More Clueless XBLA Decisions

19 Responses to “More Clueless XBLA Decisions”

1. the2bears on May 23rd, 2008 3:22 am

   This is an incredibly “marketing” driven decision, and makes no sense at all to me. There’s virtually no cost to having a game available for download (assuming it’s already there and gone through their QA process). So why not make games easier to find?

   As long as someone wants to buy it, or might want to buy it in the future, why limit our choice? You end up creating nothing more than a virtual “big box” store, like the bookstores over here where all you can buy are the latest Harry Potter novels, or the latest Grisham thingy. Downloadable content is supposed to offer something for everyone, even if the proverbial marketing man thinks it too niche or eccentric.

   Bill

2. oddbob on May 23rd, 2008 4:22 am

   Yup, that’s what I find so shocking about it, Bill. It makes no sense at all as a solution to the problems XBLA has lumbered itself with.

   The problems are clear that there’s little quality control *where it counts* and the dashboard is next to useless for browsing anything that isn’t in the “featured” section or new, and getting increasingly more cumbersome with every set of releases.

   I’d have thought the correct answer would be simple. Sort the fucking dashboard out!

   But if MS are desperate to have a cull based on metacritic ratings and conversion rates then 65% metacritic and/or 6% conversion is way, way too fucking high a figure to toy with.

   The conversion rate counter is even more disturbing when you figure how weighted against the developer that actually is.

   Every Wednesday, I get the latest releases automatically downloaded to my 360 and I’ll try them all. There’s a 50/50 chance of me having any points handy and lying around but it’s something new and different to toy with. Heck, I even tried Bliss Island and that was never going to happen in a million years

   So for every demo I try and don’t purchase (say 1-3 a week, release schedule depending) that’s 1 conversion the developer loses simply because I have automatic downloads turned on and try everything.

   This makes XBLA *itself* actively work against the developers in keeping their heads above water. If I didn’t download and didn’t try the game, the game would have more chance of staying afloat.

   What sort of fuckwit business model is this to run with?

   * Punishing the customer with less choice

   * Using the notoriously PR led games press to decide whether a game survives.

   * Abusing a mechanism that’s in place to make delivery to the end user of a developers title as smooth as possible to effect the end outcome of whether a title lives or dies on XBLA. Not deliberate, but a side effect certainly.

   * Expecting developers to stump up a not exactly small amount of money for game development with a vastly increased amount of risk - knowing all the time that if they don’t perform well enough then once delisted, there’s NO chance of recovery.

   Given it’s taken MS 3 years to sort out a DRM issue with XBLA and it’s recent record with Playforsure music, I’m not exactly trusting when it comes to feeling that any game I download won’t be delisted and recoverable well within the consoles life span.

   I expect this at the end of a consoles life span, not when it’s really hit its stride.

3. ravuya on May 23rd, 2008 4:26 am

   The whole thing strikes me as some sort of major sea-change in XBLA. I remember the initial rush where every major publisher announced some derivative crap to plug a release schedule, since they were “easy” to make and had a relatively high rate of return.

   I’d much rather have a large set of small, cheap eccentric games mixed in with utterly terrible ports rather than a small set of great ‘epic’ games. Seems wrong to be dropping $25 on a Live Arcade game. I assume that the “quirky” games will be moving to the XNA creators’ club support, but I have no idea how well that will work out for people like Jeff and Giles who have dropped a ton of cash on cert.

   This is a problem that has a technical solution; the solution proposed by Whitten is undoubtedly going to be messier than just sitting down and fixing the UI. The only thing I can think of is that they’re deliberately “corporatizing” XBLA to improve the positioning of the XNA CC games.

4. oddbob on May 23rd, 2008 5:06 am

   Rav, I’d considered your last point (inbetween almost inhuman levels of fuming) whilst typing out my post, but if you weigh up where the shovelware is generally coming from it makes even less sense.

   The majority of the utter toss on XBLA is from the majors and the less said about the diversion into advergaming that was Yaris the better.

   It is going to hit the risk takers harder though, and that’s the sad thing. A small studio or indie can’t afford to absorb the loss in the same way that a major can and as has been shown (and in your own post) they shovelled shite out because it was quick and easy and they could *afford* to. I don’t see that changing for the forseeable future either.

   I can’t see how lessening the impact of XBLA, what should be an absolute flagship service, in order to make way for XNA CC members games makes either service appear in a better light. Both can quite happily co-exist on the same service under different tabs I’d have thought.

   Frustrating stuff, because I can almost see the glint of foolish logic behind these decisions but they’re so far removed from sense that it chafes.

5. John H on May 23rd, 2008 8:40 am

   Seems to me this ought to be a branding issue more than anything else. You don’t want your ‘XBLA’ brand tainted with shovelware? Then make up another brand, put it in a new menu (aka fix the dashboard), and put the shovelware there. Just as ‘Game Demos’ is a different ‘brand’ to ‘Arcade’ right now.

