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

[BajiRav]

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.

I think most people have objections to that policy because... reasons. Everyone makes their own reasons on why that policy is bad and how PS4 has plenty more games because of it. If somebody showed that list around, I doubt if even half games get any attention from general public. That OP is again a whole bunch of speculation on why Sony has more Indies and Microsoft doesn't.

I think it is obvious now that Sony has been beating the indie drum since PS4 reveal because they knew their first year would be dry games (1st, 2nd party) wise.

On a different note, it's always amusing watching these gamers concerned about the fate of Indies(especially on gaf) waiting for sales of the said games or to get them free on psn/xbl. Why not ######ing buy them at release and at full price if you're truly concerned about the gaming industry/Indies/whatever!

This is what I call faux outrage.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I think most people have objections to that policy because... reasons. Everyone makes their own reasons on why that policy is bad and how PS4 has plenty more games because of it. If somebody showed that list around, I doubt if even half games get any attention from general public. That OP is again a whole bunch of speculation on why Sony has more Indies and Microsoft doesn't.

I think it is obvious now that Sony has been beating the indie drum since PS4 reveal because they knew their first year would be dry games (1st, 2nd party) wise.

On a different note, it's always amusing watching these gamers concerned about the fate of Indies(especially on gaf) waiting for sales of the said games or to get them free on psn/xbl. Why not ######ing buy them at release and at full price if you're truly concerned about the gaming industry/Indies/whatever!

This is what I call faux outrage.

 

The exact same behaviour said gamers display to ALL games? I usually wait on sales, why not? Developers indie or otherwise wouldn't put their title on sale if they "couldn't afford it". The only time you'll ever get me pay full price for a game is if it's an indie game. Can't remember the last time I paid RRP, or even a few ? shy of it for a retail game.

 

Aim the faux outrage at those who pirate indie games and join in this discussion.

 

And trooper, the post on GAF is anecdotal I admit, but you can't deny as per MS' rules these games cannot come to Xbox One unless they launch at the same time, so maybe that is enough to force some devs out of distaste just to go to the PS4. It's not as if the majority of indies are all snobs like some, most of them want their game everywhere to actually make a decent living. Due to "emotions" and things being more personal, they are however more likely to be upset at business practice or choosey. Unlike some large corporations that just go wherever the most green is.

 

Whatever you want to argue something must be driving them to PS4, and before anyone screams money, which in some cases will be true, not every damn indie game coming to the PS4 can have thousands passing hands. Sony couldn't even afford that lol, nor are smaller titles guaranteed to sell lots so business transactions become riskier. The pub fund if it's still running is one advantage for the really poor developers.

[trooper11]

And trooper, the post on GAF is anecdotal I admit, but you can't deny as per MS' rules these games cannot come to Xbox One unless they launch at the same time, so maybe that is enough to force some devs out of distaste just to go to the PS4. It's not as if the majority of indies are all snobs like some, most of them want their game everywhere to actually make a decent living. Due to "emotions" and things being more personal, they are however more likely to be upset at business practice or choosey. Unlike some large corporations that just go wherever the most green is.

 

Whatever you want to argue something must be driving them to PS4, and before anyone screams money, which in some cases will be true, not every damn indie game coming to the PS4 can have thousands passing hands. Sony couldn't even afford that lol, nor are smaller titles guaranteed to sell lots so business transactions become riskier. The pub fund if it's still running is one advantage for the really poor developers.

Oh I don't deny that developers would only release on the ps4 due to that clause. Let's just focus on what we know and not get bogged down in anecdotal evidence.

We also don't know how many waivers are issued for indie developers once they talk to MS.

All we know is that the clause is resulting in at least some developers reacting negatively. For me, that is enough to look at the policy and change it. I find it hard to believe that Phil Spencer is ignoring these complaints, so maybe the clause will finally go away.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Andrew

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Reared it's head again (didn't see the point in making a new topic)

@Skullgirls: @Master_Freezy MS doesn

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

that is a stupid reasoning.    just because they get the game later, does not mean they are 2nd class. 

 

2nd class is never getting the game!

