Slashdot Mirror


MS To Indie Devs: You Have a To Have a Publisher

Loadmaster writes "The new Oddworld game New 'n' Tasty is coming to every platform in the current generation and even the next generation but not the Xbox One. It's not that developer Oddworld Inhabitants isn't porting the game. It's not that they hate Microsoft or the Xbox One. No, it's that Microsoft has taken an anti-indie dev stance with the Xbox One. While the game industry is moving to Kickstarter and self-funded shops, Microsoft has decided all developers must have a publisher to grace their console."

5 of 463 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Duh, they are a publisher by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wow, I thought the negatives for Xbox One couldn't be any more before it got launched. Did Sony get a leak of Microsoft's plans and then decide to do the opposite? 1) Make PS4 cheaper, 2) Not require constant internet connection, 3) Allow used games, 4) Push for indie games.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  2. What is a publisher even for? by suprcvic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do dev companies even need publishers? Serious question, what do publishers bring to the table?

  3. How hard is it to be a publisher? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article tells you Oddworld:New and Tasty needs an official publisher to release on XBox, it tells you that Oddworld creator Lorne Lanning doesn't want to get a publisher, and it tells you why he doesn't want to get a publisher (he doesn't want to split the revenue), but it doesn't tell you Oddworld Interactive doesn't count as a publisher.

    They clearly don't meet some requirement. Is the requirement stupid and obsolete (ie: the ability to ship boxed games), or is it reasonable (ie: the ability to correctly charge sales tax/VAT)? If it's not reasonable is it trivial?

  4. Re:Duh, they are a publisher by Vanderhoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What planet have you been living on?

    First Sony said a couple of months before the Other OS removal they wouldn't be removing it. Then on an April 1st release they removed it. Everyone just thought it was a joke until it was too late for a lot of people. Sony made it MANDATORY because you either had to update and lose the Other OS feature, or you couldn't use the console to connect to PSN (meaning you lost access to any games you bought online), play newer bluRays or newer games. Either way, doing the update or not, you lost something you bought the console to do.

    As I've said probably a dozen times in the last few weeks. My console was updated, not by me, when I had some people over to watch a RENTED movie. The movie required a BluRay update, which updated the console.

    Sony was not up front about removing the Other OS, they lied about it profusely and tried to trick, and ultimately forced, PS3 owners to update. Linux was an awesome feature to have on my PS3 and I did a lot of stuff with it, but anyone that didn't update is now stuck with an overpriced ($800 when I bought mine), under powered, locked down Linux machine.

  5. Re:Is MS *TRYING* to commit suicide? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and some misguided attempt to imitate Steve Jobs' "Screw the consumer, we'll tell them what they want!" attitude (but missing the fact that Jobs had a virtual cult that would follow him anywhere).

    And also missing the fact that Jobs, love him or hate him (and I'm not a fanboy--I don't own even a single piece of Apple gear), was a genius with an uncanny feel for what would sell. It's too soon to tell, but Apple may be at the beginning of finding out what happens when you pursue that strategy without that kind of genius.