• 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.

[2014] Xbox One Indie Parity Clause impacting number of announcements for system

I think sales are also affecting indie releases. MS thought they'd have a foothold this generation but it's gone the other way. For example in Germany it's something like 10:1 ratio in favour of PS4 and emerging markets like the Middle East everyone will get a PS4 if they want a console. This parity clause certainly isn't helping on top either. But sales of hardware must be drawing indies too.

It's ironic 360 ushered indies onto consoles but MS's arrogance, greed and archaic methods have left them behind everyone else.
 

Montresor

Member
One of the biggest issues which was mentioned in the first post, was that indies don't have massive budgets, they are trying to keep costs down and a staggered release can be the easiest method to get their game out and start getting cash in... they can get some good early PR and it helps them build momentum.

We are currently making a game, and there are so many platforms vying for attention. You have to decide which platforms you can release on from a technical point of view, such as the tools that you have available but also the staff you have to make the game and when you need to get the game out. With so many platforms, resolutions and control methods, indies don't necessarily have the time to do all this at the same time if they want to get a game out. Most indies are living with very small budgets or working full time, so it's a fine balancing act.

We want to release on VITA first (because we love the device and designed the UI initially based on it)...Once we have completed this version we would then know how to publish via Sony and we would then go straight onto a PS4 version before doing other platforms.

So because we are trying to be sensible in what we can make and in what order, the decision to release on XBO later has already been made for us by the clause, so we're not even considering it as a platform now...personally I think that is the wrong way to do things. In the end most indies are trying not champion a particular platform but just make great games on as many platforms and turn a profit so they can make bigger and better games.

Anyway it's all good fun. :)

Ugh fuck's sake. MS needs to get rid of this clause!!!!!!!! (Trebuchet, there is no ill will meant towards you in my post, just against MS)

"So because we are trying to be sensible in what we can make and in what order, the decision to release on XBO later has already been made for us by the clause, so we're not even considering it as a platform now."

This statement hurts for XB1-only fans. I wonder how many other indies justifiably think this way, and how many really good games we will miss out as a result.

What if the developer of Super Meat Boy said stuff like this? Limbo? Thomas Was Alone? Braid? Bastion? ilomilo? Splosion Man? Some of the best top tier games of last gen. Bite sized games, with bite sized budgets, but they provide experiences that will stick with me forever. Those types of games defined what I love about gaming on 360.

It really pisses me off that this policy has a chance to deprive me of some of these games...

Don't get me wrong, as someone who only plays on one platform, I get that there are exclusives I am not entitled to. But Microsoft console owners will miss out these games not because they're made by a Sony first party, not because they're made by a Nintendo first party, not because some other platform holder swooped into the scene in benevolent fashion to bankroll a failing game. NO, Microsoft console owners will miss out on these games for literally NOTHING. The Xbox Team is saying THANKS BUT NO THANKS to certain indie games for no reason. This does not benefit me as an XB1 owner.
 
Let me get this straight... Devs like me are here to pad list wars? Less clutter actually means better games? Fewer games is better for the consumer?

Again, is my job a fucking list war to you? Is that what I'm here for?

MS is only looking to secure first deployment from smaller developers to bolster their portfolio. That is the purpose. It rings true because not all of us have the muscle to push several versions at once AND keep up with bug tracking and fixes for all of them. This clause forces small devs to push for release on X1 first... Or so MS thought. Instead it brick walls developers and pushes them to other platforms where they are allowed to release as they please based on their project management. No small dev likes to shift development resources mid-development.

List wars? SMH

Edit: that's it, I'm going off.

In defense of my developer brothers and sisters we don't do this for list wars. We do this because we love games. We do this because we love to create, share, take part in discussion. We do this because we love the medium and are compelled to bolster it, make it stronger, contribute to the growth of something we love dearly. We are here because of love. Love of OUR hobby. Love of sharing moments, forming friendships, reveling in the greatness of a medium with so many different virtual avenues of expression.

