Psychotext
Member
lol... I only just notice the "posted by" names. :lol
-
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.
N+ Developers talk XBLA: "There's like 100 games, and they're all shit." (plus more!)
- Thread starter Draft
- Start date
McBradders
NeoGAF: my new HOME
Aku, you rule.
WickedLaharl
Member
QQ this game sucks because i'm a lowly silver QQ i have a vendetta against popcap so their games automatically suck QQ oh balls this menu is ugly, plus popcap QQ ANOTHER SHOOTER QQ x did this way better game is irrelevant QQ ect ect.
seriously these bitches need midol. they're obviously upset about royalties and not getting a free gold account.
oh love the clip at geo wars cause it didn't upload his stats when his connection was lost. what a petty mofo. and damn i haven't even read the whole thing yet. :lol
seriously these bitches need midol. they're obviously upset about royalties and not getting a free gold account.
oh love the clip at geo wars cause it didn't upload his stats when his connection was lost. what a petty mofo. and damn i haven't even read the whole thing yet. :lol
PrivateRyan
Member
This is pretty sad.
I recommended N+ to everyone I know, wished Metanet all the success in the world, sympathised with them when they explained why the level sharing was a Friends List only thing... and now this? Trashing other XBLA games like that seems so petty, to go to all that effort just to do something so bitchy and bitter is completely pointless.
If DLC for N+ comes out, I don't think I'll be buying it now, will save the points for Peggle instead (that's right Metanet, FUCKING PEGGLE)
I recommended N+ to everyone I know, wished Metanet all the success in the world, sympathised with them when they explained why the level sharing was a Friends List only thing... and now this? Trashing other XBLA games like that seems so petty, to go to all that effort just to do something so bitchy and bitter is completely pointless.
If DLC for N+ comes out, I don't think I'll be buying it now, will save the points for Peggle instead (that's right Metanet, FUCKING PEGGLE)
McBradders
NeoGAF: my new HOME
:lol
Feeding Frenzy here I come!
Feeding Frenzy here I come!
Psychotext
Member
Don't forget to try and get a theme too.
Beer Monkey
Member
idiots said:
So basically reskinned retro games are trash except for the ones that you like. :lol
Segata Sanshiro
Member
Unbelievable.
I do believe they are going to choke and die on their own foot.
I do believe they are going to choke and die on their own foot.
I love how they just keep fumbling, and won't just bow out gracefully. They keep trying to save face by posting something neutral, fair or even positive, but they always end up in Bittersville by the end of the article and what was supposed to be positive turns into a whiny rant. Just stop talking, guys!Segata Sanshiro said:
This video is Metanet. Over and over and over and over.
Psychotext
Member
One thing hasn't been answered on this yet... will the royalty thing affect their profit from N+ or just their profits on future XBLA stuff? I really can't see it being the former, but they're so angry that I can't help feeling it is.
Psychotext said:
Will they have future projects on XBLA? I am sure Microsoft is not thrilled with them airing so much dirty laundry publicly. On the one hand I'm sure that the vast majority of XBLA users have no idea what the N+ developers have said, but on the other I'm not sure that Microsoft would find much benefit dealing with a bunch of unprofessional ingrates. To be honest I'm not sure any company in their right mind would deal with them. They are about as unprofessional as I've ever seen any company be in any industry. The fact that there are essentially 314 posts, most of which talk about how rude and unprofessional they are, is a very telling sign. If I were MS I would probably think that the aggravation was not worth it and wish them luck with future partners, who are likely to be $hit on and ripped apart as well.
Psychotext said:
I'm pretty sure it's not for N+ but for their future titles. First off if the contract was signed, then MS wouldn't be able to change it. Secondly when he was bitching about it, he seemed to be referring to having to change their business model going forward.
Did they say that? Man, I like these guys more and more every day.Brashnir said:
Each one of those are critically praised through the roof but are disappointingly only maybe a single standard deviation above average (as compared to other major releases). Certainly not crap, but there's a nice middle-ground there somewhere.
