Support NeoGAF

[Jimmyfenix]

Look at his pre-edit a few pages up that I quoted.

Yup just found it

And there it is, they don't even have a copy of the alleged parity clause.

SMH

 

[xxracerxx]

What is complete shit, is that the company that helped build the indie on console market has complete fucked it over with this cause. Hell, if the 360 only had indies I would have been happy as two of my favorites are considered indie (Shadow Complex and Mark of the Ninja).

 

[HalterGratis]

Hey, I just wanted to come in here to say that Broforce looks rad, and it's cool they have a good deal with Sony. As far as I can tell from checking this afternoon, they have never contacted ID@Xbox about coming to Xbox, so our policies don't really come into it, not really sure why they brought that up.

We've said before we want to make sure every game that wants to come to Xbox One can do it, and if developers have any questions they should get in touch with us at id@xbox.com. (And yes, I’d love to see Broforce come to Xbox One!)

Just prostrate yourself before Saint Phil so he might deem your game worthy and pardon you for violating the righteous indie clause!

 

[matty2Dfraud]

So it's not getting released on XBO because Sony struck a deal with them. Doesn't even sound like the guy knows much about the parity clause or has even talked to MS. Nice thread title though.

 

[kaching]

Boom

For something we've known since the top of the thread? Well caught, sir.

I find it "hilarious" (or rather, puzzling) that people are so one sided with their opinions of either company, if ANY developer would have said that MS made them an offer they couldn't refuse then you would hear exactly the same thing being aimed at Microsoft.

Default GAF position : Sony "support" and "nurture" whilst Microsoft hold developers at gunpoint with their moneybags.

Neither company is a saint but it isn't like we haven't seen ample examples of their distinct behavior in this particular context (how they accommodate small devs). Let's not act like there isn't a clear difference that's been well established over the past couple of years. Stop trying to handwave everything as "SAME SAME".

 

[Crimson_Gold]

So it's not getting released on XBO because Sony struck a deal with them. Doesn't even sound like the guy knows much about the parity clause or has even talked to MS. Nice thread title though.

You're purposefully looking past the real issue here. They know about the clause and what it entails. The fact that the clause exists has made them decide to not even bother

 

[krypt0nian]

So it's not getting released on XBO because Sony struck a deal with them. Doesn't even sound like the guy knows much about the parity clause or has even talked to MS. Nice thread title though.

What part about release first on Playstation and you can't release on xbox unless we deem you worthy is hard?

Do you think that needs to be explained to a dev?

 

[bishoptl]

And there it is, they don't even have a copy of the alleged parity clause.

"alleged". FOH

People forget that we can read edited posts, huh.

RIGHT.

Forgot about the good ol' slot system and Microsoft publishing all the indie games that couldn't find a publisher.

True story - one of the titles I EP'd on last-gen required development money being allocated to the publisher who agreed to give us one of their slots. That's money that could have gone into the game, but whatever. The problem is that the only way we could get that slot was to agree to a publishing agreement on all platforms, not just 360. All thanks to one platform's policies.

tl;dr.

Seriously, you should have just posted "tl;dr" and saved us the trouble.

 

[xxracerxx]

One post from ccharla

 

[EvB]

Don't be thick. You won't find contractual language online and no developer is going to break NDA to jump through your hoops. What they can tell you is the nature of how the program works, backed up by Phil Spencer's own words on first-class citizenry.

And whilst this may be the default policy that is in place we are still only getting feedback from outspoken developers who aren't involved with MS' indie program in the first place, in this case from a developer that is in Sony's pocket.

I'm unsure as to why very few are questioning this.

I work for a huge multinational company and my job is to deal with independent businesses. We have blanket policies, pricing and terms which we make available to everyone. But for those businesses who work with us and engage with us in professional manner, we go outside of these default policies to make sure they are successful. My perspective actually don't see this situation to be significantly different to that.

If an indie developer is going to make its commercial decisions based upon Internet hearsay without even evaluating their options, then they are actually the ones who will suffer. They have more to gain than the platform holder does on this single occasion.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Everyone who says 'oh this will obviously hurt MS' is missing the point.