Our love is our expression in this industry. We try. We sweat. We bleed. We lose sleep. We get scared. Happy. Sad. Confused. Frustrated. We put our necks out. We donate our time in hopes of making a contribution to this industry.

Again, for the love of the game.

I was reading this thread and reading each opinion , but this post ..

THIS POST

*slowclap*

Especially the last part .. It's like some people don't understand how taxing it is to create content , especially in a full interractive way like video games. I agree with you 200%

YOU ROCK

** On topic **

That policy has to go, that's what i believe too. I might be naive but i really think that the market will evolve in a good way when develloppers could have less restrictions to make or publish videogames.IMO Having a steady flow of games on all 3 home consoles would keep "lazy" from happenning. I personnally didn't think much about my consoles purchases , because in the last 3 years , it was obvious ..i would like to be challenged when i'm buying things , by good offering on all sides.

It's just sad if by going by this thread number 47 games were annonced vs 0 ( or is it 1 ? )
It's sad. If the cause is those stupid policies , then they need to go , ASAP.
 
You see things in a negative light. I read his opinion and welcomed it because different opinions makes this world far more interesting.

Plus, I agree with him. If I had a choice I'd take one big release over 40 indies. Then again, I'm into long lasting games more than anything.

I only share this because this thread argues that it's a huge deal. I see if a bit differently, but meh.

Plenty of AAA games are short in length and plenty of indie games have a decent amount of length.
 

Skilletor

Member
You see things in a negative light. I read his opinion and welcomed it because different opinions makes this world far more interesting.

Plus, I agree with him. If I had a choice I'd take one big release over 40 indies. Then again, I'm into long lasting games more than anything.

I only share this because this thread argues that it's a huge deal. I see if a bit differently, but meh.

Indie is not a genre. long lasting games, likewise, is not a genre. There are long indie games and there are short AAA games. It's an ignorant and dismissive attitude that shows that the person stating it knows nothing of the games offered.
 

Paz

Member
Sounds like 47 games I won't care about. Haven't really gotten into indie games. None really look that good to me.

Indie games is not a genre, it is not a thing you can blanket state doesn't look good or you don't care about. Indie games is an approach to development.

The Witness is an indie game, Distance is an indie game, Shovel Knight is an indie game.

I find it literally impossible to believe that you actually have no interest in any indie games. Granted you might not be interested in a lot of games but that has nothing to do with them being indie or not.
 
Indie is not a genre. long lasting games, likewise, is not a genre. There are long indie games and there are short AAA games. It's an ignorant and dismissive attitude that shows that the person stating it knows nothing of the games offered.

You're right. You're absolutely right. Although I have played a ton of Indies, I haven't played all of them. I'm sure there are some that have longevity. I'm just yet to play one.

Thanks for correcting my perspective.
 

Handy Fake

Member
It's not even the dismissive attitude that is irking me. IF (and it's a big IF) posters shit-posting about "not liking indie games anyway" have actually read the OP, then they'll know it's got nothing to do with their opinion on the games rather than their opinion on a shitty practice. And if their opinion on the clause is "well I'm okay because I think indie games are shit", then that's an appalling attitude to have. Not least because it's boneheaded at best and down-right insulting to independent developers at worst.

I'm sat here absolutely baffled by some of the posts on this thread. In all honesty, they're so bad that I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and presuming that they just haven't read the OP and just leapt in to defend Microsoft on the back of reading the title.
 
It's been difficult to talk about these kinds of stuff rationally, because it invites some amount of console warrior bullshit without any empathy. The thread with the discussion on MS's non-AAA first party lineup next year is the same thing.
 

Percy

Banned
I'm sat here absolutely baffled by some of the posts on this thread. In all honesty, they're so bad that I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and presuming that they just haven't read the OP and just leapt in to defend Microsoft on the back of reading the title.

This is probably exactly it. For some posters it's clear that anything relating to the actual topic at hand is a secondary consideration to defending the honour of Microsoft.

