-
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.
Phil Spencer: Parity is a hell of a Clause
- Thread starter Neuromancer
- Start date
Those words mean nothing, though. You talk with us, we will set what you have to do for us to allow you to release the game on our system is what it sounds like to me. It hardly sounds like MS will be footing the bill for the extra content or the man-power from Redmond. But hey, I could be wrong.
Holy fucking shit.
Stop.
That IS exactly my point too
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
No one is hating on MS here, we are talking about some of their dumb ass policies. Conflating that into something it is not, is not needed.
graywolf323
Member
Good. i think you may have been mistaking my tone for looking for a fight,
were as it was more of a suspending disbelief
0.1.1.2.3.5.8.13.21.34.55
Banned
How the hell is Windows 10, 'NT10'?
Fuckers skipped 7, 8, & 9.
Fuckers skipped 7, 8, & 9.
That's a different issue that the "parity clause" doesn't address at all.
TheSpoiler
Member
This isn't an issue?
Here's the problem - they are being sly with the clause. Developers here have repeatedly discussed disinterest in this policy. Less indie games are showing up on the Xbox One.
But lolshrugconspiracy
Doug Heffernan
Member
I really don't see what the big deal is...
Has this "clause" stopped any popular indie games from coming to the Xbox One?
Hmm, let's see...
Oddworld New & Tasty, Olli Olli, Velocity 2X, Thomas Was Alone, Rogue Legacy, Guacamelee, Binding of Isaac, The Swapper, Mousecraft, Steamworld Dig, Don't Starve
All of those have released or will release on Xbox One after releasing on PS4 first.
Has this "clause" stopped any popular indie games from coming to the Xbox One?
Hmm, let's see...
Oddworld New & Tasty, Olli Olli, Velocity 2X, Thomas Was Alone, Rogue Legacy, Guacamelee, Binding of Isaac, The Swapper, Mousecraft, Steamworld Dig, Don't Starve
All of those have released or will release on Xbox One after releasing on PS4 first.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
Guacamelee has been out for months
the issue isn't big releases, it's small releases that don't have the resources for simultaneous release or bargaining power to arrange exceptions
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
So if a game is popular it's cool if it can skip the parity Clause? And you don't see a problem with this? If Microsoft is keeping games off its system, but letting the popular ones through, it still hurts the industry. Who knows when the next game will get big. And if Microsoft won't let out on its system because of this, their users suffer.
Doug Heffernan
Member
What games have they blocked?
Edit: Seriously, I'd like to know.
The Xbox One has been out for almost 2 years and I've never read anything about Microsoft actually blocking a game because of this.
I would just ignore them. They would always pull that "post history card" if you don't say anything nice about the company when it's about the company making bad decisions & bad judgments. They've almost always done that to me in Xbox related threads, which is ridiculous, stupid, & childish. And it's downright pathetic.
I agree.
Except it wouldn't apply to AAA games from big name companies.
Unless you think MS somehow thing is able to tell Activision to give them something special since they are getting delayed CoD DLC.
Or with Bungie and Destiny and its PS4 only DLC.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
It should cause fuck getting shit later. It's the same shit with Tomb Raider on the PS4. I wouldn't want to buy that shit for $60 on the PS4 a year after the Bone version.
Some AAA companies get this though. Like when Hearthstone released on Android they gave everyone who tried out the Android version a free pack of cards. The Blizzard arm of the company got this.
Neuromancer
Member
That's a great question. Since they require NDAs to even talk to them we'll never know.
They have the same clause for AAA publishers. I already linked to their contrast with Take Two which spells it out. The thing you're missing is there is nothing concrete about this policy. The fact that they put it in writing means nothing because the platform holder always had the final say in what games release on the system. It's a guideline
It would only be comparable if Microsoft gave devs a choice. They don't, and new features require more significant upfront investments.
This is just stupid. Microsoft needs to stop treating its own customers like babies who can't be allowed to make their own value judgments. If the customers end up so petty as to avoid year-old games simply because Xbox One got them later, then devs will respond accordingly. But quit forcing this shit and pretending they're doing some indisputably positive service.
If you think devs and publishers should do this, by all means speak with your wallet. But why should any gamer be okay with the platform owner making this decision for both gamers and creators?
This is the same guy who was the general manager of Microsoft Game Studios worldwide since 2008. The same guy who was also a part of Microsoft's E3 conferences since E3 2010 with the constant "Halo, Forza, Gears, Kinect, & Media" debacle. The same guy who led the development of "TV, TV, TV, Sports, NFL," etc.
Link 1.
Link 2.
I'm just amazed that people were blindly praising him for everything that he says.
You need to wake up & smell the coffee, dude.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Wouldn't any developer (PS4/VITA too) have to sign an NDA before they begin discussing the inner workings of their business?
Well, considering this is nothing like the "Parity-Clause" that was described at XBO launch... before the hard rule was apparently, release date parity or no release at all. Some how that has morphed into a catch-all phrase to explain anything MS does.
