Sony Has Certain Parity Policies As Well, Microsoft’s Indie Requirements Are Not Unreasonable - Dev

Grip Games' Jakub Mikyska on indie policies of Sony and Microsoft.

[n4rc]

no surprises..

[Transistor]

It should be surprising, some details would be nice.

There are numerous indie developers who frequent Neogaf who pretty much say the exact opposite. Sony has been great and it's why they all want to work with them. Microsoft not so much.

Read this thread for a better idea, here is a bunch of them talking about their expierences with both. Not filtered through Gamingbolt for clicks.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthr...

[lelo2play]

Feel bad about those developers, but... neogaf? Seriously? That forum is a infested cesspool.

EDIT:
@BabyTownFrolics, Transistor
Take a look at some of the comments from the link above and tell me if that is downright classy and calm.

[BabyTownFrolics]

Neogaf looks downright classy and calm as opposed to n4g. It's the stupid bubble policy, also I miss have two zones.

[Transistor]

They say they same about N4G.

The reality is there are terrible people on every site regardless of which console they like better.

I will say this though, Neogaf is much more educated about the workings of the industry then most people here. Developers, people who work for NPD and all companies employees frequent there. Here not so much. Understandable though, here you give people real info and they reply with numbers from VGchartz. Lol.

[DragonKnight]

Sony's parity policies are already known and likely the same for indies as they are for established studios. If you have to have your game release on multiple platforms and Playstation isn't the first, then Sony demands extra features be added to compensate the users having to wait for the game. I thought this was common knowledge.

[AstroCyborg]

of course they'd say that on neogaf if you say anything bad about sony your gone

[bleedsoe9mm]

@AstroCyborg well said bub
@DragonKnight thats why super time force got the yoshida character , they thought it was funny .

thats because neogaf only welcomes people who say good things about sony or bad things about ms , either will do but preferably both .

[SilentNegotiator]

"has policies" =/= "same as Microsoft's policies"

[XisThatKid]

Agree or not the way I see it The most popular console probably WOULD have some of the worst people commenting which in this case is PS4 just like back when the most popular consoles get the most shovelware

Bottom line there are 20 people and 3 houses, out of those 20 people 8 of them are serial killers what ever house out of the three can house the most people runs the biggest chance and likelyhood of having the most killers in their midst.
This is just my theory and since their are more than 20 mill PS4s out their so many players so we have the Sh*t that goes with it. Aside the fact that ALL sides have horrible people hiding behind the anonymity of the internet with no real consequences and sheer ignorance no website is safe that has a comment section period. But we all know all of this.

[WCxAlchemist]

NEOGAF!! You SERIOUS!!! NEOGAF Seriously!! NEOGAF LMAO

Edit: NEOGAF!? Are you seriously pulling qoutes from Neogaf!?!?

Edit X2: Are we talkin bout the same NEOGAF?!?

[MazzingerZ]

I guess it's a matter of gamers noticing those...with No Man's Sky releasing soon, probably the biggest INDIE title in the coming years, it's hard to care about this article

[fr0sty]

Forcing devs to add content to a timed exclusive on another platform is a far cry from requiring devs to release on both platforms at once.

[Christopher]

***Sony's parity policies are already known and likely the same for indies as they are for established studios. If you have to have your game release on multiple platforms and Playstation isn't the first, then Sony demands extra features ***

I've never heard them "demand" it. Only ask. Any proof that they "demand" it?

[mikeboccher]

why would you believe ANYTHING that is said on Neogaf when it is so cleary a biased site towards PS? I mean really

[Docknoss]

@babytownfrolics very well said. I miss the segregation and hate the bubble system. Honestly is a very flawed system. Where even if you say something that's well said and Intelligent. Console Biased N4Gers can take your bubbles away and especially when this site has more readers that of a particular console. The System is Broke, fight the power!

[OB1Biker]

No surprises...from this site. and here run the fanboy wars

[THC CELL]

Gamebolt am out see ya

[n4rc]

love how i get disagrees for THAT!

are you surprised sony has a parity policy? then youre a .... well... pick an insult

or maybe youre surprised by the obvious... ms works with developers and no policy is set in stone.. we already have proof of it in multiple titles that break the so-called parity clause..