The sweeping generalisations of independently developed games that goes on around here sometimes truly does come across as wilfull ignorance of the most pathetic kind.
 
This is probably exactly it. For some posters it's clear that anything relating to the actual topic at hand is a secondary consideration to defending the honour of Microsoft.

The sweeping generalisations of independently developed games that goes on around here sometimes truly does come across as wilfull ignorance of the most pathetic kind.

It's even stranger to me because last generation, indie studios flocked to MS and released tons of quality titles on XBLA. I'm sure most 360 owners appreciated those games.

I'd like to think XB1 owners would want MORE great content like that on their platform. I'm an XB1 owner and I certainly do.

I'm incredibly happy both Sony and Nintendo are embracing indie teams and I really, REALLY hope MS gets their shit together soon.
 

Amused

Member
It's been the indiestation 4 since release, why is this news now?

Sounds like 47 games I won't care about. Haven't really gotten into indie games. None really look that good to me.

Two more heads on the block? This thread really did bring out the worst in a lot of people.

It will be very interesting to see what happens going forward. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole policy just end up "going away". An announced removal of the policy would ve a pleasant surprise though.
 

Lamptramp

Member
Sounds like 47 games I won't care about. Haven't really gotten into indie games. None really look that good to me.

Jesus wept, do us the courtesy of reading and understanding the OP.

I know its hard to concentrate on the positive rather than the negative but I implore the Devs that have posted so far in this thread to appreciate there is a lot of people (generally not very vocal) that have very much enjoyed the more recent rise in independent studios. As others have said its provided many of us with some truly innovative and exciting experiences. Keep it up.
 
The only thing I can think of that might warrant Microsoft to hang on to these policies is the overcrowded argument. They might believe that in the long run those Indie Devs might find trouble finding success in an overcrowded market that is considerably different from the PC market where Indie games have been for years.

This type of thing wouldn't play out for a year or two longer but it's honestly the only reason I can think of that is keeping MS from removing the parity clause.

Please note I'm not defending MS or these restrictions. I am trying to look at this from MS's perspective. It's seriously the only thing I came up with.
 

stryke

Member
The only thing I can think of that might warrant Microsoft to hang on to these policies is the overcrowded argument. They might believe that in the long run those Indie Devs might find trouble finding success in an overcrowded market that is considerably different from the PC market where Indie games have been for years.

This type of thing wouldn't play out for a year or two longer but it's honestly the only reason I can think of that is keeping MS from removing the parity clause.

Please note I'm not defending MS or these restrictions. I am trying to look at this from MS's perspective. It's seriously the only thing I came up with.

It's got nothing to do with overcrowding. They want launch parity or effectively timed exclusivity. It's really that simple.
 
Because indies are a genre, right ?

They are not a genre but there hasn't been more than a handful of them that I personally liked so I get what he means.

I dunno if the majority feels the same way but I'm sure lots of people do.

Also, 47 games. Thats a whole lot of games , makes you think if quantity is taking a priority over quality here.
 

Kezen

Banned
It's been the indiestation 4 since release, why is this news now?

That....has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Do you guys even bother to READ the op before hitting the submit button ?

Whether or not you like/care about indies should have no bearing on how atrocious the parity clause is. This is what this thread is about.
 

Hoo-doo

Banned
I think these 'indies are all terrible'-posts are merely a coping mechanism.

'Hey, if I convince myself that all indies are terrible anyway, the platform I like doesn't look as bad!'

It's straight up transparent, and kind of pitiful that they can't see past their own biases.
 

Lamptramp

Member
They are not a genre but there hasn't been more than a handful of them that I personally liked so I get what he means.

I dunno if the majority feels the same way but I'm sure lots of people do.

Also, 47 games. Thats a whole lot of games , makes you think if quantity is taking a priority over quality here.

If I follow your thinking right that its indicative of Sony simply allowing "anything" on the store rather than MS "curating" their store page Chubigans addressed this in the OP and Amirox quoted some (admittedly old) but startling figures later on page 1.

