Microsoft has this policy wherein if indie developers want to release their games on the Xbox One, they would need to launch it alongside other platforms.
This title is misleading. This is what they meant: Simultaneously shipping is very challenging, especially for small indie teams.
Yeah, "brutal" was in reference to the work required to release simultaneously. Also, they said the parity clause *might* stop them releasing. Article has been spun from understandable and frank talk from an indie to flame-bait
Thanks guys...just saved me from the click bait :)
Yeah Gamingbolt is pretty infamous for trying to create flamebait. I rarely read their crap now. Inevitably the main guy who does the dev interviews will try and get the dev to say something derogatory about MS policy or try to pin them into some kind of comparison of power BS. His "agenda" is so clear its comical.
those guys are hungry for clicks they will never give up.. those titles make no sense at all i wonder if he reads what he writes.
How dare you gamingbolt try too make good'ol Microsoft look bad like that! Shame on you guys.... Shame! It's not as horrible as the title sounds people, it's just a shitty time parity clause....
@Askanison4 The quote: “Well, as a small developer working to release our first game, it’s [the policy] rather brutal. Simultaneously shipping is very challenging, especially for small indie teams. The clause (if enforced) means it might not be possible for us to release on Xbox One, even though we wanted to.” The PARITY POLICY is "brutal". Simultaneous shipping is "very challenging". The title of the article is not misleading. Let's paraphrase: "The fact that MS has a release parity policy is 'brutal' because it makes compliance with it too "challenging" for smaller developers." This is one of the reasons that MS is losing indie games to the Sony. Indies want to develop for the platform that allows the most freedom and that is the PS platform. MS does get exclusives, but they pay for them.
Well as a developer you have an option to choose your platform as well. If you can't develop for both, you can choose Xbox One over PS4, but if you choose PS4, you might loose the ability to release on Xbox One. In short you have an option. You just can't have your cake and eat it too!
Actually you can have your cake and eat it too. If you have a signed exclusivity agreement with Sony to launch on their system first, you can release your game on Xbox whenever you want. If Sony has no parity clause you can release on Xbox One first and then on Playstation whenever you want too. Microsoft is looking out for their customers and trying to get as much content as possible and at the same time as Sony or sooner. The policy is only horrible for Playstation gamers that cry unfair when Microsoft gets something first. When Sony does it, they are all about the gamer.
@Death This policy is not about looking out for their customers, it's to try and prevent the competition from getting more games than the Xbox. But with the xb1 trailing so far behind the ps4 this policy will reduce the number of games that make it to the xb1. A lot of the small developers will just opt to go with the bigger market share.
Wow did you guys need to twist the words just to defend your favorite console?
"This policy is not about looking out for their customers, it's to try and prevent the competition from getting more games than the Xbox."
Microsoft wants all games released at the same time on their system. If a game can't be released on multiple systems, they would like the games released on their system first. If a developer has an exclusivity deal with a competitor, Microsoft will nullify the parity agreement and a dev can release on the competative platform first.
No where in the agreement does Microsoft request games not be released on a competitive platform. No where in the agreement does it state a game released on a competitive platform with an exclusivity agreement can't be released on the Xbox.
Microsoft is putting their customers needs ahead of the competitions. How entitled do you have to be in order to feel Microsoft should place the needs of Playstation fans above their own customers?
@death, I understand why you feel like that.... however I disagree at a core level. Look, the fact that the clause exists is not good for the consumer. More games the merrier. now, While being more games, don't be a crappy consumer: watch gameplay on YouTube, twitch, the like and choose off of your OBSERVATIONS. Curating and sifting through the plethora of games coming out is more important... especially when you take into accord people who have different tastes and opinions on games they love. Example: I love, LOVE towerfall ascension, but my friend HATES it!
For those of you who see nothing wrong with this "console parity clause," why does Microsoft have such a policy in the first place? This clause doesn't benefit gamers. It certainly doesn't benefit small development companies. How does this policy benefit anyone other than Microsoft?
***Microsoft is putting their customers needs ahead of the competitions. How entitled do you have to be in order to feel Microsoft should place the needs of Playstation fans above their own customers?*** Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining. The only reason MS does this is to force the hands of developers. It has nothing to do about being for their customers and all about making their product look better by forcing small development teams who most often can't afford to release on multiple platforms at once to release on their platform. Here's my blog when they announced the [email protected]http://n4g.com/user/blogpos... That explains why it's smart business, but that doesn't make it anything but business and it sure as heck doesn't mean they did it for the customers. This is all about money, pure and simple.
