The people behind Skullgirls shared on their twitter why Skullgirls isn't yet coming to Xbox One.
Microsoft, y u do this?
We all know what's going to happen now, right? Skullgirls will be announced as having a release date sometime in May tomorrow after their tweet with the reasoning of why it took this long of "some things fall through the cracks." Now to wait on the news of the developer who complaints about not having their game on PS4 because of some sort of parity issue.
Wait 'til tomorrow when Microsoft will suddenly greenlight Skullgirls in an effort to pretend their parity clause doesn't exist and that it's all the dev's fault. This sh*t is ridiculous.
Here's the thing, people keep saying that microsoft no longer upholds that "same time or not at all" policy but what they don't realize is that microsoft doesn't uphold that policy for CERTAIN developers. Do you know why sony has won the hearts and minds of all the indie devs this gen? It's because they treat them all as equals, as IMPORTANT equals. Microsoft shows rampant favoritism and treats some like kings and others like dog crap. It's the same as last gen when they did not allow indie devs to self publish. Had sony not made such an aggressive move towards indies this gen microsoft would have kept those same policies, now they are just discriminating in a different way. As developers like these call them out on their hypocrisy they will try to save face and bring them in. What microsoft does not understand is that first impressions are lasting ones.
Really, who cares. [email protected] already has great games. Wouldn't be surprsied coming E3 Microsoft launches some [email protected] games during the conference.
it's hit and miss. some complain others don't. either way, the games get released at some point.
It's good that there are some standards, but it can also be abused.
It's real simple to me. Microsoft is simply saying a simultaneous release means fair treatment for their platform. If a dev can't afford it. Fine but since by default you are making their platform a lower priority then I don't think its too much to ask for them spend a tiny fraction of the time it took them to make the game on some new cosmetic content so Microsoft can at least market this old game as "Get the *all new ____ with an all new characters"= pointless character skins. lol I don't care how small the dev is, its BS to say they can't make a few cosmetic changes minimum to their game to get it on X1, their either just being lazy or are only talking to draw more attention to their game....it's just a few indie devs, playing the victim after initial sales have dried up on the other platform they scream "we love the xbox fanbase so much but evil micro wants us to give you a tad extra for the wait, how dare they?" but hey they sure want that extra xbox revenue, huh? I think any dev that really WANTS to bring their game to X1 can. Its already happened, but ahh you can't please everybody. I can live with knowing that not every indie dev are going to have their game on X1. There's already plenty on both, sometimes more isn't always better.
This is very common practice and Sony does exactly same thing with their quality check. If the game will run like a complete crap on Sony's machine not due to console power limitations but sh!tty coding, you think Sony would let game to be released? You have any idea how much negative press it would get? You guys have zero idea what you're talking about, happily jumping on bandwagon full of hate against MS. If let's say, we have stunning looking games like Ryse or Forza being released on xbox one, but a game looking like minecraft would run in 720p and 10 FPS (just an example) average then this game has no right to be released. Get better coders. Period.
What did Spencer say? 2nd Class Citizens?
Probably nothing, or the same as he usually does. The PR is unbelievable for this. It should be called the "come talk to us" policy, as Satya coined by damage controlling an absolutely and unequivocally useless policy. The question is, what does Microsoft want from these developers who can't afford to ship on multiple platforms at the same time? Do they have to open their books to Microsoft and prove that they can't afford to ship on multiple consoles day one? Why should anyone have to do that, and how is this good business or good for gamers? Absolutely ridiculous that they are still trying to save face on this policy. Even more ridiculous are the Xbox fans on here trying to damage control something useless and making things up, bringing Sony into the conversation to deflect how stupid the clause is. "2nd class citizens" indeed seem to act like it.
Hey but I thought Phil Spencer said - " So I was just saying let's have a conversation and it worked". Guess not. http://www.neogaf.com/forum...
Did you interview them and ask if they've talked or reached out to MS as MS has asked them to do?
