-
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
Callibretto
Member
I'm guessing sony deals is basically sony paying for exclusive content for ps version of the game. Like shuhei yoshida in super time force and kratos bossfight in shovel knight.
This kind of deal is good for indie because they got paid for extra content, and the extra content may make people who already own the game on pc to buy the game again. Good for consumer because we got neat extra, and good for sony because their version of the game will be unique only on their platform.
This kind of deal is good for indie because they got paid for extra content, and the extra content may make people who already own the game on pc to buy the game again. Good for consumer because we got neat extra, and good for sony because their version of the game will be unique only on their platform.
When a company leaves its soft spot way open, its competition will keep punching it. Microsoft did this to Sony when 360 was king. With this knowledge I'm still not sure why Microsoft is leaving itself vulnerable on middleware in such an obvious way.
Jimmyfenix
Member
Yosp is the ultimate money hat
No Broshida, no buy
Callibretto
Member
Come on, yoshida already got his game, they should do adam broyes or other sony guys. Would be cool to get kaz hirai ingame, lol
LukasTaves
Member
I ended up missing the other threads about that, so sorry if that was already answer, but is there any developer that has been actively blocked from this clause? Every time I saw a developer speaking against that clause was by principle or that they just assume they will be blocked.
Sure, at this point it would be better to drop the clause altogether if it's causing that much controversy, but it sounds like all the controversy is kinda of a preemptive strike.
Because, at least is what I took from tat Phil interview, the intent of the clause is to stimulate dialog between Ms and developer to see if they are not skipping Xbox due a stupid reason (Say for example, the guy is making the game using a multiplat engine and just assumes it would be hard to develop for xbone too when it could just compile for it), not for actually blocking games to come to the console.
Sure, at this point it would be better to drop the clause altogether if it's causing that much controversy, but it sounds like all the controversy is kinda of a preemptive strike.
Because, at least is what I took from tat Phil interview, the intent of the clause is to stimulate dialog between Ms and developer to see if they are not skipping Xbox due a stupid reason (Say for example, the guy is making the game using a multiplat engine and just assumes it would be hard to develop for xbone too when it could just compile for it), not for actually blocking games to come to the console.
Miles, if the shoe doesn't fit, you don't have to try to wear it.
The point about console warriors wasn't expressly addressed at you and you didn't need to "dissect" it as such. The point is that the dev said something that wasn't actually very specific or precise at all (because it failed to give any actual specifics about the deal) and he can't be held accountable for the way forums like these will instantly try to assign more meaning to his words than he probably ever intended.
The meaning of the phrase 'reaching out' does also have some differentiation based on context, which you seem to be overlooking here. Notably, what "reaching out" tends to mean at the small/indie level vs. the mega publisher level, is very different.
Further, if a dev gets a deal that they "couldn't refuse" why would you assume that means exclusivity? Wouldn't a dev want their game on as many platforms as possible and therefore a "couldn't refuse" deal to them would be one that naturally helps them get the game on more platforms without arbitrarily handicapping that process? A deal that provides financial assistance to get your game on another platform without any strings attached is win-win, much moreso than an alternate deal that would require exclusivity for some period. The former is far more "couldn't refuse" than the latter, agree?
Jimmyfenix
Member
Check out this thread from chubs
47 new PS4 games revealed since September, and NONE of them were announced for XB1.
Wtf is this nonsense with Sony moneyhating the game? If Sony really did this then the statement would read completely different "i'm happy to announce that Broforce is exclusive for PS4 etc. pp.". But what I read is that Sony helped them to bring Broforce to PS4 and nothing more. Some of you guys and gals trying really hard to read something that is not there lol
RowdyReverb
Member
I wonder if Sony's current strategy is to moneyhat indie games to launch on their platform first, thereby making the game a de facto console exclusive because of MS's parity clause. It's what I would do in their shoes.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Some very good points and I do generally with all of them.
Specifically, I did overlook the context of the 'reaching out' phrase. I hold my hands up to it, should have considered it much more carefully before going down that path as aggressively as I did.
