Support NeoGAF

[Jimmyfenix]

Or MS has a policy everyone except them knows is dumb and they didn't want to have to entreat with them about it in the first place.

Well I don't like the parity clause the wording here makes it sound like the reason this game isn't on XBO is because of it.

It sounds more like Sony is paying them for a exclusivity then anything else.

Marcel is speaking the truth here

 

[Einbroch]

If it was Microsoft who offered them "a deal they couldn't reasonably refuse", what's the probability that the thread title would contain the word "moneyhat" instead and that the conversation would be focused on that?

The problem is that Sony likely didn't pay for an exclusive, just helped them develop it so they could push it to PS4, but because of the clause, it might as well be exclusive. This is on Microsoft for their stupid clause, not because Sony wanted it first.

 

[Trigonometrize.]

THis parity clause will end biting them in the ass.

It's already chewed through it and started on the legs.

 

[tapedeck]

Thread title doesn't exactly represent the quote in the article..

 

[DwightSchruting]

I'm content with the parity clause, if you're saying you don't value me as much as ps4 users then cool I don't value buying your product. Good for MS!

 

[Mass_Pincup]

If it was Microsoft who offered them "a deal they couldn't reasonably refuse", what's the probability that the thread title would contain the word "moneyhat" instead and that the conversation would be focused on that?

0%.

Sony had a deal with Drinkbox and Guacamele released on Xbone.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

What exactly is meant by Sony reaching out?

Moneyhats?

Sony is offering to fund the console version, or, what exactly else could it mean? And if Sony were to be funding the console version, it seems that Sony would want to the game to stay exclusive to their platform...

 

[gift of 100 gab]

Parallel universe thread whining? What the hell? I'm just pointing out that, by Greenwood's own admission, the game is not coming to Xbox One primarily because they have a deal with Sony. The parity clause was practically only mentioned in passing.

It sounds like they want it to come out on XBO eventually but feel hindered by the parity clause?

I'm content with the parity clause, if you're saying you don't value me as much as ps4 users then cool I don't value buying your product. Good for MS!

So what should they do if they can't release it on two platform at the same time?

this clause is stupid

 

[gregor7777]

I would agree that the verbiage makes it sound like they have not even tried, or remotely considered the platform.

Exactly.

"I read some things on the internet...."

 

[ClearData]

I've yet to see the parity clause do anything positive for the Xbox platform. Honestly, it's helping Sony get MORE games.

It is literally casing disparity in game releases between the two consoles.

 

[Jimmyfenix]

What exactly is meant by Sony reaching out?

Moneyhats?

Sony is offering to fund the console version, or, what exactly else could it mean? And if Sony were to be funding the console version, it seems that Sony would want to the game to stay exclusive to their platform...

PS+

 

[Marcel]

Marcel is speaking the truth here

I'm honestly not sure why there's so much mental gymnastics to make moneyhat relevant to this conversation. Microsoft is actively driving indie developers away at the mere thought of dealing with a parity clause, according to that quote. Any way you slice it that's bad for your mindshare with indies.

The ball is in Microsoft's court to fix it. Until then, this is certainly not the last time we'll hear about it.

 

[Nokterian]

Yet again shows that indie's prefer Sony and PC over Xbox.

 

[RdN]

Well.. Sony offered them a deal, and they took it. Parity Clause is really just a consequence, in this case.

If they really wanted to launch on both, they shouldn't have taken the deal.

 

[Bessy67]

Yet again shows that indie's prefer Sony and PC over Xbox.

I think it shows they prefer $$$ over no $$$. But that's just me.

 

[axisofweevils]

Yeah, I do find the spin in the article weird. MS's policy does have problems, but Sony coming along with blatant Moneyhats is definitely not a thing we should be condoning.

 

[jelly]

Possible Windows 10 PC gaming and whatever is connected to Xbox is the carrot Microsoft hope brings devs back day one so that's the only reason for sticking with the policy?

It's hard to think otherwise, sure they can possibly cherry pick a popular game and give them a pass but if the ship has sailed already for many games, it's just not worth it.

 

[SicSemperTyrannis]

Fuck the parity clause.

In my mind, I read this as The Hound from Game of Thrones.

 

[Jimmyfenix]

Well.. Sony offered them a deal, and they took it. Parity Clause is really just a consequence, in this case.

If they really wanted to launch on both, they shouldn't have taken the deal.

