Microsoft: Xbox One Parity Clause For Indies Might Be Revised

Chris Charla, the leader of the division at Xbox One working with indie developers, says that the very controversial parity clause might be reviewed in the near future if enough studios offer negative feedback about it.

[zeal0us]

Call me when it will be revised. Might isn't good enough.

[Godmars290]

Think that's something indie devs have to say. And for MS to wait too late for the negative effects the more vocal ones are voicing.

[pyramidshead]

Good.

[curtis92]

Okay indies, SPEAK UP

[whothedog]

"Alright we know this is wrong, but we want to wait to hear enough negative feedback to change it."

[Bathyj]

Exactly. They keep doing this stuff they know is bogus, but that think lets just see if we get away with it. If theres no backlash then they dont change it. Well push it as far as we can and then back off if we push too far.

I know Xbone defenders think everyone who hates Microsoft is a Sony fanboy, but you can thank the people that spoke up for what Xbone is now. Their policies wouldnt just have affected future XB owners, its would have affected the whole industry if they got away with it and Xbone would be a completely different machine if not for "the haters".

[DigitalRaptor]

Oh man, don't say that.

They were waiting for their totally feasible family share, the totally realistic competitive prices of digital content, and an all digital future that is still actually possible without all the restrictions if you buy your games digitally, regardless of the fact that ISPs still don't have the capacity or infrastructure to support a digital-only, always-on future at this point in time. This was all worth the horrible anti-consumer practices supposedly. And this is no different.

But you're right, at this point Microsoft defenders don't care about who this affects, as long as it makes Microsoft money and they can boast about how many billions they have as a corporation.

[Godmars290]

More like they're waiting on the general popularity of their console. Whether or not they can say to devs "we've got the #1 system, so you have to do as we say" or "We're not doing so good, what do we have to do to kiss your @$$".

[MightyNoX]

Pretty much this. The more consoles MS sells, the more they can bargain and bully from a position of strength.

[colonel179]

MS loves to play dirty. They care more about destroying the competition, than doing great things for themselves. If they spent all that time and resources in making games and building first party studios, then there would not be any need of a "parity clause" in the first place.

Sony has gotten a great reputation because they have worried more about making great games. Even Ubisoft has had a complete overhaul and most of the games they are making are great games. Microsoft should do the same, and things will improve by themselves.

As long as they are more focused on what the competition is doing, they will never be good at anything.

[BitbyDeath]

Hopefully this attitude will change when the CEO does.

[rainslacker]

For big AAA devs it's hardly necessary. They will want to release at the same time most of the time anyways....except maybe EA, but I digress.

For the niche 3rd party games it's not necessary either. I haven't seen MS care about those niche genre's since their first couple years of the 360 when they were trying to win over Japan. If they don't want their customers to have those niche games after the competition, then that's for the gamer's to complain about to MS. I don't see those niche Japanese devs going out of their way to support MS just to help them out in this.

For indies it's just ridiculous, as most indie devs aren't big enough to do multi-console releases.

[Prime157]

“Obviously we’ve heard the feedback from developers and we’re looking at all the way the ways we can to lower barriers for developers, but I really can’t comment on publishing policies. The reality is that developers should get in touch with us and talk.”

Also known as, "piss off, we're too big to cater to you." And "might" means most likely no.

[Batnut00]

What is this? Yet another 180 from Microsoft? Hahahaha!...JK, seriously, I hope they go through with this. I think it'll really help in the long run if they can give true control over to indie developers.

[RiPPn]

You can only have these kinds of policies if you are the market leader. Microsoft had the luxury of the 360 leading most of the last generation especially in attach rate, so they had leverage. From the way things look at launch that is no longer the case, so I expect we will see several revisions to these kinds of anti competitive policies.

[KillrateOmega]

You mean that parity that basically holds indies hostage for a variable amount time?

Good.

[Volkama]

Not really hostages. They're free to leave any time they want.

They're guests, but there are some basic house rules.

[coopman300]

Basically saying we dont want our marketplace flooded with crap games like last gen. Seriously i went into the indie section and maybe 1 out of 20 games is even worth considering.

But with id@xbox and every off the shelf system dev kit capable i'd say they've made it pretty easy for devs already. They've already gone back on the biggest restrictions they had on indies at the reveal.

[christocolus]

Great job Chris Charla. You are definitly doing good.

[MasterCornholio]

They should get rid of it for the sake of indies and PS4 owners.

[mhunterjr]

I think there's a good chance the don't get rid of it... Really, it only affects this first wave of indie games: games that were being developed for ps4 and PC, before Microsoft even announced they'd have self publishing.

With the next wave, I'd imagine devs would be planning to release on multiple platforms anyway, now that they know their games can be self published on either system.

I get why these clauses exist. Sony's also got one that says, if a game is published on another system first, the ps4 version needs to have additional content. It's a less restrictive mandate, but it serves a similar purpose... It's strange that MS didn't go this route instead of limiting themselves from getting certain games.