Microsoft Defends Xbox One Parity Clause: "Xbox Owners Should Feel First-Class"
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Just when you think Microsoft might be learning and working towards making the Xbone a decently supported console, they do something like this.
The PR speak is getting ridiculous now. He reminds me of a school gym teacher shouting "You're ALL special!" after a race in which half the class doesn't make it to the finish line.
The PR speak is getting ridiculous now. He reminds me of a school gym teacher shouting "You're ALL special!" after a race in which half the class doesn't make it to the finish line.
Xbox one has the lowest number of users. The Wii U has a larger user base than the X1. The X1 is currently trailing 3rd in the current gen console race and is 4th if you add in PC.Liam Steel said:
I keep seeing this, constantly, there was even someone who made the comment the other day "Wii U is in a distant third". It is just simply not true.
As of September 2014:
PlayStation 4 Total Sales: 11,447,553
Wii U Total Sales: 7,354,623
Xbox One Total Sales: 5,786,090
Ah, fair enough. I guess if I had to justify myself I'd say I was under the impression that current sales figures indicate the xbox might be outselling Wii U. But please don't take it as an attack on the Wii U, to be honest the Wii U is the only current Gen system I own. I'm more a PC guy with a lingering fondness for Nintendo.Whatislove said:
I think this is an excuse to go the minecraft route,
if the game is insanley popular they will break the rules for it.
It's simply a way to get rid of the lesser games
if the game is insanley popular they will break the rules for it.
It's simply a way to get rid of the lesser games
The X1 outsold the Wii U in July and August, but the Wii U outsold the X1 during MK8 release.Liam Steel said:
I expect the Wii U sales to jump again once we get new figures next month (with the launch of Hyrule Warriors and some other upcoming titles like Bayonetta 2, SSB and toads whatever).
The PS4 is the only clear consistent winner at the moment.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not a Nintendo or Wii U fanboy, or an X1 hater (though the X1 is the only console I don't own at the moment. I have a PS3/4, Gamecube, wii u, xbox 360, vita, 3ds, pc), I just keep seeing lots of misinformation in regards to sales when it comes to Nintendo.
It goes back to the Gamecube as well, it was apparently a failure according to everyone on the internet, but the original Xbox which only outsold it by 2 million consoles (22m GCN vs 24m Xbox) did fine, some say great. Neither console sold particularly well when compared to the PS2; and Nintendo also made profit on every console they sold. Both MS and Sony sold their consoles at a loss.
Nintendo was making the most profit through that console generation and never recorded a loss, while Microsoft were losing almost $1,000,000,000 annually.
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/ms-has-yet-to-make-a-profit-from-xb-brand-xb1360-29343084/
Oh I know, especially as I'm a PC gamer myself. But I think the best way to deal with this stuff is usually to role your eyes and accept that exclusives and ports are a thing. They're annoying, especially when the ports are bad, and certainly can be insulting if they are particularly bad. But feeling insulted by the very idea of ports is not exactly going to keep your blood pressure low.maxben said:
And Spencer here is basically saying that you--or rather, XBone owners--should feel insulted by having to wait. Having to wait makes you second-class, and MS has this parity clause so that you don't feel second class. He's not saying, 'Look, just accept than exclusives happen--we have some exclusives, PS4 has some exclusives--but if you're patient you'll probably see stuff cross over.' He's saying, 'Having to wait is an insult because it means you're not worth as much, and we need to protect you from that.'
This kind of attitude is just adding fuel to the fire of gamer entitlement, and that's irresponsible.
Microsoft should realise just how damaging this is to indies. Instead of making them launch their games simultaneously, how about providing a stipend(to release it on the Xbone simultaneously) instead of making it mandatory?
Surely, that way it allures more indies, spurs 3rd party development for the console and it makes the players feel 'first-class' because indies will be lining up to post their games on the marketplace? And it will redeem the company, as it will be seen as charitable!
That's a pipe dream though, isn't it? :/
The future shall be bright indeed when my generation, who were brought up with the entertainment factor of games, will be the ones in charge of finance and marketing! All props to the current guys, but gaming isn't just a business!
