for Windows 10 and universal apps.

I'm assuming you can see the benefits of having the Windows 10 API on all devices. It provides libraries to support development on a multitude of devices with various input types (mouse/keyboard, gamepad, touch, motion, voice, etc).
Plus you have a powerful graphics API supported on all platforms, DirectX.
Those are huge benefits for indie developers, who rely on third party libraries to maximize productivity.

Then, of course, there's self publishing. It's already a thing on the Windows 8 stores, and with Windows 10 heading to Xbox, it's safe to assume self publishing will follow.

So by using the Windows 10 API, indies can easily develop and publish to PC, console (Xbox), and mobile (table/phone).
And at the end of the day, you're using C++ and DirectX, which is what developers are using already for PC. So porting your game to PS4 should be hardly any different than today.

I was very excited for the potential of a universal windows store. Until I spent a moment thinking about the current reality, which is poor. I hope having a universal code base will encourage more development, but I am worried it won't

 

[Goodacre0081]

I asked this before, but never got answered. Is the parity clause that some of these bigger games aren't coming to the Xbox one, or is there some other reasoning? Thank you for any responses.

i always assumed that ID@Xbox games were the only ones bound to this. but who knows, every title that appears on XB1 might be tied to the same policy.

 

[gotstrangepowers]

Oh, we're talking about indie games here?

What's the point?

 

[Rymuth]

Great OP. Really nice to see GAF come to the defense of Indie Devs whenever possible.

 

[blakep267]

That's nice...but Sony showed off just as many indie games at Gamescom too.

I'm not really comparing it to Sony as much as it's weird to not count a chunk of games that were announced 2 weeks before this imposed cutoff date

 

[Sorral]

I'm surprised that it is adding up to that many games now just because of this crappy clause.

p3tran
Banned
(Today, 04:16 PM)

Was wondering when this would happen and there it is. All these posts, geez.

 

[Ferrio]

No shit. Indie is the new middleware, which was always a sweetener even back in the day.</QUOTE>

No shit, thats my point. They don't have their first party stuff up to Sony standards, why focus on middleware

How would undoing the clause suddenly make their focus on middleware?

 

[Marcel]

No shit, thats my point. They don't have their first party stuff up to Sony standards, why focus on middleware


Damn somebody's upset

"u mad?". That's a threadshit.

And your point is mostly a fart in the wind because most people are talking about a long-game scenario, not month-to-month NPD list warz bullshit.

 

[bananafactory]

They really need to get rid of this clause. If Phil Spencer is the hero everyone wants him to be, he should do the right thing and abolish it sooner rather than later. It definitely appears to be hurting indie developers, and if less games are releasing on X1 because of it then it's hurting MS too.

This clause *might* have worked in the 360 days when Xbox was on top in the US and the UK, but these aren't the 360 days any more.

I believe Spencer recently said he still supports the policy.

 

[Toki767]

I'm not really comparing it to Sony as much as it's weird to not count a chunk of games that were announced 2 weeks before this imposed cutoff date

It's probably because it's expected that they would announce new titles at conferences. The thing is that since then, we still have gotten a bunch of new titles announced from Sony (almost daily, really) and very little from Microsoft that you have to wonder where the support is both from indie developers and from Microsoft themselves.

 

[Kezen]

Oh, we're talking about indie games here?

So ? Indie games aren't worth discussing ?

 

[SmokyDave]

Cracking thread.

Microsoft have to move on this issue. No other choice. This year has shown they can be flexible and reactive, so I'd hope they'll move soon.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Parity is such a stupid policy.

 

[Crayon]

It's a parity clause not a "release first" clause.

It effectively is if a developer only afford to release on one.