MS are not interested in bringing indie games to the platform unless there's immediate money to be made out of it. They don't want a game that only shifts 10k units, they only want the indies that are going to be breakout hits.

So they don't care that they're getting less than half the number of games, what they care about is making sure they get the 'right' indie games. If ever a game does come along that looks like it's going to be that breakout hit (a la Minecraft) you bet they'll be there ready to swoop in with a moneyhat and lock that exclusivity down.

MS is one of the most short-term orientated tech companies out there. They're infamous for not getting aboard the long-term trends in tech until they've already passed. They either haven't cottoned on to what Sony have already realised (that a diverse indie portfolio has a halo effect for your brand) or they don't care about it. What they want are the indie games that sell millions of units, nothing less.

Anita Elberse did extensive research and released a book about the entertainment industry called Blockbusters: Hit making, risk taking and the big business of entertainment.

It's about the theory of sticking to the tried and true blockbusters. The tent poles instead taking the risks on smaller options. I believe there might be a name for the theory it just escapes me right now. Most big business work this way in all fairness. I'm awar our industry is unique, but at the same time it's not. Look at what sells. CoD, AC, Halo etc etc. once Microsoft finds the next big hit, they stick with it. I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong in this context, I'm just saying they clearly work by this method.

Haven't read the book myself but I think it would be an interesting read.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

One post from ccharla

Probably doesn't want to end up in a situation where a dozen people are asking questions and he feels he has to reply to all of them...

It also doesn't mean he's not reading responses and taking feedback.

 

[krypt0nian]

And whilst this may be the default policy that is in place we are still only getting feedback from outspoken developers who aren't involved with MS' indie program in the first place, in this case from a developer that is in Sony's pocket.

I'm unsure as to why very few are questioning this.

I work for a huge multinational company and my job is to deal with independent businesses. We have blanket policies, pricing and terms which we make available to everyone. But for those businesses who work with us and engage with us in professional manner, we go outside of these default policies to make sure they are successful. My perspective actually don't see this situation to be significantly different to that.

If an indie developer is going to make its commercial decisions based upon Internet hearsay without even evaluating their options, then they are actually the ones who will suffer. They have more to gain than the platform holder does on this single occasion.

Internet hearsay? How thick do you have to be?

One post from ccharla

Answering questions will just expose further how terrible their policy is, and he has no call as to setting it.

 

[Neuromancer]

Hey, I just wanted to come in here to say that Broforce looks rad, and it's cool they have a good deal with Sony. As far as I can tell from checking this afternoon, they have never contacted ID@Xbox about coming to Xbox, so our policies don't really come into it, not really sure why they brought that up.

We've said before we want to make sure every game that wants to come to Xbox One can do it, and if developers have any questions they should get in touch with us at id@xbox.com. (And yes, I’d love to see Broforce come to Xbox One!)

So why does the parity clause even exist?

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

partiy clause is asbolutely destroying the indie market in the 'Bone. How have they not changed it yet?

edit:

Chris, if the perception of the program keeps developers from even bothering to contact you, that's a problem that needs fixing.

Amen.

 

[Jawbreaker]

And whilst this may be the default policy that is in place we are still only getting feedback from outspoken developers who aren't involved with MS' indie program in the first place, in this case from a developer that is in Sony's pocket.

I'm unsure as to why very few are questioning this.

I work for a huge multinational company and my job is to deal with independent businesses. We have blanket policies, pricing and terms which we make available to everyone. But for those businesses who work with us and engage with us in professional manner, we go outside of these default policies to make sure they are successful. My perspective actually don't see this situation to be significantly different to that.

If an indie developer is going to make its commercial decisions based upon Internet hearsay without even evaluating their options, then they are actually the ones who will suffer. They have more to gain than the platform holder does on this single occasion.

Can you enlighten us about what this "hearsay" is exactly?

 

[CambriaRising]

And whilst this may be the default policy that is in place we are still only getting feedback from outspoken developers who aren't involved with MS' indie program in the first place, in this case from a developer that is in Sony's pocket.

I'm unsure as to why very few are questioning this.

