Xbox One Parity Clause a 'Shame' Says Stealth Inc. Dev "

The developer of Stealth Inc. 2 has discussed Microsoft's controversial parity clause, saying most of the games industry wants it gone.

The story is too old to be commented.
xHeavYx1541d ago

Shouldn't be long till the parity clause is axed. We'll see what Mr Spencer does about it

ziggurcat1541d ago

if he's as smart as everyone says he is, it'll be gone soon. might even be an E3 announcement.

alexkoepp1541d ago

"For those not in the know, the Xbox One parity clause means developers can only release their titles on Xbox One if they haven't already been released on other consoles first."

Lol, this is why Tomb Raider, Spartan Assault, and Mass Effect trilogy are coming to Xbox One.

Just a bunch of lies, nice reporting IGN

Avernus1541d ago (Edited 1541d ago )

@ alexkoepp


Just to clarify my confusion. Didn't Tomb Raider release the same time on both consoles? Wouldn't Mass Effect release the same time also? I don't understand, you're stating the obvious, or something that I'm not getting?

Mr Pumblechook1541d ago

As long as Microsoft keeps the parity clause then it is a sign that they are the same old Microsoft from last year who wanted DRM for second hand games and 24 hour check in.

Leaks suggest Microsoft will be doing what Sony did last year at E3 and have a ton of indies on stage - but don't be fooled! if Microsoft don't reverse their parity clause then they are the same anti-gamer anti-capitalism company.

raWfodog1541d ago (Edited 1541d ago )

@ alexkoepp

You do know that those three games that you mentioned all debuted on MS platforms when they were first released, right?

Obviously, MS is not including their own systems/platforms in that clause.

DemonChicken1541d ago (Edited 1541d ago )

It be good if this is gone, but imho I don't think so.

As this is just business, it's Microsoft trying to get ahead of it's competition but they are doing it in a way in which disadvantages competition but also themselves on a reputation basis between consumers and developers.

Whereas Sony seems to be more consumer and developer focused. At present it seems Microsoft is following Sony's lead more than anything with it's famed 180s =p

tgunzz1541d ago

Ms can remove the clause, and still decide on the release, or non-release of any game (indie included), yes?

4Sh0w1541d ago (Edited 1541d ago )

I think the hate comes from misinformation. What's wrong from a business perspective to say we want equal or fair treatment from a dev for our platform WE OWN. If you choose to make a game for ps4 and can't take the time to make a xbox version then so be it, but don't get mad because we don't want old content on our platform sometimes years after its been on other platforms, we want premium/parity for release. Business is about protecting the health of your brand and it doesn't help if indies or any devs come to your platform late after sales dried up on other platforms, better just to pass sometimes.

tgunzz1541d ago (Edited 1541d ago )

I will say that this is very interesting.... Ok, I really don't care about this clause due to owning all consoles, but If I only owned 1 then yes it could be a issue (but that goes for 3rd/1st party exclusives to any console). Last gen no one brought this up, and I want to from this dev, and any other as to why? If they say because ms was lead platform, then my take is that money was/is the devs #1 priority just the way many feel about ms. If this was always about the gamers, then this protocol would have been challenged at it's birth no matter what. I can assume that if xb was in lead again this early gen, we wouldn't here about this... Even with this clause in place, there were a ton of indie games launched on xb360, more so than ps3, and that didn't keep me from owning a ps3...

bessy671541d ago

Parity clause needs to stay. They just need to implement their own version of Sony's pub fund to go along with it.

UltimateMaster1540d ago

This parity clause came from Phil Spencer himself.
He's the one that changed the previous rules onto these newer rules and talked about the changes he made during last year's Gamescon.

ocelot071540d ago

@Alexkoepp I think the Priority clause is for indie devs. For example if a indie devs wants to make a indie title for say PS4 and Xbox One. He would have to release it on both consoles the same time. Now if the dev wanted to release the title on PS4 first then move onto the XB1 version and release it at a later date. Microsoft does not allow that.

darthv721540d ago

From what i understand. This "parity" clause relates to release not quality. If a dev is having trouble with getting an xb version up to speed in order to release at the same time as another platform then perhaps MS should step in with some assistance????

sony has done that with devs who were struggling to meet deadlines before. MS can do the same thing.

Or would that be a bad thing in gamers eyes???

AceBlazer131540d ago

How can anyone say this clause is a good thing?

There are only 2 outcomes with this clause Xbox gets less games or other platforms have to wait longer just because of Xbox.

How is that a good thing?

What's even more messed up to me is that these are the same guys that pay to keep dlc off other platforms for a whole extra month.Where's the freakin parity in that?

