Not only is that not even close to the overall sentiment in this thread as your post implies, no one is attacking anyone's character. It's perfectly natural to try to figure out who these anonymous devs are when they say they're so well rated, but none of the usual suspects fit the bill.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Anonymous Indie Devs speak out on the growing pains of Switch eShop Curation
- Thread starter maxcriden
- Start date
Not only is that not even close to the overall sentiment in this thread as your post implies, no one is attacking anyone's character. It's perfectly natural to try to figure out who these anonymous devs are when they say they're so well rated, but none of the usual suspects fit the bill.
Jubenhimer
Member
IIRC, these policies are only temporary, and Nintendo has implied that they'll open the flood gates in the future. As for my take on this, well this is what happens when you opt for a curated system. You can't please everyone. Some are going to take this as "LOL, Nintendo gonna Nintendo, they never learn". Yet, other indie companies working on the Switch have gone on record to say that they're treated like royalty. Nintendo just isn't ready to open things up just yet, and would prefer to be very selective for now. Which is fine, Sony has a curated system, and most indies don't complain since the PS4 is selling so well. I wouldn't worry about what a few salty developers have said.
I didn't know them. Their pinned tweet says that they are releasing games on 3DS and Wii U "every 2-3 weeks". Sure sounds like shovelware.
Other tweets make them look salty about Nintendo:
https://twitter.com/rcmadiax/status/847446738017280001
https://twitter.com/rcmadiax/status/852731498893529088
https://twitter.com/rcmadiax/status/857284135513190400
Pupperbabysassy
Member
I think he meant that term in a racist manner. Which was his intention.
Doesn't seem much different from customers complaining about the Switch because they can't find one in the store compared to people who own one and ate satisfied.
Most of the devs on board with already announced software are positive. Sure you can criticize Nintendo for having to set up these policies to manage the demand for dev kits and dev-support but there are always gonna be some studios left out during the first months of a new system...that won't ever change on walled garden systems.
We have known for a while that Nintendo is trying to give every Indie release at least a week in the spotlight ala Snake Pass. Likely also the reason why VC wasn't a priority for launch since it would have resulted in less money spent on Indie games.
Being mad that you missed out on some mayor bucks because Nintendo made sure that the eShop wasn't too crowded and good games like FAST/Shovel Knight have a easier time selling is legit. The entitlement about having access to the eShop is weird though... Since Sony and MS handle the initial console launches the same way. Focusing on the most promising titles early on isn't exactly a new concept.
Most of the devs on board with already announced software are positive. Sure you can criticize Nintendo for having to set up these policies to manage the demand for dev kits and dev-support but there are always gonna be some studios left out during the first months of a new system...that won't ever change on walled garden systems.
We have known for a while that Nintendo is trying to give every Indie release at least a week in the spotlight ala Snake Pass. Likely also the reason why VC wasn't a priority for launch since it would have resulted in less money spent on Indie games.
Being mad that you missed out on some mayor bucks because Nintendo made sure that the eShop wasn't too crowded and good games like FAST/Shovel Knight have a easier time selling is legit. The entitlement about having access to the eShop is weird though... Since Sony and MS handle the initial console launches the same way. Focusing on the most promising titles early on isn't exactly a new concept.
Version 3.0
Member
That almost seems dumber than not lifting them. The "flood gates" should be open as far in advance of the system launch as possible.
Imagine if the public reception to launch had been poor - if Zelda fell flat like Nintendoland did. Then opening the flood gates would result in a wave of new games in, what, a year at best? By that time, your system is...well, it's the Wii U.
Splatoon and Arms may be modern, but they are not Nintendo.
When the competition brings out GTA 4, you don't put one of your teams on the task of recreating the same thing but with a more colorful art style and cute character designs. You make Wii Sports; something 100% unexpected and wildly different. That's business 101 brute force strategy and very un Nintendo-like, it's what you expect from MS and such.
Splatoon happens to be really really good so it gets a pass, but we shouldn't forget it's an online-centric shooter after all, aka imitation of its competitors. I come to Nintendo systems to avoid this stagnation of ideas but so far on Switch I am greeted with either online games or open world approaches to their established franchises. Not even gonna go to their mobile efforts, it's cynical Nintendo at their finest.
Wouldn't that list be better with N++? Would the launch window have been better with Axiom Verge? I can't really speak to the quality of the titles they did announce but I can speak to the quality of the two games I mentioned above and they are great.
It's not an either or, ports may not sell the Switch more than timed or outright exclusive games or content but does that matter? There's a lot of games already in the library that have been on other platform ages ago but that doesn't mean that people can't or won't buy and enjoy straight ports.
