Support NeoGAF

[wrowa]

This reminds me of an analysis 2D Boy (World of Goo) have done last year about XBLA being past its prime. Ron Carmel conducted a survey among about 200 different indie developers and this is one the results:

I asked these developers to rate the importance of certain factors in choosing which platforms they will develop games for. The most influential factor was ease of working with the platform owner, with 69% of developers rating it Very Important. In 2nd and 3rd place were the platform’s install base (63%) and how well the platform’s controls match the game (58%).

Since ease of working with the platform owner was voted the most important factor in choosing a platform, I sent out a followup survey to ask how easy each platform owner has been to work with. Here are the results:

Almost half of those who worked with Microsoft described the experience as “excruciating”.

Given that ease of working with the platform owner was voted the most important factor in choice of platforms, it becomes perfectly clear why XBLA, despite being a very strong channel with a large audience and huge earning potential, is dropping in popularity among these developers.

http://2dboy.com/2011/10/03/xbla/

 

[MMaRsu]

This would go over well on GAF.

Actual games being advertised on the dash? OH NOEZ

I think we are all against Axe bullshit commercials and would rather see Indie games or normal games in ad places.

MS and Sony are being really stupid here, they are moving away from attracting young fresh developers who can make games that sell millions... I mean this just sounds like a really retarded business standpoint? I'm not schooled on business ethics or whatever but goddamn this just sounds like MS and Sony being dicks.

Especially MS, what a bunch of talentless hacks, they can't do anything right. I still can't even FF or RW my fucking music on 360. But hey let's make some more places to sell ads! What is that, indie developers feel left out because of no advertising and huge costs involved? Fuck them.. :/

 

[Stumpokapow]

RE: Valve dictating pricing, I know that Zaratustra (who made Eversion) said Valve picked his price for him, but his case was a little weird; Eversion was a free game, and he made an enhanced remake of it specifically to put it on Steam, so he wasn't approaching it from the standard "I have a product, I want to sell it for X, let me put it on Steam" angle.

I seem to remember that Din's Curse mentioned something about pricing issues (they sell as a "premium indie"). And Spiderweb never got any of their games on Steam until just recently, where they sell massively cheaper than the regular price for the games... I'm not sure if that's a case of Vogel adapting his strategy, or Valve only allowing him on the service if he adapted his strategy. Several other indies did this--VVVVVV sells for $5 on Steam, but it sold for $15 elsewhere. Again, not sure if that was Valve's condition or Terry realizing that when you're on Steam, you're deriving your revenue primarily from units sold rather than revenue per unit.

That's about all the evidence I've ever seen, and I pay pretty close attention.

 

[Sentenza]

Don't release broken games, problem solved?

Jesus Christ, you people of the "release the game polished" brigade seem to come from a parallel dimension.
Not just very naive about software development but also completely clueless about what the words "long term support" can imply.

 

[beril]

No. It was Capcom who goofed by locking themselves to $10 on XBLA by asking how much people wanted to pay. They wanted to charge more for the PC version, which they did initially. It was the public outcry that made them lower it. The only reason it came out later is because they finished the XBLA version first. It was a pretty small team that made it, and didn't have the manpower to do both versions at once. Valve really wasn't involved here.

My mistake it was the other way around, which makes more sense; Valve didn't accept charging more for the PC version. But the PC version was released the same week as the XBLA and PSN version, but didn't hit steam until almost a year later because of the dispute. (I was a programmer on the team and remember suddenly not having to bother with steam integration, but wasn't involved in the politics about it)

while it may have been Capcom being greedy in this case, it still shows Valve dictating pricing

 

[JaseC]

RE: Valve dictating pricing, I know that Zaratustra (who made Eversion) said Valve picked his price for him, but his case was a little weird; Eversion was a free game, and he made an enhanced remake of it specifically to put it on Steam, so he wasn't approaching it from the standard "I have a product, I want to sell it for X, let me put it on Steam" angle.

