Microsoft pulls another piece of puppy move for Indie Devs

Rule 34 on puppies.

What the puppy is shinola?

I can't beat perfection

If you were to develop an indie game and wanted it on the Xbox One you would have to release it a month or more early on the Xbox One before other platforms or be punished by not having it on Xbox One at all.

@xalienxgreyx: if I'm correct, they're not asking for exclusivity, just a simultaneous console release right? I don't see why it's a problem, indie devs should honestly develop for pc/steam first anyways.

And the puppy joke has been beaten over the head so many times it was brain-battered by the end of the first page.

@e30bmw: Time will tell how terrible this really is. The advantage is purportedly ease of entry with every XBO being simultaneously a devkit eventually. As far as I know every PS4 is not a devkit out of the box meaning potential indie developers would have to contact Sony and request for such a unit - although I will fully admit to not knowing the first thing about game development and processes that take place therein. As far as I do understand it though, it seems to be a great advantage for every Joe Shmoe who has some knowledge of coding and game design, and had purchased an XBO purely as an entertainment machine to be able to eventually maybe develop a game on that very same machine. The price for this foray into the gaming market being a period of exclusivity with Microsoft doesn't seem that steep. For bigger indies that already have their wits about them and a concrete development plan as well as distribution strategy I can see this being a setback.

You both just dated yourselves.

@humanity said:

Sony-developed games aren't going to come to XB1, but why would Microsoft shut out indie developers that could come to XB1 but decided to launch on PS4 first? Wouldn't you rather play Transistor on XB1 later rather than never if Supergiant decides they want to bring it to XB1?

Fighting for timed exclusivity and release parity is all well and good, even if a little annoying. Punishing devs that launched first on other platforms is cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you're an XB1-only player, what do you care that something came out on PS4 first. PS3 owners surely were just happy to play Braid even though it came out on 360 much earlier.

I'm not chastising any developer but I always dislike this practice of locking up third party IP like this. It is one thing if Microsoft or Sony want to spend millions on a production for a game for their own platforms. It is another thing that they want to spend millions on not making a game happen. One has the goal of investing money into creating something for their platform. The other has the goal of investing money to make sure less is created.

If they want to go on a spending spree to create game, I will cheer them on. If they want to go on a spending spreed to make sure less games are created...that is something I am not exactly enthusiastic about. I'd rather see Microsoft and Sony compete by building their library of games instead of compete eliminating them from each other libraries.

Seriously strong Microsoft-apologist vibes for you trying to take anything to excuse their policies. Nothing they do entitles them to exclusivity. If they want exclusivity, they can approach a developer and try to negotiate it with them than try to weasel it out of them by what amounts to blackmail.

What a load of bullpup.

This isn't accurate. What the current ID@Xbox contract says is that you need "release parity" with other platforms, meaning that you can't release the game on another platform earlier but a simultaneous release is totally fine. In cases where exclusivity contracts with other platforms are in place (see: PSN), they will work with those developers on a case-by-case basis. Releasing early on another platform doesn't necessarily mean that you can never release that game or other games on Xbox One.

I agree that even this "release parity" stuff is aggravating, but it isn't nearly as bad as some are making it out to be.

Most devs seem to agree that the current ID@Xbox policies are already far better than what was in place on 360, and I feel pretty confident that they will see further changes in order to be more accommodating based on developer feedback. A lot of people are calling for this "exclusivity" clause to be dropped or modified, so there's certainly a chance that it will see some tweaking at the very least.

This Eurogamer article from yesterday has a lot of good info. I suggest reading it if you're interested in this topic.

If an indy dev wanted a dev kit from Sony I bet they would send over 5. I see no advantage of going to XBox first at this stage of the game.

I would be worried about the UK population more than the Xbox brand since that means people were stupid enough to buy Knack over all other Xbox titles or BF4.

Back on topic. It is just business. I love how people, namely you guys, get all angry about something like this or are all about the indies, as if Microsoft owes you something. Like they are government and not selling you an entertainment platform and that indies have some inalienable rights to put out their shit outside the rules set by these companies that make proprietary hardware and software. If indies cared so much about their freedom, just put it out on PC or put out your own consoles. No reason to get emotional or angry beyond, well Microsoft is messing up or this game fucking rules! Also, indies hardly sell consoles to the average consumer as many have no idea what makes a developer independent or not.

You know what, you're right. When we see clearly shitty policies being put in place, we shouldn't complain. The small independent teams that don't have enough resources to develop for multiple platforms at the same time should just release their own console instead!

Well I am asking the hard questions here. Sure, it is a dumb policy, but from a business standpoint because today that is just too much to ask in my opinion. Just a mistake Microsoft is making. I am saying that you guys make this some personal crusade against the evil corporations who again, they don't provide food or essential resources. They are providing entertainment and if some team is gonna complain about not having enough resources for development then do something else. I mean seriously. You get all angry because Microsoft is not doing some little team some favors when this is business? It is not like they are keeping them out of college. Microsoft's platform, let them fuck up relationships however they want but it is not like they are doing something ethically wrong.

I don't think that's true. I think they would have published on Steam instead.

What Microsoft did to give those particular games a boost was promotion on the Xbox dashboard as well as other special promotion deals like Summer of Arcade. I'm not hearing about these deals happening anymore. What gets play on the dashboard now is Doritos and garbage TV shows.

I see this move as extremely short-sighted and misguided. It will drive games away from the Xbone. It's a shitty strong-arm tactic they think they can get away with because they believe they've moved enough consoles.

