Cool. Then we have nothing more to talk about.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Phil Spencer on indie parity clause "I want people to feel like they're first class"
- Thread starter Kayant
- Start date
ZZZING!
I don't think anyone would really complain if they had a late port extra content clause. As it stands though it is either parity release, no release at all, or hope your game is popular enough that Microsoft want to have your game on their platform after the fact.
And really, the majority of indie developers are choosing no release at all.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
I think it would be more effective if they could provide incentives for releasing it the same day on Xbox One, rather than punishing them for not.
Pub Fund is optional.
Miles Quaritch
Member
I will slap the Irises off your eyeballs if you dare talk any more smack about Zune.
That shit was far ahead of its time it lapped itself. Not to mention it so much better than the garbage iPod and iTunes.
You never know, if MS buy Unity, that might be their incentive.
ALLseeingEYE
Member
That's not what Phil said in the podcast at all though. He just said they'd need to have a conversation about it.
Like, I understand how this could suck, I work on indie stuff in my free time. Doing ports for multiple platforms can suck, and cause a ton of extra dev time. On the other hard, if indies are smart, they'll be using multi-platform engines like Unity or UE4. Those ports could be as simple as updating button callouts, and pressing the button to spit out an X1 version. It's not like most indie games are super demanding on the hardware, they may not even need optimization (or hell, just optimize for X1 and add extra graphical effects for PS4/PC).
Indies doing full-on engine porting could be in a seriously crap situation though. Those guys likely need to contact MS and work things out if they can't do multi-plat up front and need return on funds.
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
My misunderstanding then... Sorry bout that.
A "conversation". We don't know what a conversation would even imply. There might be a lot of red tape, there might not be. But indie developers sure aren't willing to find out to begin with.
walltowall
Member
He can be both level headed and wrong on this issue at the same time. We've heard from plenty of devs in this thread about their feeling on the policy and the burden it places on them and to that end XB1 IS missing out on some great games (some bad ones too).
It seems as though MS hasn't really been able to compel devs to have the "conversation" and so they just pass and publish on PS4.
I'm keen on hearing form devs who actually have had a "conversation" with MS. Were they turned down? if so, why.
It's such a shame, a game like Towerfall would be insane with 8 players, but we'll never know
That's nice, but we're talking about negatively influencing gamers who DO support their ecosystem.
It's optional. Something you seem to have glossed over. Why is that, exactly?
Of course not, I would be under his evil sway as well had I heard his dulcet tones.
That was a joke. Seriously, the point of my post is Phil will whisper whatever in your ear while... Well you know what i'm getting at.
ALLseeingEYE
Member
I don't imagine it's easy to get ahold of Phil straight up, but if you listen to the way he says things in that podcast, it seems to heavily suggest it is by no means game over if you can't do a multi-platform port straight up. He actually seems like he wants to help those teams. Like I said, I think some people are really taking his quote out of context. It was a really positive podcast overall, and worth a listen.
Either way, I really do hope that it's not a case of being banned from X1 if you release late (it doesn't seem to be at all).
If we remember, last-gen Sony had an extras clause where if you are releasing late, you need to have some extras content or incentive. It worked really well, and I don't see MS turning that sort of thing down.
walltowall
Member
In fairness, what we're hearing is that the ID team has little red tape, just that damn parity clause.
serversurfer
Member
That's not what they're doing here. They're pressuring developers in to helping them fool people in to thinking that PlayStation isn't the better choice.
Building their own product up would be saying things like, "Kinect/Live/Titanfall is awesome!" But that message fell flat. The new message is, "Just as good as a PlayStation," but it clearly isn't as good, so now they need to try to hold the PlayStation back to further that false claim of equivalence.
It doesn't mesh with their claims that they're all about what's best for gaming and gamers, so it simply serves to illustrate how two-faced they actually are about this stuff. They say they want what's best for us, but really, they're only concerned with what benefits them, no matter how much it hurts the gamers and developers they claim to care so much about.
That is not how game development works. At all.
