Top
190°

What do Indie devs really think about the Xbox One?

XB1 asked 7 Indie developers how they're getting on with the [email protected] program

The story is too old to be commented.
XiSasukeUchiha1267d ago

Good for them, now the parity clause needs to be destroyed that's all, then indies will come a flocking.

headblackman1267d ago

no they don't! they xbox brand doesn't care about them flocking to their console. it cares more so about keeping them on their console. sony cares about right now and the xbox brand always thinks towards the future.

DragonKnight1267d ago

"sony cares about right now and the xbox brand always thinks towards the future."

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

xHeavYx1267d ago (Edited 1267d ago )

"Let's ask devs who are developing game for Xbox what they think about the Xbox One"
SMH...
There is a reason why only 250 devs are developing for Xbox compared to over 1,000 that are developing for Sony
Source for the future disagrees http://www.cinemablend.com/...

dantesparda1267d ago

We all know MS fanboys don't wanna know the truth, they wanna believe all the PR and lies.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1267d ago
mrpsychoticstalker1267d ago (Edited 1267d ago )

They think is awesome and easy to work with.

Next question.

@cgoodno

All Companies have and implement "underhanded and scummy business tactics" if they really want to have an impact on the market.

Eonjay1267d ago

And some are excited to be on their first console.

Christopher1267d ago

Wait... does anyone expect them to talk poorly about the program when they're developing their game for and hoping for sales on the Xbox One?

Journo: "How do you like developing for the PS4?"

Dev: "It sucks. Worst customer service. Horrible OS implementation. Hardware is ass. By the way, buy my game coming out next month on the PS4."

I also think people need to realize that both consoles are good for Indies as far as market share. I do really hope Microsoft would get rid of the parity clause. But, that doesn't mean that the console itself isn't good for Indies. It just means MS has, what I consider, underhanded and scummy business tactics.

Septic1267d ago

I went to an indie developers thing in London this weekend (Radius festival in London) and to be honest, a lot of them said they had no problem with MS at all. Some had a lot of praises for them.

I left my microphone at home so I've only got crappy sound recordings on my phone (the video I haven't checked but I imagine the camcorder picked up all the background noise).

I agree with you though; the parity clause needs to go.

Christopher1267d ago

Yeah, other than the parity clause, I see MS and Sony on equal footing as far as the potential to support Indies. I'm not sure which one goes out more for getting Indies on their console (that's all backdoor business stuffs), but they both offer a lot of potential and give people the tools they need to succeed.

Volkama1267d ago

I really don't think the day one policy is a lot to ask when they are giving away free dev kits, free unity pro licenses, free certification and of course a market for games to be sold. It's a pretty sweet deal, even with the infamous clause.

Seems so petty to moan that MS want something in return for all that.

Christopher1267d ago (Edited 1267d ago )

Greatly disagree with that. I'd pay the $400 you need to Sony to have the right to publish how and when I want and not what the a hardware manufacturer tells me to.

Darkstares1267d ago (Edited 1267d ago )

Sony is also courting indie developers with royalties,

"The Pub Fund itself is an interesting sort of creativity incubator. Sony basically gives developers royalties up front so that they can fund their games. In return, Sony gets either full exclusivity or timed exclusivity. They don’t own the developer and they only work from one game to the next, avoiding any long-term contracts."

http://www.forbes.com/sites...

Christopher1267d ago (Edited 1267d ago )

@Darkstares:

You said it. Sony is courting Indies.

MS is not courting Indies with this. They are telling them how it's going to be and limiting their release options.

Courting vs demanding. You tell me which one people would prefer?

Remember, if you don't agree to the [email protected] EULA, that's it. Sony isn't telling them how and when to put out their Indie games. They are just offering alternative incentives to encourage them to go Sony first. MS is demanding MS first.

Christopher1267d ago

Not at all. They give up front funding in
MS says "Every Indie developer must publish on our console first or at the same time as any other console. This is regardless if we help you out in any way or not."

Sony says "We'll offer you some up front funding to make the game if you agree to timed exclusivity on our platform(s). Otherwise, you can do whatever you want on whatever platform you want."

You tell me. Is the option in getting paid to go timed exclusive scummier than telling everyone you have to have same-date parity on their console? And, then, for big Indies that don't fit that requirement, they bend over backwards to break their own EULA to allow Indies who have done well on other consoles to put out on their console.

No. Not at all scummy. All Sony is doing is offering up an option by offering to pay for exclusivity. That's standard protocol in publishing. MS is saying everyone better fall in line unless we decide to break our own rules, regardless if we help you or not.

Darkstares1267d ago

Microsoft doesn't want to get sloppy seconds. They know timed exclusive deals could hinder sales. We also know games are starting to come out later like Outlast and New and Tasty. Seems like those Xbox 360 policies are not as firm for the XBox One.

Another game called No Man's Sky is getting console exclusivity on the PS4. Which we all know will eventually come to the XB1. One can also say these timed exclusive deals are scummy which MS is famous for doing as well.

The fact is the XB1 is a free platform for indie developers. The PS4 development kit isn't. Sony is trying to help developers with royalties but it is still a tactic to keep those games from appearing ion another system, which is also a scummy tactic because its limiting its userbase no matter how you look at it.

All of these policies are scummy tactics.

Christopher1266d ago (Edited 1266d ago )

***Microsoft doesn't want to get sloppy seconds.***

Then make a system that's better and more open to the Indie developers they want. To force them to sign away their rights or not publish there at all isn't encouraging, it's trapping.

***Another game called No Man's Sky is getting console exclusivity on the PS4. Which we all know will eventually come to the XB1. One can also say these timed exclusive deals are scummy which MS is famous for doing as well. ***

Interesting you would bring that up since MS originally passed on this game and Sony saw it months later and picked it up.

***The fact is the XB1 is a free platform for indie developers. The PS4 development kit isn't. ***

Any Indie developer struggling to come up with $400 shouldn't be publishing to consoles in the first place. And, I'd value my right to determine where and when to publish is worth more to me than $400.

***All of these policies are scummy tactics.***

Business does trend towards the scummy.

Darkstares1266d ago

@cgoodno,
"Then make a system that's better and more open to the Indie developers they want. To force them to sign away their rights or not publish there at all isn't encouraging, it's trapping."

Most of the time it has nothing to do with what system is more open and almost always to do with money. Microsoft was famous last generation for going after these timed exclusive deals. It's money exchanging hands or some form of benefit to the developer. Perhaps marketing. Last generation also saw Sony requesting some form of extra content to make up the loss of not having a parity clause. It's why developers had to put something extra in there if their game came out later. Bioshock is just one example. Again it's all tactics to try and get a competitive edge. Meaning those who bought the game originally on the XBox 360 didn't get that extra content. Isn't that scummy?

"Interesting you would bring that up since MS originally passed on this game and Sony saw it months later and picked it up."

Can you show me where they passed on the game? Phil Spencer has been very positive about the game for awhile now and wants it on the XBox One. The fact is Sony managed to sign the exclusive deal first. Again, scummy tactics that have now become quite common.

http://gamingbolt.com/micro...

The makers of No Mans Sky also made the game Joe Danger. If you recall that was a PS3 exclusive when it first came out. Then it was on the XBox 360 as a special edition. Meaning some content didn't get released on the PS3. I guess that was all due to one system being better than the other, right?

Speaking of signing away rights, why do you think Insomniac left Sony? They wanted to own their own IP. So if we really want to get into scummy tactics we can spend all day doing it. The fact is the consumer is the one who continues to get caught in the middle. Most of E3 this year from both Sony and Microsoft's presentation mentioned the words console exclusive or some form of exclusive DLC.

The bottom line is Sony has created a better platform for indies right now. That wasn't the case a few years ago.

http://wololo.net/2013/09/0...

"Those of you who have toyed with that idea in the early days of the PS3 and the PSP know it as well as me: back in 2006/2007, if you wanted to develop a game for a Sony console, you had to purchase a $20’000 development kit, and prove to Sony you had been working on commercially successful videos games in the past. Sony’s message to Indie devs when the PS3 and PSP got released was extremely clear: “**** you”.

I keep calling those the dark days. They were not especially dark days for Indie devs or hobbyists. They were dark days for Sony: The late 2000′s is when Sony completely failed to see Apple come with their Appstore, and Microsoft’s XBox Live Indie Game programs, both in 2008. It took Sony more than a year to react with a sub-par program, the PSP minis, which appeared at the end of 2009. Despite good effort, how to become a Minis developer was extremely unclear even to motivated people, while it was dead easy to put one’s app up on the Applestore."

It's clear Sony has changed courses with the PS4. The system is way more friendly with game developers. Over time I imagine so will the XBox One and indie developers. In fact it's already improving as they have hundreds of games in development and as I showed earlier, some games have already bypassed that parity clause.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1266d ago
jnemesh1267d ago

Seriously? This is nothing more than a "puff piece" from an Xbox fan site. Worthless. Give us a similar article from a neutral site and I bet the interviews would reveal a lot more (that MS wouldn't be comfortable with!).

gamer11381267d ago

No more than all those article we see about indies praising sony.

Show all comments (34)
The story is too old to be commented.