[Nirvana31591]

I swear I knew this was gaming bolt before I even clicked

[raymantalk1]

if sony has parity policies then state them dont just bullshit prove it or get lost.

[Brotard]

a little surprising since its the only negative thing I've heard about sonys indie policies yet.

[MasterCornholio]

What parity policy?

This is the first time that I'm hearing that Sony has a policy like Microsoft does

[SoapShoes]

It probably just means it has to have the same quality on PS4 as any other platform. Doubt it's like MS where games have to release simultaneously on their platform as everyone else's.

[JorboTron]

MS DOES NOT require games to be released at the same time ie Guacamelee. MS handles them on a case by case basis if they do not have a simultaneous release. MS would prefer to have them add exclusive content like Shovel Night is doing (battletoads) to make it special. Their policies are nearly the same as Sony. People just love to hate on MS and rightfully so they have done some really dumb stuff recently. but in th past so has SONY, SEGA, NINTENDO...

[lelo2play]

Last gen Sony had a policy that if a game was released later on the PS3, it had to have extra content. Don't know if that is still used with the PS4.

[MasterCornholio]

I'm guessing it's that policy. And if you look at games that came late to the PS4 you can see it in effect. Like how in Shovel Knight Kratos is a boss or how in Super Time Squad you can play as Shuhei for example.

[LOL_WUT]

I'd prefer Sony's policy over Microsoft tbh rather have the game release late with more content than not at all ;)

[maniacmayhem]

Sony has had similar policies it's just that a last gen a Sony exec took it upon himself to call out MS and the media and the internet ran with it.

[MasterCornholio]

I honestly dont see requiring extra content for a game that comes late to be the same thing as completely blocking the game from releasing on the system.

But that's just my opinion.

P.S I know there's a way around Microsoft's parity clause through a loophole.

[marlinfan10]

@master

That's the same as the xbox policy. The head of the program came out and confirmed it if I'm not mistaken (that a game could release later on xbox, it just needs additional content). Yet it's a huge problem on here when MS does it.

If the dev doesn't add content, then it's essentially blocked from playstation, same goes for xbox.

[rainslacker]

MS's loophole is pretty much what what Sony's policy is as well isn't it? Add content, and it can release on the system.

I really don't know if these policies are set in stone so steadfast that the console maker wouldn't just allow a game on another system if the developer asked. To me, there is ultimately no harm for a game releasing later on another system. It may be harmful if a game releases first on another system though...which is why these policies exist in the first place.

[freshslicepizza]

on the ps3 sony had a policy that required games to have some form of additional content that was exclusive if the game was already released on the xbox 360. not sure if they do on the ps4 but what would be nice is this developer giving details as to what they are for indie games. we all well aware about microsoft's policies so why wouldn't sony's also be known?

the thing is these companies know most sales are front loaded and if a game comes out later it risks selling a lot less copies. that is why they want at least simultaneous releases or new content exclusive to gain more interest.

[mhunterjr]

But Microsoft doesn't block them entirely, they just require extra content... And in some cases allow the game to be released without extra content.

[Yetter]

Seems like this policy has been in place for quite some time. Doesn't seem to apply to PC ports like The Swapper but if that game has been on another console than it does require additional content. Seems to me its almost identical to MS parity clause, the difference being one particular dev through MS under the bus and used it as their sole excuse for not releasing their game on xbox.

[Activemessiah]

Yet you dont hear about them... meaning it's not so bad... at least not as bad as MS.

[Naga]

Just because you don't hear about something as much doesn't mean it's not as bad; that's an error in logic.

[TFJWM]

While that is true I think he means we have yet to hear any developers complain about Sony's policies. Even this one just says they have something in place not that it is an issue

[GTgamer]

If the devs don't complain then how bad can it be :.

[BG11579]

Yeah, we ear more praises than complaints.
I would like to read more about Sony's parity rules, because no example is given the article.

[AstroCyborg]

the only reasons its not bad is because its sony

[Why o why]

Change your record already. . . . . .

