Yea it really sucks. Especially considering if Microsoft wanted to get it done they easily could hire another studio to get it done. It's a real slap in the face and Microsoft/Spencer lost a lot of love from people like me.
-
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: Parity is a hell of a Clause
- Thread starter Neuromancer
- Start date
Yea it really sucks. Especially considering if Microsoft wanted to get it done they easily could hire another studio to get it done. It's a real slap in the face and Microsoft/Spencer lost a lot of love from people like me.
Crayon
Member
Yes if Sony wanted to be incredibly short sighted and stupid, they could implement the same tactic. The problem is that it's selfish in the sense that it benefits noone but them and their partners and users have to pay the price. Should a king be loved by his people? Or feared?
And Sony get free PR from consumers and developers and they literally just don't have to do what MS are doing to get it.
Sony's PR department must high five themselves whenever the parity clause comes up amongst develop and consumers.
Hey, I'm not saying they should. Their current position is working well for them by "playing nice".
It's just weird that Microsoft is banking on them not retaliating one way or another. The trouble of getting into the trenches of anti-competitive contracts is that the market leader may start doing the same.
I actually think this is okay for tentpole releases. If your game is going to sell hundreds of thousands on my platform or even millions, I want you to put the effort in to make it worthwhile for my customers if you're going to bring it late. A little more content isn't much to ask for something that's going to rake in lots of money thanks to my platforms existence. It's just for the little guys where maybe its a bit overkill.
Microsoft are just trying to keep their customers happy. Its a shame Nintendo didn't have a similar policy on Wii U at launch because it would have been better to have no ports at all than gimped, late ports arriving as trilogies and sequels arrived on other platforms.
Microsoft are just trying to keep their customers happy. Its a shame Nintendo didn't have a similar policy on Wii U at launch because it would have been better to have no ports at all than gimped, late ports arriving as trilogies and sequels arrived on other platforms.
This; Sony doesn't have to do jack.
Just let your competitor fuck up constantly with their PR about this, then just sit back & reap all the rewards.
No, they aren't. They are trying to strong-arm developers into simultaneous releases. Let devs figure out what will be required to make their new customers happy, while also keeping in mind that they have other customers that should be kept happy, too.
Regardless, as we know exceptions are made precisely for the games that will sell a lot, so the point is moot.
Also, how would that be better for the Wii U? Are you somehow under the impression that forcing developers to do anything would have resulted in more and/or better third party support? If anything, their openness and willingness to help gave the console a pretty healthy indie support situation, despite the dire third party releases. You are totally off base here.
The only thing I can imagine is that, as the Xbox One userbase grows, it will strengthen more and more Microsoft's bargaining situation when the time to "come talk to them" comes around. If they can weather the PR storm, their position to ask for more content and/or simultaneous release strengthens over the next couple of years, since it becomes harder for indie devs to forego releasing on Xbox altogether.
Sonys PR must have been on champagne since the Xbox One reveal.
Last gen Sony gifted MS an easy target early on. This gen MS repaid the debt in spades initially.
I still don't get the attachment to the clause though. MS have thrown so many aspects of XB1 under the bus to recover I don't get why they don't do the same with this.
Crayon
Member
There is little precedent for sony doing things like that. Sony just makes products, markets and sells them the old fashioned way. Microsoft on the other hand is in a constant multi-faceted platform war and "sort of has to" do stuff like that all the time. Sony and ms are different kind of corporate behemoths, and probably cooperate more than they compete.
As a result, it's would be very very hard to beat microsoft at it's own game. When ms seeks to control something, openess is often the safest and cheapest response. IE.... microsoft has got the stick out, go get the carrots.
WordsintheWater
Member
Whatever way they try to spin this thing, the proof is in the pudding. There are almost double the amount of indies coming to the PS4.
Neat.
This thread isn't about tentpole releases. It's about those "little guys". The ones being bent over for a policy that benefits nobody but the platform holder, and the ones who can least afford it. I wonder how happy those customers are thanks to the significant numbers of games that aren't coming to their platform, and the devs who aren't even bothering to have "a talk" with Microsoft.