It really isnt a case of getting better "quality" games or not

Apologies if thats not what you meant, thats how I read it anyway :)

I like that Microsoft is curating indie releases, saving the best for XB1, unlike PS4.

They aren't doing that. There's no curation whatsover, and in fact, they'll accept any game you want to put on the store, same as Sony (as long as it's at a minimum acceptance quality, on par for both PS4 and XB1). The idea that MS is cherry picking games to release on XB1 is completely false.

And to the "it's just shitty games folks"
games by metascore NOT available on the other console (from back in October, there's more now):
Code:
score   PS4     Xbox
90+       3        2
80+      21        3
Link

That's just for those games 80+ too.

See that gap? That's mostly all indies. That have not come to Xbox One. Partly because of the parity clause.
 
It's got nothing to do with overcrowding. They want launch parity or effectively timed exclusivity. It's really that simple.

Sorry you are correct. I was reading through all of it and the only thing I can think of is its a poor policy that's obviously going to cut down on indie titles released so why as a business would I want to cut back on indie releases?
 

Lemondish

Member
You see things in a negative light. I read his opinion and welcomed it because different opinions makes this world far more interesting.

He/she very clearly didn't read the OP before posting and said something extremely moronic. Sure, different perspectives can help enrich a discussion, but not even they come from a place of ignorance.
 
I've got to say this is one of best threads I've ever seen on gaf. I usually can't stand a thread after a few pages because it devolves into a back and forth you said this, but I meant this, you're wrong, he's wrong, etc. Etc. There's been close calls of that happening but amirox and bish have thankfully kept it in check and I've read every single post.

I love hearing from developers and it upsets me that they can't fully share their projects with as many people as possible due to some stupid policy. There's so many games that I have TRULY loved from these smaller developers and never would have known about had it not been for here or the giant barrage of announcements coming from e3/psx. In addition to enjoying the games.. There's something great about being able to buy their games and knowing it helps them way more than the giant companies.

Keep up the good fight for removing the policy!
 

sobaka770

Banned
I don't think people who say that they don't like (or hate) "indies" think of them as a genre. Indie game stands for "independent", as is independent from the big publisher who gives big bucks and expects sales and quality in return. Well... mostly sales....

That being said, there are certain culture-like traits to most indie games which in my opinion allow to group them together in certain scenarios. The main parameter is that they are low-budget so they look low-budget, i.e. 2D, sprite, simplified menus, lack of polish etc.

It's not that different from amateur bookwriting or filmmaking really. It doesn't mean these books or films are bad, but they are not professionally edited, marketed and rough around the edges. And guess what: masses don't go watch/read these kind of things, nor do they flock to indie games. However, there are always sleeper hits in all mediums: Metro 2033 was written by a Russian author as a blog before being published as a book, Paranormal Activity is as low-budget as it gets, Shovel Knight/Super MeatBoy/Vanishing of Ethan Carter are Steam darlings with excellent word-of-mouth.

Also, personally, I wouldn't put games like Journey and No Man's Sky into indie pile. The amount of exposure these games get from Sony is huge, almost publisher-like. Maybe they are made by small teams but the forces behind them are massive.

I also think, just like in all industries that videogames are slowly finding their balance between smaller independent quality games and AAA- games. And as everywhere, most people will go and play AAA, with an occasional indie gem.

I see no problem with that, and I see no problem with people hating indies. I actually think that adoring indies is overblown, it's like dismissing the predictability of Hollywood movies and praising the themes in obscure niche films. Niche films do cover all genres and may evoke deeper themes or questions, but they are not better than AAA, just like CoD just by production values alone destroys the poor Meatboy and hundreds of lesser games like Entwined (remember that one from E3?).
 

Abdiel

Member
I don't think people who say that they don't like (or hate) "indies" think of them as a genre. Indie game stands for "independent", as is independent from the big publisher who gives big bucks and expects sales and quality in return. Well... mostly sales....

