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

[Steven Bogos]

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

Microsoft defends its controversial indie parity clause, which forces indies to launch on Xbox One at the same time as any other platform.

If you're not aware, Microsoft has a special "parity" clause with indie devs it works with through its indie program, ID@Xbox. Essentially, the clause states that indie developers must launch their product on Xbox One at the same time it is launched on any other platform. That means, they can't, say, launch a product on PC first, and then port it to Xbox One later. It has drawn some criticism from developers and journalists alike, but Microsoft is standing by by its policy, stating that it exists to make Xbox One owners feel "first class".

"The thing I worry about is--because I look at all the people who buy an Xbox, and they invest their time and their money in Xbox One, and, as millions of people obviously own Xbox Ones, I want them to feel like they're first-class, because they are," Head of Xbox Phil Spencer said on The Inner Circle podcast [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH2RG7TSLJI]. "When a third-party game comes out, it comes out on all platforms at the same time, and when indie games come out, I want them to come out and I want Xbox to feel like it's a first class citizen when an indie game launches."

He added that, "So, for me, the parity thing is, if you own an Xbox One, I want to work for you to make sure that when great content launches, if it's coming to Xbox and another platform, that you kind of get it at the same time everybody else does."

Spencer insists that the policy is not damaging towards indie devs as critics claim, because Microsoft is constantly working to help indies hit their goals. "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.' And it's worked; today, I think we've done a good job of working with the indies on, when they've had parity concerns, if it's just a dev issue for them."

"But I don't want somebody to come in and just think 'I'm going to go do a special game on one platform and then I'll get to Xbox whenever I get to it,' because I don't think that's right," Spencer added, insisting that the true winners of this policy are Xbox One gamers.

Source: GameSpot [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH2RG7TSLJI]

Permalink

 

[LarsInCharge]

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

 

[Gdek]

I can't imagine too many indies have the money to release on Xbox before they have even proved that they have a real market for their game. PC seems like the best place to release as a small time indie developer, and then if you find success port over to consoles. Maybe I'm missing something, but this policy seems like it will mostly just keep the majority of indie games from porting to Xbox at all.

 

[Eri]

Good luck getting them to feel first class with a second class console. Unless the PS4 version gets dumbed down (looking at you Ubisoft), then the PS4 version will always be superior.

 

[Slegiar Dryke]

Calling anything by microsoft "First class" is like calling apple stuff first class.....any tech head knowledgeable in hardware can tell you that the devices are anything BUT first class........in fact, anytime a tech company claims "first class" status, replace "First" with "Hype".....that's about what it means at this point.....

 

[RaikuFA]

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

That... almost rhymes. And yes it seems someone redefined "first class".

 

[flying_whimsy]

Well, if you can't get parity because your approach to the market is flawed, might as well try to enforce it through contract clauses. It sucks that they've gone this route, but they chose this path when they decided to make a console with games as a lower priority (marketing, tv, games in that order).

Man, microsoft just can't do anything right with that console. Granted, it's probably the most anti-competitive, anti-consumer piece of tech to come out in years that didn't have an apple logo on it, so it's not surprising they can't get it right.

 

[TehAardvark]

Did... did he seriously just pull a "no some best friends are *blank*" excuse to justify that line?

 

[Kajin]

That's... Not how game development works. Most indie teams don't have the manpower or resources to even THINK about cross platform launches. When they do, it's usually after they've completed a game, found success, and now have the money and time to actually work on making their game cross platform. This strategy essentially locks out all those indie devs who decided to wait and see if they can even make a successful game in the first place before dividing attentions into what is basically nonessential development time.

 

[oldtaku]

You don't get to be first class by defining your own affirmative action laws.

You're first class on your own merits or you're not. And this kind of policy just proves to everyone that you're not a first class platform. If you were, you wouldn't need it.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

First class, more like; 'no-class', because they won't get anything. Feel sorry for the Xbone users that are going to miss out on so much to this bull. Better late then never is not a philosophy M$ prescribes to obviously.

Does anyone but me see the massive hypocrisy to this clause since they bought out Mojang for Minecraft, y'know the game the went viral on the bloody PC?

 

[FliedLiverAttack]

Wouldn't this logic keep them from selling Minecraft on the XBox?

