• 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"

Sir TapTap

Member
Does anyone have a list of indies who aren't developing because of the parity clause? Or just simply can't do it.

I know XB1 is missing android assault cactus because of it, are there any more specific to parity?

You can basically assume any indie game not funded by Sony appearing on more than one non-Xbox console is being held back by the parity clause, most aren't willing to say it aloud though.
 
I want Xbox to feel like it's a first class citizen

Apparently Phil believes that the Parity clause is necessary so xbox users can at least feel first class. If that doesn't instill confidence I don't know what does.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
That's a romantic ideal, Phil.
But your console is getting smashed this generation by PS4.
"Beggars can't be choosers" as the saying goes.
With the competition having 2x the install base, you're gonna have to eat leftovers.
Microsoft ID@Xbox has a good line up of games.

To align yourself with Microsoft in exchange of Microsoft helping market your game is not the issue. But that would happen with or without the indie parity clause. (See Sony and Nintendo.)
 
Indie devs have said about a thousand times that the parity clause is extremely problematic.

Hrm, I guess actions need to speak louder than words - I haven't followed the latest indie reactions that closely but I quick Google
ok a quick Bing
doesn't show much positive love for it even with the free dev kits and such like. Maybe I'm too trusting - I tend to take what people say at face value, which is why I pick up on words like "bullying" and choose to respond.

BUT HEY WORKS FOR MS I GUESS IF MS SAYS IT THEY SURELY KNOW BETTER

Dude you have to give it a rest with the "works for MS" stuff like it's some great secret and I'm some kind of PR mouthpiece. It's in my tag and in my profile quite clearly.

Stuff here is my own opinion + interpretation. The only way my employer impacts what I post is a) I won't ever astroturf because it'll get me fired, b) I won't blindly say something's good just because it's MS, and c) I won't write a post explicitly slagging off Microsoft, because the same reason of getting fired. Doesn't mean I won't be critical, but I may just choose to stay quiet sometimes.
 

Eusis

Member
Better to sit in Coach then not be on the plane at all though
Basically (so long as coach isn't a mad house anyway.) It's kind of the problem Sony had in the past really, that SCEA would block straight ports or late releases without extra content, so people were potentially screwed over more than if they just got the game as-is.

Though that's also a bit unique in that it was more frequently a localization obstacle which probably hit lower end games the hardest, I think most late ports had extra content regardless, and that seems like one way to reasonably make an exception: sorry about your wait here's some extra stuff to make up for the wait
and the fact the game maybe won't run as well.
 

Sir TapTap

Member
Microsoft ID@Xbox has a good line up of games.

Anyone got actual numbers of indie releases per month by console/platform? Feels like there's multiple indies dropping every week on PS4 and I seldom hear a peep about recently released Xbox One indies.
 
I understand the point he is trying to make, but it can turn off indie devs as well. Why not just try and work together with more indie devs instead of imposing this type of restriction?
 

Ultimatum

Banned
I understand that. But why have it at all if that's the case? Why do you need to come to an agreement in the first place? No other company does this. It's just an extra step that accomplishes nothing.

Even if I retract the bully comment, it's still completely pointless.

If I have a game that has a deal with Sony, it's not coming to MS. If I have a game that's coming out later for MS, and has no dealing with Sony, I have to sign some waiver for no reason instead just making the damn game. I just don't see the purpose it serves but to make another thing for indie devs to deal with.

If only there was someone in the position at Microsoft for the Xbox devision that could change that terrible clause.

it's a business decision, and it's the right one. If MS removed the clause, indie devs would still get all the benefits of working with MS' indie program, but in 99% of cases they would prioritise the PS4 version since it has higher market share. If a majority of games are releasing first on PS4 then it is damaging to Xbox. I love indie games, and I will always support indie studios, but this clause is a necessary evil.

Unless an insider can provide us information on the negotiations Phil is talking about, then we have no idea how damaging this clause really is to indie devs.
 
Anyone got actual numbers of indie releases per month by console/platform? Feels like there's multiple indies dropping every week on PS4 and I seldom hear a peep about recently released Xbox One indies.