No one can say I'm wrong for hating Microsoft and the Xbox and even their fanboys.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1540d ago
miyamoto1541d ago

And many many many ignorant gamers on the internet say " competition is good for the industry" BS! If you are competing with a dirty fighter like M$ are you gonna enjoy the fight¿ Low blows , head butting, ear biting fighter M$ is! and many morons justify such a contender?! The stupidity of many commenters never cease to astonish me. Fanboys and bloggers really need some senses injected on them.
They will defend a monster like M$ with no sense of moeality and responsibility to the gaming society.
7 milliion gamers already voiced their opinion and voted on the matter and Sony needs to make more ballots called the PS4 so the world can see more votes against the back stabbers that caused all this trouble to the gaming industry.

cyclindk1541d ago (Edited 1541d ago )

I cannot imagine beyond blind ignorance why so many people are loyal to this company of ALL companies! I say any company loyalty as a customer is retarded, but ESPECIALLY to one has universally reviled as monopolistic, anti-consumer, et cetera... The only allegience one should have is to the lowest price for the best quality.

I've unfortunately only ever met such people here or elsewhere in and under the great anonymity blanket known as the world wide interwebnets.. Where no one is accountable for what they say :)

Charybdis1541d ago (Edited 1541d ago )

Competition is good for the gaming industry without competition developers and publishers would be dependent and at the mercy of in this case Sony. They might play nice now untill shareholders decide that their CEO's can or need to make more money.

For argument sake don't take everything too personal, sometimes people can disagree but try to play nice and contribute to discussion without calling people with other opinions morons or ignorant. Can see why you would call Microsoft a monster as it is a big corporation but seriously it is one of the best rated companies in social responsibilities. I am sure that there are some employees that might bite ears but I am sure most are nice people. P. Spencer seems like a nice guy capable of complementing the competition and not throwing with mud at them.

Sheikh Yerbouti1541d ago

Loyalty to a MNC is somewhat laughable at least on any emotional level. But having a company that is reliable and responsive is a special thing, and I reward SCE with my patronage.

jerjef1540d ago

Morality and responsibility to the gaming society? I hope you're not referring to Sony. The big difference between MS and Sony is that MS is not the lead platform this gen so now devs are getting whiney about these policies that have been around for quite a while. Sony is not better than MS. Have a look at these articles.

Sony's plan for DRM restriction to prevent used games:

Sony's ToS states that you cannot resell your games and also they reserve the right to spy on you whenever they want.

So don't go waving your morality flag at us saying MS is evil when Sony is just as bad, but keep flying under the radar for some reason. Maybe it's biased journalism. Maybe it's because they're the lead platform now so devs will do whatever they say. Who knows.

DragonKnight1540d ago



@jerjef: Filing a patent is irrelevant. Patents are filed every day with the sole purpose of preventing someone else from using an idea without paying for it first. Sony could have a patent on how to kill babies with spaghetti and it wouldn't mean that they're actually going to go and kill babies with spaghetti. Microsoft were actually going through with their plans, Sony was just trying to cash in on a specific idea.

As for the ToS, it's also irrelevant due to the fact that several Sony executives have publicly stated that you can resell your games, this renders that aspect of the ToS completely void as all it would take is even one Tweet, article, or public appearance to destroy Sony or any third party's position should they try to enforce that clause. That term in the ToS likely has more to do with Sony's legal department getting edgy about unused copyright laws than it is Sony actually wanting to enforce such a clause.

Unless you have proof that Sony has taken anyone to court, or has prevented them from using their PS4's due to reselling games.

You don't? Didn't think so.

jerjef1540d ago

@DragonKnight Oh come on really? This is what you're going to hand to me. You really don't think the public backlash against MS is what stalled Sony from using their own brand of DRM to prevent used games. This was planned as far back as March of 2012 here

When MS got blasted they spun it around to make them look good.

Oh and way to go dodging the spying in their ToS agreement. And just because an executive says they won't enforce something doesn't mean squat. Is that executive always going to be there? That's an ace in the hole if they ever need to use it.

DragonKnight1540d ago (Edited 1540d ago )

@jerjef: "Oh come on really? This is what you're going to hand to me. You really don't think the public backlash against MS is what stalled Sony from using their own brand of DRM to prevent used games. This was planned as far back as March of 2012 here..."

No, I don't. Two reasons. For starters, the kraptaku article you linked to is for a work in progress console still operating under its codename. To say nothing is final is an understatement under those condtions. And then there's this...