Real talk, I imported a Zune HD since it wasn't available where I live (Canada). Amazing
little device, I use it religiously on a daily basis.
When he says have a conversation, I don't imagine it is with him personally. But it does seem like he says that in a way that will allow Microsoft to pick and choose who they give an exception to. Which would lead to them only allowing very popular games because if a game has already failed to pick up steam on PC or PS4, they'd have no reason to want it on Xbox One.
Jacksinthe
Banned
Well fuck me. I had no idea it was this easy as updating a few calls and clicking EXPORT FOAR AWESUM.
I'll give you 3 versions of our game for Linux, PC and Mac. Two of them had different runtime bugs which Unity doesn't bounce errors for. I'm quite sure there will be more, too. After all, debugging is the process of removing bugs from code and programming is the process of putting them in.
It's not as simple as you lead on, my friend.
Edit: Damn you, bish!
Competing for marketshare but also hopefully working to grow the market size at the same time. If everyone is trying to foster a healthy, prosperous, growing market, there shouldn't be any need for much stepping on the toes of anybody else.
And ideally you do that by truly adding value to your own product, rather than by trying to hobble the value of other products. That's nothing but a race to bottom if that's the course they remain focused on.
ForsakenLotus
Member
Microsoft developed a less than stellar reputation during the Xbox 360 in how they worked with smaller/indie developers. Sure they were the first console to promote indie developers with things like the Summer Arcade, but despite that I remember reading many negative accounts.
But let's just set that to the side now. We are in a new generation now. The problem is Sony seems to release twice as many, if not more, smaller/indie games than Microsoft. Sony seems to have a pretty great reputation, at least from what we've seen. Whether it's Microsoft being overbearing during development, the parity clause or whatever, clearly Microsoft has been far less successful with bringing these types of games to their console.
Even if you are fine morally or philosophically with the parity clause or the general approach Microsoft has towards the indie developers, clearly it's not working. Sony's apparently more open approach is leading to more games on their platform.
I sincerely cannot understand the defense of Microsoft on this topic.
But let's just set that to the side now. We are in a new generation now. The problem is Sony seems to release twice as many, if not more, smaller/indie games than Microsoft. Sony seems to have a pretty great reputation, at least from what we've seen. Whether it's Microsoft being overbearing during development, the parity clause or whatever, clearly Microsoft has been far less successful with bringing these types of games to their console.
Even if you are fine morally or philosophically with the parity clause or the general approach Microsoft has towards the indie developers, clearly it's not working. Sony's apparently more open approach is leading to more games on their platform.
I sincerely cannot understand the defense of Microsoft on this topic.
That's certainly true now. It was not quite so clear 6 months ago, and certainly not clear 12 months ago, when many of these indie projects started.
But yes, if I were starting a project 3 months ago, the disparity would have been clear.
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
The quote I quoted was talking about holding back the PS4 versions for various reasons, graphics, release dates, gesture controls, ECT.. as being anti-competitive.
I misunderstood about the working of the PUB fund. Hence my post a few above yours that said I misunderstood, sorry.
Exploratory
Banned
I know this is a hypothetical that you're using to illustrate a point but let's not get crazy.
There's a "working man's graphics" joke in there somewhere.
This is stupid PR spin to justify a wartime policy they can no longer actually justify.
But I think it touches upon a core issue MS has always had: trust.
MS thinks it's their job to make customers feel special about a developer's games. It's not. That's the job of the developer.
This need for control implies a lack of trust in devs to do right by their customers.
But I think it touches upon a core issue MS has always had: trust.
MS thinks it's their job to make customers feel special about a developer's games. It's not. That's the job of the developer.
This need for control implies a lack of trust in devs to do right by their customers.
ALLseeingEYE
Member
I respect that you are an experienced Dev Bishop, and what you say is true most of the time.
