-
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.
[2014] Xbox One Indie Parity Clause impacting number of announcements for system
- Thread starter chubigans
- Start date
A very important distinction, having nearly 50 more games to play isn't going to make those FullHD AAA experiences not be nor lessen their impact.
If I were a lesser man I may attempt some drollery referring to how people expecting Full HD!! from certain consoles may well have made the wrong choice. If I were a lesser man
Honestly don't mean anythign mean-spirited by that that just messing about, its good for morale don't you know. Tongue squarely in cheek.
Rndm
Member
Interesting read and for all the indies out there and on here that are willing to put their games on Xbox I hope this will change something.
If MS was more like Sony or Nintendo even and would try to build a kind relationship with a dev, instead of scaring them off with their policies, indies would be able to extend the reach of their games even more. I am happy that 'older' games, even a more than 3 year old game like Bastion (which has probably to do with Transistor and the success and relationship to Sony following that), are going to come to the PS4 and/or Vita now and in the future, just because I think it is great to have them on there. Players, devs and the platform holder profit from that and it is a good step in the right direction to establish a relationship (between all parties really) that will almost ensure that the next game will come to that platform (most likely earlier) as well.
I mean we have such a great place for indies on consoles now, something that is bigger than ever before; a place that can (easily) compete with PC (and mobile). All platform holders should try to support that as much as possible to become even more relevant for those types of games and to make sure that consoles are still relevant for all types of games, with fresh ideas, concepts and everything that especially indies can offer.
You know, the thing going on here is basically the battle of two very different concepts on how to approach the trend of indie games that has (rightfully so) gotten bigger and bigger int he last few years and to me and pretty much everyone else (most importantly devs) it is clear MS' concept has failed... a long time ago and it becomes more and more apparent (see the OP). I really do not get what the reason is for them to keep supporting it. Is Xbox their experimental testing ground while Windows is the place they only really care about when it comes to indies? I know that is a stupid thought, but heck I cannot think of ANYTHING that makes sense here. The answers they gave us before and that they keep giving are proven very wrong all the time (again, see the OP for instance).
Again, though I am a huge PS fan, I hope things will change, especially for the devs sake, but also for the gamers who own an Xbox.
If MS was more like Sony or Nintendo even and would try to build a kind relationship with a dev, instead of scaring them off with their policies, indies would be able to extend the reach of their games even more. I am happy that 'older' games, even a more than 3 year old game like Bastion (which has probably to do with Transistor and the success and relationship to Sony following that), are going to come to the PS4 and/or Vita now and in the future, just because I think it is great to have them on there. Players, devs and the platform holder profit from that and it is a good step in the right direction to establish a relationship (between all parties really) that will almost ensure that the next game will come to that platform (most likely earlier) as well.
I mean we have such a great place for indies on consoles now, something that is bigger than ever before; a place that can (easily) compete with PC (and mobile). All platform holders should try to support that as much as possible to become even more relevant for those types of games and to make sure that consoles are still relevant for all types of games, with fresh ideas, concepts and everything that especially indies can offer.
You know, the thing going on here is basically the battle of two very different concepts on how to approach the trend of indie games that has (rightfully so) gotten bigger and bigger int he last few years and to me and pretty much everyone else (most importantly devs) it is clear MS' concept has failed... a long time ago and it becomes more and more apparent (see the OP). I really do not get what the reason is for them to keep supporting it. Is Xbox their experimental testing ground while Windows is the place they only really care about when it comes to indies? I know that is a stupid thought, but heck I cannot think of ANYTHING that makes sense here. The answers they gave us before and that they keep giving are proven very wrong all the time (again, see the OP for instance).
Again, though I am a huge PS fan, I hope things will change, especially for the devs sake, but also for the gamers who own an Xbox.
Please you just posted this in a Khan Academy thread in regards to XBOX so save the lecture about being ignorant and pathetic.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=142567042&postcount=23
Handy Fake
Member
Is he wrong within this thread?