   Space Giraffe’s a funny example, because as much as I love it, and you love it, most people don’t get it, and it hasn’t sold well. A traditional salesman might see it as wasting ’shelf space’ because they’ve not got used to the fact that shelf space is now almost free. Yet it is a feather in XBLA’s hat: a demonstration that XBLA can support original ideas for niche gamers. Of course it would be a better demonstration if Llamasoft had got a decent return for their work on it

   These guys need to read up on the Long Tail.

6. Bruceongames on May 23rd, 2008 9:24 am

   This does look like a misguided effort to sweep out what they probably see as the “rubbish”.
   However game quality is entirely subjective so even Socket: Time Dominator and International Rugby Challenge have some merit.
   It costs effectively nothing to host all XBLA content for all eternity, so they should do it. The real problem here is the terrible Live dashboard. If Amazon can get it right with an immense catalogue of products then why can’t Microsoft with a comparatively miniscule catalogue?

7. Ste Pickford on May 23rd, 2008 9:53 am

   Great rant there oddbob. Totally agree with you.

   This seems like a completely wrong-headed solution to the real problem of the very poor user interface for XBLA.

   One of the big attractions of indie developing / self publishing over the internet (and I’m counting XBLA as part of the internet) is that although prices are lower, and sales are lower, at least your game remains on sale for more than the month or so that most games get at retail.

   Hype free games (which most indie games are) at least get the chance to work on word of mouth, or a slow trickle of sales over many years, particularly if they satisfy a niche. MS have just nixed this idea completely for XBLA.

8. Aubrey on May 23rd, 2008 10:22 am

   Every time XBLA manages to lower itself in my esteem (and I’m surprised at how regularly it does this), a quote appears in my head: “XBLA is going to be like the Sundance Film Festival of Games” - Peter Moore.

   Good one Pete. I actually believed you for a while.

   Here is a pun which is so dreadfully bad that I had to include it, even after thinking better of it:

   Rather than Sundance, it’s looking more like “Cannes” now (In that your game can get canned. Even after it’s finished and released).

9. Bruceongames on May 23rd, 2008 12:14 pm

   It is amazing that Microsoft are prepared to destroy their own heritage in this way. It is the same as burning books.

10. oddbob on May 23rd, 2008 1:23 pm

    Blimey Bruce, I’d completely forgotten Socket: Time Dominator existed. Probably with good reason too. I think the last time I saw it mentioned was on Gamesetwatch a few years back filed under “games you’d never heard of” or somesuch.

    I know you’re a massive advocate of online authentication/digital distribution. I take it I’m safe to assume that this isn’t something you’d have expected a company to pull with a framework (insert usual dash caveat here) so robust and installed in so many homes?

    John, it’s an odd one considering they recently put the “Arcade classics” section in place. They already have space for, for want of a better phrase, “out of season” games. Of course, I have no idea whether reducing the price on the titles had any drastic impact on the sales of the titles filed there or not but at least a demotion or price reduction is better than a complete wipe out. The option still remains to purchase/redownload/earn some money from.

    The mechanism is clearly already in place. Why not just use that to file stuff off elsewhere if they want it away from the main dash?

    As for SG, I still live in hope that it’ll do an It’s A Wonderful Life and somewhere down the line folks will be able to get it. Although yuss, I think me, Ste and half the internet managed to finger why it didn’t achieve all it deserved to. Hopefully the forthcoming PC version may shift things along a notch or two.

    Ste, I agree - one of the beauties of the shareware game is that not just months but years later you can still shift titles. I’m sure Jeff still gets the odd trickle of GR++ sales, Edgar Vidal still shifts copies of Warblade and that’s pushing on 3 years old now and I can’t see Popcap reaching a dead stop in sales of their older titles anytime soon. Even if things do dry up totally for periods of time, there’s still the chance of a rise in sales or someone casually toddling along having been told of a game. It’s the principle I thought at least until the end of the 360’s lifespan, MS would have the sense to follow.

    Aubrey my man, never waste a pun! It’s a shame to see XBLA falling down in your esteem as I’m still convinced that if there’s one person on this planet who *could* do great things given the correct mystical planetary alignment and appropriate life/time/circumstances, it’s you. Of course, I completely understand *why* it’d drop in your esteem of late. I know that if MS do follow through with this plan verbatim then I’d be incredibly wary of raising the cash, time and effort to develop an XBLA game.

    K2 is sounding very interesting btw

11. Aubrey on May 23rd, 2008 2:23 pm

    Thanks for the undeserved compliment, sir, but, erm, you do know that I’ve sold out my indie heritage and gone to work for a studio, right? Just checking. Tommy continues with the previous game. There’s always the side project stuff, but as far as releasing things on the big platforms as an independent dev, I’m just not convinced it’s worth the heartache (for me, personally) at this point in time (not that I’m in a position to do so right now).

