Jim Perry:

I've never seen a 360 game that uses a website to get additional content. What game does this?

Call of Duty 4 GOTY Edition comes with a keycode that requires you to go the site and asks for personal info like name, birth date, email...

Rockband 2 does this as well.  They do this for marketing and to provide incentive against buying used games.  Gears of War 2 comes with a redemption code as well, but since they it's Microsoft published they have your info anyway, so it's just a standard Xbox redemption code.  Halo 3 has bungie.net for downloading UGC...

Jim Perry:

The difference is that with the Snake game it's not content that's required to play the game.

Okay, I think I am asking WHY it's a problem.  If there isn't anything inherently worse than the internet based high scores, maybe the review process needs to be reworded/adjusted to allow for these types of games.

Jim Perry:

You're comparing apples to oranges. When you take a game to the ESRB for rating you're required to submit all content. Online chat is not content. If you tell them "Just rate this content. There's a website required to play the game but I'm not submitting that because it's not part of the exe" they would simply say "No."

I disagree. Online chat and video feeds are part of the game experience. If these things weren't a concern to the ESRB, game makers wouldn't be required to post a disclaimer. I don't want to argue semantics here, but I think, from the player's perspective, hearing a player's voice or seeing their face mapped onto an in-game character model is considered content.

And the ESRB wouldn't say no to a game that requires resources beyond the game itself. EA's old ARG, Majestic, was rated "Mature" by the ESRB in 2001. Even the original Metal Gear Solid required players to find a clue in the physical world in order to move on. Should the ESRB have thrown these games out because they relied on content outside of the game executable? I think not.

Jim Perry:

It's MS's platform, they can do what they want. If we want to play in their sandbox, we play by their rules.

Jim Perry:

In order to approve a game we have to verify that it meets the criteria established by MS. Part of that criteria is that the game doesn't content material that's prohibited and that the ratings given by the developer are what the game actually is.

You're absolutely right. This is MS's platform, and we should play by their rules. So where in their rules does it say that web content is prohibited?

Additionally, the only thing I'm trying to release on MS's platform is the .ccgame file -- not the web content. It's logical to me to think that only the content that's released on the Community Games Marketplace should be held to MS's rules. It's true that the web content is required to complete Deguiyu, but I don't think it's the job of peer reviewers to critique the paths players must take in the game. It's their job to find out if the content featured on the Xbox is appropriate. It's up to the players if they want to venture out of the Xbox or not.

Axis:

It's true that the web content is required to complete Deguiyu, but I don't think it's the job of peer reviewers to critique the paths players must take in the game. It's their job to find out if the content featured on the Xbox is appropriate. It's up to the players if they want to venture out of the Xbox or not.

In order to complete the game, the reviewer must look at the web content in the case of Deguiyu. I.e., in order to see all of the Xbox 360 content, they must naturally see the web content. Unless you pre-supply everyone with codes and a cheat guide, the Xbox part and the web part are tightly coupled.

BogTurtleCarl:

In order to complete the game, the reviewer must look at the web content in the case of Deguiyu. I.e., in order to see all of the Xbox 360 content, they must naturally see the web content. Unless you pre-supply everyone with codes and a cheat guide, the Xbox part and the web part are tightly coupled.

While a coupled game might have issues under the current review scheme, this could indicate a problem with the review scheme, and not the idea in the game itself.  Aside from the current review guidelines, what is the reason to not allow this?  If you allow for Snake360's score board, you have already given up on protecting users from the dangerous internet. 

Is there a fundamental reason to not allow this beyond current review guidelines and an (IMHO unrealstic) expectation to protect users from the internet?  What if the rules where changed to explicitly allow for games like this and require review of the web content as well?  The game can still be pulled from the xbox if there is a problem, just as if hidden content were to manifest itself (after a certain date for example)

Reality Shift:

While a coupled game might have issues under the current review scheme, this could indicate a problem with the review scheme, and not the idea in the game itself.  Aside from the current review guidelines, what is the reason to not allow this?  If you allow for Snake360's score board, you have already given up on protecting users from the dangerous internet.

I completely agree, although I'm still left wondering what *specifically* in the current review guidelines restricts web content from community games. Has anything formal ever been written about web tie-ins (I assume not because of Snake360's success)?