That being said, there are certain culture-like traits to most indie games which in my opinion allow to group them together in certain scenarios. The main parameter is that they are low-budget so they look low-budget, i.e. 2D, sprite, simplified menus, lack of polish etc.

It's not that different from amateur bookwriting or filmmaking really. It doesn't mean these books or films are bad, but they are not professionally edited, marketed and rough around the edges. And guess what: masses don't go watch/read these kind of things, nor do they flock to indie games. However, there are always sleeper hits in all mediums: Metro 2033 was written by a Russian author as a blog before being published as a book, Paranormal Activity is as low-budget as it gets, Shovel Knight/Super MeatBoy/Vanishing of Ethan Carter are Steam darlings with excellent word-of-mouth.

Also, personally, I wouldn't put games like Journey and No Man's Sky into indie pile. The amount of exposure these games get from Sony is huge, almost publisher-like. Maybe they are made by small teams but the forces behind them are massive.

I also think, just like in all industries that videogames are slowly finding their balance between smaller independent quality games and AAA- games. And as everywhere, most people will go and play AAA, with an occasional indie gem.

I see no problem with that, and I see no problem with people hating indies. I actually think that adoring indies is overblown, it's like dismissing the predictability of Hollywood movies and praising the themes in obscure niche films. Niche films do cover all genres and may evoke deeper themes or questions, but they are not better than AAA, just like CoD just by production values alone destroys the poor Meatboy and hundreds of lesser games like Entwined (remember that one from E3?).


I understand your speculation, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This topic is regarding how a policy in this industry, by one of the platform holders, is toxic and a solely negative influence. Nothing about this policy is to the gain of anyone involved. Your musings on the relative perception and place of indie devs in this industry has nothing to do with this thread.
 

Percy

Banned
Also, personally, I wouldn't put games like Journey and No Man's Sky into indie pile. The amount of exposure these games get from Sony is huge, almost publisher-like. Maybe they are made by small teams but the forces behind them are massive.

Journey wasn't an indie title and No Man's Sky is however you choose to label them. How much "exposure" an indie title gets is pretty irrelevant to how it's made as well.

I also think, just like in all industries that videogames are slowly finding their balance between smaller independent quality games and AAA- games. And as everywhere, most people will go and play AAA, with an occasional indie gem.

I see no problem with that, and I see no problem with people hating indies. I actually think that adoring indies is overblown, it's like dismissing the predictability of Hollywood movies and praising the themes in obscure niche films. Niche films do cover all genres and may evoke deeper themes or questions, but they are not better than AAA, just like CoD just by production values alone destroys the poor Meatboy and hundreds of lesser games like Entwined (remember that one from E3?).

You really are not doing a good job with the metaphors here because I can't really discern what point you are trying to make.

Also, Entwined wasn't indie if that's what you were suggesting there.
 

sobaka770

Banned
I understand your speculation, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This topic is regarding how a policy in this industry, by one of the platform holders, is toxic and a solely negative influence. Nothing about this policy is to the gain of anyone involved. Your musings on the relative perception and place of indie devs in this industry has nothing to do with this thread.

I actually didn't Quote, but some people were banned for saying they don't like Indies, then Amri0x came in saying that they are covering the same niches as AAA games and not liking indies is like not liking games, other people bash them because they lump indies in one "genre" which I disagree with. I think that most people, myself included bought a new-gen console for fullHD, graphically intense blockbuster gaming, and their dismissal of indies is justified. Most of the indies could run on PS3 just fine.

If you want to stick closer to the topic: I think that 47 indie games for PS4 is not a huge deal for a lot of people because, yes, they are just not AAA. Maybe there'll be one or two in there that will make a lot of money.

Xbox policy is bad, but there must be reasons for having it, otherwise it would be gone a long time ago.
 

Ricky_R

Member
Xbox policy is bad, but there must be reasons for having it, otherwise it would be gone a long time ago.

