• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

N+ Developers talk XBLA: "There's like 100 games, and they're all shit." (plus more!)

FightyF

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
16,250
0
0
www.myspace.com
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.

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.

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.

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:
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.

Waaah waah...the fact is you are wrong and you can't handle it.

-addendum-
To clarify...they have a problem with MS as a publisher.
 

Gattsu25

Banned
Jun 6, 2004
33,439
2
0
USA
blog.gattsu25.com
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.
Other than it being a 'retarded point of view to take', which was my point.
 

FightyF

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
16,250
0
0
www.myspace.com
Gattsu25 said:
Other than it being a 'retarded point of view to take', which was my point.

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.
 

Gattsu25

Banned
Jun 6, 2004
33,439
2
0
USA
blog.gattsu25.com
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.
Okay, but what does an average dev mouthing off have to do with N+?
 

dejay

Banned
Mar 27, 2007
10,641
0
0
Sydney
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.

XBLA isn't for everyone. I don't know why, but some people expect a 400 or 800 point game to be same amazing immersive experience that lasts them 30 hours and is totally original. I don't play any "emulated" titles like TMNT or Ms Pacman, but I've still bought plenty of titles. Some are for when family comes over and we play together, some are for when the nieces and nephews want to play and some are just damn good for me.

For me a 800 point game I can pick up and play, get pleasure from and while away an hour here or there on my couch is a great service and like you I generally play them more than retail games.

The good games do stand out and people do download the demos and make purchases based off of those demos - as evidenced by the sales of N+, which even the developer will acknowledge are way above their expectations.
 

Twig

Banned
May 9, 2007
11,446
0
0
You know, if I had to make a guess, them saying there are only five games that aren't shit is probably exaggeration. I do that all the time. It's called being human.

And even IF they're being 100% completely serious when they say that, what the fuck does it matter? It's awesome how hung up on that so many of you are, while ignoring the other, more interesting things they have to say.
Brashnir said:
There's at least 25 games on XBLA better than N+
And that is just plain wrong.
 

Shockgamer

Banned
Jan 25, 2008
1,547
0
0
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 follow XBLA much anymore; it became pointless to do so when there became more real retail 360 games than I could keep up with. However the bad games arguement just doesn't hold water with me when you have every opportunity to avoid being hosed out of your five to ten dollars.
 

Shard

XBLAnnoyance
Dec 20, 2004
73,272
0
0
41
Tampa Bay, FL
msp.starshipmoonhawk.com
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!


Also, if you really want to get certain segment agitated called them X Types.
 

Slavik81

Member
Jan 23, 2007
18,501
2
0
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.
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.
 

Slavik81

Member
Jan 23, 2007
18,501
2
0
Shard said:
Anyway, I for one am looking forward to April coming, it should be a return to form for the service and then maybe everybody can calm down a bit.
What's in April?
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
May 21, 2006
17,232
4
0
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.

slurp slurp
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
Jun 8, 2004
21,854
2
0
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).
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.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
Jun 8, 2004
21,854
2
0
Shard said:
Also, if you really want to get certain segment agitated called them X Types.
Then be sure to say it's just a "pet name", completely innocent. :)
 

FightyF

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
16,250
0
0
www.myspace.com
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.

There are multiple publishers for XBLA games.

They use their power as a platform holder to give themselves exclusive control as retailer for their XBLA platform.

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.

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.

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.

Stumpokapow said:

slurp slurp

Can't think of anything intelligent to say? Figures...
 

MCD

Junior Member
Nov 9, 2006
15,372
1
0
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.
 

JoeBroni

Neo Member
Jan 10, 2008
66
0
0
Chicago
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.

Exactly. XBLA isn't perfect by any stretch, but so much of the developer's rant just comes off as sour grapes. I'd be willing to guess the ratio of gold to crap on XBLA hasn't changed since these got serious about bringing N+ over to XBLA, and somehow it's MS's fault these guys can't extrapolate those numbers and figure out there will be 100 "crap" games on XBLA by the time N+ comes out? Please.
 

Twig

Banned
May 9, 2007
11,446
0
0
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 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.
 

MCD

Junior Member
Nov 9, 2006
15,372
1
0
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.
i just woke up, you have to forgive me.

and i agree with separating retro from original games idea, sounds pretty nice.
 

Slavik81

Member
Jan 23, 2007
18,501
2
0
FightyF said:
There are multiple publishers for XBLA games.
But only one retailer.


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.
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:
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.
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.



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.
I doubt it. N+ sold quite well on XBLA.
 

JoeBroni

Neo Member
Jan 10, 2008
66
0
0
Chicago
Slavik81 said:
I doubt it. N+ sold quite well on XBLA.

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?
 

Meier

Member
Jun 6, 2004
66,614
4
1,690
Austin, TX
www.last.fm
Clinton514 said:
I haven't purchased one XBLA game yet. I agree that most are not worth spending on.

You're missing out on some gems! Puzzle Quest truly is glorious on the big screen.. even though I'd already beat it on the DS, I purchased it again the day it came out. Carcassone and Catan are flawless, Lumines Live! is a great value as is Zuma. Naturally there's the other stalwarts such as Pac-Man CE, Bejeweled and Geometry Wars that are must buys. I think there's probably 8-10 must-haves for XBLA imo.
 

LakeEarth

Member
Jun 7, 2004
29,981
1
0
Ontario
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?
The interview took place before it was put up on XBLA.
 

rollingstart

Banned
Dec 12, 2006
38,760
4
0
eviloreisarapist
I do think that most XBLA games are pretty bad and most of the good ones arent exactly original games, but things like Pacman CE and Geometry Wars and Omega Five are awesome.
 

Haunted

Member
Nov 16, 2006
78,220
18
965
Man, those unknown WiiWare developers shouldn't talk trash about another pla... oh, wait.
 