Gosh. . Seems some people want parity on everything, good and bad. Fact is these company's are not the same apart from the fact they want our money. We've heard about certain policies from last gen. I'll consider this plausible if there were more cases with specifics. This isn't being clear enough for anybody to compare the 2 company's policies imo. . . The quest for parity continues. . Lol

[RIP_Cell]

you don't hear about them because they are all under NDAs

[rainslacker]

We have heard about them though. It came to light at about the same time as MS parity policy last gen.

So if you didn't hear about them, you either weren't paying attention, nor was this an actual problem for you until it could be a possible shot fired for petty console war preferences.

[Condemnedman]

Let's hear the spin now then defenders .

[Silly gameAr]

Spin what? There are no details about these certain parity policies, yet you have people like you in the comments saying, "yeah Sony too". Then again you don't have to add any details in an article on N4G for people to believe it.

[RpgSama]

If he doesn't explicitely say what are these "Certain Parity Policies", it could be anything from anti developers policies (doubt it), to obvious things like having matching prices for the software published at the time of launch in all consoles.

[MrDead]

It doesn’t matter that the dev didn't elaborate on Sony Parity Policies, but lucky for Gamingbolt he said they have some so you can put it in the title and watch the hits come in.

[iTechHeads]

Of course there's a parity policy. I'm sure its reasonable enough though. Something like....

"Games released on our platforms must have equal or more content than that of a game released on a competiors console and release at the same day".

This is why games like Call Of Duty and Destiny all release on the same exact day on PS4/XBO regardless of any marketing deals.

[rainslacker]

It has to have added content if released on PS after another console. It is only applicable to console releases, not PC's. I speculated it was a reason why Rayman Legends was delayed because Nintendo had more content through game play mechanics.

The policy has been known for a long time.

[phoenix_dusk]

WHY would Sony want a parity clause when they have the stronger machine?

Ofcourse, Sony has a policy like duh any other company.

Not this dev making excuses for Microsoft. I

[phoenix_dusk]

Does this dev even know the meaning of parity?

Ofcourse Sony would want an equal share of content requirement like their competition?

Who wants their customers duped into an inferior version when PS4 has the most userbase. That's unfair.

[-Foxtrot]

Seems more like he's trying to level the playing field in my opinion....it's just came out of the blue (and not Sony "blue")

[maniacmayhem]

There has always been devs who have said Sony has had their own policies and clauses. I even told a lot of people all last gen that Sony has similar TCR/TRC policies when porting or submitting games to them, it's just no one wants to believe that Sony has these things.

Not to mention it's more popular to crap on MS.

[-Foxtrot]

It's more "popular"...really, you think all that hate they got with the reveal onwards was just "Oh hey guys lets hate on Microsoft now for NO REASON WHATS SO EVER because it'll become popular"

People hated on Sony back in 2006 onwards for reasons or like when people hate on Nintendo it's for legit reasons

Nobody does it because it's popular it's just that they just come off, even in their good days and BEFORE the Xbox One or even Kinect a bit shady compared to Sony and Nintendo.

[ziggurcat]

@maniac:

sony's TRC/MS's TCR guidelines have got *nothing* to do with parity. they fall under compliance testing (which is a QA thing), and they're there mainly for the following things:

ensuring brand terminology is correct (ever wonder why games always refer to the PS as a "system"? well, that's because it's a TRC guideline)
ensuring network functionality is correct, and using the correct terminology
ensuring other major functionality issues don't occur (i.e. it's an automatic certification failure if the game crashes quitting to the system software)
ensuring trophy/achievement functionality is correct

so it's not about parity at all.

also, those guidelines have been around for a lot longer than last generation.

[maniacmayhem]

I don't understand why people are telling me about Sony's "parity" clause, I never once said Sony had a parity clause (I'm sure I didn't), but they do have their own policies that do require a game to have certain features (sometimes added) when porting from another system or Sony has the right to not accept a game.

And the TRC's don't all fall under QA guideline testing. A lot states what is required for a game that falls under development and production.

"also, those guidelines have been around for a lot longer than last generation."

And so has the parity clause from MS, a lot longer than when it was revealed and made popular by a sony exec.

By the way, thanks for clearing up the TRC/TCR terms. It's been a minute and I always got who had what confused.

[Master-H]

Yeah. The usual Sony Too shenanigans.