I seem to remember that Din's Curse mentioned something about pricing issues (they sell as a "premium indie"). And Spiderweb never got any of their games on Steam until just recently, where they sell massively cheaper than the regular price for the games... I'm not sure if that's a case of Vogel adapting his strategy, or Valve only allowing him on the service if he adapted his strategy. Several other indies did this--VVVVVV sells for $5 on Steam, but it sold for $15 elsewhere. Again, not sure if that was Valve's condition or Terry realizing that when you're on Steam, you're deriving your revenue primarily from units sold rather than revenue per unit.

That's about all the evidence I've ever seen, and I pay pretty close attention.

Interesting. As you say, it's difficult to ascertain which party is responsible.

My mistake it was the other way around, which makes more sense; Valve didn't accept charging more for the PC version. But the PC version was released the same week as the XBLA and PSN version, but didn't hit steam until almost a year later because of the dispute. (I was a programmer on the team and remember suddenly not having to bother with steam integration, but wasn't involved in the politics about it)

while it may have been Capcom being greedy in this case, it still shows Valve dictating pricing

I think I remember hearing something about this.

 

[Drkirby]

Holy shit - why would indie dev's even release their games on anything else??

For one, Valve can turn down requests to put their game on their service, and also the request to use Steam Works (You technically can have a game use Steamworks and not sold on Steam though).

Two, Valve actually encourages people to sell their games on multiple outlets, and doesn't make any restrictions to a game being exclusive to their service.

 

[TxdoHawk]

While I understand the appeal of making patches at least somewhat unattractive, the reality is that games are extremely complicated now. I don't like hearing that there are expensive barriers in place to create patches, something devs are already loathe to do in the first place.

I will say this: XBLA definitely needs more prominence on the current dashboard.

 

[Stumpokapow]

For one, Valve can turn down requests to put their game on their service, and also the request to use Steam Works (You technically can have a game use Steamworks and not sold on Steam though).

The only example of a game that used Steamworks and was not sold on Steam that I can think of is one of the NBA games from Take 2. But there was no indication that Valve did not allow them to sell on Steam versus they chose not to sell on Steam.

I will say this: XBLA definitely needs more prominence on the current dashboard.

They've actually intentionally moved it into less prominence. They seem to feel the XBLA category (versus Games on Demand) is not really important. The default navigation on the new dash combines both, meaning you'll definitely be hit with retail titles as well as downloadable titles.

Some of this is related to the weird semantic line-blurring they've had to do recently (Resident Evil 4 HD, Crysis for download), but some of it is that I think they've shifted from being means-focused ("We want to cultivate a particular type of content in order to make more money") to ends-focused ("We don't care what people buy, as long as they're buying.") and they no longer want to inhibit full retail content in order to promote DD stuff.

 

[MMaRsu]

If he didnt lose credibility after purposely lieing during the build up of Brutal Legend, he never will.






Microsoft has easily one of the strongest independent dd lineups this year. Fez/Spelunky alone look spectacular. People keep saying they will lose support and they still have games.

What lies? That game was always an RTS from the start. An MP only RTS mind you. Stop crying.

 

[Aaron]

My mistake it was the other way around, which makes more sense; Valve didn't accept charging more for the PC version. But the PC version was released the same week as the XBLA and PSN version, but didn't hit steam until almost a year later because of the dispute. (I was a programmer on the team and remember suddenly not having to bother with steam integration, but wasn't involved in the politics about it)

while it may have been Capcom being greedy in this case, it still shows Valve dictating pricing

My mistake too. I must have mixed it up with some other XBLA game that ended up much later on Steam.

 

[Drkirby]

The only example of a game that used Steamworks and was not sold on Steam that I can think of is one of the NBA games from Take 2. But there was no indication that Valve did not allow them to sell on Steam versus they chose not to sell on Steam.

I believe the Steamworks website at one time even touted the fact that you didn't have to sell the game on Steam, but that bit has been removed since. I could just have bad memory though.

Edit: Yep, here we go, 2009 version of the site

http://web.archive.org/web/20090204081456/http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/

There is no requirement that you sell your game on the Steam digital store.