What a bad idea I can't even count the PC to Xbox/PS ports I've seen. The only logic I can see in Microsoft throwing all the money down the drain is if they think the companies that can't afford to make multiple ports will make the game for the Xbox first. Does XBox fund indies as Spencer implies? If they do this could be a quick and easy way to gain influence over Indies that want to release on a different platform and the Xbox and can't afford both by paying for the costs of a port and gaining influence over what the studio does by controlling part of their budget. But that guess is kinda tinfoily.

 

[RJ 17]

"I have a lot of friends that run small indie studios, and I get that timelines around when--"

^Translation: "I'm not racist against indie developers. Hell, some of my best friends are black indie developers!"

Seriously though...isn't XBox hurting itself more than anyone with this policy? Doesn't this encourage more indie developers to say "Well fuck that, guess I won't make games for the XBox then."? And doesn't that, in turn, lead to few games being available on the XBox? Which thereby reduces the number of reasons to get an XBox in the first place? Seems like their breaking their nose to spite their face.

 

[Fox12]

Meanwhile, at Sony...

 

[JayRPG]

Right... You want Xbox owners to feel they're first class.. by denying them indie games from devs who basically tell Microsoft and this policy they can eat shit and just release it on other platforms that actively encourage porting to their platform.

This just doesn't make sense, this policy works for a subset of indie devs who were planning on releasing to all platforms and don't mind delaying the launch of their game to have enough time to port it to all the other platforms.

This doesn't work for indie devs who planned on developing their game on PC (or PS4), releasing it, and then porting to other consoles when they have more resources; or indie devs that weren't planning on releasing their game on all platforms but, after success on their platform of choice, want to (or are requested by fans to) port it to other platforms.

Then there are obviously going to be devs who see this policy and tell Microsoft to go fuck themselves.

Any way you slice it, this policy means Xbox owners get LESS indie titles, not more, and that shouldn't make Xbox owners feel first class.

 

[Roander]

I can't imagine too many indies have the money to release on Xbox before they have even proved that they have a real market for their game. PC seems like the best place to release as a small time indie developer, and then if you find success port over to consoles. Maybe I'm missing something, but this policy seems like it will mostly just keep the majority of indie games from porting to Xbox at all.

Wouldn't this logic keep them from selling Minecraft on the XBox?

What a bad idea I can't even count the PC to Xbox/PS ports I've seen. The only logic I can see in Microsoft throwing all the money down the drain is if they think the companies that can't afford to make multiple ports will make the game for the Xbox first.

This isn't the first time that question has come up. From what I've seen in the past, Microsoft doesn't count pc as a platform. I'm not sure that they even count handhelds. They seem to really just be concerned with competing game systems. Not that that makes Spencer's argument any more valid. If a developer does choose to release on a different platform first, or just chooses not to work with Microsoft because of this policy, that means people who exclusively own an Xbox One will never get the game. It still looks like the parity clause would hurt their user base, rather than help them.

 

[animeh1star1a]

"We want to make things harder for indie devs. In doing so, we will give value to one of the greatest systems currently on the market *Cough* PC *Cough*!! Sorry about that, I really should get the checked out, but my doctor still refused to do a house call."

 

[Mezahmay]

Oh dear. So much for Xbox doing consumer friendly things after Phil Spencer took over. The only way I see this working out "well" is if the indie game is developed primarily for the Xbone, otherwise the indie devs are going to slow down releasing other platform products until they finish the Bone build.

 

[gigastar]

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

...uh? Moving on.

The partiy clause is just plain stupid. Indes have no reason to launch on the console with the smallest install base over the other two. Or even PC, for that matter.

From what I've seen in the past, Microsoft doesn't count pc as a platform. I'm not sure that they even count handhelds.

If MS does count PC now then XB1 automatically loses out on a number of quality inde titles already on Steam since XB1s release. And in the long run itll just accumilate into a backed up wad of reason to not buy the XB1 over PS4, or even PC.

All because they think its sparing thier customers feelings.

But then again, Warframe flagrantly broke this parity clause by releasing on XB1 nearly a year after its PS4 release, and on PC before XB1 was even announced.

As for handhelds, a game originating on 3DS or PSV would likely have some fundamental differences with a non-handheld release, if Resident Evil: Revealations is anything to go by, at least.

 

[Johnson McGee]

"But I don't want somebody to come in and just think 'I'm going to go do a special game on one platform and then I'll get to Xbox whenever I get to it,' because I don't think that's right,"

But of course, when we pay to make a game exclusive to Xbox One at the expense of other platforms that's perfectly fine.