Support NeoGAF

[mike4001_]

They should remove the clause itself but bring some incentives to devs to develop first for X1.

Something like -20% license fees if a game releases before PS4.

So developers can basically release when they want.

 

[SerTapTap]

They should remove the clause itself but bring some incentives to devs to develop first for X1.

Something like -20% license fees if a game releases before PS4.

So developers can basically release when they want.

Decreased license fees would be a pretty nice draw. They should match something like Sony's pub fund, but that requires working with devs and giving them things. Beyond the free* dev kits, they seem to be going this way since it puts all the burden on the dev and non-compliant devs just have to piss off

 

[Goodacre0081]

They should remove the clause itself but bring some incentives to devs to develop first for X1.

Something like -20% license fees if a game releases before PS4.

So developers can basically release when they want.

this would just end in Sony making a similar incentive. bringing us back to step 1

removing the clause would be the only incentive they need. let them make games as they wish instead of trying to force control with all the bureaucratic bullshit. don't get all pissy and lock people out of the clubhouse if they don't play by your unpopular rules.

 

[lifeexpectancy]

You have my sword Chub, 100%.

Hell, you have my sword, my shield, and while we're at it my horse too. The parity clause was an asinine concept fron the get-go, just like so many other Xbox policies. I've had more fun with indie games than AAA releases so far this gen, and I don't see that trend changing. We need a free market for indie devs, not this walled-garden nonsense.

Hopefully this thread of yours and the discussion around it will bring more pressure to demolish this garbage.

 

[immortal-joe]

Still feel the clause will be removed, only a matter of time. Only question on my mind is how will they remove it, quietly (what clause?), or loudly (for the gamers!).

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

Still feel the clause will be removed, only a matter of time. Only question on my mind is how will they remove it, quietly (what clause?), or loudly (for the gamers!).

It will be dropped as surely as the price when they look at the holiday 'momentum' they just bought themselves.

 

[SerTapTap]

Still feel the clause will be removed, only a matter of time. Only question on my mind is how will they remove it, quietly (what clause?), or loudly (for the gamers!).

They dropped the utterly disgusting patch fee clause quietly back when indie devs were scum platform holders could never acknowledge, but now that everyone's made a big push for them and Xbox has generally made a big deal of un-fucking their policies I'm sure it'll get a nice announcement.

The only "quiet" thing they would do is if they kept the clause but allowed any big devs to immediately circumvent it. And frankly this basically sounds like it's already the case. You just know that the primary exceptions allowed here are "oh wow you sold HOW many units forget about that clause, bro"

 

[Gestault]

Anyway, I hope Ccharla just goes to Spencer and continues to push him on this ID@XBox clause crap. Or else Microsoft needs to have a better explanation on the record for why they continual to intentionally hurt XBO gamers and indie developers, none of this 'first class citizen' pandering nonsense that hasn't even the most tenuous of connections to what the result actually is.

I understand the premise of preventing a low-quality app/game dumping ground (the sort of conditions we see too often in the mobile or Steam Greenlight/Early Access marketplaces), but I think having seen the results and frustration from smaller devs, they need to correct the focus for the release requirement for the sake of gaming.

I think the frequency we're now seeing of exceptions isn't the same as "pushing" the policy, but it's not enough when the biggest frustration is from dev houses who don't know if they'll be able to be an exception for what's supposedly a standard policy. It's no question why so many haven't bothered, in light of it.

All this is doing is hurting Xbox fans.

Not to mention the small-scale devs.

 

[justsomeguy]

I wonder if Jan 21st has any bearing on anything, given chubbs alluding to an nda.

 

[NoMoreTrolls]

I understand the premise of preventing a low-quality app/game dumping ground (the sort of conditions we see too often in the mobile or Steam Greenlight/Early Access marketplaces), but I think having seen the results and frustration from smaller devs, they need to correct the focus for the release requirement for the sake of gaming.

I think the frequency we're now seeing of exceptions isn't the same as "pushing" the policy, but it's not enough when the biggest frustration is from dev houses who don't know if they'll be able to be an exception for what's supposedly a standard policy. It's no question why so many haven't bothered, in light of it.



Not to mention the small-scale devs.

