SomedayTheFire
Member
Oh the title change was 100% needed but the narrative of the moneyhat seems way off. Just people pushing agendas.
-
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.
Broforce skipping XBO due to Parity Clause, and "deal they couldn't refuse" w/ Sony
- Thread starter SerTapTap
- Start date
Oh the title change was 100% needed but the narrative of the moneyhat seems way off. Just people pushing agendas.
Jimmyfenix
Member
Yup i am not seeing this so called "moneyhat" in this case
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
It doesn't sound like that to me at all, certainly not with that "as far as I know" and singling out the deal as the primary reason. If they were really looking into publishing the game on Xbox One, surely they would at least be aware of the details (such as the possibility of negotiating release despite the clause, it's common knowledge). It sounds more like an option they didn't really explore because of their exclusivity deal.
I dislike the parity clause as much as the next guy, but it really doesn't seem to be the culprit here.
boredandlazy
Member
The persecution complex is strong in this thread...
It could be agendas but I'm also of the mind that the term moneyhat is thrown around so carelessly that some people probably don't know what it means anymore.
SerTapTap
Member
Deal with Sony was literally in the thread title word for word. People seem to be stretching "deal they couldn't refuse" to "exclusivity" despite his quote making it very clear that's not the case.
If Microsoft gave them the same thing Sony was giving them, nothing would stop them from releasing the game later on PS4/Wii U because neither Sony or Nintendo have a clause that blocks them from releasing it because of where they released it first.
Dr. Black Jack
Member
On the one hand, the parity clause is bullshit and needs to go.
On the other hand, it's just Broforce.
On the other hand, it's just Broforce.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Shall we start pretending that when console makers have 'reached out' in the past, it hasn't resulted in them moneyhatting a game?
I'm not seeing it. Can you point it out?
SerTapTap
Member
Yes, I mean, they did basically the same last gen and largely got away with it. They dont' have the market/mindshare to get away with it this time (in combo with Sony actively courting indies which was less a factor last gen). The surprising thing isn't that they tried it again this gen, but that they're stubbornly keeping it when it's clear many (most?) indies aren't putting up with it.
Why not? They've done it before.
Also, they really don't have to attach any strings when Microsoft's own policy does all the work for them.
Jimmyfenix
Member
MS probably expected the games to launch first on xbox or at the same time as other consoles due to their success last gen.
Free dev kits and porting costs is not the same as 200 million dollars for a game
They should have 180'd months ago
First class citizens don't play 8-bit looking games, they are not even considered games over there
dynamitejim
Member
Microsoft's Indie parity clause seems almost like a de facto exclusivity clause for Sony. The people at Sony clearly recognize this and have done a tremendous job in capitalizing on it. And it's clearly not just monetary support as I've seen some developers mention Sony supports more tools which make it easier to build their games for PS4/Vita initially. And if you're a smaller studio that can't afford not to launch a product that's ready, you've basically become Sony exclusive.
Shall we pretend there's enough information in a brief and vague developer comment to make a rubber stamp determination?
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Is Kaz the Godfather? Was the deal not ending up at the bottom of Tokyo Bay?
ProvenDeadly
Member
This game I've never heard of will bury MS I'm sure of it.
Stone Ocean
Member
So the dev is lying then.
SomedayTheFire
Member
All it has ever meant is "exclusivity deal with console I don't like".
Phoenix Fang
Banned
Delsuional aren't we? Sony put some money on the table, only a naive person would think otherwise.
Miles Quaritch
Member
It's been over a year. If they were going to drop it, they would have done so by now. They've even defended it, it's not going anywhere.
They'll continue to give exceptions to select developers who ask and fuck the rest.
boredandlazy
Member
Stone Ocean
Member
Damn, 4 pages before someone shitting on indies showed up, that's gotta be a record.
Thanks, I was beginning to think I was the only one who read the quote.
MS didn't block the game. Why the drama, GAF?
He says "as far as I know ...". So it's not like they even tried to talk to the ID team
Shall we start pretending we don't all know what Pub Funding by Sony does to a game's exclusivity?
He says "as far as I know ...". So it's not like they even tried to talk to the ID team
Shouldn't the fact that a fairly well known indie dev has this notion of impossibility even before talking to anyone make it even worse, though? And the policy even more of a failure?