Fox Mulder
Member
sure, if it was 360 vs ps3. The ps4 has a pretty good lead over the xb1 where I'd think indie devs would consider it first anyways now even if the clause didnt exist.
it's sad to see MS stick to this so much as XBLA was amazing for a few years on the 360.
To make it seem fair since everyone is jumping on MS. At least now speaking of a money hat seems reasonable.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Still too many asking for exceptions, which just begs the question why they don't just drop the goddamn thing and get it over with...
It's so ridiculous at this point...
SerTapTap
Member
Pub fund is optional, parity clause is not. They are not remotely comparable. Pub fund is get money for temp exclusivity (which they're allowed to be transparent about, which is pretty rare for deals), parity is "here first or get the fuck out"
This should be required reading--this is not an extreme case, but it IS one of few cases where a dev has called out the clause. The silent majority is also with this.
Xaero Gravity
NEXT LEVEL lame™
Nope, the lack of some indie titles is going to be the death of MS and the Xbox brand.
krypt0nian
Banned
Aside from some major titles, I do recall indie games being a big reason to own an xbox 360 early on.
You're right, but this game isn't self-published. Devolver is the publisher.
I can understand indie devs not having the time or manpower to do simultaneous releases, but I do have a question for those who can actually answer it. With most of the indie games that are made nowadays (meaning non-graphically intensive 2D games), how difficult is it to port between xbox one and ps4 given their similar architecture? I can understand having difficulty working with the ESRAM for more graphically intensive games, but for 2D games I cannot imagine that it is that big of a problem (correct me if I am wrong, seriously).
From what chubigans has said numerous times, it's not really about the difficulty thing you're positing. It's about time and resources that you mentioned that some indies don't have to comply with Microsoft's clause. Or perhaps there's not enough of a return to support bugfixing those multiple platforms.
Xaero Gravity
NEXT LEVEL lame™
Oh I agree, but only when it comes to the hardcore audience. In the grand scheme of things, the mainstream gaming audience probably couldn't care less. It's not indie titles that are going to win this for MS. That being said, the clause really does need to go. With so many exceptions being handed out, why bother having it?
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Where´s the Amir0x signal? 
Where´s the Amir0x signal?
you lighted the Amir0x signal? Hey man
FUCK the parity clause. Wake up Microsoft.
MikeE21286
Member
This is the new exclusives battleground for third parties. Not AAA exclusives. Sony is light-years ahead with this thought process. The parity clause is just one thing severely hampering this for XB1
Having a good catalog of middleware and indies is not a make-or-break need of Microsoft's platform or the company obviously but it does broaden your base and give people things to play between big releases. It's also a mindshare and PR thing, which Microsoft is eating shit on already.
I don't mean to brush off your answer, so please don't take this as that, but I would assume easy to port would mean little time or manpower to port. I probably should have stated that more specifically.
Everyone who says 'oh this will obviously hurt MS' is missing the point.
MS are not interested in bringing indie games to the platform unless there's immediate money to be made out of it. They don't want a game that only shifts 10k units, they only want the indies that are going to be breakout hits.
So they don't care that they're getting less than half the number of games, what they care about is making sure they get the 'right' indie games. If ever a game does come along that looks like it's going to be that breakout hit (a la Minecraft) you bet they'll be there ready to swoop in with a moneyhat and lock that exclusivity down.
MS is one of the most short-term orientated tech companies out there. They're infamous for not getting aboard the long-term trends in tech until they've already passed. They either haven't cottoned on to what Sony have already realised (that a diverse indie portfolio has a halo effect for your brand) or they don't care about it. What they want are the indie games that sell millions of units, nothing less.
MS are not interested in bringing indie games to the platform unless there's immediate money to be made out of it. They don't want a game that only shifts 10k units, they only want the indies that are going to be breakout hits.
So they don't care that they're getting less than half the number of games, what they care about is making sure they get the 'right' indie games. If ever a game does come along that looks like it's going to be that breakout hit (a la Minecraft) you bet they'll be there ready to swoop in with a moneyhat and lock that exclusivity down.
MS is one of the most short-term orientated tech companies out there. They're infamous for not getting aboard the long-term trends in tech until they've already passed. They either haven't cottoned on to what Sony have already realised (that a diverse indie portfolio has a halo effect for your brand) or they don't care about it. What they want are the indie games that sell millions of units, nothing less.
The coding is one thing, but there's also implementing all the platform holder requirements and going through the whole submission process, which can be very time consuming. Especially for a small team.
Ok, that makes sense to me. Thanks for responding.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Not sure about that.
Live Arcade didn't really come into its own until about 2.5/3 years after the 360 launched...
Chubigans said that the engine he was using wasn't supported by the Xbox One SDK. And Ska Studios said the XBox one doesn't support .net. So getting some games there is near impossible.
SlipperyMoose
Member
This is one of the last remaining things Phil Spencer needs to get rid of.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
Even at the basic level, Sony might just not care that it's already been on PC for a long time and is still willing to give it default "new release" store space and visibility the day it releases, rather than no visibility due to it not being a day 1, (very) timed exclusive on XBLA like prominent indies were last gen... and like Cuphead and Below are sure to be.
alexandros
Banned
Uh, this actually seems like a straight-up moneyhat rather than a parity clause issue.
Michanical
Member
I bought a 360 once I started reading about the booming indie scene on XBLA.
Braid, Castle Crashers, and Bionic Commando Rearmed came out in the same summer. Most of my friends owned these games. Actually, check out every Summer of Arcade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_Arcade
There are so many indie classics in here it's insane. XBLA was a major catalyst in the rise of indies and it’s weird for MS to act as though they are still directing that ship.
It seems that Sony only has temporary exclusivity, but due to MS's policies, Sony now has de facto exclusivity.
LukasTaves
Member
I've seen this (and others) thread. What I meant is that I couldn't keep up all the way through, but thus far I haven't seen a single dev being actively blocked.
I'm not ignoring that indies are decided not to launch their games to xbone. I'm talking about their reasoning not to. Like I said, at this point the clause needs to go, but as far as I can see, they never blocked anyone, the clause is there just to entice dialog.
Natureboy99
Banned
It probably helps Sony that they basically have a 2:1 lead in install base. No doubt it gives them a lot more strength to make good deals.
Indies have essentially replaced the middleware arcade ports that made up much of the early Live Arcade marketplace. Even if they weren't hot to start, 360 was still the place to be for that type of priced game at the time, as shown in Michanical's post. I mean, fuck, Shadow Complex? Why the hell don't they get the rights and act on that? Practically everyone likes it.
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.
The way he wired this is that he talked to Sony and didn't talk to Microsoft. It's lime he heard about the clause on a forum and didn't bother. I thought this clause was in flux and wasn't a hard rule. If so, the "idea" of this clause has damaged Xbox more than the reality of it's function actually has.
The way he wired this is that he talked to Sony and didn't talk to Microsoft. It's lime he heard about the clause on a forum and didn't bother. I thought this clause was in flux and wasn't a hard rule. If so, the "idea" of this clause has damaged Xbox more than the reality of it's function actually has.
In both cases that would be MS limiting the numbers of platforms indies cam release their game on.
BrettHeazy
Member
Would Just Add Water considered a AA/AAA Studio?
ON'n'T is Independently published from Oddworld Inhabitants, that's scored an X1 release after the PS4's ?
ON'n'T is Independently published from Oddworld Inhabitants, that's scored an X1 release after the PS4's ?
Even if they didn't actively block anyone, it has had the opposite effect. Many indie developers do not consider the Xbox One because of even the thought of dealing with the parity clause.
Cave Johnson
Member
And here we go... The Parity Clause only assumes the stance if the developers is capable of delivering their product on both systems simultaneously - which is clearly NOT the case.
Who on earth would dedicate resources to delay or wait for simultaneous release when the game is UP AND READY to be sold? This is an incredibly bizarre stance MS is taking and I really don't see any benefit to this.
Who on earth would dedicate resources to delay or wait for simultaneous release when the game is UP AND READY to be sold? This is an incredibly bizarre stance MS is taking and I really don't see any benefit to this.
The benefit is making people feel the false notion that their marketplace is curated when in fact it's being passively starved out by their own bad policies.
Similar threads
- Poll