Smaller developers cannot work on multiple platforms at the same time

If the game comes out on PS4 first it should be able to come out on Xbox later

Plain & Simple

 

[Beefy]

People have tweeted Spencer every time this comes up and he blows smoke up our asses about it.

Where's Miles with his Hollow man gif?

 

[BigDug13]

I think it shows they prefer $$$ over no $$$. But that's just me.

So Sony and PC are $$$ and Xbox is no $$$? Because that's the only way I can shape what you quoted into what you just wrote.

 

[VariantX]

Uhh, the parity clause is a problem for them, but they have a deal with Sony where they can't release both versions at the same time or something? it's OK to have an exclusive deal with Sony to launch on their system first, but not to have a clause to prevent games coming out after on the Xbox one?

It's a stupid rule, but these guys should have just released the game on both at the same time? I'm confused as to what their problem is.

The the problem here is that smaller devs typically don't have the resources to work on multiple ports at the same time, nor do some have the money to sit on a piece of software thats ready to go to the market, and wait until the xbox one port when it could be in the marketplace generating funds to keep the lights on and pay for ports to other platforms. If a dev has already started work on another platform before XB1, that alone could put them in a tight spot simply because of how parity clause works.

 

[TheSlySoul]

Good for them, the parity clause is anti-consumer.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

PS+

So it's not so much as Sony reaching out but them asking if they'd be happy to give their game away through Plus?

Weird way to phrase it. They had to have known that 'reaching out' is often seen as PR speak for moneyhatting.

 

[jediyoshi]

Ehm... Thread title is a bit misleading.

Main reason is a deal with Sony.

Hypothetically, if the only stipulation of the deal were that it came out first on PS4, then no, that's not much of a distinction at all.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Yeah, I do find the spin in the article weird. MS's policy does have problems, but Sony coming along with blatant Moneyhats is definitely not a thing we should be condoning.

Where do people keep pulling "moneyhat" from? Sony likely offered a deal that would get Broforce released on the PS4 first, it could be something devkit related, extra manpower, marketing, etc. The game would obviously make it to the Xbone afterwards, but they can't do that because of the parity clause.

 

[Forsythia]

Yeah, I do find the spin in the article weird. MS's policy does have problems, but Sony coming along with blatant Moneyhats is definitely not a thing we should be condoning.

Indeed. But it's easier blaming MS, I guess. Sure, the parity clause is shit and needs to be removed, but it's just a moneyhat in this case.

 

[BigDug13]

Yeah, I do find the spin in the article weird. MS's policy does have problems, but Sony coming along with blatant Moneyhats is definitely not a thing we should be condoning.

There's a difference between helping an indie dev get their game out and throwing money at a large company like Square-Enix. Let's not put the term "moneyhats" into a singular category where small indie devs are lumped into the likes of EA/Activision/Ubisoft.

 

[Shyakugaun]

MS has dug its own grave. Good.

lol hyperbole at its finest

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Where's Miles with his Hollow man gif?

I'm readying a new gif for when screenshots don't show up in the next update...

 

[nullpoynter]

Well.. Sony offered them a deal, and they took it. Parity Clause is really just a consequence, in this case.

If they really wanted to launch on both, they shouldn't have taken the deal.

They shouldn't have to even worry about releasing at the same time in the first place. A stupid clause is a stupid clause. Have you ever thought maybe they don't have the money or resources to develop and launch on both platforms at the same time? I'm sure this is a problem for other indies as well.

 

[TheSlySoul]

Hypothetically, if the only stipulation of the deal were that it came out first on PS4, then no, that's not much of a distinction at all.

So because Sony is pushing for a release early on them, they should not be able to ever port it to XB1?
The rule is stupid. It ruined Rayman Legends on the Wii U.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

It's pretty obvious due to the wording that Sony are not paying for exclusivity.

 

[Marcel]

Indeed. But it's easier blaming MS, I guess. Sure, the parity clause is shit and needs to be removed, but it's just a moneyhat in this case.

The statement from the developer is too vague for you to rubber stamp "moneyhat" on this situation.

 

[Dictator93]

OK, this whole parity clause confuses me. What is it exactly?

 

[TheSlySoul]

OK, this whole parity clause confuses me. What is it exactly?

If you ever want to port a game to Xbox, you have to do a simultaneous release. No releasing on PS4/Wii U first then porting it later.
No Grim Fandango for XB1 because of this clause you see or Day of the Tentacle.

 

[Bessy67]

So Sony and PC are $$$ and Xbox is no $$$? Because that's the only way I can shape what you quoted into what you just wrote.

I mean, if you really want to deny that Sony paid them based on what they said that's on you. I'm not naive enough to see the line "Mostly because Sony reached out to us with a deal we couldn’t reasonably refuse" and think no money changed hands.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

OK, this whole parity clause confuses me. What is it exactly?

It's something that's only enforced for very small developers. Almost anyone else can ask for and can usually get an exception.

it's an abomination of a policy but one that MS staunchly refuses to drop because they want their fanbase to feel like first class citizens.

 

[kaching]

I'm just pointing out that, by Greenwood's own admission, the game is not coming to Xbox One primarily because they have a deal with Sony.

You're doing a fair bit more than that - you're also assuming that the deal was for exclusivity on consoles, not just a deal to get it on PS platforms sooner rather than later. There's nothing here that confirms that Sony required exclusivity for whatever deal they offered. The "exclusivity" may very well be incidental because of how MS parity clause currently works, just because the dev decided to accept a deal with Sony first.

 

[Respawn]

THis parity clause will end biting them in the ass.

End up? It already has.

If it was Microsoft who offered them "a deal they couldn't reasonably refuse", what's the probability that the thread title would contain the word "moneyhat" instead and that the conversation would be focused on that?

Oh shutup

 

[Bessy67]

You're doing a fair bit more than that - you're also assuming that the deal was for exclusivity on consoles, not just a deal to get in on PS platforms sooner rather than later. There's nothing here that confirms that Sony required exclusivity for whatever deal they offered. The "exclusivity" may very well be incidental because of how MS parity clause currently works, just because the dev decided to accept a deal with Sony first.

They're not just going to give away money with no strings attached. I mean, c'mon.

 

[Jimmyfenix]

I mean, if you really want to deny that Sony paid them based on what they said that's on you. I'm not naive enough to see the line "Mostly because Sony reached out to us with a deal we couldn’t reasonably refuse" and think no money changed hands.

So dev kits and promotion = moneyhat ?

 

[Marcel]

If you ever want to port a game to Xbox, you have to do a simultaneous release. No releasing on PS4/Wii U first then porting it later.
No Grim Fandango for XB1 because of this clause you see or Day of the Tentacle.

Occasionally you also see "Well we didn't want this dumb indie anyway!" line of logic come up but thankfully that hasn't happened so far.

 

[DryvBy]

What a stupid, backwards clause.

 

[BadWolf]

Should happen more and more moving forward as the PS4's lead over the X1 increases.

 

[SerTapTap]

It's pretty obvious due to the wording that Sony are not paying for exclusivity.

I don't entirely mind the thread title change, but I think people are reaching hardcore if they think Sony demanded exclusivity. His quote makes it clear MS is the cause not Sony, at least not directly.

PS+

Not all Sony deals are PS+. Many are, especially recently, but they've made deals with devs that aren't on PS+ at launch. Sportsfriends was pub fund, wasn't PS+ until the PS4 launch IIRC.

 

[mattp]

If it was Microsoft who offered them "a deal they couldn't reasonably refuse", what's the probability that the thread title would contain the word "moneyhat" instead and that the conversation would be focused on that?

but sony most likely didn't pay them to be exclusive. they helped with the port using pub fund money and that meant it would come out on ps4 first. after that, microsoft's policy is the reason it won't come out on xbox one because of the parity clause

 

[TheHighFlyingBirds]

If it was Microsoft who offered them "a deal they couldn't reasonably refuse", what's the probability that the thread title would contain the word "moneyhat" instead and that the conversation would be focused on that?

Sony aren't paying to keep it off the xbox, MS are keeping it off the xbox with their own clause. Big difference to what you are suggesting.

 

[Stone Ocean]

They're not just going to give away money with no strings attached. I mean, c'mon.

That doesn't mean straight up exclusivity. When big games like Assassins Creed go for marketing deals what are said strings?

 

[Zombie James]

OK, this whole parity clause confuses me. What is it exactly?

Been working on a game for a couple of years and have a PS4 or PC version ready to make you some money? Too bad. If you want to release it on the Xbox One you'll have to artificially delay every other version of the game - even if they're fully complete - until the Xbox version is done.