PS4, Xbox One: Indie publishing

[LightHeaven]

What do mean by not anything that suggests? You mean, excluding all the time they talk about the program and say their goal is to have self publishing open to everyone?

This were Marc Whitten's exact words when he talked about ID@Xbone ultimate goal when it leaked prior to gamescom:

"Everyone will be able to self-publish content, this is the fundamental shift that needs to happen."

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Probably not. You still have to apply and be accepted as an ID@Xbox developer, though Greenlight has it's own challenges. And ID@Xbox still requires day one parity. You can't build momentum platform by platform like many indies do now, starting on iOS or PC and slowly expanding to new platforms as they can. Ironically that clause pushed Vlambeer to sign a 1 month exclusive with PlayStation for Nuclear Throne because preexisting contracts get a waiver on that requirement for now. Had they joined ID@Xbox first they would have had to delay the PC and PS4 versions until the Xbox One version was ready. Since they just got their Xbox One devkits this week that would have been a huge delay.

So instead of delaying the other releases to coincide with a release, you have the PS4 situation where you have to delay ALL other releases until a month after it releases on PS4?

I fail to see how that is better than simultaneous releases.

You could make the argument that PS4 could be considered the lead console. But in that case you could make the argument of the Xbox One being the lead console without the penalty of having to wait a month to release on other platforms.

And even then, I'm not sure. Lots of indie titles coming to Xbox One are already out on PC and/or mobile devices. So there goes the requirement for a simultaneous release. I'd imagine it must be the same on PS4, unless they want to cut off indie devs porting to PS4.

Perhaps it only applies to consoles. But that's still better than having to do a 1 month exclusive versus simultaneous release.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

So instead of delaying the other releases to coincide with a release, you have the PS4 situation where you have to delay ALL other releases until a month after it releases on PS4?

I fail to see how that is better than simultaneous releases.

Where has it been stated that Sony requires, or even expects, indies to be platform/launch exclusive to their platform? I'm fairly sure this isn't the case because if you read this indie dev's experience on Eurogamer, they don't have an exclusivity deal with Sony and that's the biggest problem dealing with Microsoft who are insisting they delay the PS4 version until the Xbox One version is ready.

Lots of smaller devs will just about be able to cover development of one platform before the money runs out, but that's fine because you publish on that platform then you immediately have revenue coming in which keeps you going for the next platform. This is how the Terraria was developed and deployed, one platform at a time, finally launching on Vita yesterday.

Sony started out indie friendly and Microsoft did not. Consequently a bunch of indies, dozens of them, started developing on PS4 early and I imagine somebody at Sony envisaged an eventual u-turn by Microsoft at some point and secured a bunch of exclusivity contracts for some of the games in exchange for funding.

So Microsoft do their inevitable u-turn on indie self publishing but the devs who don't have Sony exclusivity contracts and only recently got their Xbox One dev kits are being told by Microsoft that if they want to publish on Xbox One they are expected to delay the PS4 launch and be starved of revenue until the Xbox One version is also ready to publish.

This does not sound cool.

 

[Nesh]

I dont like where this is going. MS is trying to create an ecosystem where they control everything as much as possible whether that is the consumer freedom of accessibility to content or the developers freedom at providing their product. If it wasnt for Sonys more friendly approach indies would have lost the point of being indie in the first place on MS's platform. This is a sign of things to come if MS becomes an unstoppable and the biggest player in the industry next gen

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's not a sign of things to come though. The viability of iOS and Android and PC via Steam means indies have never had it so good. The major problem is getting noticed. One of the advantages to releasing on consoles is a specialist audience and a pond with a lot fewer fish in it, so the aggravations and costs of releasing on console can be balanced out by a better market for your product in terms of consumer awareness and adoption. The problem with consoles has been the stupid bureaucracy and running costs, which everyone is dropping thanks to competition from the open platforms. So where Awesomenauts, released on PS360 first and then ported to PC, is now only really supported on PC with updates and new content, PS4 is getting the game in its latest incarnation and will be able to get proper support.

There's no way MS, or Sony, nor anyone else, can become the unstoppable monopoly of the indie games scene. Whoever remains inflexible to indies will miss out. I point again to Awesomenauts. It's getting a PS4 release but not an XB1 release because MS's policies weren't open to it. Now MS has changed its positioned, a port may happen. MS are ideally positioned to scare away masses of content, but that's all they really have the power to do. The indies have the power to make MS adopt very open systems or withhold content.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's not a sign of things to come though. The viability of iOS and Android and PC via Steam means indies have never had it so good.

Exactly. Microsoft will need to revisit their self-publishing policy to complete with Sony's bare minimum rules and almost no barriers to entry. I'm sure Microsoft's policy looked OK when they devised it, and no doubt it was to encourage parity, rather than any form of lock in, but we have a scenario here where it's incredibly hostile to devs who've already done a ton of development work on another platform.