If an indie developer is going to make its commercial decisions based upon Internet hearsay without even evaluating their options, then they are actually the ones who will suffer. They have more to gain than the platform holder does on this single occasion.

This is really a new low when it comes to this argument.

The clause still exists. The clause is harmful to developers and Xbox One owners. It has to go. The end.

 

[watership]

One post from ccharla

What did you want exactly? He can't debate the policy openly in a forum.

 

[Jonnax]

Hey, I just wanted to come in here to say that Broforce looks rad, and it's cool they have a good deal with Sony. As far as I can tell from checking this afternoon, they have never contacted ID@Xbox about coming to Xbox, so our policies don't really come into it, not really sure why they brought that up.

We've said before we want to make sure every game that wants to come to Xbox One can do it, and if developers have any questions they should get in touch with us at id@xbox.com. (And yes, I’d love to see Broforce come to Xbox One!)

Well I'm guessing it's because this whole parity clause business is quite public. I can imagine most people not bothering if they can't manage a simultaneous release. And then once it's out, if it gets popular enough Microsoft can then then bestow an exception to allow them to publish.

This whole exception business, I feel, is quite disgusting because it's essentially Microsoft taking advantage of smaller developers whilst allowing bigger titles where they know they'd make a guaranteed profit when they get their cut.

 

[kaching]

in this case from a developer that is in Sony's pocket.

Nice, coming from the guy laughing at people for being "hilariously one-sided"

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Reading charla's post it seems the Broforce Devs just assumed the parity clause was there and would be a hassle so didn't even bother contacting them just to see?

I mean, the exceptions to this rule are all over the place, I don't see why they couldnt at least make a quick phone call or drop them an email. In this particular case it looks more like they used the parity clause as a shield so they don't have to tell people they just got a money hat.

 

[Altima]

Damn, this thread is hilarious.

Reading charla's post it seems the Broforce Devs just assumed the parity clause was there and would be a hassle so didn't even bother contacting them just to see?

I mean, the exceptions to this rule are all over the place, I don't see why they couldnt at least make a quick phone call or drop them an email. In this particular case it looks more like they used the parity clause as a shield so they don't have to tell people they just got a money hat.

Those 47 developers that will have their game release on PlayStation also haven't contact Microsoft ?

 

[Jigorath]

So correct me if I'my wrong but isn't the parity clause just there to make sure Sony doesn't get any timed exclusives? It might have worked last gen with the 360 being the more popular platform but Microsoft doesn't really have that sort of pull anymore. Being on PS4/Vita/PC seems to be enough for most indie devs that don't want to deal with the policies. I'm been expecting Phil to drop the parity clause for a while now given the pro gamer stance he's been pushing with Xbox so we'll see.

 

[Rymuth]

And whilst this may be the default policy that is in place we are still only getting feedback from outspoken developers who aren't involved with MS' indie program in the first place, in this case from a developer that is in Sony's pocket.

I'm unsure as to why very few are questioning this.

I work for a huge multinational company and my job is to deal with independent businesses. We have blanket policies, pricing and terms which we make available to everyone. But for those businesses who work with us and engage with us in professional manner, we go outside of these default policies to make sure they are successful. My perspective actually don't see this situation to be significantly different to that.

If an indie developer is going to make its commercial decisions based upon Internet hearsay without even evaluating their options, then they are actually the ones who will suffer. They have more to gain than the platform holder does on this single occasion.

 

[bishoptl]

If an indie developer is going to make its commercial decisions based upon Internet hearsay

This internet hearsay from the head of the division?

This internet hearsay from a developer who's been involved with ID@Xbox (in his words) "since launch"?

Mmmmm. Please continue.

 

[krypt0nian]

Reading charla's post it seems the Broforce Devs just assumed the parity clause was there and would be a hassle so didn't even bother contacting them just to see?

I mean, the exceptions to this rule are all over the place, I don't see why they couldnt at least make a quick phone call or drop them an email. In this particular case it looks more like they used the parity clause as a shield so they don't have to tell people they just got a money hat.

THEY SHOULD NOT NEED TO BEG FOR EXCEPTIONS.

Jesus.