 

[Orayn]

40,000 is indefensible. A six-figure price to patch downloadable games is well beyond encouraging bug-free releases, and can really only be characterized as a conscious effort to shit on anyone who isn't a developer of AAA blockbusters.

 

[mugurumakensei]

This reminds me of an analysis 2D Boy (World of Goo) have done last year about XBLA being past its prime. Ron Carmel conducted a survey among about 200 different indie developers and this is one the results:



http://2dboy.com/2011/10/03/xbla/

im more amazed nintendo's services are rated better.

 

[BruiserBear]

$40,000? The fuck?

I have a funny feeling Microsoft is to blame for that.

 

[Felix Lighter]

I'd say that Valve has a huge advantage because, as a much smaller privately own company, they can be much more agile. However, Apple and Google prove that idea wrong with the way they handle their platforms.

 

[Stumpokapow]

40,000 is indefensible. A six-figure price to patch downloadable games is well beyond encouraging bug-free releases, and can really only be characterized as a conscious effort to shit on anyone who isn't a developer of AAA blockbusters.

Let's assume:
10 employees * 2-3 weeks for testing = 20-30 man-weeks = ~20,000-30,000 (at 1k a man-week = 52k a man-year) in costs to test a patch.

That they charge a fee for testing is logical based on how rigorously they test patches. The problem is that they haven't developed a more agile testing system so that they can quickly categorize a patch, decide which regressions need to be tested, and get it out quicker and cheaper.

 

[Dog Problems]

So is it safe to assume we'll start seeing their titles on PC for now on rather than ports later down the road?

 

[SparkTR]

So is it safe to assume we'll start seeing their titles on PC for now on rather than ports later down the road?

Well, their new adventure game is only PC/Mac/iOS as of now. For other games I guess it depends on the publisher.

 

[duckroll]

Let's assume:
10 employees * 2-3 weeks for testing = 20-30 man-weeks = ~20,000-30,000 (at 1k a man-week = 52k a man-year) in costs to test a patch.

That they charge a fee for testing is logical based on how rigorously they test patches. The problem is that they haven't developed a more agile testing system so that they can quickly categorize a patch, decide which regressions need to be tested, and get it out quicker and cheaper.

I think that if MS is deliberately dedicating 10 employees for 2-3 weeks full time just to test the patch of a game that is developed by less than 10 people, they're doing something that's indefensible. It would basically be similar to deliberately wasting money and time at no real benefit at all just to justify a higher cost to a client.

 

[ponpo]

I know of Apple's 30% cut, but what kind of percentage are other platforms taking from these games?

 

[AranhaHunter]

MS/Sony really should start to follow Apple's model for online downloads, they're only shooting themselves in the foot.

Yep.

Sure you get a lot of shovelware that way, but you also get a lot of gems.

I know of Apple's 30% cut, but what kind of percentage are other platforms taking from these games?

I think 30% is the rule of thumb. 100% my guess, but I think in general Sony, Ninty, MS, and Valve take a 30% cut off apps sold on their virtual store as well.

 

[Crazymoogle]

Holy shit - why would indie dev's even release their games on anything else??

Steam only carries games they are interested in carrying. I've heard my fair share of stories about games only making it on because they knew somebody who knew somebody, and built the connection that way. Likewise I've seen a handful of games this year where the indie dev submitted and was flat out rejected during development.

Basically, if you're indie, and it's not high profile, it sounds like your best shot is to not even waste time submitting to them until your game is done, but it's no sure thing even then, so consider stuff like Desura.

 

[Hot Coldman]

I think 30% is the rule of thumb. 100% my guess, but I think in general Sony, Ninty, MS, and Valve take a 30% cut off apps sold on their virtual store as well.

I think they charge more.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I think that some people see letting Steam take some control of pricing as a service. Valve have highly skilled people who are qualified at setting prices using many of the dark arts of psychology to get people who are on the fence to buy games. Most Indies can't afford to do that in house.