This is all pretty rich coming from Nintendo especially given their history and Damon Baker's comments that were something like "if it's on Steam it should be on Switch too". I'm all for curation and while quality is subjective that doesn't mean less is more. They should be reaching out to the devs of Axiom Verge, N++, Bastion, Castle Crashers, Limbo, Guacamelee, etc etc. It sounds like they are but they need to be doing better if they want Switch to be buoyed by indies like PS4 and 360 were.
Games can find a new audience, people can and will double dip given the USP of the hybrid console. I mean they're trying to make fucking a (non remastered?)Skyrim some AAA tentpole game for this fucking thing. I mean they've milked releases of Mario, Zelda, etc. on every console and handheld they made give or take. Personally I can't wait to see their VC plans and how it ties into their online service and the free enhanced classic game. The Wii was over run with shovelware and frankly.
It's just weird that they have such selective standards but I just want good indie games to be successful and get a fair shot.
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
So... Nintendo sorts out shovelware from the eShop? Seems a nice thing to do.
...What are you even talking about? You can absolutely be for curation while not necessarily agreeing with the choices the curator is making.
And yes, it really is that easy to see what games are blatantly bad. I'm not saying they're going to catch everything, but there is a metric ton of garbage on the Wii U eShop that anyone with a brain can take one look at and say "yeah, this does not meet a basic standard of quality". Do any of these Wii U games look like they had more than a day's worth of effort put into them?
Can we have a discussion without you putting words in my mouth? Where did I say anything about Switch dev kits being more or less expensive than their competition? I specifically said the article details devs who have complained about costs. Have you read the article?
That doesn't look like devs complaining about the dev kit situation? Or are you one of the posters who refuses to accept the content of the article?
As I said before eShop curation, functionality, and communication. Do you think the eShop on the Switch is the best iteration we've seen in every aspect of those first two areas? If not, why can't you believe some developers feel the same way?
Do you deny that by most accounts Nintendo detailed Switch's functionality much later in the cycle than previous generations, jamming up communication channels and making it difficult for developers to comply with their exclusive/unique functionality demands? All while saying "no ports" to some devs while letting some ports through. If not, why can't you believe some developers feel Nintendo isn't communicating accurately or in a timely fashion, or are being passed over for devs that are able to make more worthwhile deals with Nintendo?
I mean you're free to believe there isn't one dev who has had a less than perfect relationship with Nintendo and that the article detailing personal experiences is completely made up. But the problem is you took issue with those who are seeing their experiences and feelings echoed in the article. You asked how can they feel that way and then was given plenty of examples on top of the article. You have your answer.
frankie_baby
Member
Wow talk about shitting on the hand that feeds you
Jubenhimer
Member
Nintendo had planned the launch period of the Switch out very thoroughly, down to almost every detail. They chose to basically let Zelda alone carry the Switch in March because they knew it was going to be a hit. They spread out their releases to make sure there's no software droughts. And they're heavily curating which indie titles get first access to the system to ensure the system has a positive perception in the eyes of the public. Simply front-loading the launch with too many games at once feels counter-productive and doesn't really solve the problem. But by ensuring there's a ton of quality content in the first year, then Nintendo can maintain the Switch's momentum, and once they do open the flood gates, can make sure the Switch never has a dry spell since the system would've already proven itself to developers by this point.
This isn't the grossly incompetent Nintendo of 2011, this is a much smarter, and more calculative company we're dealing with now.
LordRaptor
Member
If you are "for" a curated storefront, then you are "for" someone else making the decision for you as to what you are allowed to buy, so you don't get to shot call those decisions.
Players: "We want a curated storefront!"
Nintendo: "OK, we're blocking Axiom Verge, a game with an ~85% Metacritic average, from coming to Switch."
Players: "What? But that's a good game!"
Nintendo: "Sorry, you wanted curation so you can't complain about any of our choices!"
If you'd like to explain how the above makes any sense I'm all ears.
Jubenhimer
Member
Yeah, it feels like this was made just for slander. Look at how many people are proclaiming "see, Nintendo gonna Nintendo, they hate 3rd parties" when that's not what's going on here at all.
You're a disgrace to your username.
LordRaptor
Member
I don't understand why people want curated storefronts in the first place so I can't explain the sense of entitlement that makes people demand certain titles aren't allowed to be sold, then complain when certain titles aren't allowed to be sold.
civilstrife
Member
I'm all for curated stores this early in a system's life, but how is Vroom in the Night Sky a thing?
This is exactly what the article is getting at. Some posters are having a hard time distinguishing the difference between expected developers frustrations based on a policy Nintendo made clear early on and developer frustrations based on actual missteps by Nintendo not based on any communicated policy. There are even developers in the article who say the former is expected when publishing on a console.
But for some reason its all regarded as nonsense because some aspects of Nintendo aren't being portrayed in the right light. People are being labelled as entitled for thinking Nintendo could do a much better job with their storefront.
LordRaptor
Member
When I made a topic specifically about Nintendo curation policies, the PR was that they are using Publishers as a 'first pass' level of quality.
Vroom In The Night Sky has a publisher.
Dark Ninja
Member
Woah Damn
With curation it's quite obvious that someone else is making the decision about what you can buy. Even Amazon or your local grocery store or anywhere else you buy or do anything, products, services, is curated to some extent. Still I agree with Camjo-Z those games all look like shit and I shouldn't have to wade through them to find games of higher quality.
It's not about the whim of the curator, it should be based on a minimum bar of quality and there is wiggle room to where you set that, more art than science. Sure that requires a lot of effort but if you're going to curate you can't half ass it cause it's a double edged sword and it certainly doesn't ingratiate you to devs like Nintendo should be doing.
Most game platforms already do curate and decide what you can and can't buy, plenty of "controversial" political, adult,and violent or gory games have been denied on the even more open stores. That being said there's a happier medium between Steam and a system where quality games and ports get denied.
Schnozberry
Member
Yeah, the quotes cut from the article are half the story, if that.
Attempting to curate content that fits into what Nintendo perceives as their audience is always going to result in a portion of developers feeling like their toes have gotten stepped on. Honestly, I feel for them, because it's the definition of arbitrary and it would certainly feel like a statement about the quality of their software, when that probably isn't even the issue.
It also sounds like Nintendo needs to get some more staff working with indie developers. That being said, some of the comments sound like sour grapes, because developers wanted to get their ports ready for the launch window cash grab and Nintendo was prioritizing getting kits and development help to teams that fit a niche they were after, or were willing to bring new titles first to Switch. It's unfortunate that they weren't able to make everybody happy, but resource limitations and priorities mean some folks are left out.
DeuceGamer
Member
Yea they seem to have more high quality indies announced than when he was here. I would also say they don't have the gluten of Shovelware taking up so many places on the Switch eShop.
Edit: it's not perfect and I hope they get it sorted so quality indies like Axiom Verge and Cosmic Star Heroine are more easily able to get on Switch, but to say it's went downhill seems to be false IMO.
I assume Vroom got in since it's a Japanese indie game. Since Japan doesn't have a ton of indie devs flooding the eShop they got in through NCL who doesn't have a curation problem on their end.
I'm kind of with you here, though I think it's perhaps less of a calculated strategy and more of a "our Switch eShop sucks in terms of sorting options so far, sooooo let's start light" thing. Or at least a mix. Either way, eShop sales appear to be good for participating games so far. I'm also hearing equal GOOD buzz from tiny, no-publisher devs who've been in direct touch with Nintendo for games that aren't announced yet.
Jubenhimer
Member
I'll admit Nintendo could do a better job at curation in some areas (not allowing Axiom Verge ASAP is a big mistake IMO). But, people are taking this as Nintendo trying to intentionally be dicks to developers like it's Yamauchi-era strong-arming all over again. That's a lie because those who have worked with Nintendo for the Switch had praised their support for indies.
AcademicSaucer
Member
NCL did good in getting dev kits to Circle Entertainment
LordRaptor
Member
It is about the whim of a curator; the whole point is that if you desire a curated experience, you are giving up your freedom of choice to somebody else to manage on your behalf.
The only way to get a curated experience tailored to your own taste is to personally choose what titles you are or are not interested in. Any system reliant on someone elses tastes or perceptions will - inevitably and unavoidably - cause you to miss out on titles that you might otherwise desire.
Feel free to go and find any random GAF topic about "most over rated game" or "most under rated game" as anecdotal evidence on how wildly divergent tastes can be, even amongst the sub set of "games rated highly by GAF"
shotgunbob04
Member
Doesn't want ports, but features Skyrim in their new console's unveiling video.
I've been happy with the amount of good games on the Switch eShop so far, both indie and non-indie. So hopefully Nintendo figures things out and starts placing the right people in charge of their curation so we can keep getting great games on the eShop.
I've been happy with the amount of good games on the Switch eShop so far, both indie and non-indie. So hopefully Nintendo figures things out and starts placing the right people in charge of their curation so we can keep getting great games on the eShop.
That makes sense. It just illustrates how Nintendo's curation is smoke and mirrors though. Vroom is the second coming of Superman 64 and deserves to be taken off of the eShop. How many amazing games are being rejected by Nintendo behind the scenes, while Little Jimmy is forced to play ET in the Night Landfill because his parents didn't read reviews?
Team Filler
Member
I'll understand if you'd rather refrain from comment, but I was wondering if you had any thoughts on an indie dev remaining anonymous with their complaints of feeling ignored. As a non-dev, my personal thinking would be that if I was an indie with no "corporate master" to answer to, I'd probably want to name myself and get my IP's name out there no matter what, even if essentially I'm just voicing my frustration towards not being noticed. But I am not a developer, so perhaps there's considerations I'm not accounting for here.