That said, the post by Polari disturbs me. Defending a generalization like that with a series of systematic dismissal like that is a bad idea. It sets you up to defend individual data points in a general trend. Unless it's an outlying point, it's pointless trouble.
Psychotext
Member
Yeah, that was my impression of it. Still, they probably made more on N+ than they expected to make on their first two titles anyway. :lolxblarcade said:
About on par with Stardust, and a few notches down from the other three there.xblarcade said:
(Which is pretty damn good)
It's hard to compare big-budget games to smaller games because often the quality of the core gameplay can be the same but the difference is that the big-budget game delivers more variety and a number of things (such as cinematic presentation) that the small game can't.
I read this thread when it first showed up and figured that it wasn't worth it to even bother posting in it because I mean, these N+ devs came off as nothing more than arrogant dicks - there was nothing for me to say when I read that these people said that "every. single. game on XBLA was shit" aside from their own game - it doesn't get anymore prickish than that...
I can understand their "rage" in light of the restrictions and royalties etc. - if they had left it at that, there wouldn't be any hate towards these guys, but no, these devs that I've never even heard of till the day N+ showed up and I played the demo at taking a dump on the entire XBLA library, where no one can disagree that XBLA has its share of excellent games...
Clicked on the thread again to find out why the hell people are still bumping this thread, and I see their "reviews" of all the games (why did they even bother, honestly) which in a nutshell is a whole lot of "this game is great BUT we don't have Gold so it sucks ass" with a dash of "this game is already out elsewhere" (nevermind the fact that it's entirely possible that people never even heard of the originals, much less played them, or the substantial improvements of online multiplayer/co-op, leaderboards, HD resolutions, Achievements, content, etc.) and that their office internet sucks, so the game sucks too...
Jackasses.
Hey guys, I heard N was on PC first - why should anybody buy N+ then? Why would you guys even develop it going by your golden morals? Oh, because its your game - the only diamond in the sea of crap called XBLA, right?
Now you realise this? How the hell can every single game in a platform's catalog be perfect? Forget that, looking at their "reviews", these people are hating on the games for the most nonsensical reasons period...
Way to make a little cash and then take a dump on any and everything to do with what got you that success to begin with...
I can understand their "rage" in light of the restrictions and royalties etc. - if they had left it at that, there wouldn't be any hate towards these guys, but no, these devs that I've never even heard of till the day N+ showed up and I played the demo at taking a dump on the entire XBLA library, where no one can disagree that XBLA has its share of excellent games...
Clicked on the thread again to find out why the hell people are still bumping this thread, and I see their "reviews" of all the games (why did they even bother, honestly) which in a nutshell is a whole lot of "this game is great BUT we don't have Gold so it sucks ass" with a dash of "this game is already out elsewhere" (nevermind the fact that it's entirely possible that people never even heard of the originals, much less played them, or the substantial improvements of online multiplayer/co-op, leaderboards, HD resolutions, Achievements, content, etc.) and that their office internet sucks, so the game sucks too...
Jackasses.
Hey guys, I heard N was on PC first - why should anybody buy N+ then? Why would you guys even develop it going by your golden morals? Oh, because its your game - the only diamond in the sea of crap called XBLA, right?
Draft said:
Now you realise this? How the hell can every single game in a platform's catalog be perfect? Forget that, looking at their "reviews", these people are hating on the games for the most nonsensical reasons period...
Way to make a little cash and then take a dump on any and everything to do with what got you that success to begin with...
Yes they are. It's called trolling. People have gotten so upset over a little exaggerated comment over a service, and completely ignored their complaints. I don't blame them for pissing so many people off If it's this damn easy.sneaky77 said:
And last I checked their game developers. Not ambassadors.
Pretty much. That list was pathetic. Really sad to see developers stooping like this.Sean said:
80% of their reviews go like this:
- I hear multiplayer is awesome but I've only got a silver account!
- Does the world need another *insert genre here*?
- 'We fucking hate PopCap games kick them off the service, rawr!!'
(And Heavy Weapon rawks.)
The thing is that opinions aren't this kind of holy sanctuary that nobody can touch. Opinions can be wrong, and opinions can be bullshit. We're just calling them out on throwing shit in every direction without even seeing what they're throwing at.Gowans007 said:
I mean, shit, they bitched at XBLA for not having Wipeout! How are we supposed to respect that?
That's their own damn fault, though. They should've shut up with their ignorant "opinions" if they wanted to deliver a message. And the thing isn't just "a little exaggerated comment." The original interview was littered with bullshit statements, then they followed it up with even more bull, and then even more.avatar299 said:
And if you don't understand why a minor company trolling the corporate sphere is utterly retarded, that's your problem.
Last I checked, capitalism requires everybody involved to have a few ambassadors on staff. Ever hear of this little thing called "PR"?avatar299 said:
avatar299 said:
I don't think that pissing people off in a forum really matters to them... is the fact that they are showing their ass to other developers and publishers that should probably matter to them unless their goal is to stop making money, because before xbla N was available for free wasn't it?
I think people are concentrating on the details while not looking at the overall gist of what they're saying: it wouldn't matter if there were all these crappy games on there if it were easier for users to see at a glance what people thought was great, and if there were many more games than there currently are.
I've said it before, XBLA needs an easily-accessible portal (ideally with a matching web portal accessible from any browser) with social functionality or at least some charts. Microsoft also need to start greenlighting masses of content instead of turning down content that is similar to what's on the service already.
That's the message, not "why isn't there any Wipeout on XBLA". Which by the way just means "Why isn't there any high speed racing game on XBLA".
I've said it before, XBLA needs an easily-accessible portal (ideally with a matching web portal accessible from any browser) with social functionality or at least some charts. Microsoft also need to start greenlighting masses of content instead of turning down content that is similar to what's on the service already.
That's the message, not "why isn't there any Wipeout on XBLA". Which by the way just means "Why isn't there any high speed racing game on XBLA".
While I do agree with what you're saying, that isn't the message at all. If you read all they've said so far, the message is clearly that they're pissed off that their indie favorites and buddies aren't on there. All that bitching about PopCap has absolutely nothing to do with the ease of use of the system. How "every shooter but Ikaruga sucks" has nothing to do with proper marketing. There is no higher purpose or message than plain old bitching here.haowan said:
I assumed somebody would say that, but no, that's not it. Throughout the entire "review list," he constantly calls out specific titles by name. Not as examples of a genre, but specific games. He does it several dozen times throughout the post. I am to assume that he broke that consistency completely at random, with no indication, with Wipeout? No, not really.haowan said:
That's what I'm saying though - he's got carried away trying to prove that his original assertion that XBLA sucks is correct, when really it doesn't matter at all what he's said about those games. The point is, there's a lot of crap content on there that, even if you don't think it's crap, is preventing further content that might be better from getting on to the service.
Psychotext
Member
But does it matter if I think it's crap or not? If it's selling then who am I to judge? I specifically like XBLA because there's such a massive range of games on there that you pretty much hate gaming if you can't find something worth playing.haowan said:
As for stopping other games getting on the service... I can't believe that, simply because there have been a number of weeks where we've got no new releases.
Ah, yes, that I will agree has been one of the points, and it's correct. Mad Tracks blocking other racing games is wrong. The "only on wednesdays!" schedule is broken. Certification sucks and takes too long.haowan said:
The way Metanet has gone about saying this, however, has been wrong in every single way possible. Plus, it's not like these are shocking revelations that we need to ignore the bullshit to pay attention to. There's just not enough gold to find in the pile of shit Metanet has left here, and all we're left with are shitty hands.
Psychotext said:
If it's selling then that's fine - like I said, what Metanet think about the games has nothing to do with their overall point, which is that Microsoft are saying that if a genre is 'saturated', they can't greenlight the game for an XBLA window. That's something that a ton of devs have said. Microsoft are definitely doing it.
aku:jiki said:
Yes, I agree that they've said it badly. They've taken down a lot of the offending stuff I think?
I agree with your sentiment, but being fair he was more comparing the presentation and visual approach of the games rather than the scenario concepts. Fire Emblem (or Advance Wars really) may have a more generic setting than BoB, but doesn't mean they necessairily look more generic.aku:jiki said:
This is one point I'd agree with them on actually, Intelligent Systems probably has the freshest visual design and aesthetic really for these sorts of turn based gridded strategy titles. BoB is sort of...ugly in comparison, it reminds a bit visually of mid 90s early 32bit stuff actually (though obviously more technically competent)... sort of like a 3DO game in HD or something, if that makes sense.
Mr Killemgood
Member
The issue with the statement......And subsequent retraction....... (if you want something close to a legitimate, analyized look at what MN said, and their quick re-statement).....
Xbox Live Arcade sales, at a whole, are very good, and for many instances, lucrative. However, Median Gross Revenues for the platform have not increased since the inception. First Month revenues continue to hover around $350,000 per title, for the first month. This is despite the fact there are over 11,000,000 XBL members, that can purchase the titles.
Compare this to the hard copy, retailer sales, and you see that retail sales are always going up for average Gross Revenue for games for a semi-decent clip: RSV2 will make more than #1, 2007 titles did better than 06 titles, on average, ect.
So then you have to look at why this is the case: It's the retro POS titles that Namco, Midway, and other developers have plunged onto the market, mainly in the 2nd and 3rd quarters last year. Many of these $5 titles sold poorly. However, these titles, no matter how bad they are, compete with top-tier titles in terms of "shelf space" (as SOTN has the same placing as Missle Defense), and can cause consumer confusion with navigating the UI for XBLA.
This is where MetaNet, and others seem to have an issue with the system - major, top-tier titles do very well, but can get "clogged' in terms of sales, because they are competing with the said, crap games.
However, since that comment, they've realized their game is the 2nd best selling game of the year, just behind Rez HD (by about 20,000 units, despite coming out 2-3 weeks later), and is trending to be a mega-blockbuster on the service.
MetaNet knows that if they lambaste XBLA and MS, they will change little, and put their next mega-seller, Braid, into a very bad spot. What if MS decides to "require" a little extra certification for a game that's destined to make MN millions of dollars over the long term?
MetaNet, like other developers, is just very worried to see some good titles like Sensible World of Soccer, Undertow, and Commanders: Attack of the Genos tank compared to cheaper, crappier titles, and wonder the reason, as it seems to be that the UI allows for too much clogging of space.
Xbox Live Arcade sales, at a whole, are very good, and for many instances, lucrative. However, Median Gross Revenues for the platform have not increased since the inception. First Month revenues continue to hover around $350,000 per title, for the first month. This is despite the fact there are over 11,000,000 XBL members, that can purchase the titles.
Compare this to the hard copy, retailer sales, and you see that retail sales are always going up for average Gross Revenue for games for a semi-decent clip: RSV2 will make more than #1, 2007 titles did better than 06 titles, on average, ect.
So then you have to look at why this is the case: It's the retro POS titles that Namco, Midway, and other developers have plunged onto the market, mainly in the 2nd and 3rd quarters last year. Many of these $5 titles sold poorly. However, these titles, no matter how bad they are, compete with top-tier titles in terms of "shelf space" (as SOTN has the same placing as Missle Defense), and can cause consumer confusion with navigating the UI for XBLA.
This is where MetaNet, and others seem to have an issue with the system - major, top-tier titles do very well, but can get "clogged' in terms of sales, because they are competing with the said, crap games.
However, since that comment, they've realized their game is the 2nd best selling game of the year, just behind Rez HD (by about 20,000 units, despite coming out 2-3 weeks later), and is trending to be a mega-blockbuster on the service.
