Is it fair to favour one service over another just because it has less competition?
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.
Exactly, a jouralist can say whatever he wants, but unless he's actually done it, it dont mean S&$#!
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.
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.
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.
He was even nice enough to consider PSN had as much competition on it as Live...which is rather silly.
Well said...well said!
and i guess uve made games and published on XBLA
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..
@D4RkNIKON: Exactly what the my post and action bastards post mean
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.
because nobody knows how hard indie developers have it more than corporate dog's bodies!!
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."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
In the right circumstances more competition can actually drive sales up, though it's rare.
I see the angle being used, even the jab thrown that it would do as well, maybe even better on XBLA, but this just seems like a petition to get JD on XBLA. Most of his points are focused on making more money to entice the dev to release on XBLA, and less on the fact that the dev found the idea of releasing an indie game on XBLA more difficult. By self publishing, don't they get more shares of the games profit than if they sign with an EA or Activision to publish their game anyway?
Thats very true Delive. It's really a matter of weighing the positives and negatives. Do you sign with a publisher and lose a bit of control but gain a broader audience or do you self publish and potentially lower your exposure and as a result your audience.
360 magazine unsubstantially defending MS against an argument brought up by GAME DEVELOPERS. -_- YES. Less competition = stagnation / lack of innovation = BAD stupid question. Does this mean XBLA is bad? NO, but some devs think so, that its worth considering, not just brushing it aside. if you love MS and XBL so much, QUESTION it and hope it gets better, don't defend it blindly because it threatens your confidence in your purchase.
They didn't think xbl was bad - they just feared getting shuffled aside in the turnover on the platform. They must've shat a brick when trials HD dominated. So they went for the one with less competition.
Microsoft should invest the money from gold members in a good quality control team. Less shovelware = problem solved.
To be fair the shovelware % on xbla is decently low - and even the stuff that's fairly shovelled is of ok quality - doesn't crash your console or anything. With over 250 games or something it's almost it's own platform, and with some amazing titles on xbla it's ok that there's the odd dross. However your point is also contradictory to the story - if there was more shovelware on xbla then they would've been happy to post JD on the service as it would've garnered more attention. They problably should've
It's like they add random flash games to XBLA and slap a price tag on it. PSN's velvet rope policy is so much better.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.