fps_d0minat0r said:
gergroy said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
gergroy said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Many business employ such devious tactics.
But what im surprised is that unlike any other industry, anti-consumer policies in the games indsutry are damage controlled by consumers themselves. It hurts my mind thinking about why people would do it.
People defended DRM, people defend games ditching SP but charging the same price as other games with SP and better MP, and last week I even came across one guy saying MS' parity clause doesnt affect consumers (WTF!)
I'm glad though that the majority of word of mouth is factual and does not use stupid logic. It needs to keep going though to make sure all "soccer moms" and "softball dads" know what they are spending money on and where it will be invested in the future. |
how does the parity clause affect consumers?
|
Because it forces developer to ready an xbox version and delay other versions of the game until it has.
If the indie development team is small, the game is delayed on all platforms just for xbox.... like xbox is supposed to be the first place they have to go to.
Sure, they dont HAVE to, but in that case xbox fans lose out. Either way someone loses out.
You can imagine what a cluster fuck it would cause if everyone company had such a ridiculous clause. The funny thing is that MS popularised the whole timed exclusivity thing but when others started doing it, they come up with this crap.
|
so... that doesn't seem to really affect consumers though. that is more of a developer issue. sure, you can say it will delay the game, but like you said, that is a developer choice. It certainly doesn't take any choices away from the consumer.
Now, is the parity clause crap for indie developers? definitely!! I just don't see it as a big consumer issue like you are making it out to be.
|
It does because not all indies have the resources to develop multiple versions of a game simultaneously.
Its why some indies are on xbox and not on other systems yet, and why some indies launched on PS and have claimed they dont want to work with xbox. Either way gamers on both sides have lost out. Without the policy the indie games would have made it to both systems.
There is no reason why the policy should exist. The way I see it is MS are just throwing a tantrum because they got beaten at their own timed exclusivity game which they started.
Also this is exactly the point of my original post. You have no reason to defend the policy, it is of no use or no benefit to anyone, yet you still defend it.
|
Am I defending it? I believe I called it crap no? I just think it isn't a consumer issue as much as it is a developer issue. I believe the vast majority of consumers wouldnt give a crap about it, while the vast majority of developers care a heck of a lot about it. My point is you are confusing the grieved party.
