Microsoft Defends Xbox One Parity Clause: "Xbox Owners Should Feel First-Class"

[SomeGuyOnHisComputer]

Yes, of course MS would attempt to keep competition from doing what MS has been doing since the 360. *eyes roll*
It's actually pretty hilarious. They want they're customers to feel first class and yet they originally intended to spy on and control them with intrusive DRM.

I had no intention of supporting the platform due to the Adam Orth nonsense, so I guess this doesn't affect me either way. Good to know I couldn't support it even if I wanted.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

"I have a lot of friends that run small indie studios, and I get that timelines around when--they just can't get both games done at the same time, all three games, all four games, depending on how many platforms they're supporting," Spencer explained. "So I always just say, 'Let's have a conversation.'

What he's implying: when a small indie studio doesn't have the time or the money to finish all versions of a game at the same time, they call me and we help them out! Money, manpower, whatever they need to make it happen!

What actually happens: when a small indie studio doesn't have the time or money to finish all versions of a game at the same time, they call me and I politely remind them that they can kiss the XB1 market goodbye forever if they don't prioritize my console.

So the smallest of the emerging markets is trying to leverage its... lack of size? If I were a small indie studio struggling to bring my project to every available platform, I would immediately cut the XB1 version and very loudly tell everyone precisely why. Plenty of sales to be had on PC and PS4, and neither of those platforms are trying to dictate your decisions while owning 0% of your company.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Sometime in the past, someone redefined First Class...

Just remember, this s the same company that calls the basic model 'premium,' they're mostly refugees from the opposite dimension.

 

[XenoScifi]

First class? I refer to people that bought that console as sheep. It falls under the same category as EA, IMO, with it's big corp spending, marketing tactics, "fine print" and execs sitting in a big conference rooms think-tanking how to squeeze money out of as many people as they can.

This of course is my warped idea of reality, or it could be the truth. What do I know. Sorry if I offended anybody that bought an Xbox One and generally love what they paid for.

 

[Deadcyde]

Here's how it strikes me.

Indie dev doesn't have enough money to bring out on xbox and other platforms at same time? Guess they're gonna go with the safest option (generally PC).

Game takes off, suddenly everyone wants a piece of this game.

Except xbox because you hurt their feelings.

No they don't care how good your game is. It didn't come to xbox first it's not coming to xbox at all.

gg Microsoft...

gg

However, if Microsoft wanted all of my Internets...

(Blockbuster narrator voice) In a perfect world:

Indie dev doesn't have enough money to bring out on xbox and other platforms at same time? Guess they're gonna go with the safest option (generally PC).

Microsoft says, "hey, you bring it out on pc, and we'll give you a bit of extra cash to bring it out on xbox at the same time too" (hell, even if they added "for a bigger cut of profits" I'd be okay with that, provided it was only for devs who took the extra cash, if they didn't and managed to release a game on Xbox as well as other platforms off their own backs then they shouldn't have to pay back M$)

Indie dev gets a better chance at getting their game out. Xbox gamers still get to feel like first class.

No one misses out, everyone wins (including Microsoft if the game is actually good enough that they recoup their cost)

(scene ends)

I tell you, that would be a nice world.

 

[agent9]

I think that many of us can agree that it isn't truly value that they're adding but rather the illusion of value. if MS want to treat their consumers like "first class" patrons then they should attempt to add cool features that entice people, not gate away content by spending themselves into a large hole.

 

[agent9]

Here's how it strikes me.

Indie dev doesn't have enough money to bring out on xbox and other platforms at same time? Guess they're gonna go with the safest option (generally PC).

Game takes off, suddenly everyone wants a piece of this game.

Except xbox because you hurt their feelings.

No they don't care how good your game is. It didn't come to xbox first it's not coming to xbox at all.

gg Microsoft...

gg

However, if Microsoft wanted all of my Internets...

(Blockbuster narrator voice) In a perfect world:

Indie dev doesn't have enough money to bring out on xbox and other platforms at same time? Guess they're gonna go with the safest option (generally PC).

Microsoft says, "hey, you bring it out on pc, and we'll give you a bit of extra cash to bring it out on xbox at the same time too" (hell, even if they added "for a bigger cut of profits" I'd be okay with that, provided it was only for devs who took the extra cash, if they didn't and managed to release a game on Xbox as well as other platforms off their own backs then they shouldn't have to pay back M$)

Indie dev gets a better chance at getting their game out. Xbox gamers still get to feel like first class.

No one misses out, everyone wins (including Microsoft if the game is actually good enough that they recoup their cost)

(scene ends)

I tell you, that would be a nice world.

I read that in the voice of Don lafontaine lol.

 

[rofltehcat]

Now I really want someone to release an indie game on all the other platforms and have it do insanely well. Then I wonder how long it takes for someone from Microsoft to ring them up.

 

[Scorpid]

I'm not with most people in seeing this as not immediatly evil. The most idealistic purpose of the freemarket is for the best product to float to the top on its merit and sly wit of its creator. If Microsoft wants to deliver the best console to market it has fight for its consumers rights to get access to the most of quality products. I mean I'm sure Xbox will find interesting ways of making it actually fuck the consumers (Because isn't that just the song and dance of all publishers/console manufacturers these day) but without any additional information or examples I've got no problem with this if they're actually doing it to serve their customers.