 

[Uncle Rupee]

MS might be able to get away with this kind of nonsense if it was actually in first place by millions of users, but Sony is in that position so of course people want to make Sony their priority. It's not always possible for such a small developer to release everything at once, especially when they are living paycheck to paycheck at a day job while trying to make their dreams come true. They don't have the luxury of delaying a game's release just to ensure Xbox gets it simultaneously.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

I'm not really comparing it to Sony as much as it's weird to not count a chunk of games that were announced 2 weeks before this imposed cutoff date

Well if you don't want a cutoff, the list for PS4 just keeps getting bigger which makes Xbone look even worse. Transistor and Towerfall Ascension are god tier indie games that don't have Xbone in their sights.

 

[Garrett 2U]

I was very excited for the potential of a universal windows store. Until I spent a moment thinking about the current reality, which is poor. I hope having a universal code base will encourage more development, but I am worried it won't

The issue currently is that nobody wants Windows 8 on PC haha. And Windows Phone market is small.

The big question is whether Windows 10 on PC is successful or not.
Adding Xbox to the family of supported devices is also a huge plus, because it's an established market that owners are willing to spend money in.

I believe the ability to cross develop for PC and Xbox alone would be enough to gather support.
And if other Windows 10 devices are successful, that would be even better.
I'm hopeful, but we'll see how Microsoft executes this.

 

[hawk2025]

My one fear of the Xbox One (likely) doing great, robust numbers this holiday season:

It gives them more reason to "wait out" the negative effects of the parity policy and wait until indie devs have no choice but to comply with it.


It would be such a shame and a big step back for the industry.

 

[xxracerxx]

Cracking thread.

Microsoft have to move on this issue. No other choice. This year has shown they can be flexible and reactive, so I'd hope they'll move soon.

Exactly, the only problem is it will take some time to wipe the stink off of this clause and that will be tough for MS.

 

[LAA]

No sympathy for MS when they're doing this. I'm glad developers are having the balls to just say to MS "Fine no game for you then" and aren't screwing off fans from a platform just to make MS and their fans happy too. Just a shitty way to handle things, they'll bend the rules for games that are popular or from popular devs, but others have to either accept it or beg to get through. Just not right at all.



Parity in general is becoming incredibly annoying already this gen, want this shit to end now, then everyone will be happy. PS4 gets optimised and on time games, X1 actually gets the games and optimised.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

They shouldn't have to ask. The policy is asinine and counterproductive for both developers and consumers - and long term, the platform itself.

I absolutely agree.

That's why it's so blood boiling to see some of the bigger developers seemingly asking and getting one. It's gross. They should at least try to show some solidarity. I know it's all business and everyone has families to feed, but the seemingly 'I got mine' mentality isn't very nice to see.

Lanning especially, he was vocal about how bad of an idea it was for indies and then he goes and signs with MS anyway?

"I really want to see Chris Charla succeed. They've done a good job of navigating out of E3 in ways they desperately needed to, or else they'd be in real trouble. But the parity issue is still there. What we want to know is simple. If we invest in our platform, are we releasing, or will we be denied?"

"The parity clause is a problem for indies. It's something you might want to play with triple-A guys, but if you say, "If you're not simultaneous on our system, you can't release" well, okay? You're more concerned about your competition with Sony than you are about delivering great games at good prices to your customers. Not a great model. Pretty vulnerable. Hopefully it doesn't continue that way and we&#8217;re able to get past it. I think we will. I just want to be certain."

Doesn't sit right with me at all. He had some momentum after this interview to get more indies on board and try and effect change, but nothing happened. I don't know, maybe it's not fair or realistic to expect him to take the lead in such a fight, but he's perhaps one of the bigger indie developers who has spoken out about it and his position might have allowed him to push for change.

This is another part of the problem, basically if your game is already quite successful, then you have a better chance of getting an "exception". The ones who REALLY need those exceptions are the ones that are struggling and need their games on other platforms. It's shit.

This was my point, but I admit I didn't make it very well as I didn't make sure to highlight I was referencing the bigger indies rather than the one/two person teams that are hit the hardest by this clause.