You're right. The developer didn't say the parity clause was brutal. This is an a purposefully misleading title and should never have been approved in its current state. Edit: @Gambie20 - You might be right. We don't know if the developer is saying the clause is brutal or the development is brutal and the clause isn't helping. There's no context.
The title isn't necessarily misleading. If the developer is stating that a simultaneous release is brutal than Microsofts policy of requiring indies to have a simultaneous release is brutal. That being said, I do think the initial connotation one could have from the headline is more negative than deserved.
I was in the process of reporting it for Bad Editing when it got approved. It absolutely flew through approvals.
askan: In the approval especially for certain sites you see repeatedly that lives off this site, they have a coalition or partners if you may that send each other their stories for approval. That is why some of the stories flies right through as soon as it hits the submissions process.
They have limited resources and they only have a choice in the beginning on which platform to ship on. They chose PS4 for the higher userbase or the approach to indies Sony currently has but it is not stated.
@MCTJim “Well, as a small developer working to release our first game, it’s [the policy] rather brutal. Simultaneously shipping is very challenging, especially for small indie teams. The clause (if enforced) means it might not be possible for us to release on Xbox One, even though we wanted to.” Not sure how this is misleading.
misleading because you edited the article after I posted.
Flame title. Rashid's pretty biased, he always creates sensational headlines such as these to get the fanboys goin. Rashid needs to come out of that fanboy closet already. OT: Indie teams come in different sizes some are rather large while others are pretty small. PlayStation has the bigger install base so it only makes sense for a small team to develop and release on the more popular console first.
I'm not sure you know what bias means , because the guy posts flame bait about the xbone and ps4, to be bias you have to show a clear preference to something. I think the only clear preference gaming bolt shows is a preference to get clicks by making articles like this.
Do these small studios really need or want this kind of attention just to promote their game? Attention whores much! I blame the studio and the so called "gaming journalist" that made this article, simply looking for clicks. Parity clause is rarely applied. Just ask Microsoft if you can launch your game later on and you will get your response. Many 3rd party PS4 games have been launched later on the X1.
The parity clause no longer exsists. see warframe, minecraft etc
That's not true. They may have relaxed it in some situations, but it still exists. In fact, I think they even said they would review it on a case by case basis. Pinball Arcade Season 2 is being held back from Playstation 4 because of it. And the reason it hasn't come out on Xbox is because MS made them get a publisher, which then went bankrupt, so Farsight was stuck with a publisher no longer in business but still tied to them. Unable get a new publisher, MS wouldn't let them release new updates. Now after all this time, the problem has been resolved, Xbox 360 and One will finally be updated, but PS4 won't get season 2 tables until about a month after Xbox.
"However there have been a few exceptions to this case in the past but the policy is no doubt a deal breaker for smaller independent developers."
No, it exists. MS is just allowed to ignore it whenever they want but enforce it on the developers all other times.
These people should be banned from the internet for outright lying.
Well, what is REALLY "Brutal" is that because of policies like these (and others) the Xbone has HALF the game library of the competition! http://www.listwar.com/rele...
I don't understand how MS hasn't gotten rid of this parity clause yet
They very likely will. They're losing games, which only makes PlayStation 4 look better by having more. Phil said he's in this to win, so I'm sure they'll cave sooner than later.
not sure what can they win..
What does removal of the parity clause fix? If a game hits either platform first, sales on the competitions console fall pretty hard. It's in a developers best interest to release at the same time on as many platforms as possible if they want to maximize their sales.
By Microsoft not working to get games released at the same time as Playstation, who does that benefit other than Playstation gamers?
It's always fascinating to see Playstation gamers try to "fix" Microsofts problems while turning a blind eye to the issues Sony has. It wasn't long ago when Playstation fans said they would never pay to play online and if Microsoft stopped this evil practice more people would buy an Xbox. Exclusive partnerships with third parties are the worst thing to hit gaming unless Sony does it, then they are looking out for the gamers. Charging an annual subscription to have access to a library of games is greedy, unless it is PS+ which is a great value to gamers and if you don't feel the same way you are clearly wrong. The list goes on.
@Death I completely disagree. Just check Mass Effect sales or Metal Gear sales. People who want the game will buy said game till it gets released on their console.
If Microsoft truly wanted games to be released simultaneously on both consoles, they would be doing the same things that Sony is doing; Answering developers questions, lowering the price of devkits, providing technical assistance, working with small development teams to help them get games ready to be released. Sony isn't limiting developers options, in fact, Sony is actually trying to give these "indie" developers more options. Whether or not a game is released at the same time on both consoles is solely in the hands of Microsoft simply because Sony has no "parity clause."
No all indies are AAA... so, while the best comes to xone, its ok for me, but, surely xone is missing some
Yup, its costing them money and games. The stupid parity clause can be broken if a developer has an exclusivity clause with another platform. So basically devs, before signing with MS, shoot SONY an email and loophole the entire process by asking them for exclusivity.
@Death You're over generalizing there quite a bit about gamers and fixing problems. That works both ways: Xbox gamers once said game installs and mandating hard drives were fouls on Sony's part, both of which are now okay. You say games need to release at the same time to maximize sales. While that's a fair assumption, there are titles that still do fairly good numbers without a dual release like Tales of Vesperia and BioShock. I don't get how you say that only PlayStation gamers benefit when Xbox gamers STILL get the game. In light of this parity clause, you don't seem to be against a contrary scenario where Xbox gamers get it first. Failure to remove parity strictures means that, while PlayStation gamers get it first and Xbox gamers don't get it at all, it also means Xbox gamers get it and PlayStation gamers may get it eventually. Remind me how that's fair to Xbox gamers, because I don't see the logic.
I wouldn't waste my time. This Death guy just seems bent that in this day and age with a more educated consumer, and virtual free flow if information to the masses through the internet, his console of choice is getting torn to shreds weekly because of poor policies and implementation of ideas that handcuff developers and even consumers to now to MS's will and rules because if you don't you get nothing. Everything they want has to be done through their paywalls and has to be put out on their console first or not at all. I realized that early last gen and ditched all my 360 stuff on eBay. Also, by Deaths logic how does he feel about the Tomb Raider deal? How does he feel about MS taking that game away from PS gamers? According to him games should be released on multiple consoles to Maximize Profits and MS is just trying heir best to make sure that happens right?
ya wish MS would change this title is very clickbaity though.
Why does Microsoft care if one console version gets released before another. Do they think an indie game sells the console?
It's because last gen, when they had the industry by the balls - they could get away with this. It meant that either a game only came out on 360, or the very least that it was the lead platform. That meant it'd be the best performing version of the game, or atleast as solid as the other ports of said game. They are trying to continue this, but they've clearly lost that grip they had now, and with PS4's in homes outnumbering X1s by so much, and the tables turning with PS4 being a bit easier to program for and more powerful - it's not working anymore. The higher ups over there are just taking a while to understand this. They will make exceptions whenever a game sells amazingly on another platform though, and allow it to come to theirs. Eventually, they'll have to completely cut this parity rule out though - or things will just continue to get worse for them.
MS never had the industry by the balls...they were leading in sales before the PS3 launched...thats about it. they've mistaken the slight popularity boost from Xbox to 360 as a sign that they are the standard. But, both consoles launch simultaneously, and look what happens.. they have nothing by the balls and likely never will.
Microsoft working to get games released on the Xbox at the same time as Playstation is hardly "having the industry by the balls". Both Microsoft and Sony are allowing indie titles to bypass traditional publishing procedures and fee's. Asking an indie to release on both consoles at the same time unless an exclusivity agreement is in place is hardly unreasonable. The only ones unhappy are the Playstation fans that feel they should have everything since they are the choose few.
@Death Now, that was horrible. That whole statement is just you whining. Also, wouldnt it Xbox fans who should be complaining because of the severe lack of games compared to the PS4?
Because it does matter. Just like some people prefer the ps4 for having stronger hardware. It's all about what you like. There is something about each console that will make you buy it. For some (not me) it's getting some games before others.
The Parity Clause is one of the last major 180's Microsoft needs to do. I don't know what they're waiting for.
theres one more thing, allowing cross platform play. maybe not for every game but for some mmos for sure. they're missing out on FF14 and SE has said thats the only thing holding them back from making an xbox one version.
Has there been any game officially reported that has been turned down due to the parity clause? So far all we see from these articles is MS "might" turn down our game. But so far I haven't read one article that said MS DID turn down our game because we released first on PS4. I also keep reading that MS looks the other way on most cases when a dev wanted to release on the Xbox after releasing for the PS4. Just asking because this seems to come up a lot. Anyone have any links? This clause just seems to be in place to give MS a right to refuses service for any reason.
It's not that long into this current gen of consoles and these indie games are just being completed for PS4 after the initial PC release. Let's see how MS handle the situation when indie devs want to bring their games to Xbone after PS4 version. It could be the turning point for MS or send them further down the rabbit hole if MS decides to reject the games due to the parity clause they have. I just don't think MS has any authority now on what does and does not come to Xbone if they want it to be successful. The only thing MS has over the competition is money and that won't buy customer loyalty and trust.
They already have my loyalty. My 360 experience has been most excellent, as well as my customer service experience. I look forward to getting a One in Jan., until then I'll keep playing my awesome 360.
I doubt you've "kept" reading that. More likely, you've read it a few times on a handful of games that were just to popular for MS to say no. It's not "might" turn it down. The clause itself turns them down by design.
As usual you follow me around on N4G and prance around any questions I ask on a subject with no real answers. What game has MS turned down due to the parity clause? You and other Sony fanyboys love to wave that "parity" clause around and even used it as an excuse for a PS3 version of a game that you all thought was gimped. But there has been no evidence of MS turning down any game due to the clause. All we ever get are articles of small devs being afraid that MS "might" turn down their game. But we have also had articles of MS working with devs who actually reached out to MS and got their game on Xbox with no problem. If you want to reply to me try answers that actually make sense and ... I don't know...actually answer the question.
ms needs to ditch the parity clause. i really enjoy the x1 but it doesn't have the best rep right now, and this certainly doesn't help on any level. if they want to show indie dev's love, they could be a lot more flexible on this.
gamingbolt at it again, ban those clown from N4G for real now... i'm tired of their mediocre flame clickbait articles
Personally I think it kind of cool , it keeps developers from using the console owner like back up cash by simply trying to entice with the game a few months or year later with some kind of BS content Wichita then they will turn around and sell to those that got the game first. Say be equal or take a leap indie developers.
Then MS will lose out in the long run. They don't have the hold over indie or AAA devs like they had last gen. Also indie developers don't have the cash flow that most AAA developers have so they can only develop for one platform at a time. Indie devs will choose PS4 every single time if they had to choose only one console platform. Most indie games are already on PC or coming to it anyway due to the low cost of self-publishing their own games on the platform.
its pretty funny that the clicks come mostly from sony fanboys that need the assurance they made the "right" choice. So the sites keep digging to make the same type of article to feed the trolls....so the trolls are feeding themselves......someone get christopher nolan on the phone now!
Misleading title, the developer doesn't ever say "the parity clause is brutal". They're simply focusing on one platform at a time since Microsoft requires devs to release the XBox One version day and date with the PS4 version. And that's pretty tough to do.
another fine job by the MS overlords ... how many more wrecks before we all finally confirm in unity the X1 was DOA?
I think Indies should stop whining. If you don't have a big enough team to create a game on two platforms that does not bode well for long term support of your game.
Embarassingly ignorant comment on game development and indies.
No its not... It is completely unprofessional and counterproductive to take a business related dispute public. Also, with a team that small, what if there are major bugs in the game they release? Would it be acceptable for them to say, "We don't have the resources to fix it" after people pay money to buy their game. To every business venture there is a get in cost to make it happen. Quite simply if they can't afford the get in cost they should either go find the money or skip the idea. I have bought thousands of games throughout my life. The thing that irks me most is when I own a game, go to play it and the developer has abandoned the game and it no longer works properly. To me, as a consumer that is unacceptable.
Without indies and new blood developers trying out dif ideas you would not have those thousands of games you have purchased in your lifetime. To make the statement you made above shows complete ignorance towards the talented ppl that build all these games you play. Give your head a shake.
I never said anything about the value that Indies add to gaming. Your comments are unrelated to my position on an Indie trash talking a console vendor for their business terms. There is a cost to make video games for all consoles you want to ship on. This Indie is slagging MS because they are unwilling/unable to acquire the necessary capital funding to do what they want to do. Why is that an MS issue? It is like me going to start up a new restaurant chain where I have chosen two specific locations. If I don't have the capital funding to build both restaurants I have to accept that if I wait and go to the second location later it may already have been sold or leased to someone else. Indies are no different. If they can't afford to build on both consoles, they have to accept that the second console vendor may say no to them coming to their console. That is what's known as a "business decision".
@the XBros saying "misleading" ... quote from indie dev "it’s [the policy] rather brutal. " R I F