Support NeoGAF

[DeepEnigma]

Every speculation is not a conspiracy theory. You can recycle that hat.

The changes to windows, specifically the free version license with mandatory updates and the closed windows store point to a strategy that is anticipating the contraction of the desktop/laptop market. Windows and microsoft/partner devices can be a little more specialized and they can fit in better with apple and google who have been doing quite well.

An xbox product that ran a slightly more closed version of the free windows 10 is not out of the question. If that point comes, this parity clause will be in full effect as they can wield the combined usership of xbox devices and the windows app store to manipulate support.

Interesting theory but that's a fairly complex plan to pull off even if we did know what they want to do. Time will tell.

I totally agree with you on this.

That is why I winked after I said it, because there will be a person or two on here to tell me to "take it off".

 

[jayu26]

It sucks for his customers, too, since developers are bringing more games to his competitor. Great job, Phil!

I'm pretty sure LegendofDragoonLives was trolling, however DiiGoliath wasn't...

 

[RibMan]

To me, this is just business. MS is making their console more desirable and enticing more people to buy their product over the competition. Yeah it sucks for other people, but he's doing his job.

I'm not sure if you're being serious. If he were up for a performance review he would be sweating bullets, because he has been doing a noticeably terrible job of attracting indie developers -- especially when compared to their direct competitor.

Furthermore, the Xbox platform was THE king of indie games and indie support. I can't be the only one who remembers when Xbox was synonymous with indie gaming thanks to XBLA.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm not sure if you're being serious. If he were up for a performance review he would be sweating bullets, because he has been doing a noticeably terrible job of attracting indie developers -- especially when compared to their direct competitor.

Furthermore, the Xbox platform was THE king of indie games and indie support. I can't be the only one who remembers when Xbox was synonymous with indie gaming thanks to XBLA.

Yep. Sony won mindset with no DRM and traditional game sharing, and they knew MSFT's parity policy, so they are winning the mindset of indie developers/gamers as well.

 

[watership]

Is it not obvious (see prior 2 paragraphs) how having the policy but pretending not to have the policy serves both goals of looking friendly while still having the big scary veto vote at the same time?

I think it's clear when you step back. They evaluate games that have launched on other platforms to see if they can ask for more content or features to help there platform. The way they see the problem with the word 'clause" is that it makes developers not even try to release on Xbox. Sony probably evaluates games the same way, it's just that the messaging, and perception on Xbox right now sucks.

They can't say "There is no parity evaluation or clause or anything!" because they still want to curate games for their platform on their terms. I honestly think all platform holders do this.

 

[Shin-Ra]

I think it's clear when you step back. They evaluate games that have launched on other platforms to see if they can ask for more content or features to help there platform. I think the way they see the problem with the word 'clause" is that it makes developers not even try to release on Xbox. I think Sony probably evaluates games the same way, it's just that the messaging, and perception on Xbox right now sucks.

They can't say "There is no parity evaluation or clause or anything!" because they still want to curate games for their platform on their terms. I honestly think all platform holders do this.

Holy shit, the spin right here.

 

[Silvard]

Read the OP and stop reading it through your hyperbole between the lines goggles and take what Phil said at face value.

Alright, let's do that.

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.

Seems pretty clear to me, so...

A lot of your rhetoric is bullshit "pile on" to the nth degree. I hate the fucking clause and I even told you a while ago, personally, that I had enough reason from devs to sit back and watch this play out over time.

...

Most devs today that still believe the parity clause is hardcore, actually don't know and simply regurgitate what they hear and read online and not actually engaging on their own to get details from the horse's mouth.

...

For transparency I did speak with Phil and Chris EXTREMELY briefly recently. THEY DID NOT APPROACH ME AND WE DID NOT DISCUSS ANY EXCEPTIONS NOR DO I HAVE ONE. I won't go into detail but they get nobody likes the clause (plus there's not many details).

What clause are you referring to? From your posts I take it that while a 'parity clause' hasn't disappeared, they've improved their program enough to be within your threshold of tolerance (please forgive those who don't exactly want to give them kudos for making a shitty situation less shitty, when it's well within their power to dissolve it completely). But that doesn't seem compatible with taking Phil's words at face value. Or is part of MS's messaging problem that they straight up lie about it in an interview? Which is it?

