As for today, multilanguage games are suffering the consequencies of some kind of review process flaw design. The peer-review relies on the fact that there are reviewers enough to test your game in all the languages you localized it. But it seems that here there are just English-speaking reviewers (I'm still waiting to see someone posting on the thread I created) and that means your multilanguage game becomes a kind of "plagued" game, which no one wants and has been made just for staying alone in the peer-review process till the Judgement Day.

I'm planning to launch a simple puzzle game localized in all the supported languages and I'm getting more and more worried about this SERIOUSLY BIG problem. Please, do something to avoid them being treated as second class / marginated games. Can't, for example, Microsoft non-English-speaking pleople review games in such a situation? This could SERIOUSLY DAMAGE the business model in countries where localized games are a MUST.

I want to publish my game as it was conceived. Please, don't force me to drop the multilanguage support just for not having the same opportunities than others. I would feel stupid if I publish my game in my country without supporting my mother tongue...

Surely you udnerstand Microsoft's position in this. They can't allow a game in a foreign language on the service, unless someone who speaks that language has reviewed the game.
But I totally understand your concern also. Because there are few reviewers who speak certain languages, multi-language games will pass review slower.

Microsoft employees are not allowed to peer review the games, since the community games are supposed to be independent from Microsoft. This has been the case from the beginning.

What you could do is try make XNA GS more popular in your contry. I made lots of presentation in my university related to XNA Game Studio, and I'm sure you could find places to do the same.
I, for one, will review games both in english and french, whenever I can, because I can speak both languages.

Catalin Zima:

Microsoft employees are not allowed to peer review the games, since the community games are supposed to be independent from Microsoft.

I know, but the problem is still there.

Catalin Zima:

What you could do is try make XNA GS more popular in your country.

I can't. I don't live in my country right now :-P

Maybe the problem is that Microsoft didn't support non-English developers from the beginning, as it should be done. For example, this site (the best source to learn XNA by far), is completely in English.

Anyway, my worries about the impossibility of publishing my game, in my country, with my language continue.

For what it's worth, I would throw my vote in support for Abel's appeal.

The current system is seriously flawed in so far, as it puts a heavy penalty (up to the impossibility of getting a game through review at all) on all developers who try to do the good/right thing and try to release their game in other languages than just English. Or the other very round, it strongly encourages developers to go the easier/lazy route and just ignore the fact that there are a lot of people in the world that do not speak English.
If anything, then it should be the other way round, i.e. the system should encourage localizations, not discourage and penalize them!

Catalin Zima:

Surely you udnerstand Microsoft's position in this. They can't allow a game in a foreign language on the service, unless someone who speaks that language has reviewed the game.

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. To me this seems to be one of those "facts" which, when you hear them (or read them), they sound totally and obviously true. So everyone then also repeats them as true/obvious. But when you start thinking about them, it turns out that they are probably not so obvious after all...

In this specific case, I actually think that simply dropping the each-game-must-be-reviewed-in-each-supported-language requirement would not make the review process any more "unsecure", i.e. dropping this requirement would not increase the chances of "forbidden" content to slip through (or be smuggled through). I've previously written a quite long-winded rant about this in the following post:

http://forums.xna.com/forums/p/19387/101236.aspx#101236

The gist of that is: Even if a game is only in a single language (seen by all reviewers), you can't be sure that all texts in that game are seen during review anyway. There are lots of ways that texts can slip through or actively be smuggled through even with only one language. So there is already a lot of implicit trust inherent in the system of the sort "if reviewers have seen most of the game and not found anything forbidden, then they can assume/trust that the rest doesn't contain forbidden stuff either". Adding another language to the game will not increase this risk, even if no reviewer ever looks at this other language! The implicit trust mentioned above would simply be extended to: "if reviewers have seen (most of) the game in one language and not found anything forbidden, then they can assume/trust that the other languages (and the rest in the same language) do not contain forbidden stuff either".

Or look at this another way: If I wanted to smuggle forbidden "text" into a game, which option would I chose: Hide the text so that reviewers will likely not find it (but gamers later will, once the game is on XBLCG), or would I do it by supplying two languages, where one language (English?) is "clean" and all the forbidden stuff is in the other language (but not hidden) and then hoping that none of the reviewers will happen to use that other language and see the forbidden stuff?
Obviously the second method would be a stupid method to smuggle forbidden content, i.e. even if I put it into the second language, I would still have to hide it, because it could still be that a reviewer looks at the second language. But if it's hidden anyway, then having a reviewer look at the second language would not find the forbidden content anyway, i.e. it would not be more secure than if all reviewers would only have seen the first language.

And if the multi-language-review requirement does not add additional security, but only creates "penalties", then why not drop it alltogether?

Now, to make this into a more formal request, I have logged this in Connect, in case you want to give this your vote:

https://connect.microsoft.com/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=381177&SiteID=226

Doc

"And if the multi-language-review requirement does not add additional security, but only creates "penalties", then why not drop it alltogether?"