 

[DrWong]

You're speaking from experience with publishing a game on Steam?.

No, from experience with distributing games not on Steam. And I'll stop here about that.

 

[Sentenza]

Basically, if you're indie, and it's not high profile, it sounds like your best shot is to not even waste time submitting to them until your game is done, but it's no sure thing even then, so consider stuff like Desura.

Yeah, well, I'm not really sure why people keep referring to this as some "shady stuff" when it's probably a way more simple matter of production value.
Games which are seen as poor on that side are rejected. It's as simple as that.

Now, we could argue that there are some inconsistencies in the criteria used and sometime some deserving game can be disappointingly rejected (just recently: Unepic, one of my favorite indie games of 2011), but I wouldn't push it that far to star blaming people of nepotism or shit like this.

 

[mclem]

That they charge a fee for testing is logical based on how rigorously they test patches. The problem is that they haven't developed a more agile testing system so that they can quickly categorize a patch, decide which regressions need to be tested, and get it out quicker and cheaper.

I think their attitude isn't one of 'only testing what needs to be tested'. Any given patch *could* break any of the certification requirements, so they feel they *have* to test every certification requirement. How else can they be certain that behaviour hasn't changed? I assume they're not inclined to accept the developer's assurance of the fact.

 

[erragal]

Steam only carries games they are interested in carrying. I've heard my fair share of stories about games only making it on because they knew somebody who knew somebody, and built the connection that way. Likewise I've seen a handful of games this year where the indie dev submitted and was flat out rejected during development.

Basically, if you're indie, and it's not high profile, it sounds like your best shot is to not even waste time submitting to them until your game is done, but it's no sure thing even then, so consider stuff like Desura.

Gamers Gate seems to have far less stringent standards than Steam when it comes to what they allow as well. It also seems to uphold Stumpokapow's point about Spiderweb's games as the last I checked they had a much better selection but the ones also on Steam were higher priced on GG.

It's always a nice place to go if I want something kinda rough and indie (Like Din's Curse); Steam definitely isn't a completely open service. As long as there are other successful outlets for those games then it all works out.

 

[wsippel]

im more amazed nintendo's services are rated better.

Not all that surprising, most developers seem pretty happy with the eShop. What I consider weird is that there's no clear trend there, with just as many developers rating it "easy" as "excruciating". Maybe they're from different regions, or it's due to the fact that they're comparing three different shops with different conditions.

 

[TheOddOne]

This reminds me of an analysis 2D Boy (World of Goo) have done last year about XBLA being past its prime.

Just to note all these reports started to come out when PSN was having it's own Summer of Arcade style promotion. Which is kind of fishy. Not saying that the report is invalid, but there seems to be some kind of guerilla warfare going on between Sony and MS.

Zen studios called out Team Meat for their criticism on how MS handled SMB, which was uncalled for by the way. But something stuck me as really strange in the exchange of words, Zen said that Sony was "using" Team Meat to downplay XBLA, Team Meat responded by saying MS is "talking to devs to make XBLA sound good".

In the period after and during the Sony promotion tons of articles came out praising PSN, some even directly referencing XBLA as a no-no for Indie devs, while conveniently leaving out other downloadable services.

It all seems way to fishy and covenient that all those articles came out that month.

 

[Crazymoogle]

Now, we could argue that there are some inconsistencies in the criteria used and sometime some deserving game can be disappointingly rejected (just recently: Unepic, one of my favorite indie games of 2011), but I wouldn't push it that far to star blaming people of nepotism or shit like this.

It's not nepotism, per se. They just have closed decision making processes that are tough to bypass if you don't have a connection there. You don't get to find out much about why (or so I've heard); it's basically yes/no. If you happen to have a contact then you can get across things that might help your case or hear what's needed to bridge the game. (Ideally you know the platforms for a game BEFORE you finish; otherwise you face delaying everything for a simul-launch, or more likely, just ship a steam version months later and pray it sells.)