Is there a parity clause or not?

I think it's clear when you step back. They evaluate games that have launched on other platforms to see if they can ask for more content or features to help there platform. The way they see the problem with the word 'clause" is that it makes developers not even try to release on Xbox. Sony probably evaluates games the same way, it's just that the messaging, and perception on Xbox right now sucks.

They can't say "There is no parity evaluation or clause or anything!" because they still want to curate games for their platform on their terms. I honestly think all platform holders do this.

Sony, Nintendo and even Valve curate too, but it's not tied to what platforms that game already launched on. That's the big difference.

 

[watership]

Holy shit, the spin right here.

Yeah, it's all spin. Weird right?

 

[FranXico]

They can't say "There is no parity evaluation or clause or anything!" because they still want to curate games for their platform on their terms. I honestly think all platform holders do this.

Curating content and parity demands are not the same thing at all.

 

[justsomeguy]

edit: editing this out now - for the original text see the many quotes below.

Quoting myself from further down:

I was looking at a disparity in reaction between

"Extra content/price cuts are bad".
"I want extra content/price cuts".

when I should have been thinking of it as:

"Extra content/price cuts are bad when demanded by a platform holder".
"I want extra content/price cuts because the game was delayed because of moneyhats".

 

[benny_a]

I *genuinely* don't mean this as a troll post: it's fascinating to read the Tomb Raider thread at the moment.

Quite a few people saying if it's coming out late they want extra content (all the DLC included) or a reduced price. Are they being completely unreasonable?

Please don't over analyse this post - I get they are somewhat different (platform holder previously mandating it vs. a select number of gamers wanting it) - but just fascinating that there aren't very many of those vociferous people also posting in these parity threads agreeing that "extra content for later release" is reasonable.

Mods if you think this post is unreasonable, PM me rather than hitting me with a ban hammer - I'm genuinely intrigued by the difference in reaction rather than trying to stir up problems.

One is about developer having choice in whatever they think will help them sell their game on a new platform and the other about customer demand.

Is this a genuine misunderstanding on your part that you don't see how these are different issues and the lack of freedom of choice for the publisher is core to this thread?

I understand that these are two different things, ask me anything

 

[Neuromancer]

I think it's clear when you step back. They evaluate games that have launched on other platforms to see if they can ask for more content or features to help there platform. The way they see the problem with the word 'clause" is that it makes developers not even try to release on Xbox. Sony probably evaluates games the same way, it's just that the messaging, and perception on Xbox right now sucks.

They can't say "There is no parity evaluation or clause or anything!" because they still want to curate games for their platform on their terms. I honestly think all platform holders do this.

The difference is Sony has no language forbidding games that already appeared on other platforms. We already know that they talk to developers about adding content, but it's voluntary.

I agree MS's messaging sucks though.

I *genuinely* don't mean this as a troll post: it's fascinating to read the Tomb Raider thread at the moment.

Quite a few people saying if it's coming out late they want extra content (all the DLC included) or a reduced price. Are they being completely unreasonable?

Please don't over analyse this post - I get they are somewhat different (platform holder previously mandating it vs. a select number of gamers wanting it) - but just fascinating that there aren't very many of those vociferous people also posting in these parity threads agreeing that "extra content for later release" is reasonable.

Mods if you think this post is unreasonable, PM me rather than hitting me with a ban hammer - I'm genuinely intrigued by the difference in reaction rather than trying to stir up problems.

If I really cared about Tomb Raider (I don't, since I didn't like the last one) I'd be disappointed by the artificial delay but I'd still pick it up day one for full price. I can't speak for everyone though obviously.

 

[serversurfer]

The only reason it makes sense to not drop it while allowing loopholes is if they plan to use it again later from a stronger position, and or/selectively enforce (this is pretty clearly the intent of "talk to us"). There would be way more backlash if they suddenly added the policy after formally dropping it as opposed to developers suddenly having to "talk to us" more.

That's why I'm wary of anyone saying, "C'mon, gang! Just take your exemption and let's help MS start growing their user base and really give this policy some teeth!!"

Regarding reintroducing the policy later, by fooling devs in to agreeing to deliver parity by promising flexibility, they give themselves an incredibly strong bargaining position late in the project's development. Mere months from the launch of Endwar, Julian Gerighty still didn't know if he'd be able to release the gesture controls that he'd already implemented in the PS3 version, because Microsoft hadn't approved it yet. If MS decided the feature was too awesome and brought too much shame to XBox, Julian's options would be to remove the PlayStation feature, or forfeit the millions of dollars he'd already spent developing the XB360 version of the game. The feature didn't make it in to the final version of the game, and was never spoken of again.

I think it's clear when you step back. They evaluate games that have launched on other platforms to see if they can ask for more content or features to help there platform. I think the way they see the problem with the word 'clause" is that it makes developers not even try to release on Xbox. I think Sony probably evaluates games the same way, it's just that the messaging, and perception on Xbox right now sucks.

They can't say "There is no parity evaluation or clause or anything!" because they still want to curate games for their platform on their terms. I honestly think all platform holders do this.

That's why I've said in the past that the problem isn't the parity clause itself; it's perfectly natural for a platform holder to want parity with other versions for their users wherever possible. Rather, the problem is Microsoft's use of the clauses to force developers to handicap Microsoft's competitors, such as pressuring developers to remove unique features on rival platforms as described above. or pressuring devs to limit the amount of content in their games as described earlier in the thread, or even pressuring them in to something comparatively benign, like the delaying of games which is the very subject of this thread. They've been actively stifling development in the video game industry in this fashion for the better part of a decade, if not longer.

Parity clauses aren't toxic. Microsoft are toxic. Most people see contracts as a type of shield, to protect themselves against unforeseen attacks. Microsoft look at that same shield and think, "Nice; we can take someone's head clean off with that thing." Imagine there's been a guy running around with a pistol for the last 10 or 15 years, firing at anyone who disrespects him by talking to someone else. Finally, we assemble a menacing mob large enough that he feels compelled to put the gun back in his pocket and promise never to use it again, suggesting we all have a kegger instead. There are a few ways one could respond to his sudden change of "heart."

"Woohoo! Let's party, everybody!! His beer is cheap too!"
"Well, I do enjoy a good party, but I'd prefer it if you actually got rid of the gun first."
"Umm, thanks, but I want nothing to do with your 'party,' you crazy fuck. Please stay away from me."

I'll leave it to you to determine how they're sorted.

 

[jayu26]

One is about developer having choice in whatever they think will help them sell their game on a new platform and the other about customer demand.

Is this a genuine misunderstanding on your part that you don't see how these are different issues and the lack of freedom of choice for the publisher is core to this thread?

I understand that these are two different things, ask me anything

The fact that this goes over so many people's head is confounding.

One is about relationship between consumers and SE. If you follow that thread there are plenty who will buy on Xbone, plenty who will wait for PS4 and PC. plenty who will not buy it without extra content on PS4 and plenty who will buy it from bargain bin regardless. The point is, it is up to the consumers to decide what is the value (or perceived value) of the product. If Sony was shoehorning themselves into this situation then all they would get is bloody without much gain.

Similarly, if you feel that any indie game that comes to Xbone later needs to have something extra then that is your decision. People might agree or disagree with that decision. All we have ever said is that in this case Papa MS should not be making decisions for you or the developers.

 

[nynt9]

I *genuinely* don't mean this as a troll post: it's fascinating to read the Tomb Raider thread at the moment.

Quite a few people saying if it's coming out late they want extra content (all the DLC included) or a reduced price. Are they being completely unreasonable?

Please don't over analyse this post - I get they are somewhat different (platform holder previously mandating it vs. a select number of gamers wanting it) - but just fascinating that there aren't very many of those vociferous people also posting in these parity threads agreeing that "extra content for later release" is reasonable.

Mods if you think this post is unreasonable, PM me rather than hitting me with a ban hammer - I'm genuinely intrigued by the difference in reaction rather than trying to stir up problems.

Do you legitimately think demanding extra content from Square Enix is comparable to demanding extra content from a 1-5 man indie team? It's like you haven't read the main concerns people have at all.

This post comes off as extremely disingenuous after all the conversation in this thread.

 

[kaching]

Quite a few people saying if it's coming out late they want extra content (all the DLC included) or a reduced price. Are they being completely unreasonable?

Depends. Does context mean anything to you?

When big, third party publishers are prepping an AAA release, they typically target it for launch on as many platforms simultaneously as possible, unless they've deliberately done a deal for exclusivity with a particular platform.

When much smaller indie developers are prepping one of their games for release, they usually have no choice but to stagger the release because they simply don't have the manpower or the money to pull off a simultaneous release.

One's an arbitrary delay and one is unavoidable. As a customer, it's perfectly reasonable to look at the arbitrary delay and ask, "What's in it for me?" whereas with the unavoidable delay what's in it for the customer is that the delay *itself* is part of what makes it possible to eventually get onto other platforms at all.

 

[TheSpoiler]

Do you legitimately think demanding extra content from Square Enix is comparable to demanding extra content from a 1-5 man indie team? It's like you haven't read the main concerns people have at all.

Indies have an infinite amount of money, time, and resources. Plus, it's piss easy to create assets for your game no matter what it is!

 

[xxracerxx]

I *genuinely* don't mean this as a troll post: it's fascinating to read the Tomb Raider thread at the moment.

Quite a few people saying if it's coming out late they want extra content (all the DLC included) or a reduced price. Are they being completely unreasonable?

Please don't over analyse this post - I get they are somewhat different (platform holder previously mandating it vs. a select number of gamers wanting it) - but just fascinating that there aren't very many of those vociferous people also posting in these parity threads agreeing that "extra content for later release" is reasonable.

Mods if you think this post is unreasonable, PM me rather than hitting me with a ban hammer - I'm genuinely intrigued by the difference in reaction rather than trying to stir up problems.

They are more than 'somewhat different.'

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

I *genuinely* don't mean this as a troll post: it's fascinating to read the Tomb Raider thread at the moment.

Quite a few people saying if it's coming out late they want extra content (all the DLC included) or a reduced price. Are they being completely unreasonable?

Please don't over analyse this post - I get they are somewhat different (platform holder previously mandating it vs. a select number of gamers wanting it) - but just fascinating that there aren't very many of those vociferous people also posting in these parity threads agreeing that "extra content for later release" is reasonable.

Mods if you think this post is unreasonable, PM me rather than hitting me with a ban hammer - I'm genuinely intrigued by the difference in reaction rather than trying to stir up problems.

This looks to me like you're doing the typically passive aggressive tattle-tale post here 'Gaf told me [this], so how come Gaf is now saying [this]' and trying to stir up shit. Your post is irrelevant for this topic as far as I'm concerned.

But if I'm wrong, and this is you being genuinely confused then, you know, Benny gets it, ask him your questions and get this cleared up. Or ask me if you don't like Benny.

 

[Dyson Industries]

I *genuinely* don't mean this as a troll post: it's fascinating to read the Tomb Raider thread at the moment.

Quite a few people saying if it's coming out late they want extra content (all the DLC included) or a reduced price. Are they being completely unreasonable?

Please don't over analyse this post - I get they are somewhat different (platform holder previously mandating it vs. a select number of gamers wanting it) - but just fascinating that there aren't very many of those vociferous people also posting in these parity threads agreeing that "extra content for later release" is reasonable.

Mods if you think this post is unreasonable, PM me rather than hitting me with a ban hammer - I'm genuinely intrigued by the difference in reaction rather than trying to stir up problems.

The cost ratio to a AAA company like Square Enix...you're seriously comparing that to the costs of a small (in many cases, 1-2 person) independent studio? I'm suuuuure that you get they are somewhat different.

I understand you're a Microsoft employee and all but try not to insult our intelligence while covering for your company, please.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I *genuinely* don't mean this as a troll post: it's fascinating to read the Tomb Raider thread at the moment.

Quite a few people saying if it's coming out late they want extra content (all the DLC included) or a reduced price. Are they being completely unreasonable?

Please don't over analyse this post - I get they are somewhat different (platform holder previously mandating it vs. a select number of gamers wanting it) - but just fascinating that there aren't very many of those vociferous people also posting in these parity threads agreeing that "extra content for later release" is reasonable.

Mods if you think this post is unreasonable, PM me rather than hitting me with a ban hammer - I'm genuinely intrigued by the difference in reaction rather than trying to stir up problems.

If Square Enix and Eidos were a small operation with a handful of employees and hadn't taken a massive bung from a platform holder to keep the game off another console then, yes, it would be unreasonable.

As it stands, expecting a multinational company to include extra or sell their game for a lower price, due to said bung, is not unreasonable.

 

[MUnited83]

To me, this is just business. MS is making their console more desirable and enticing more people to buy their product over the competition. Yeah it sucks for other people, but he's doing his job.

Lol, how the fuck does the parity clause make the Xbone more desirable and enticing? Its the exact fucking opposite lol

 

[NinjamicWZ]

I'm genuinely intrigued by the difference in reaction rather than trying to stir up problems.

I too am intrigued when I think I've had some revelation of logic about why other people are irrational, but have actually realized nothing about anything.

 

[justsomeguy]

One is about developer having choice in whatever they think will help them sell their game on a new platform and the other about customer demand.

I'm not saying (and have never said) that a platform holder demanding it is reasonable.

I'm saying I'm surprised those people who are saying they want extra content on a delayed release haven't popped into parity threads to say that they understand that bit of the clause.

(Obviously I didn't check everyone, but I did check a few people).

 

[xxracerxx]

I'm not saying (and have never said) that a platform holder demanding it is reasonable.

I'm saying I'm surprised those people who are saying they want extra content on a delayed release haven't popped into parity threads to say that they understand that bit of the clause.

(Obviously I didn't check everyone, but I did check a few people).

Those 'people' are probably not interested in indies, hence they do not post here.

 

[justsomeguy]

When much smaller indie developers are prepping one of their games for release, they usually have no choice but to stagger the release because they simply don't have the manpower or the money to pull off a simultaneous release.

One's an arbitrary delay and one is unavoidable.

So again from my understanding of what's been said, if you didn't release simultaneously because of manpower problems there was no issue anyway with the clause and no extra content was expected.

 

[justsomeguy]

I understand you're a Microsoft employee and all but try not to insult our intelligence while covering for your company, please.

I get this kind of reply from time to time. Just check my post history, you'll see I'm not biased on this stuff. Or hell get a mod to check my PMs that I've had with a couple of the Indie Devs to see I'm really not defending MS ;-)

As I always say, I'm about a million miles from the gaming part of the company and I'd be saying the same even if I worked at another employer.

 

[bishoptl]

I *genuinely* don't mean this as a troll post: it's fascinating to read the Tomb Raider thread at the moment.

This whole post comes off as completely disingenuous, and that's before taking your employer into account, man.

 

[Dyson Industries]

^^ well

 

[justsomeguy]

The cost ratio to a AAA company like Square Enix...you're seriously comparing that to the costs of a small (in many cases, 1-2 person) independent studio? I'm suuuuure that you get they are somewhat different.

Just because Squenix are a giganto company, why should they be expected to give away something for nothing - in this case give away extra content for free or a reduced price? I don't really get that argument.

edit: this particular train of thought is offtopic for this thread...

 

[ps3ud0]

This whole post comes off as completely disingenuous, and that's before taking your employer into account, man.

I *genuinely* hope his account is ok - if you cant appreciate the differences between SE and the TR deal and an indie dev and the parity clause time to just step back and have a think

ps3ud0 8)

 

[justsomeguy]

This whole post comes off as completely disingenuous, and that's before taking your employer into account, man.

Bish you know me better than that, I hope I'd edit it out but hell it's been quoted a billion times already which is fair enough. Gonna PM you something too.

I have to head home from work soon so I'm not gonna be able to keep up with replies unfortunately.

 

[justsomeguy]

They are more than 'somewhat different.'

This might be a language thing. UK: "somewhat different" = "pretty different" = "very different"

 

[xxracerxx]

This might be a language thing. UK: "somewhat different" = "pretty different" = "very different"

So instead of meaning marginally different, it means greatly different? Way to mean the complete opposite, UK.

 

[benny_a]

I'm saying I'm surprised those people who are saying they want extra content on a delayed release haven't popped into parity threads to say that they understand that bit of the clause.

I don't understand why you would expect that to happen.

I understand the clause and I've participated in these threads.

But that understanding is not central to the discussion whether or not this policy should exist.

