Making an XBLA Game: The Inside Story

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 22 November, 2011

Contracts, exclusivity and outsourced Avatar items.

Canadian developer Brian Provinciano spent two months negotiating his contract with Microsoft to get Retro City Rampage on Xbox Live Arcade. It was, to say the least, a tough process - and one that he could have done without. It delayed the creation of the game, but in the end he thought f*** it, and signed on the bottom line.

Retro City Rampage was first announced as a WiiWare game. Then, all of a sudden, it was delayed on Wii and coming to Xbox first. Money hats, the Nintendo faithful claimed.

"I got a lot of flaming and hate and trolling from when I announced it was delayed on the Wii because it's coming to Xbox first," Provinciano tells Eurogamer. "Everyone thinks I got this big, huge chunk of money from Microsoft. I didn't. I'm poor and I've got nothing. They haven't given me anything."

So why go with the big M rather than the big N? Put simply, Provinciano had had enough.

"I had been pitching the game, doing documents, vetting all sorts of review stuff for months and months and months," he recalls. "The contract negotiation alone was two months for Xbox, trying to negotiate the nickel and dime of it. It was a really rough process. I'd say a good 85 per cent of developers you talk to have had unpleasant experiences. It's like, stop nickel and diming us. If you just let us make our awesome game it'll be better and it'll make more money for all of us anyway. That's my opinion.

"It's one thing to go through the difficult process of going through the gate and getting your game approved, but once it's approved it's a really rough process of negotiating and trying to get a fair deal for yourself. That's a tough part everyone has to waste time on. In any case, I was talking to a number of other big publishers as well, and some smaller ones. And I was talking with Sony. But it got to a point where I was so drained.

"It was the most unpleasant experience of this whole project. It's like, years and years and years have gone into this and the worst part of it all was doing the contract. I was so drained with it, and so tired. Every day I wanted to finish the game and get the game out the door, but I had to deal with emails and contract negotiation. After all of that time I was like, okay fine, I'm just going to sign it! I just want to get it over with! And so I did."

Provinciano's contract stipulates that Retro City Rampage must not appear on other platforms for a limited period of time. But some other platforms, which he refuses to divulge, are not covered by the clause. "If I really get screwed on the launch I can put it out on some other platforms immediately, because they aren't covered in the contract," he says with a glint in his eye.

Provinciano's story will be familiar to most who have made or are making games for Microsoft's hugely successful downloadable platform - and even to some who haven't. Take Amanita Design, the Czech Republic maker of enchanting adventure games Samorost, Botanicula and Machinarium, a game due out on PS3 early next year.

"First we wanted to create an Xbox Live version of Machinarium," Amanita boss Jakub Dvorský says. "Microsoft contacted us some time ago. They were interested and very nice. But after about half a year of negotiations, they told us they were not interested anymore because they decided they don't want to support games which are not Microsoft exclusive. We had already released the game for Mac and Linux, so they said they were not interested anymore."

Dvorský's experience is in part the result of a Microsoft policy exposed by Eurogamer earlier this year. In short, Microsoft reserves the right to not publish games on the Xbox Live if they have appeared on other platforms, such as the PlayStation 3 or Steam, first.

There are other rules. To get your game published on Xbox Live, you either need to sign with a third party publisher, such as EA or Sega, or go through Microsoft Studios directly, in which case you are forced to sign an exclusivity deal. "And they don't give you a penny," Provinciano reveals. "It's just an unfortunate thing."

Microsoft has defended its policies, and Sony has attacked them, but the reason for them is clear: Microsoft wishes to maintain quality control over XBLA, preventing it being overrun by below average games, and it wants to make as much of what's on offer exclusive as it can.

On the face of it, this means Xbox 360 gamers will not get to enjoy games that have launched elsewhere, such as Machinarium, but for developers there is an additional frustration.

Machinarium.

"They are changing their internal rules all of the time," Dvorský continues. "They didn't want to publish it [Machinarium] as a first-party publisher. If you want to make an Xbox version, then we would need to approach some third-party publisher, a big one.

"It doesn't make much sense to me. Why would we need a third-party publisher? The game is ready. We do all the PR and marketing. You just need to put it there on the platform. Why would we need an EA for getting us there? It doesn't make any sense.

