-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Microsoft making Xcloud support a requirement indie devs need to allow or risk being removed from Xbox?
- Thread starter Lashley
- Start date
The most charitable reading is that xCloud is only a requirement for the specific Dev Kit program, but I doubt that's a fair reading. Also wild that Epic is barring their partners from having their games on streaming platforms.
Not requiring work is different than giving permission to have your game in the cloud environment
I wish we had the actual TLA to go off of, but this seems like a bit much from Microsoft. Especially since I assumed all games on XCloud would be on Game Pass so going to XCloud would be a no brainer
That's what I thought and if that is the case why would they disapprove.
Legacy contracts MS has with games on Xbox likely wouldn't support that, so MS would likely require updated license agreements. Question in my mind was how they incentivise everyone with a game on Xbox to grant the permission for this.
No dev work required, they technically need the agreement to allow the title to be streamed from data centers though.
Next reveal from the Epic court case
Nintendo requires indies devs to give them their first born child to release games on the eShop
Nintendo requires indies devs to give them their first born child to release games on the eShop
Hot take:
This is completely fair. Microsoft wants players to be able to stream games they own - and avoid a weird future where the ability to stream a game varies from title to title.
To avoid this Microsoft is making streaming rights a part of being published on their store.
This is completely fair. Microsoft wants players to be able to stream games they own - and avoid a weird future where the ability to stream a game varies from title to title.
To avoid this Microsoft is making streaming rights a part of being published on their store.
The incentive should be more people with access to the game, meaning more play time, meaning more cash. Not sure why any dev would want to opt out tbh.
Because they might have deals with others that bar them from doing cloud streaming on other services it would seem.
Excuse my ignorance here, but why would a developer not be okay to have their game as part of the XCloud program as long as the users have to purchase the game? Isn't XCloud just meant for people that either don't have an Xbox or don't have access to an Xbox?
What I'm asking is: What's the potential downside here? As long as people paid for the license to play the game, why would I care as a dev if they play on a PC or an Xbox or stream the game through XCloud to whatever device?
I guess one 'downside' is that people might not double-dip as much anymore...?
What I'm asking is: What's the potential downside here? As long as people paid for the license to play the game, why would I care as a dev if they play on a PC or an Xbox or stream the game through XCloud to whatever device?
I guess one 'downside' is that people might not double-dip as much anymore...?
So their answer is to force indie developers to agree or don't allow them on Xbox at all?
I would have never expected this from all these multi billion dollar companies
/s
Agreed. Streaming rights should be part of their standard licensing agreement.
Doesn't seem that bad
considering Sony made digital games a requirement for vita and PS4
seems like an evolution of that into cloud
considering Sony made digital games a requirement for vita and PS4
seems like an evolution of that into cloud
It's in the OP. It might conflict with other contractual commitments they already have.
You wouldn't want a cut from Microsoft using your content for a commercial service?
Devs typically get paid to ie be on Game Pass too.
What if another cloud gaming provider offered them a huge sum of money to be a cloud streaming exclusive on their platform?
I would recommend revisiting how the Geforce Now situation played out.
XCloud as in Game Pass Cloud or XCloud as in Remote Play? If it's the former, that is incredibly misguided. If it is the latter, I don't know why such a thing would be forced anyways. Is this a licensing issue?
My guess is the idea here conceptually is to prevent Luna, PlayStation or Google swooping in with a "Cloud Moneyhat" for lack of a better phrase that makes it so a game that could otherwise run on XCloud (it's quite literally Xbox One and Series X hardware) is barred from it, so MS is trying to rack up the moneyhat cost of their competitors. However, much like the day and date clause they had before for Indies, this could end up doing more harm than good as a game on Xbox at least benefits part of their ecosystem whereas this hardball approach could end up with nobody happy.
Regardless, hopefully this section of the TLA is a court exhibit as so far this is only Epic's take.
My guess is the idea here conceptually is to prevent Luna, PlayStation or Google swooping in with a "Cloud Moneyhat" for lack of a better phrase that makes it so a game that could otherwise run on XCloud (it's quite literally Xbox One and Series X hardware) is barred from it, so MS is trying to rack up the moneyhat cost of their competitors. However, much like the day and date clause they had before for Indies, this could end up doing more harm than good as a game on Xbox at least benefits part of their ecosystem whereas this hardball approach could end up with nobody happy.
Regardless, hopefully this section of the TLA is a court exhibit as so far this is only Epic's take.
That's generally the easiest approach, yes. See all the other certification requirements that work exactly the same like Dualsense support requirement.
Yeah if you try to play tetras over stream it will block you from doing so. I belive they are trying to stop more of that and make it a more normal thing people can expect.
Why should they get a cut because the game is coming from a remote console instead of a local one?
I don't like the idea that an indie dev would be pushed into putting their game into cloud streaming.
However I can't think of any scenarios where an indie dev would turn down being in the cloud, when they've already accepted being in the catalogue (on Gamepass).
This basically.
It seems MS wants it's users to expect to be able to play their content anywhere.
However I can't think of any scenarios where an indie dev would turn down being in the cloud, when they've already accepted being in the catalogue (on Gamepass).
This basically.
It seems MS wants it's users to expect to be able to play their content anywhere.
I'm betting there's more to this, especially since we just have one out-of-context slide made by Epic for internal use. Maybe this was a slide in the "what bad things could happen due to XCloud, and how will we respond?" deck. Or it could be a situation where indie developers who agreed to be on XCloud were holding back. Or it could be that a developer used that as an excuse for turning down an exclusive agreement to EGS, and Epic believed them. Or it could be exactly how it sounds, I'm betting it's more complicated.
Yup this is a pro consumer move but everything has to be turned into a console v. console argument.
Isn't xCloud as it currently stands just a cloud streaming version of Game Pass?
If it's this I don't see an issue with it.
Because the contract they originally signed likely didn't cover this scenario.
Edit: and I think that Microsoft should pursue this, but they should be using the carrot approach rather than the stick. They can afford it.
Yep. We're truly learning how the sausage is made - for better or worse.