Support NeoGAF

[Weltall Zero]

Phil Spincer at his best.

Frankly, the one thing that infuriates me about this is that someone who makes at least ten times as much as I do thought this would be a good idea, and nobody else in the company stepped in (or dared) to tell them this was basically taking indie support to the back yard and shooting it in the head.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I dunno, you tell me.

https://twitter.com/Skullgirls/status/593524998569992192

So it's the former or something changed since that tweet?

This raises an interesting question, what can MS do if developer release the game on 360 and make it BC on X1 to avoid the parity clause?

 

[TheSpoiler]

So it's the former or something changed since that tweet?

This raises an interesting question, what can MS do if developer release the game on 360 and make it BC on X1 to avoid the parity clause?

Meaning nothing has changed since that tweet, as far as I'm aware, so they are doing the BC route to bypass it.

Really, they can't do shit since it's a separate thing. I would hope they can't, at least. But those list are decided by MS so I don't know. The pure fact that they have to resort to using BC is abhorrent and telling of MS's wonderful parity clause.

 

[Fox Mulder]

That's how I read it, too. If resource is an issue, that's no issue. If an exclusivity deal has been made, then that's when he feels Xbox owners should have something a little different.

There must be stats to back them up, but I dont give a shit about exclusive content or release windows. The job of a platform is to provide excellent games to get my money.

Xbla was so good last generation and it has just fallen off hard on the xb1, at least for me.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Meaning nothing has changed since that tweet, as far as I'm aware, so they are doing the BC route to bypass it.

Really, they can't do shit since it's a separate thing. I would hope they can't, at least. But those list are decided by MS so I don't know. The pure fact that they have to resort to using BC is abhorrent and telling of MS's wonderful parity clause.

It is, but at the same time, it's an avenue for developers to consider should MS continue down this idiotic path and I'm not sure MS would stop a game from being available through BC, then again though....

I'd hope that if enough developers start to do it that in itself would send a message to drop the clause, but with how staunchly they keep defending it, that doesn't seem likely.

 

[EGM1966]

Trying to make no change sound like a change seems to me.

Clause is still there, MS will work around it if it suits them and their preference is still Xbox first.

I don't see the change just clearer confirmation they'll bend their own rules which was already known.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I dunno, you tell me.

https://twitter.com/Skullgirls/status/593524998569992192

This is why that policy is shit people.

Have fun with the 360 version because of no "MC skin". (if MSFT allows it)

 

[Weltall Zero]

And like someone mentioned earlier, if adding something as simple as a Warthog to Rocket League or Battletoads to Shovel Knight can get by on the "clause", then what is the issue?

Pardon me, do you work in game development? If the answer is no, where the hell is your assessment of "simple" coming from?

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Xbla was so good last generation and it has just fallen off hard on the xb1, at least for me.

Last gen they were able to enforce such rules due to the install base, to the detriment of the PS3, but a clause like this only works when you have that advantage.

 

[xxracerxx]

Pardon me, do you work in game development? If the answer is no, where the hell is your assessment of "simple" coming from?

Want to see some real shit? Take a gander at this gem:

Really, what people's problems with this clause. Extra content doesn't mean devs have to put in some totally new mode or feature, it can be something small like Battletoads in Shovel Knight. I doubt that took much dev time, but was a nice bonus for Xbone users.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Want to see some real shit? Take a gander at this gem:

 

[Trust me. I'm a PhD]

Want to see some real shit? Take a gander at this gem:

Is this the new "Lazy dev?" The "Development is easy?"

 

[BONKERS]

Did you have one of those other platforms? Why didn't you buy it when it was fresh and new?
If you didn't have one of those platforms, then this is the first time you are able to play it, so it *is* fresh and new to you.

This 'best played before' expiration date shit needs to stop.


Also, this doesn't apply if you have a game that is popular and people are talking about. Then MS might let you through with no changes. So it isn't just unfair, it is disproportionately unfair towards the smaller devs that can't afford it.

This.

Not everyone has every platform either.

Regardless of whether it comes on the same day. When games get released on a new platform with or without new content it gives it a chance for a whole new audience.

 

[xxracerxx]

Is this the new "Lazy dev?" The "Development is easy?"

Possibly. I really just want to shake that guy and make him understand what he said is utter horseshit.