[maniacmayhem]

Really, how do you think "trends" start Fox? Because they become popular, a Sony exec called out MS for their clause, before that you heard nothing about the parity clause and I'm sure it was around when the 360 first arrived on the scene. All of a sudden it became an issue on everyone's lips even going as far as to say the parity clause was about graphics.

"People hated on Sony back in 2006 onwards for reasons, like when people hate on Nintendo it's for lefit reasons"

People may have legit reasons but that doesn't mean there are more popular reasons that people latch on to hate a product or company. The term is "bandwagon", and you have to know this is true.

It's popular to hate on certain companies or products more than others. We see it everyday on this site as a lot of people just parrot what others say.

I mean is it any different from the many that think there's a "Sony Hate Campaign" or "Western/Media is biased" we see constantly on this site about Sony. It's popular to say this, even when there's no proof at all.

[MasterCornholio]

So where's your proof that Sony has a similar parity clause like Microsoft has?

[maniacmayhem]

Not sure where I specifically said "parity" but Sony does have TCR/TRC policies that state that games from other systems must be the same or provide extra content when being ported from another system.

If I could upload the PDF file to the net to show you I would.

[rainslacker]

I've read the TCR/TRC for both 360 and PS3. Probably still have my copy floating around somewhere, albiet maybe out of date now. I've written and tested games to ensure that they would meet the requirements last gen.

There is nothing in there that relates to content on another system, or that there has to be extra content if releasing first on another system. That has nothing at all to do with compliance. Compliance policies are pretty rigid, and even the biggest developer or publisher couldn't get something through if it didn't meet standards, although they could speed up the process of getting changes/fixes approved.

All the document is is a explanation of the checklist that every game has to meet in order to get approval for release on the system.

I don't know what document you have, but the cert documents I've read are extremely technical, outside the overview which is more a list of topic headers.

Guess an easy way to understand it is this. Compliance testing has nothing to do with the content, or quality of said content. It exists to insure that the content that is there, meets the standards that the console maker sets forth for games that are on the system.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

They're probably talking about the PUB Fund program that Sony has. It hardly has anything to do with parity or the "release on my console first or else" kind of policy.

https://www.playstation.com...

- YOU ARE THE PUBLISHER, YOU OWN THE GAME’S IP RIGHTS!
- Incentive based program intended to support platform-defining content on PS3™, PS4™, and PS Vita systems
- Guaranteed royalties upon release of the Game in exchange for limited platform exclusivity
- Additional Co-Marketing support on PlayStation®channels

If you were a developer and you chose to release on the Xbox One first, as long as you don't have any type of agreement with Microsoft Xbox, you can release your game on Playstation platforms, 1 day later, 1 week later, or 1 year later. You won't be denied access because you didn't release on Playstation first.

[gangsta_red]

I doubt they're talking about the Pub fund. They may be talking about how Sony requires that a port from another system must have extra content or something added to make it stand out from the other version of the game.

The Pub fund is something different where Sony demands exclusivity or timed exclusivity in exchange from them funding the game.

[Ryan741]

Sony are allowed party clauses.

[MasterCornholio]

I agree with you that Sony throws fantastic party's. That's why they are the only ones allowed to have them.

;)

[S2Killinit]

mind explaining what "certain policies" means? why so cryptic?

[MRMagoo123]

because its nothing negative and if they explained there would be no controversy for the xbone fannies to get excited about and say "sony too" about .......100% certain thats why there are no details, I mean look at the site its coming from, gaming bolt do one thing and thats take the tiniest info and turn it into a console war.

As far as anyone is aware the ps4 policy is the same as the ps3 and that is if the game arrives late to the console they want extra content like a new character or lvl. Thats it, but if they said that then this article wouldnt have all the hits.

[dcbronco]

I think the parity clause is insignificant compared to Sony's old policy where Sony owned the IP if they financially supported the game. I'm sure they are a few developers that wished they still owned their ideas like Insomniac.

[Persistantthug]

Isn't that pretty much an industry standard for AAA budget games?

[rainslacker]

True, but they didn't have to fund those projects at all. Those devs could have gone somewhere else. I do think they let it ride too long though in the face of new more dev friendly policies. OTOH, they do still do it. The Order and Bloodborne for instance were Sony funded, and now they own the IP. When putting forth 50-100 million dollars I can see why they'd want to minimize their risk.