Indies want as few contractual rules as possible, as few barriers to development entry as possible and don't want to be tied to arbitrary timetables. When Microsoft get this, it'll all be cool. Until then, some indies will more than likely give Microsoft's platform a miss. There are bigger, free markets out there.

 

[Cyan]

I dont like where this is going. MS is trying to create an ecosystem where they control everything as much as possible whether that is the consumer freedom of accessibility to content or the developers freedom at providing their product. If it wasnt for Sonys more friendly approach indies would have lost the point of being indie in the first place on MS's platform. This is a sign of things to come if MS becomes an unstoppable and the biggest player in the industry next gen

Some indie developers are saying that the Xbox One policies sucked before and mentioned that after the disastrous Xbox One presentation they are on the right path, especially individually praising Microsoft's Chris Carla in regards to that, not Microsoft though, because the guy seems to actually care about indies.

We shall see....

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/220494...but_microsoft_on_the_right_path_says_dev.html

 

[Cyan]

Xbox One's first two indie games are Worms and Nujitsu, which is a game available on Windows 8 Phone too.

http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/10/xbox-one-new-idxbox-games-revealed-new-worms-on-the-way/

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Xbox One's first two indie games are Worms and Nujitsu, which is a game available on Windows 8 Phone too.

I think it's a stretch to call Worms an indie title! Team17 are a developer and publisher of about 20 years standing! I'm not sure what they are independent of?

But hey, every platform needs Worms! I think I've owned it on every platform/OS I've owned since the Amiga! Windows, OSX, PocketPC, PalmOS, iOS, PlayStations. Lemmings surely can't be too far behind.

 

[Cyan]

I think it's a stretch to call Worms an indie title! Team17 are a developer and publisher of about 20 years standing! I'm not sure what they are independent of?

But hey, every platform needs Worms! I think I've owned it on every platform/OS I've owned since the Amiga! Windows, OSX, PocketPC, PalmOS, iOS, PlayStations. Lemmings surely can't be too far behind.

I kinda agree. Apart from the indies support, if Microsoft created a service on the console similar to GOG.com, it could be a big hit. And I don't mean it only for old Xbox games, but PC games that worked on Windows, adapting the controls to Xbox One and Kinect.

Just imagine masterpieces like Heroes of Might & Magic 2 on the console at a good price and updated controls.

The console is x86 and conversions should be easy as pie.

http://www.gog.com/game/heroes_of_might_and_magic_2_gold_edition

 

[London Geezer]

I think it's a stretch to call Worms an indie title!

It's not a stretch, it's utterly absurd. Worms is a part of gaming history, and although it might not be a blockbuster game in the same way we have become accustomed to recently, it's neither independent nor 'small' by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Because the term 'Indie' is so poorly defined, I think it's perfectly acceptable to call Worms an indie title. It's published by an independent developer who's not beholden to any other publisher. Of course, that's not really the contemporary vernacular, but it is true nonetheless.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Because the term 'Indie' is so poorly defined, I think it's perfectly acceptable to call Worms an indie title. It's published by an independent developer who's not beholden to any other publisher. Of course, that's not really the contemporary vernacular, but it is true nonetheless.

By that definition, Rockstar would also be an indie developer! ;-)

 

[London Geezer]

Because the term 'Indie' is so poorly defined, I think it's perfectly acceptable to call Worms an indie title. It's published by an independent developer who's not beholden to any other publisher. Of course, that's not really the contemporary vernacular, but it is true nonetheless.

Sorry I disagree. Worms is as indie as Angry Birds.

 

[tuna]

By that definition, Rockstar would also be an indie developer! ;-)

Rock star is owned by take2.

 

[BRiT]

And by that notion, Take2 is an Indie studio too.

 

[Brad Grenz]

No, Take 2 is a publisher.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

No, Take 2 is a publisher.

Rockstar are also a publisher.

This is the point Shifty was among about about the lack of a definition.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Rockstar is more like an imprint of the parent company. The 2K/Rockstar/Take 2 situation is actually kind of unconventional relative to most other publishers, though, so it may not be worth making anything about them the focus of a definition for Indie studios.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Rockstar is more like an imprint of the parent company. The 2K/Rockstar/Take 2 situation is actually kind of unconventional relative to most other publishers, though, so it may not be worth making anything about them the focus of a definition for Indie studios.

If you look around it's not that uncommon for a developer/publisher to be owned by a publisher/distributor. You going to ignore Activision Blizzard too?

If you have to argue this fact doesn't fit my premise lets ignore it, then your premise is flawed.

But again, this is Shifty's point.