Console Wars V

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Verto
Yeah, Braid kicks ass. I've only played the demo right now, but once I get some more spending money I'll probably buy the full version...although the price seems a little steep.

I'm taking a break from CoD4 (or trying to, anyway ) and started Lost Odyssey. Pretty entertaining so far, definitely gets me in the mood for Final Fantasy XIII. I need to beat it soon though before I get distracted by Fable 2, Too Human, Infinite Undiscovery, Gears of War 2 to name a few. Still haven't played Civ:Rev, or Ninja Gaiden 2.

I've also got a bunch of games to play before the Christmas slew of AAAs.

It's a hard life.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Asher

It's quantity, not revenue.

asleep also curiously doesn't mention that this doesn't reflect current sales -- the data points are "at points in the console's lifecycle", the 360 sells more 3rd party software than the Wii does still.

That chart is from Nintendo's PR department, you can bet they'd spin it like this...

You can also see it wasn't even until 2008 that 3rd party sales became respectable. I've been *****ing about 3rd party sales long before that, and this chart actually reveals I was right all throughout 2006/2007 when I talked about poor 3rd party sales...

Edit: And Nikolai is right when he says it's about what's being sold. Shovelware sells if you make enough of it and price it low enough, which is what Nintendo third parties have discovered.

Joystiq and NPD add some perspective similar to what I've said here: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/09/ni...ifies-some-de/

Wii 3rd party sales: 33 million (56% of software)
360 3rd party sales: 67 million (82% of software)

Click the link for a new chart version also.

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by Asher

What the **** is wrong with you? Seriously?

You just posted an article about how MS is overly concerned about the quality of games coming out on its service and has high standards which it forces developers to meet, and also says they can bend the rules to allow creative/innovative games to do things they find to be interesting -- but then you come out and say your "point" is this is all about maximizing profit and a quick cash grab? What the ****, seriously.

The article you posted directly contradicts your "point".

""They removed some of the requirements for XBLA games, but there are still a lot of requirements, and I believe that, at least for a single-player game like my game, the vast majority of these requirements are unnecessary," he says.

"I put in a tremendous amount of work meeting all these requirements, when I could have put that work into the actual game, and made it even a little more polished, little bit better."

Blow says Microsoft's XBLA certification process is intended to ensure a standard of quality for all titles on the service -- "But I feel like it actually decreases the quality of games, because people spend so much of their energy on these things that users don't even really care about." - from the article I posted.


And yet again Asher you only go to prove your total lack of objectivity about anything to do with MS. You are your own worse enemy, I don't actually have to post anything - the PR bulls**t for MS just flows from your fingers like the bot you are(or nerve stapled MS employee you probably are ).
It's quite sad you lack the ability to step back and see the wood for the trees, but it does give you a certain maniac charm, even if it means I've learnt to take anything you say with a pinch of salt in terms of it's objectivity.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by El_Cid

"But I feel like it actually decreases the quality of games, because people spend so much of their energy on these things that users don't even really care about."

I think the crux of the matter is what 'these things' are. If it's QA to reduce bugs (as Asher implied earlier with the comparison to PS3 games) then hard to argue against it. If it's forcing the developer to undertake additional work that isn't necessary in a solely SP title (as the quote from the developer implies) then that seems overly bureaucratic on Microsoft's part.

[El_Cid]

@ Dr.Spike,
yeah I've been looking around for more details on what exactly 'these things' are also. It seems unless you are an actual dev on XBLA it might be hard to find that info? It would be interesting to know the whole list mind you.
And even better to have a side by side comparison for PS3 and Wii also? That would clear things up very well.

The reference to single player makes me suspect that he had to develop systems for multiplayer even if they were never to be used?

I guess as it's all a fairly 'young' system it will get better(for Dev and MS alike) as time goes on and things get ironed out in the process.
At the end of the day MS wants devs to provide cheap content to improve the brand, so they would be foolish to push these guys away?

[Asher]

Originally posted by El_Cid


""They removed some of the requirements for XBLA games, but there are still a lot of requirements, and I believe that, at least for a single-player game like my game, the vast majority of these requirements are unnecessary," he says.