...Do you actually think they are all from the same developers? LOL.
Have I been?
Not without a LOT of work. Part of the reason indie games have exploded onto the scene this gen is because the consoles are so PC-like. The PS3 is still a nightmare for indie developers, while the PS4 is a breath of fresh air.
It's not all about what the hardware is capable of, it's also how friendly to those developers the hardware is. Which the PS3 never was.
Handy Fake
Member
You're derailing the thread.
Iorv3th
Member
For a lot of people does not equal the entire Xbox One install base. There are people on PS4 that will not buy digital download only games either. But when these systems are selling millions of units, even if only 10% of users download digital titles, that number is still going to be over a million users.
It's in effect hurting those developers from releasing their titles to a larger potential userbase and hurting those that only own one the Xbox One. It's not as simple as saying "I don't buy those games anyways". Because other people do.
sobaka770
Banned
In the context of my answer, I meant exactly the hardware capabilities and not the ease of development. A lot of Indies are nothing to be impressed with at the first look, a lot of games are in 2D which is NES-era (or what we call now pixel-art, how cute?).
I think it's naïve to think that most devs use 2D-art because of nostalgia and because it's right art for their game and not because it's cheap and easier to make and design games for. Even 2D is better with money, case in-point, UbiArt is AAA 2D and looks phenomenal (also runs on Old-gen no problem).
This is the problem with the attitude of posters who defend indies do hard that they don't consider what the poster says. He doesn't say indies is a genre, nor does he say the long games are a genre. He is generalizing, a bit awkwardly for sure, but there are tags which are attached to indie-game development for a reason. For every long-lasting indie game, you get a dozen Monument Valleys (awesome game, must play, but it's beyond the point), for every "nice looking" indie, you have hundreds of releases that scream: cheap, and it's valid to not like that.
People like summer blockbusters and big AAA releases over indies, who don't really scratch that itch. CoD cannot be indie, or Last of Us, there are tangible differences. Indies can be in the same "genre" shooters, adventure, but there are obvious differences which will differentiate AAA and Indies within a genre.
I also somewhat agree that a AAA release, like the Witcher or Order is preferable to all these 47 indies which are wildcards. I'd rather have them than not, of course, but none of those is a system seller, it's only a "plus" over Xbox and their weird attitude.
Has anyone heard from AbsintheGames? Was really looking forward to reading their post.
Cheers, Guvnah~
Handy Fake
Member
Still composing their "rant". I'm hoping it's a facemelting, balls-to-the-wall destructo-rant.
Expectations through the roof given the wait.. I hope its ruined many a keyboard in its composition
Someone in that thread implied Xbox One was somehow an example of "amazing gaming", I disagreed with the idea (Based entirely on my own personal experience). I may have been a tad snarky in the phrasing of my opinion, sure, but I fail to see where any kind of 'ignorance' comes into play in that scenario. I'm sorry if your feelings got hurt.
Also, I'm pretty sure ad hominem attacks on other users is a bannable offense, so you may want to tread lightly. Even sending a PM to express your grievance would be a better idea than doing so in this thread if you really need to get it off your chest.
Given I've been pretty active in the last few pages I'm of a mind to hope that I trust I'm not tarred with some blind rabid defence of "indies" brush to the exclusion of other peoples opinions.
I've been reading the thread since the start and generally most reaction to this clause has been well thought out and fairly civil. Its been said time and again the point of the OP is not to opine on whether you prefer large budget games or not. The OP has been created to show that the parity clause which prevents independent development studios choosing when they launch their games on this single platform of all currently available platforms is not only hurting those developers but significantly reducing the potential content on that single platform.
Whether or not someone cares for small budget games is moot. Most rebuttals to people adding this has been to remind them of this fact and to point out (where its present) the hypocrisy of statements which also allude to a liking of "games" but only those which are of a sufficiently high budget or people that suggest this comes down to some list war or whether its a "selling point".
