Phil Spencer on indie parity clause "I want people to feel like they're first class"


Recommended Posts

"I actually don't get the question as much now anymore...I'll be honest, the thing I worry about is I look at all the people who buy an Xbox and invest their time and their money in Xbox One, and as millions of people own Xbox One I want people to feel like they're first class, because they are. When a third party game comes out it comes out on all platforms, at the same time and when indie games come out, I want them to come out and I want Xbox to feel like it's a first class citizen when an indie game launches. For me the parity thing is I own an Xbox one and I want to work for you to make sure that when great content launches, if it's coming to Xbox one and another platform... you kinda of get it at the same time as everybody else does.

That said, I have a lot of friends who run small indie studios, and I get that time lines around when... they just can't get both games done at the same time or all 3 games, 4 games depending on how many platforms they're supporting. So I was just saying let's have a conversation and it's worked. Today, I think we've done a good job working with the indies that had strict parity concerns. If it's just a dev issue for them but I don't want somebody to come and just think that am going to go do a special game on one platform and then I will get to the XB1 when I get to it.. because I don't think that's right because as Xbox one customers we want good games as they come out on both platforms but I also get that hey! for some guys they just can't afford the time to get both done. So we have just enter into the conversations with people as they are launching it and I feel pretty good about the plan.

 

 

Source: http://www.xboxmad.net/x/pairity-prevents-xbox-owners-feeling-second-class.html

 

The one thing MS haven't done a 180 on yet, and from this doesn't seem like they will :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be missing the point here, it seems like he's saying they aren't trying to push for things to always be released on XB1 and if it comes to another platform first then fine. They just have to support the dev's in getting it to the XB1 at some point?

 

IMO I would happily wait 6,12 or 18 months to get some of the better Indie games then not at all. I wasn't really aware of the Indie stuff when i had my 360 but from an outsiders perspective it seems the PS3 always did it better and the PS4 has continued with that. This looks like they are trying to give the indies a little more support and time to get stuff ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like Phil Spencer made it very clear that MS is not going to be rigid on the topic of parity.

 

He starts out explaining why he feels parity is important. He makes fair points and comes across as someone wanting the best for Xbox gamers, which should be applauded. I totally get why they would encourage developers to not make Xbox gamers second class citizens.

 

He then gets to the point of saying that they often have talks with developers and work out solutions when a developer cannot adhere to the strict terms of the clause. This not a new practice for MS, but I believe its the first time Phil has spelled it out. I think this is the most important bit. As long as MS works with any developer that cannot meet a parity clause for legitimate reasons, then I would think developers would appreciate that.

 

I think the hardest part of this topic is that you are trying to balance two parties with legitimate concerns. MS doesn't want to get second rate support for content that is out on competing platforms, and developers don't want any demands set on them. Since Sony has no such rule, it becomes fodder against MS even if MS is actively working with developers that can't meet the requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people who complain are generally PS4 owners without an XO or with it as a secondary. Not developers.

 

:/

 

Even if that were true, as if it wipes out their concerns about a dubious business practice to control the "weak" (indies are obviously the easiest to exert control over).

 

I really hope we're not going this low again this generation as to say if you don't own the console you cannot comment on its business practices. All the links I posted above come from developers. As for the dates on them, obviously the parity clause was spoken about when it came to light. No one has an updated article for October going "oh yeah the parity clause... insert opinion". Opinions were given when news on it broke, all MS are doing now is seemingly cementing this is one 180 they will not do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone actually point to an instance where it provided an unnecessary hardship for an indie developer? If it did, I wouldn't want the clause, but as it is, I have yet to see those articles. From what I recall seeing, developers can do the following things:

  • Release on Xbox One and PlayStation 4 simultaneously.
  • Release on PlayStation 4 first if they talk with Microsoft about what the problem in bringing the game to Xbox One.
  • Release on PlayStation 4 first if they provide some sort of additional content for Xbox One, such as bundling DLC.

With that said, I do think Spencer is talking out of both sides of his mouth because of Microsoft's timed exclusive deals. Timed exclusives rarely benefit anyone, and it's a practice I wish both Microsoft and Sony would stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also they can release on PS4 first if they already made a deal with Sony. or if they already did release.

 

essentially the whole thing is a pointless thing to argue about.

 

Either you have a big enough team to develop for both at the same time, and it's irrelevant.

 

or you can only develop for one at a time. so you either do the PS4 version then talk to MS, or you do the XO version first. 

 

IT's inconsequential. it doesn't affect anyone in the slightest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he says is valid. They were clear about this from the start of the program. They'll make exceptions on a case by case basis. You know what you're getting into before you sign up for the program. You also get a good chunk of things out of it for free, asking that you release on the system at the same time as others is a little thing to ask for.

I agree with this and don't see any reason to change this policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The policy made sense when they had the lead position last gen. It hasn't been that way for a long time now, so really all they're doing is giving PS4 another advantage.

 

As we keep seeing, indies pick PS4 first and either choose to skip X1 completely or make it 2nd choice.

 

Additionally, cut the nonsense work load of having to do "case by case" agreements. Talk about making life difficult for yourself. Especially if you let everything slide in the end anyway.

 

Until this pariy clause actually benefits them, there's zero reason for it to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The policy made sense when they had the lead position last gen. It hasn't been that way for a long time now, so really all they're doing is giving PS4 another advantage.

 

As we keep seeing, indies pick PS4 first and either choose to skip X1 completely or make it 2nd choice.

 

Additionally, cut the nonsense work load of having to do "case by case" agreements. Talk about making life difficult for yourself. Especially if you let everything slide in the end anyway.

 

Until this pariy clause actually benefits them, there's zero reason for it to exist.

How does it not benefit them more while in 2nd place? It'd be easy for many indies to just stop with PS4 dev because that console has a great deal more potential customers. Without parity, there wouldn't be as much incentive for them to also spend time and money developing for X1. That's kind of the entire point Phil is making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't PR speak lovely? Seems to me pretty much like a case of ensuring that developers don't give PS4 games extra features or superior graphics to compensate for the XO's weaker hardware. Putting gamers first my rear, it's all about ensuring the deficiencies in their product aren't exposed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just wrong, these are indie games not big budget titles that are looking to push the hardware. The hardware has little to nothing to do with it. The program gives developers lots of software and tools for free, asking for parity is a small trade for developers in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't PR speak lovely? Seems to me pretty much like a case of ensuring that developers don't give PS4 games extra features or superior graphics to compensate for the XO's weaker hardware. Putting gamers first my rear, it's all about ensuring the deficiencies in their product aren't exposed.

 

that's not even what the parity clause is about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indie games can still push the computational power of the machine. It's little more than Microsoft strong arming developers that don't have the finances to tell them to get lost to cover up for the deficiencies in their crappy product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now we are saying the parity clause is just a cover up to gimp ps4 versions?

 

You know, sometimes it seems like some people have a lopsided view of the market, where one company does it all for the wrong reasons and the other does it for all the right reasons.

 

Few around here are even able to look at both sides of it without wearing some kind of 'filter' to color their view. A topic like this just goes to waste.


Indie games can still push the computational power of the machine. It's little more than Microsoft strong arming developers that don't have the finances to tell them to get lost to cover up for the deficiencies in their crappy product.


You have zero evidence of that, so it amounts to little more than an attack.

As I said before, Indies don't need MS. MS has no leverage to strong arm anyone. Indie developers can happily ignore the Xbox.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it amounts to an opinion. A company confident in the capabilities of their product would not set out to stifle game developers, it really is that simple as far as I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it amounts to an opinion. A company confident in the capabilities of their product would not set out to stifle game developers, it really is that simple as far as I see it.

 

No one is getting stifled, if anything the program itself helps game developers bring indie games to the XB1 at no cost to them.  The program is totally free once you get in, free software, free SDKs, free help if you need it, free licensing for a game engine (Unity) which would otherwise cost you a pretty penny, free access and use to all the Xbox Live services, no fees for anything, not updates, like before and so on.   It's all free for them, and MS asks they get treated like a first class citizen compared to other platforms if a developer takes advantage of their offer and they're the bad guy who's hurting developers and the competition?  Really?     They're not even hiding the parity clause deep in some agreement, it's not a secret hidden on page 99 out of 100 that developers have to sign, they know full well what they're getting into.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indie games can still push the computational power of the machine. It's little more than Microsoft strong arming developers that don't have the finances to tell them to get lost to cover up for the deficiencies in their crappy product.

 

 

Again, not what it means.

 

But my post earlier is only being strengthened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those issues that requires people to do some homework and critical thinking. It also requires a little bit of open minded thinking.

 

I have seen people comment on this when they clearly don't even know the whole story. They have no idea what the ID@Xbox program is, or they think developers are being forced into something they have no say about.

 

MS has zero leverage to force any developer to do anything. Plus any developer that cannot agree to the clause, they talk with MS about waiving it, or they can just make their game for the pc or ps4 first and still join the ID program when they are ready to make an X1 game. MS won't turn you away if your game is already out elsewhere.

 

I really don't see the evidence that this hurts developers. I suppose its the idea that a developer has to talk to MS at all that upset some developers. They want a no strings attached deal that allows the developer do anything they want whenever try want, while getting MS' support. I mean, that is basically what Sony does although I'm not sure if the 'support' is equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't PR speak lovely? Seems to me pretty much like a case of ensuring that developers don't give PS4 games extra features or superior graphics to compensate for the XO's weaker hardware. Putting gamers first my rear, it's all about ensuring the deficiencies in their product aren't exposed.

This policy predates XB1/PS4 IIRC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A good post detailing an unfortunate affect of the parity clause? - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=947986

 

I agree that the policy is just resulting in too much negativity to work.  If developers are rejecting it, surely MS will change the policy in the face of that.

 

 

The only issue I take with the op's post in that thread is that he has no info to say that list disparity is all becuase of the clause.  Sure, he pastes the negative reactions from developers in another post, but even he admits in the thread that he has no details about why the games are not coming to the X1.  So while the topic is important, I feel like throwing up that list of games is just fluff without substance.  Its more shock value than fact.

 

Don't you guys remember how many indie games back at E3 were said to be 'coming first to ps4'?  Alot of indie games don't appear to be exclusive for long, so either they are all getting waivers from MS or something else is going on.

 

Either way, MS really needs to change this policy.  This is not about consoles sales, its about creating a positive atmosphere, which can result in sales down the road.  If all developers are happy, then they will share that with the outside world, which gets spread everywhere else. Sony has reaped the benefits of that effect, regardless of the value of any individual game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.