Slavik81

Member
Jan 23, 2007
18,501
2
0
JoeBroni said:
I'm curious, what are you basing this on?
On the number of people playing the game. Microsoft releases rankings.


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?
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.
 

monkspider

Member
Jan 12, 2007
1,209
0
0
Wichita
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...

I just wanted to say this was a beautiful post.
 

Ariexv

Member
Jan 7, 2008
1,611
0
0
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?)

2)Where the fuck is my Simpsons/X-men game for XBLA.
 

bj00rn

Banned
Jul 6, 2007
325
0
0
They have a pretty big mouth considering about 25 of those shit games are better than N+.

...and Pinball FX is one of them.
 

dejay

Banned
Mar 27, 2007
10,641
0
0
Sydney
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?)

If suckers really want to pay for little GIFs then let them.
 

Willy Wanka

my god this avatar owns
Aug 17, 2005
5,329
0
1,530
It's pretty obvious the service could be better for developers but I think it's rather disingenuous of these guys to dismiss most of the games on there as shit.

I own around 25-30 XBLA games and they all range from good to amazing.
 

bj00rn

Banned
Jul 6, 2007
325
0
0
avatar299 said:
I love how in 4 pages N+ went from one the most loved XBLA games to now being one of the worst.

Are you a member of the N+ dev team...? Because I swear..The strange out of the blue hyperbole-rhetoric seems suspiciously similar...
 

Terrell

Member
Apr 1, 2006
12,476
2
1,050
Vancouver, BC, Canada
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.
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.


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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
Uh-huh..... not even going to touch that one, I'm already getting quite tired.



Mario said:
You are putting words in my mouth here.

"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


Mario said:
Which rules are different for different developers? Everybody is treated to the same.
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".

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.
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.
XBLA is certainly not the only guilty party, and the current DLC business model has several functional flaws due to their dependence on the retail-box business model as a framework... I have not tried PSN, so I can't comment on it, and we don't know enough specifics on WiiWare to say anything, but seriously... there needs to be a better method of content management and marketing than what is currently available, and I can understand the frustrations vented because they seem clear as day.
 

Beer Monkey

Member
Mar 3, 2005
23,925
5
1,225
Cincinnati
www.tehbias.com
avatar299 said:
I love how in 4 pages N+ went from one the most loved XBLA games to now being one of the worst.

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.
 

Steverulez

Member
Dec 13, 2006
16,951
0
1,150
England
steverulez.co.uk
avatar299 said:
I love how in 4 pages N+ went from one the most loved XBLA games to now being one of the worst.

I still love N+ if it helps, its a great game.

Although I do think the developer(s) are really fucking stupid to claim all the XBLA games are shit, really fucking stupid. I think I own over 50 of them (or pretty close to) and consider XBLA to be filled with many games that go from enjoyable to really really awesome. I hear lots of people say "Oh XBLA is shit" (not referring to people on gaf) blah blah blah and I honestly wonder if they just hate games.

Edit: Upon looking I was very wrong, I only own 27 XBLA games :p
 

McBradders

NeoGAF: my new HOME
Mar 26, 2007
12,541
1
635
London
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.


Thisisneogafdude.gif


Really, these guys need to STFU, their first published game and they cry moar? Ok.

Good, nay excellent, game. Really.

But their statements reek of butthurt and bitter tears. XBLA is not perfect. MS should think about a more liquid release schedule, more than 2 games a week, more release days a week, whatever it takes. Also some kind of fucking marketing spend. Is it that hard?

MS are so close to having the definitive Digital Distribution service. The pricing is good, the delivery system is good, the demo requirement is spot on, but clearly there are things to be worked on.

So yeah, again, stfu guys.


*EDIT* Hunahan's post sums it up excellently, the Dev's of N+ would do well to read it.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Jul 15, 2005
8,905
1
0
Wellington, NZ
www.pikpok.com
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.

I have no idea what you are even trying to say here.

MS keeping a few games up their sleeve for up to a month to ensure a steady and balanced flow of content is perfectly reasonable, and developers know going into development that this is going to be the case.


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.

You were the one suggesting Microsoft was deficient by not providing sales data. Nobody provides sales data except for services like NPD. The way you brought it up made it sound like a specific failing of MS and XBLA, when it is not at all.

And as I have said, MS is happy to provide market information to those who request it.


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?

Are you even reading what I wrote? Its nothing to do with the profile of the game or the developer. Its a decision they made to better monetise XBLA products given the lower return they get as compared to retail products.


"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

You said "So your assumption that all their gripes are justified because it saves MS money, when NONE of the things they complain about have a financial standpoint at all, is kind of silly" when that is not my viewpoint. That is putting words in my mouth.


Retail-packaged games having more marketing options is not "the same".

You are trying to switch the argument.

You suggested different rules are given to different developers, when that is not the case. Everybody is treated the same. You cite Rockstar as a developer given special treatment - when they develop an XBLA title, then they will face the same rules as everyone else with regard to the option to release free content.

Sure, retail games and XBLA games have slightly different rules, but then they are different types of products with different routes to market. Of course there are going to be differences in process and rules.


Abusing flexibility for game publication on the service based on external circumstances is not "the same".

I don't know what you are trying to say here.


Explain these "reasons" to me.

I have already tried, but you appear to be choosing not to pay attention.
 

Psychotext

Member
Jun 15, 2007
35,928
0
1,175
I wonder if those arguing with Mario know who he is and why he's one of the few people here qualified to talk about XBL / PSN / Wiiware.
 
Jun 7, 2004
17,296
1
0
Man, bitching about the release date is one of the most arrogant fucking things I've ever heard. Who the hell are these pole smokers to think they are more deserving than anyone else that's created a similar project?