What's more the clause we're discussing is not a case of one thing preventing the other, "preferring a witcher to 40 indie games" (though to me personally is a bizarre opinion to have, though one people are welcome to have) isn't even a point worth bringing up in the thread since its not the point and no-one, not even Phil Spencer is claiming that by getting 40 more indie games we'll not get a Witcher. Not wanting to backseat moderate but one assumes posts adding that would belong in the "Who prefers AAA to Indies" thread.
Prototype Viktor
Member
Was gathering more information from other GAF indies so probably will take a few days if others respond slowly and/or NDA work around wording is involved
Haunted
Member
MeachTheMonster
Banned
If Microsoft is giving out free tools dev kits ect, then I think its very reasonable that they expect release date parity for their games.
The problem lies where they don't allow devs to buy their own tools/dev kits and release the game when they want.
All they have to do is put some no strings attached dev kits on sale and I think all sides will be happy
The problem lies where they don't allow devs to buy their own tools/dev kits and release the game when they want.
All they have to do is put some no strings attached dev kits on sale and I think all sides will be happy
Interfectum
Member
Chubs, bro, excellent thread. Well written, well researched, even tempered. If I hadn't already agreed with your premise I'd be a convert.
The parity clause needs to go. It's a strong arming tactic that would only truly work if MS was the market leader. As you can see without that title they are just missing out on some great games.
Also, I see Bish is farming trolls in this thread. How much XP does he get per troll now?
The parity clause needs to go. It's a strong arming tactic that would only truly work if MS was the market leader. As you can see without that title they are just missing out on some great games.
Also, I see Bish is farming trolls in this thread. How much XP does he get per troll now?
sobaka770
Banned
Let my simplify my statement: if somebody doesn't like indies, it doesn't mean they treat it as genre. It's not against you, but shitting on people because "indies is not a genre" was done a lot of times in this thread.
When I see a personsayinghe/she doesn't like indies, mostly they don't care for ugly-looking but "awesome" games, like Rogue Legacy or Super Meatboy. Some people need more than gameplay, they need a whole package which indies always lack. That's why I think Witcher is better than 40 games: I'd rather have one game in a solid package with sound, graphics, story etc. over a chance of better gameplay. It's not enough for me.
As for the XboX clause, there's not really much new to be said. People have rightfully pointed out that it's stupid.
Here's my opinion: Microsoft is just in a bad position with the clause since the launch of Xbox One. If they don't enforce parity, they won't any indie games released on Xbox first rather than on PS4, because PS4 has a larger install base and indies will naturally go there.
By keeping the clause they actually get to make some developers think that losing XboX share of the market is not worth it. Then they'll have to develop game first for Xbox One and Microsoft gets exclusives. It's basically a scaremongering tactic, and I don't like it, but it makes sense in the situation Microsoft is in with the indie community. Without the clause, even the games Xbox has now would probably be first on PS4.
Also dropping the clause probably has bad PR coming with it, which is not good for Microsoft right now, especiall during the holiday season when they actually sell some consoles.
All in all, this might get dropped sooner rather than later, because clearly the tactic is not working very well, but quiet months, like January or February would be better to make the announcement.
I guess it stems to (certainly in my respect) a complete disbelief that someone would be willingly part of such a large and diverse community which celebrates all games such as GAF and be so dismissive about a whole branch of gaming purely because of its to its budget or fidelity.
Then for that person to decide of their own volition to open the thread read the extensive and well put together OP written by an indie developer lamenting the poor choices which are having a real effect on content, and deciding their best response to this is to essentially dismiss all indie games (as easily as one would dismiss a genre).
Now I've no real desire to ramble further off topic or names names, but I feel compelled to on this occasion, but the post from Johnny bigboss you have referred to which he has since edited and replied to was defending this quote from Max Payment.
After the OP put the effort in to explain the details of the issue, after so many developers came in and gave their perspective, none defending the practice, after Bish posted only a page before
Of course not that Max payment made that exact claim himself.