"So we decided to approach Sony and they agreed they wanted the game, so we started to port it" - an explanation, then, for why PS3 owners will get to enjoy Machinarium, and Xbox 360 owners will not.

"If your game has come out on another platform before they will never publish it, except if you're dealing with a big publisher," says Phil Fish, creator of upcoming Xbox Live Arcade exclusive Fez. "Big publishers get to bypass these rules and release whatever they want whenever they want, which is kind of bullshit, because, like, why?"

Why indeed. "We're doing it without a publisher," Fish continues. "Meat Boy did it without a publisher. Braid did it without a publisher. It's not an open platform like the App Store, but the fact is, a single developer could make a whole game and put it out there without the need for the middle man, the publisher. It's not like we're printing boxes and shipping them and sending them to stores. You just have to put the game on Microsoft's server. That's it. That's the publishing. It's done. So I don't know why Microsoft has these special rules and privileges for the big publishers."

If convincing Microsoft to publish your game is tough, creating it is even tougher. There are a number of rules and restrictions Xbox Live Arcade games must all adhere to. Achievements are one example. Leaderboards are another. And then there's the odd issue with Avatar items, which are mandatory for Microsoft Studios games.

With these, some developers are charged money by Microsoft so they can pay an outsourcing company to create the assets. If the developer isn't happy with them, then they are done again - for another charge. This cost is taken automatically by Microsoft when the game is eventually released and the money starts rolling in.

"It took over six months of pitching and document writing negotiation and since then it's like months of work to deal with the controller stuff," Provinciano says. "The menus have to have the right items and when they unplug the controller it's gotta do this, and blah blah blah. The leaderboards, the Achievements, the Avatar items were a real pain in the ass.

"They're done by some external company and the external company was not doing a very good job. I wish we could have done it. We tried to and they wouldn't let us, because we're not the "experts". It was just many revisions and time wasted. It's like, hey, that's wrong. You've got to change this and change that. Hey that's wrong again. That's wrong again.

"Everything has taken longer than you would expect. You submit the stuff for localisation and then, it's like, wait a second, this is supposed to be a game of innuendos, and those are really crude blunt translations. Being the one guy, that's why this game has taken so long to finish."

All the concern over Avatar items and other silly necessities pales into comparison with the constant worry that, at any point, Microsoft may simply pull the plug and cancel an in-development game - whether a contract has been signed or not.

"Microsoft constantly changes their portfolio manager," Fish explains. "There's a constant rotation of staff at Microsoft. Sometimes you'll have a new portfolio manager who comes in and he decides, no more racing games. We're done with that. And if they had a racing game in development they would cancel it. They make a random decision like that based on whatever fact.

"I was afraid for years that would happen to us, we would have a new guy come in who would be like, no more pixel art games, no more 2D platformers and we would just get cancelled. That's happened to people I know, that they had a contract with Microsoft, they were greenlit for release, but for whatever reason Microsoft decided they were no longer interested. And they don't even give you a reason at that point. They just say you're no longer coming out on XBLA. That could still happen to us. It's ridiculous."

Provinciano is less worried about Microsoft cancelling his game than he is about it launching at a time that will give Retro City Rampage the best chance of success.

"Microsoft chooses the slots when you get released," he says. "It is a wide window. I could submit it in December and it could be several months after. But it'll probably be released relatively soon after I submit it. Fingers crossed. But it's luck of the draw. It's really tough. There's no guarantee on anything.

"There's no guarantee my game won't be released next to some $3 million, $4 million budget XBLA game. That's really screwed a lot of developers in the past, where they just get released on the wrong week against the wrong game, and get buried in the dashboard. There's a lot we don't have control over."

This, famously, is what happened to Super Meat Boy, the superb hardcore platformer that launched as part of Microsoft's 2010 Fall GameFeast promotion.

Developer Team Meat was vocal in its criticism of Microsoft over the way it was treated. Super Meat Boy was discounted on release (according to one developer we talked to this was because Microsoft prefers high unit sales to revenue because it makes XBLA look better). But, also, the game didn't enjoy dashboard promotion, which had been promised. Microsoft told Team Meat it would be promoted once it achieved a certain number of sales. When it did, the dashboard promotion, again, failed to materialise.