Surely, that way it allures more indies, spurs 3rd party development for the console and it makes the players feel 'first-class' because indies will be lining up to post their games on the marketplace? And it will redeem the company, as it will be seen as charitable!
That's a pipe dream though, isn't it? :/
The future shall be bright indeed when my generation, who were brought up with the entertainment factor of games, will be the ones in charge of finance and marketing! All props to the current guys, but gaming isn't just a business!
Is there some irony that they insist on parity for indie releases, to ensure content is released at the same time on all platforms, while they pay square enix for timed exclusivity of tomb raider 2?
Does that mean, as a German, I should be insulted because many games release in the U.S. a few days prior to Europe?mjharper said:
And should I be doubly insulted because of timed exclusives like Tomb Raider? (BTW: Did Sony do something like this as well?)
And should I feel triple insulted because a game releases even later in Germany, because someone whispered the word Nazi in the story and the USK (The German version of the ESRB) threw a hissy fit?
(I'm waiting for the day when all three of these happen to the same game.)
But Xbone owners can relax. The most important aspects of their console will never be late: TV, TV, TV, Television and Sports and don't forget TV.
Well at least in the U.S.A. I have no idea if these things work in Germany.
Indie devs don't have the time, manpower nor money to make a game for all platforms they want to release at the same time.
This clause is there for a specificity reason and I'm surprised you people don't see it. Think about it. Indie dev releases game on PC, PS4 or Wii U first, it can't release on the Xbone anymore meaning that it can get 3 platformes at best. Indie dev releases game on Xbone first, it can still release the game later on the PC, PS4 and Wii U. The clause is there to force developerw ho want the biggest coverage of the market to release on the Xbone first which means those games would be timed exclusives to the Xbone.
Now I don't believe that porting the game from the Xbone to PC would be a hard and time intensive task, according to MS it's simple and easy so a Xbone/PC release could be easily possible as well.
Basically, MS wants to make sure that the Xbone gets the games faster than other consoles, while the PC... they can't do anything about it.
EDIT: I thought it was obvious without saying but I will still edit the post to write it. This can easily backfire for every single indie dev that doesn't have the funds to develop the game first for a console since console development is a lot more expensive than PC development. I don't know about the Xbone, but in case of the Wii U, indie devs can get the devkit for ~$2000 iirc. That's rather big for a initial investment when the same initial investment on the PC is $0.
This clause is there for a specificity reason and I'm surprised you people don't see it. Think about it. Indie dev releases game on PC, PS4 or Wii U first, it can't release on the Xbone anymore meaning that it can get 3 platformes at best. Indie dev releases game on Xbone first, it can still release the game later on the PC, PS4 and Wii U. The clause is there to force developerw ho want the biggest coverage of the market to release on the Xbone first which means those games would be timed exclusives to the Xbone.
Now I don't believe that porting the game from the Xbone to PC would be a hard and time intensive task, according to MS it's simple and easy so a Xbone/PC release could be easily possible as well.
Basically, MS wants to make sure that the Xbone gets the games faster than other consoles, while the PC... they can't do anything about it.
EDIT: I thought it was obvious without saying but I will still edit the post to write it. This can easily backfire for every single indie dev that doesn't have the funds to develop the game first for a console since console development is a lot more expensive than PC development. I don't know about the Xbone, but in case of the Wii U, indie devs can get the devkit for ~$2000 iirc. That's rather big for a initial investment when the same initial investment on the PC is $0.
That's some epic level spindoctoring the only selling point of the Xbone, that is holding games as hostages.
I prefer his follow-up statement about how those indie developers can call him up to work out an arrangement when xbone parity's a problem. So it shouldn't really be an issue for indie devs to accommodate MS ...as long as they're run by his personal friends.TehAardvark said:
Parity...what a joke. Reminds me of the modern day mentality of 'everybody is special' and 'everybody gets an award' meant to coddle individuals with thin skin and/or self-esteem issues that can't deal with it. This is basically an example of undeserved entitlement.