No but is that really a question??? And yes they have - Q - But have they actually talked to Chris and team? Ravidrath Lab Zero Games Yes, they actually have. http://www.neogaf.com/forum... It's not like we can truly know how many have been denied or approved because devs need to sign an NDA before knowing the details.
I always laugh at the how distorted the reason for the parity clause has become. Valve released 3 games in one package called The Orange Box, it was very well done on one console but Gabe Newell had to apologize to fans of another console because it was such a poor port. THAT is EXACTLY why MS has a parity clause, so developers can't pump out garbage as an afterthought. Thanks MS for looking after the best interest of your fanbase. Now if Skullgirls gets the attention it deserves from the developers then perhaps we'll see it on X1, just like Oddworld, WarFrame and many more, if not it's on PC
@Foehammer WTF are you on about loool? Your post makes no sense. @yarbie1000 Fair enough. Np :)
So why can't the dev add in an exclusive character skin? I mean that really is what we are talking about here. MS's parity clause asks if you are shipping on their console later that you do something extra for that version. That is not asking too much if you ask me and it will help the game have a fresh appeal vs. "hey here is this game thats been out everywhere else for a while now".
***THAT is EXACTLY why MS has a parity clause, so developers can't pump out garbage as an afterthought. *** That makes no sense considering worse games than The Orange Box were released on the 360 and even on the Xbox One. If they were about quality control, then why not stop even exclusive games that are horrible from releasing on the console? The answer is that the parity clause has nothing to do with quality control and everything to do with selling a "better" product than what your competition has.
@Dlacy13g Because it cost money? And while I agree on the principle why should they have to? It's not like the game suddenly becomes old if it debuts late on a platform. As long as people hasn't played it on another platform it's as still a new game as it was x amount time ago and there's no reason they should be forced into during so at the benefit MS have something market as being "exclusive to their platform". Also just because MS says so doesn't mean we know that would be complete basis to only a dev on their platform because we don't know what is approved or denied.
@Kayant ... creating content that would be viewed as special benefits both parties as it creates a small extra layer of buzz for their game coming to xbox. As for your comment "it costs money"...yes it does but the cost we are talking about for this kind of thing is minimal in the grand scheme of things and the benefit of being on another platform to sell their game should outweigh that cost. I believe the old saying goes: to make money you gotta spend a little money.
@Dlacy13g "creating content that would be viewed as special benefits both parties as it creates a small extra layer of buzz for their game coming to xbox" - True but then that also makes existing owners on other platform feel "second class". "yes it does but the cost we are talking about for this kind of thing is minimal in the grand scheme of things and the benefit of being on another platform to sell their game should outweigh that cost." - I don't necessary agree with that because it's still a cost to the developer and without being an indie dev I don't feel it's accurate to say so. For all you know a team spending more time developing that content could lead to them into a debt.
@Lelo *If I was Microsoft I would tell these devs to f*** off and take their business elsewhere. Yea I think that's the last thing MS would wanna do...
@Kayant... I suppose it all depends on the type of content they are contemplating adding in. Also, for a game like Skullgirls, it has already shipped on other consoles so the reality is they likely are already making money and wanting to make more by releasing on Xbox One. So again, the benefit of making an additional investment for some kind of exclusive content to get the game onto another platform to sell more units shouldn't be a difficult choice especially since they are done with their development on the other platforms.
@Foe "THAT is EXACTLY why MS has a parity clause, so developers can't pump out garbage as an afterthought. " Ummm...no that's not why it exists. The parity clause has nothing to do with the quality of the content. It is simply saying that a game has to release same day on the Xbox, or it has to have MORE CONTENT if it comes out on the Xbox after another console. MS doesn't go overboard on game quality, just like every other console maker doesn't care so long as the game meets the certification requirements.
Sigh... the parity clause strikes again. The ps4 is definitely snowballing more and more into the premier fighting game console as well as other things. I can kinda guess the issues with this lie with the fact that the ps4, ps3, and ps vita ver is cross buy, cross play, cross save. It's just outright the more valuable version in my opinion. And it would appear that may conflict with the parity clause. And releasing it late on the x1 is not to Microsoft's liking.