The whole "Phil Spencer is just empty statements" narrative is beyond annoying at this point. And it's as if people have never worked a day in their life before. With headstrong people like Balmer and Mattrick calling the shots, you really think Phil Spencer was a crucial component of all things bad with Xbox? It's a top down business bruh. There's a reason Xbox changed significantly once Balmer and Mattrick were pushed.
Pestilence11
Member
"let's just work together" is a polite way of saying required. That's how I read it anyways.
Neuromancer
Member
I am about 99% sure devs don't have to sign an NDA just to discuss whether they can publish their own games on a Sony platform. If I am wrong I am sure a dev will come along and correct me shortly.
Where are these Xbox owners just screaming at a developer for porting over a game that released first on another platform? They act like doors are getting kicked in and shots are being fired over games coming to Xbox a little later. I have no idea why Microsoft believes this.
No, you cannot enjoy Elite unless the developers add a PS exclusive skinned ship.
No it doesn't.
Seems clear to me.
This sounds like certain indie titles that see a release on another platform first, which we've all seen before. Simple enough, they don't have the resources to do all platforms. XCOM 2 for example.
This sounds like the Tomb Raider (Xbox first) or Hellblade (PS4 first) deal to me.
There's nothing about Parity here at all, it's mostly addressing these 'first on XXX platform deals' and exclusivity arrangements like DLC. Isn't parity about the polish of a game? Sorry guys I'm not seeing it here.
Sony ditching that clause mid PS3 gen, should tell all you need to know on how detrimental it was overall, hell Sony had that clause reach as far as full retail releases.
That's how I read it, too. If resource is an issue, that's no issue. If an exclusivity deal has been made, then that's when he feels Xbox owners should have something a little different.
There is a lot of truth to timed exclusives doing significantly worst on the platform they release after the fact on. If that weren't the case, platform holders wouldn't break the bank to obtain them. Having said that, I don't think it's worth pissing a lot of people off in an attempt to curb the phenomenon.
I'm kinda on the fence with this whole parity clause dealio. I agree it's shitty the way they've treated it, I mean just come straight out and say what the deal is not the whole "come and talk to us, but when you talk to us sign this NDA".. like wtf.
Then there's the actual parity clause, if your game is coming late then I think Phil should push for extra content for Xbox users, but I don't think it should be an do this or you're game won't be released thing. A simple "you know, since your game was released on other platforms a year ago, I really think you should add something special like a battletoads skin for xbox users, it'd go down well with them", but if they so no then they should just allow them to release it, a game with no extra content is better than no game at all.
On the other hand.. has this parity clause actually blocked any game from coming to xbox?
Then there's the actual parity clause, if your game is coming late then I think Phil should push for extra content for Xbox users, but I don't think it should be an do this or you're game won't be released thing. A simple "you know, since your game was released on other platforms a year ago, I really think you should add something special like a battletoads skin for xbox users, it'd go down well with them", but if they so no then they should just allow them to release it, a game with no extra content is better than no game at all.
On the other hand.. has this parity clause actually blocked any game from coming to xbox?
Caipirinha
Member
Why are people surprised? Microsoft have spent more time in anti-trust lawsuits than probably any other company on earth lol. This is their bread and butter, half of the reason they even still exist is due to business practices like this.
Neuromancer
Member
You believe, 'this clause is dead, but it also never existed; here are all the things we make developers do so they can self publish on our platform?' When you have the head of id@xbox admitting the clause exists two months ago?
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-04-29-chris-charla
And you also don't believe the devs who post here on GAF who says this clause exists and that their business is negatively affected by it?
If you just look at the amount of games PS4 users have access to, over and above what Xbox One users have access to, it becomes pretty clear that for a variety of reasons, the PS4 is the more attractive console to publish on for devs in general, but especially indie devs.
Devs have said that the perception in the industry is that MS makes you jump through hoops nobody else does in order to publish on the XBO.
Whether you believe in the parity clause or not, MS clearly has an issue attracting some developers and THAT is a problem.
Devs have said that the perception in the industry is that MS makes you jump through hoops nobody else does in order to publish on the XBO.
Whether you believe in the parity clause or not, MS clearly has an issue attracting some developers and THAT is a problem.
autoduelist
Member
"Parity Clause? We don't have no stinkin' parity clause! Just a... equality clause. Yeah, equality clause, that's the ticket! Ha cha cha cha."
exmachina64
Banned
These timed exclusivity deals are made by indie developers because they wouldn't be able to afford or otherwise finish development.
The technical, financial and/or marketing assistance Sony provides in these deals makes it possible to play the final product.
Since Microsoft requires developers to sign an NDA before "coming to the table," we don't have much knowledge about what unfolds in these discussions. If Microsoft is helping developers offset the cost of porting a game to the Xbox One or adding extra content, then it's their responsibility to be transparent. A developer under an NDA can't spread the word for them.