Unfortunately they aren't curating content with the clause at all. No clue where that idea comes from.

It's not like the PS Store is overrun with shovelware; all the clause is doing is preventing great games from hitting xbox.

 

[serversurfer]

It will be dropped as surely as the price when they look at the holiday 'momentum' they just bought themselves.

(Reply copied from here.)

They haven't given up on the parity clauses for the same reason they haven't given up on trying to buy market share; they're still in it to win it.

Yes, the clauses are currently hurting MS, but once MS reach "significant" market share, then they'll start to hurt Sony instead, which is the entire point of forced parity. To give up on forced parity is a tacit admission they'll never achieve "significant" market share. If they truly believe they can someday become too big to be ignored, then they must equally believe that the parity clauses will start paying dividends on that day. Forced parity is an integral part of their overall business plan, so they won't give up on it until they give up on the whole project.

 

[Goodacre0081]

(Reply copied from here.)

They haven't given up on the parity clauses for the same reason they haven't given up on trying to buy market share; they're still in it to win it.

Yes, the clauses are currently hurting MS, but once MS reach "significant" market share, then they'll start to hurt Sony instead, which is the entire point of forced parity. To give up on forced parity is a tacit admission they'll never achieve "significant" market share. If they truly believe they can someday become too big to be ignored, then they must equally believe that the parity clauses will start paying dividends on that day. Forced parity is an integral part of their overall business plan, so they won't give up on it until they give up on the whole project.

doesn't this kind of fall apart with the PS4 being known as the indiestation and the huge install base already there?

IMO they lost the "indie war" already and the best thing they can do now for xbox owners is get rid of it.

 

[serversurfer]

doesn't this kind of fall apart with the PS4 being known as the indiestation and the huge install base already there?

IMO they lost the "indie war" already and the best thing they can do now for xbox owners is get rid of it.

You need to think long term. Right now, they can go to 100 indy devs and say, "We've shipped 10M units. Do you really want to be locked away from those 10M users forever?" Maybe 5 of those devs agree to delay the PS version of their game, and the other 95 say, "Umm, Sony have shipped way more, and they're actually selling them." So we look at that and say, "So Sony gets 95 games and you get 5?? How is that a win?" MS say, "It's a lot better than 100 games for Sony and 0 for us."

At some point, MS will be able to say, "We've shipped 15M." Maybe now that sways 12 devs instead of 5. If they can get to 25M shipments somehow, maybe half of the devs agree to hold back the PlayStation for them. After all, 25M is a lot of users to simply turn your back on, right? Best of all, a lot of these guys literally can't afford to produce two versions simultaneously, so if they agree to hold back on PlayStation, they're implicitly agreeing to give XBone a de facto, timed exclusive in the process.

So again, to give up on forced parity is effectively the same thing as giving up on the brand itself. The more they sell, they more effective forced parity becomes, so giving up on it is the same as admitting they'll never be too big to ignore, because if/when they finally are, forced parity will be awesome for them. (It'll still be completely shitty for everyone else involved, of course, but that's not Microsoft's problem; it's their advantage.)

 

[Mengy]

You need to think long term. Right now, they can go to 100 indy devs and say, "We've shipped 10M units. Do you really want to be locked away from those 10M users forever?" Maybe 5 of those devs agree to delay the PS version of their game, and the other 95 say, "Umm, Sony have shipped way more, and they're actually selling them." So we look at that and say, "So Sony gets 95 games and you get 5?? How is that a win?" MS say, "It's a lot better than 100 games for Sony and 0 for us."

At some point, MS will be able to say, "We've shipped 15M." Maybe now that sways 12 devs instead of 5. If they can get to 25M shipments somehow, maybe half of the devs agree to hold back the PlayStation for them. After all, 25M is a lot of users to simply turn your back on, right? Best of all, a lot of these guys literally can't afford to produce two versions simultaneously, so if they agree to hold back on PlayStation, they're implicitly agreeing to give XBone a de facto, timed exclusive in the process.

So again, to give up on forced parity is effectively the same thing as giving up on the brand itself. The more they sell, they more effective forced parity becomes, so giving up on it is the same as admitting they'll never be too big to ignore, because if/when they finally are, forced parity will be awesome for them. (It'll still be completely shitty for everyone else involved, of course, but that's not Microsoft's problem; it's their advantage.)

