Why are people talking about the Parity clause being dropped? It hasn't been dropped, it's been slightly adjusted to make it look more appealing while essentially staying the same.
The PS5 Exists.
WiiStation360 said:
Sony never had this rule. Directly from Adam Boyes, Sony's VP of developer relations: In the interest of transparency, I want to share our Dev clause that lists which platforms you cannot release on. pic.twitter.com/cJD46rFKcl
|
That's not what I was talking about. I meant that Sony has a stipulation that a game that comes to PlayStation platforms late has to have some sort of extra content (typically DLC or some sort of addon that wasn't in the original release). Every single AAA game that came to PS3 late had something extra in the PS3 version. They appear to be a little more relaxed with indies, but the policy still stands, and your average indie game doesn't have DLC anyway so go figure.
Burek said:
So, basically, the problem is with you, not with the title. |
Come to any conclusion you like, I've said what I've had to say and that's the end of it.
| Burek said: Microsoft has eliminated the rule that indie developers must release their games at the same time on the Xbox One as the PlayStation 4 and Wii U. This was part of Microsoft's indie parity clause. While that rule has been dropped, Microsoft expects indie developers to add something to their game if it is released on the Xbox One a long time after it is released on other platforms. "If it's a case where a game is coming out significantly later on Xbox One than another console, in that case we just ask them to add something to the game that makes it fresh for Xbox players," ID@Xbox boss Chris Charla told GameSpot.
In a move that makes all the sense in the world, MS has finally given up trying to boss indie studios around. It was expected, and only a matter of time, as XBox had neither the sales numbers nor the goodwill required to make such demands. XBox users should applaud this turnaround, as they now are able to have access to many quality indies titles previously barred from the console. |
Usually microsofts 180's are like this:
But this one's like this:
Ali_16x said:
Crasher Crashers, came to PS3 2 years after its 360 release and it didn't come with anything exclusive to the PS3 version. Same with Minecraft, a year after the 360 version but it didn't come with anything new. I could probably name a lot more. So I'm still not sure where you got the idea where Sony had this policy of only allowing games that came first to other consoles that they had to had something exclusive to PS3. Again I'm sure Sony doesn't care if games came first other consoles they let them publish it. It sure as hell wasn't like Microsoft's policy of just down right now allowing games on 360 if they came to PS3 first. Also IamAwesome, this proves Sony did not have this policy. |
Not necessarily, all of those timed 360 exclusives had something extra in the PS3 release. They appear to be a little more relaxed with indies, but the policy still stands, and like I told WiiStation360, your average indie game doesn't have DLC, so go figure.
| DonFerrari said: This console keeps getting better as they make it more similar to ps4, perhaps I may buy it if there is an exclusive I can't afford to lose. |
MS plan actually is to make you inadvertently buy it, mistaking it for a PS4! 
Again...
The indie parity clause was not CANCELLED.
It is still there... I don't know how people can read so wrong somethings.
Bad reporting only.
| ethomaz said: Again... Bad reporting only. |
I think they know but choose to ignor it to help their argument that the x1 is getting better. The fact is that its actually worst. Small Indy studios won't really be able to upgrade the game to please ms, while the ones who made it big on ps won't Cate anymore and just move to the next game as soon as possible to stay relevant.
It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.
IamAwsome said:
Not necessarily, all of those timed 360 exclusives had something extra in the PS3 release. They appear to be a little more relaxed with indies, but the policy still stands, and like I told WiiStation360, your average indie game doesn't have DLC, so go figure. |
Except Castle Crashers had tons and tons of DLC, so you are once again wrong. What it seems to me is that you are just asssuming that they had this policy. Also we are talking about the indie policy, what you are trying to use for your arguement is the AAA policy, even if that is wrong. So you think if they had something a little extra for their PS3 release they were forced? You are the only one assuming things. But let me entertain you, how about Elder Scrolls 4? It came to PS3 a year after the 360 and it came with no exclusives. Same with Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Double Agent, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas, and probably a lot more. Still I'm not sure why you are using the AAA policy arguement for the indie policy.
"There is only one race, the pathetic begging race"
Alby_da_Wolf said:
|
Seems like it.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