Feb.21/2013. The backlash against Microsoft didn't happen for AT LEAST a month after that, but not actually until E3, which was months after. Plus, if you know anything about business, you know that Sony couldn't make a last minute decision like this at E3 because that's illegal. Shareholders have to be notified of such changes well beforehand. Then there's also the logistics issue involved. Plus, there's the technical fact that there is no built-in DRM on the PS4 while there is on the Xbox One, it's just circumvented by the initial firmware update you have to install upon turning the XB1 on.

All of these factors culminate to one incontrovertible conclusion that only anti-Playstion, anti-Sony fanboys will ever deny. That being that there was never any DRM against used games that was going to be implemented on the PS4. A single patent is proof of nothing other than Sony wants to copyright an idea so that they make the money off of it, no one else.

I'm not dodging anything. That specific term in the ToS is in ALL ToS' and is due to law enforcement. This isn't like Microsoft being in bed with the NSA, this is Sony saying that if there is a police investigation, all their stored records of your communications will be turned over. This isn't Sony using a camera to read biometric data, funneling it to advertisement and government secret service agencies. And it doesn't matter if the executive leaves the company or not, all that matters is there is a public record of a policy maker saying something will not happen. That's enough evidence to use in court.

Paint your conspiracies however you like, they fail in the face of facts.

jerjef1540d ago

All legal documents including the ToS are open to interpretation and just because you read it this way doesn't mean it's not an open door to do whatever they want. They say they're only recording voice conversations and messages and game behaviour for legal authorities, but the fact they say other appropriate authorities can also be considered the government, FBI and NSA depending on the situation. Sure the camera and mic for the PS4 are optional, but can anyone prove that they won't be included if someone uses them? Does MS say in their ToS that they report to the NSA? No so just because it's not in the ToS doesn't mean it's not happening.

MS unveiled their DRM plans May 21st. E3 was June 11. That's 19 days where alot can happen including Sony making a DRM 180. Considering no one even saw the console until E3 tells me they could've had 2 prototypes ready for production since production didn't start until August.

DragonKnight1540d ago

So now we're going the "interpretation" route? That's a non-argument that you drummed up so that you didn't have to admit that you are wrong.

Sony said in Feb 2013 that there was no used games DRM on the PS4, are you trying to say they have precognition and knew what Microsoft were going to do in May now?

Just stop. You have been proven wrong on all fronts.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1540d ago
Pogmathoin1541d ago

Another article where someone is being cheap looking for publicity...... Now 2 a week....

Magicite1541d ago

If MS will keep parity rules, then certain developers/publishers will stop releasing games for X1.

esemce1540d ago (Edited 1540d ago )

Many indie devs can only afford to release for one platform at a time so what Microsoft is doing here is quite disgustion in forcing those devs to release on Xbox first or not at all.

So what happens is if the title is a big hit it becomes known as an Xbox game and MS get the most profit as the game is new. If it does not sell that well and they cannot afford to make other versions then Microsoft gets an exclusive.

So it's bribery and bullying from MS, 'make it for us first or get lost and lose income'.

Dirty tricks from Microsft again that still

Oh I nearly forgot.........F**ck you Microshaft!

khan_saab1541d ago

it would be illogical for them to remove this clause. If you are a small developer and you wish to release the game on xbox and playstation but you have enough resources to develop it for one console then you would feel the need to do so on the xbox. the reason is because this clause incentives doing so. You have an unlimited window releasing on the playstation but a limited one for the xbox. Microsoft has always believed that timed exclusives are just as valuable as true exclusives and this clause helps secure that the playstation is not awarded such timed exclusives.

DragonKnight1540d ago

And that's exactly why no one wants to follow that clause. It is a pressure tactic used by Microsoft that simply pushes developers in the direction of Sony, who aren't pressuring the developers to do anything. This makes them feel like Sony cares about their concerns and/or limited resources and simply want the game on their console. Sony, however, has a better approach than MS. Sony will allow you to publish your game on any other platform first, but if you take your time releasing it on the PS console then you have to include extra content to make it worth the time consumers had to wait for it. This is much more reasonable than MS' approach.

MoonConquistador1540d ago

Khan, try re reading what you wrote, but try seeing it from the point of view of the indie developer rather than from Microsoft's point of view.

Last gen, if an indie developer wanted to release on both but only had the resources to develop for one platform at a time, nobody would argue if they went with x box first. It was easier to develop for, had just as many users, and you could actually argue that they were providing games that MS weren't so had better chances of selling. Sony never punished them for it by refusing their place on a PlayStation platform.

Now look at this gen. Same situation, but now Sony can provide double the amount of potential customers and an easier to develop platform, so common sense would say PlayStation first. But in this case, MS throw the toys out the pram and actually cut off their own noses to spite the bitter twisted faces that they sport. The developer loses out, XBone owners lose out, and nobody actually wins or benefits from the situation.

Nobody ever went out and bought an x box cos it had indie games on it that PlayStation didn't. These aren't system selling games we're talking about here.

But if you wanna sing the praises of this backward thinking, completely irrational policy, then it seems you and MS are perfectly matched with each other.

Enjoy your limited game selection this gen, whilst I can still enjoy some indie gems for my PS4, whilst also having the option to play Fez and any other games that released on x box first on my PS3 or Vita.

It doesn't bother me that you got the chance to play it before me. I moved out of the playground when I grew up, I'd suggest you, and MS, do the same

khan_saab1540d ago

I want to make one thing clear. I am not supportive of this policy. I do not own any of Microsoft's consoles, in fact i have been gaming exclusively on the PS3 last gen and have begun gaming on the PC a little while ago.

The point that I was trying to get across was not in support of the policy but to point out that Microsoft would not remove this policy unless there is an incentive to do so. Look how long it took for them to get rid of the DRM for XBOX one. it was only after all of the negative public opinion that they decided not to introduce it. That was a policy that everyone was talking about and did not like it. This policy is not as prominent. the point i wanted to get across was that indie developers pleading the removal of this policy is not incentivizing enough for Microsoft to remove this.

I do not like it, but I see why Microsoft does.

MoonConquistador1538d ago

OK, I take your point that you're not supportive of it, if only MS would wake up and smell the s*** they are shovelling, then they might change it and the gaming landscape will be all the better for it.

It worked for them last gen for the reasons I listed above. Its not going to work this gen again for the reasons I listed. So they either drop the policy or face indies not releasing games on their platform. Again, the Indies will lose out, xbone owners lose out and MS loses out not having as diverse a gaming catalogue.

This is the results of half arsed policies dreamt up with only bad intentions and greed in mind.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1538d ago
1541d ago Replies(1)
+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1538d ago
akaFullMetal1541d ago

Hopefully Spencer will be a smart man and get rid of it!

choujij1541d ago (Edited 1541d ago )

I hope someone asks him about it in an interview. Would love to see what he has to say on the subject.

incendy351541d ago

I don't get that clause at all. They need to get rid of it. Would be nice if they would just open the store for self publishing and get out of the way "except for testing that the games don't break things". Curate, don't dictate :D

Jazz41081541d ago

You do realize ms has no parity clause if you buy your software and dev kits like you do on the ps4? The parity clause comes in when you accept there two free dev kits, free unity engine and servers and support help. How is ms in the wrong here. If you want it like the ps4 then buy your stuff like the ps4 or quit whining over free stuff.

CYCLEGAMER1541d ago ShowReplies(6)
SpiralTear1541d ago

It's ironic that the clause was put in place to keep paces with Microsoft's rivals, but instead is convincing indie developers to pass on Xbox One, keeping awesome releases off the system and on other platforms.


I think its also has something to do with quality control, 360 owners know how messy the indie section can get. I would rather have good quality indies instead of a bunch of crap to sort through to find a good game.

DigitalRaptor1541d ago (Edited 1541d ago )

360 owners know how messy the indie section can get because the indie section has file size restrictions of 50MB.. yep.

And anyone with XNA tools could publish a game to that marketplace.

If you'd actually been paying attention, there IS quality control as every developer has to go through Sony. If a game is broken or plays terribly, it won't pass QA. How many indies have been trash so far? The vast, vast minority. Standards are simply getting better, and devs don't have restrictions to work with, they have freedom, assistance and true independence.

What you said is simply another excuse to justify a crappy, restrictive policy that benefits no one but Microsoft. But in the end, it doesn't even benefit them, cause they will have less unique and creative games on their system.

GameSpawn1541d ago (Edited 1541d ago )

That's because the "parity" clause is only beneficial to the console manufacturer that tends to be the lead platform (aka the one who holds the cards). They had the advantage in the 360/PS3 gen because they launched first and set the standard and got away with having the clause in place. Microsoft doesn't hold the cards at the start of this gen, so their clause is a double edged sword that is coming back to bite them in the butt.

The "parity" concept is really just a load of anti-competitive bull that does not deserve to be part of ANY industry.

On the surface it may look like quality control, but it is not. There are other publishing policies in place to prevent truly broken indie games from flooding the marketplace. Parity is all about making one manufacturer's console first over the others or never at all as well as "dumbing" down competitors' versions to be "equal" even though they could be capable of more (quality or features).