 

[Artorias]

One post from ccharla

Clarifying basically anything from this thread would just make his company look worse. I'm not surprised he popped up with the one single thing that could cast doubt on the devs side of the story (even if it was already known) and then disappeared.

Not the first or the last time MS employees have done precisely that on this board.

 

[Gestault]

Hey, I just wanted to come in here to say that Broforce looks rad, and it's cool they have a good deal with Sony. As far as I can tell from checking this afternoon, they have never contacted ID@Xbox about coming to Xbox, so our policies don't really come into it, not really sure why they brought that up.

We've said before we want to make sure every game that wants to come to Xbox One can do it, and if developers have any questions they should get in touch with us at id@xbox.com. (And yes, I’d love to see Broforce come to Xbox One!)

It sounds like it's worth asking flat out, because of the implications of your response:

Is there a policy which would effect the developer here, as they presume it would? If the answer is "no," then that's fantastic. Otherwise, you can imagine how your response might come off to someone seeing it with a complete understanding of the situation.

 

[CambriaRising]

Reading charla's post it seems the Broforce Devs just assumed the parity clause was there and would be a hassle so didn't even bother contacting them just to see?

I mean, the exceptions to this rule are all over the place, I don't see why they couldnt at least make a quick phone call or drop them an email. In this particular case it looks more like they used the parity clause as a shield so they don't have to tell people they just got a money hat.

The clause is well publicized, why waste the time contacting them when it has not been eradicated? Why have to beg for exclusion? Why even get the lawyers involved?

That's a fucked up accusation you are levying against the developers of this game and you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[kaching]

So why does the parity clause even exist?

Because how would you know if a game really wants to come to XBone without the willingness to jump through completely unnecessary hoops and arbitrarily endangering it's chances of getting to other platforms? There's really no other way!

 

[serversurfer]

I work for a huge multinational company and my job is to deal with independent businesses. We have blanket policies, pricing and terms which we make available to everyone. But for those businesses who work with us and engage with us in professional manner, we go outside of these default policies to make sure they are successful. My perspective actually don't see this situation to be significantly different to that.

Is one of your company's blanket policies, "If you're not willing to short-change our competitors and generally hold back the entire industry while we try to catch up, then you're likely not worth our time"?

If so, then can I ask what company you work for, so I can be sure to avoid their products as well, and warn others to do the same? TIA <3

 

[cakely]

Hey, I just wanted to come in here to say that Broforce looks rad, and it's cool they have a good deal with Sony. As far as I can tell from checking this afternoon, they have never contacted ID@Xbox about coming to Xbox, so our policies don't really come into it, not really sure why they brought that up.

We've said before we want to make sure every game that wants to come to Xbox One can do it, and if developers have any questions they should get in touch with us at id@xbox.com. (And yes, I’d love to see Broforce come to Xbox One!)

This, right here, is one of the best reasons to read GAF.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

THEY SHOULD NOT NEED TO BEG FOR EXCEPTIONS.

Jesus.

Who said beg?

All they had to do was drop Chris an email saying "Hey, want Broforce on Xbox?" I'm fairly confident Chris would have made it happen. Same as Outlast, same as Stick it to the Man and the same as all the other indie games that seemingly haven't been affected by this clause.

No need to be upset. I'm not arguing the clause should remain. Read my first post in this thread. But I'm now talking about this very specific case. This particular case seems less like the parity clause being the issue than it first appears.

 

[krypt0nian]

This, right here, is one of the best reasons to read GAF.

Oh they talk out of both sides of their mouths on Twitter for everyone to see.

Who said beg?

All they had to do was drop Chris an email saying "Hey, want Broforce on Xbox?" I'm fairly confident Chris would have made it happen. Same as Outlast, same as Stick it to the Man and the same as all the other indie games that seemingly haven't been affected by this clause.

No need to be upset. I'm not arguing the clause should remain. Read my first post in this thread. But I'm now talking about this very specific case. This particular case seems less like the parity clause being the issue then it first appears.

Again, they should never have to. Allow devs to set their dev plans and budgets without fucking with them,

Point blank.