You will likely almost never be able to just, spit out build and have such minimal work. But with my experience using XNA and Unity, it is possible. Our biggest issue for PC was adding Key bindings and button callouts. We really could literally just change a couple settings a spit out a PC and X360 build with XNA in particular. Making the port an optimal PC port is likely the most amount of work, but when it comes to X1 and PS4, if you are using Unity at the very least (I haven't currently tried multiplat in UE4), outside of optimization, it should in theory just require button callout changes outside of combing through the app for Sony/MS references (which should never be there to begin with), and perhaps platform specific certification issues (come to think of it, I'm probably really overlooking achievements here).
Melchiah
Member
I guess PS and PC folk are second glass, given how they've locked 3rd party games to XB for a period of time again and again. Minecraft, Limbo, Braid and Joe Danger 2 come to mind from indies, then there's a boat load of larger titles, like Tomb Raider recently. But I guess it's not the same thing that way around in his head. He only complains about it now, when they aren't anymore in a position to do it themselves.
ALLseeingEYE
Member
Ha
, make a fool of me AbsintheGames. I admittedly haven't tried porting to X1/PS4 as I do mention (and I'm a designer, not a programmer, so perhaps my programmer would slap me down for that, haha). I could see Achievements, platform specific certification, and as you mention, odd port bugs like runtime errors being issues. In fact, there are always things you just can't foresee popping up.
How much extra time do you imagine porting between X1 and PS4 with Unity would take?
Delusibeta
Banned
Well, enjoy handing tonnes of de facto exclusives over to PlayStation 4,then.
I read it in the voice of the architect from the Matrix Reloaded and it made me giggle.
ALLseeingEYE
Member
He can be both level headed and wrong on this issue at the same time. We've heard from plenty of devs in this thread about their feeling on the policy and the burden it places on them and to that end XB1 IS missing out on some great games (some bad ones too).
It seems as though MS hasn't really been able to compel devs to have the "conversation" and so they just pass and publish on PS4.
I'm keen on hearing form devs who actually have had a "conversation" with MS. Were they turned down? if so, why.
It's such a shame, a game like Towerfall would be insane with 8 players, but we'll never know
True, I haven't a had a chance to read the whole thread, perhaps I'll try. I haven't seen any positive feedback anywhere about that. IF this trhead/conversation is simply about his quote from the podcast, then I don't see what he said wrong at all.
I would like to see some real positive feedback from indie devs if what he said is true though. It's pretty damning if none of the indies are getting thier games on X1, it seems like money left on the table for both parties, but it mostly hurts the dev.
I'm not seeing much of any situations where Phil is just "telling people what they want to hear". Perhaps I'm good at seeing through the PR speak and just not expecting the world when PR guys say stuff, but Phil seems pretty genuine to me. I think he's a really positive leader for the platform, and seems like a great advocate for games and the game industry in general.
There is a problem with messaging at Microsoft. Obviously "working man's graphics" cannot co-exist with being "first class".
#notruexboneowner
I own an Xbone and I would appreciate it if there were more games to play on the system as D4 and SO are the only games truly exclusive to it that have my interest for a foreseeable amount of time (a year or so)
flatearthpandas
Member
Parity clause sounds like a good idea in theory.
I'm sure at least some people remember buying games in gen 6 and 7 then watching Sony platforms get a port a few months later with extra contentsometimes significant amounts of extra content. From my perspective, it always sucked.
I'm sure some people remember owning a PS3 last gen while games like Braid, Super Meat Boy, and Minecraft hit Xbox360 while PS3 had nothing comparable. Not awesome.
The idea of "our userbase does not have to wait for games and does not have to be stuck with version with less content" is awesome. All three companies should be competitive in trying to take care of their userbases like that. Nintendo especially should start looking into that.
My issue with it isn't that indies have to struggle to get their game onto Xbone. Even if they didn't get free dev kits and possibly support from Microsoft to make it happen, I wouldn't have a big issue with that struggle. Nothing against indies or their struggles. I sympathize personally, but not from a perspective of taking care of your userbase. A Microsoft director should frankly never be saying, "I get that you would prefer to publish on PS4 first, so it's okay that my userbase has to wait."