They wouldn't have to give up on a forced parity clause if they didn't have it in the first place. It was a bully tactic from the start and very anti consumer just like always online and no used games. The other bully anti consumer aspects of the Xbox 1 were dropped a year ago, and it's time they drop this one too before the damage becomes too great. It's never going to work this generation now, the moment is gone.

You don't double down on sunk costs, you adjust your strategy and make changes even if it means doubling back or taking a temporary small loss. That's just smart business.

 

[autoduelist]

You need to think long term. Right now, they can go to 100 indy devs and say, "We've shipped 10M units. Do you really want to be locked away from those 10M users forever?" Maybe 5 of those devs agree to delay the PS version of their game, and the other 95 say, "Umm, Sony have shipped way more, and they're actually selling them." So we look at that and say, "So Sony gets 95 games and you get 5?? How is that a win?" MS say, "It's a lot better than 100 games for Sony and 0 for us."

At some point, MS will be able to say, "We've shipped 15M." Maybe now that sways 12 devs instead of 5. If they can get to 25M shipments somehow, maybe half of the devs agree to hold back the PlayStation for them. After all, 25M is a lot of users to simply turn your back on, right? Best of all, a lot of these guys literally can't afford to produce two versions simultaneously, so if they agree to hold back on PlayStation, they're implicitly agreeing to give XBone a de facto, timed exclusive in the process.

So again, to give up on forced parity is effectively the same thing as giving up on the brand itself. The more they sell, they more effective forced parity becomes, so giving up on it is the same as admitting they'll never be too big to ignore, because if/when they finally are, forced parity will be awesome for them. (It'll still be completely shitty for everyone else involved, of course, but that's not Microsoft's problem; it's their advantage.)

This isn't thinking 'long term', it's illogical and bad business. It presupposes that as the Xbox user base grows, the ps4 user base will stagnate. However, if anything, the opposite is true, and the ps4 user base will grow faster. If devs now are perfectly happy giving up on the xbox user base due to the parity clause, this won't change regardless of the number of xbox users at some point in the future for the same reasons they skip over it now -- it's easier to go ps4/pc and tell MS to take the parity clause to shove it where the sun don't shine. When the Xbox user base finally hits your '25M' (or whatever number), the PS4/PC market will be that much bigger too.

There isn't some magical tipping point when the user base 'can't be ignored'. Plain and simple, all of the business reasons to go ps4/pc will still exist as long as MS aren't dominating the market, which will never be the case this gen.

Ultimately, the parity clause is terrible enough to warrant many devs/pubs not releasing for xbox. That won't change this gen. Kill the clause.

 

[lifeexpectancy]

You need to think long term. Right now, they can go to 100 indy devs and say, "We've shipped 10M units. Do you really want to be locked away from those 10M users forever?" Maybe 5 of those devs agree to delay the PS version of their game, and the other 95 say, "Umm, Sony have shipped way more, and they're actually selling them." So we look at that and say, "So Sony gets 95 games and you get 5?? How is that a win?" MS say, "It's a lot better than 100 games for Sony and 0 for us."

At some point, MS will be able to say, "We've shipped 15M." Maybe now that sways 12 devs instead of 5. If they can get to 25M shipments somehow, maybe half of the devs agree to hold back the PlayStation for them. After all, 25M is a lot of users to simply turn your back on, right? Best of all, a lot of these guys literally can't afford to produce two versions simultaneously, so if they agree to hold back on PlayStation, they're implicitly agreeing to give XBone a de facto, timed exclusive in the process.

So again, to give up on forced parity is effectively the same thing as giving up on the brand itself. The more they sell, they more effective forced parity becomes, so giving up on it is the same as admitting they'll never be too big to ignore, because if/when they finally are, forced parity will be awesome for them. (It'll still be completely shitty for everyone else involved, of course, but that's not Microsoft's problem; it's their advantage.)

Pie in the sky fantasy if this is what their mindset really is.

Forced parity is a PROBLEM for MS. The more games don't come to XB1, the more people will opt for PS4. The more people opt for PS4, the wider the gap becomes. The wider the gap becomes, the more OTHER people who haven't gotten on board with 8th gen will say "hey, most people are on PS4... guess I should be too".

