-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Underperforming XBLA titles to be removed
- Thread starter jvm
- Start date
jordan0386
Member
How is this any different from disc based games not being printed anymore?
jordan0386 said:
For one, there are variable costs for each disc "printed", as well as an opportunity cost of the fact that you could have been "printing" other discs.
Besides that, there is the concernt hat those who previously purchased the game, but deleted their data, would no longer be able to redownload it.
Mostly, it is concern over the fact that MSoft is doing something which hurts a small group of customers, and does no customers any benefit at all, without any apparent significant benefit to themselves.
AlphaTwo00
Member
From not finding the game. Yes. That's no different.jordan0386 said:
Most of us are in the second boat: We bought a game. It gets deleted *something happens, like HDD crash, RRoD, or just ran out of space. Then it's no longer available.
The equivalent of that in a disk based game is: You bought a game for your PS2. The system broke, so Sony sends you a new system. However, that PS2 game you bought only works on the old system.
jordan0386
Member
Archaix said:
I dont get why everything about Xbox LIVE isnt thumbnail based like 'Originals'.
The Faceless Master
Member
~7GB for the entire XBLA library...Evander said:
I really doubt it. I think they'll at the very least run with it and see how it turns out, and when there's no real outcry when the system is in place, keep on with it. I'm also sure there will be a system in place to re-download games you bought even after they fall off the XBLA listing.Shard said:
MrTroubleMaker
Member
:O wow, I didn't know it was removedMrbob said:
BobJustBob
Member
AlphaTwo00 said:
That sounds like the 60GB PS3 situation.
Some people are not reading it correctly. For a title to be removed it has to meet THREE criteria.
1) Scored under 65% at Metacritic
2) Have less than 6% conversion rate. According to Microsoft from last year, the average conversion rate across all XBLA titles is 18% (Low of 4%, High of 51%). So less than 6% is the very bottom of the barrel.
3) Be on the Marketplace for over six months.
The list of 40 or so games posted only meet the first criteria (being <65% @ metacritic):
- Pac-Man, Frogger, Double Dragon, etc won't be removed: although they've scored under 65%, most of the retro titles are amongst the top sellers on the service.
- Games like Tetris Splash and Brain Challenge have sold great too.
- Others like Aegis Wing, TotemBall, Yaris will likely stay around as they're free games which serve a purpose (XBL vision camera tech demo for example), plus since those games are free, I don't even think they have trial versions and the conversion rate would be 100%.
This new policy seems to be in place solely to weed out the bottom of the barrel SHIT games such as Novadrome, Screwjumper, Rocketmen, etc. Those were universally panned in the reviews AND were complete flops. They don't do much for the service aside from adding clutter and making it harder for the great games to get attention.
With that said, I still don't think removing titles is the answer. There are many other things that can be done such as introducing user reviews/ratings (where only purchasers would be able to rate), allow people to sort by popularity (which is available in the Video section of the marketplace already), have a recommendation system in place (something like "if you like geometry wars, try Mutant Storm"). They could also do an "editors picks" section and stuff like that. Like others have already said they could also stick the shitty games in a seperate category and just delist them from the "All Games" section.
1) Scored under 65% at Metacritic
2) Have less than 6% conversion rate. According to Microsoft from last year, the average conversion rate across all XBLA titles is 18% (Low of 4%, High of 51%). So less than 6% is the very bottom of the barrel.
3) Be on the Marketplace for over six months.
The list of 40 or so games posted only meet the first criteria (being <65% @ metacritic):
- Pac-Man, Frogger, Double Dragon, etc won't be removed: although they've scored under 65%, most of the retro titles are amongst the top sellers on the service.
- Games like Tetris Splash and Brain Challenge have sold great too.
- Others like Aegis Wing, TotemBall, Yaris will likely stay around as they're free games which serve a purpose (XBL vision camera tech demo for example), plus since those games are free, I don't even think they have trial versions and the conversion rate would be 100%.
This new policy seems to be in place solely to weed out the bottom of the barrel SHIT games such as Novadrome, Screwjumper, Rocketmen, etc. Those were universally panned in the reviews AND were complete flops. They don't do much for the service aside from adding clutter and making it harder for the great games to get attention.
With that said, I still don't think removing titles is the answer. There are many other things that can be done such as introducing user reviews/ratings (where only purchasers would be able to rate), allow people to sort by popularity (which is available in the Video section of the marketplace already), have a recommendation system in place (something like "if you like geometry wars, try Mutant Storm"). They could also do an "editors picks" section and stuff like that. Like others have already said they could also stick the shitty games in a seperate category and just delist them from the "All Games" section.
The Faceless Master
Member
no, the point is the titles shouldn't be removed, barring legalities like licensing restrictions.Sean said:
Actually, this will be good news for most publishers/developers.Shard said:
The main complaint among devs/publishers about XBLA is that games tend to get lost in the clutter once they drop off the New Arrivals list. There's no real way for the better games to stand out or differentiate themselves from the crappy stuff.
No doubt there are other ways to address the issue. An obvious one would be to add some kind of a rating system. But I suspect that would be far more objectionable to publishers.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
If MS is really serious about XBLA as a platform they are already working on this.Sean said:
According to the interview there's a whopping 130 XBLA games to sift through now. This policy would end up delisting a relative few games, which will quickly be replaced by a new batch of titles. So if 130 is already too "cluttered" and causing devs/pubs to fear for their games gaining any traction on XBLA, this move isn't going to help and it will blacklist some games for no good reason. I don't see any dev/pub being particularly happy with THIS as the solution to the issue of getting their games attention on XBLA, because it's not really a solution at all.Rhindle said:
ShockingAlberto
Member
I honestly can't imagine anyone supporting this.
The fact that people are speaks to a level of sycophancy I thought even fanboys were above.
The fact that people are speaks to a level of sycophancy I thought even fanboys were above.
It's been said before, but it bears repeating. Pulling these titles to the side, through user ratings, a nicely-monikered "bargain-bin", or what have you is far superior to pulling them from the service entirely. Unless there's a specific licensing agreement that's expired, there is no excuse - none - for not allowing these titles to take up a few molecules of space in a backroom server somewhere.
An utterly asinine decision. Publicizing it? Even worse.
An utterly asinine decision. Publicizing it? Even worse.
jordan0386
Member
Im sure 'E' will give his two cents on the next podcast.
The worst thing is that Space Giraffe is right on the edge:
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/spacegiraffe?q=space giraffe
68% and it sold like shit.
I really don't get what Microsoft are playing at. They've made it almost impossible for genuine indies to get on the service, they are refusing classic Cave shooters because there are too many similar games on the service and now they are deleting games off of a service which has no inventory.
With every passing month, XBLA moves further and further from the awesome that it should be.
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/spacegiraffe?q=space giraffe
68% and it sold like shit.
I really don't get what Microsoft are playing at. They've made it almost impossible for genuine indies to get on the service, they are refusing classic Cave shooters because there are too many similar games on the service and now they are deleting games off of a service which has no inventory.
With every passing month, XBLA moves further and further from the awesome that it should be.
jordan0386 said:
Speaking of which, here is the Major Nelson posting on this situation.
http://majornelson.com/archive/2008/05/22/spring-update-update.aspx
Yea, I get the feeling that Marc is going to get a lot of bile over this notion.
It's certainly not a catastrophic problem now, but it will steadily get worse as the we move to 300 or 500 titles on the system. If you're a developer with a GOOD game, there is no way you are not going to benefit from this move.kaching said:
IF you're going to argue that this is asinine, I suppose your position has to be that platform holders should also get rid of concept approval and certification, and just let publishers throw all the content they want into the ring, and leave it to customers to sort through it all. The assumption since the Atari days (at least until Nintendo's current policy came along) has been that consumers CAN'T sort through an unlimited amount of clutter, and that a platform holder has to play a proactive role in thinning out the herd (to a degree).
What would MS have to gain from people choosing ultra cheap games for their diversion instead of new 800+ point titles? I mean, aside from a loss in revenue. I think most consumers will be pleased by this decision. Clearing away crap titles I don't want? Why should I care? A game still is locked for at least six months no matter how poorly it does anyway. I think it would be nice though if they game a 'last chance' where it was advertised like two weeks before it's pulled to see if can sneak over the 6%.bishoptl said:
cann3dheat
Member
No spring update? The rumor of group chat got me all excited...
The problem is the volume in a strictly flat-list interface. It doesn't matter if every game on the list is of a certain standard, the volume makes finding a title unwieldy. Removing titles is meaningless unless you're so aggressive about it that you maintain the listing below a certain manageable number, which apparently isn't even as high as 130 since devs/pubs are already complaining about it.Rhindle said:
Um...yeah?Rhindle said:
That's why you deal with concept approval and certification, y'know, before you release them for your platform. They've already jumped through the requisite hoops. That's how it works.
So to act like this is somehow a good thing, a noble act, that Microsoft is reducing the online clutter and detritus to save us - yes, you, my friend! and I! and him! and her! - from these niggling little underperforming games that somehow snuck onto their Live service and are now taking up valuable internets andbythewaycostwaylessthan800points...well that's a load of horseshit. Plainly speaking. If you're so bloody concerned about quality control, deal with it before approving it for release.
There are numerous games on Metacritic, et al that may not be highly rated, but still have value. You won't be able to access these games down the road - and if you think this isn't going to adversely affect those quirky little titles that this delivery service is absolutely perfect for, think again. Safe AAA $20 million titles, I can deal with. The budgets provided dictate this. Why should the smaller titles go down the same route?
Digital download ain't brick and mortar. The same rules
bishoptl said:
I agree completely. They should implement ways to separate the wheat form the chaff so to speak, without completely removing games. They should use this same formula that they're going to use to de-list games to instead organize games into tiers.
New Releases - Obvious Enough, already in use
Top Sellers - Games with the highest conversion rates
Top Rated - Games with the highest metacritic ratings
Most played - Games with the highest number of average online players from the last month
etc. And instead of completely removing the poor performers, stick them in the Bargain Bin, where they sell for 200 points or so. Then they could actually use the incentive to generate some revenue rather than pissing customers off.
The Faceless Master said:
I completely agree with that. I even listed in my last paragraph alternative methods to removing games (such as a rating system).
I was just pointing out that some people were misreading the statement. A poster made a list of all XBLA games under 65 on metacritic but that's only one of three criteria for a title being delisted.
thrasher said:
They already have this, it's called XBLA Hits.
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/arcadehits/default.htm
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I think they are taking the criticism leveled at XBLA ("Full of shit") very seriously, but they are going about it the wrong way. For example, the quality of YouTube wavers all over the place, but there are systems in place that allow quality content to rise to the top. They need to work on diversity as well as quality, and they seriously need to incorporate user feedback and social networking. But I guess I'm just repeating myself at this point.Burai said:
This is an example of MS's philosophy and culture clashing with another one. Their disconnect with reality was obvious when they released Live for Windows.