Anyways, that's one of the things I've been wondering since. Good luck with the Switch, I love the Gunman Clive series and look forward to your next!
Dark Ninja
Member
Praise whoever let all those Neo-Geo games through
UnemployedVillain
Member
What it illustrates is how curation doesn't mean 100% chance of shitty games not getting through. Some of you are clinging to this one game like it's some sort of smoking gun when the fact you keep bringing it up as an example of the curated content being "smoke and mirrors" is only because the curation has actually maintained a level of quality and it stands out as the lone, inexplicable, exception.
I Stalk Alone
Member
I have a problem when a marketing guy talks about going to dinner and having drinks with Nintendo and then expecting to have some kind of secret handshake to get some kind of deal going on. Seems like a very unethical guy. Of course his conpany should not be treated any differently to any other developer. Is he an idiot? This is not the 80's
This.
I understand how curation works. It doesn't have to be on the whim of the curator. Ideally it's a process governed by rules and guidelines but is flexible enough to allow for exceptions. I mean Greenlight's "Would you buy this?" boiled it down to it's essence but with the amount of releases and hopeful devs doing that personally clearly wasn't a worthwhile undertaking. Still Steam is doing some interesting things, like allowing me to filter out based on tag like visual novel for example.
For a better curation example lets take a look at how music curation works for example, Pandora, Apple Music, Spotify, they all have different ways they curate with algorithms, humans, and a shitload of data. Much harder to do with games but in an ideal world we have open stores where only games we are interested in are surfaced. Seems like we're a long way off from that.
I just feel like whim makes it sound like there's some aloof decision maker but there is some rationale to Nintendo's decisions be it on an individual or organizational level. Surely they have guidelines, like no ports for the first 6 months which is what I read somewhere, maybe even in that Gamasutra article you link to.
You'd think they would make exceptions for quality, by not doing that everyone loses. I don't understand how not having Axiom Verge at launch benefits them other than by allowing developers who play ball and give them that exclusive to capitalize on the Switch launch window. Pretty shitty way to do business if my assumption is correct even if they do open things up down the line.
lwilliams3
Member
Wow, he's not subtle. That third tweet is a very lame attempt on making the Switch look bad.
LordRaptor
Member
That's not curation, that's discovery.
Spotify doesn't - for example - reject all death metal from the service because it has data that country is more popular. It doesn't recommend death metal to country listeners.
That is a huge difference.
When people demand curated storefronts they are not asking to not see games they are not interested in under default searches - they are asking that specific games that don't interest them shouldn't be on the service at all.
As far as curation goes, I'm not sure how you can determine it's the best iteration? How does that work in your head? We're getting new games every single week on it that are mostly all pretty high quality efforts.
What does functionality have to do about indie relationships again?
I'm not sure why Nintendo not sharing the secrets to their hardware with indies is offensive, since that's probably going to be one of the biggest reasons for a leak. Again, this is mostly conjecture. Nicalis and Yacht Club Games aren't having issues, WayForward has games in the works, etc. The only game that has come out and said Nintendo rejected them was Axiom Verge, claiming they could've had a port done by launch when it's not even known if they have a development kit or not.
I never said there aren't any developers that have had less than "perfect" interactions with Nintendo, I have said so in my other posts that most likely what Nintendo wants right now is burning a handful of developers. However, it's pretty clear from their partner list, the games that have come out, the actual developers (NOT ANONYMOUS) that have praising Nintendo's new stances, and the list of games in a Nintendo Indie Direct, that it's working for the majority of indie developers.
My issue is not with the feelings but the fact that people want to latch onto a handful (the article had what, five anon?) of developers having issues while ignoring the other piles of evidence I just listed above that Nintendo's policies have only gotten better this generation. Like you.
I always thought of it as using my listening data and preferences to curate my playlists for me, I mean it's called Discover Weekly but isnt' a playlist by it's very nature curated? Either way until they fix discovery I'll settle for curation, to me when done well it's a worthwhile trade off. So far Nintendo's curation effort does not inspire confidence.
ZSaberLink
Media Create Maven
I read through the 1st page of comments, but did folks here actually read the article? Unfortunately gonintendo's summary wasn't the best. First, it seems like all the stories here are specifically about NoA (looks like NoE is being pretty open and NoJ allowed Vroom... so yeh). Secondly, like others said it's the same person with both of those negative comments. Plenty of named people in that article talked about how NoA is being polite, but they're clearly understaffed.
Yeah really the biggest impression I get is that they're understaffed or secretive about internal policies that NOA doesn't have control over.
Similar threads
- Poll