I can almost guarantee that MS isn't going to drop the requirement for a localized version to be reviewed. You can't assume that there aren't problems with the text in the localized language. What if someone were to run their text through an online translator and got it wrong in such a way that the result was offensive to speakers of that language? Yeah, it's a slim possibility, but it's there. The responsible thing to do to protect the service is to require someone to review it. You can't say that someone won't take advantage of the lack of localized version review if it weren't in place. There are people out there that will take advantage of any opportunity you give them.

I, of course, have voted for your request.

Jim Perry:

You can't assume that there aren't problems with the text in the localized language.

That sounds perfect in theory, but is not working in practice. Just give me a solution to not be marginated. I'm feeling like that just for wanting to publish my game in my mother tongue. That's not fair! The design of peer-review is flaw and should be modified. Microsoft can do a lot of things to solve that. For example, they can give review-enabled free Creators Club subscriptions for some amount of people who speaks non-English languages. On the other hand, some days ago I read about a "Peer Review Posse". Indeed, I sent an e-mail for joining to it, but I didn't receive any response. Maybe Microsoft could do something similar to that for these marginated languages. I know the word sounds strong, but it's the reality. I'm getting frustrated...

Jim Perry:

You can't say that someone won't take advantage of the lack of localized version review if it weren't in place.

But I didn't say that! :-)

Jim Perry:

There are people out there that will take advantage of any opportunity you give them.

Of course people will try to take advantage of this "opportunity". But this additional opportunity is only an additional hole in a security system that is very holey anyway (regarding the protection against smuggled content - and is built quite a lot on a combination of trust and the threat of legal action if you break the trust):

It's like protecting a parking lot that is accessible from all sides by putting a long fence around it, that nonetheless has many (very large) holes. But then you still insist on having a locked gate over the main access road:
Any intruder would simply leave the main road and drive through one of the holes from a side road. But any authorized person visiting the lot over the main road would have to drive up to the gate, get out of the car, unlock the gate, drive through, get out again, close the gate, then park the car.
The sensible thing would be to just get rid of the gate, because it adds no security against intruders but only adds a penalty for authorized visitors, and instead rely on the threat that is displayed on big signs along the fence, that if you catch any intruders in the lot, you will sue their pants off.
Of course you could then argue: But if we get rid of the gate then some intruders will certainly take advantage of this and enter the lot on the main road. And that will certainly be so! However, does that really matter? Because if you keep the gate, those same intruders will enter the lot anyway, just not on the main road, but via a side road, with no more difficulty than if you had allowed them the main entrance.

For XLBCG exploiters, the scenario will not be: "Dang! I wanted to smuggle my text through in plain sight using the Spanish version! That opportunity is denied, now I have to smuggle it through by hiding it in the English version. That's too much trouble, I won't do that..."
Instead it will be "Oh, I can't smuggle it through in plain sight in the Spanish version? No problem, I'll just hide it in the English version, because that only takes a few key strokes" (problaby even less work than creating a spanish version for the "smuggling" purpose in the first place, and also more people will see my forbidden text in the end, not only the spanish people - and I wouldn't have put it into the Spanish version in plain sight anyway, as that would be too easy to catch if a spanish reviewer would happen to look at it, but I would have hidden it in the Spanish version too, of course).

Jim Perry:

I can almost guarantee that MS isn't going to drop the requirement for a localized version to be reviewed.

Regarding this, I fear I have to agree with you (unfortunately). But one can always hope different and argue and try to achieve a change even against improbable odds... ;-)

Doc

Spyn Doctor:

It's like protecting a parking lot that is accessible from all sides by putting a long fence around it, that nonetheless has many (very large) holes. But then you still insist on having a locked gate over the main access road:
Any intruder would simply leave the main road and drive through one of the holes from a side road. But any authorized person visiting the lot over the main road would have to drive up to the gate, get out of the car, unlock the gate, drive through, get out again, close the gate, then park the car.
The sensible thing would be to just get rid of the gate, because it adds no security against intruders but only adds a penalty for authorized visitors, and instead rely on the threat that is displayed on big signs along the fence, that if you catch any intruders in the lot, you will sue their pants off.
Of course you could then argue: But if we get rid of the gate then some intruders will certainly take advantage of this and enter the lot on the main road. And that will certainly be so! However, does that really matter? Because if you keep the gate, those same intruders will enter the lot anyway, just not on the main road, but via a side road, with no more difficulty than if you had allowed them the main entrance.

It seems you're concentrating on security. It's not just about security, it's about liability.

Extrapolating, why have peer review at all? If people can get through the holes in the fence why not just tear the entire fence down and let anyone in?

Abel Garcia Plaza:

Just give me a solution to not be marginated. I'm feeling like that just for wanting to publish my game in my mother tongue. That's not fair! The design of peer-review is flaw and should be modified.

Its not a flaw in the system its a lack of interest in either being premium CC members or because the CC members in those countries choose not to review.

