Gattsu25 said:That'll show them. How dare they speak ill of XBLA after releasing one of the best physics-based platformers ever made on it.
Slavik81 said:That's very clearly not their complaint.
The complaint is that Microsoft is interfering too much with the release of games, which is ridiculous given the mountain of games on the platform. The problem isn't that there's too many crappy racing games. The problem is that Microsoft won't let them release a good racing game because there's too many crappy ones.
The solution is for Microsoft to stop screwing around with all these stupid rules. "You must release on this day", "You must charge this much for your game.", "You must charge this much for your additional content, themes and pictures.", "You must not include shareable maps". They fuck over the developers and they fuck over the consumers.
Slavik81 said:Ok, fuck this.
Obviously nobody wants XBL to improve and most people feel that if developers have any problems with the service that they should just shut up and let both developers and consumers be content with mediocrity.
I'm done here. It's a waste of time to talk to you people. You don't even have an argument. You defend the status quo saying 'It's still better than [insert time or place here]' when I say 'It can still be much better!'. No, that's not a valid refute. You can't defend something by complaining about something else.
Seriously, guys. It's tremendously disappointing listening to these instant and thought-less reactions ad nauseam.
Other than it being a 'retarded point of view to take', which was my point.FightyF said:FYI, if you read the post you responded to more carefully, he's pointing out the developer's arrogant attitude towards other games. Obviously it's a retarded point of view to take, and so if someone doesn't want to buy a game based on that principle, there's nothing wrong with that.
Gattsu25 said:Other than it being a 'retarded point of view to take', which was my point.
Okay, but what does an average dev mouthing off have to do with N+?FightyF said:I'm talking about the developer's point of view.
To not buy a game because of the developer's retarded POV is perfect valid, especially when the game is average. Might as well save some money.
Psychotext said:I've never really understood how people can't find even one XBLA title that they deem worthy of purchase. I own 21 XBLA games right now (admittedly a few of those were things my other half wanted) and spend far more time playing them than retail titles. Maybe it's partially because of the delivery format or that they don't want to try the demos (reviews are still few and far between on this sort of game). Perhaps there's a few genres that just aren't covered there yet too.
And that is just plain wrong.Brashnir said:There's at least 25 games on XBLA better than N+
Draft said:This is a common faux pas. There is no such thing as the Xbox Defense Force. They are called Xbots.
Likewise, it's incorrect to say Sbot. They are the Sony Defense Force, shorted to SDF.
Avoid embarrassing forum gaffes!
Irrelevant. Many of the stupid rules about XBLA are instituted by Microsoft as a platform holder or retailer. Microsoft plays a triple-role as platform holder, publisher and retailer. They use their power as a platform holder to give themselves exclusive control as retailer for their XBLA platform.FightyF said:MS AS A PUBLISHER HAS EVERY RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO PUBLISH.
Bolded and capitalized before anyone else misses this important detail.
These guys should have asked other publishers, end of story.
FightyF said:MS AS A PUBLISHER HAS EVERY RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO PUBLISH.
Bolded and capitalized before anyone else misses this important detail.
These guys should have asked other publishers, end of story.
Slavik81 said:What's in April?
There's no question that a QA process is a good thing but it's the consistency of certain parts that seem lacking. You've ever been the diplomat, Mario, even in speaking of your dealings with Sony regarding GS on PSN. To your credit of course, but it's pretty easy to see there's more to read between the lines.Mario said:From my perspective, having produced many retail games for console, the process to getting self published content on XBLA is reasonable and even having the opportunity to do so is great. I can understand that some PC developers would find it overwhelming or even consider it over the top compared to what they are used to, but ultimately the process creates more consistent and higher quality product (even if people don't credit it as such, its true).
Slavik81 said:Irrelevant. Many of the stupid rules about XBLA are instituted by Microsoft as a platform holder or retailer. Microsoft plays a triple-role as platform holder, publisher and retailer.
They use their power as a platform holder to give themselves exclusive control as retailer for their XBLA platform.
Some complaints about XBLA are about Microsoft as a publisher, others as a platform holder and others as a retailer. That doesn't make any of them less valid.
Shockgamer said:Oh the horror of X-Box Live.
To spend all of ten minutes downloading one or two games every week, trying them out, realizing you don't like them and deleting them off of your harddrive without spending a single cent.
I don't think they ever said they were the best. Just that the majority of XBLA games are shit.McDragon said:i don't mind them talking shit about MS policy or whatever but for the love of god, there are better games than N+ on XBLA so stop acting all mighty.
i just woke up, you have to forgive me.TheOneGuy said:I don't think they ever said they were the best. Just that the majority of XBLA games are shit.
And that much is true. It may not be that ALL BUT FIVE are shit, but the majority are definitely shit.