I was answering the guy who wondered why every indie doesn't use Steam. And the answer is pretty clear - it's because they can't rely on getting on there. There's nothing particularly egregious about their approach, but it does mean that if I want to sell a game I make on my own, I have to first focus on a wider range (GG, Desura, iOS, Android) before I consider Steam, because there's a good chance that my 1-2 person project won't stand out enough for Steam to consider.

 

[Atomski]

Steam only carries games they are interested in carrying. I've heard my fair share of stories about games only making it on because they knew somebody who knew somebody, and built the connection that way. Likewise I've seen a handful of games this year where the indie dev submitted and was flat out rejected during development.

Basically, if you're indie, and it's not high profile, it sounds like your best shot is to not even waste time submitting to them until your game is done, but it's no sure thing even then, so consider stuff like Desura.

Although it does seem unfair I do think its for the better. I'd hate to see Steams store turn into iOS store with tons of games ripping off others.. hell exact copies of games seem to make their way on to that platform.

Also I think theres been tons of cases where Valve has saved them selves by not taking every indie game. There was that game recently called Project Zomboid, the developers took preorders then lost the laptops with the source files. That would have been a total mess on Steam... I do think they are back on track now though .

Theres also tons of great games not on Steam like Trackmania and Minecraft.. I have no problem going directly to a developers website to buy and download there.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I think their attitude isn't one of 'only testing what needs to be tested'. Any given patch *could* break any of the certification requirements, so they feel they *have* to test every certification requirement. How else can they be certain that behaviour hasn't changed? I assume they're not inclined to accept the developer's assurance of the fact.

As noble as that is, Steam and Apple don't seem to have problems being less stringent and developers clearly prefer that. MS can adapt or lose credibility with developers

 

[MR BLACKMAGIK]

Well know it makes sense why game devs, even for retail games, are so slow to patch glitches in their games. $40,000 is just ridiculous.

 

[Messofanego]

So this explains the French Fry suit bug never being fixed in Costume Quest. I loved the game though, so I played it from the start again for 4 hours to get the costume.

 

[mclem]

As noble as that is, Steam and Apple don't seem to have problems being less stringent and developers clearly prefer that. MS can adapt or lose credibility with developers

Steam doesn't give a shit about preventing unapproved code running on their system. Don't quite know where Apple falls in that respect.

Basically: I'm saying that the MS testing process (possibly not valued at the level that it is, but in *principle*) is necessary to preserve the closed system they're wanting to maintain - and I don't really see a way around that.

 

[whalleywhat]

Just to note all these reports started to come out when PSN was having it's own Summer of Arcade style promotion. Which is kind of fishy. Not saying that the report is invalid, but there seems to be some kind of guerilla warfare going on between Sony and MS.

Zen studios called out Team Meat for their criticism on how MS handled SMB, which was uncalled for by the way. But something stuck me as really strange in the exchange of words, Zen said that Sony was "using" Team Meat to downplay XBLA, Team Meat responded by saying MS is "talking to devs to make XBLA sound good".

In the period after and during the Sony promotion tons of articles came out praising PSN, some even directly referencing XBLA as a no-no for Indie devs, while conveniently leaving out other downloadable services.

It all seems way to fishy and covenient that all those articles came out that month.

whoa

 

[Icarus]

I said damn. $40k for a freaking patch!?

And let's put that in perspective... assuming MS and Sony take 30%ish of revenue, on a $15 game, that means the devs/publishers get about $10 per sale.

So to get a return on that $40K, the dev/pub needs to be reasonably assured that the patch will generate an incremental 4K units to recoup the patch costs (much less generate a return) versus a "do nothing" scenario.

Depending upon when this is in the lifecycle of the game and how well the game has sold to that point, it's very likely a patch won't recoup that investment and it's better to put that money into a new game.

On a $10 game, that figure is closer to 6K incremental units needed to justify the expense.

 

[derFeef]

And let's put that in perspective... assuming MS and Sony take 30%ish of revenue, on a $15 game, that means the devs/publishers get about $10 per sale.

So to get a return on that $40K, the dev/pub needs to be reasonably assured that the patch will generate an incremental 4K units to recoup the patch costs (much less generate a return) versus a "do nothing" scenario.

Depending upon when this is in the lifecycle of the game and how well the game has sold to that point, it's very likely a patch won't recoup that investment and it's better to put that money into a new game.

On a $10 game, that figure is closer to 6K incremental units needed to justify the expense.

You talk about Indy (XBLIG) games? Indy game patches are free afaik.

 

[Dan Yo]

I had heard that the reason my beloved Monday Night Combat was overrun with glitchers and exploiters was because Uber refused to patch the game due to MS's "draconian" standards for allowing devs to patch their games. It's also the reason Super MNC is PC only.

This, along with MS's policies on controlling the pricing of others' games and content make me extremely annoyed and disenchanted with being an XBL subscriber.

The more I hear, the more certain I am that Steam is the future of the industry.

 

[AranhaHunter]

I think they charge more.

Just curious, but why do you think that?

I know the now dead Sony Ericsson's playarena used to charge 30% on their app store, they had it on their website when it was still live.

 

[TheOddOne]

whoa

Ok, it might sound a little like a tinfoil hat type theory -- but I really believe they did it during that month. Even went as far as Sony promoting their 20 million budget for indies for the upcoming 3 years. MS responded a month or two later by saying they have invested 60 million dollars into XBLA for the next three years.

There is constant back-and-forth between them.

 

[Cheebo]

Steam is the future of hardcore gaming
iOS is the future of casual gaming

The traditional console makers have really been blind-sided. I am unsure if they even realize it yet.

 

[ArjanN]

40K for a patch??

 

[outunderthestars]

I would jump to Steam and PC gaming in a heartbeat if the barrier to entry wasn't so high.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Just curious, but why do you think that?

I know the now dead Sony Ericsson's playarena used to charge 30% on their app store, they had it on their website when it was still live.

I read a piece on Steam in EDGE once that implied the 30% rate was an advantage over other DD platforms. Maybe it's become the standard since, I dunno.

Either way, you need a publisher to be on XBLA, sooooo you're getting a publisher rate cut anyway.

 

[Derrick01]

Steam is the future of hardcore gaming
iOS is the future of casual gaming

The traditional console makers have really been blind-sided. I am unsure if they even realize it yet.

Not really. Steam is still heavily reliant on AAA console ports that wouldn't exist as they do if the console makers weren't around. Steam can't survive on $2 indie game sales alone, they need those 2 million Skyrim and 1 million COD people.

 

[The Technomancer]

I seem to remember that Din's Curse mentioned something about pricing issues (they sell as a "premium indie"). And Spiderweb never got any of their games on Steam until just recently, where they sell massively cheaper than the regular price for the games... I'm not sure if that's a case of Vogel adapting his strategy, or Valve only allowing him on the service if he adapted his strategy. Several other indies did this--VVVVVV sells for $5 on Steam, but it sold for $15 elsewhere. Again, not sure if that was Valve's condition or Terry realizing that when you're on Steam, you're deriving your revenue primarily from units sold rather than revenue per unit.

Obsessive Spiderweb fan to the rescue!

Steam felt it was the best price. I went into this trusting their judgment, because they know a lot more about selling Indie games than I do. When you're an Indie and Steam comes knocking, you don't say no.

Why is the game still $20 on our web site?

Short answer: Charging this little is an experiment. I believe that Indie devs who write niche products need to charge more for their work than the more mass market, casual, $0.99 app market. The question is whether a $10 price works. If going onto Steam for ten bucks turns out to not be a good idea (or if they don't want any more of our games), we need to maintain a higher baseline price on our site.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Just to note all these reports started to come out when PSN was having it's own Summer of Arcade style promotion. Which is kind of fishy. Not saying that the report is invalid, but there seems to be some kind of guerilla warfare going on between Sony and MS.

Except steam, facebook, and ios are the only ones with a majority indie devs saying they are more than satisified in most studies. I have no reason to disbelieve them.