Support NeoGAF

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

I'm reading the op quote again, and I still don't see the issue.

If the dev has to do a staggered release, not because a paid timed exclusive deal, it's cool. They understand there may be limitations in man power.

If there is a time exclusive deal, when the game can be released on the xbox, MS devs will work with the dev to get some extra content going for when it does release so consumers do have more incentives to purchase an older game that may be overlooked because of the passage of time.

That's how I read it.

 

[unknownstranger]

I think it's a given that if a game comes out a year later on XBO that it'll have DLC packed in. Microsoft wants something that no other version has with or without DLC though, which is where the problem is.

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

I think it's a given that if a game comes out a year later on XBO that it'll have DLC packed in. Microsoft wants something that no other version has with or without DLC though, which is where the problem is.

But if ms is willing to give manpower to help, is it a problem?

"If another platform does a deal with you as a developer to build an exclusive version of your game for them, and you can't ship on my platform for a year, when the game comes out in a year let's just work together to make it special in some way."

I don't think so, unless they don't provide man power then yes, it is a problem. If MS paid for extra content would it be a problem?

 

[HighResTomato]

This seems to be the case. Big difference from "we don't want you on our platform at all."

It's pretty clear what he said but why pass on opportunity to create own narratives. People get mad when MS say "come talk to us" lol.

 

[Lord Kefka]

If the parity clause got battletoads in shovel knight then I support it

 

[Phoenix Fang]

During the PS3 days yeah, PS4 no.

Bullshit. They do, it depends on the developer.

 

[DOG3NZAKA]

I like Phil, I really do. But he is the king of telling you what you want to hear.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

This seems to be the case. Big difference from "we don't want you on our platform at all."

I'm not sure MS ever went as far as saying that. Have I missed something here?

If the parity clause got battletoads in shovel knight then I support it

Meanwhile, choice and variety on other platforms.

┐(´-&#65344┌

 

[Kayant]

I'm reading the op quote again, and I still don't see the issue.

If the dev has to do a staggered release, not because a paid timed exclusive deal, it's cool. They understand there may be limitations in man power.

If there is a time exclusive deal, when the game can be released on the xbox, MS devs will work with the dev to get some extra content going for when it does release so consumers do have more incentives to purchase an older game that may be overlooked because of the passage of time.

That's how I read it.

Working with them doesn't mean helping them. This is the bit I have issue with because it's a requirement if a deal has been made elsewhere in order to launch on their platform one Sony none Nintendo have.

This seems to be the case. Big difference from "we don't want you on our platform at all."

It isn't a big difference because they made exemptions in the past when they wanted to i.e Warframe so this wasn't the case in the first place. All that happened here is an expansion of the exemption range to make it easier and allows the smaller devs that would have be locked out before to get a chance to now be part of the exemption

 

[Jrs3000]

I'm not sure MS ever went as far as saying that. Have I missed something here?

Yep, 360 days that was the real parity clause.

 

[Kayant]

Bullshit. They do, it depends on the developer.

??? Where's your receipts.

 

[travisbickle]

If the parity clause got battletoads in shovel knight then I support it

That happened because the devs have the available manpower to make it happen. MS are giving devs less reason to be one the platform because of extra financial costs.

 

[paulogy]

If another platform does a deal with you as a developer to build an exclusive version of your game for them, and you can't ship on my platform for a year, when the game comes out in a year let's just work together to make it special in some way. People complained about that, but you did a deal with somebody else and you got paid for it and I'm happy - we do those same deals, so I'm not knocking you. It's going to be better for you, actually, because people don't want last year's game, they want something special and new.

This seems unnecessarily hostile to indies, especially the "you did a deal with someone else and you got paid for it" piece. If an indie dev seeking a larger audience brings their game to PlayStation, perhaps out of popularity and personal interest, publishes it themselves, and chooses to put in some special content to spice it up over the previous (presumably) PC release, but doesn't have resource to do that for Xbox One also, did they really do "a deal" they "got paid" for? So now they'll be forced to make new content for Xbox One when, after releasing for PC and now PS, they'd probably rather just make a simple port and move onto something new? I don't know the details myself, but I can see why people complained about that.

 

[walltowall]

This seems unnecessarily hostile to indies, especially the "you did a deal with someone else and you got paid for it" piece. If an indie dev seeking a larger audience brings their game to PlayStation, perhaps out of popularity and personal interest, publishes it themselves, and chooses to put in some special content to spice it up over the previous (presumably) PC release, but doesn't have resource to do that for Xbox One also, did they really do "a deal" they "got paid" for? So now they'll be forced to make new content for Xbox One when, after releasing for PC and now PS, they'd probably rather just make a simple port and move onto something new? I don't know the details myself, but I can see why people complained about that.

Aren't you painting a different scanario from what he said?

 

[paulogy]

Aren't you painting a different scanario from what he said?