I can only too well see why people would be so dismissive of those who decide the crux of their contribution would be in the blanket dismissing of independent developers. Not that people aren't welcome to have such opinions its just that one hopes common courtesy dictates that the place to vocalise that without any other contribution is not here.
Though I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here matey though I will agree with you that the policy is foolish.
Apologies all I've rambled off topic.
Still looking forward to seeing some rants Absinthe.... Also has anyone considered seeing if Jason Schreier fancies the opportunity to flex his journalist gonads for the cause?
Still nonsense, there are a billion beautiful indie games and some that even compete with the big boys from a technical perspective/graphics perspective. (and by the way one of the people saying they hate indies said the exception was LIMBO, so figure that one out)
That's why you can't cast a blanket over all indies. It's stupid and dumb. Indie is not a genre, nor is it a general statement about visual direction, technical prowess, story depth, gameplay type or any other qualifier.
The Illiterati
Member
Good work on this thread. For both your research and for attracting the ignorant mouth-breathers who "don't like any indie games" like flies to honey. Straight into my personal ignore folder.
It appears that you haven't heard of The Vanishing of Ethan Carter.
It's okay, we'll wait -- go ahead and Google it.
how would dropping the clause be bad PR? imo it would actually be good PR again for once
MS has done so many 180s that it doesn't really matter to do another one i feel
better late than never is what i say, this policy is literally better never than late
i admit i'm late into the indie craze, the 1st indie that got my attention was don't starve, but now i always check on all new releases on steam
MS has done so many 180s that it doesn't really matter to do another one i feel
better late than never is what i say, this policy is literally better never than late
i admit i'm late into the indie craze, the 1st indie that got my attention was don't starve, but now i always check on all new releases on steam
Do people refuse to watch movies entirely unless they are made by one of the largest film studios?
Do people refuse to listen to music unless they are made under one of the biggest record labels?
Well why would games be different? And if you're going to use the art argument, music and movies can be acting as simple entertainment as well.
Do people refuse to listen to music unless they are made under one of the biggest record labels?
Well why would games be different? And if you're going to use the art argument, music and movies can be acting as simple entertainment as well.
LiquidSolid
Member
That's not how it works. Going over time and budget doesn't make a game indie, that makes no sense at all. It just means the company was poorly run.
Journey was Sony published, funded and owned. It's as much an indie game as Bloodborne, Ratchet & Clank and The Order.
Even if you don't like indies as a rule, those indie devs may end up making big successful games one day and it's important for console makers to create a proper ecosystem where they can be discovered and thrive.
If we only ever got AAA games, it would be a wasteland of derivative gameplay ideas and mimicry whenever a new trend begins. Probably only a third or less of games I play qualify as "indie" but I still appreciate their existence and occasionally get absorbed in one for dozens of hours.
If we only ever got AAA games, it would be a wasteland of derivative gameplay ideas and mimicry whenever a new trend begins. Probably only a third or less of games I play qualify as "indie" but I still appreciate their existence and occasionally get absorbed in one for dozens of hours.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
Still, this highlights what's being discussed. Journey wasn't indie in publisher but execution. the team was small but talented. Right now talented is a grain of sand in a desert. Getting your game out there without hassle and connect with an audience is important. The parity clause is an obstacle for talent to shine. It directly affects the next Journey that might not be first party.
Stone Ocean
Member
This is horseshit. Painting indies as all of them being some artsy retro experience is as bad as painting them as a genre.
This, so much this. Even if you only like AAA games, games developers have to start somewhere, and some of those indie developers are the AAA staff of the future. We have less AAA games being made than in previous generations. Anything that makes it harder for indie devs to grow, train, develop their skills and then possibly make the jump to mid-tier and then major projects isn't worth defending. If you only want to play AAA games, then there are going to be less and less of them (and those that remain will be as risk-averse as possible) unless we nurture an environment where new games devs can practice their trade without unreasonable demands from major platform holders. A healthy indie environment now is a healthier AAA scene next gen and beyond, to think otherwise is incredibly short-sighted.