Even if XB1 ships 25M units, if PS4 has shipped 75M or more by then, the Indie devs can simply tell Microsoft to fuck off and just develope exclusively for PS4, which would once again sell MORE PS4s and FEWER XB1s.

It's an ill-sighted bully tactic, plain and simple. It may have worked for the most part during the 360/PS3 gen owing to the fact that the 360 was the leading platform for most of the gen. But now that XB1 is second fiddle, forced parity does nothing to help the Xbox brand and can only serve to hurt it, to widen the gap, to screw over indie devs, and to screw over the few(er) fans Xbox still has compared to last gen.

It needs to be demolished, plain and simple.

 

[serversurfer]

Forced parity is a PROBLEM for MS. The more games don't come to XB1, the more people will opt for PS4.

What you're missing is, they're not giving games to Sony. Sony have all of the games by default — apart from fanboy devs, obviously — and MS are trying to take some of those away. To date, they haven't had a lot of success, but they've clearly had some. Every console they sell makes the strategy that much more effective.

Now, you may be right, and MS have no chance of ever gaining enough market share to make this strategy truly effective, but again, Microsoft haven't given up on the brand just yet. If XBox has a viable future in this marketplace, then so does forced parity, by definition.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

You need to think long term. Right now, they can go to 100 indy devs and say, "We've shipped 10M units. Do you really want to be locked away from those 10M users forever?" Maybe 5 of those devs agree to delay the PS version of their game, and the other 95 say, "Umm, Sony have shipped way more, and they're actually selling them." So we look at that and say, "So Sony gets 95 games and you get 5?? How is that a win?" MS say, "It's a lot better than 100 games for Sony and 0 for us."

At some point, MS will be able to say, "We've shipped 15M." Maybe now that sways 12 devs instead of 5. If they can get to 25M shipments somehow, maybe half of the devs agree to hold back the PlayStation for them. After all, 25M is a lot of users to simply turn your back on, right? Best of all, a lot of these guys literally can't afford to produce two versions simultaneously, so if they agree to hold back on PlayStation, they're implicitly agreeing to give XBone a de facto, timed exclusive in the process.

So again, to give up on forced parity is effectively the same thing as giving up on the brand itself. The more they sell, they more effective forced parity becomes, so giving up on it is the same as admitting they'll never be too big to ignore, because if/when they finally are, forced parity will be awesome for them. (It'll still be completely shitty for everyone else involved, of course, but that's not Microsoft's problem; it's their advantage.)

What you're missing is, they're not giving games to Sony. Sony have all of the games by default — apart from fanboy devs, obviously — and MS are trying to take some of those away. To date, they haven't had a lot of success, but they've clearly had some. Every console they sell makes the strategy that much more effective.

Now, you may be right, and MS have no chance of ever gaining enough market share to make this strategy truly effective, but again, Microsoft haven't given up on the brand just yet. If XBox has a viable future in this marketplace, then so does forced parity, by definition.

This is terrible business. All that will happen is the longer the parity clause is in place and scaring away 90% of indie devs the more marginalised MS's efforts with indie games become, and the more the PS4 + PC become the de facto platforms. The longer this clause exists the harder they will have to try to entice indie games on to their platform.

 

[Ponn]

What you're missing is, they're not giving games to Sony. Sony have all of the games by default — apart from fanboy devs, obviously — and MS are trying to take some of those away. To date, they haven't had a lot of success, but they've clearly had some. Every console they sell makes the strategy that much more effective..

And what you and the decision makers at MS are missing is that their parity clause is literally handing alot of those games to Sony on a silver platter. That's the whole point of this thread is all the games MS are missing out on BECAUSE of their clause. A vague payoff towards the end of a race where you are crippling yourself and starting 5 miles back is not sound strategy.

 

[androvsky]

This is terrible business. All that will happen is the longer the parity clause is in place and scaring away 90% of indie devs the more marginalised MS's efforts with indie games become, and the more the PS4 + PC become the de facto platforms. The longer this clause exists the harder they will have to try to entice indie games on to their platform.