"I'm crossing my fingers they'll do their best to keep me happy," Provinciano says. "I'm sure they don't want another Team Meat situation.

"But what keeps me smiling is just the fact that I'm going to make more money on the other platforms than Xbox combined. So even if I get screwed on the Xbox launch I'll still be okay."

Fish is talking with Microsoft to work out how Fez will be promoted when it goes live next year - though he's being cautious with his hopes. "I have to work on the assumption that they're going to do nothing and I have to do all the promotion myself," he says.

Retro City Rampage, also featuring XBLA star 'Splosion Man.

"With certain publishers, I know some friends that have these clauses in their contract that says, you're not allowed to do any of your PR and marketing. We're the publisher. We're going to do it. And then they do a terrible job or they do nothing at all, and your hands were tied the whole time.

"Lucky for us that wasn't the case in our contract. We enter the game in every festival and every contest systematically. I do a lot of interviews. We do a lot of private demos we send to people. I have to do everything myself. I assume they're not going to do anything. If they do give us a good dashboard placement and do a whole load of promotion, amazing. That's really going to help. But I have to do as much as I can on my own."

When a game finally launches on XBLA the money starts rolling in. How much the developer gets depends on the contract it negotiated with Microsoft or its publisher. While developers and Microsoft refuse to divulge the terms of their contracts, we understand Microsoft, PSN and Steam offer developers a decent chunk of that 1200 or 800 MS Point cost.

The amount of money a developer gets can also be tied to the number of units their game shifts. The more units you sell, the higher the percentage of the sale you get - but there is a cap, an industry-wide standard across Steam, PSN and XBLA. "If I was a recording artist I would make a cent out of every album," Fish says. "We're going to make a bunch of dollars of off every unit sold. It's good."

It's a good thing, too, because game developers who sign with Microsoft do not get cash advances. Xbox 360 developer kits, which are valued at $10,000, and testing and translation costs are all provided up front, but recouped automatically when the game goes on sale.

Microsoft usually decides how much an XBLA game costs, as Fish knows well. "I thought for a while Fez was going to be 1200 points because that was becoming the standard," he says. "But they're trying to bring back the average to 800, because they believe it's the sweet spot and we're going to sell so many more units that way. I'm not convinced. If it was up to me I would charge 1200 points. I just spent five years working on this. I'm not going to give it away for free."

It's important to point out that for every Team Meat situation, for every Jonathan Blow nightmare, game developers have positive experiences with Microsoft. For all the trials and tribulations both Provinciano and Fish have endured making their game to the XBLA standard, they insist Microsoft has treated them well.

"We always get asked how has it been working with Microsoft, and they've been great with us," Fish insists. "Every time I say that people assume I'm being sarcastic. No, they've been great. Every other story I've heard from my friends and colleagues are horror stories. They've made a lot of weird decisions. I don't know if it's just because they really like Fez, but they've been great with us. They've let us make our game however we want it. They've never tried to interfere or change the game. They've been supportive. We've had to delay the game so many times and every time they were cool with it."

"The thing with Microsoft is it's tons of different departments and not necessarily a lot of communication," Provinciano says. "A lot of people don't have control. I look forward to being in a position after this game is sold to have made enough money that I don't have to worry so much about all these things I don't have control over."

But what of the future? Earlier this month Joe Danger: Special Edition was announced for XBLA. This came as a surprise for a number of reasons, but chief among them was that it seemed to contradict Microsoft's own exclusive policy.

According to developer Hello Games this was a one-off, an exception to the rule. But does it suggest Microsoft is willing to follow PSN's lead and relax its rules?

"It makes sense for Microsoft to take one of the more successful PSN games across if they're up for it," one game developer, who wished to remain anonymous, tells Eurogamer. "When there's a title that's done really well on PSN and the developer owns its own IP, then why not? Why not take it? It doesn't make sense for them to take, say, Critter Crunch. There's only a few other titles that would be released that would be independent studios that own their own IP. But say if Sony didn't own Fat Princess or something like that, it makes sense to make an exception for that.