Sure its not a perfect system - text can be hidden in any number of ways. But the process creates a due diligence - it says Microsoft and the reviewers made a basic effort to check this. If a developer maliciously sneaks stuff through then the developer is still going to get caught and suffer the consequences. Microsoft just need to show they had a reasonable attempt - that's why they need a native speaker.

This is community games... start a community - where are the Spanish/French/Italian XNA user groups? Get the Microsoft offices in those countries to organise some events like the Belgians did http://www.xnabug.net/. If those countries do not put up the reviewers then the result as is you described - people won't localise games. Maybe in a month or so when people realise there are only English games that will encourage them to get out and review. Get the word out to xbox blogs and fan sites that are localised in those languages... 

Its certainly a shame that your fellow countrymen are not so involved and passionate about this as you are...

(Abel: Yes I know you live in the UK so this isn't a solution you can easily use but there must be others who can)

The ZMan:

Its not a flaw in the system its a lack of interest in either being premium CC members or because the CC members in those countries choose not to review.

For me it's a flaw design, as long as it doesn't offer the same opportunities to all people, regardless their culture. If it relies on the fact that a French/Italian/Spanish/whatever community will grow at same speed as the English one, it's flaw. If there's something wrong on Community Games idea, like this in my opinion, it's Microsoft responsibility to fix it, as it's a Microsoft idea/business. They tell you that you're being able to create the game you dream but, at the same time, they don't allow so, as in my dreams my game is, at least, in my mother tongue. And that's because of the peer-review system design. I insist: the system design relies on a fact that isn't true at this time (that is, there are enough non-English peer-reviewers). So, at this time, the system design is flaw.

The ZMan:

This is community games... start a community - where are the Spanish/French/Italian XNA user groups?

Unfortunately, I currently haven't got enough time to start a "foreign" XNA localization community. But you can be sure I'll do something if this situation doen't change.

The ZMan:

Maybe in a month or so when people realise there are only English games that will encourage them to get out and review.

I hope so. If not, as said, I'll do something by myself to enforce the multilanguage support in this community.

In regards to this topic, I've post some questions about the consequences of hidden multilanguage support. When possible, please take a look at them.

Just give me a solution to not be marginated.

The problem is not with Microsoft. They have provided the tools. The problem is that your target market is smaller, and further back on the adoption curve, than the English speaking market. You have a choice of playing to that market, or ignoring that market. You may also be able to change the market a little bit, by doing evangelism, but largely, the way it works is "the way it is" -- there really isn't much anyone can do about it other than wait, and evangelize.

Personally, I speak two foreign languages in addition to English, but neither of them is even supported as publish/review languages, so my multi-linguality isn't all that useful in this context.

jwatte:

Personally, I speak two foreign languages in addition to English, but neither of them is even supported as publish/review languages, so my multi-linguality isn't all that useful in this context.

I don't think Klingon will ever be supported on XBL ;-)

The ZMan:

jwatte:

Personally, I speak two foreign languages in addition to English, but neither of them is even supported as publish/review languages, so my multi-linguality isn't all that useful in this context.

I don't think Klingon will ever be supported on XBL ;-)

Aww, man, there goes my idea for Klingon Boggle! :(

On a related note, I've recently put up a game for review in both Spanish and English (Arriba, it's up for peer review right now). My personal concern is that i don't know how many more 'Spanish' reviews I need. It would be nice to have a seperate progress bar for your english and foreign language reviews so that you don't have to guess if you need more Spanish reviews to get approved or if you just need more reviews of any kind.

Abel Garcia Plaza:

I want to publish my game as it was conceived. Please, don't force me to drop the multilanguage support just for not having the same opportunities than others. I would feel stupid if I publish my game in my country without supporting my mother tongue...

And finally happened: Writer's Block removes Italian support. Guess what? It's the mother tongue of most of its developers... REALLY, REALLY disappointing.

Hi just a relevant question in terms of language support.
Can you add support for a new language when you rerelease a game??
If so, then I would release my game in English first, then add foreign languages later. That way I can support as many languages as I can get translations for, but don't have to worry about an extended peer review before I get my game out.
Or are your supported langauges fixed on your first release? If that's the case, I can't see myself bothering with foreign language support (sorry... my goal is to get something released, and putting in work to support relatively small markets, which will also considerably delay peer review, is not something I want to do before I reach the point of getting to the largest market).

(I should point at least point I have nothing close to release, and I haven't looked at supporting localised languages - my game doesn't even have any text in yet! But when it comes to doing menus etc... I'm planning to look at supporting localisation properly, since it's a do once kinda thing).

You can first release the game with English only. Once it is through peer review and available online, you can re-release the same game with more languages. This re-release will have to go through the full peer review process again, and this time for all languages (both English and the new languages). During the second peer review, the old English-only version will remain on marketplace. Once the new multi-language version is approved, it will replace the English version on the marketplace. People who already downloaded the English version will then need to re-download manually to get the new version with the new languages. So you will have to tell them somehow that the new version is available.

Doc