Support NeoGAF

[CambriaRising]

So..it's still not dead.

 

[Kaako]

YES or NO mothasucka, do you speak it?

 

[statham]

So Rocket League ever gonna come to Xbox, because they need to court that game they are missing out.

edit: probably not...

https://twitter.com/RocketLeague/status/619973340405481473

I read that as yes, but we can't talk about it.

 

[stargateheaven]

"So there's no parity clause, but there is a parity clause."

 

[krypt0nian]

Parity clause (what's the definition of clause, Phil?) - still in effect


Ah well, expect the list of downloadables to steadily still increase on PS4.

 

[wenis]

So..it's still not dead.

in so few little words, absolutely maybe.

 

[3rdamention]

Wow, gimme a break, he says there is no clause, then goes on to describe how there is a clause....

 

[xxracerxx]

So basically the platform leader gets the game first and the secondary platforms want a little extra to sell the game. I see can understand the frustration, but when Sony did it for PS3 games, where was the outrage? They are leading this generation and all of sudden this practice is now seen as a bad one.

Oh boy.

If this shit keeps games off a system then it is bad, no matter what the console.

 

[Ray Down]

So basically the platform leader gets the game first and the secondary platforms want a little extra to sell the game. I see can understand the frustration, but when Sony did it for PS3 games, where was the outrage? They are leading this generation and all of sudden this practice is now seen as a bad one.

It was bad then when Sony did it, it's bad now when Microsoft does it.

 

[epmode]

The doublespeak on this issue over the last few years is astonishing. STOP TALKING, YOU'RE MAKING IT WORSE.

Finally, some progress. A little denial mixed in still, but a huge improvement.

Sounds unchanged to me.

 

[Crayon]

Omg why am I so optimistic? Does noone else detect a change in inertia here? I understand that we need to see results and not lip service, but I detect a shift in message here.


This sounds like some revisionism on the part of this Phil kid and I have to ask why. I take this statement as a sign that they are going to let this horseshit just fade away. If the statement still sounds slimy and intentionally ambiguous... well it's microsoft idk what to say. If they are going to just pretend it never existed then at least they're managing to do the right thing in their own way.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

That's not transparent at all, but I've been seeing more of these indie games with PC releases, so I guess something is happening.

 

[bananafactory]

but that's before release vs after. has microsoft not helped any indie devs before release vs asking for extra content because they went exclusive because of external deals?

Of course they have helped them before. Other companies have also courted games and devs that already released their game. Gio Corsi's entire job is basically finding existing games that people like and bringing them to Playstation. There's no reason MS can't do the same

 

[King_Moc]

Yeah, that's the same deal. Punishing indies for not picking Microsoft first.

 

[Zombie James]

Edge: Is the parity clause dead now?

Spencer: I think so. There's this idea that's been named 'parity clause', but there is no clause. We've come out and been very transparent in the last four or five months about exactly what we want.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

"There is no parity clause. It never existed. That don't make no damn sense..."

"Yes there's a parity clause"

 

[Newtype-001]

So basically the platform leader gets the game first and the secondary platforms want a little extra to sell the game. I see can understand the frustration, but when Sony did it for PS3 games, where was the outrage? They are leading this generation and all of sudden this practice is now seen as a bad one.

Theres no "good side" to this. Stop.

 

[matrixman92]

huh? Am I missing something? His answer seemed pretty damn clear and made 100% sense to me. I dont understand what people are mad about, someone help me please.

 

[TomShoe]

https://twitter.com/RocketLeague/status/619973340405481473

I read that as yes, but we can't talk about it.

They'll probably add one of those...uh...I forgot what those cars are called in Halo. One of those.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

I believe in Phil Spencer hurr hurr.

Just more PR talk. Remove the clause or stop taking. Bringing attention to your idiotic practices doesn't do you any good.

 

[Journey]

Q: "Is the parity clause dead?"

A: "Yes, it never existed! All we do is require the things people say are in the parity clause!"

TMU, the original parity clause was that if a game released on PS3 first, forget about releasing it later on Xbox 360 later, you either release it on both, or you're locked out.

Is that gone? yes, but there are those that refuse to let it go. "Parity Clause" description has evolved from what I described above, to:

"If you can't release on both, come talk to us first and we'll help you make it happen"

To: "If you released on Sony first and want to come to Xbox later, that's fine, but lets talk about making that title exciting again by adding extra content"

To: insert the next "Goal Post Parity Clause meaning Here"__________________.

 

[R3TRODYCE]

If another platform does a deal with you as a developer to build an exclusive version of your game for them, and you can't ship on my platform for a year, when the game comes out in a year let's just work together to make it special in some way.

Eh doesn't seem so bad tbh.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Sounds like there's still a clause in effect even if it's not an official one. I understand why MS would want something like that, but it's bad if the majority of developers are passing on it.

 

[Xando]

"There is no parity clause*"

Spoiler

"*As long as you release first or at the same time on out plattform"

Sounds like more of the same of what they have been saying the last few months.

 

[BobTheFork]

As your leader, I encourage you from time to time, and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced that a particular policy is the wisest, tell me so, but allow me to work with you to make it special because I promise you right here and now, no one wants your old game. Unless, of course, you actually add new content to it. The price you pay for bringing up parity clause as a negative is... I collect your fucking head. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the fucking time!

 

[WowZipZipBoomBoomWow]

I recall the PR spin a while back about how the parity clause was about giving XBO users a "first class" experience, yet PSN has almost double the digital / downloadable / indie titles on it's store.

The irony that XBO users are second-rate citizens because of these shitty policies.

And we're all second rate citizens when publishers decide to play along with MS's game.

 

[Hibiki Kurosawa]

I don't know Phil, that still sounds a lot like your parity clause.

 

[Nafai1123]

It's not a parity clause so much as a parity suggestion that we require unless you beg for forgiveness.

Spoiler

/s

 

[StrongBlackVine]

huh? Am I missing something? His answer seemed pretty damn clear and made 100% sense to me. I dont understand what people are mad about, someone help me please.

No one is upset. What he stated is an unofficial parity clause. Nothing has changed.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Eh doesn't seem so bad tbh.

Unless they are working independently with every dev and helping foot the cost in some way, it's a shitty thing to do to smaller indie devs. "Spend more money on your game or you can't release it on Xbox".

 

[GustyGardens]

"It's dead. Yeah. There is no clause."

[Goes on into to contradict the statement entirely]

If you go to PS4 first, you gotta wait a year for XBone + some exclusive features to spice it up.

That's not what he said, though. He says if you're shipping a game on PS4, but the Xbox One version won't be ready for another year, that's fine. Let's work together to make it something special when it's ready to release.

 

[matrixman92]

No one is upset. What he stated is an unofficial parity clause. Nothing has changed.

I guess I dont understand then. I didnt see anything in that quote that points to there being a parity clause still, even an unofficial one.

Is it because they dont want to release a game that isnt ready on their platform and want to stagger it? seems logical to me

 

[DangerMouse]

During the PS3 days yeah, PS4 no.

Yeah Sony definitely pushed for new content too from devs during the PS3 days on late ports. Though another difference is that it was also more common for Sony to request this from big pubs rather than indies. Big pubs can handle this while indies are often running right on the edge and hit the hardest by something like this. They also revised their policies well before PS4 even launched to be way more indie friendly.

 

[SSReborn]

So Rocket League ever gonna come to Xbox, because they need to court that game they are missing out.

edit: probably not...

If it ever comes to xbox all they'd really need to do is have like an xbox car themed skin (warthog) or w.e which wouldn't be that hard to do. Unless I'm incorrect and it'd need to be something more substantial than that. Either way doesn't really change the fact that it shouldn't be a requirement.

 

[Pejo]

I had to check the date on the thread, because we've had multiple threads where MS claimed the exact same thing, then went on to explain how there is still a clause. I can even still hear "Come talk to us" in my head from like every MS PRspeak about this issue.

I wonder if it's like every 6 months, they drag this excuse out, change the order of some words, and re-release it.

 

[Toki767]

I guess I dont understand then. I didnt see anything in that quote that points to there being a parity clause still, even an unofficial one.

That was always what the parity clause was. If you release first on PS4, you need to get their permission to release on Xbox One. If you release at the same time or on Xbox One first, they won't care.

The actual clause though I believe had more to do with joining the ID@Xbox program if I remember correctly, where those rules would apply.

 

[xxracerxx]

That's not what he said, though. He says if you're shipping a game on PS4, but the Xbox One version won't be ready for another year, that's fine. Let's work together to make it something special when it's ready to release.

What's special though? Spending X amount more money to add a new feature, skin, tie-in, etc then originally planned? If you don't add anything, can they even release the game?

 

[LiquidSolid]

Why sigh for adding extra stuff? Isn't that the same thing Sony does when exclusive terms end with Xbox?

lol no, Sony haven't done it for like 5 years. They might suggest a developer add something to a late port (like Super Time Force Ultra) but they don't force them to do so, like Microsoft does. If a developer just wants to do a straight port over to PS3/PS4/Vita, they can do exactly that.

So basically the platform leader gets the game first and the secondary platforms want a little extra to sell the game. I see can understand the frustration, but when Sony did it for PS3 games, where was the outrage? They are leading this generation and all of sudden this practice is now seen as a bad one.

Microsoft's always done it, even back on the oXbox, which is why the oXbox release of Silent Hill 2 had an extra ending (which was eventually re-released on PS2 as well). Sony improved their policies to be more developer friendly, Microsoft didn't and they deserve to be criticised for it.

 

[Jomjom]

Sounds so defensive. Why not just say YES I'VE REMOVED IT!

Better answer would have been "Hey if you release late because of an exclusive deal, we'd suggest you add new content, but if not, that's cool too."

His answer about the dev getting money sounds so damn bitter. "Hey you got money so shut up and make me some new content!"

 

[BibiMaghoo]

A clause that demands something extra, and them wanting something extra, are not the same thing. His statement seems pretty clear to me.

Maybe it's careful language, but I doubt it. There is no absolute requirement.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

My guess is that MS strongly encourages devs to add something special if they can, but they don't require it. A very large number of indies have released on XB1 over the past year with no exclusive content, despite releasing on PS4 (or Wii U) first.

 

[GustyGardens]

I guess I dont understand then. I didnt see anything in that quote that points to there being a parity clause still, even an unofficial one.

Is it because they dont want to release a game that isnt ready on their platform and want to stagger it? seems logical to me

I think people are misreading, to be honest. There's nothing up there that says that a developer cannot release a game on the Xbox without some sort of special feature. He's saying, "Hey, if you can't release on our console because you've got another deal going on, that's cool. When you can release on our platform, let us help you make it something special."

 

[LukasTaves]

Finally, some progress. A little denial mixed in still, but a huge improvement.

It's always been like this (at least that's what they always saying).

 

[Toki767]

My guess is that MS strongly encourages devs to add something special if they can, but they don't require it. A very large number of indies have released on XB1 over the past year with no exclusive content, despite releasing on PS4 (or Wii U) first.

The clause was specific for the ID@Xbox program, which I don't believe all indie games go through.

This seems to be the missing piece that most people have forgotten about.

 

[Kayant]

TMU, the original parity clause was that if a game released on PS3 first, forget about releasing it later on Xbox 360 later, you either release it on both, or you're locked out.

Is that gone? yes, but there are those that refuse to let it go. "Parity Clause" description has evolved from what I described above, to:

"If you can't release on both, come talk to us first and we'll help you make it happen"

To: "If you released on Sony first and want to come to Xbox later, that's fine, but lets talk about making that title exciting again by adding extra content"

To: insert the next "Goal Post Parity Clause meaning Here"__________________.

Nope. They made exceptions before now they just expanded the exceptions range. i.e Warframe

 

[Jrs3000]

TMU, the original parity clause was that if a game released on PS3 first, forget about releasing it later on Xbox 360 later, you either release it on both, or you're locked out.

Is that gone? yes, but there are those that refuse to let it go. "Parity Clause" description has evolved from what I described above, to:

"If you can't release on both, come talk to us first and we'll help you make it happen"

To: "If you released on Sony first and want to come to Xbox later, that's fine, but lets talk about making that title exciting again by adding extra content"

To: insert the next "Goal Post Parity Clause meaning Here"__________________.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[farisr]

It's always been like this (at least that's what they always saying).

Yup, it's the same exact thing the last PR person said. Nothing changed.

 

[Journey]

lol no, Sony haven't done it for like 5 years. They might suggest a developer add something to a late port (like Super Time Force Ultra) but they don't force them to do so, like Microsoft does.

Do you have any proof that Sony = "Suggests" and MS = "forces"?

 

[LukasTaves]

Not really, unless you know what his definition of "special" and why so many developers failed to meet it.

No developers that wanted to ported their games to xbone were blocked as far as I know. All the cases I've seen the dev had a problem with the fact they had to talk and justify themselves and simply decided to not even bother.

 

[BobTheFork]

A clause that demands something extra, and them wanting something extra, are not the same thing. His statement seems pretty clear to me.

Maybe it's careful language, but I doubt it. There is no absolute requirement.

Then why does he need to 'work with people'? Why should the devs 'come talk to them' about it? I guess no wanting a devs game on xbox and having a specific policy about it might be different, but not to the dev.