It is an asinine, anti-competitive policy designed to strong arm devs.
WordsintheWater
Member
How people don't understand this and even defend this practice is a joke
Crayon
Member
Here is a beautiful documentary about the power and technological sophistication of PR:
http://freedocumentaries.org/documentary/bbc-the-century-of-the-self-happiness-machines-season-1-episode-1
And it's only four hours.
Edit: my apologies for reading this as a more broad issue and if I don't understand the historical context of this policy...
Nintendo are THE example that devs can't be trusted to treat audiences with respect, nor can they be trusted to act in the interests of maintaining a competitive marketplace. The PS2 should live long in the memory for companies like Microsoft, a reminder of how competitors can suck in content by virtue of every success and establish insane dominance. Publishers need Microsoft's platforms at the moment, as they are one half of the equation when it comes to their big AAA releases. I don't blame them for protecting themselves from shoddy late releases and abusive publishing practices.
Like I say, I appreciate that for Indies this is a whole other matter, and is causing Microsoft to lose games - but again - some indie games have value. If you're going to lay with a competitor and release at full price, why should I let you port that product late, again at full value, when its lost whatever value it had in the indie cultural zeitgeist and ceased to be 'new'? Better that you add value for any subsequent releases anyway. Not just for the benefit of the platforms you release late on, but for the benefit of keeping your game fresh IMO. Of course I'm aware that some games and development teams would see this as a burden. Perhaps there ought to be a system of exemption.
As for Wii U: Cash ins like the late Darksiders II and Mass Effect 3 ports were bad ideas that were manifestly damaging to the reputation of the platform in early days. They were late old games, running badly. I'm being hard on the developers actually as its not their fault, but when it comes to a publishers motivation, ME3 releasing at launch, so late after other versions, and with a trilogy around the corner - it was just cynical. Look at how they leveraged their EA Access issues with Sony to deliver benefits to Microsoft too. These publishers have agendas and they can be predatory sharks who would happily distort the market and play King-maker if you let them.
Nobody is talking about AAA releases in this thread. Why do you keep bringing those up as if it's relevant to this discussion?
Your attitude regarding indies is toxic. Thanks to the openness of PC/PS4 development, marketing and sales, MS needs indies this generation more than indies need MS. Why jump through (independently established, mind!) hoops to get on a platform that's being outsold 2:1 at minimum when other options are readily available to make money?
Let me make this clear - this isn't last generation anymore. The clause would work great for Microsoft if they were the market leader and able to leverage that arm-twisting to either keep games from PS4 or force simultaneous launches - financial damage to developers be damned.
Your attitude regarding indies is toxic. Thanks to the openness of PC/PS4 development, marketing and sales, MS needs indies this generation more than indies need MS. Why jump through (independently established, mind!) hoops to get on a platform that's being outsold 2:1 at minimum when other options are readily available to make money?
Let me make this clear - this isn't last generation anymore. The clause would work great for Microsoft if they were the market leader and able to leverage that arm-twisting to either keep games from PS4 or force simultaneous launches - financial damage to developers be damned.
julzillamilitia
Banned
some of the posts in this thread are like a masterclass in corporate apologistisms
Crayon
Member
Whoa. You are operating from flawed premises.
It's not the job of publishers or other game-sellers to maintain the competitiveness of the market. And competitiveness of the market is not defined be equal market share between platform holders.
I just feel as though that's probably what guides Microsoft's thinking. They see every game everyone hopes to bring out as an asset, and they want to manage things so that its harder to argue their platform is a second class system. Even when it comes to indie games.
I understand the arguments that it is backfiring, and that it's manifestly not working for them, I guess I just kind of feel like thats where the motivation comes from. A protectionist tendency towards the reputation of the library.
So if a dev has timed exclusivity deal with another console platform then MS wants them to add something when it eventually comes to the Xbox? Is that right?
Have they specified what that "something" is? If it's something small like a new character skin etc. then I don't see the problem.
Have they specified what that "something" is? If it's something small like a new character skin etc. then I don't see the problem.
Fuz
Banned
One half? They're actually less than one third.
You, Chubigans, Ravidrath, and Amir0x have all made very clear, comprehensive commentary in each one of these threads as they've popped up.
And people make all kinds of posts and comments that have nothing to do with the actual subject matter, or if they do, they do so with a flagrant disregard for the devs impacted by this, or with blatant ignorance of exactly what they're talking about.
It blows me away how this happens every time this subject is brought up. Every time!
I swear these regurgitated arguments are so tired at this point.
Yes, Microsoft is trying to keep their customers happy - by ensuring they get significantly less games and being awful to the most vulnerable devs in the industry.
Bravo, Microsoft. How altruistic of you. Fucking absurd.
I want to make it clear that even though bishoptl is right that the strategy would work if they were in first and had command of the industry, even that's a nasty way to be. And this gen Sony proves you don't have to be that way to be successful. So it'd still be fucked up.
Indie developers see a problem, which is more important than if you see a problem.
Yes it's in the OP. "Lets work together" a.k.a no options.
To us it may be small but to devs that need to put extra time and money into developing that content it isn't. Also there is no reason MS should be the special snowflake in the industry that requires this because neither Sony or Nintendo require anything extra if you made a deal with MS in the past.
Sony won't do it. They've way too openly professed that indies will never face any obstacles to release on PS like with Adam Boyes's famous tweet about the requirements to go back on it now.
MS is just clinging onto that hope that they can use those strongarm tactics like last gen again someday. Let them dream.
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
Well no, you wouldn't. Unfortunately this isn't about you and your tolerance for bullshit.
Do you know how much something like a new character skin costs to implement?
Someone else in this thread yesterday was like "it'll just take a few minutes" (paraphrasing) and I had to get off the net and go outside. It all costs money and when your margins are thin or non-existent from the jump, you shouldn't have to do that to get on a platform that needs you more than you need it.
It's OK, the Titanic is sinking and he doesn't see a problem because he's sitting on the iceberg watching. I have no idea why those passengers are shrieking, it looks like a nice ship from here.
I lost my shit at threesome and multiplatform. Fuck me LMAO.
I broadly agree with your position but the relevancy of AAA games is that the parity is something that has always existed in some form for Xbox, for all games.
I suspect the reason they won't abandon it for smaller games/ID@Xbox is that if they were to not have the policy, it would be very difficult for them to enforce the same for the likes of Ubisoft/EA/Activision.
They'd be in real trouble if big publishers started putting out their games weeks and months later on Xbox than PS4, so the parity policy is something they are clinging to for all games.
Do you know how much something like a new character skin costs to implement?
Someone else in this thread yesterday was like "it'll just take a few minutes" (paraphrasing) and I had to get off the net and go outside. It all costs money and when your margins are thin or non-existent from the jump, you shouldn't have to do that to get on a platform that needs you more than you need it.
People are insanely shortsighted when they say how easy it is, like that guy in this thread that said the Battletoads section of Shovel Knight was an easy and quick thing to do.
Here it is:
I just can't get over how utterly stupid this whole comment is.
Neuromancer
Member
A good game is a good game and should be worthwhile on its own, regardless of whether the devs had to spend a lot of extra time and resources putting in a console specific character or level.
If Microsofts' customers would rather not have a game at all, rather than a few months late, then their customers are idiots.
According to at least one poster in this thread Sony already does this for certain developers. I think we've seen every shit post this thread.
Ninja Scooter
Member
You are being naive if you think that. You think MS is in any position to tell big guys like Activision or EA "don't bring your games to Xbox unless you add something special!". Those companies aren't in a position to be pushed around. Smaller pubs and developers with potentially much less leverage (and less money) though might be.
Feel like I kicked a bee hive here, I've probably waded in and shared my initial thoughts without reading enough on the matter.
If PC/PS4 and other platforms offer such freedom - I'm confused as to why we're bothered if Microsoft are alienating devs through this practice. Are we angry as Xbox One owners because we're missing out on games we have to get elsewhere or are we angry on behalf of developers because they're choosing to forgo a presence on Xbox when they're unable to comply?
I would understand the argument if it's just that if Microsoft opened up everyone would make more money and there'd be more games. Is that the gist of this?
Also, apologies if I'm displaying crazy levels of ignorance or something and we've got developers here who've been negatively effected. I haven't kept my ear that close to the ground on issues like this, I play plenty of indie games - I probably don't follow the politics behind development as much as I should.
If PC/PS4 and other platforms offer such freedom - I'm confused as to why we're bothered if Microsoft are alienating devs through this practice. Are we angry as Xbox One owners because we're missing out on games we have to get elsewhere or are we angry on behalf of developers because they're choosing to forgo a presence on Xbox when they're unable to comply?
I would understand the argument if it's just that if Microsoft opened up everyone would make more money and there'd be more games. Is that the gist of this?
Also, apologies if I'm displaying crazy levels of ignorance or something and we've got developers here who've been negatively effected. I haven't kept my ear that close to the ground on issues like this, I play plenty of indie games - I probably don't follow the politics behind development as much as I should.
Crayon
Member
The problem is when you are relatively lax and cooperative with the big guys, and willing to outright bully little guys.
Not surprised you can't see the problem, but here is a post from Ravi that illustrates this point.
Not everyone owns multiple platforms.
I don't accept this argument at all.
Publishers already have the resources for simultaneous development, indie developers don't. Publishers' marketing spend rely on maximizing cross-platform sales, which is why it would be cutting their own throats to deliver a late version of AAA Open World Jankfest at $69.99 a pop. Indie developers rely much more on word of mouth and fan marketing, which is why a title like Super Meat Boy or Bastion can come to PlayStation years after the initial release and still be prepped for success.
Ironically, it's the agility of indie development in today's marketplace that allows for them to move around as they see fit. PS3 coming out late? Xbox 360 has the platform and spotlight you need! Xbone fucking up? PS4 is outselling it 2:1 and Sony doesn't care if you bring your game to PC as well. Hell, take it to Xbone at your own time if that'll help your financial situation. Big publishers don't have that option, not if they want to succeed at that level.
End of the day, the people at MS are incredibly smart and can't be using a blanket policy for both AAA and indie. This is a powerplay against a group that can least afford it, and it's incredibly fortunate for indie devs that this generation's market breakdown has turned out the way it has.
All I see here personally is MS being late to the party with their plans, not wanting lost out when their competitors gain. Which is why they are still hanging on to the clause and as we see here Phil is trying to divert some negativity away from it much like they have done with "The cloud" and now referring to them as dedicated servers. The only reason they keep this is because they always win because they gain something something no matter what the competitor does.
Crayon
Member
I'm angry because I've always wanted to make games but it has been to hard for me or perhaps I never wanted it enough. But I have tried so I have great respect for the people who are doing it. The though of these people being directly fucked around by the biggest software player in the world makes me angry.
Ninja Scooter
Member
People on GAF are indie developers themselves, or tight with indie devs, or just in general sympathetic to the situation of people that make games we play and enjoy but don't necessarily get rich doing it. Of course a policy that just adds an unnecessary hardship to that situation is going to draw ire.
What? Where? Unless it's pub-fund related, which is a different kettle of fish entirely.
Alec
Member
I was just about to mention SMB. I will buy the shit out of that game, for what will be like the 5th time.
Here - And said poster was talking out of their ass and has still not provided receipts to back up their claim.
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
Yep, have on PC but really wanted it for PS4 and Vita, so I'll be buying it vanilla version or not. The game is great.
Edit: Looks like Phoenix Fang is going to have to expand on his shit 'n run from earlier, after dodging all previous requests.
If anyone wants even a tiny sense of what the struggle for indie devs is like, read this overview written by Nine Dots Studio head Guillaume Boucher-Vidal.
Then add on top of this struggle things like "add red tape to talk to King Phil Spencer if it's OK not to add content" or "add in a new character or level so they can be happy."
Then add on top of this struggle things like "add red tape to talk to King Phil Spencer if it's OK not to add content" or "add in a new character or level so they can be happy."
Similar threads
- Locked