MetaNet knows that if they lambaste XBLA and MS, they will change little, and put their next mega-seller, Braid, into a very bad spot. What if MS decides to "require" a little extra certification for a game that's destined to make MN millions of dollars over the long term?
MetaNet, like other developers, is just very worried to see some good titles like Sensible World of Soccer, Undertow, and Commanders: Attack of the Genos tank compared to cheaper, crappier titles, and wonder the reason, as it seems to be that the UI allows for too much clogging of space.
Cromulent_Word
Member
just a note - metanet has nothing to do with Braid
edit: i am too slow
edit: i am too slow
Yeah they said it in a bad way, but everyone understood what they were saying. You just purposely ignored it and focused on something easy to attack.aku:jiki said:
People like you are the reason why others have to rush to PR to say anything.
:lol :lol Talk about needing PR. Nice to know developers under XBLA should follow the company lineaku:jiki said:
Last I checked, capitalism doesn't need PR. PR exists becuase everyone is either an idiot, a pussy, or likes being a martyr.aku:jiki said:
"Oh no, I must defend Undertow's honor." Jesus Christ
Mr Killemgood
Member
Hmm. I thought MN was publishing Braid for Mr. Blow?
To be fair, the majority of shooters released on XBL do suck. Years later, we have a million uninspired cash ins on the success of Geometry Wars (which, while fun, is derivative enough already).aku:jiki said:
Did we even have a good scrolling shooter before Omega Five? That took years! We're getting a bit of an influx with Res and Triggerhearts Excellica and I'm really, really, really looking forward to Ikaruga, but the library for that sort of thing is TINY!!
Until very recently, XBL has really lacked good shooters and regardless of whether the specifics of their reviews and their lists and their justifications... The general message was right.
Yeah, their reviews are not a good idea. At all.
If you say 'there are 5 games worth buying' and there's some good variety in the service, nearly everyone will have maybe 3-8 games that are worth buying to them. They won't necessarily be the same games for everyone, either. People can agree with you even if they don't agree with your specific tastes and circumstances.
Dragging yourself into the specifics is a good way to get destroyed by the legions of people who agree with you generally, but disagree with you specifically. A bad move.
ickingfudiot
Member
Mr Killemgood said:
This guy knows what he's talking about.
The N+ guys got carried away bashing XBLA titles, but a lot of their original post was pretty spot on. If you've dealt at all with XBLA from the developer standpoint (especially trying to publish independently), it's a bit of a nightmare. We were looking at a 6 month delay minimum from the time we'd certify to our game's release if we published on XBLA because the pipeline is so clogged with retro ports and the like. There's a lot of gems on the service, I'd never agree that "all the games are shit" but there's also a lot of crap on there and no real way to filter out the good from the bad since everything is just lumped together.
The important thing with XBLA is that the current setup just doesn't justify itself financially for a lot of teams, and I think what the N+ guys rightfully question (if a bit un-tactfully) is whether or not the abundance of low-quality titles on the service hurts sales of the truly good ones that have been mentioned time and again in this very thread. Look at Mr. Killemgood's numbers - there's 11 million XBLA accounts but a blockbuster selling title like Geometry Wars has sold in the range of ~600,000 units (depending on who you listen to). Most titles unless they're retro ports or UNO seem to sell in the 100,000-300,000 range. The gross profits seem okay but once you take out Microsoft's cut, the publisher's cut, and any other factors there's really not a whole lot there for the developer. Contrast that to how much you pull down going full retail (where you've got a much bigger audience for whatever reason) and you can do "okay" on sales and make more in the end. Something to think about when you wonder why a game isn't an XBLA or PSN title - I know a lot of developers that would love to churn out high quality, small titles on those services but it just doesn't make sense financially, at least not yet, and the royalties increase on XBLA certainly didn't help things.
Cromulent_Word
Member
well said (both above and mr.killemgood)