1) They don't want to do yet another 180 or feel that gamers can still dictate what they can and cannot do.

and/or

2) They want to take away as many PS4 timed exclusives as possible by forcing indies to release on their platform from day 1. Which is clearly not working.

Those are the two reasons I can come up with. If I had to guess, I'd say it's ego and pride.
 

Vagabundo

Member
To me indie games are like the spice to my gaming pie. You need to eat enough AAA starch and protein to keep things running but without the flavour from the spice you won't like it.

Those are the two reasons I can come up with. If I had to guess, I'd say it's ego and pride.

Don't forget good old inertia.
 
Journey wasn't an indie title and No Man's Sky is however you choose to label them. How much "exposure" an indie title gets is pretty irrelevant to how it's made as well.

I would consider Journey an indie title. In the final year of development the studio was paying everything out of pocket and a lot of staff went unpaid. By the end of development the studio went bankrupt.
 
To me indie games are like the spice to my gaming pie. You need to eat enough AAA starch and protein to keep things running but without the flavour from the spice you won't like it.

And frankly, this sounds stingy to the devs, (sorry), but the larger the availability of 'smaller games' on the platform, the higher the chance that I get a gem from my monthly PS+ IGC.
 

Lamptramp

Member
Xbox policy is bad, but there must be reasons for having it, otherwise it would be gone a long time ago.

As Stryke pointed out pretty concisely in the last page (and many others have in the last 24 hours)...
It's got nothing to do with overcrowding. They want launch parity or effectively timed exclusivity. It's really that simple.

Its a despicable policy, even if it was WAI and forcing launch date parity or "cost free" exclusivity.
As it is, not only is it a despicable policy but its an incompetent one as more and more devs are washing their hands of MS and sticking to PS4/Steam/WiiU/Mobile as not only the OP and Amirox's followup on page one seems to indicate, but from the words of actual developers themselves who took the time out to join in the discussion.

And people weren't banned for just saying "I don't like Indies" Although Bish himself has said that such statements are worthless in the context in the thread, as is debating what is and isnt an "indie game". People were banned for generally shitting up the thread with constant barrages of "All indies are shit" and similar insulting absolutes. This has always been a thread that helps highlight how a MS policy is not just hurting smaller dev teams but hurting themselves and their customers by lowering the XBone value proposition by essentially blocking potential content from their device, for no reason other than spite.
 

BokehKing

Banned
Sounds like 47 games I won't care about. Haven't really gotten into indie games. None really look that good to me.

The broad dismissal of indies as if they are one genre is one of the most ridiculous things I've read.

Exactly hunter

When I'm burned out on a game, and I don't feel like renting a ps3 game (wide selection mind you) it's reassuring to look at my indie selection.

That was the difference between Xbox One and ps4 in the beginning, outside of big name titles Xbox One had nothing to play, I hop on the psn store and I was given a lot of choices, a year later the selection just gets bigger on one side.

Some people only like big budget games, they are so blind they drop $60 on ACU and MCC and got broken games. Would have been nice to have a selection of games on your brand new system to keep you busy until games are fixed.
 

Percy

Banned
I think that most people, myself included bought a new-gen console for fullHD, graphically intense blockbuster gaming, and their dismissal of indies is justified. Most of the indies could run on PS3 just fine.

I think most people bought a new console to play games on it and even if some of them prefer mega budget AAA titles to the exclusion of all else, those indie titles ultimately have no direct impact on those types of games also being released. It isn't an 'either/or' proposition.

If you want to stick closer to the topic: I think that 47 indie games for PS4 is not a huge deal for a lot of people because, yes, they are just not AAA. Maybe there'll be one or two in there that will make a lot of money.

I'd imagine more choice and variety in what's on offer is going to be a very big deal to most people though. How much money they make is kind of a secondary concern to how good the game actually is to someone who just wants a decent game to play as well.

Xbox policy is bad, but there must be reasons for having it, otherwise it would be gone a long time ago.

There are reasons for having it, yes. However, absolutely none of those reasons are of benefit to the end consumer.
 
Top Bottom