"But it's an exception that hopefully changes their rules. They might think, well okay, this has worked quite well. Maybe we'll take a few others. That's good news for developers because right now if they don't go on XBLA first time then they can never go on XBLA, and that's really horrible. Right now if you release on Steam first, it's really difficult to get onto XBLA. That's quite crappy."

Why Microsoft may be willing to change its approach remains a mystery, but Eurogamer has heard from a number of sources that XBLA game sales have stalled since 2010's hugely successful Summer of Arcade promotion, which saw the likes of Limbo sell hundreds of thousands of copies. 2011 releases From Dust and Bastion enjoyed some success, but XBLA, overall, has hit something of a plateau.

This, combined with the incredible success that is Steam, the more open platform that is PlayStation Network, as well as the wild frontier that is the App Store, means that XBLA in 2012 and beyond could well be a very different place than it was only last year.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

You may also like...

Comments (64) Latest comment 2d ago

Log in or register to post a comment!

  • YobRenoops #1 3d ago

    A piece of Journalism? I am surprised...

  • Retroid #2 3d ago

    Quality control is one thing, but really, digital platform holders need to stop being quite so precious. So what if a game has been released on another platform first? At most that should mean that they don't get extra incentives which exclusives would otherwise enjoy.

    Great games are great wherever they are.

  • Crovax20 #3 3d ago

    Nice read, informative and it has some depth to it. More of this please!

  • rotmm #4 3d ago

    Agreed, good article and an excellent read.

  • billy-beauts #5 3d ago

    It's easy to blame all the muppets who bought Microsoft's consoles in the first place, but what does this say about Sony and Nintendo that developers will still go through all this just to get their game on Microsoft's platform?

  • barneyboo #6 3d ago

    Interesting piece, but I completely reject the idea that exclusivity clauses are about quality control, and not just about maximising revenue. MS is free to do what they want with their platform, but this is one of those baseless myths they are the first to perpetuate.

    But then again, exclusivity is something the industry is obsessed with, for some reason. Whether it's XBLA games, or timed DLC exclusives, it seems totally grotty to me to spin something as a user benefit (see MS @ E3 getting excited about which map packs or whatever would be timed exclusives to Xbox) when it's only about revelling in other consumers being denied something.

  • Toothball #7 3d ago

    That was a good read. Hearing stories like that could make you a little apprehensive about buying games on XBLA, but at the same time not doing so wouldn't really help the developers. I try to spread myself over the various platforms to avoid missing out on games that don't make the XBLA cut for whatever reason.

    Still, you have to wonder what sort of quality control policy could veto a game like Machinarium while still claiming to represent any semblance of quality. Still, while Joe Danger is currently an exception they used to have tight limits on the size of XBLA games. At least, they did until they allowed an exception. Then another. Then not long after, it was hard to remember a time when XBLA games were always that small.

  • Subdominator #8 3d ago

    @Retroid It's pretty simple: Games that are already out on other platforms tend to sell less than exclusives. They are more likely to just crowd the marketplace, making it harder to sell stuff in general. XBLA has a different approach to releasing games than other stores. They only release one or two games a week - for the system to work these games have to hit. An exclusive is a safer bet.

    That and of course Microsoft has an enormous back catalogue of XBLA games. They have contracts for about fifty games at any given time, the release window is filled until March 2012. They don't need more titles. People are dying to get onto XBLA.

    Don't forget: XBLA is the most successful online store (Steam probably has more total revenue due to the retail games) there is. So there really is no reason why XBLA should change and do things differently or like other platforms when it makes much more money the way it is. Sure it is annoying to get your contract and respect all the paragraphs. But in the end it is this sort of thing that made XBLA what it is today: The place to be.

  • AaronTurner #9 3d ago

    Good article, best one in quite some time. I'd like to read more like this.

  • FanBoysSuck #10 3d ago

    Great article and a bit of an eye opener. I can see why most of my Developer mates prefer mobile.

  • Jolly_Armadillo #11 3d ago

    Given the tone of this article would Microsoft be inclined to not give his game a favourable release as I would say his comments do make Microsoft look slightly bad.