My issue is that Xbox just doesn't have the push to make good on this. They are not the market leader and some devs may decide out of business or principle that they would be better off skipping the Xbone altogether than putting in the work to bring release day parity. That is decidedly not good for Xbox owners. Worse than a late port.
The parity clause has its heart in the right place insofar as the point is to make sure Xbox owners get a product at least as good as the competition. But if the result is Xbox owners not getting products at all, then something is clearly wrong and needs to change. Maybe Sony had the best solution all along: just demand extra content and let them bring games over at their own pace. In a time of DLC, that's a more shitty practice than it was initially though.
Really, I don't know what the solution is. But I really can't blame MS for trying to take care of their customers. I can only blame them for not changing tactics when it backfires in a way that negatively affects their customers.
I'm sure at least some people remember buying games in gen 6 and 7 then watching Sony platforms get a port a few months later with extra contentsometimes significant amounts of extra content. From my perspective, it always sucked.
I'm sure some people remember owning a PS3 last gen while games like Braid, Super Meat Boy, and Minecraft hit Xbox360 while PS3 had nothing comparable. Not awesome.
The idea of "our userbase does not have to wait for games and does not have to be stuck with version with less content" is awesome. All three companies should be competitive in trying to take care of their userbases like that. Nintendo especially should start looking into that.
My issue with it isn't that indies have to struggle to get their game onto Xbone. Even if they didn't get free dev kits and possibly support from Microsoft to make it happen, I wouldn't have a big issue with that struggle. Nothing against indies or their struggles. I sympathize personally, but not from a perspective of taking care of your userbase. A Microsoft director should frankly never be saying, "I get that you would prefer to publish on PS4 first, so it's okay that my userbase has to wait."
My issue is that Xbox just doesn't have the push to make good on this. They are not the market leader and some devs may decide out of business or principle that they would be better off skipping the Xbone altogether than putting in the work to bring release day parity. That is decidedly not good for Xbox owners. Worse than a late port.
Not as bad as an "incomplete" version though, imo.
The parity clause has its heart in the right place insofar as the point is to make sure Xbox owners get a product at least as good as the competition. But if the result is Xbox owners not getting products at all, then something is clearly wrong and needs to change. Maybe Sony had the best solution all along: just demand extra content and let them bring games over at their own pace. In a time of DLC, that's a more shitty practice than it was initially though.
Really, I don't know what the solution is. But I really can't blame MS for trying to take care of their customers. I can only blame them for not changing tactics when it backfires in a way that negatively affects their customers.
Jacksinthe
Banned
Ha
I could see Achievements, platform specific certification, and as you mention, odd port bugs like runtime errors being issues. In fact, there are always things you just can't foresee popping up.
How much extra time do you imagine porting between X1 and PS4 with Unity would take?
I wasn't making a fool, I was trying to be tongue-in cheek
I am bad at written word, lol. I honestly don't know, at this point. Outside of development and deploying, there's the unknown area of post-release we aren't familiar with which is why we are taking things one platform at a time and even decided to hit the pause button on our first title to develop a smaller mobile game to dip our toes with iOS and Android post-deployment. Follow-through for bug fixing and game updates will be a major hurdle with just these two platforms and a small game. We would be murdering ourselves if we tried a multi-console release with a much more ambitious game. I'm confident we can handle any fixes necessary but trying to tackle them on multiple platforms at once would prove devastating if timely updates aren't available.We love working with Unity and it has helped us a TON. We initially had the idea to write from the ground-up but that was benched and praise the sun for that!
Zeouterlimits
Member
I feel like I understand where Phil is coming from, but couldn't feel more differently ultimately.
Having an open policy (while making optional exclusivity deals for funding etc) treats developers and games with the most respect, allowing the most content onto your platform, especially when you're behind.
You should be focusing on justifying to developers why they should be there day one, not strong arming them into it.
Surely making such a rule, as the less popular platform, means a certain amount of content won't come to your platform where developers might have considered it otherwise.
