Support NeoGAF

[Neuromancer]

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.

If there's a developer who's building a game and they just can't get the game done for both platforms - cool. We'll take a staggered release. We've done it before, and we work with them on that. 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. People complained about that, but you did a deal with somebody else and you got paid for it and I'm happy - we do those same deals, so I'm not knocking you. It's going to be better for you, actually, because people don't want last year's game, they want something special and new.

Sounds like it's still a thing.

Source: interview with Edge magazine, #282.

 

[Crayon]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the real first post:

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

"Yes there's a parity clause"

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

 

[Toki767]

He thinks so.

lol

 

[Jigorath]

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.

Sigh.

 

[TimmiT]

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. People complained about that, but you did a deal with somebody else and you got paid for it and I'm happy - we do those same deals, so I'm not knocking you. It's going to be better for you, actually, because people don't want last year's game, they want something special and new.

So they still won't let you release it on Xbox One if you released it on a different platform before unless you add something extra? Doesn't sound like much changed.

 

[xxracerxx]

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.

 

[Heretic]

Excellent. We can finally put this behind us.

 

[Norwegian_Imposter]

To me that sounds a hell of a lot like a clause to me

 

[StrongBlackVine]

Nothing has changed from what you posted. Requirement of special content sounds like the same deal. Come talk to us, something special and new etc.

Excellent. We can finally put this behind us.

I guess you didn't read.

 

[semiconscious]

He thinks so.

lol

well, he's obviously been keeping up on it ...

 

[Crayon]

Okay, that part wasn't "a little denial".

 

[BobTheFork]

Sigh.

Yeah he is still spinning this as hard as possible. Every time they clarify it, it just sounds like exactly what we all thought it was.

 

[bananafactory]

Excellent. We can finally put this behind us.

No we can't. He didn't really clear anything up. It's still the same vague PR speak

 

[M3z_]

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

edit: probably not...

 

[wapplew]

"There is no clause" Phil Spencer
Can't be more clear.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

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!"

 

[spekkeh]

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. 

 

[Gurish]

Excellent. We can finally put this behind us.

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

 

[Cess007]

To me that sounds a hell of a lot like a clause to me

For a clause that doesn't exist according to him, it sure does sounds like one.

Edit. lol at being very transparent

 

[Ray Down]

So they still won't let you release it on Xbox One if you released it on a different platform before unless you add something extra? Doesn't sound like much changed.

Thats what I got out of it.

 

[Newtype-001]

People complained about that, but you did a deal with somebody else and you got paid for it and I'm happy - we do those same deals, so I'm not knocking you. It's going to be better for you, actually, because people don't want last year's game, they want something special and new.

Lol he still doesnt get it.

 

[Heretic]

No we can't. He didn't really clear anything up. It's still the same vague PR speak

Sure we can. What don't you understand?

 

[DeepEnigma]

There mere fact that this keeps getting brought up should tell you something.

 

[Tagyhag]

As long as the guidelines are there, the clause is there.

 

[Neuromancer]

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

Surely an exception will be made. Which is the problem. Developers shouldn't need to beg for exceptions.

 

[Rembrandt]

nothing about their stance has changed. they've always been saying that if you have an exclusive deal with someone, you need to have exclusive/extra content for the XB1. it's not the best stance because i couldn't care less if something launches on PS4/Wii U/PC first, but they've been consistent, to my knowledge. i want hotline miami on XB1, though.

what's vague about it? it's extremely clear.

 

[DangerMouse]

For a clause that doesn't exist according to him, it sure does sounds like one.

This. Nothing's changed.

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.

Perfect time for benderlaugh.gif

 

[bananafactory]

The biggest problem is the message is still "If you want your game on Xbox, come to us and we'll tell you what you have to do"

Where *other* platforms actually make an effort to reach out and ask what THEY can do for these small studios to help them get their game published

 

[Zomba13]

Guys, it's not a parity clause. That'd be silly. They don't have a parity clause, they never have.

It's more like, a parity rule.

 

[Toki767]

I just like how he mentions there is no parity clause, then proceeds to mention a parity clause.

 

[pizzacat]

The special thing can't be a comment about exclusive dlc right guys?

 

[Journey]

Sigh.

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

 

[Stone Ocean]

There is no parity clause, it's a disparity clause duh!

 

[Ray Down]

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

During the PS3 days yeah, PS4 no.

 

[JP]

Guys, it's not a parity clause. That'd be silly. They don't have a parity clause, they never have.

It's more like, a parity rule.

Maybe it's a non-disparity clause?

 

[Foffy]

Microsoft is such a desperate joke when it comes to their demands of parity. Keep spinnin' dat wheel, queen.

 

[Carl]

As before, if you're going to make exceptions for people that "come talk to you" just drop the fucking thing entirel.

 

[Gren]

Doesn't sound like Xbox is ever gonna let up on this one, it seems.

 

[Heretic]

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

I do not know what the definition of special is. I guess I'm wrong.

 

[Wandering Robot]

I don't even know what would be so hard about dropping the stupid damn clause completely.

 

[EGOMON]

Every time they try to clarify it it feels more confusing and complicated lol

 

[bananafactory]

Guys, it's not a parity clause. That'd be silly. They don't have a parity clause, they never have.

It's more like, a parity rule.

It's more like Parity Club, and there's only one rule, which Spencer can't talk about

 

[twobear]

We've come out and been very transparent in the last four or five months about exactly what we want.

 

[xxracerxx]

nothing about their stance has changed. they've always been saying that if you have an exclusive deal with someone, you need to have exclusive/extra content for the XB1. it's not the best stance because i couldn't care less if something launches on PS4/Wii U/PC first, but they've been consistent, to my knowledge. i want hotline miami on XB1, though.

what's vague about it? it's extremely clear.

They have not been transparent in the whole "come talk to us" schtick. That has always been murky.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I don't even know what would be so hard about dropping the stupid damn clause completely.

Control.

It only works when you're the "top dog" though. You can basically dictate terms, but Microsoft are not longer in such a position to dictate such things.

 

[Saty]

Seems like he's differentiating between games that just release later because of resources - which they don't require special content added to them; and games that are releasing later because of a deal with Sony, which they do ask for special content.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

"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.

 

[publicpwnerer]

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.

 

[Rembrandt]

The biggest problem is the message is still "If you want your game on Xbox, come to us and we'll tell you what you have to do"

Where *other* platforms actually make an effort to reach out and ask what THEY can do for these small studios to help them get their game published

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?

 

[Nutter]

During the PS3 days yeah, PS4 no.

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.