Even the indie devs that agree to it aren't locked in forever. Hello Games is on record for being very frustrated on how the timed exclusivity for Joe Danger 2 went, and that likely pushed their next game to debuting on the PS4 first.

 

[Shabad]

Microsoft does have a few exclusives indies in their line up (Ori, Below, ... ).
The question being why are those games exclusives ? Is it simply due to Microsoft actually financing the development or paying for the exclusivity, or is an effect of this clause ?

Because as a matter of fact, at this point in time, it does make sense to build your game for Xbox One first. It's a classic, PS4 gets all the indie, so when you end up publishing your own, it may end up flooded by all the other titles on the platform. If you release it on Xbox One, you ends up in the spotlight, by lack of competition if nothing else.

So if the Xbox exclusive indies aren't being payed for by Microsoft, their very existence may be a "positive" effect of that clause. Although Sony does rip some reward by getting all the other indies as de facto exclusives...

 

[Nightengale]

Ori is owned by MS, so they funded the game. Below was signed before either console even launched (announced at E3 2013), so there's that.

On the other hand ( there's like a dozen+ indies coming to XB1 first, like Inside and Superhot ), the honest reality is that despite Sony's best efforts, not every dev will definitely choose Sony over MS.

There's devs who's had better working relationship with MS over Sony. That could easily be a factor of why some devs choose them. There's also the possibility that there's devs who were legitimately spooked and got suckered by the parity clause, and instead of giving MS the middle finger, they chose to give them 'launching on XB1 first.'

Another possibility is also the fact that at the end of the day, Sony has signed SO MANY INDIE ( I hate this word ) GAMES, that for some developers, going for Sony doesn't necessarily mean you'll be able to get the same amount of marketing/promotion that they're giving their marquee 'first on Playstation' indie games.

Not every game gets a trailer at the PSX keynote. Not every game gets an E3/Gamescom press conference spot. Not every game gets to be motherfucking No Man's Sky.

Sometimes, by choosing the other side of the camp, even if the install base is smaller, they are going to give the game more marketing than the greener fields, because there's so many quality there already.

 

[DarkoMaledictus]

And people keep claiming and claiming the PS4 ha no games.

It has no games . If you have a pc anyway... .

Seriously some good exclusives coming, but haven't opened my Xone or PS4 in a while.

 

[Dragonborn]

Microsoft does have a few exclusives indies in their line up (Ori, Below, ... ).
The question being why are those games exclusives ? Is it simply due to Microsoft actually financing the development or paying for the exclusivity, or is an effect of this clause ?

Because as a matter of fact, at this point in time, it does make sense to build your game for Xbox One first. It's a classic, PS4 gets all the indie, so when you end up publishing your own, it may end up flooded by all the other titles on the platform. If you release it on Xbox One, you ends up in the spotlight, by lack of competition if nothing else.

So if the Xbox exclusive indies aren't being payed for by Microsoft, their very existence may be a "positive" effect of that clause. Although Sony does rip some reward by getting all the other indies as de facto exclusives...

That's the only reason an indie dev would pick X1 over PS4 at this point, if MS paid then or gave them some incentive that Sony didn't.

For example Ori is an IP owned by MS (I think).

 

[JP]

Is Below and exclusive now? A few months back Capy were saying that it's launching on Xbox but other formats would follow.

EDIT:
Actually, it was a bit longer ago, it was August they said it wasn't exclusive. Maybe it has changed now.

 

[mocolostrocolos]

Is Below and exclusive now? A few months back Capy were saying that it's launching on Xbox but other formats would follow.

EDIT:
Actually, it was a bit longer ago, it was August they said it wasn't exclusive. Maybe it has changed now.

PC was confirmed, right?

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

Microsoft does have a few exclusives indies in their line up (Ori, Below, ... ).
The question being why are those games exclusives ? Is it simply due to Microsoft actually financing the development or paying for the exclusivity, or is an effect of this clause ?

Because as a matter of fact, at this point in time, it does make sense to build your game for Xbox One first. It's a classic, PS4 gets all the indie, so when you end up publishing your own, it may end up flooded by all the other titles on the platform. If you release it on Xbox One, you ends up in the spotlight, by lack of competition if nothing else.

So if the Xbox exclusive indies aren't being payed for by Microsoft, their very existence may be a "positive" effect of that clause. Although Sony does rip some reward by getting all the other indies as de facto exclusives...

You pretty much answered yourself in TE second paragraph. The Volgarr developer is on record saying he chose Microsoft to launch his game on since they offered free dev kits and gave great support, citing that Sonys dev kit would have cost him more money to offer the same experience. Games with Gold obviously helped him also.

I think the only real reasons is that...devs that are swayed by free kits and licenses which might offer the cheapest barrier of entry into the console ecosystem while not being flooded out by all the other games that are releasing on the more popular console.

 

[Elandyll]

...

Sometimes, by choosing the other side of the camp, even if the install base is smaller, they are going to give the game more marketing than the greener fields, because there's so many quality there already.

And sometimes, the other side really -isn't - greener.

Ask Swery/ D4.

His game was probably financed to some level by MS (with a nice push at E3 2014 to boot), but ended up with little to no marketing and a hushed release, with some of Swery's more DH fans finally creating a thread on Gaf to literally "beg" people to buy the game, even if they do not own a XB1.

Not kidding.

As per quality being higher due to lesser amount of games ... ehm. Let's say it's all in the eye of the beholder. Point in case, the policy is bad for both gamers -and- devs, but also hurts MS in the long term by creating a bad vibe among devs and a bad image among indie fans. Mind blowing situation after the XBLA golden days of yore...

 

[Ponn]

As per quality being higher due to lesser amount of games ... ehm. Let's say it's all in the eye of the beholder. Point in case, the policy is bad for both gamers -and- devs, but also hurts MS in the long term by creating a bad vibe among devs and a bad image among indie fans. Mind blowing situation after the XBLA golden days of yore...

This is what gets me about the situation. It's like a complete 180 from last gen but MS only has themselves to blame. They were in perfect position to be riding the Indie wave going into this gen.

 

[Shabad]

It would be interesting to get a comment from indie that are developing an exclusive -whether a console exclusive, or timed exclusive- for Xbox One.

If it's wanting to avoid the sea of indie titles on PS4 and get free exposition on Xbox One, or merely having a good business and working relationship with Microsoft, or just Microsoft chiping in one way or another, that parity clause will have no justification.
If it's an effect of the parity clause, Microsoft may find there a justification to keep that policy in place...

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Is Below and exclusive now? A few months back Capy were saying that it's launching on Xbox but other formats would follow.

EDIT:
Actually, it was a bit longer ago, it was August they said it wasn't exclusive. Maybe it has changed now.

It's "first to console", like most of these third party indie 'exclusives'. Same deal as No Man's Sky.

 

[JP]

PC was confirmed, right?

As Capy themselves said in August...

Like many games on stage at E3, Below will be available on the Xbox One first. Then, after a period of time, Capy can bring it elsewhere. It's always been this way,

No suggestion there of it not appearing on other consoles but I'm wondering if they've said otherwise since then?

 

[SerTapTap]

Is Below and exclusive now? A few months back Capy were saying that it's launching on Xbox but other formats would follow.

EDIT:
Actually, it was a bit longer ago, it was August they said it wasn't exclusive. Maybe it has changed now.

They had a bigass Steam logo at the end of one of their trailers, it is 100% for sure coming to PC

 

[BigDug13]

You need to think long term. Right now, they can go to 100 indy devs and say, "We've shipped 10M units. Do you really want to be locked away from those 10M users forever?" Maybe 5 of those devs agree to delay the PS version of their game, and the other 95 say, "Umm, Sony have shipped way more, and they're actually selling them." So we look at that and say, "So Sony gets 95 games and you get 5?? How is that a win?" MS say, "It's a lot better than 100 games for Sony and 0 for us."

At some point, MS will be able to say, "We've shipped 15M." Maybe now that sways 12 devs instead of 5. If they can get to 25M shipments somehow, maybe half of the devs agree to hold back the PlayStation for them. After all, 25M is a lot of users to simply turn your back on, right? Best of all, a lot of these guys literally can't afford to produce two versions simultaneously, so if they agree to hold back on PlayStation, they're implicitly agreeing to give XBone a de facto, timed exclusive in the process.