    Just seems a bit weird that he's got a game comin out for release on xbla which he is hoping to have a good release but he is criticising the company who is releasing his game

    Anyway I find it a bit disappointing that companies have to work this way, but ahwell it affects them more than it does me

  • lucky_jim #12 3d ago

    The general standard of games on XBLA is considerably higher than on PSN (of course the latter has a few diamonds in the rough, but I'm talking about the overall sweep here). So, arguably, Microsoft's approach is working: but I have to echo one of the commenters above and question a quality control process that rejects Machinarium.

  • duckmouth #13 3d ago

    Excellent, excellent read, and a real eye-opener. I love XBLA, but with policies like this I wonder how much longer devs will put up with jumping Microsoft's hoops.

  • marty_k #14 3d ago

    Good read, thanks! ;-)

  • berelain #15 3d ago

    A very, very interesting read. Thanks EG.

  • woodnotes #16 3d ago

    I disagree with their notion that Microsoft should be promoting their XBLA game. Publishers pay good money to get featured on the dashboard. With so many games being released, it just isn't tangible for MS to promote every XBLA game too. And why should one get promoted more than any other?

    Also if Microsoft is "publishing" then of course they're going to want exclusivity, like any other publisher. The issue here is actually that Microsoft won't let independents release games without a publisher. But it's true that if they do then it'll end up no different to indie games or an app store.

  • dancingrob #17 3d ago

    @ woodnotes

    Not quite true. Games can be released as indie games without a big publisher, and a handful of games (notably assorted Minecraft clones) have done very well from that format.

    The general lack of visibility of those games is certainly a problem though.

  • number3son #18 3d ago

    Thank you EG for occasionally doing the hard work on a piece like this, giving us a break from all the press releases disguised as news.

  • number3son #19 3d ago

    @woodnotes

    "The issue here is actually that Microsoft won't let independents release games without a publisher. But it's true that if they do then it'll end up no different to indie games or an app store."

    Or like Steam? Where there's at least one major, self-published indie hit released every month?

  • woodnotes #20 3d ago

    @dancingrob

    I'm talking about XBLA. Hence the "it'll end up no different to Indie Games" bit.

  • woodnotes #21 3d ago

    "Or like Steam? Where there's at least one major, self-published indie hit released every month?"

    So what's stopping me putting my latest terrible Pong game on Steam? Something must be, and that something is the same type of hoops that Microsoft is putting in place.

  • TheLastProphet #22 3d ago

    XBLA games would sell a lot more if you could play them on the move. All Microsoft would need to do is allow people to play their XBLA games on Windows smartphones, playing the full game with online multiplayer etc. This kind of innovation is needed if anyone is to challenge Apple's dominance of gaming from small developers. Also, prices must come down - developers such as the one making Fez must recognise games such as 'Cut the rope' on iOS costing just 0.59p, whilst providing a lengthy and rewarding experience. People will turn their noses up at games costing 1200 points/Ł10 no matter how good they are, when similar experiences can be had at a fraction of the cost elsewhere.

  • carlosdfn #23 3d ago

    Damn, it's even worse than I thought. I feel sorry for these guys.

  • TruSmiles #24 3d ago

    On the other side of the scale though, Apple seem to have very little quality control on the App Store. There are many clones and even just image files which are sold and advertised as 'games'. The App Store for gaming is less about quality and more about manipulating and promotion just to ensure that you're visible enough to even get sales. It's crazy.

  • JahB #25 3d ago

    I'm with Microsoft here. Yes, releasing a game on xbl is a pain for indies, but for consumers xbl is fantastic.

    If those rules were not in place, xbl would be full of junk like the app store and android marketplace.

  • SpaceMidget75 Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #26 3d ago

    Look, FFS, I'm sure MS have a certain dickishness about all this, which I'm sure will come back to bite them in the arse, BUT...

    ...if you don't like it, don't fucking sign with them!!

    Sign with Nintendo like you originally said (the explanation for not is pretty poor btw - "I signed with MS because I was tired of the negotiations with MS" WTF?)

    Sign with Sony.

    Publish on Steam

    Publish on XBLIG.

    OR put it on ALL OF THEM except for XBLA??


