I don't know what the Live connection requirements will be for the final version. I believe that mostly comes down to security requirements, but am not sure what the final conclusion will be.

Yes, games are categorized, using the same genres XBLA has today.

I think that the concern over what constitutes a "full game" is a legitimate one. Maybe it would be possible to add one more bit of information to the game ratings/descriptors to reflect the level of completeness:

Completeness

1. Alpha - The initial build of a game. There may be major errors or bugs, but the game should not freeze or crash.
   
2. Beta - More complete than the alpha, the beta build may still have minor non-crashing errors or consistencies. Most of the functionality of the full game should be present.
   
3. Final - The final build of the game. There should be no known errors or bugs.
   
4. Demo - Demonstrates a portion of a game, including technical demos, but is not itself a fully featured game. May be time or level limited.
5. Updated - A previously released final build which has been updated to add new capabilities and levels, or to correct bugs found after it was released.

After all, what is one more checkbox for the peer review process? :D

You should only "release" finished games.  The peer review and distribution system isn't intended as a developer workflow system as you move from alpha, beta, etc.

As it goes hand in hand with the "business model" question, I'll say we'll have more details about demo/trial modes as well later this year.  But we'd love to hear opinions on this.  Time based? API based (i.e. game limits functionality)? Something else?

 

Chris Covington:

After all, what is one more checkbox for the peer review process? :D

That's a dangerous question! Last summer, Julian, who has been working behind the scenes on the community stuff, referred to his early efforts as the "check boxes of doom". XNA is a dish best served doom-free :-)

Maybe XNA Version 3 + N where N > 1 could support the development life cycle complete with the ability to run betas. Unfortunately, it's never quite as easy as adding just adding one more check box. Some creators may only want to peer review complete games, but more importantly how do you manage the state transitions between the various stages? 'Completeness' introduces new states into the workflow which represents the peer review process.

In addition to complicating the dev process and the distribution/review system, releasing beta and un-finished games is a sure-fire way to turn the community off of the Community Games section. If I'm Average Joe and I start downloading indie games only to find they are mostly unfinished or betas, I'm going to ignore ALL of the community games. Then when your game actually is finished, that's one fewer person downloading it. Once you figure there are lots of people who will think like that, you will realize you definitely don't want to distribute unfinished games. I know that I, when peer review time comes, start reviewing submissions, I will be super-harsh on unfinished games simply because I don't want betas and things like that ruining this amazing opportunity for the rest of the people who are trying to get their finished products out to gamers.

Mitch Walker:

You should only "release" finished games.  The peer review and distribution system isn't intended as a developer workflow system as you move from alpha, beta, etc.

It should be, these are "community" or "indie" games. Without exposing their game to the whole community they won't be able to use their direct feedback to refine their games and make them better as they progress through the development cycle. This in turn makes these amateur developers into better developers. If you're going to want keep developers from distributing their works in progress, then I highly suggest you recommend that they become retail developers instead.

Mitch Walker:

As it goes hand in hand with the "business model" question, I'll say we'll have more details about demo/trial modes as well later this year.  But we'd love to hear opinions on this.  Time based? API based (i.e. game limits functionality)? Something else?

I seriously hope that demo/trial modes will not be required. I want the developers to be able to release their complete work without the worries having to gimp their games. That should be reserved for XBLA games.

Tommy McClain

AzBat360:

Mitch Walker:

You should only "release" finished games.  The peer review and distribution system isn't intended as a developer workflow system as you move from alpha, beta, etc.

It should be, these are "community" or "indie" games. Without exposing their game to the whole community they won't be able to use their direct feedback to refine their games and make them better as they progress through the development cycle. This in turn makes these amateur developers into better developers. If you're going to want keep developers from distributing their works in progress, then I highly suggest you recommend that they become retail developers instead.

You should not use end-users as your tests. How would you feel buying (or even getting for free) a game on DVD, taking it home, and finding out it's just a beta? That'd be annoying. It's really no different with a download service such as this. Nobody wants to browse through a huge list of games, download one, and find out it's an unfinished product looking for feedback. They'll probably just delete it and get frustrated with the Community Games section.

If you want to test out your ideas and refine your games then you have two routes:
1) Finish your game. Like really finished. Done and complete. Release that on community games and use the feedback to improve future games. Don't release a half-finished version expecting to use feedback to finish that game.
2) Release a PC version to anyone who wants it (and Xbox 360 versions to CC subscribers). Then you can test out your alpha and beta versions without junking up the Community Games section with partially completed games. There are plenty of people who can just plug a 360 controller into their PC and test your alpha version there. And if they have a CC subscription they can even put your alpha and beta versions onto their Xbox.

The jist is that being indie isn't an excuse to release unfinished games to end-users. That's a sure way to guarantee that you remain indie forever because people will soon start doing brand (or developer) association where they will see your name and instantly assume (correctly or incorrectly) that your games are never finished. It's bad for you, it's bad for the Community Games section, and therefore is something everyone should avoid.