I can't remember which thread it was but someone posted a picture with releases on both consoles . It was pretty one sided in Sony's favout iirc.
 

Amir0x

Banned
“Microsoft’s policies still have parity clauses which mean if we release it on PS4/Vita first, we can’t bring it to their console later so it probably won’t be on Xbox,” he said

Link

That’s the one thing that’s still there and a problem at the moment, because like you said before, a lot of indies simply don’t have the resources.

“You can’t just launch on all platforms at once, because no, we can’t. It’s hell getting a game to work on PC, it’s awful getting it to work on PC, Mac, PS4 and Vita. Adding another format on top of that is insane. With Nuclear Throne, we’re launching on PC first, then focusing on other computer, platforms, then focusing on PS4 and Vita. Then after that, Xbox One after we dodged the parity clause by being jerks [laughs]. That was funny by the way, I had so much fun doing that. When I figured out I could play around with the contract that way, I had a good time.”

Link

Rashid K. Sayed: What are your thoughts on the Xbox One parity clause for indie games. One can think this will actually allow for better games on Xbox Live as the user won’t be simply overload with indie games good or bad. What is your take on this?

Well, as a small developer working to release our first game, it’s rather brutal. Simultaneously shipping is very challenging, especially for small indie teams. The clause (if enforced) means it might not be possible for us to release on Xbox One, even though we wanted to.

Link

Curve's managing director Jason Perkins confirmed that...

"Unfortunately, all these titles here get ruled out by the parity clause,"

"We feel like it's unnecessary handcuffs really," … "but that's the way they've decided to run that."

"We're platform agnostic. We'll support everyone. What works for us is having many as healthy competitors as possible.

"They'll all try and promote the games they've got, and that's what we want. We want a healthy ecosystem, so we want everyone to do well."

Link

Warsaw, Poland-based Crunching Koalas is now a registered ID@Xbox developer, but the company's Tomasz Tomaszewski isn't sure whether its current projects will ever appear on Xbox One. The reason? That day one release parity clause

Link

As Gaynor explains, developing games for a multiplatform, simultaneous release can be a huge undertaking for a small (read: indie) developer. As problems inevitably arise, it’s easier to approach them with one specific platform in mind, rather than having to juggle several. He doesn’t outright say it, but Gaynor suggests that a staggered release is more beneficial to indie developers, as it gives them the ability to release quality products on every platform.

“If you’re talking to Sony and Microsoft, and Microsoft is like, ‘well you can’t be on Xbox if you’re on PlayStation first’, but it’s easier to be on PS4 because they have better terms, then you’ll be like, ‘okay lets just be on PlayStation.’”

Link

But no MS isn't bullying anyone, they just want to treat their customers as FIRST CLASS CITIZENS
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
it's a business decision, and it's the right one. If MS removed the clause, indie devs would still get all the benefits of working with MS' indie program, but in 99% of cases they would prioritise the PS4 version since it has higher market share. If a majority of games are releasing first on PS4 then it is damaging to Xbox. I love indie games, and I will always support indie studios, but this clause is a necessary evil.
I reject your premise that more market share means better sales for each and every game.

If that was true, every developer would make iOS games. But in reality there are a lot of factors and getting ad space and E3 space on Xbox increases the attachment value.
That means even if the PS4 is selling more, the bigger amount of games released every month means you have a bigger competition on that platform in comparison to the Xbone.
 

Wereroku

Member
They just don't want devs to treat X1 as an afterthought or a given. If you can shoehorn in some use of platform unique features (i.e. Kinect), and talk to them upfront (i.e. before you release on PS4), then they'll probably be cool with you releasing later.

Also, is it better to launch first on X1 and get a free devkit or pay for a PS4 and/or Wii U devkit and be locked out of X1?

Aren't they still being incredibly selective on who gets into ID@XBox. Are small devs just supposed to sit on there thumbs and only do a PC version while waiting to see if they are selected and then wait for the dev kits to be sent out. Also I am pretty sure Sony has been pretty good about giving people reduced price or free access to ps4 dev kits.
 