So again, to give up on forced parity is effectively the same thing as giving up on the brand itself. The more they sell, they more effective forced parity becomes, so giving up on it is the same as admitting they'll never be too big to ignore, because if/when they finally are, forced parity will be awesome for them. (It'll still be completely shitty for everyone else involved, of course, but that's not Microsoft's problem; it's their advantage.)

Beyond the overall system sales difference there has to be another question asked. What percentage of Xbox One owners buy indie games compared to PS4 owners? It's been said that it's possible that the Xbox One will end up even more of a dudebro console than the 360 was. How much of XBO's current demographic are indie gamers? Selling 10 million consoles is meaningless if it's mostly to a demographic that doesn't buy indie games.

 

[Dragonborn]

It's "first to console", like most of these third party indie 'exclusives'. Same deal as No Man's Sky.

We know for sure Below is coming to PC. We don't for NMS yet.

 

[Nightengale]

And sometimes, the other side really -isn't - greener.

You misunderstood me. I meant PS4's market is greener. I simply gave reasoning why someone might had deliberately chosen a less green fields.

As per quality being higher due to lesser amount of games ... ehm. Let's say it's all in the eye of the beholder. Point in case, the policy is bad for both gamers -and- devs, but also hurts MS in the long term by creating a bad vibe among devs and a bad image among indie fans. Mind blowing situation after the XBLA golden days of yore...

Another misunderstanding. I'm saying that because PS4's indie line-up has both quality and quantity in spades (both now and soon) compared to XB1, if Indie Game X isn't going to get the same amount of marketing as one of PS4's more premier indie-games, that may compel them to go for Xbox if MS was willing to massively push it, for example.

Eg. Imagine if MS told 'Indie X' that MS will give that game the same amount of marketing push Sony is giving No Man's Sky. That's the kind of marketing that's not easily bought, even with money.

 

[serversurfer]

This is terrible business.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that it's good business. I think forced parity is a cancer on the entire industry, and that anyone who feels otherwise should be shunned. I'm just trying to explain why Microsoft think it's good business, and why they're so reluctant to give them up.

Edit:

Eg. Imagine if MS told 'Indie X' that MS will give that game the same amount of marketing push Sony is giving No Man's Sky. That's the kind of marketing that's not easily bought, even with money.

Carrots represent ongoing costs. Sticks are cheap and reusable.

 

[Apathy]

To be clear, I'm not arguing that it's good business. I think forced parity is a cancer on the entire industry, and that anyone who feels otherwise should be shunned. I'm just trying to explain why Microsoft think it's good business, and why they're so reluctant to give them up.

Edit:

Carrots represent ongoing costs. Sticks are cheap and reusable.

It would still be terrible business to think that way. Even if Microsoft said that to indie developers, out of whatever number of Xbox they have sold, not all of them are only Xbox owners. So a developer can still go with Sony + PC first and get sales and then the amount of people they really miss out on is much smaller than the maximum that actually own just an Xbox. Mathematically it still well never be whatever the max sold Xbox users. At that point a dev would have to make a choice based on risk. Do they take the extra time to make version for this third platform costing man hours and money and hoping that enough people that own all three platforms decide to buy it there to make the investment worth it, or just release it on two platforms (the largest two) and hope that the users from that third platform have one of the other two and but it there.

 

[twobear]

Still feel the clause will be removed, only a matter of time. Only question on my mind is how will they remove it, quietly (what clause?), or loudly (for the gamers!).

They've had plenty of opportunity to drop it, and they've actually actively defended it. I think MS are in favour of it.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

And sometimes, the other side really -isn't - greener.

Ask Swery/ D4.

His game was probably financed to some level by MS (with a nice push at E3 2014 to boot), but ended up with little to no marketing and a hushed release, with some of Swery's more DH fans finally creating a thread on Gaf to literally "beg" people to buy the game, even if they do not own a XB1.

Not kidding.

As per quality being higher due to lesser amount of games ... ehm. Let's say it's all in the eye of the beholder. Point in case, the policy is bad for both gamers -and- devs, but also hurts MS in the long term by creating a bad vibe among devs and a bad image among indie fans. Mind blowing situation after the XBLA golden days of yore...

