Phil Spencer: "There's this idea that's been named 'parity clause', but there is no clause"

The subject of console parity, has been quite controversial, with several multi platform titles existence supposedly held back equally certain versions needed to retain a relatively similar level of visual fidelity, so as not to be distinguishably different from the other versions of the same title.

In an interview with Border mag, Phil Spencer was asked if the 'parity clause' is dead, to which Spencer responded:

"I think so. There's this thought that's been named 'parity clause', but in that location is no clause. Nosotros've come out and been very transparent in the concluding four or five months virtually exactly what we want. "

Spencer continues:

"If there's a developer who's building a game and they just can't get the game done for both platforms – cool. We'll take a staggered release. We've done it before, and we work with them on that. If another platform does a deal with you lot as a developer to build an exclusive version of your game for them, and you lot can't ship on my platform for a year, when the game comes out in a twelvemonth let'southward just work together to go far special in some mode. People complained about that, but you did a bargain with somebody else and you got paid for it and I'thousand happy – nosotros practice those same deals, then I'chiliad not knocking y'all. It's going to be better for y'all, actually, because people don't want final twelvemonth'due south game, they want something special and new."

While Phil Spencer'due south response on the subject of the 'parity clause' is somewhat vague, it does reflect a bit on the situation. Whether the credible parity that does seem to exist in game development today, is due to any individual company'southward "strong-arm tactics", or if it'southward solely a developers' choice is non clear. Although, as the console market place tends to currently pb the majority of game evolution, information technology would seem a logical strategy for publishers to retain a certain level of parity as to ensure stronger sales of the more profitable versions.

A relative remainder has to be attained to found that a sure game engine can perform well enough on the consoles' hardware, therefore several avails have to be reduced in order to maintain a more playable frame-charge per unit. Having the same engine balanced and restricted on multiple platforms, causes the overall visual quality of a title to be dropped considerably, and whatsoever further enhancements for a particular hardware, if even possible at that point, could atomic number 82 to a substantial increase in development costs that could testify quite unprofitable for the developer or publisher.

source