Xando

Member
Microsoft ID@Xbox has a good line up of games.

To align yourself with Microsoft in exchange of Microsoft helping market your game is not the issue. But that would happen with or without the indie parity clause. (See Sony and Nintendo.)

He has a point though.
As the LTD gap continues to increase they wont be able to keep this clause up because some (not all) indies will just ignore the XB1. If this happens more often then not i'll bet you they will drop the clause.
 
Think of all the starving people that you could have fed with the money you wasted on video games.

smh, terrible. There is no comparison between the two. MS could have used that money that appears to truly have been wasted on the NFL to fund indie and 1st party games. It Bringing up issues like world hunger only make you appear to be intentionally missing the point of the statement because of your own bias.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Ultimatum said:
that's because at face value it is a terrible clause, hence why MS try to work things out with smaller studios. Obviously we don't know the extent of the negotiations, but all your posts are fanboy crap so I'm guessing you don't care.

Yeah, I'm a fanboy of NOT FUCKING OVER SMALL DEVS
 
Yeah, it ain't working Phil.

You're still seeing more indies in terms of both quantity and quality appearing on PS4. You just need to look at the offerings on PS+ compared to games for gold. While Sony can throw out 2-3 ps4 indie games a month, you're struggling for one or two a month with gold.

Also Is it still possible for a Dev to dodge the launch parity clause by signing an exlusitivity deal with another company before signing up for id? I'm not sure if it's a per game basis or per developer basis.
 

.la1n

Member
I understand his position and it's nice they are wanting indies to have a conversation with them if there are issues. I feel like it's better for everyone if they just drop it all together. Let indies decide how they want to release their games and the platform will be better off for it.
 

jcm

Member
Well, this make me start to believe they may be enforcing resolution parity for games with co-marketing deals.
 

Xenon

Member
smh, terrible. There is no comparison between the two. MS could have used that money that appears to truly have been wasted on the NFL to fund indie and 1st party games. It Bringing up issues like world hunger only make you appear to be intentionally missing the point of the statement because of your own bias.


Had he used the word funded in lieu of help, I would agree with this.
 

Xando

Member
Wasn't the parity clause related just to content or release dates? Does it really have rules about graphic or technical stuff?

We have official confirmation about the content or release date clause from serveral indies.
The technical clause has no confirmation i think other than assumptions and some insider(?) or some one who should know hinting it.
 

gaming_noob

Member
Now, imagine if Xbox One was the more powerful console and in the lead this generation...would they have had the Monopoly* Clause?

* Not allowed to develop on rival consoles
 
Well, this make me start to believe they may be enforcing resolution parity for games with co-marketing deals.

X-Box "First Class Parity"

Having this parity clause brought back up in the light of the AC: Unity issue is interesting. Like another poster has said, MS needs to separate itself from that word for as long as possible. This is going to be a PR nightmare.
 
Thanks, so anyone hinting that the clause has to do with graphical parity is just speculating, joking or trolling.

No idea. I just know that MS have openly said release date. I know nothing about secret shenanigans that go on behind the scenes, if any. Someone else mentioned content, no idea if that's accurate?
 
Goddammit Phil you were doing so well on reforming the Xbox brand image. Indie teams can rarely turn around two versions of their game at once, just accept MS were late to the indie party and build goodwill by saying 'Hey I know we're late with the love but we're here and we still want your awesome games'.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Goddammit Phil you were doing so well on reforming the Xbox brand image. Indie teams can rarely turn around two versions of their game at once, just accept MS were late to the indie party and build goodwill by saying 'Hey I know we're late with the love but we're here and we still want your awesome games'.

Naaah.

Let's make small devs suffer instead. That makes sense, right?
 

Fox Mulder

Member
I'm very disappointed in the indie support on the xb1 compared to last gen. The stuff that does come out seems to drop from nowhere with no hype or demo and costs $15-30.
 

flkraven

Member
Seems like fair reasoning on his part, however, the partiy clause still sucks. I'd rather they remove the clause and just moneyhat the games they want to be 'first class' or whatever.
 
Top Bottom