serversurfer
Member
Actually, Capcom had to completely redo the art for one of the Street Fighter games to get it to fit in to XBLA's size limits. Problem was, the PS3 version was then stuck with the "improved" art as well. ><
-
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
Why is "Sony gave us a bunch of money" more likely than porting when we already know that Sony has teams to help with porting for indies, and this dev is typically only PC?
Again, I'll ask. Why would Sony give this ONE particular dev a bunch of money if it's uncharacteristic? What's special about this game compared to the thousands of others?
GayForMaster
Banned
Yeah, I would think by now that he would have done something about it eh?
Neuromancer
Member
Well now that we've settled that the parity clause has no bearing on whether this game comes out on XBO1 or not, the only thing to wonder is how big of a dump truck full of money Sony drove up to Free Lives' studio. Was it this big:
Or this big:
Or this big:
You would seriously say no to Sony footing the entire bill of the port, while retaining your IP in exchange for a slightly less cut of the profit?
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I'm sure Sony must have delivered them a truckload of cash for a game that can be played for free in a web browser.
And I think it's a big mistake that they're making. Having loads of indie games on your platform can definitely add up a lot of money & more sales for you.
plasmawave
Banned
Well now that we've settled that the parity clause has no bearing on whether this game comes out on XBO1 or not, the only thing to wonder is how big of a dump truck full of money Sony drove up to Free Lives' studio. Was it this big:
Or this big:
LiquidSolid
Member
I'm sure a few will delude themselves into feeling that way but in reality, they're getting worse scraps than they otherwise would've. Waiting a few months > Not getting a lot of games at all.
What makes you think they wouldn't have had plans for the XB1 if the parity clause hadn't been there? Because that's one of the things about this clause, when you've put up such a huge roadblock for a lot of developers, they're just going to dismiss the idea from the very beginning. No point fucking around begging Microsoft for an exception if there's a pretty good chance it could lead nowhere.
Speaking as a developer, nobody cares about the tales from your ass.
Sony provides development resources to help port titles over - which can mean anything from footing a portion of the bill, providing marketing support for PSN, or facilitating partnerships for another team to port your game should you not have enough people on staff to do it yourself.
The Xbone parity clause is toxic and only benefits Sony, ironically enough. When developers feel free to skip your platform entirely because 1) it's being outsold 2:1 by the competition and 2) the competition is (and more importantly, is seen to be) much easier to work with, that should be seen as a problem.
tl;dr Don't speak on things you know nothing about.
serversurfer
Member
Really, it's about dragging everyone else down to whatever level MS choose to compete at. As I explained earlier, dominance isn't actually required for the policy to pay dividends for them. All they need is significance. If you have no choice but to deal with MS, then you have no choice but to play by their rules.
Ports still take time, which means there are salaries to pay, rent to cover, etc. Doing a port or any development at all, really means money out of the developer's pocket, and there's no guarantee their game will actually be successful and even cover their initial investment, much less actually turn a decent profit. Sony's offer to help cover those costs in turn reduces that risk for developers, so they effectively have "nothing to lose" by giving PlayStation a shot. That's why developers find it appealing.
Veritigo_X
Member
I'm sure a lot of devs would take the help if it were offered. Just because it uses x86 architecture doesn't mean there's a 'Port to PS4' button that devs can hit to port the game. There is still a lot of work that goes into it and developers can't always afford to do that work if they have a small team.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Wasn't Banner Saga announced for X1?
Another game that was graced with the glory of an exception. You have to wonder when will MS start to question the point of the policy when all they seem to do is hand out exceptions?
What a asinine thing to say, it isn't just like pushing a button. Christ.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
Every game required voice chat and HDD-less console compatibility except when it didn't.
I find it "hilarious" (or rather, puzzling) that people are so one sided with their opinions of either company, if ANY developer would have said that MS made them an offer they couldn't refuse then you would hear exactly the same thing being aimed at Microsoft.
Default GAF position : Sony "support" and "nurture" whilst Microsoft hold developers at gunpoint with their moneybags.
I'm not disagreeing with their choice, I think it's s pretty sensible decision to take any support , be it in marketing, Dev help or cash in return for exclusivity. What I do disagree with is the misdirection implied by the "as far as I know" comment which clearly has got the less cynical/gullible of the Internet on side with The developers decision to make a deal with one company.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
This sounds like truth.
There's a lot of assumptions going on here. We all know that the parity clause sucks for all parties involved. We don't know about the deal in place, we don't know whether they were planning on a late port in the first place and we don't even know if they even have an xbox one dev kit. Do you have an xbox one dev kit? What are the differences between development processes with ps4/vita and xbox one?
The moneyhats account for a 3 or 6 month (sometimes shorter!) window, like we saw for 360-lead titles last gen. The parity clause accounts for the rest of the platform's life.
Banner Saga 2 will also launch on XBOX ONE but the first one won't.
I find it "hilarious" (or rather, puzzling) that people are so one sided with their opinions of either company, if ANY developer would have said that MS made them an offer they couldn't refuse then you would hear exactly the same thing being aimed at Microsoft.
Default GAF position : Sony "support" and "nurture" whilst Microsoft hold developers at gunpoint with their moneybags.
I'm not disagreeing with their choice, I think it's s pretty sensible decision to take any support , be it in marketing, Dev help or cash in return for exclusivity. What I do disagree with is the misdirection implied by the "as far as I know" comment which clearly has got the less cynical/gullible of the Internet on side with The developers decision to make a deal with one company.
It's not that puzzling. I haven't heard anyone complain about games like IDARB coming out on XB1 and not other platforms. If MS was known for some of the pro-indie incentives like Sony is (port assistance/marketing/pub fund) then I doubt anyone would immediately jump to the "oh moneyhat!" conclusion that they regularly do.
Right now the PS4 is (widely considered) the more indie friendly platform due to multiple programs provided by Sony. It's not that hard to see why games would release first on the platform without the "bags of money" hyperbole.
Assumptions made based on what we've seen in terms of developer treatment between both platforms.
As an independent developer, it behooves you to get your game into the hands of as many people as possible. PS4 is the market leader, but you want Xbone owners to play as well. Where do you allocate your resources, assuming that as an independent developer you can't afford to simultaneously release on both? Common sense dictates you go with the largest market, release and recoup your investment, allowing you to live another day and bring your game to other markets while keeping the lights on.
Knowing all that, it's safe to assume that the BroForce team would have loved to make more money by bringing their game over to Xbone at some point. Independent developers have been known to enjoy making money.
Unless you have another scenario where it wouldn't make sense to bring BroForce to Xbone, even if it was late. I'm all ears.
...I don't think you realize how development of games works, especially when certain publishers need funding of a certain game in order for the games to even exist.
funkystudent
Member
Did MS have this clause last gen? Would explain why a lot of PSN games didnt come to XBLA afterwards but a lot of XBLA games made the jump to PSN
Joe Danger 1 might be the only notable one I can think of and then they got screwed over a bunch with MS's meddling with Joe Danger 2 release.
Joe Danger 1 might be the only notable one I can think of and then they got screwed over a bunch with MS's meddling with Joe Danger 2 release.
Hey, I just wanted to come in here to say that Broforce looks rad, and it's cool they have a good deal with Sony. As far as I can tell from checking this afternoon, they have never contacted ID@Xbox about coming to Xbox, so our policies don't really come into it, not really sure why they brought that up.
We've said before we want to make sure every game that wants to come to Xbox One can do it, and if developers have any questions they should get in touch with us at id@xbox.com. (And yes, Id love to see Broforce come to Xbox One!)
We've said before we want to make sure every game that wants to come to Xbox One can do it, and if developers have any questions they should get in touch with us at id@xbox.com. (And yes, Id love to see Broforce come to Xbox One!)
MS didnt allow indies to self publishing last gen while Sony did.
But only if it is on your terms, correct?
Miles Quaritch
Member
Seems pretty clear the perception of the parity clause is causing just as much damage as the parity clause itself.
That they didn't contact anyone at ID@ isn't surprising, they've heard that there's a parity clause in effect and that's enough for them to flat out say that it won't be hitting the X1.
Boom
funkystudent
Member
RIGHT.
Forgot about the good ol' slot system and Microsoft publishing all the indie games that couldn't find a publisher.
Boy, that seems like ages ago.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
So you're saying there's no parity clause.
serversurfer
Member
Unquestionably. Stay the course, man, and keep fighting the good fight! Vindication will come soon enough.
Find me a copy of it. In writing, taken from the contract.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
That means about diddly-squat. They don't need to contact you to carry initial interest in bringing a game to Xbox One. Parity police is quite public.
Chris, if the perception of the program keeps developers from even bothering to contact you, that's a problem that needs fixing.
Don't be thick. You won't find contractual language online and no developer is going to break NDA to jump through your hoops. What they can tell you is the nature of how the program works, backed up by Phil Spencer's own words on first-class citizenry.
"alleged". FOH
krypt0nian
Banned
We have no idea what the sit is, and the point is IT DOESN'T MATTER.
They could be giving any sort of aid, including PS+ release.
But it doesn't matter, as they don't have to moneyhat AT ALL. The indie games belong to them simply by RELEASING THEM.
Priceless. Literally.
Doesn't really matter until you stop the parity policy, no matter what Good Guy post you make, really.
Miles Quaritch
Member
SerTapTap
Member
Yup. You can bet this dev isn't the first who say the Parity clause, saw they're releasing on PS already, shrugged and moved on. Friction is a huge part of self publishing. Look at all the people still posting on PS Mobile even though PS is pretty dang open already and PS mobile is...not exactly popular or viewed well. Even that extra step is enough for people to say "nah, too much, I'll stay here."
I wonder how many of those "47 games announced for PS4 and not Xbox One" didn't even bother contacting now.
That's exactly the real problem I pointed out before. The developer said to the effect of "I heard there is a restrictive clause".. Then there is a perception problem. You could have a very flexible program but if people think it's not worth it, changes have to be made to actively address that perception.
How so? Original story makes it clear devs went with Sony first as they sought them out and due to their awareness of the parity clause they doubt they'll bother even contacting MS.
All that post does is confirm that yup they couldn't be bothered going to MS.
The issue, as clearly noted by Bish, is that on the whole Sony is actively going out of its way to chase great indie games whereas MS is mostly sitting back behind its parity clause waiting for devs to come to it.
The end result is so far PS4 has seen more indie games launch on it first and some will be the equivilent of console exclusives due to MS policies.
Look at his pre-edit a few pages up that I quoted.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Oh dear.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked