Microsoft Should Reconsider Their Indie Policy: Broforce Not Coming To Xbox One Due To Parity Clause

"Sony reached out to us with a deal we couldn't reasonably refuse".

[xHeavYx]

That sucks Bro. I thought that MS would have gotten rid of that policy months ago.

[vishmarx]

but but bu.....first class citizens?!

[MasterCornholio]

Why did you have to remind us of that?

Anyways I do agree that Microsoft needs to change its parity clause because its severely hindering the indie library of the system.

[darthv72]

For a game to come to the Xbox after the PS all a developer needs to do is ask. MS has been pretty lenient on enforcing this clause. And in most cases, if a dev were to approach MS for some assistance, I'd bet they would get it.

Assistance is not always monetary but can be in the form of software tools and libraries and even a few programmers to assist. but we don't know if this dev approached MS. All we know is sony approached them:

“Mostly because Sony reached out to us with a deal we couldn’t reasonably refuse,”

That is the bigger part of the story than this:

“As far as I know Microsoft has a clause in their contract where they won’t accept an indie game if it launches on Xbox after Playstation.”

The first quote makes it seem like Sony is the godfather. the second... makes it seem they never talked to MS to begin with. This is a poorly thought out article. It was so poor I had to vote WTF on this one. And I dont usually vote on stories.

[Godmars290]

@darthv72:
I think the issue is that MS is lenient with a policy many have an issue with. That they haven't done away with it outright or gone to any great effort to get the word out what changes they've made to it.

Sony just seems to be more aggressive or generally more accessible when it comes to talking to indies.

[pompous]

MS needs to remember that indies don't have the resources usually to simultaneously make each version so they have to make one at a time. And on top of that they need to release it on the platform with the bigger install base for the fact it then has a better chance of raising the funds to make it for the other platform.

@Darth,
Yes you are correct they have be lenient on the clause, but it's not as easy as asking like you think. If the game isn't popular then they will not make that call or if they feel it won't be a hit then they still will deny. It really needs to just go away as if they are lenient with one dev and not the other then there will be pissed off devs ultimately hurting xbox more. So if you're lenient to one then you need to be for all.

More games= more appeal= more potential console sales due to bigger library.

[freshslicepizza]

from the article,

"They revealed that they have a deal from Sony that they were not able to refuse. “Mostly because Sony reached out to us with a deal we couldn’t reasonably refuse,”

this means sony has an exclusive deal to not allow the game on a competing platform, which of course is the xbox one. they can still talk to microsoft to remove the parity clause which they have done with other games. that clause is meant to try and not make the xbox one a second tiered console because they know most sales occur when a game gets released earlier. did bioshock sell well on the ps3? no it did not in comparison to the xbox 360 because it came out a year later. sony also mandated that any game that came out later on their system to have exclusive content to help drive sales because they too know older titles are harder to sell.

also note sony's own policies towards indie games with their own pub fund program,

"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."

this means sony will pay indie developers to have their games exclusive or timed exclusive. in essence they are doing exactly what many frown upon what microsoft does, pay for timed exclusive deals.

source,

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

[Cindy-rella]

Sony made the ps4 and psn with core gamers in mind first. The policies and service are more conducive to core gamers needs. I see certain policies and ideas for other consoles that often stops or could stop certain games from coming to them. This is just another point that bolsters the sentiment that ps4 is the best platform for gaming because its more core gamer centric, and has less restrictions so as to garner more games for the system and gamers who wants them.

Some fanatics would say they arent interested in certain games and that the game is crap as if all games are made with their personal tastes in mind. They think that if they personally don't like something then its automatically crap and no one else would be interested in it.

[xDHAV0K24x]

they made it to make money no matter what

[Volkama]

Headline should read "Broforce not coming to XBox One because the dev made a deal with Sony".

The guy quite clearly says that Sony paid for the game. “Mostly because Sony reached out to us with a deal we couldn’t reasonably refuse,”

He doesn't even know if Microsoft would decline the game
“As far as I know Microsoft has a clause in their contract where they won’t accept an indie game if it launches on Xbox after Playstation.”

