Top
140°

XBLA a ‘slaughterhouse’? Don’t think so

Is it fair to favour one service over another just because it has less competition?

Read Full Story >>
360magazine.co.uk
The story is too old to be commented.
ActionBastard2631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

I think 360magazine.co.uk should make a game first and try to publish it on XBL or PSN, rather than yap about simply b/c they like XBLA. And Sean Murray with Hello Games isn't the first dev to express concern and/or problems with Microsoft's XBLA ecosystem.

Forbidden_Darkness2631d ago

Exactly, a jouralist can say whatever he wants, but unless he's actually done it, it dont mean S&$#!

Xeoset2631d ago

Maybe if 'Joe Danger' looked appealing at all, they may have had an easier ride.

XBLA and XBLA Indie Games are one of a kind and there's obviously a lot of competition to get stuff out there, so naturally the better stuff gets piped through first, not by an orderly queue.

Oh noes, I praised the 'X' stuff.

callahan092631d ago

Maybe if it looked appealing at all...?

Lots of people thought it looked appealing, it sold very well so far on PSN and got excellent reviews.

D4RkNIKON2631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

Yeah if it wasn't appealing at least to some, it wouldn't have broke even on the first day alone..

I love how hello games' issue with xbla has offended so many people that have never published a game and have no idea what it's even like. So they just defend XBLA because they like it.

Double Toasted2631d ago

He was even nice enough to consider PSN had as much competition on it as Live...which is rather silly.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2631d ago
Coheno2631d ago

Well said...well said!

bomboclaat_gamer2631d ago

and i guess uve made games and published on XBLA

D4RkNIKON2631d ago

I am guessing he didn't, but he is defending the developers rights to their opinion on the matter because I am willing to bet that they have published a few games..

Forbidden_Darkness2631d ago

@D4RkNIKON: Exactly what the my post and action bastards post mean

Cerberus21252630d ago

Well,I'm I the only one who read the Article about how most Publishers just laugh at the game,and ax the idea about them publishing the game, "we are fun looking for fun games a this time,can the character be a monkey,we like monkeys" or something of that nature.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2630d ago
Corrwin2631d ago

because nobody knows how hard indie developers have it more than corporate dog's bodies!!

DelbertGrady2631d ago

He's questioning wether a developer gains something from choosing one service over the other, instead of releasing the game on both. Hello games said themselves that they already had the game up and running on the 360.

"Though it may be easier to publish the game on PSN, limiting yourself to one platform simply restricts sales. Though XBLA may have more games from bigger publishers clogging up the headlines, the cream generally always rises to the top."

raztad2631d ago (Edited 2631d ago )

"Murray argues that self-publishing on PSN means they can be sure their game gets the treatment it deserves without a large publisher sticking its beak in and changing things unnecessarily."

Making it multiplatform would let them w/o Sony support. JD has got got a lot of advertising both in Blog.PS and PS Store. Being JD an obscure, new game those guys needed help to be successful. There is always chance JD2 hit xbla.

Dont think its up to a 360 mag to be questioning developers choices, just because XBLA was not favored in this case. Business is business, and those devels know their stuff.

edhe2631d ago

The point that was made is that XBLA was more competitive that they'd like - without a publisher they'd have a hard time to market things, however most of xbla sales i think probably come from word of mouth.

They probably wouldn't have had a problem with the game, where it could've gotten all the TrialsHD folk interested.

But better to be a big fish in a small pond than anything else really.

logikil2631d ago

Thats what this all boils down to regardless of what fanboys on either side say. Reading the original article it all seemed to do with what they would compete against. There really was no other way to read the article. He did state that Sony was easy to deal with when they were shopping the title, but that doesn't exactly give much in the way of context. Aside from the Indie games channel, Live is restrictive to a point, requiring publishers or some exclusivity if MS takes the chance to publish as has been brought up in other articles. PSN certainly appears to be a more open overall environment. Which is better is up for debate, but XBLA certainly has the larger library.

edhe2631d ago

I'd completely agree - PSN is more open, allowing more interesting developments to theoretically take place which i wish MS would adopt somewhat.

I like live - i like paying for it, but it needs to expand beyond the walled garden and be a bit more picky about the arcade games.

There are plenty of arcade games that are just absolute dross, out of the [250+] i have dozens however, and haven't kept up since the last promo period. Too hard.

Also with over 1k indie games it's been shown that if you get the word of mouth out, have a good polished title and price it at the top range of there you could probably make an absolute mint.

I just wish they'd allow you to skip the indie channel warning on every bloomin' game.

Alos882631d ago

In the right circumstances more competition can actually drive sales up, though it's rare.

Show all comments (27)
The story is too old to be commented.