Nick Gravelyn:

In addition to complicating the dev process and the distribution/review system, releasing beta and un-finished games is a sure-fire way to turn the community off of the Community Games section. If I'm Average Joe and I start downloading indie games only to find they are mostly unfinished or betas, I'm going to ignore ALL of the community games. Then when your game actually is finished, that's one fewer person downloading it. Once you figure there are lots of people who will think like that, you will realize you definitely don't want to distribute unfinished games. I know that I, when peer review time comes, start reviewing submissions, I will be super-harsh on unfinished games simply because I don't want betas and things like that ruining this amazing opportunity for the rest of the people who are trying to get their finished products out to gamers.

 

I'm sure glad you're not an average joe, because if you were then we would never see any progress. I'm sure there are a few Halo 3 and COD4 players out there that would wholeheartedly disagree that unfinished/beta games are not welcomed. Most of the people out there that will be downloading these community games know full well that these are mostly done by amateurs and hobbyists and that they will likely be in unfinished states. So come on give these people some credit. If these were real productions with real budgets, then they would be on XBLA or a disc. Go look at YouTube as evidence of type of content you can expect. There's no original Star Wars or Transformers-quality content there. I might have to join the Creator's Club to do my own peer reviews just to offset people like you who are overly harsh on these developers.

Tommy McClain

AzBat360:

Most of the people out there that will be downloading these community games know full well that these are mostly done by amateurs and hobbyists and that they will likely be in unfinished states. So come on give these people some credit.

I am giving lots of people credit. Look at the seven games up there now. They are all spectacular displays of what a single person or small group can accomplish. I'm not saying people need to make 10+ hour games will 16 player multiplayer. I'm simply saying that being an individual doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for excellence and try to release finished games.

If these were real productions with real budgets, then they would be on XBLA or a disc.

Go look at YouTube as evidence of type of content you can expect. There's no original Star Wars or Transformers-quality content there.

Like I said, I'm not expecting multi-million dollar production quality. But you also don't go to YouTube and find people who were half-way done with a movie and just ended it. Well, you might find some on YouTube since there is no review system, but you can be sure those aren't the popular ones making the front page. Again, the key isn't about making your game look like a full studio quality game. The goal is simply to avoid releasing unfinished products. I'm not going to start rating games low because the graphics aren't the greatest or other things, but if they try to put through a game that is clearly not finished, that's when I'm going to start suggesting they finish up their game before releasing it.

Nick Gravelyn:

You should not use end-users as your tests. How would you feel buying (or even getting for free) a game on DVD, taking it home, and finding out it's just a beta? That'd be annoying. It's really no different with a download service such as this. Nobody wants to browse through a huge list of games, download one, and find out it's an unfinished product looking for feedback. They'll probably just delete it and get frustrated with the Community Games section.

I wouldn't have a problem with it. Eventually I would find that diamond. But what's the whole point of Community Games if it's just going to be 2nd tier version of XBLA? Community Games are suppose to foster new ideas and get the community involved helping the developer community do something that publishers wouldn't necessarily have green lit. If you're not going to use the largest and best resource you got: the community, to test these new ideas on, then I say what's the point? Microsoft has continually used the phrase: The YouTube of Games. Explain to me how YouTube has worked in a sea of unfinished works? As long as you let the community rate and comment on the content, the best content will always bubble up to the top, regardless if it's finished or not.

Nick Gravelyn:

If you want to test out your ideas and refine your games then you have two routes:
1) Finish your game. Like really finished. Done and complete. Release that on community games and use the feedback to improve future games. Don't release a half-finished version expecting to use feedback to finish that game.
2) Release a PC version to anyone who wants it (and Xbox 360 versions to CC subscribers). Then you can test out your alpha and beta versions without junking up the Community Games section with partially completed games. There are plenty of people who can just plug a 360 controller into their PC and test your alpha version there. And if they have a CC subscription they can even put your alpha and beta versions onto their Xbox.

But that's not point since there's no centralized distribution system for the PC or CC games. Currently the only way XNA games have so far got major exposure has been through the DBP contest and even then you had to go searching the Internet to find those works. Don't sound like a great way to get the community involved helping fleshing out great game ideas.

Nick Gravelyn:

The jist is that being indie isn't an excuse to release unfinished games to end-users. That's a sure way to guarantee that you remain indie forever because people will soon start doing brand (or developer) association where they will see your name and instantly assume (correctly or incorrectly) that your games are never finished. It's bad for you, it's bad for the Community Games section, and therefore is something everyone should avoid.

I think you're not giving the public and the developers enough credit. I'm sure if these developers do in fact release beta/unfinished games, that they will infact label them as such and the community will understand as such and grade them accordingly.

Tommy McClain

 

AzBat360:

I seriously hope that demo/trial modes will not be required.

Rest easy: if you want your game to be free, it will be free. Mitch's comment is just a hint at potential future announcements about the business model for independent game developers who wish to profit from XNA. I've been out of the loop for a while, so I'm quite excited to hear what they've cooked up!