Reality Shift:

Is there a fundamental reason to not allow this beyond current review guidelines and an (IMHO unrealstic) expectation to protect users from the internet?  What if the rules where changed to explicitly allow for games like this and require review of the web content as well?  The game can still be pulled from the xbox if there is a problem, just as if hidden content were to manifest itself (after a certain date for example)

Agreed. Someone disregarded the comparison between web content and hidden content earlier, but I still think this is a valid argument. There are processes in place to remove games that slip through the cracks with inappropriate content. The same processes can apply to games that incorporate web content if the web content ever changed to something inappropriate.

I don't think our job is to be protectors, censoring/restricting access to games that we feel are unsafe. Instead we're here to *inform* players about the content of the game to the best of our abilities. If a game includes (potentially dynamic) web content, we should tell players that up front rather than "protect" them from it by banning it from the service.

I think this type of game should be okay if it had a disclaimer attached to it right at the game startup, and before you can enter the website, saying viewing the content on the website will be viewed by them at there own risk.

Jim Perry:

I've never seen a 360 game that uses a website to get additional content. What game does this?

Fable 2

You get some cash, a chicken suit, and some books in game, by going on lionhead's site.

Catalin Zima:

Jim Perry:

I've never seen a 360 game that uses a website to get additional content. What game does this?

Fable 2

You get some cash, a chicken suit, and some books in game, by going on lionhead's site.

Ahh, I'd forgotten about that. It was so long ago and I haven't gotten to it in the game yet.

Axis:

So where in their rules does it say that web content is prohibited?

You're not getting it. Read below.

Axis:

Additionally, the only thing I'm trying to release on MS's platform is the .ccgame file -- not the web content. It's logical to me to think that only the content that's released on the Community Games Marketplace should be held to MS's rules. It's true that the web content is required to complete Deguiyu, but I don't think it's the job of peer reviewers to critique the paths players must take in the game. It's their job to find out if the content featured on the Xbox in the game is appropriate. It's up to the players if they want to venture out of the Xbox or not.

The issue though is that they have to venture out of the Xbox to complete the game. We're not critiquing "the paths the players must take in the game". We're attempting to review the content of the game to verify that it's acceptable. It's just not possible to do that when the content can be changed on the fly. By adding web content, you've bypassed the requirement to resubmit the game for approval if the content changes. That's a no-go, plain and simple.

Jim Perry:

The issue though is that they have to venture out of the Xbox to complete the game. We're not critiquing "the paths the players must take in the game". We're attempting to review the content of the game to verify that it's acceptable. It's just not possible to do that when the content can be changed on the fly. By adding web content, you've bypassed the requirement to resubmit the game for approval if the content changes. That's a no-go, plain and simple.

My point is that MS is asking us to review the content that will be accessible from the Xbox interface. Anything beyond that can't be reviewed fairly because it's not under the same control. But, as I said before, it's the job of peer reviewers (aside from checking for crashing bugs) to inform players about the nature of the game content, not to act as some arbitrary moral authority that gets to decide what games are "safe" enough for distribution.

You keep bringing up this distinction between requiring players to access web content to complete the game and giving players the option to access web content to complete the game. I think Reality Shift and I are on the same page in thinking that there isn't a fundamental difference between the two. Just by giving players the option to progress through the game by doing something on the web opens up the door to all of these issues that we're talking about. And I agree that if Snake360 (and all the other ESRB-rated games that have been cited in this thread) is allowable on the service, then other games that rely on web content should be, too.

And what if a game simply could not be completed at all, regardless of whether or not it relies on web content? What if I created a game that allowed you to progress to a certain point on the Xbox, but then prevented players from moving any further (intentionally or not)? It would be a crappy game, for sure (and I think we can easily agree that there are many crappy games on the CG marketplace currently), but can you fail that game because there's no way to complete it? I don't think you can under the current guidelines.

I can't recall if you've responded to the idea of a disclaimer that's been brought up several times. How do you feel about that?

Axis:

My point is that MS is asking us to review the content that will be accessible from the Xbox interface.

Where does it say this? The peer review terms and conditions say:

I will review each game fairly and honestly, and to the best of my ability.

Nothing about limiting it to "the content that will be accessible from the Xbox interface."

Axis:

Anything beyond that can't be reviewed fairly because it's not under the same control.

And that's exactly the problem. Our job as peer reviewers is to verify game content. It doesn't matter where that content is.

Axis:

But, as I said before, it's the job of peer reviewers (aside from checking for crashing bugs) to inform players about the nature of the game content

No, it's not. Players have no interaction with reviewers unless they visit these forums.