Not to mention that lots of experienced developers are setting out on their own having worked in the AAA industry before. To think that their work stops being of interest the minute they aren't part of a team of hundreds of people with major publisher backing is doing them a massive disservice. Not every indie developer is a bedroom start-up, plenty have years or even decades of professional experience.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
You know, outside of GAF, in the real world, I know tons of gamers who don't even distinguish between indie and AAA games. They have no concept of the difference. They only see games.
I asked a few people at work the other day about this round aboutly, people who own both the X1 and the PS4, asked them which console they saw as doing better by having more games to choose from. They all agreed that the PS4 had a lot more games to choose from right now. I then asked them if that included indie games, and they all looked at me like "what is an indie game?".
Well it kinda already happened a lot last gen.
pluginbaby121
Member
I can say that is my issue with some of the indie stuff. I feel like sometimes the retro look is overused and would prefer a great looking artstyle, such as Guacamelee, over another 8 bit "throwback" for the sake of it. I loved Shovel Knight because that style worked to its advantage as it was trying to be an NES game. Hotline Miami also used its art effectively but something like Lone Survivor didn't do it for me. Use it effectively is what's important and make it fit with the tone of the game. Guacamelee wouldn't have worked with a retro art style. But to dismiss all indie games because of that is asinine because stuff like Outlast exists which has pretty good production values.
I feel that if the term "indie" wasn't used to describe these games the general public would embrace them more. Indie is generally a term for pretentiousness and arty and when people hear the word they automatically scoff instead of looking into it. No one really thought of Super Meat Boy as such and it was one of the big guys for the indies.
Unbound By Death
Member
If I follow your thinking right that its indicative of Sony simply allowing "anything" on the store rather than MS "curating" their store page Chubigans addressed this in the OP and Amirox quoted some (admittedly old) but startling figures later on page 1.
It really isnt a case of getting better "quality" games or not
Apologies if thats not what you meant, thats how I read it anyway
I didn't mean to compare sony and MS at all
In my opinion 47 indie games don't mean much for me and other people thats all.I was just defending the other poster's opinion cause i kind of saw where he was coming from.
Used to like indie games cause they seemed different and fresh but after playing tons of them I realized that to me they all seem extremely similar except a few gems.
Thats how some people feel and thats why it looks like they generalize them.
SerTapTap
Member
Yeah, weird loser games like Spelunky and Hyper Light Drifter, who's even heard of such things, right?
I hear some complete weirdos use this free thing called CEE PLUS PLUS to make games. Man, that'll never catch on.
Games are games, what you make them in is rarely significant to the quality of the game. Tons of great, 60 FPS games are made in gamemaker now and yes, you can publish them direct to PS4 and PS Vita.
Miles Quaritch
Member
I appreciate Chris speaking up but they really still need to work on communication outside of twitter posts. Major Nelson is doing a great job with the update videos so maybe that is an avenue they can explore. I get why ID@xbox might exist as far as giving out dev kits, managing tools and all of that but I still don't understand why it's a thing. It seems like they wanted "games are games" to be the message this gen by getting rid of XBLA, but then they go and create this whole other silo for games.
We know there are "hundreds". But even that is not enough to come close to covering the statistical gap between platforms, even without knowing what precise games make up the total "hundreds."
Anyway, I hope Ccharla just goes to Spencer and continues to push him on this ID@XBox clause crap. Or else Microsoft needs to have a better explanation on the record for why they continual to intentionally hurt XBO gamers and indie developers, none of this 'first class citizen' pandering nonsense that hasn't even the most tenuous of connections to what the result actually is.
PoweredByHentai
Member
You do realize that your avatar of Crash Bandicoot itself was originally an indie title, right?
Because the game was originally made with just 7 people.
http://www.naughtydog.com/site/post/making_crash_bandicoot_by_andy_gavin_and_jason_rubin/
If there's one thing I can say, it's that the lack of communication is far outside of their control over on the ID@Xbox side.