 

[gamegod25]

*shrugs* Just means indie devs will be less likely to come to them, thats MS's loss not ours.

 

[Trishbot]

Once again, Microsoft's policies hurt everyone.
Gamers get fewer games because they believe "never is better than later".
Indies lose money and have little motivation to make games for Xbox.
Microsoft loses money because a lot of people DO care about smaller, indie titles.

 

[Czann]

Seriously? Thanks Microsoft. I'm going to buy a PS4 now. I can't stand your stupid policies anymore.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

I'm confused - everybody complains about permanent exclusivity, most people complain about timed exclusivity, but now people are complaining about obligatory non-exclusivity?

It feels like Microsoft have no right answer here - they're trying to make sure their platform doesn't get treated worse than the others. Isn't that a reasonable course of action for the owner of a platform?

Is it just because Microsoft aren't forcing this on all developers, or is it just different sections of the community complaining about different things?

No, people, at least most of the people are complaining about exclusives that shouldn't really be exclusive. Doubt that the majority of people who know what the hell they are talking about are complaining that the next Zelda game isn't on the PS4 because it would make 0 sense. Most people won't even complain that Bayonetta 2 is an exclusive because they know that it wouldn't have happened at all if not for Nintendo's money.

What MS is doing now is not mandatory non-exclusivity. There are multiple reasons why a game would be a exclusive.
- Dev loves a system and wants to support only it, basically 2nd party devs. Not owned by the console manufacturer but they still make games almost exclusively for them (Gamefreak for example). The clause won't change the exclusivity status.
- Game is being paid by one of the big 3. The clause won't change the exclusivity status.
- Game is made by a 1st party studio. The clause won't change the exclusivity status.
- Dev doesn't have enough cash to make all console version at the same time, which is the case in almost all indie games. The clause won't change the timed exclusivity status, in fact, it will force a reverse exclusive status (game will come to everything except Xbone)
- Dev has enough money but wants to test out the waters and make a name out of itself on the open and free platform (PC) before paying licencing fees to release it on a console (also often a case for indie devs). The clause won't change the exclusivity status, in fact the same thing will happen like in the previous example.

With this clause, Microsoft doesn't try to force non-exclusivity. They try to force timed exclusives for the Xbone. They are basically saying "Give us the game as a timed exclusive or you will permanently lose the Xbone market". Since most indie devs don't have money to make more than 1 version, they will either go with PC and lose the Xbone market or go with Xbone, have a several times smaller consumer base, less options for marketing and much higher entry cost but in the long run, they will be able to cover all markets (PC, PS4, Wii U and Xbone).

"Give us a timed exclusive or get the fuck out" is what MS is saying here.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I'm confused - everybody complains about permanent exclusivity, most people complain about timed exclusivity, but now people are complaining about obligatory non-exclusivity?

It feels like Microsoft have no right answer here - they're trying to make sure their platform doesn't get treated worse than the others. Isn't that a reasonable course of action for the owner of a platform?

Is it just because Microsoft aren't forcing this on all developers, or is it just different sections of the community complaining about different things?

I think the issue is that it isn't cheap to develop on a Microsoft console. While you can develop on a PC without Microsoft taking money for using Windows 7 as a platform (for example), Microsoft charges up to $5,000 [http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/30/launching-indie-games-on-xbox-one-can-cost-up-to-5000] for an indie game to launch on the Xbox One. That is a lot of money to an indie developer if they haven't already made money from the game. But now, they can't use their profits to pay that extra charge, because if they launch it anywhere else, they can't later port it to the Xbox One.

 

[Something Amyss]

I keep drawing a blank when i read "Xbox" and "First Class" in the same...

I thought this was a parody. You know, of that movie with the mutants?

But apparently, "parity" was not a typo.

 

[Something Amyss]

Microsoft charges up to $5,000 [http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/30/launching-indie-games-on-xbox-one-can-cost-up-to-5000] for an indie game to launch on the Xbox One. That is a lot of money to an indie developer if they haven't already made money from the game. But now, they can't use their profits to pay that extra charge, because if they launch it anywhere else, they can't later port it to the Xbox One.

Are they still whacking indie devs with large fees for their title updates, too?

I remember when Microsoft was talking about being more indie friendly. I laughed then, but it seems funnier now.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Microsoft charges up to $5,000 [http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/30/launching-indie-games-on-xbox-one-can-cost-up-to-5000] for an indie game to launch on the Xbox One. That is a lot of money to an indie developer if they haven't already made money from the game. But now, they can't use their profits to pay that extra charge, because if they launch it anywhere else, they can't later port it to the Xbox One.

Are they still whacking indie devs with large fees for their title updates, too?

I remember when Microsoft was talking about being more indie friendly. I laughed then, but it seems funnier now.

They don't require fees for title updates, and the costs from launching a game on Xbox One aren't all directly related to Microsoft either, so I was wrong to blame them. However, they do require the E&O contractually, which sets the dev back 2 grand by itself, still no cheap price. Hell, for some people in the US, that's a month's wage. Also, it's kind of crappy for Microsoft to require the game to at least launch simultaneously on the Xbox One, then leave the devs having to pay the bill for localization and ratings certification.