[Noir Angel]

Edit: old topic

[George P Global Moderator]

This is hardly a issue, I don't understand the problem here, if you can't release it on the XB1 at the same time then don't join the program till after you release it elsewhere first, then join the program and release it on the XB1, problem solved.  It's not like they'll turn you away because you're game is already out on steam or something else.

[UnnDunn]

The point of the ID@Xbox parity clause is simple: Microsoft gives you heavily subsidized resources to make your game--free Unity license, heavily discounted Xbox dev-kits, etc.--and in return, you promise not to shaft Xbox owners by making them wait forever for a crappy version of the game while players on other platforms are enjoying a better version of the game sooner.

 

If you honestly don't have the resources to get the Xbox version out at the same time as on other platforms, then let Microsoft know, and they'll work with you to find a plan that works best for you and their customers. If you're just going to give Xbox customers hand-me-downs from other platforms to make a quick buck, or you unilaterally decide that Xbox owners aren't as important as players on other platforms, then Microsoft isn't interested in helping you.

 

It's simple and it makes total sense to me. Why should Microsoft help you out if you're going to turn around and snub their customers?

This is hardly a issue, I don't understand the problem here, if you can't release it on the XB1 at the same time then don't join the program till after you release it elsewhere first, then join the program and release it on the XB1, problem solved.  It's not like they'll turn you away because you're game is already out on steam or something else.

Actually, they will turn you down if your game is already out on other platforms. They don't want hand-me-downs from other platforms.

[Hedon]

Reared it's head again (didn't see the point in making a new topic)

@Skullgirls: @Master_Freezy MS doesn

[President Devil]

Yeah, it sounds like they're outright lying.

[Hedon]

Yeah, it sounds like they're outright lying.

I see you are a new member here! Welcome President Devil!

[spacer]

Looking at that Twitter and at their Facebook:

 

https://www.facebook.com/skullgirls

 

They have been asked numerous times if they contacted MS direct about getting their game added, and they will not answer the question. They keep copy/pasting that same exact comment over and over in the Facebook replies and Twitter, even when asked if they talked to ID@Xbox about it. 7 times. It sounds like they just don't have time to do much of anything, as they keep copy/pasting this too "We don't have the time, money or manpower to update all the systems with the new stuff, unfortunately."

 

I think they are not being completely forthright. 

The important point is, is they shouldn't need to ask in the first place. The parity clause is stupid and provides no benefit to Microsoft or Xbone owners. Microsoft's reasons for keeping it don't make any logical sense, and they just need to ditch the whole thing.

[Hedon]

The important point is, is they shouldn't need to ask in the first place. The parity clause is stupid and provides no benefit to Microsoft or Xbone owners. Microsoft's reasons for keeping it don't make any logical sense, and they just need to ditch the whole thing.

I don't think you will find anyone that will argue with that.

[President Devil]

Microsoft should change it into something like "Release on our system later and risk the fact that you will sell at a lower price than on competing platforms or bring exclusive content that validates the game still being at the same pricepoint".

 

Now that Xbox includes the PC and Windows Phone as an ecosystem with easy code portability, they can basically get all the software they want because those platforms have the most games of any platform, they just need to be less strict about their business.

[Woelfel]

Microsoft should change it into something like ..." bring exclusive content that validates the game still being at the same pricepoint".

 

That's exactly what they are saying. That's why I'm like...the clause does make sense. If an indie doesn't have resources for new stuff, why should they provide resources for you to just make a port? People forget that MS is providing resources to these developers.

[President Devil]

That's exactly what they are saying. That's why I'm like...the clause does make sense. If an indie doesn't have resources for new stuff, why should they provide resources for you to just make a port? People forget that MS is providing resources to these developers.

 

But is that what they are really saying? Because the way the media paints it is that MS simply refuses a game if it's been on another platform before, which I doubt of course since there are recent examples like Shovel Knight, which is a quality game that appeared a lot earlier on other platforms.

 

IMO I wouldn't want to become a shovelware garbagedump either if I were a platform holder. If it's the way I said it should be, it's completely reasonable for MS to uphold that rule.

[madd-hatter]

I'm surprised you guys are able to read, interpret, and converse on this topic.

I read the OP twice, and then again with only the bold print, and I feel like I need a translator for this babble.