You are scaring people away from even approaching you.
This is true. Which we certainly cant blame the devs for accepting at all. Hell i'd definitely use it to my advantage if I were a dev. If I have a decent buzz on my game, I can know I have zero intention of going to MS because I disagree with the clause and let Sony "approach" me with an offer. Winning.
Like clockwork.
SerTapTap
Member
Broforce is an early access game at $15, 200 people playing now concurrently, and 99% positive reviews out of 5000 on steam, and is published by Devolver Digital, one of the biggest names in "indie publishing". It's hardly a no-name game.
Pub fund is timed exclusivity, and devs have even announced PC versions of their pub fund games before release. Most recently/memorably Axiom Verge. It's quite transparent.
Jimmyfenix
Member
Paging Amir
Khalifa Jayy
Banned
Why should they negotiate with a company that created such a clause in the first place?
What's with that though?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-01-08-indie-platformer-rogue-legacy-confirmed-for-xbox-one
Game came out last year on PS4/PS3/Vita and is now coming to Xbox One.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-01-08-indie-platformer-rogue-legacy-confirmed-for-xbox-one
Game came out last year on PS4/PS3/Vita and is now coming to Xbox One.
Sniper_Joe
Banned
Another reason I'll never support Xbox. Not even a true to its core, new Banjo Kazooie would convince me at this point.
Miles Quaritch
Member
But nowhere is it mentioned that the developer got free dev kits and porting costs. So it's natural to assume that the developer was moneyhatted.
If the developer has since clarified, perhaps that should be added to the OP.
What's vague about it? Seems pretty clear cut. He says in no uncertain terms that Sony reached out and the natural conclusion to reach is that Sony moneyhatted the game based on what we know that means from past deals.
It's a very specific choice of wording.
Jacksinthe
Banned
Meh. Just another worthless indie game. Thanks to Microsoft for helping curate XBL - it just means a higher caliber of game and saves us from a ton of indie garbage.
/s
TheSlySoul
Member
They make exceptions on a case by case basis. Guess they would not make an exception for this game.
Haunted
Member
Broforce is terrific fun, especially in co-op, I encourage everyone to check it out on Steam or PS4.
Kinda ironic that MS' attempted strong-arm policies have made them basically irrelevant in the indie space after they helped the scene so much by featuring breakout indie hits in 2008/2009 on XBLA.
Kinda ironic that MS' attempted strong-arm policies have made them basically irrelevant in the indie space after they helped the scene so much by featuring breakout indie hits in 2008/2009 on XBLA.
SensibleSucker
Member
"As far as I know Microsoft has a clause in their contract where they wont accept an indie game if it launches on Xbox after Playstation"
Sounds like he's not read the policy properly, if at all.
Sounds like he's not read the policy properly, if at all.
SerTapTap
Member
They have an (exceptionally gross) exit clause that says you can talk to MS and get out of the exclusivity. Basically it means you can break the rules as long as you're too big for Microsoft to bully. That is not a positive. Warframe was one of the first, IIRC.
SomedayTheFire
Member
MS make exceptions, once known. This is likely to get the word out that they're releasing on PS and not Xbox so they can start up some talks with MS and get a release plan thrashed out. The offer from Sony is probably either PS+ exposure or pub fund/devkits.
Miles Quaritch
Member
I don't even know what point you're trying to make.
Thanks. I missed that post. Poor form, RemCit.
Stone Ocean
Member
Yeah, fuck fun games! Give me more nothing!
If Microsoft were getting less games released on their platform due to this parity clause, I would have agreed that the clause was a bad idea.
But, as numerous people on GAF have taught me, indie games are not real games.
Therefore, Microsoft are not getting less games released on their platform due to this clause, so the clause must be fine.
But, as numerous people on GAF have taught me, indie games are not real games.
Therefore, Microsoft are not getting less games released on their platform due to this clause, so the clause must be fine.
Yes this is sarcasm.
Microsoft's shitty policy drove the developers to be more amenable to Sony and take their deal, with whatever terms that entails. I think that's the safest thing you can say.
Similar threads
- Poll