"Oh I don't want a new mode or feature, so just add a new level with new art assets and a boss fight. I mean that shit is easy to do and the least you can do."

Fuck that shit, how can you even think that?

 

[DeepEnigma]

This.

Not everyone has every platform either.

Regardless of whether it comes on the same day. When games get released on a new platform with or without new content it gives it a chance for a whole new audience.

Yep, Sony, and probably Nintendo now, gets it.

Maybe Boyes and Shu need to do another video together about "parity clause", so it goes viral and forces MSFT's hand to drop the BS.

 

[Kayant]

Now take a look at our new feature, backwards compatibility and have I shown you this Rare game?

Good point.... Really shows you the amount of faults in this statement.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Want to see some real shit? Take a gander at this gem:

Eeesh. Well, his username seems to be spot on at least, regarding what that post made me feel.

 

[Mpl90]

Yep, Sony, and probably Nintendo now, gets it.

Maybe Boyes and Shu need to do another video together about "parity clause", so it goes viral and forces MSFT's hand to drop the BS.

Yeah, it's strange, but I feel that Nintendo has better indie policies than MS, right now. And that's just a shock, considering how last gen went.

 

[benny_a]

Yeah, it's strange, but I feel that Nintendo has better indie policies than MS, right now. And that's just a shock, considering how last gen went.

Nintendo has been good for awhile in that area. They just don't advertise that they are this friendly as well as Sony does.

 

[Gren]

You gotta give it to Spencer. He spouts a lot of stuff, but when he says it, it sounds like he means it. And he says it directly to his audience.

But only time will truly tell.

Lol, from everything I've read Phil is the embodiment of the roundabout, non-answer. If he wasn't a spokesman for both indie publishing and Windows 10, I wouldn't even pay him much attention personally.

 

[demigod]

This is the same guy who was the general manager of Microsoft Game Studios worldwide since 2008. The same guy who was also a part of Microsoft's E3 conferences since E3 2010 with the constant "Halo, Forza, Gears, Kinect, & Media" debacle. The same guy who led the development of "TV, TV, TV, Sports, NFL," etc.

Link 1.

Link 2.

I'm just amazed that people were blindly praising him for everything that he says.



You need to wake up & smell the coffee, dude.

Ho ly shit, i didnt know he was responsible for tv tv tv NFL TV. Poor Mattrick took all the blame.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Ho ly shit, i didnt know he was responsible for tv tv tv NFL TV. Poor Mattrick took all the blame.

I'm not seeing where it says Spencer was responsible for the TV direction or the NFL deal.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Ho ly shit, i didnt know he was responsible for tv tv tv NFL TV. Poor Mattrick took all the blame.

The circle is now complete.

 

[Toki767]

I'm not seeing where it says Spencer was responsible for the TV direction or the NFL deal.

It's in his Xbox.com bio. He led the team that got the NFL partnership.

 

[Grimgrillz]

Is it possible this message is being aimed at Sean Murray and Hello Games? If so I think NMS is with PS4 for a year.

 

[sam777]

A lot of people are missing a point that this clause only comes into affect if a developer takes money off Sony or Nintendo to be exclusive for a period of time. So it won't affect small teams who can only operate on a staggered release basis.

 

[DeepEnigma]

A lot of people are missing a point that this clause only comes into affect if a developer takes money off Sony or Nintendo to be exclusive for a period of time. So it won't affect small teams who can only operate on a staggered release basis.

I would like to see proof on this.

(And judging by the past, Sony/Nintendo does not do this regardless if true or not.)

 

[Peterpan]

It's in his Xbox.com bio. He led the team that got the NFL partnership.

When I google what you said, it leads me to this forum or to some slash gear article. So not sure if what you refering about is from the slash gear article.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

It's in his Xbox.com bio. He led the team that got the NFL partnership.

Ah, thank you. I didn't notice it, really strange.

Well that's a surprise. Mattrick got all the blame for that one at the time too...

 

[sirap]

When I google what you said, it leads me to this forum or to some slash gear article. So not sure if what you refering about is from the slash gear article.

Spencer and team led the development of brand new entertainment offerings including a landmark partnership with the NFL and collaborating with industry luminary Steven Spielberg to bring a new Halo live action TV series to life.

There you go.

 

[Mr. X]

A lot of people are missing a point that this clause only comes into affect if a developer takes money off Sony or Nintendo to be exclusive for a period of time. So it won't affect small teams who can only operate on a staggered release basis.

I didn't miss that, it's harmful. What a needless distinction on where funding came from.

"Oh you took a year exclusivity to secure funding or recoup costs? Gotta give a little something something if you want to release an XBone version"

 

[JaseC]

A lot of people are missing a point that this clause only comes into affect if a developer takes money off Sony or Nintendo to be exclusive for a period of time. So it won't affect small teams who can only operate on a staggered release basis.

My memory on games that have been caught up in the parity clause is rather fuzzy, but if it serves, he's playing with the truth and in fact referring in general to games that release on a competing console platform first.

 

[dragonelite]

The whole "Phil Spencer is just empty statements" narrative is beyond annoying at this point. And it's as if people have never worked a day in their life before. With headstrong people like Balmer and Mattrick calling the shots, you really think Phil Spencer was a crucial component of all things bad with Xbox? It's a top down business bruh. There's a reason Xbox changed significantly once Balmer and Mattrick were pushed.

Loved it when phill said he would put BC on the list, and people claimed he will say everything to fans. Then this E3 ..

But yeah directions/policies come from the top and trickle down to the bottom.

 

[Carl]

A lot of people are missing a point that this clause only comes into affect if a developer takes money off Sony or Nintendo to be exclusive for a period of time. So it won't affect small teams who can only operate on a staggered release basis.

Shouldn't matter where the developer got their funding from. If i make a game and Sony gives me some money for 6 months exclusivity, and then i want to release it on Xbox, why shouldn't i be able to just release it? To the vast majority of people there, the game will be entirely new and fresh without adding anything extra.

 

[oldergamer]

I'm not certain why people are combing over the obvious points here. The policy now, despite the spin is different from what it once was. If you can't afford to make both platforms at the same time, and PS4 is first, then you are NOT blocked from releasing on Xbox one ( which was the real parity close before ).

If you received an exclusive deal/payment on PS4 and want to release on Xbox one a year later, they are asking for some extra content ( which most games would need if they are re-releasing a year later anyway )

Phil says this has been in effect for a few months.

Not sure why some people are all up in arms about it.I think most people here didn't know what the parity clause was.

 

[LewieP]

It really does seem like the best way to get MS to waive their parity policy is to ignore them and achieve success on other platforms.

Which a large number of developers are doing. To the detriment of the Xbox One library.

 

[oldergamer]

Shouldn't matter where the developer got their funding from. If i make a game and Sony gives me some money for 6 months exclusivity, and then i want to release it on Xbox, why shouldn't i be able to just release it? To the vast majority of people there, the game will be entirely new and fresh without adding anything extra.

I don't think sony is doing 6 month exclusive deals. They are doing 1 year for most indie games. In that case it makes sense.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I don't think sony is doing 6 month exclusive deals. They are doing 1 year for most indie games. In that case it makes sense.

It never makes sense, especially when it is "selective". It only hurts their consumers/smaller developers in the end.

If Nintendo or Sony does not have this, how the fuck can anyone (outside naive or fans) say, "Oh yeah, this is good, this makes sense. We want less games if it came out on another platform first and not include my Master Chief skin."

Come on people. The Ecto-Cooler is strong it appears.

 

[FranXico]

Ah, thank you. I didn't notice it, really strange.

Well that's a surprise. Mattrick got all the blame for that one at the time too...

Well, Mattrick was the boss at the time, so that made him the obvious scape goat. How could only one person be responsible for all the things that MS/Xbox was doing wrong at that time?

This new Spencer persona is all marketing and PR to appease and convince the most gullible gamers of how they really are "the good guys", and to counter the marketing effort Sony has been making with how they portray the likes of Boyes, Yoshida, Cerny, etc.

To be clear, I do think MS are honestly putting a lot of effort to right all their wrongs, it's just that they needed a messianic figure to go with it. And so, they made one from the most likable public guy in their team.

 

[Mr. X]

Spencer leading the team for whatever deal means he was given the task.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

Spencer leading the team for whatever deal means he was given the task.

That guy sure is slippery. Truly an expert blame-avoider.

 

[Friction]

Came to read about the parity clause, discovered a phil spencer hate thread.

On topic. I really hope MS finally gives in and allow devs to port things quickly to xbo. Making case by case exceptions isnt good or fast enough.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

Came to read about the parity clause, discovered a phil spencer hate thread.

Oh no! Hope things aren't too rough for you!

If you look, you'll find plenty of love for him as well. Balanced, you could say.

 

[LiquidSolid]

Nintendo has been good for awhile in that area. They just don't advertise that they are this friendly as well as Sony does.

Well they've got the least popular system and don't really have the scale Sony's third party relations team have, so that makes sense.

I don't think sony is doing 6 month exclusive deals. They are doing 1 year for most indie games. In that case it makes sense.

I'm going to call bullshit here. Source?

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

If you just look at the amount of games PS4 users have access to, over and above what Xbox One users have access to, it becomes pretty clear that for a variety of reasons, the PS4 is the more attractive console to publish on for devs in general, but especially indie devs.

Devs have said that the perception in the industry is that MS makes you jump through hoops nobody else does in order to publish on the XBO.
Whether you believe in the parity clause or not, MS clearly has an issue attracting some developers and THAT is a problem.

I don't think they have an issue attracting devs.

 

[Montresor]

Hmm I dont see a problem with asking a dev to add something new to a game if the platform is getting a late port. That is WAY better than the old horrible clause that basically said "if there's no release date parity then you are never releasing on xb1". Also, as some others have said, there seem to be plenty of games on xb1 that release late and don't have new content, right?

Phil's answer was a bit unclear but what's really important to me is that Microsoft does not have that older release date parity silliness for indies.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

Hmm I dont see a problem with asking a dev to add something new to a game if the platform is getting a late port. That is WAY better than the old horrible clause that basically said "if there's no release date parity then you are never releasing on xb1".

But still not as good as 'you can release the game when it's done, no problem. If we can help you achieve that, let us know what you need'.

 

[CaviarMeths]

It's honestly baffling that there is a defense force for a policy that is, in the most pure and stark sense of the phrase, against the consumer. Being a consumer is all about having choices and feeling empowered in those choices. If you don't like a product, you have the option to simply not buy it, or buy a competing product instead. What this policy does is remove the option. You don't get to look at a game and decide for yourself, with your own money, if that game is right for you or not.

Wanting to avoid a situation where your customers feel like "second class customers" doesn't work when you don't allow them to spend their own money discriminately. Very ironically, this policy is doing to its customers what Mr. Spencer said they were trying to avoid in the first place.

And of course this is bad for developers too. It's like Xbox is so big that they legitimately do not understand that some indie developers are a very small team and work long hours to put out a product that may not see any return on their investment for years. This is why so many accept funding from a publisher or platform holder. Otherwise, they may not even be able to make the game at all. Does Microsoft not understand that if somebody quits their day job to develop a game, they do not have an income and cannot, y'know, sustain life? Food and shelter cost money...

And then a year later when the game is released, yay, they made some money, and it's time to start a new development cycle on a new product, Microsoft comes in and says "Oh yeah, if you want to release on our platform, you have to use that money you made on another platform to develop more content for ours. For free of course, lol. Also, there's a few more things you should know, which are <SUBJECT TO NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT>." And ironically again, it's seemingly only the more prominent, popular indie devs that get waived for this policy. The devs that this is hurting most are the ones that need the most help.

It's against the consumer, it's against the developer, and if you're sitting there thinking "yeah, I'm not buying a game at full price a year late, so hooray for Microsoft," you're being very selfish.

 

[Ardenyal]

Sooo... Who is going to take over Xbox after Spencer is offed?

 

[Montresor]

But still not as good as 'you can release the game when it's done, no problem. If we can help you achieve that, let us know what you need'.

Again - I don't see the problem with asking for more content for a late port. It would actually be quite nice to have something new on the xb1 version. And like I already said it seems like this isn't even enforced. There are loads of games releasing late without new content.

See caviermeths's post - what he wrote is exactly how I felt when the clause was "if there is no release date parity then your game is NEVER allowed to release on xbox". That was a clause that made no sense and did truly go against xbox consumers.

All I can say, "god dammit Spencer, stop I obfuscating and be clear!" Binding of Isaac coming SUPER late next week and it wont have any new content.

So while I like the idea of new content for late ports, I would welcome any late vanilla ports period, and that seems to be routinely happening on xb1.