I know if it were up to them they'd be in this thread clarifying some things. But you can thank MS for refusing them the chance to talk about it openly. I get why some things might be NDAd, but man, what a mess.
PoweredByHentai
Member
I was just wondering, I heard about Microsoft's XBLIG payment shenanigans in another thread and was wondering what the payments are like for other platforms, inclusive of the ID@Xbox program.
Do other platforms pay you on a more regular basis like weekly or monthly basis or is there some sort of weird arrangement?
This is just personal curiosity though.
Edit:
God, I hate trying to edit my posts in mobile Firefox on my Note 2.
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
First of all, I would like to apologize for making light of this situation for the hundreds, if not thousands, of independent developers Microsoft's policies adversely affects.
Some of the best games of all time and some of my personal favorite have come from small, independent studios or individuals. Full stop.
This is the last clearly wrong policy Microsoft is still holding onto. I think we all know it's only a matter of time until they change it like they've changed practically every other Xbox One mis-step but why wait until more damage is done? I get it, major policy changes take time to get right. Lots of moving parts, legal side, etc.
Phil Spencer, we know you skim over these threads (or at least you catch wind of it). Mr. Chubs here laid out an excellent case as to why this policy is a net negative for all parties involved (gamers, Microsoft, and developers). So many others have chimed in with their agreement.
Microsoft's new leadership is shedding its draconian history and breathing fresh air into the company left and right. Set the corporate "ego" aside and look to the long term where gamer, developer, and press good will always proves mightier than any short term illusory benefit from standing pat.
Set this right. Please.
Some of the best games of all time and some of my personal favorite have come from small, independent studios or individuals. Full stop.
This is the last clearly wrong policy Microsoft is still holding onto. I think we all know it's only a matter of time until they change it like they've changed practically every other Xbox One mis-step but why wait until more damage is done? I get it, major policy changes take time to get right. Lots of moving parts, legal side, etc.
Phil Spencer, we know you skim over these threads (or at least you catch wind of it). Mr. Chubs here laid out an excellent case as to why this policy is a net negative for all parties involved (gamers, Microsoft, and developers). So many others have chimed in with their agreement.
Microsoft's new leadership is shedding its draconian history and breathing fresh air into the company left and right. Set the corporate "ego" aside and look to the long term where gamer, developer, and press good will always proves mightier than any short term illusory benefit from standing pat.
Set this right. Please.
I'm not sure there is any legal / mechanical component to this, actually? I'm pretty sure they just won't let you advance in the process if you're already out on another platform.
And even if there were, they could just decide not to enforce that stuff moving forward.
I'm fairly certain they could will it away in a blink of an eye if they wanted to.
Far from it, but it would be a big move in the right direction.
The mandatory monthly minimums on F2P games, and paid/free DLC ratio are two more policies that come to mind.
Again, MS needs to just get out of the way and trust that devs are going to do the best things for their games and their audience.
yurinka
Member
The clause is giving a lot of exclusive games to the competition, and some of them may be included in the list of games that can make someone to purchase certain next gen console, because their big amout may appeal different niches and their average good/great quality according to Metacritic makes the competition look better.
And since these games aren't published on Xbox, MS doesn't get the related revenue share from their sales. Seems pretty dumb to continue with the clause, I don get it, why don't they make another 180º with that? It would benefit them.
Journey is a creative, different, artsy, masterpiece developed by a relatively small team and maybe a relatively small team, but isn't an indie game. It has a major publisher
And since these games aren't published on Xbox, MS doesn't get the related revenue share from their sales. Seems pretty dumb to continue with the clause, I don get it, why don't they make another 180º with that? It would benefit them.
Sony is the publisher of Journey, and owns this IP. It had a major publisher funding it, refunding delays, porting it to other consoles and helping with marketing and several other things, because as I remember it had a nicely 'long' credits staff.
Journey is a creative, different, artsy, masterpiece developed by a relatively small team and maybe a relatively small team, but isn't an indie game. It has a major publisher