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

If the parity clause is truly as flexible and non-shitty as some people seem to be implying, they need to go public with the full contract and all its terms. If there are no explicit policies and they just play it by ear, they need to write some.

Preception can (and seems to already have) become reailty.

What a trainwreck.

 

[Ravidrath]

Chris, if the perception of the program keeps developers from even bothering to contact you, that's a problem that needs fixing.

The perception issue is real.

Between our (extremely negative) experiences with MS on Skullgirls and this perception issue, we didn't really pursue Xbox One. I was about to start looking into it, but then Sony aggressively pursued us.

So it's not only that the parity clause, MS's policies, etc. make people slow to act, it's that Sony is extremely proactively aggressive about approaching devs and signing agreements.


I do have legitimate concerns about the Xbox One just as a platform for indies, though.

My impression is that indies, even high profile ones, just don't sell very well on there. Maybe it's a store / placement issue, but I'm more concerns that Xbox players are only interested in AAA games and no amount of push from MS will change their minds on that.

At some point devs may start even foregoing MS's exclusivity offers because the advance just isn't enough to justify delaying on a platform that sells better.

If the parity clause is truly as flexible and non-shitty as people seem to be implying, they need to go public with the full contract and all its terms. If there are no explicit policies and they just play it by ear, they need to write some.

MS is amazingly awful at this sort of thing, to be sure.

Like, did you know they started waiving their $10,000 patch fee for digital games on the 360? That was a huge thing that was keeping some devs (like Polytron) from updating their games.

But MS never announced it publicly, and told devs that they couldn't talk about it, either. So they did something good, and no one was allowed to discuss it.

This waiver was, in particular, hugely important to my game, because it freed up a lot of money we had saved for patch fees. But we couldn't talk about it, and just kinda had to say "Oh, hey, uh... we found $40,000! We can do that stretch goal we just missed now!"

 

[bishoptl]

The perception issue is real.

Between our (extremely negative) experiences with MS on Skullgirls and this perception issue, we didn't really pursue Xbox One. I was about to start looking into it, but then Sony aggressively pursued us.

So it's not only that the parity clause, MS's policies, etc. make people slow to act, it's that Sony is extremely proactively aggressive about approaching devs and signing agreements.


I do have legitimate concerns about the Xbox One just as a platform for indies, though.

My impression is that indies, even high profile ones, just don't sell very well on there. Maybe it's a store / placement issue, but I'm more concerns that Xbox players are only interested in AAA games and no amount of push from MS will change their minds on that.

At some point devs may start even foregoing MS's exclusivity offers because the advance just isn't enough to justify delaying on a platform that sells better.

Why don't you just shut up, be a professional and let EvB run your business

 

[krypt0nian]

Why don't you just shut up, be a professional and let EvB run your business

Just drop them an email. It's all good.

 

[Biker19]

And whilst this may be the default policy that is in place we are still only getting feedback from outspoken developers who aren't involved with MS' indie program in the first place, in this case from a developer that is in Sony's pocket.

I'm unsure as to why very few are questioning this.

I work for a huge multinational company and my job is to deal with independent businesses. We have blanket policies, pricing and terms which we make available to everyone. But for those businesses who work with us and engage with us in professional manner, we go outside of these default policies to make sure they are successful. My perspective actually don't see this situation to be significantly different to that.

If an indie developer is going to make its commercial decisions based upon Internet hearsay without even evaluating their options, then they are actually the ones who will suffer. They have more to gain than the platform holder does on this single occasion.

Please dude, just stop. You're only embarrassing yourself further.

 

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Who said beg?

All they had to do was drop Chris an email saying "Hey, want Broforce on Xbox?" I'm fairly confident Chris would have made it happen. Same as Outlast, same as Stick it to the Man and the same as all the other indie games that seemingly haven't been affected by this clause.

No need to be upset. I'm not arguing the clause should remain. Read my first post in this thread. But I'm now talking about this very specific case. This particular case seems less like the parity clause being the issue than it first appears.

Why?
Why should they waste their limited time and effort to get onto a platform that doesn't, at first glance, want them there?

 

[Nafai1123]

Who said beg?

