Microsoft ONE Eighty on Indie Parity?

[Megatons]

Microsoft Has “No Problem” With Indies Releasing on Rival Platforms First If Developers Lack Resources

March 7, 2015 Written by Zarmena Khan

Microsoft’s Xbox One parity clause has been criticized numerous times by developers and players alike. The company previously said that it wanted Xbox One owners to feel “first class,” but that there were some exceptions to the clause that requires indie games to launch on the Xbox One at least at the same time as they launch on rival consoles, if not first on Xbox One. Speaking to GameSpot, Microsoft’s Chris Charla said that the company has “no problem” with indie games coming to rival platforms first if developers lack resources to release games simultaneously.
“What we’ve always said is that developers should just come talk to us. If it’s a situation where a developer needs to ship serially on console because they don’t have the resources to simultaneously ship, we totally get that. It’s no problem.”
However, Microsoft still won’t accept simple ports coming to Xbox One “significantly later.”

“If it’s a case where a game is coming out significantly later on Xbox One than another console, in that case we just ask them to add something to the game that makes it fresh for Xbox players.”
Seems like Microsoft has offered some relaxation to developers. Rivalry aside, do you think Charla has the right stance?
[Source: GameSpot]​

 

[The Wolf King]

They have had a somewhat relaxed stance on it anyways as several times have appeared in Xbox later already.

 

[Obscene Jester]

Makes sense. It's not a policy you can hold up when you are in second place.

 

[oo Yungstar oo]

“If it’s a case where a game is coming out significantly later on Xbox One than another console, in that case we just ask them to add something to the game that makes it fresh for Xbox players.”​

that would be why Shovel Knight has Battletoads characters in it.

 

[Shawn Jelsic]

Sigh...

The beauty of competition. That swift kick in the butt was long overdue. Their original policy was hurting the industry rather than helping it.

 

[This_Hard_Land]

Microsoft really struggled this gen with a lack of leadership. It's about time to overturn this pathetic policy.

 

[jimmyD]

Microsoft really struggled this gen with a lack of leadership. It's about time to overturn this pathetic policy.

But last gen you said indies were pathetic and didn't matter when the roles were reversed. You're like TD sort of.

 

[DriedMangoes]

Another 180? Damn.

 

[This_Hard_Land]

But last gen you said indies were pathetic and didn't matter when the roles were reversed. You're like TD sort of.

Can you find a quote of mine that illustrated as such?

Indies last gen...

Indies this gen...

The size and scope of indies has changed just a wee bit in the last 5 - 8 years.

 

[pravus]

Nothing has changed at all. The policy is exactly the same now as it was when people bitched about it the first time.

They have always maintained that things can be worked out on a case by case basis.

Edit: For people that seem to care about this "issue", I would figure that you already knew this before any ID@Xbox games even released. Hell, I think they said as much before the console even released. Glad you guys were able to confirm your thoughts though.

 

[Mcmasters]

Why was this topic moved from the Xbox forums? Zeus knows DM, Jinca and THL will swallow this whole, with no drippage. Doesn't seem right....

 

[Shawn Jelsic]

Nothing has changed at all. The policy is exactly the same now as it was when people b****ed about it the first time.

They have always maintained that things can be worked out on a case by case basis.

Edit: For people that seem to care about this "issue", I would figure that you already knew this before any ID@Xbox games even released. Hell, I think they said as much before the console even released. Glad you guys were able to confirm your thoughts though.

Actually, a dev came forward about a month or two ago talking about how they wanted to release their game on Microsoft's console but they couldn't because of Microsoft's policy. Hopefully i can think of the game and prompt you to the source. If i do, I'll edit this post.

Edit: got it!

http://bgr.com/2015/01/16/xbox-one-indie-games-parity-clause/

 

[yankeessuck]

Actually, a dev came forward about a month or two ago talking about how they wanted to release their game on Microsoft's console but they couldn't because of Microsoft's policy. Hopefully i can think of the game and prompt you to the source. If i do, I'll edit this post.

But nothing has changed though. It was case by case before and still is.

 

[Kvally]

How is this a 180, when they have been doing this since day one? So no 180 here. They have been and continue to have the same policy.

No 180 here.

 

[pravus]

Actually, a dev came forward about a month or two ago talking about how they wanted to release their game on Microsoft's console but they couldn't because of Microsoft's policy. Hopefully i can think of the game and prompt you to the source. If i do, I'll edit this post.

If you find that link, post it.

If it's what I assume it is, it's from an indie developer who literally only mentioned the Xbox platform to s*** on it, claiming parity clause prevented then, then conveniently mentioned that they signed an exclusive agreement with Sony that they "couldn't pass up!". So much BS.

Charla (the guy interviewed in the OP) was actually the one that called out the guys BS and said that the developer had literally NEVER contacted them in any form.

That was the latest "parity" terror alert news anyways.

 

[Shawn Jelsic]

If you find that link, post it.

If it's what I assume it is, it's from an indie developer who literally only mentioned the Xbox platform to s*** on it, claiming parity clause prevented then, then conveniently mentioned that they signed an exclusive agreement with Sony that they "couldn't pass up!". So much BS.

Charla (the guy interviewed in the OP) was actually the one that called out the guys BS and said that the developer had literally NEVER contacted them in any form.

That was the latest "parity" terror alert news anyways.

That sounds like the source, nott sure about s.........on it though. Even still, it shouldn't matter who approached who first. A game is a game, and gamers will be the one losing out if it doesn't release on a specific platform because of this policy.

And i did find the source, btw.

 

[pravus]

That sounds like the source. Even still, it shouldn't matter who approached who first. A game is a game, and gamers will be the one losing out if it doesn't release on a specific platform because of this policy.

And i did find the source, btw.

It matters a lot. The guy literally lied in an interview.

The policy didn't prevent then from releasing first, later or whatever. Their acceptance of a Sony money-hat and signing a fully exclusive agreement... all while never actually even considering the Xbox Platform is what prevented the games release. It's not like they hooked up with Sony without contacting them first, unless they're using some kind of telepathic abilities to conduct business.

I'm glad you found the source, as you can confirm that it was 110% manufactured FUD. You should also not find it surprising that almost all, with few exceptions, of the people that publicly made a stink about the policy had previously signed an exclusive agreement with Sony beforehand.

Shocking.

 

[Shawn Jelsic]

It matters a lot. The guy literally lied in an interview.

The policy didn't prevent then from releasing first, later or whatever. Their acceptance of a Sony money-hat and signing a fully exclusive agreement... all while never actually even considering the Xbox Platform is what prevented the games release. It's not like they hooked up with Sony without contacting them first, unless they're using some kind of telepathic abilities to conduct business.

I'm glad you found the source, as you can confirm that it was 110% manufactured FUD. You should also not find it surprising that almost all, with few exceptions, of the people that publicly made a stink about the policy had previously signed an exclusive agreement with Sony beforehand.

Shocking.

Well, if the console had a larger install base, why not take a risk on getting your project infront of a crowd that's going to matter first rather than spreading yourself thin to release on mutiple systems and the project isn't up to par? I'm sure had your business counted on this, you'd had taken a similar step.

Because they are a small company, only so many projects can be achieved at one time. Which is why I say it shouldn't matter who approached who first. If you are going to shoot for mass market, it shouldn't matter who made what deal first. The focus should be diversity, and that is all that should matter. By putting yourself in a box like that to get greedy, you are liable to lose everything, and here is just one of those cases

 

[Andy]

So the policy is that you have to release simultaneously, except when there are financial issues that prohibit that. Since "financial issues that prohibit that" are the most common reason for non-simultaneous release, it seems a bit odd to have the policy in the first place. Why not just have a policy that you can't bring a straight port to Xbox a year later, rather than a policy that is more often excepted than enforced? Just seems like a weird decision to me.

 

[DriedMangoes]

So the policy is that you have to release simultaneously, except when there are financial issues that prohibit that. Since "financial issues that prohibit that" are the most common reason for non-simultaneous release, it seems a bit odd to have the policy in the first place. Why not just have a policy that you can't bring a straight port to Xbox a year later, rather than a policy that is more often excepted than enforced? Just seems like a weird decision to me.

They are trying to push devs to release on the One first.

 

[Shawn Jelsic]

This is what I was talking about: http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=947986

This shines a little light on the negative side of this deal. The only one hurting over this is the user. Every time one of these games are lost, someone else picks it up, and the console that didn't get it loses more users since its catelog becomes not only smaller but lacking diversity amongst a wide range of gamers, and this becomes extremely important on a global scale.

 

[TDbank24]

I'm glad Microsoft isn't as indie focused as Sony is. Give me the best exclusives and the rest is gravy. Microsoft's focus has always been in the right place. They don't pander to the masses. They focus on the hardcore crowd of gamers. They have earned a fan for life.

 

[Mcmasters]

I'm glad Microsoft isn't as indie focused as Sony is. Give me the best exclusives and the rest is gravy. Microsoft's focus has always been in the right place. They don't pander to the masses. They focus on the hardcore crowd of gamers. They have earned a fan for life.

Bob?! lol.

J/K. TD. Just trying to keep up with you. lol.

 

[pravus]

This is what I was talking about: http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=947986

This shines a little light on the negative side of this deal. The only one hurting over this is the user. Every time one of these games are lost, someone else picks it up, and the console that didn't get it loses more users since its catelog becomes not only smaller but lacking diversity amongst a wide range of gamers, and this becomes extremely important on a global scale.

Besides completely ignoring the BS I pointed out above, do you mean to tell me that you don't see anything in that thread that defies logic. Especially considering the thread you are currently responding in; there are some logic holes that are rather obvious, especially if you go through that thread and possibly follow some of those developers on Twitter.

"The beauty of competition..."

Lol, more like, "the beauty of concern trolling". If this actually mattered in any significant way to you, your posts wouldn't reflect the stance that the original topic of MS having leniency is some new idea. Several other posters have already pointed it out as well that this is completely old news.

Spoiler

it predates the console release for f***s sake.

If you guys actually had any real stance on the matter besides ps4>xb1, wouldn't you have already noticed that there have already been plenty of titles that released on XBO after their initial PS4 debut?

 

[Andy]

They are trying to push devs to release on the One first.

How's that working out for them?

 

[DriedMangoes]

How's that working out for them?

Not good, hence the 180.

 

[Shawn Jelsic]

Besides completely ignoring the BS I pointed out above, do you mean to tell me that you don't see anything in that thread that defies logic. Especially considering the thread you are currently responding in; there are some logic holes that are rather obvious, especially if you go through that thread and possibly follow some of those developers on Twitter.

"The beauty of competition..."

Lol, more like, "the beauty of concern trolling". If this actually mattered in any significant way to you, your posts wouldn't reflect the stance that the original topic of MS having leniency is some new idea. Several other posters have already pointed it out as well that this is completely old news.

Spoiler

it predates the console release for f***s sake.

If you guys actually had any real stance on the matter besides ps4>xb1, wouldn't you have already noticed that there have already been plenty of titles that released on XBO after their initial PS4 debut?

Wait what? Lmao!

I must have ruffled a few feathers there if what I've said has gotten you off your square. All I said was its logical why he chose one platform over the other, and had you been in his position you probably would have too. I just don't think burning the bridge just because someone doesn't choose you first is a reason to turn your back. At the end of the day, you are shooting for a global consumer base, and you can't do that if you keep shutting down anyone that doesn't side with you first otherwise you'll never be able to penetrate the global market.

Where was I out of line anywhere in that post?

Did you even see this in the link I provided? A lot of small companies fill this way, and I doubt they are saying it just to be hateful towards the platform.

I applied to both the ID@Xbox program and the Sony developer program back in Feb. While both programs are fantastic and have great people behind them, I was able to get my Xbox One dev kit first by a few months. Theoretically this should have allowed me to get started on an XB1 port of my game except for one issue: the engine I use, GM Studio, would not be supporting XB1 until later this year. PS4/Vita support was already built into the engine. So, I started studying PS platform requirements, APIs, and GM Studio integration in preparation for my dev kits which I received last month. Through no fault of my own, I was developing first for Playstation because that's the engine that was available to me via GM Studio. My PS4 game will be ready much earlier than my XB1 version. And despite having an XB1 dev kit, MS doesn't want my game at a later date. They want me to delay my PS4 version until I can get the XB1 version out the door. And that's impossible for me to do from a scheduling and financial standpoint. And so, just like that, I'm unable to make XB1 games, even though I very much want to. Even though I'm an ID@Xbox dev. Even though I have a dev kit right here next to me.