A lot of indie stuff came out on PC way before XBLA came along but at the time a lot of those games were simply put out for free. A lot of huge mods and games like Minecraft - which was initially free - simply got put out there. What Arcade did was really cement the fact that you can develop your own little indie title and earn a lot of money from doing so. Also were talking about roughly 6 years ago. Steam is still somewhat struggling with the self publishing and Greenlight now - back then those things were non existent and Steam itself wasn't such a powerhouse. So they wouldn't have published it on Steam because about 5 years ago that support just wasn't there.

While I don't think on it as strongly as @thehbk I do agree in that this is just business. I keep seeing words being thrown around like "underhanded" or "cheating" "stealing" when none of that is really happening. Like I mentioned before - I don't really think this is the best strategy either especially when your competition is being a lot more open on their end. At the same time I don't think this is as terrible as devious as people make it out to be. Microsoft is saying "hey you want to self publish on OUR console, in OUR marketplace? Sure, we scratch your back you scratch ours, you can self publish but unless you have any other exclusivity deals we will hold a time-limited exclusivity of your title on our console at the end of which you can go right ahead and publish with other people - whats that? Playstation isn't putting those sort of restrictions on you? Well go right ahead and publish with them." It really is just business, and it might and probably will hurt them in the end, but it's not some foul way to trick those poor indie developers into some lifelong binding agreement.

Is this an attempt to insult people from the UK "being stupid enough to buy Knack"? For all it's worth, at least Knack works and didn't need a formal apology from the developers and publisher.

@humanity: Again, I just want to mention that the "timed exclusivity" thing isn't accurate. It's "release parity", so you have to release at the same time on Xbox One as any other platforms. It still sucks, but it doesn't suck as much as some people seem to think.

As others have said, this is just business, and Microsoft have shown (for better or worse) that they are open to changing their policies based on feedback. They aren't trying to trick anyone, and they are working with developers that have exclusivity deals for other platforms. It isn't as easy as maybe it could or should be, but it's already far easier to release an indie game on Xbox One than it was on Xbox 360 and there is the possibility of it improving. You can't ask for much more from a company which is trying to make money - a pursuit that isn't nearly as evil as some people make it out to be.

@chaser324: I just read that one article and it make it sound like it was a period of exclusivity but if it's just release parity then I'm completely dumbfounded as to why everyone is so up in arms about this.

@mb: Are you implying that the user you just quoted and replied to IS BEING A PENIS?

No, not one month or earlier than the other platforms but rather they have to come out at the same time as the other platforms as per the article you posted.

@humanity: Actually what people are being up in arms about is that MS won't allow indie devs to self-publish their title if they decide to release versions of their games first on other platforms before releasing the Xbox versions, essentially having to delay releasing already finished versions of their game, just so they can self publish on XBL.

@humanity: Yeah. It's easy to misinterpret what that IGN article is talking about. This Eurogamer article takes a bit of a wider view than just the issues of Witch Beam.

@gaspower: If you can only develop for one system at a time, then simply publish on XBO first and then develop the other versions. After reading both articles it still seems unclear how this process actually works. The whole thing isn't super clear anyway. For instance what happens if your game already came out on the PS4? Are you never allowed to release it on the XBO? The article didn't really say apart from mentioning that "(Microsoft) is willing to work with developers on a case-by-case for games that have already released on other platforms when it comes to Xbox One."

I think the high sales number for Knack were due to there being a bundle available in the UK. I don't think anyone anywhere is psyched about Knack.

For the sake of everyone I hope you're right, the alternative is a scumbag move that just hurts everyone.

You mean release it on XBox One first so it's essentially an exclusive on that platform for a short period of time before they are able to finish it on another platform?

Seriously, we're not saying the clause claims exclusivity outright, we're saying it acts as an exclusivity clause if a small developer isn't able to publish on both systems at the same time. Alternatively, they could delay launching on both consoles, forgoing revenue they could have used to help their development, or completely ignore Xbox One.

A developer like Double Fine may be able to handle launch parity, while another like Vlambeer may be only able to handle one at a time.

From the articles I've read, if you already had an exclusivity deal with PS4 before ID@Xbox was announced, they would work with you to get around that clause. That's why one rushed to sign an agreement with Sony to get into that loophole.

I do think Microsoft will backpedal on this clause the more people complain about it, so I'd rather support those small developers complaining about it than try to defend Microsoft's practices.

@sergio: IF you aren't able to finish both versions at the same time then whats the difference? You will only be able to launch on one system no matter what no matter what anyone tells you. If they decide to go with PS4 then they'll only be able to launch on that system anyway - then it suddenly becomes a timed PS4 exclusive until they can finish the XBO version. Basically if you can only afford to make one version at a time then it's up to you where you launch it, and if you can afford to make both simultaneously then it's actually kind of fair to have both come out at the same time.

There, I made it bold so you understand what the problem with Microsoft's clause is.

@humanity: If you are a small indie dev and then you decide to publish a yet unreleased title on a different platform first since that version is already done then (by the language that was used in the article we've read) they won't be able to self-publish said game on XBL via the parity clause. They probably would have to get through it via an extra ticket with the help of a third-party publisher who have released a retail title. I personally don't really have a big problem with the clause itself since it does make sense that the company would probably would get the game at the same time as the other platforms instead of being left behind.

I wonder if MS includes PC releases in this which would be pretty bad.

Filth. I knew it. I knew.

Nothing to see here really, just microsoft being microsoft. Not sure what anyone expected with the indie stuff from them, gonna have to make a case that hurts them with their current systems in order for them to change it. If indie devs will just develop on PC/PS4 and majority ignore Xbone for now, that might do it.

That's total horsepuppy!