All they had to do was drop Chris an email saying "Hey, want Broforce on Xbox?" I'm fairly confident Chris would have made it happen. Same as Outlast, same as Stick it to the Man and the same as all the other indie games that seemingly haven't been affected by this clause.

No need to be upset. I'm not arguing the clause should remain. Read my first post in this thread. But I'm now talking about this very specific case. This particular case seems less like the parity clause being the issue than it first appears.

Conversely, Chris or someone at ID@Xbox could be reaching out to devs actively to try to get games on their system like the competition is doing regardless of whether they're releasing on other platforms first or not.

 

[EvB]

Internet hearsay? How thick do you have to be?

In this situation it might as well be. They have no first hand experience of said clause, they said this themselves and Charla has confirmed this. They know as much about this much cited parity clause as you or I it seems.

They've taken a kickback and then in the same breath suggested that they CAN'T release their game due to a clause which for all they know, may have been a non issue.
They've avoided the awkward question by blaming someone else for them choosing to take said benefit.

 

[krypt0nian]

In this situation it might as well be. They have no first hand experience of said clause, they said this themselves and Charla has confirmed this. They know as much about this much cited parity clause as you or I it seems.

They've taken a kickback and then in the same breath suggested that they CAN'T release their game due to a clause which for all they know, may have been a non issue.
They've avoided the awkward question by blaming someone else for them choosing to take said benefit.

Now you're willfully ignorant. How many devs need to come forward with issues with this "internet hearsay"?

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Good. If more developers would do the same it would actually lead to the XB1 getting more games.

 

[Duxxy3]

I love my xbox one. I supported microsoft after the drm reversal and the kinect cut.

I don't support the parity clause at all. It keeps me from buying and playing games that I want. As an XB1 owner, this clause is fucking me over.

 

[Jimmyfenix]

Just drop them an email. It's all good.

Boom!

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Oh they talk out of both sides of their mouths on Twitter for everyone to see.



Again, they should never have to. Allow devs to set their dev plans and budgets without fucking with them,

Point blank.

I'm fully on board with the parity clause being dumb. But again, in this case, it seems like they just didn't want to bother because they assumed it would be a hassle. In the end, I'm pretty sure at some point you'd have to contact Sony or Nintendo or Microsoft about making a game on their platform anyway no?

So how hard would it be to send an email? That's it. Worst case scenario, Chris Charla says no thanks and you move on.

Again, please don't miunderstand my post to relate to all indie Devs who have been genuinely fucked over by this clause, because I'm aware they exist. But I don't believe this to be one of those cases. I'll say again, many many many games have already not been affected by the clause. So if all it would have taken is a simple email, then why not send it? You'd have to contact them anyway wouldn't you?

 

[krypt0nian]

I'm fully on board with the parity clause being dumb. But again, in this case, it seems like they just didn't want to bother because they assumed it would be a hassle. In the end, I'm pretty sure at some point you'd have to contact Sony or Nintendo or Microsoft about making a game on their platform anyway no?

So how hard would it be to send an email? That's it. Worst case scenario, Chris Charla says no thanks and you move on.

Again, please don't miunderstand my post to relate to all indie Devs who have been genuinely fucked over by this clause, because I'm aware they exist. But I don't believe this to be one of those cases. I'll say again, many many many games have already not been affected by the clause. So if all it would have taken is a simple email, then why not send it? You'd have to contact them anyway wouldn't you?

I wouldn't email them either to see if I was good enough to release a game to make us BOTH money.

Fuck the policy right up the ass.

 

[EvB]

Suits4Lyfe

 

[TAJ]

Hey, I just wanted to come in here to say that Broforce looks rad, and it's cool they have a good deal with Sony. As far as I can tell from checking this afternoon, they have never contacted ID@Xbox about coming to Xbox, so our policies don't really come into it, not really sure why they brought that up.

We've said before we want to make sure every game that wants to come to Xbox One can do it, and if developers have any questions they should get in touch with us at id@xbox.com. (And yes, I’d love to see Broforce come to Xbox One!)

Could it be that your policies are so offensive that people just don't bother talking to you? Nope, couldn't be that.