Axis:

And what if a game simply could not be completed at all, regardless of whether or not it relies on web content? What if I created a game that allowed you to progress to a certain point on the Xbox, but then prevented players from moving any further (intentionally or not)? It would be a crappy game, for sure (and I think we can easily agree that there are many crappy games on the CG marketplace currently), but can you fail that game because there's no way to complete it? I don't think you can under the current guidelines.

Yes, it would be failed immediately. I'll post this yet again:

What are game defects?

Every game submitted to the XNA Creators Club Online Web site needs to be free of errors, annoying slowdowns, crashes,

hangs

, or

other problems that would frustrate or confuse a player

.

Any one of these problems is a defect.

Axis:

I can't recall if you've responded to the idea of a disclaimer that's been brought up several times. How do you feel about that?

Not good enough.

I think we're just going around and around at this point.  I think we should just wait for an official Microsoft response ( which will probably be after the holidays).

This is all far too subjective to form any strong consensus on. I'm still not convinced the current set of review guidelines restrict games from incorporating web content, and I'm definitely not convinced that there's a fundamental difference between Snake360's use of the web and Deguiyu's.

I agree with Reality Shift that we need an official ruling on this. But I do appreciate everyone taking the time to express their opinions on this :)

Jim and ZMan,

Sorry to bring this up again, but I just wanted to clarify one thing as I'm reworking Deguiyu: is the critical issue that this game *requires* web content in order to progress? As someone suggested earlier, would making the web content *optional* be a suitable compromise (e.g., you can find the answer on this website, but you can also get the answer by finding it somewhere within the game itself)?

The absolute critical issue is the privacy one...  I don't think you can do this even with warnings and making it optional.

Requiring web access that I cannot review on my xbox is the key issue for me. If the web side is optional, you provide a disclaimer similar to the ESRB stuff "You may optionally play this game using unreviewed web content" then *I* would be happy to play the xbox only version and pass it*

Hopefully as the Microsoft guys come back to work we might get a better ruling. Thanks for working on a compromise on this...


*I'd also play the online version and give you feedback becuase I think its a cool idea..

Thanks, ZMan. The privacy issue has been taken care of. No more email/texting puzzles.

And I'd still love to hear an official response from MS...that might affect my future projects :-)

What if the game instructions were worded as 'guess the 3-letter sequence' to advance?
Then, show a web address that might contain hints, high scores, etc.. 
What would the threshhold be for 'required' to play the game? In this case, advancing in the game could be accomplished by trying random letter sequences. The game would be perfectly happy to continue, and would have no idea if you went to an external resource, or not. Of course, that would be horrible gameplay design, but are we going to start judging that? (I can think of worse offenders.) If a web address is shown in a game, I don't see how the purpose of it's presence is relevant. 
I think it's a slippery slope. Too slippery. My understanding of the content review is to determine the presence of the restricted content on the files being hosted on MS's servers. It certainly doesn't apply to material on developer's websites, user created content, or online experiences.

Your opinion is different to mine, I feel my job as reviewer is to review the package I am given as a whole game. That package cannot change so if I say 'there's no adult material' then it can't be added later. *Requiring* a web site means that I cannot do my job as a reviewer becuase that site it open to change, to collecting personal information, etc etc. In general consumers have a much higher expectation for console games that web games - people know that things cannot change and CG whould reflect that.

And yes guess lestters is bad gameplay but has nothing to do with the argument and would pass.

Axis,

Good luck on this ARG project. As a former player of the Dark Knight ARG I would have LOVED something like this on my 360. Personally I don't see what the brouhaha is all about. The abuse policy should suffice. The tight grips by the "community" I've been seeing lately seem to be getting worse. Before too long the "community" will pretty much kill off any innovation that this service potentially had. A lot like what's happened with Sony's Little Big Planet.

Tommy McClain

I hate seeing this conversation die off....How have peer review ambiguities been resolved in the past? I'm sure there has been a precedent of some sort. It's hard when only a small percentage of the community voices their opinion in these threads, but I'm definitely not alone in my opinions regarding web content (Thanks AzBat360 and Number13 for jumping in!).

It seems that most of the issues did come down to a precedent, or just a majority of people failing for a certain item. This is a real edge case and I don't know that we will get a decision from anyone at Microsoft.. In general they stay clear of such issues. Right now thread like these with a fe voices are the best we can do.

AzBat360:

Before too long the "community" will pretty much kill off any innovation that this service potentially had.

Have to disagree with you there. There's plenty of room for innovation within the parameters that have been established. A game that uses a website as part of the gameplay in not innovative to me. I think In The Pit was pretty innovative, but that might just be me. (Of course a grue should have eaten the player is the first 10 seconds but.... :D )