By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft does another 180: Cancels indie parity clause

DonFerrari on 07 March 2015
WiiStation360 said:
IamAwsome said:

Sony had/has the exact same rule; they just don't publicize it. Your point? 

Sony never had this rule.

Directly from Adam Boyes, Sony's VP of developer relations:


If you put your cellphone over fire for an extended time you will see the hidden list.



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."

Around the Network
oniyide on 07 March 2015
binary solo said:
Barkley said:

About time, was an absolutely ridiculous policy. I'd like to know what their definition of "a long time" is though for making developers add extra content, that's stupid as well though not nearly as bad.

Sony used to (still does?) do it for AAA timed exclusives when they are on the receving end, I don't think it's the case for indies though. But normally that means some existing DLC is included either on disc or as a free download, not creating extra content not available to Xbox / Nintendo players. But it's pretty rare for indies to do DLC for their games, so this means they have to programme in some extra content. Of course the other thing is how much extra content will be demanded? If the indie has to create entirely new parts to the game that's a fair amount of work for them. If it's just a free dynamic theme, or something peripheral that wouldn't be such an issue.

See this actually makes more sense. I dont know why some people were trying to say Sony had the same policy with indies even though many games came later with nothing extra (minecraft, limbo, braid, castle crashers) just to name a few. But AAA retail? Yeah i could see that but even then its still kinda not the same. MS was making it so you had to release there games with the others or earlier or not release them at all. I dont think Sony had it that strict.



IamAwsome on 07 March 2015
Ali_16x said:
IamAwsome said:
Ali_16x said:
Machiavellian said:

What exactly are you basing your opinion on.  Sony had this policy since the PS3.  Just because you do not know about something does not mean it's not still in place.

What I find funny is that MS just adopted Sony policy but really did not change their that much and the knee jerk reaction is this thread.

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. 


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. 

And Castle Crashers had content from two DLC packs included in the PS3/PC versions. Link Limbo didn't have DLC, but still had extra content in the PS3 version. I couldn't find anything for Minecraft, so I'll give you that one. The 360 version of Elder Scrolls 4 released before the PS3 itself launched. Rainbow Six Vegas includes two DLC packs in the PS3 version. The 360 version of Splinter Cell: Double Agent once again launched before the PS3 itself launched. Bioshock, Ninja Gaiden II, Lost Planet,  and Tales of Vesperia among others had extras included in the late PS3 versions. 



Goddbless on 08 March 2015
Cloudman said:
I really hate that comment "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,"

Jesus MS, just drop it. Admit your policy was stupid and give indies freedom. They should just be happy yo be getting more games coming to their platform. That comment was unnecessary. Other than that, good that they dropped that stupid policy. It should have never been a thing.


Sony has had the same policy since last gen so why is it bad for MS?



Love the product, not the company. They love your money, not you.

-TheRealMafoo

AZWification on 08 March 2015

Better late than never if you ask me!



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Around the Network
eva01beserk on 08 March 2015
AZWification said:

Better late than never if you ask me!

Better late what? they dint change anything, just added another rule that dosent replace the previous one.

Peole need to start reading more then the tittle.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

eva01beserk on 08 March 2015
Goddbless said:
Cloudman said:
I really hate that comment "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,"

Jesus MS, just drop it. Admit your policy was stupid and give indies freedom. They should just be happy yo be getting more games coming to their platform. That comment was unnecessary. Other than that, good that they dropped that stupid policy. It should have never been a thing.


Sony has had the same policy since last gen so why is it bad for MS?

If you read the previous conversations, that was a rule for AAA games not indys, so not the same. AAA can easyly add something new, indys may lack the resourses or capacity.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

sales2099 on 12 March 2015
Sweep said:
sales2099 said:
Nuvendil said:
Nice move. Now that second rule also needs to go.

Actually this is something more or less common on both sides. There have been many instances where once a game, indie or even AAA, make it to Playstation after Xbox, there was some minor DLC included off the bat as an equalizer.

The second rule is just looking out for Xbox customers. Even something as trivial as costume skins would count.


Except that with indie games you're dealing with small teams that could finally choose to not release on XB1 because they haven't got the budget or time to develop the famous required enhancement

Again, it can be something as mere as xbox-centric skins/costumes. Something the revenue from sales can easily offset.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.