Yes, I'm aware that this is also true for retail games. Which is why I'm amazed that so many of you are STILL focusing on the "all but five games are shit" worthless nonsense, instead of the other more interesting things they had to say about their experiences getting published on XBLA or their opinions on how it should be run. The former are facts, and the latter are opinions that have nothing to do with the quality of the GAMES, just XBLA in general.
For example, separating retro from original games sounds like an absolutely awesome idea. I have yet to play a single retro game that is worth a purchase on XBLA. They're just so poorly put together. As such, I'd prefer not having to sift through all that shit to get to the stuff I actually want.
But only one retailer.FightyF said:There are multiple publishers for XBLA games.
Absolutely. It's entirely their right to do so. But they just have to ensure that they do an exceptionally good job to ensure they don't annoy their consumer base (which has nowhere else to turn)FightyF said:That's the case with PSN. There is nothing wrong with that. Sony/MS made the hardware, they make the network and online retail environment (PlayStationNetwork/Xbox Live Marketplace). This makes absolute business sense...this can't be questioned.
This is much, much more interesting... I'll have to go back and read over the original article again and keep in mind what you're suggesting.FightyF said:What makes them invalid is the fact that what they say is plain wrong. They claim that "XBLA is limited like retail space". It isn't. They claim XBLA is like how it was 2 years ago in terms of content. It's not. He complains about Word Puzzle, when XBLA needs more puzzle games. They complain about games being "greenlighted" when it seems like that isn't the issue, the issue is whether a publisher will publish a game. When a pub decides to publish, it's goes onto Live, it seems. So if anything he should be mad at publishers wanting to take risks and publishing these games he consider "crap". Clearly he doesn't know how things are run, so why should we take them seriously?
They also seem very clueless when they ask questions like, "It's like, how is Uno the best-selling game on there? That really... that doesn't make any sense. It really doesn't. Street Fighter II you can see, because everyone played it and it was popular. But Uno... I didn't realize the 360 was popular with that crowd."
MetaNet don't seem like good business people as they don't understand their market, don't do their research, and seem to not have any idea of what is involved with publishing a title. All they seem to know how to do is make Flash games.
I doubt it. N+ sold quite well on XBLA.Brianemone said:I think perhaps they came away from the experience with a bad aftertaste in part due to their expectations.
I love N+ but I know a lot of people didn't buy it. Maybe they are just dissapointed with how it sold.
Slavik81 said:I doubt it. N+ sold quite well on XBLA.
Clinton514 said:I haven't purchased one XBLA game yet. I agree that most are not worth spending on.
The interview took place before it was put up on XBLA.JoeBroni said:I'm curious, what are you basing this on? Because if it sold well I'm confused as to what they would be complaining about. The only conclusion I can draw from them railing on all the garbage on XBLA is that it (somehow) costs them sales. Otherwise, why would they care?
On the number of people playing the game. Microsoft releases rankings.JoeBroni said:I'm curious, what are you basing this on?
Because they felt it could be even better? Even if a better quality N+ might not sell many more copies than the current N+, particularly on a project of this size, making the product the best it could be is likely a matter of personal pride.JoeBroni said:Because if it sold well I'm confused as to what they would be complaining about. The only conclusion I can draw from them railing on all the garbage on XBLA is that it (somehow) costs them sales. Otherwise, why would they care?
Hunahan said:Man, things are getting pretty heated in this thread. Strange.
Honestly, the thing this all reminds me of is when I took a brief job working for a music magazine in Boston. They'd send me out to do interviews and write articles on some of the local independent artists, and I used to come back and remark that there were only two types of interviews...
Ariexv said:The only things this thread got right are...
1)Gamerpics/themes costing money is retarded, you should unlock that games themes/pics with your gamescore for that game. For Retail games 250pts-Pic 1, 500 pts-theme 1, 750 pts-pic 2, 1000pts-theme 2 or something. for XBLA 50, 125, 200, 250 or w/e (250 is the cap for XBLA isn't it?)
Cuz yeah, Gamasutra as an online publication is known for spreading FUD and propaganda from questionable sources. That sounds perfectly reasonable.Mario said:Because a lot of XBLA developers are inexperienced or don't have internal QA, many of them have trouble during the certification process when they can find themselves having to fix a large number of previously unknown issues. This is extremely challenging for MS to manage from a product scheduling point of view, and I suspect is the primary reason why they switched from announcing stuff relatively early to only announcing specific release date close to actual release.
When there is a lack of consistency in terms of developers being able to wrap up any given project, it creates a lot of uncertainty for MS about what product will be available for release and when. Because of this situation, it is expected that MS would keep some titles up their sleeve to ensure that they can actually release a game every week and can try to ensure when multiple games are released on the same day that they are complementary rather than competing.
3rd party publishers also do this at retail, delaying finished product to better align with external marketing events or not go up against competing products.
As I said above, I have not heard of any examples of games being held back more than a month which is a reasonable period to allow MS to shuffle things around a little. I believe the perception that MS sits on finished products for months is an exaggeration which is partly fueled by games taking longer to go through cert than people expect.
The quote from the interview clearly states that MS was not providing them ANY data. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't pull dirty pool tactics for the data without actually asking them first. And just because it's not provided by other platform manufacturers doesn't make it any less stupid, it just means they're ALL doing something that is counter-productive to fostering growth and success in their marketplace. But we're only discussing XBLA right now, so there was no sense bringing other's screw-ups into the equation.Mario said:No platform manufacturer provides sales data to developers, online or otherwise. Its commercially sensitive information.
However, MS is quite happy to supply developers with high level market information on XBLA. You just have to ask.
No, it's really not. If Rockstar can pay Microsoft to provide this content free of charge, why can't this same option be made available to XBLA developers, so long as the payment made to provide this free content is equal? The profile of the game should be irrelevant, the option should be there to be taken advantage of, and leave developers to decide if the price needed to be paid is worth it or not. It's about a choice being offered to one market sector and not another. But as I said, if they had the same option at the same price Rockstar paid, there's no reason that money is involved in this lack of option at all. But that option has not even been considered by Microsoft. If the option is provided and no one takes it, so be it, but at least have it available to begin with.Mario said:I have already explained this above. MS makes more revenue from retail titles, so they allow the release of some free content for retail titles. MS makes less money off XBLA titles, so put in place rules to monetise each title better. Its consistent.
Uh-huh..... not even going to touch that one, I'm already getting quite tired.Mario said:That doesn't really sound like a double standard. All your menus are supposed to be localised. There is more leeway on ingame content, given that even Japanese games have english bits and pieces ingame.
To me the example cited sounds more like a miscommunication, or the developer clutching at straws for something to complain about.
Mario said:You are putting words in my mouth here.
Retail-packaged games having more marketing options is not "the same".Mario said:Which rules are different for different developers? Everybody is treated to the same.
Explain these "reasons" to me. Because it's pretty clear that there's little to no consistency at all. There's an inconsistency in how retail and XBLA games are treated. These developers are given less marketing options and are forced to wait for release with seemingly no proper explanation provided by Microsoft. A download service has very different aspects than retail games. While I agree that a balance needs to be made, if a game is done, RELEASE IT. Marketing on XBLA seems to be the main reason for that problem, but it's not like these games are in a retail space where they will be pulled from a shelf and bargain-binned if they don't perform. So just put them up, and instead of juggling release dates, juggle which games get a weekly marketing push as a featured download. The games still get marketing exposure, but developers can provide content when it's actually ready and start gaining revenue, and can see increases in revenue when marketing is made available through the service.Mario said:The only exception is that publishers bringing content to XBLA have a slightly different approval process in recognition of the fact they bring a lot more resource and publisher side QA to the process.
Just because no one has explained the reasons behind the rules doesn't mean there aren't reasons for them. Pretty much everything is designed to maintain minimum quality standards, have consistency across the portfolio, ensure games are released every week etc.
beermonkey@tehbias said:I also love how Mario's thoughts get blown off around here when he defends a Microsoft platform; he usually is quite revered.
beermonkey@tehbias said:I love how Jeff Minter is considered a big whiner when he complains about XBLA, but the N+ guys get much more support. I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that N+ is coming to non-MS gaming platforms. :lol
I also love how Mario's thoughts get blown off around here when he defends a Microsoft platform; he usually is quite revered.
Terrell said:Cuz yeah, Gamasutra as an online publication is known for spreading FUD and propaganda from questionable sources. That sounds perfectly reasonable.
The fact that they apparently had a game out of QA and pushed it to XBLA because the developer had a premature launch party and needed the cashflow.... how does that sound like it's an equal process? Covering for someone else's screw-up isn't in Microsoft's best interest at all, and clearly shows an imbalance in the platform having equal rules for all developers being published to the service. I feel sorry for the developer who got their game bumped to another release period just to appease these guys for their poor decision-making.
The quote from the interview clearly states that MS was not providing them ANY data. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't pull dirty pool tactics for the data without actually asking them first. And just because it's not provided by other platform manufacturers doesn't make it any less stupid, it just means they're ALL doing something that is counter-productive to fostering growth and success in their marketplace. But we're only discussing XBLA right now, so there was no sense bringing other's screw-ups into the equation.
No, it's really not. If Rockstar can pay Microsoft to provide this content free of charge, why can't this same option be made available to XBLA developers, so long as the payment made to provide this free content is equal?
"It would be counter to making money if Microsoft made the process arbitrarily harder just for the sake of it" is hard to take out of context. If you're not positioning this from a MS financial standpoint, why did you even bring up money in the first place? It's pretty straight-forward, MS is
Retail-packaged games having more marketing options is not "the same".
Abusing flexibility for game publication on the service based on external circumstances is not "the same".
Explain these "reasons" to me.