Having an open policy (while making optional exclusivity deals for funding etc) treats developers and games with the most respect, allowing the most content onto your platform, especially when you're behind.
You should be focusing on justifying to developers why they should be there day one, not strong arming them into it.
Surely making such a rule, as the less popular platform, means a certain amount of content won't come to your platform where developers might have considered it otherwise.
ALLseeingEYE
Member
I wasn't making a fool, I was trying to be tongue-in cheek
We love working with Unity and it has helped us a TON. We initially had the idea to write from the ground-up but that was benched and praise the sun for that!
Without derailing the thread too much, honestly, sticking with Unity or other similar game engine is smart. One of those major unforseen issues of game dev is certainly a serious lack of proper design tools on a custom engine. You need things to be as easy to use as possible for rapid iteration. Unity and UE4 are so well developed, powerful and easy enough to use, I couldn't see myself going for a custom engine ever really, unless it was a special situation. Even with unity, your team may run into a lot of issues porting to android, due to all the different devices that use it (screen size etc.).
Overall, I could really see multiplatform dev being hard for really small teams. Sales-wise, it really seems best to hit all three platforms at once, but it's probably not realistic for many, most indies are likely killing themselves just to get one platform done.
serversurfer
Member
"You do realize that ALL games on XBox One output at 1080p, right??"
-Phil Spencer, paraphrased by memory from a since-deleted tweet
He's better than what they have had recently for sure. I also don't think he is all bad. However, Microsoft's image in the console world is tarnished and is still moving in a negative direction rather than improving. Every week and release seems to bring another controversy.
I disagree with Phil being good for the games industry in general. This is false. If true he should be fired. Phil's job is to make Microsoft successful at any cost. Phil Spencer will do so to the detriment of other platforms, developers, publishers and the industry as a whole without a second thought. It is what he is paid to do and more importantly, that is the corporate culture he knows and is a part of.
This is where my problem with Microsoft lies. They have as much tact about competing in the industry as a blunt sledgehammer. Their policies are heavy handed, anti-consumer and draconian. They continue to try to use the bullying techniques and tactics that have served them well in the past and lack self awareness and the ability to process consumer feedback effectively. When you are not a market leader you need to make your platform desirable to people. Don't make yourself into a villain.
I have a One. I have stake in this. I want them to change but topic after topic and action after action show me they are not. It all just amounts to blowing smoke until they change their business model into something that is positive, innovative and creative that focuses on making their system shine instead of trying to hobble and hurt other systems.
You remember when Xbox was creative, positive and innovative right? Look at what we got back then compared to what we have received from them since midway through the 360's lifecycle.
Steverulez
Member
That was Aaron Greenberg...
Night Angel
Member
Same suit (or blazer), different talking head.
He was so sure of something too! So he's just slamming indies for choosing Sony over his beloved MS...guy's a piece of work.
Steverulez
Member
Lol, if you say so.
Phil wears a t-shirt. He's a gamer like us.
ALLseeingEYE
Member
I dunno man, I think MS is on a pretty good trajectory these days. I do think that once the Kinect hit, things really went south for them creatively, but seeing their output these days:
- Sunset Overdrive
- Forza Horizon 2
- Phantom Dust
- Killer Instinct
- Halo 5
- Gears of War
- Quantum Break
- Project Spark
(I'm surely missing many more)
I see a lot of innovation there. In fact, I think the smartest thing they've done is open a bunch of new internal studios instead of buying them outright. They are playing the longterm game, creating new IP's, hiring top notch talent etc.
I understand how it's annoying when they buy up third party timed exclusives, but once again, I don't hate on them for that. I'd rather play everything on PC, but I'm also the type of gamer who doesn't mind waiting a bit if I have to. Perhaps those timed 3rd party exclusives will dry up once their internal teams hit their stride.
Well, the list and cupboard look a bit bare to me. I'm not impressed and honestly it's proof of how far first party fell.
That whole bold part is what I really want. I guess it takes time though.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll