sales2099 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
gergroy said:
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.
|
This in regards to MS demanding timed exclusivity and/or release parity with PSN? Because I can tell you first hand that it benefits the XBox gamer. We don't have to wait while someone else gets to play or we enjoy a 1st class experience with getting it first. If there was any place that MS truly cared for their gamers, it was the indie scene with 360.
|
xbox would have got the games without the policy anyway, it might have been a month or two after another platform but it still would have got them.
On the other hand, it also lost some indie support because of the same policy.
Just because it benefits the xbox gamer in the short term it doesnt mean it benefits you in the long term.