    "But what keeps me smiling is just the fact that I'm going to make more money on the other platforms than Xbox combined. So even if I get screwed on the Xbox launch I'll still be okay."

    ...So you've gone through years of negotiation stress, been forced into an timed exclusive deal, had no cash upfront, and had to add things like avatar items for what reason again?? :rolleyes:

    Edited by 1 at 22/11/11 @ 12:09
    Verified

  • fupoisme #27 3d ago

    Great article. Hope to see more lengthy ones like this on the site!

  • GamesProgrammer Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #28 3d ago

    That Avatar thing sounds like a ball breaker, if MS want them so badly then i hope they only take the money back of the sales of the avatar items and not off the game itself.

    Edited by 1 at 22/11/11 @ 12:25
    Verified

  • des #29 3d ago

    nice article

    "There are a number of rules and restrictions Xbox Live Arcade games must all adhere to. Achievements are one example. Leaderboards are another. And then there's the odd issue with Avatar items, which are mandatory for Microsoft Studios games."

    err,people expect that stuff by default

  • secombe #30 3d ago

    I still don't get why it moved from Wiiware to XBLA, did I miss-read something ?

  • Penguinzoot #31 3d ago

    Excellent article WYP, well worth reading. It would have been interesting to see what MS have to say in response though, and the reasoning behind their somewhat mystifying decision-making process.

    I have to admit I'm a bit baffled by the whole XBLA saga over the last year or so. Historically MS' approach had always been to court developers, whether in the business space or the game space. But something seems to have happened over at XBLA recently. Whether MS have changed their policies, or simply haven't responded to challenges posed by their competitors, I don't know. Either way, things don't appear to be the way they should be at XBLA.

  • madmaardigan #32 3d ago

    Good article. Makes me worried for the day all games will be distributed digitally, which I suspect will happen sooner than most of us think.

  • jonbwfc #33 2d ago

    "I still don't get why it moved from Wiiware to XBLA, did I miss-read something ?"
    By the sound of it, it's because he signed the contract without reading it properly, then found out he'd agreed to put it out first on XBLA without knowing it.

    Lesson one : Don't sign the contract. Even if you're knackered, even if they're arses, don't sign the contract. The people on the other side are being arses because they're hoping you'll get fed up/bored enough to 'just sign the contract'.

    F'ing hell, this isn't complex business analysis, this is just common sense. And agreed with the earlier post, if they're that much of a pain in the arse and you're not even making that much money from it, why didn't you just tell them to stick it?

    Agreed with the early posts though, great article. More of this kind of thing.

    Jon

  • danjfor #34 2d ago

    Jesus Christ, Fez, good to hear that one still exists. Looks great. Feels like it's been in development for decades, though.

  • dirtysteve #35 2d ago

    A terrifying read. I had hoped to make the jump to XBLA in the future.
    I'm currently finishing up my indie game for XNA.
    I guess there's always PC (as long as I never expect it to be on Xbox at least).

    Must be heartbreaking to have a game cancelled because of a rotation in MS' staff.

  • Syrette #36 2d ago

    @des

    Yeah, I'm not sure why achievements and leaderboards are mentioned as if they're a problem.

    The avatar stuff sounds pretty lame though.

  • Xardan #37 2d ago

    Sounds just like quality control to me, unfortunately it seems that is what you have to go through now, since XBLA became more popular than MS thought it would. Sounds like it may be quite excessive though and the whole rules effecting Machinarium from being on the 360 is unfortunate.

  • rickjoyce #38 2d ago

    Great article!

  • RexRunti #39 2d ago

    The menus have to have the right items and when they unplug the controller it's gotta do this, and blah blah blah. The leaderboards, the Achievements, the Avatar items were a real pain in the ass.

    Avatar items, I can live without. Everything else on this list seems like a pretty good idea to have as requirements (same with demos).

  • StooMonster #40 2d ago

    Good article, more like this please.

  • TheNonk #41 2d ago

    This is one of but many things that sums up my distaste for pretty much ANY Microsoft product. Lock you in, pin you down, control you and mould you. It's just all far too americanised, politicised and focus-group-driven bullshit.

  • MrBeens #42 2d ago

    @RexRunti "The menus have to have the right items and when they unplug the controller it's gotta do this, and blah blah blah. The leaderboards, the Achievements, the Avatar items were a real pain in the ass."