I guess it depends on what kind of deal it is - did they get paid by the platform or not? If Spencer is saying "if you got paid to make a special version, you have to make our version special too" that's a very strange arrangement. As eager as they are to know it and have parity, what kind of business arrangement a dev makes with other platforms should be none of Xbox's business.

I think consumers would get it if the PlayStation version of, say, No Man's Sky has a Shuhei Yoshida pilot skin, but a year later Xbox One's game is the same minus that bonus. And I think those people would rather be able to play NMS on Xbox One, even if it's just a straightforward port a year later, than not at all. No Man's Sky is a particularly interesting case, because supposedly Hello Games took no funding from Sony, and only asked for time on their E3 showcase.

So is the line Spencer drawing whether the dev was "paid" as part of their deal? That's the part that seems strange to me.

 

[fedexpeon]

There are a lot of PC ports with no new contents on the PS I believe.

 

[safichan]

Ahhh...MS with their usual bullshit...nothing new here...they are just using different words and phrases but the meaning still the same...

 

[Ray Down]

??? Where's your receipts.

Will be waiting awhile.

Yikes some time to pull stuff out your assistance.

 

[cakely]

"There is no parity clause and the parity clause is great because people don't want last year's game they wan't something special and new".

The hell?

 

[MisterR]

Sure we can. What don't you understand?

He says there is no clause and then explains everything people talk about being the clause still exists.

 

[xxracerxx]

Bullshit. They do, it depends on the developer.

Well this should be fun. Care to prove your claim?

 

[Chobel]

Bullshit. They do, it depends on the developer.

Oh boy! I want to see dem receipts.

 

[graywolf323]

so basically the 'parity clause' no longer exists but in actuality it does live on

we'll just call it the equality stipulation now

 

[Orca]

I'm reading the op quote again, and I still don't see the issue.

If the dev has to do a staggered release, not because a paid timed exclusive deal, it's cool. They understand there may be limitations in man power.

If there is a time exclusive deal, when the game can be released on the xbox, MS devs will work with the dev to get some extra content going for when it does release so consumers do have more incentives to purchase an older game that may be overlooked because of the passage of time.

That's how I read it.

Doesn't Sony ask for the same thing? If a game is coming to your platform late, you want gamers to have a reason to pick it up - something new, no matter how small.

 

[xxracerxx]

Doesn't Sony ask for the same thing? If a game is coming to your platform late, you want gamers to have a reason to pick it up - something new, no matter how small.

No.

 

[Fat4all]

Doesn't Sony ask for the same thing? If a game is coming to your platform late, you want gamers to have a reason to pick it up - something new, no matter how small.

They do not. If a dev wants to, they can.

EDIT: beaten

 

[The 8-Bit Raider]

I like Phil, I really do. But he is the king of telling you what you want to hear.

This

 

[Chobel]

But if ms is willing to give manpower to help, is it a problem?

"If another platform does a deal with you as a developer to build an exclusive version of your game for them, and you can't ship on my platform for a year, when the game comes out in a year let's just work together to make it special in some way."

I don't think so, unless they don't provide man power then yes, it is a problem. If MS paid for extra content would it be a problem?

You think MS will be funding the extra content for a late port? Especially when the extra content is some kinda of punishment to devs for delaying Xbox ports.

Doesn't Sony ask for the same thing? If a game is coming to your platform late, you want gamers to have a reason to pick it up - something new, no matter how small.

Ask? Probably. A requirement? No.

 

[NolbertoS]

Wow, Phil, is master of double speak, guess when you're lagging in 2nd place in almost wverything, have to keep rhe masses ignorant. Next thing Phil tells gamers they only see 5 lights when there's actually 3. Why not just call it the unpare-ete clausé

 

[nib95]

nothing about their stance has changed. they've always been saying that if you have an exclusive deal with someone, you need to have exclusive/extra content for the XB1. it's not the best stance because i couldn't care less if something launches on PS4/Wii U/PC first, but they've been consistent, to my knowledge. i want hotline miami on XB1, though.

what's vague about it? it's extremely clear.

They've never really been clear about it. It's existed, it exists, but whenever they are quizzed or criticised on it they give half answers and explanations, or ask developers to simply talk to them about it to know more. They've tried to paint it as though so many people have just misunderstood the clause, not that they just haven't been transparent about it. Shame it's Spencer of all people spinning it now.

 

[graywolf323]

They've never really been clear about it. It's existed, it exists, but whenever they are quizzed or criticised on it they give half answers and explanations, or ask developers to simply talk to them about it to know more. They've tried to paint it as though so many people have just misunderstood the clause, not that they just haven't been transparent about it. Shame it's Spencer of all people spinning it now.

this isn't the first time he's spun it, Spencer has been guilty of that from the start

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=909272

he's the one that talked about wanting Xbox One owners to feel like they were 'first class'

I like Phil, I really do. But he is the king of telling you what you want to hear.

exactly

 

[DocSeuss]

I do not see the problem at all.