Honestly, it's probably a better policy for Sony than what MS did by funding an entire series of games in GeOW, and then owning nothing and having to pay a buttload of money to acquire the IP later when it was worth substantially more.

Otherwise, that is done by publishers as well, not just Sony. EA recently started letting devs keep their IP's in some cases.

[dcbronco]

That's the thing, it's not industry standard. It was a Sony thing. Like mentioned Microsoft didn't own Gears. If Mark Rein is to be believed Microsoft paid the entire cost of that game in a advertising budget. It's a terrible policy, in my opinion, holding a small company hostage because you have money. If you love gaming support new IP and developers. But don't take what may be the one good idea they ever have. Plus given that most games don't make a huge profit, it leaves a small developer in the same position for the next game. A huge hit allows an indie to grow. Losing that means most likely remaining an indie or eventually going out of business. It's like an old king killing off potential rivals to a throne even though there can be many kingdoms. No need for it.

[rainslacker]

I don't think it's a great policy either, but I can see why it'd be advantageous for a company to operate like that. Sony wanted something like that with nintendo and their CD add on for the SNES, which is ultimately why Nintendo backed out of the deal. The policy itself was not Sony's creation though, and it wasn't uncommon for publishers to get the IP's of independant developers long before Sony ever came into the market. Capcom, Konami, and many others funded projects and got the IP's.

When it comes to the developer themselves they have a couple choices in some cases. Either get to make a game, and stay open because they're getting paid, or not make a game at all, and ultimately close(so it's not a problem isolated to indie devs as big studios can shut down if they have no operating revenue). Many of those new IP's may never have seen the light of day if not for those publishers funding them, so it's not as black and white as you make the policy out to be. In the end, it's the developers that decided to go ahead with the deal. no one forced their hand, and for them at the time, it was probably the best option for them to simply make a game and protect their business.

Producers outside the publishing houses themselves are rather rare, and self-publishing a AAA game has always been cost prohibitive. Nowadays there are more options, which is why these policies are being adjusted where it's best suited, and that's a good thing.

I don't really like the policy either, as I think IP's should be retained by their creators, but at same time, the money men are going to do what they have to to minimize their risks, and make it beneficial for them. It's how the industry works, and there are good and bad things on both sides of the fence.

[Jayszen]

This article is misleading. Sony has nothing like the clauses Microsoft has such as releasing on Xbone before or at the very least at the same time as on the competition. The fact is that most devs appreciate the way Sony interacts with them and does business. The truth is in the numbers!

[tgunzz]

You very correct. The higher your sales, the less you here complaints, the lower the sales, the more you here them...

[Clover904]

Nuh-uh

[PistolsAtDawn]

Of course, anyone that actually pays attention to all things knows that both companies have policies in their best interests...it's a business thing and whether or not you like it all business' do it.

That being said, these articles are always pushed by those with an agenda that just wish to say something bad about the"other guy" which for this topic is normally aimed at MS. To be fair, MS being secretive about what exactly their policies are makes them an easy target for mis-information...MS should have just been clear from the start what those policies have been the whole time. Even when Devs come out and say what they do or don't like about them....it's usually a dev that was never involved with MS at all, and doesn't have the correct information on what the policies are. What it pretty much boils down to is if you release a game on another system first, then if it comes to X1 they want something "new and special" about it to help sell it at a later date...makes sense, if MS gives you dev kits, cloud access, and help with tools such as unity etc...then they want some sort of exclusive deal...that ALSO makes sense.

I see nothing evil with the policies that id@xbox has, in fact, so far they seem to be working like a charm (other than those devs that don't fully understand them) X1 has some sweet indies, with tons more sweet indies to come...if anything their policies are weeding out the crap that flooded 360's indie market. I can't think of a single indie on any other platform that hurts not to have on X1 (despite the fact that I own all the platforms).

[ScaryMonkey]

Damage control, LOL.

[windblowsagain]

Arguing about indies, rofl.

Who cares.

[Spotie]

People who like video games.

[JasonKCK]

Double standard

[Spotie]

Please, explain.