But "parity clause" is one of the terms on GamingBolt's list. I'm sure question 2 was about ESRAM, and question 3 was about resolution. Expect those articles in the coming days.

[xHeavYx]

Uh, no? Sony didn't pay for exclusivity, they just offered a good deal. Otherwise Sony would boast that Broforce is coming exclusively to PS devices.

[Volkama]

They paid the dev to release the game on their platform(s). The terms almost certainly stipulate timed console exclusivity, but I guess we can't say for certain.

Note that I have no problem with Sony making deals with Indie devs. In fact I applaud the funding of indie studios. I just disagree with the headline calling out the parity clause, when the dev being quoted clearly has no knowledge of the parity clause. Don't you find that a strange way to twist the answers given in the interview?

Whatever, enjoy your click bait.

[gameseveryday]

@Volkama

The reply to all your questions will be a no. We did not asked them anything about resolution or eSRAM. And no, the title is not misleading. It's not coming to Xbox One because of the parity clause and in no way the article suggests Sony paid them.

[Volkama]

@HeavyX Sony have already bragged just that. It is part of the Devolver Digital partnership, that will see several indie games(most notably the Talos Principle, but Broforce and a few others as well) launch first exclusively on Playstation platforms. Adam Boyes announced the deal ages ago, maybe E3.

It could be one of those "Deals we couldn't reasonably refuse" that doesn't include any money though. Maybe drugs, or perhaps something even more sinister. Or it could be Sony's indie team doing their job.

@Rashid "As far as I know Microsoft has a clause in their contract" is speculation from a dev that doesn't even pretend to have the facts. Regardless of the policies and deals that Microsoft or Sony have in place, your article headline is clickbait horse-manure. As are 99% of the articles you spew out.

[MCTJim]

They revealed that they have a deal from Sony that they were not able to refuse. “Mostly because Sony reached out to us with a deal we couldn’t reasonably refuse,”

Don't know why people are disagreeing with you, but it sure looks and sounds like a Sony made a deal to me.

[SilentNegotiator]

And that temporary exclusivity will mean that it won't come to Xbone unless Microsoft makes yet another exception.

[raWfodog]

"Headline should read "Broforce not coming to XBox One because the dev made a deal with Sony"."

But that would only work if Sony made a permanent exclusive deal with the developer. Even if it's only a timed exclusive, MS could still put the game on their console if they are willing to forgo their own policy (which they said they would do on a case-by-case basis). So no, the specific deal with Sony is not preventing the game from coming to other consoles. MS needs to make the exception.

[oneluckybullet]

@Volkama Couldnt have said it better. Remember when gaming news was just that, news, not speculation made to get people fired up.

[BG11579]

So Sony thanks to MS, Sony only needs to have a timed exclusive to actually get a permanent exclusive...

I understand why Sony would support MS' policy, but don't get why MS fans are supporting it...

[-Foxtrot]

Do you think all deals are done like this

http://goo.gl/6hmxTH

This is a shame, I don't see why they haven't re examined their parity clause.

[Stiffler]

So many people on this site keep speculating (yes, speculating) about MS' parity clause yet fail to notice the 'deal' that Sony made for Broforce on their consoles...That's not speculation, the deal is written as bright as day.

"“Mostly because Sony reached out to us with a deal we couldn’t reasonably refuse"

The guy clearly said that and by his wording it's also clear that he doesn't know much about said parity clause... Look at the many indies that have been released on Xbox One after being temporary exclusives on PS4 - There's a fair few man.

Y'all cry parity clause and fail to understand that Sony do make exclusivity deals quite a fair bit. It's easy to paint MS as the big bad guy and blame them for everything but trust me, it's not one sided like you believe.

[t-hall785]

Honestly these companies only hurt themselves. There's not a single indie i'm absolutely dying to play. but i play them if they are available. Guacamelee was awesome. Super timeforce held me for a little bit. Max the brotherhood was actually fun. Just played limbo for the first time when i got it free from microsoft for being a day one owner. Plus many more on my 360. Point being if these games arent available to me then it's their loss not mines.

[DarkOcelet]

That second hand parity is really stupid. They should consider changing it, it makes them look like a game racists lol.

[MeliMel]

Does that make you and the fanboys " console racists"?.. lol.

[DarkOcelet]

I am not a fanboy and second, dont you find it odd that they dont want to put games that were in Playstation first in the Xbox. We are all gamers, there is no such a thing as The guy who plays on this console should not be treated as the guy who play on that console. There should not have been a parity that calls gamers " First class" What the hell does that even mean?
Look i understand what he wants when he says that when he wants the games to be released on the Xone at the same time as the PS4 but he don't need to say such words especially when the indie game comes to the Playstation afterwards. It makes them feel that he is disrespecting them.

[MeliMel]

Dark, Im not for the parity clause. But Im not crying everytime a indie game doesnt come to Xbox.

My question was off topic, which I should have stated. I actually found your comment funny. I just asked a fair question back. Lol...with your logic on the parity matter.. fanboys could be considered 'Console Racists'.

[DarkOcelet]

Lol, i never meant that but that can actually considered true if you put it that way haha.

[uth11]

It doesn't seem like they enforce the parity clause. I've seen several games release on Xbox after they've been on PS4 already.

[SliceOfTruth888]

Everyone realizes that the parity clause is not what kept Broforce off xbox one...it was a deal with sony that kept it off XBOX......ugh wanna be reporters lol

[MasterCornholio]

Nope its the parity clause that did.

Sony made a deal with Hello games with Joe Danger but that game still came out on Xbox One. These developers can release the game later on Xbox if they want to but the parity clause prevents them from doing that.

[Volkama]

Outlast, Contrast, Guacamelee, and probably several others have released later on the Xbox. The Outlast dev said they just applied to release their game through the normal channels, and it was approved. They never saw or discussed any parity clause.

The clause likely does exist, but it seems highly probable that if this developer applied to release the game on the Xbox at a later date, they would be approved.

[MasterCornholio]

@Volkama

It does exist. On GAF you can read a post where a bunch of developers explain why they can't bring their games to the XB1 due to this clause. Ironically Sony is getting a ton of Indie exclusives without having to pay for them due to the clause.

[gangsta_red]

Read the article Corn.

The dev states specifically that they never even talked to MS. Sony approached them first and they both made a deal with each other.

They later say that they THINK it won't come to Xbox after their deal with Sony is up due to the parity clause.

[lemoncake]

"Sony reached out to us with a deal we couldn’t reasonably refuse,”. Says it all there really, Sony paid them and has nothing to do with parity clause, stupid article.

[dark-kyon]

are you telling what sony is paying to get a indie game out of xbox one.the reality is what sony know of this stupid clause,so they give money or promotion to a indie developer to get his game "first" in playstation,but thanks at microsoft clause that "first" change in "exclusive" if the developer don't want to deal with microsoft exception clause to port his game later.very good thing for sony,getting exclusive games cheap thank at microsoft owns mistakes.

[lemoncake]

If a developers submits a game to xbox it will be released even if it's already on the ps4, we already have examples of games where that has happened. Only reasons not to is if they were paid, the game is crap or there is a specific personal reason the developer has chosen not to make it for the xbox. In this case they said it themselves, Sony paid them.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

I am not a fan of the parity clause but in this case based on the developers words it sounds like exclusivity has less to do the clause and more to do with their deal with Sony.
“Mostly because Sony reached out to us with a deal we couldn’t reasonably refuse,” Creative Director Evan Greenwood said to GamingBolt.

So in a nut shell they were locked in with Sony regardless of the clause He comments about the clause to Gamingbolt with little knowledge other than he believes that would be an issue but it seems pretty clear they didn't look into it due to their deal with Sony. We all know MS has softened on that rule with many titles already so I am not sold on Gamingbolts spin the parity clause is as issue.

This is just a Sony deal plain and simple.

[DaleCooper]

Oh, Gaming Bolt, guess I won't click the link to read the article then. Thanks, bye!

[Moldiver]

I thought for sure somebody was going to jokingly say, how ironic it is, that a game called "broforce" is not coming to xbox.

Oh, boy....I just didit. didnt I?

Im sure there are other 2D indie shooters coming to XB1 anyway.

[gangsta_red]

Warning:

Super clickbait headline!!

The parity clause has NOTHING to do with Broforce not coming to Xbox One. Sony money hatted this game for PS4 and now this dev has a deal with them.

As usual I have to ask (since no one has answered)...

Which game has actually been turned down due to the parity clause?

[emilijo777]

The parity clause is indeed the reason why Broforce ( and many others ) won't come for Xbone ( maybe later in near future ). And your post is pointless. Btw. good to know before you start to spread nonsense :

http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

[gangsta_red]

Please answer my question...

Which game has actually been turned down due to the parity clause?

Then I want you to read this article and quote exactly where the dev said that Broforce cannot come to Xbox One because it was rejected due to the parity clause.

Speaking of pointless...your whole comment was jus that since it provided nothing I asked and proved nothing from this flame bait title.

Care to try again?

[vega275]

My god dude. It clearly says Sony made a deal they couldn't refuse yet you and the author (who's clearly looking for hit) still want to blame the parity clause which has nothing to do with the game not being on the Xbox one. It's like the very thought of Sony paying for exclusive is unacceptable and only a MS trait.

Sony also has a clause in their contract also that a game that comes out on a competing system first has to have exclusive content when released on Sony console.

These are the same devs that will blame MS when their game doesn't sell because you releaesed it 6 month to a year later. not because it lack promotion but because many gamer don't want to be treated like second class gamers which goes for both console gamers

[emilijo777]

Which game has actually been turned down due to the parity clause?

Among The Sleep is one of them, if you want to know. I know that you're an Xbone fan and you refusing to read what developers has to say in this GAF thread ( probably you hate GAF ). At least they have the point and NOT YOU

Everything is in that NeoGAF thread! READ IT ( if you want ).

Or read this also ( from post 563 ) and next page. You will see what C.Carla said also :

http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

[gangsta_red]

*sigh*

http://gamingbolt.com/among...

----
Krillbite:
"The clause (if enforced) means it might not be possible for us to release on Xbox One, even though we wanted to."
----

Among the Sleep was not turned down by the parity clause ...

I know you being a Sony fan that all you want to do is not answer the questions and just link to a pro sony site, but could you please try and answer the questions I have asked?

And you want to talk about making a point? You haven't made one yet. I already know what some developers (when being exclusive to Sony) have to say.

SO AGAIN I'M GOING TO ASK YOU...

Which game has actually been turned down due to the parity clause?

Then I want you to read this article and quote exactly where the dev said that Broforce cannot come to Xbox One because it was rejected due to the parity clause.

Want to try again?

[emilijo777]

The Swapper is one example IIRC!

Anyway, as you said :

"a pro sony site." So, remain stubborn nerd. But everything is in that GAF thread. 47 GAMES LESS FOR XBONE ( and counting )!

[maniacmayhem]

The Swapper was not turned down by the parity clause. A quick Google search would tell you that. That is two games so far you got wrong and you still couldn't quote the Broforce dev as Red asked.

And 47 less games due to Sony paying for exclusive or timed exclusive rights. Of course they wouldn't be coming to the Xbox One.

Maybe you should research a tad bit more and stop posting links that have nothing to do with the topic.

[Braid]

While I don't support such a questionable clause, I don't think that's the reason here. If it was, it wouldn't be a problem at all for Broforce. We're not talking about Crysis here, the devs could easily produce equal results on each platform.

[hello12]

If you don't like Microsofts policy buy a Playstation stop complaining about it, its not like x box fans care, least the majority don't.

[Eonjay]

I honestly don't understand the clause. They are so flexible at times that it really shouldn't exist at all because if you don't get the exception like Warframe or another game, it really seems like certain developers are getting special treatment.

[halfblackcanadian]

Agree BUT this is a case where the developer clearly hasn't even explored the option (and isn't being very clear on what the Sony offer was, which is almost surely financial in nature)

[ScorpiusX]

Well am going to be fine , weather it comes Xbox one or not. Either way good Lucy .

[halfblackcanadian]

The dev never had a conversation with Microsoft. They assume it can't go to Xbox One after (which isn't true).
Good for Sony in being more aggressive with Indies tho. Just don't like the lack of understanding on the devs part (and a lot of the comments).
To Phil's defense, it is pretty lame that PS4 seemingly just gets indie consideration first (and often only) with no real cause. For God's sake, a lot of these people are developing on Vita at the same time and that has the lowest install-base of anything on the market currently. I need convincing that porting to Vita from x86 is easier than porting to another x86-based system.

[Tedakin]

Yeah that's ridiculous. I don't know why MS does this. They're only screwing over their users. I'd rather wait for a game for a fews, like with Outlast, than not get it at all.

[EvilWay]

MS should change their policy but I inderstand why they do it. I honestly do not care at all for indies unless they are free I am not going to pay for it. I don't really care but they should change it for the better of the Xbox One

[NeoGamer232]

I have no problem with the parity clause. To date, I have not seen a single game that I see as a must have on the PS4 due to this clause.

All this clause has done so far is save me from buying a bunch of average or short games that really wouldn't have changed my gaming life.

[Jaqen_Hghar]

Kind of ironic that the game with bro in the title isn't coming to the dudebro system. Guess they'll have to be satisfied with COD...again.

[LAWSON72]

In a way I don't mind the parity clause, it is to guarantee Xbox gamers don't get treated like second rate gamers. I don't think it is crazy to try and demand devs to treat platform players equally. Like most things it has pros and cons. I don't think the con's as of yet gave really shown yet though.

Xbone gamers should hope devs are not promoted to have this attitude,'I'm going to go do a special game on one platform and then I'll get to Xbox whenever I get to it.' Which is how the Wii U is treated, and look how those games do.

For the most part, I don't see them enforcing it when a game with some serious weight comes along.

[urwifeminder]

As someone who played heaps of c64 games back in the day I cant get into a lot of indies some are ok.

[shadyiswin]

i love the fact that xbox doesnt want 2nd hand indie games. There are hundreds coming out and no one wants ported over indie games from months ago. Xbox runs the ID@xbox program which helps funds indie games and so far has turned out great titles. Super timeforce being one of my fav's. It's coming to ps4 now but nearly a year later and i cant be mad if a sony fan doesnt want it but keep in mind these indie need funds so if microsoft or sony is willing to help so be it. I just dont why people cant understand why microsoft doesnt want hand me down games.

On a side fanboy note,if im a delevoper im going to make xbox my lead platform anyways just based on the xbox live service and subs. Sony has nearly 19 million but this is across 3 consoles (ps3,psvita and ps4) and xbox has nearly 50 million across 2 consoles. You tell me what consumer base is most likey to purchase a game online......exactly. Prime example,explain to me how the hell minecraft on xbox one has outsold mindcraft on ps3 already when the xbox one version of minecraft didnt get a retail version till mid novemeber,xbox will always be software king and if im a developer it just makes sense and on top of that sony's market is already flooded with indies. By e3 you will notice a switch as far indie support goes but microsoft wont give it the spotlight it deserves because microsoft image will be all about triple A games which is great,expect a 2 min montage of indie games and focus on 1-3 unlike sony who gives a indie games triple A stage time,which is great for the delevoper and all but come on these games will all work on cell phones with a k1 or 810 chip,ok rant over.

[headblackman]

there are tons of indies on the pc and when this whole windows 10 thing goes through, what would stop microsoft from allowing full access to the large catalog of indie titles that the pc has access to????

it's something rather interesting to think about. and it would be quite fair and doable because it would be for windows and the x1 will be running a a full ver of windows 10 so this can and more than likely will happen. so why change anything?