It was just a legitimate question. I thought you did news, so i thought I could ask you. Sorry, I don't go to forums often to get my news. Thanks for the link
Why are the tweets so vague? What aspect of the parity clause is there conflict with? Are the devs not intent on release day/date with the other version? Are the devs unwilling to put anything extra into a game that would release later? Curious. More info please.
"Why are the tweets so vague?" NDA - http://www.neogaf.com/forum... "Are the devs not intent on release day/date with the other version? Are the devs unwilling to put anything extra into a game that would release later?" - You know there are things like manpower, resources, paychecks to survive that exist. http://www.neogaf.com/forum...
They're vague because there is a charachter limit. But as more people noticed this, they asked the same questions you're wondering about, so they will perhaps be answered in other tweets or a company blog post/statement.
Well if oddworld, and every other multiplat indie game can do it, then this is a pretty shitty excuse if someone were to ask me.
MS needs to just scrap it. Maybe when they had the bigger market share, they could use that policy. But now they have about half as many as Sony, it isn't going to work. MS can keep throwing out their lame excuses. "Just come talk to us", I mean why should they even have to do that? Why does it have to be so difficult? The 2nd class citizens thing is just dumb. When you're preventing your users from getting these games, that makes them more like 3rd world citizens. The article the other day where someone tried to act like Sony has the same policies... such bull. There's a reason we never hear about it this generation, because it isn't true. MS's policy has been publicly bashed numerous times in the last year by actual devs.
MS either needs to get rid of the parity clause or update it. The fact the clause is there but some games can go through but not others makes no sense. In the end the parity clause is hurting Microsoft more than helping, in comparison Sony has twice as many indies because of there good policies. It really is surprising how xbox 360 had a ton of indie support and now the xbox one is the opposite.
" in comparison Sony has twice as many indies " That's not necessarily a bad thing for xbox. For every quality indie title, there are 10 or so that are ..eh. I'm fine with a curated market place. Just my opinion though.
Time to go cry in a corner and rethink my life.
Add in something exclusive to the xbox version and I'm sure MS would be happy to allow it onto xbox.
When everyone cites the parity clause crap that Microsoft has why do we never hear about the specifics of why that clause has prevented the game coming to the XB1? Where is the information on communication or lack thereof with Microsoft? It is always - "we did it because of the parity clause" and no other information is provided. Maybe instead of blaming Microsoft people could actually tell us exactly how the parity clause prevents you from communicating with Microsoft and obtaining an exception or whatever?
NDA. They could get in trouble. It is obvious there is something in there with the amount of devs coming out about it. MS themselves won't even say what it is. They are the ones stopping it from being public knowledge. Hmm, I wonder why?
Who cares. Never heard of this game. My XB1 is reserved for big budget games and can care less about developers that go on twitter to whine about a game no one cares.
So you speak on behalf of the whole xbox community??Im sure plenty of xbox fans would like to see this game released on their platform.
Does the parity claus help anyone? I'm sure lots of people are enjoying Shovel Knight with Battletoads and they don't care they got it last
Like you posted w/ battletoads. Is the reason. MS ok'ed the game. This dev probably doesnt want to add exclusive content but figured he complain on Twitter to get the gaming community to lash out at MS to release their game.
They should just offer a little piece of DLC to be exclusive to Microsoft.
but charge $40 for it. Whats that, Rocksteady?
Oh no! What a loss... /s
Who really cares on the X1 side. Skullgirls is on 360 and it didn't exactly sell millions. Its a decent game. But, by going to twitter and blaming the parity clause they are just encouraging MS to dig the trenches. They made a conscious decision to release on PS4 first. Even though they knew the clause exists. Now, it is their fault that they cannot get on X1 not MS'. Its not like this has been a massive secret clause no one knew about.
LMAO. And you can play the game on PS4!
They need to accept and move on or do and shut the hell up . But this beating a dead horse thing is getting old .
You know the rules, go to PS4 and then whine on twitter when MS shrugs and says "You know how we operate.... " ???
Stupid MS is stupid!
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.