 

[bullzeye]

It's not really a 180 it's the exact stance they've had the whole time.

 

[pravus]

Wait what? Lmao!

I must have ruffled a few feathers there if what I've said has gotten you off your square. All I said was its logical why he chose one platform over the other, and had you been in his position you probably would have too. I just don't think burning the bridge just because someone doesn't choose you first is a reason to turn your back. At the end of the day, you are shooting for a global consumer base, and you can't do that if you keep shutting down anyone that doesn't side with you first otherwise you'll never be able to penetrate the global market.

Where was I out of line anywhere in that post?

Did you even see this in the link I provided? A lot of small companies fill this way, and I doubt they are saying it just to be hateful towards the platform.

Bro, I really don't care why he chose to go with Sony. It's completely his decision, his money, his game. The only aspect I take issue with is that he claimed he had been denied access to release his game on Xbox One via ID@Xbox because of the big bad "parity clause", which was 100% a lie. I'm not sure why you keep glossing over that aspect, as everything else about it is completely irrelevant.

Chris Charla, head of ID@Xbox called the guys bulls*** out completely and stated that this developer NEVER contacted them. That's the end of that discussion.

Secondly, as for chubigans post. How accurate of a portrayal is it when the quote you posted defies the statement he made two paragraphs above the one you quoted?

There are three ways around this clause. The first is to release your game simultaneously on PS4 and XB1. The second is to launch first on XB1 and release a PS4 version later. Finally, the third is asking Phil Spencer for a free pass, which has NDA'd guidelines and specifics that I cannot get into, nor know the specifics of.
​

The guy straight up says that he doesn't know the specifics of the issue because he didn't contact MS. His words, not mine.

Thirdly. He says, "it's impossible for me to say if all 47 asked for exceptions or not. I do know of two in particular that got a free pass: Stick it to the Man and Pure Pool.". Therefore confirming that he is basing all of this on guess work. Those 47 games were announced for the PS platform at a Sony event. How many of them signed partial or exclusive agreements?


He says, "You can no longer add exclusive content to get around the parity clause. ". Is this true?

-Chris Charla says the exact opposite is the case for extra late games, in this very thread.

You'll find a bunch of inconsistencies like that if you read the thread, instead of pulling quotes out of context.

Hell, one of the other developers in that thread who was very against the parity clause... I don't think you'd be surprised if I told you where he announced his games will be released (after he actually contacted MS).

If that thread is all you base the indie release differences on, you get the lopsided idea that the only reason there are more indie games on PS4 is because of the parity clause.

I don't think that is entirely the case and it flies completely in the face of the idea that Sony took what MS was doing with XBLA and expanded upon it promptly and heavy handedly; while at the same time luring in more developers with newly changed idiotic policies (remember they turned down Super Meatboy simply because they didn't like it) and opened up funding options for indies. Vita literally thrives off of indie games at the moment, that isn't by mistake, it's by design. I have no problems saying Sony did a way better job courting indie developers and getting the better of public opinion on their side in landslide fashion.

If you think the "parity clause" (which Charla says will not hinder developers with financial situations) is the main cause than I think you are selling Sony short.
...............

Also Anderson, I think the reason the parity clause might exist, would pertain specifically to big developers. Everyone keeps mentioning indies as if they are all 3 person teams, with a shoestring budget. There are some goliaths in the room; Riot Games, WarGaming, Digital Extremes etc etc are all big independent developers. Typically, games from big developers would likely be under a publisher, and therefore need release parity there as well. I'm pretty sure Sony has the same clause for published games as well, they even have the "we need extra stuff if you're releasing later" part as well. It could be the case that the clause is in place for those reasons. I can only take it as face value when they say they will absolutely work with small developers that need adjustments to it; it just seems to be the case that Sony has lured a ton of them exclusively and partially exclusively in their direction by being completely gung-ho about it.

 

[Tmecha]

once win10/dx12 is out in full the clause shouldn't matter, you can make a pc game and port it to xbox one in matter of days. So financial and time shouldn't be effected.