    Yeah these are standard things that all console games have to adhere to, there are TRC requirements you have to meet to get certified on PS3 and Wii as well.
    Making your game not freeze or crash if you unplug the controller is not a pain in the ass, it is making a stable game.

  • smelly #43 2d ago

    EDIT: Thinking about it - i really should just keep my mouth shut. (censored)

    Edited by 1 at 22/11/11 @ 15:28

  • Aradiel #44 2d ago

    I fail to see the link between a piece of software being exclusive to one system for a while and quality control.

  • Mr #45 2d ago

    Good read EG - very interesting

    Agree with some of the comments that, even though one suspects these obstacles, this was article still an eye opener. You can smell the fear that consumes business these days.

  • TrevHead #46 2d ago

    Thx for such a great read!

    Been a fan of such an old school genre as shmups and how Japanese devs like CAVE and Grev struggle to bring their games to the west. Im always worried that the fickle MS will change their policies and the shmup devs will have to radically change how they distrube their games which seems to happen once a year when a new portfoilio manager takes over.

    It seems anther sea change is happening atm much to the chagrin of shmup fans

  • dirtysteve #47 2d ago

    Post deleted at 22:41:18 22-11-2011

  • lollage #48 2d ago

    All of this stuff devs have to go through must really slow down the process of getting games on XBLA. That must be why PSN always gets games first....... oh wait........

    Forcing devs to do things a certain way is a good thing, not a bad one. XBLA = demos for 100% of the games. PSN = demos for 30-40% of the games. That alone is a HUGE advantage for Live. Sony didn't make trophies mandatory until January 2009. They were mandatory in 360 titles from the very beginning and there isn't a single disc-based games or XBLA title without them. Again, that's good for gamers.

  • funkateer #49 2d ago

    "Forcing devs to do things a certain way is a good thing, not a bad one."

    In principle yes, but there's a point where certain frivolous features are getting jammed through your throat.
    Like avatar items; is that really a good thing for gamers? I personally don't care much about trophies/achievements and I think lots of times they even really don't fit in a game.
    And forcing timed exclusivity, is that really good for gamers? It's not awarding anybody except Microsoft.

    And besides, the way I read it, the developers didn't just complain about technical requirements but also the constant haggling over the contracts, the fear of the game being cancelled because some new portfolio manager decided so, constantly changing rules, etc.

  • Phishfood #50 2d ago

    @billy-beauts Microsoft has bigger sales figures, meaning more people actively purchase from XBLA. Spending years making a game a developers would like to see significant returns for all that effort even if it means jumping through all of Microsofts fiery hoops.

    XBLA is the dominant digital platform for consoles in the west and so Microsoft thinks its acceptable to squeeze devs in exchange for publishing the game on their platform and to maintain their own market lead.

    Edited by 1 at 22/11/11 @ 20:51

  • KongRudi #51 2d ago

    The stuff about not accepting games in the store because it's been on other platforms (i.e. Steam or PSN) are stupid, and bad for the industry.
    It hurts both the gamers (both on their own platform, and competing platforms) aswell as the developers of the games wich don't reach as large audience as they could, or being forced to give away their IP just to get it out on the market.

    The stores job is to provide content for the consumers.

    The options for devs are growing every day, I feel pretty sure that MS will have to change their policy. Afterall, you can make alot more money on PSN, WiiWare, Steam, Origin, GOG, Apple-store, Android-marketplaces and similar than on XBLA, and the options keeps growing on a daily basis.

  • lollage #52 2d ago

    "Like avatar items; is that really a good thing for gamers? I personally don't care much about trophies/achievements and I think lots of times they even really don't fit in a game."

    If something is in a game that I don't care about, I can easily ignore it. If something is missing from a game though, I find that annoying. Some people like avatar awards, so while I'm personally not that bothered, I'd still rather they were in the game and I think it makes sense overall to be consistent about these things.

    "And forcing timed exclusivity, is that really good for gamers? It's not awarding anybody except Microsoft."