"I put in a tremendous amount of work meeting all these requirements, when I could have put that work into the actual game, and made it even a little more polished, little bit better."

Blow says Microsoft's XBLA certification process is intended to ensure a standard of quality for all titles on the service -- "But I feel like it actually decreases the quality of games, because people spend so much of their energy on these things that users don't even really care about." - from the article I posted.


And yet again Asher you only go to prove your total lack of objectivity about anything to do with MS. You are your own worse enemy, I don't actually have to post anything - the PR bulls**t for MS just flows from your fingers like the bot you are(or nerve stapled MS employee you probably are ).
It's quite sad you lack the ability to step back and see the wood for the trees, but it does give you a certain maniac charm, even if it means I've learnt to take anything you say with a pinch of salt in terms of it's objectivity.

How the **** does MS' high standards for the games -- the exact same part of the article you quoted AGAIN says that -- mean MS is, and I quote:

It's about maximising profit for the manufacturer, as is the way of the world. I just wish they would come out and say it, and get rid of all the double talk.

MS' standards here are not free -- MS spends extra money to put games through rigorous testing and ensuring they all meet a quality standard. If your quote was true, that all they care about is "maximizing profit", then they wouldn't fund a division to test for quality.

My God, I don't know what to do with you. You're approaching epic levels of stupidity for this forum, and that is saying something. You took an article that is all about MS having high quality standards and are attempting to use that to form the basis of an argument that MS only cares about making money and not quality games. Listen to yourself. Christ.

[Asher]

Originally posted by El_Cid
@ Dr.Spike,
yeah I've been looking around for more details on what exactly 'these things' are also. It seems unless you are an actual dev on XBLA it might be hard to find that info? It would be interesting to know the whole list mind you.
And even better to have a side by side comparison for PS3 and Wii also? That would clear things up very well.

The reference to single player makes me suspect that he had to develop systems for multiplayer even if they were never to be used?

That's an utterly retarded assumption -- why would MS force people to code multiplayer support in a singleplayer game when it is blindingly obvious from the finished game that there is no multiplayer?

MS has rigorous testing standards for games. They test them on SDTVs, HDTVs of different resolutions (dating back to the old 1080i CRTs). Sometimes it's hard to read text on the screen, for instance ,depending how these are implemented and scaled. If that is the case, MS has the developer implement a fix so it's readable on all TVs. This is in direct contrast to Sony, who openly say they don't care about users of 1080i TVs (even though Sony itself was the #1 manufacturer of said TVs back in the day), so most PS3 games don't support 1080i.

They also test for things such as compatibility with all in-game features that must be across all games: does the game work with the in-game custom soundtrack? When I hit the "guide" button, does it pause the single player game? Will it interfere with any other features of the in-game dash (friend messaging, other game invites, etc). A lot of game developers don't read the documentation and don't think of this stuff until they send it for certification, and then they realize it breaks a whole bunch of rules that need to be fixed in order for the game to be published. Otherwise it breaks other features of the system.

And perhaps less obviously, all game consoles have rigorous technical requirements, including Nintendo. This is increasingly important on the PS3 and 360 now as MS and Sony have discovered software emulation is the way to do backwards compatibility, so there are very defined ways to do certain features the developers need to follow to ensure it works on all future versions of the console in addition to future emulation. Again, these are all well documented but most XBLA developers, especially new ones, don't pay much attention to them and then they get their ass kicked in the certification process.

If you're an XNA developer, none of this applies to you. But XBLA games and disc-based Xbox games need to adhere to all of these requirements. This guy wasn't prepared for them and personally doesn't value the features (eg, custom soundtracks) but it is part of the platform for a consistent featureset and user experience. They were the ground rules before he even started developing. It's his fault if he didn't prepare for that from the start, sounds like he was just letting off steam. But they're good rules, they serve a purpose, and for **** sake, the purpose of these rules isn't to "maximize profits" -- how ****ing stupid are you. I still can't get over that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

LOTM doesn't have a Wii and wouldn't know what it even looks like. He'll get a Wii in 2020 or so.

LOL! I dont think Nikolai seriously thinks I have a Wii, I think he was just responding to the way you usually sound.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

asleep also curiously doesn't mention that this doesn't reflect current sales -- the data points are "at points in the console's lifecycle

And why wouldnt that be relevant? I mean its hard to have good sales of 3rd party titles before your console is even released right?

