Microsoft ONE Eighty on Indie Parity?

pravus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. Why would being a bigger team (and having a publisher) mean that parity is more important?

Also, you're saying that Sony has the same parity clause that MS does?
 
pravus said:
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.

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?
Click to expand...

Insert applause gif.

Spot on Pravus.
 
Anderson said:
I don't understand. Why would being a bigger team (and having a publisher) mean that parity is more important?

Also, you're saying that Sony has the same parity clause that MS does?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it is definitely the case that it would be the reasoning, I'm saying it could be the reason. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense for them to have the clause and then straight up throw it out there that they will waive it if the developer has a financial or timing issue with it and will further make concessions if they are a late game coming out of a timed exclusive period from another platform.

Bigger developers with deeper pockets are held to a higher standard, that would be a reason to hold them to release at the same time. The entire idea of having self publishing is to lower the bar of entry. But it might make sense to have the arbitrary requirement in case they want to enforce it, and from Charlas response developers that can handle it seems like the place they want to push it; instead of one small teams. All speculation and in my opinion if course.

As for Sony, I don't think they have the same parity clause, but clearly something is in place that had developers needing to add content for late games. Are those games able to release without extra content? Developers seem less inclined to throw all of Sony's policy out there for public consumption.
 
pravus said:
I'm not saying it is definitely the case that it would be the reasoning, I'm saying it could be the reason. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense for them to have the clause and then straight up throw it out there that they will waive it if the developer has a financial or timing issue with it and will further make concessions if they are a late game coming out of a timed exclusive period from another platform.

Bigger developers with deeper pockets are held to a higher standard, that would be a reason to hold them to release at the same time. The entire idea of having self publishing is to lower the bar of entry. But it might make sense to have the arbitrary requirement in case they want to enforce it, and from Charlas response developers that can handle it seems like the place they want to push it; instead of one small teams. All speculation and in my opinion if course.

As for Sony, I don't think they have the same parity clause, but clearly something is in place that had developers needing to add content for late games. Are those games able to release without extra content? Developers seem less inclined to throw all of Sony's policy out there for public consumption.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. So you're saying that the bigger indie teams may get the squeeze, whereas the smaller guys get a pass, because the former would have more financial resources to allow simultaneous release. That makes sense.

I've never heard of a similar clause for Sony. I've always assumed there was none, since I assumed that in all the articles and discussions about MS's parity clause, that would've been pointed out. But even if there isn't the exact same clause, they may have something similar in place, even at an "unwritten" level. Hard to know.
 
Microsoft's Original Stance: Case by Case basis
Microsoft's New Stance: Case by Case basis

PS fan Stance: 180
XB fan Stance: Case by Case basis

Only on Union.
 
pravus said:
As for Sony, I don't think they have the same parity clause, but clearly something is in place that had developers needing to add content for late games. Are those games able to release without extra content? Developers seem less inclined to throw all of Sony's policy out there for public consumption.
Click to expand...
I wonder if there's an NDA in place.
 
I don't see anyone parading the policy around in here. Clearly if having more indies on board is the goal, it is hindering it. I think everyone agrees on that.

Whether everyone cares or is okay with the quality of the smaller portion available on XBO is a completely different discussion though. :wink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back