    All exclusivity of any kind is not good for gamers. If you could buy one console and play Uncharted, Gears, Zelda etc. on it, that would be good for gamers. These companies need to survive and make a profit though and that's done partly by offering exclusive services and content to differentiate them from their competitors.

  • arcam #53 2d ago

    Great article! Really good read, thanks.

    Aside from the ground already covered in comments, the really interesting thing is that they aren't afraid to speak out. Perhaps it's because the balance of power is shifting?

    Notch made his fortune and didn't even need to talk to publisher or a platform holder. Nobody can stop you releasing your game on Android. If MS or Sony reqs are too tiresome you can make a million on iPad. You have to wonder what percentage of the industry thinks that is a good thing.

    Services like XBLA are great and hopefully a glimpse of the future, but MS' weird insistence that devs have a third-party publisher is a good illustration that in some ways they are still trying to cling to the past.

    But the conclusion of the article is a happy one, and I'd agree. The old road is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are etc. etc.

  • TheSpanishCount #54 2d ago

    Does the upcoming XBLA version of Minecraft not count as "originally released on another platform"? Can everyone just put a purple sticker on their game that says "Now with Kinect" and get past that restriction? Who's publishing the upcoming Minecraft?

  • Xboxfanuk #55 2d ago

    @TheSpanishCount Technicaly Minecraft released on Microsoft Windows. So it still is am MS platform.

  • DreamT #56 2d ago

    Interesting. I can see why Microsoft have this level of quality control and that they don't want XBLA spammed with every Indie game going around at this point. Looking at that Machinarium, the art style is cool but I'm not exactly going to be crying in my pretzels by not playing it. Negotiations do sound difficult but I kinda feel that, that's life when you're coming up against such large corporations. Sony are being more open because they want to give some incentive for developers to port their games to PSN, but it mostly just ends up in them getting the games which MS rejects.

    Still XBLA is my fave part about 360 at this point but there are quite a few decent games which aren't cutting through sales wise. It's true that games published by Microsoft (and to a lesser extent big publishers) do much better due largely to advertising on the dashboard.

    While sales have plateaued on XBLA to some extent, there have still been quite a few games which have done well; ie. Torchlight (350K), Bastion (200K should reach 300K by the end of the year due to sales), Dishwasher: VS (200K), Toy Soldiers: CW (250K), Dual of the Planeswalker, From Dust (and embarrassingly D & D Daggerdale 300K) etc, etc.

    Personally, I hope that MS look to innovate again when it comes to digital platforms. There really needs to be a mid-tier digitally-distributed platform where you can buy larger experiences for 15 to 30 bucks. RPG's and action-adventure games could thrive on such platforms.

  • 5ypher #57 2d ago

    Really interesting read.

    Sounds to me from that the sole reason for going XBLA first is because of the insurmountable effort that would be required to go there afterwards (after appearing on Steam or PSN or WiiWare).

    Makes sense, going to reach the largest overall audience that way.

  • funkateer #58 2d ago

    "All exclusivity of any kind is not good for gamers."

    That I don't agree with.
    There are exclusive games made by development studios that are owned by the platform owner. The platform owner has made huge investments in these games, so the developers benefit, and the gamers benefit from having the game available at all.

    Then there are third party exclusivity deals that involve a nice sum of money from
    the platform owner. The developer benefits, which indirectly even benefits gamers as it helps getting the game made.

    What I was talking about is forced exclusivity without any benefit for the developer, as what the interviewed developer was talking about. Exclusivity, but no investment of any kind, no control over the release window, no control over pricing, and not even a guarantee that the game isn't cancelled alltogether by some new portfolio manager who decides he simply doesn't like this kind of game anymore. This has nothing to do with quality control.

    It seemed he was basically bullied into this, and as a small (but accomplished) developer what can you really do? I can totally understand he caved in and agreed, just for the sake getting it out there.

  • DirectAim #59 2d ago

    I think the smaller developers should be given more help and not get nailed down by MS. I also think that a big problem with XBL and PSN is that its so hard to navigate, the platforms have 1000s of awesome games but unless they get dashboard adverts they often go un-noticed.

    The need to upgrade the marketplace and have better XBL profiles so that you can easily see what games your friends are playing and have the option to buy that game and play with them etc. Make it more social.