"If Sony pays you not to release your game on our platform for a year, then we'd like you to consider adding something special when you release it on ours" doesn't seem like a big deal.

It's not like it's required.

 

[xxracerxx]

I do not see the problem at all.

"If Sony pays you not to release your game on our platform for a year, then we'd like you to consider adding something special when you release it on ours" doesn't seem like a big deal.

It's not like it's required.

Except it sounds like it is required if those are the circumstances.

 

[Kayant]

Will be waiting awhile.

.......

Let's break down this again

If another platform does a deal with you as a developer to build an exclusive version of your game for them, and you can't ship on my platform for a year, when the game comes out in a year let's just work together to make it special in some way. People complained about that, but you did a deal with somebody else and you got paid for it and I'm happy - we do those same deals, so I'm not knocking you. It's going to be better for you, actually, because people don't want last year's game.

- You made our competitors feel special. We demand we feel special too.

- Ignore that we have actually made exemptions in the past and have allowed games that have made deals elsewhere to launch without making us special content.

- We make the same deals all the time! We are cool with deals you made elsewhere *Although it's better if you make us feel special too this way we can market that unique content only found on our platform and you gain even more exposure for your game because no one would be happy with just getting a game they may or may not have before but not played yet. See! You Win, We Win.

I do not see the problem at all.

"If Sony pays you not to release your game on our platform for a year, then we'd like you to consider adding something special when you release it on ours" doesn't seem like a big deal.

It's not like it's required.

Expect it is.

when the game comes out in a year let's just work together to make it special in some way.

 

[Durden77]

You gotta give it to Spencer. He spouts a lot of stuff, but when he says it, it sounds like he means it. And he says it directly to his audience.

But only time will truly tell.

 

[LewieP]

If the parity terms are so reasonable, perhaps they should publish them publicly rather than hiding them behind an NDA.

It's almost as if it's one rule for some developers, and an entirely different rule for others, and Microsoft don't want the policy discussed publicly in any detail, since it weakens their ability to coerce developers into producing Xbox exclusive content at zero cost to Microsoft.

 

[Meaty]

Clear as swamp tar

 

[The Mad Draklor]

I'm very confused... He says there's no parity clause and yet, there is a parity clause...

 

[Mr. Giggles]

I wonder why they won't just drop it, it would definitely help indie relations now and in the future....

I imagine come the Xbox two (ugh) that if the parity clause still exists and the console lags behind the competition again then indie devs will just say "f**ck it"

 

[rakkadakka]

Count me in the camp of people who don't see the outrage over the quote.

Especially if it amounts to him asking a dev to do something like Battletoads in the Xbox One version of Shovel Knight.

 

[toddhunter]

 

[Vanillalite]

I'm fine with it.

I'm not buying a game a year later on another platform if it is just the same as elsewhere especially when I know if it's already old it'll be up for either a sale or a Subscription Freebie on the original platform.

Add in something unique though like what Yatch Club did with Shovel and I might consider it or Don't Starve being buy one get one free on the Wii U a year later.

*shrug*

 

[Juanfp]

Really want to defend Phil, but there is not way to do it. When will they drop this "clause"? It not most be very hard. Right now that only bring bad PR and some indie devs not wanting to port their games. Less games because of a clause do not make feel like a "first class citizen".

 

[m_dorian]

Perfection.

 

[Dazza]

"You spin me right round, baby, right round. Like a record baby, right round, round round"

You or MS haven't changed Phil

 

[Wynnebeck]

"There is no parity clause. It never existed. That don't make no damn sense..."

"Yes there's a parity clause"

As your leader, I encourage you from time to time, and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced that a particular policy is the wisest, tell me so, but allow me to work with you to make it special because I promise you right here and now, no one wants your old game. Unless, of course, you actually add new content to it. The price you pay for bringing up parity clause as a negative is... I collect your fucking head. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the fucking time!

 

[Orca]

You think MS will be funding the extra content for a late port? Especially when the extra content is some kinda of punishment to devs for delaying Xbox ports.



Ask? Probably. A requirement? No.

Well "let's work together to make it special" doesn't really sound like an awful requirement either.

 

[Vanillalite]

Really want to defend Phil, but there is not way to do it. When will they drop this "clause"? It not most be very hard. Right now that only bring bad PR and some indie devs not wanting to port their games. Less games because of a clause do not make feel like a "first class citizen".

I don't care about paying full price for 1 year old ports from other systems. I need a little more.

*shrug*

 

[Dlacy13g]

I like Phil, I really do. But he is the king of telling you what you want to hear.

No, he has been pretty straight forward it's just somw still just here what they want to here and spin it into a conspiracy/issue. The internet and Gaf do love their drama.

 

[Stanng243]

I don't care about paying full price for 1 year old ports from other systems. I need a little more.

*shrug*

That's sad to me. I was more then happy to pay full price for a port of bastion which is 4 years old. If you've never played a game, what does it matter what system it came out on?