Edit: Removed retreading of 2 year old arguments that anyone that has posted in these threads has read hundreds of times. At some point you feel silly to repeat it again and again.

 

[ps3ud0]

So instead of meaning marginally different, it means greatly different? Way to mean the complete opposite, UK.

It doesnt mean that in the UK - it means 'slight to moderate'; its never meant 'very'

ps3ud0 8)

 

[justsomeguy]

It doesnt mean that in the UK - it means slight to moderate; its never meant very

ps3ud0 8)

We have somewhat different uses of the word then m8.

 

[xxracerxx]

We have somewhat different uses of the word then m8.

So if this whole situation is very different, why even bring it up in the first place?

 

[hawk2025]

So again from my understanding of what's been said, if you didn't release simultaneously because of manpower problems there was no issue anyway with the clause and no extra content was expected.

We've gone over this particular point dozens of times. Again I'll say, no one has been able to answer this.

Are devs supposed to open their books to Microsoft? How do they determine this?

 

[ps3ud0]

We have somewhat different uses of the word then m8.

Nope my use isnt slightly similar to yours Im afraid

ps3ud0 8)

 

[justsomeguy]

As a customer, it's perfectly reasonable to look at the arbitrary delay and ask, "What's in it for me?" whereas with the unavoidable delay what's in it for the customer is that the delay *itself* is part of what makes it possible to eventually get onto other platforms at all.

This makes a lot of sense. Thanks for addressing the question I was asking.

 

[justsomeguy]

So if this whole situation is very different, why even bring it up in the first place?

Because honestly I still raised a curious metaphorical eyebrow at the disparity in reaction.

"Extra content/price cuts are bad".
"I want extra content/price cuts".

I mean obviously there's some good examples following my post of why this is flawed thinking on my part - I'm grateful that a few people have addressed what I said rather than just attacking me for saying it. *group hugs all round*.

More should have been thinking of it as:

"Extra content/price cuts are bad when demanded by a platform holder".
"I want extra content/price cuts because the game was delayed because of moneyhats".

 

[hawk2025]

Because honestly I still raised a curious metaphorical eyebrow at the disparity in reaction.

"Extra content/price cuts are bad".
"I want extra content/price cuts".

I mean obviously there's some good examples following my post of why this is flawed thinking on my part - I'm grateful that a few people have addressed what I said rather than just attacking me for saying it. *group hugs all round*

But that's the thing, no one ever, ever said extra content and price cuts are bad, though.

That's why (some people) saw that comment as disingenuous.

 

[justsomeguy]

But that's the thing, no one ever, ever said extra content and price cuts are bad, though.

Quite a few devs did - see my edit for why

 

[hawk2025]

Quite a few devs did - see my edit for why

Then your point is even more disjointed than I read it as initially, if the first quote:

"Extra content/price cuts are bad".


is not even coming from the same people as the second one:

"I want extra content/price cuts".

-- all following your own logic. Frankly, I think you started by asking people to not over analyze your post because you knew it wouldn't hold under scrutiny

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

So instead of meaning marginally different, it means greatly different? Way to mean the complete opposite, UK.

Jesus. And I thought I knew my country well

 

[justsomeguy]

Then your point is even more disjointed then I read it as initially, if the first quote:

"Extra content/price cuts are bad".


is not even coming from the same people as the second one:

"I want extra content/price cuts".

-- all following your own logic.

I thought I'd been quite explicit that I wasn't saying one person was saying two different things. I was surprised that the vociferous people on one side hadn't made the same point in a different thread and context. (However, as above, I get it now).

 

[xxracerxx]

More should have been thinking of it as:

"Extra content/price cuts are bad when demanded by a platform holder".
"I want extra content/price cuts because the game was delayed because of moneyhats".

Are the same 'devs' saying both of these things?

I thought I'd been quite explicit that I wasn't saying one person was saying two different things. I was surprised that the vociferous people on one side hadn't made the same point in a different thread and context. (However, as above, I get it now).

It wasn't that explicit at all, plus I said this:

Those 'people' are probably not interested in indies, hence they do not post here.

 

[hawk2025]

Welp, I'm just confused now, sorry.


Moving on.

 

[justsomeguy]

Welp, I'm just confused now, sorry.


Moving on.

Nah, it's me mate. Thanks for the discussion.