I dont claim to know the answer. I admit to knowing nothing about the mysteries of consoles. I assume the wonderful people here who DO know, can explain how the Wii could have sold 3rd party SW before it was released.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
And why wouldnt that be relevant? I mean its hard to have good sales of 3rd party titles before your console is even released right?

Because the Wii has sold far more consoles at this point in its life cycle than the 360 did. It's a much cheaper piece of hardware.

It is perhaps relevant but it doesn't play any role at all with the meat of the argument: If I were to make a game today as a third party developer, where are those sales going to be? That's the crux of the issue, something the graph doesn't answer.

I assume the wonderful people here who DO know, can explain how the Wii could have sold 3rd party SW before it was released.

No one made this claim, and **** you for playing the strawman card. Go away if that's all you're going to do, it's old and very annoying.

[DarkCloud]

At least Asher's definitely right about gamasutra's interest in publishing articles that are clearly against the Microsoft Development platform... The developer of Braid wasn't the first one complaining about it... The developers of I believe N2 or X2? it was called, also complained about how the "quality standards" kept too many "quality independent games" out of the system... and how the "standards" were making the system too "corporate" and "hurting independent designers" ... instead putting out "mass market crap" (the last quotation is more of a paraphrasal)

[El_Cid]

@ DarkCloud,

but why would gamasutra want to do that, they are one of the american premier industry sites for games development? That just makes no sense in my book, and for the two(or so) cases you mention they have featured upwards of a dozen pro-XNA/XBLA articles straight from the horses mouth.

No I think Ashers objection was just that as I had found one article that supported concerns I had about XBLA/XNA(and all console indie dev as a whole) and had aired when these services were first started, he just couldn't take the negative spin on something to do with MS. So obviously gamasutra is evil.
And that is something I'm definitely right on. You try it, say something negative about MS and watch him blow

@Asher,

Good points, and if all the grumbles are about a normal QA process then your right, that's the fault of the dev for not boning up on the rules before hand.
But it would be sweet to have all three set of rules(complete) for this somewhere anyone can access and check out? because without it we are all shooting in the wind over this no?

[DarkCloud]

El_Cid:

Fair enough. You've probably read more Gamasutra articles than I have to detect any possible biases. (I've only read about 30-40.)

It is true that the two indie developers they interviewed who have been published on their site both despised the XBLA delivery system (and gamasutra implied that those were the only indie publishers that had managed to get onto XBLA), but that doesn't necessarily reflect a site bias against XBLA until other articles' slants are also considered.

\* Hopefully exits before getting drawn into argument.

[Asher]

XBLA is far and away the best medium for indy developers to get their games out there. No other service compares to it in terms of downloaded and purchased games.

The fact that they found two developers that "despised" the system when, when you actually talk to them, don't actually despise it tells you a lot about Gamasutra's slant. The N+ developers were the other ones, and I've met them personally -- they hosted their launch party on the rooftop patio of the building I work in. They don't hate it, they did hate the extra QA/experience consistency requirements which delayed the game a month or so (which is what Gamasutra's article focuses on), but they also admit it was their fault for not knowing the specs and guidelines before they sent it for certification.

Ditto for this most recent article, the Gamasutra article is all doom and gloom about XBLA...so much so that the developer had to reply to set the record straight.

No I think Ashers objection was just that as I had found one article that supported concerns I had about XBLA/XNA(and all console indie dev as a whole)

I'd like to see you link to a quote of yours where you expressed concern about overly high quality and consistency standards for XBLA. You've never complained about that. You're trying to use the article to back ridiculous statements you've made earlier regarding MS harming the industry to make a quick buck, but the content of the article actually says MS spends lots of time and money to ensure quality gaming experiences...

[DarkCloud]

On a separate subject that I feel more qualified to talk about- it sort of disgusts me when some indy developers, like some independent music producers and music listeners whine and moan about how people who actually make money with their products are "sellouts" and somehow look down upon them... a good game or song is a good game or song- if someone's smart enough to make money with it, then frankly, I'd have to hold them in higher esteem for their cleverness.