    XBLA just seems like an unloved stepchild at the moment. It has so much potential, but without a decent overhaul of the front end (which is no small task, and costly but a smarter solution than simply culling the chaff), how can it expect to approach its promise and become desirable for customers and developers alike?

    I just get the feeling that this decision probably came down to short term returns: how much will a re-work cost vs. how much more money can we make by reducing selection to just the best games? The latter is always going to win in the short term, because it costs so much less to do. Long term, though, it feels like they’re missing a trick. As everyone’s saying - get the Amazon model as your basis, and you’re golden.

    I’m sure the next console iteration, starting from a fresh slate, the XBLA front end will be a lot better. It’s just quite a wait.

    K2 is really just a back burner project, by the way - please don’t expect too much of it, as the only reason I work on it is due to the joy of tinkering (And the TIGSource compo in the short-term). I’m not aiming for it to blow up big nor nothing.

12. oddbob on May 23rd, 2008 2:51 pm

    Sellout Yuss, I read that you’d found labour duties - nice one.

    You know I’m only jealous because I always wanted to write a rail shooter but wouldn’t have a hope in hell of even knocking up an unfinished prototype that looked a tenth of what K did, right?

    And I never expect anything of anybody except myself, that way I’m always pleasantly surprised… well, mainly pleasantly surprised…ok,ok - occasionally pleasantly surprised. Sometimes…

    There’s quite a few nice things that look to be surfacing from the TIGS compo though. Sadly, I’m fucked for coming up with either time or ideas myself for anything to enter, already bouncing around helping out with 5 or 6 games so time is a bit tight.

    Anyone got a few hours going spare in a day they don’t want?

13. monoRAIL on May 23rd, 2008 4:07 pm

    You have made a fundamental error. You assumed that the Xbox, and Live Arcade were about games. Xbox is a program by which Microsoft gets content which they control and can charge for, delivered into the living room. The primary function of the Xbox is to make money for Microsoft. Games are, at best, a secondary consideration. Viewed from this perspective it makes perfect sense to cull non-profitable games. Microsoft DO have to pay for that bandwidth and they don’t want customers downloading games they are less likely to pay for.

14. Aubrey on May 23rd, 2008 8:02 pm

    Why does everyone think K/K2 is a rail shooter? It’s free roaming!

15. Oddbob on May 23rd, 2008 11:59 pm

    But they’d also want to retain developers in order to keep content they can make money from coming into the service, no? And provide something the customers will continue to spend money on in good faith, no?

    The bandwidth costs for the culled titles would be so negligible as to not cause the remotest dent in their model I’d wager. Certainly it’d cost a whole lot less than trying to cover the clusterfuck when people find their games disappearing, unable to redownload due to delisting.

    I’m sure their new 1st party studio wouldn’t be able to cover the shortfall in new developers willing to jump onto the good ship Microsoft as a result of the “6 months for your game to prove itself” policy either.

16. monoRAIL on May 24th, 2008 8:18 am

    I expect there’s probably a backlog of around 1,000 developers with 90% complete games trying to get onto XBLA, so no, they don’t really need to retain developers.

    And while the literal bandwidth costs are negligible, there is a cost in cluttering the dashboard with non-profitable titles. Microsoft wants the customer to only find titles that they will really want to buy. The ideal situation (from Microsoft’s point of view) would be to have only 5 or 6 titles on XBLA, each one with a 90% conversion rate. This makes marketing and promotion a lot easier, and saves them having to actually design a working dashboard, which also costs money. Once these titles have sold through, they would be removed and replaced with 5 or 6 new gems that everybody wants. That’s the ideal - that’s what they’re aiming for here. 500 indie games each with a 10% conversion rate - that’s a nightmare. How do you market that? How do you display that? Solving those problems would require actual thinking!

    The bean counters are in charge now. Functional design and long term thinking are not their forte. Cutting losses and maximizing profits is what it’s all about.

17. Oddbob on May 24th, 2008 10:34 am

    Wow, 1,000? Fantastic. I’ll look forward to the “one or two games a week if you’re lucky” release schedule picking up vastly over the course of the next 12 months then…

18. failrate on May 24th, 2008 9:33 pm

    “larger and more immersive”? That, combined with circulating product off the “shelves” when they aren’t profitable, makes it sound like XBLA has retail-envy. The irony is that its raison d’etre is as an alternative to the retail channel.

19. monoRAIL on May 26th, 2008 4:01 am

    The slow release rate of games on XLBA is not due to a lack of games, it’s due to a bottleneck in Microsoft’s approval and certification process, and an intentional slowing of releases by Microsoft to give games a window of opportunity to sell.

    Wired have picked up this story: http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/05/microsoft-dont.html

Hello Reader! Perhaps you'd like to comment on this piece?.
As well as allowing you to type out your innermost and deepest thoughts about this piece, we've magiced up (well, installed a plugin) a fantastical ajax malarkey that lets you edit your post up to 15 minutes after you've posted it. Superb eh?