To some level? I doubt D4 would exist if MS hadn't funded it. Swery isn't exactly known for delivering hits and let's not forget that DP released in 2010 and he did nothing else of note until D4...

Fortunately for gamers everywhere, MS funded it. Out of desperation? Out of the hope that it might catch lighting with a very vocal hardcore like DP? Who can say...but we're better off as gamers for having it.

 

[serversurfer]

It would still be terrible business to think that way.

Fixed, and agreed. But as I explained, if you're too big to be ignored, then it can be a very effective tool for cutting your opponents off at the knees.

Leveraging monopolies has always been what MS are best at, so it's no surprise that their business strategies are designed around the notion they'll be doing just that. Major Nelson responded to the DRM issue with, "Have you seen Titanfall? Nuff said. Conversation over." He wasn't saying, "We put the wants of our customers and the overall health of the industry above all other considerations." He was saying, "We control a monopoly position, so it doesn't matter what you think, you little pissant."

 

[Bitch Pudding]

This may sound a little selfish, but I actually like the parity clause! Because it actually makes most indies focus on one certain console and its resources and capabilities.

That means I don't have to wait until all those cool and awesome games are released on another platform which I don't own. I am okay with that.

But of course I do feel sorry for the developers because they cannot access a huge amount of their potential customer base.

 

[Respawn]

This may sound a little selfish, but I actually like the parity clause! Because it actually makes most indies focus on one certain console and its resources and capabilities.

That means I don't have to wait until all those cool and awesome games are released on another platform which I don't own. I am okay with that.

But of course I do feel sorry for the developers because they cannot access a huge amount of their potential customer base.

So devs shouldn't make money? Gotcha.

 

[Two Words]

This may sound a little selfish, but I actually like the parity clause! Because it actually makes most indies focus on one certain console and its resources and capabilities.

That means I don't have to wait until all those cool and awesome games are released on another platform which I don't own. I am okay with that.

But of course I do feel sorry for the developers because they cannot access a huge amount of their potential customer base.

No. It forces indie devs to invest in only one platform or lose opportunity to make money. If there was no clause, indie devs could will release on one platform first, and worry about other platforms later.

 

[xxracerxx]

This may sound a little selfish, but I actually like the parity clause! Because it actually makes most indies focus on one certain console and its resources and capabilities.

That means I don't have to wait until all those cool and awesome games are released on another platform which I don't own. I am okay with that.

But of course I do feel sorry for the developers because they cannot access a huge amount of their potential customer base.

The thing is though is that you are missing out on great fucking games because of this shitty clause. This is not something to celebrate. Also it is a narrow view to think that just because of the parity clause that the developers will just focus on the XBO version.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

The thing is though is that you are missing out on great fucking games because of this shitty clause. This is not something to celebrate. Also it is a narrow view to think that just because of the parity clause that the developers will just focus on the XBO version.

I think he's saying he owns a PS4.

 

[xxracerxx]

I think he's saying he owns a PS4.

Ahhh....haha, that makes a more sense.

Still a shitty clause that no one should celebrate.

 

[Goodacre0081]

This may sound a little selfish, but I actually like the parity clause! Because it actually makes most indies focus on one certain console and its resources and capabilities.

That means I don't have to wait until all those cool and awesome games are released on another platform which I don't own. I am okay with that.

But of course I do feel sorry for the developers because they cannot access a huge amount of their potential customer base.

lots of them would be focusing on one platform at a time anyway. the clause is simply making it easy for developers to make a decision. make the games for PS4/WiiU/PC and hope that MS waives the policy at a later date or move on to their next game.

seems like it's happening with Super Giant Games. they skipped an obvious port of Transistor on XB1 and are now porting Bastion to PS4 instead.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

I think he's saying he owns a PS4.

You got me . Still, my post was sarcastabally, because I really think that the parity clause is one hell of a stupid idea, as the OP explained quite well.

 

[Infernostew]

Even the indie devs that agree to it aren't locked in forever. Hello Games is on record for being very frustrated on how the timed exclusivity for Joe Danger 2 went, and that likely pushed their next game to debuting on the PS4 first.

Got a link for that? I'm interested to read about it.