JasonD:

The fact that most people don't know XBLCG exists is irrelevant to the marketing value of Community Games vs. another name.

Not entirely. If someone doesn't know the product exists, what does the name matter one way or the other?

JasonD:

Also, what the average consumer is complaining about is also irrelevant

Shouldn't it be relevant? I mean, the average consumer is the target, so their complaints should be addressed. If they aren't complaining about the name, I don't believe the name is a big issue.

JasonD:

The focus of this thread is the marketing value of the name, and the difference is huge.

How do you prove that? Personally I think the name is just fine. I don't think the name is the reason for poor sales nor do I think you'll suddenly see an influx of sales from rebranding to another name. But that's just my gut reaction. Is there any prove or reason to believe the name change would increase sales or perception other than your gut feeling?

I personally suggest "Xbox LIVE Sukiyaki" because I think it's wonderful if the name is from social eating-out.
What about Xbox LIVE BBQ?

Harald Maassen:

I always felt the community games brand's negative aspects could be flipped to make the channel seem more COOL and CUTTING EDGE.

Like have a little disclaimer before you go into the community games section: "Warning! You are now leaving the protective confines of Xbox LIVE to enter the perillous realm of Community Games. There are no rules, no limits to what you will find here, but great treasure awaits those who dare brave these lands!"

I agree 100%.  Maybe not in those words you made up on the spot, but the general idea I agree with.  It should be known as a place you want to go to, to find the gems (er, maybe another word that doesn't imply you have to go searching through dirt to find them) that cannot be obtained elsewhere.  The no-regulations should be mentioned as a good thing, not as "you want to be careful" thing.

Runway 360:

I personally suggest "Xbox LIVE Sukiyaki" because I think it's wonderful if the name is from social eating-out.
What about Xbox LIVE BBQ?

I would visit the Xbox Live BBQ.  Sounds tasty. :)

As for the name, I guess it could have negative connotations if you view the term "community" negatively, but I look at community as a good thing, so I personally rather like the name.  A simpler, catchier name might help a bit, but I suspect the overall effect would be pretty minimal given the amount of work that would have to go into rebranding an entire service.

George Clingerman:

JasonD:

Thus, of all relevant topics to discuss -- avoiding ones that speak about things that cannot change -- talking about making our games better overall is the least relevant.

And that's where you and I would disagree. Educating the community on making games and making good games is one of the most relevant topics in my opinions. If the guys claiming they're making good games would take the time to release content saying HOW to go about that (i.e. look at all Nick has contributed along those lines). We'd have a TON of resource to point people too and raise the bar for community games in the process. It's one of the reasons I've been releasing tutorials for years, trying to change and educate the newbies I knew would be releasing games on the 360 and up that content quality a bit. Did I make a difference? I'm not sure, I'd like to hope so.

I agree 100% with you.  Educating the community on how to make good games is relevant.  That's why you guys have spent so much time making tutorials and samples.  The game state management sample is undoubtedly one of the best resources for game making on the internet.  I could go on and on about how all the amazing work show us how to do things in a professional way.

My point was the lack of regulations in XBLCG dictates that the overall quality will be poor.  We can do things to improve this (and you are), however, we'll still be left with the near-zero-regulation and absolute lowest-barrier-to-entry of Community Games allowing mostly crap getting onto the system, which means the OVERALL quality will be poor.  It does not mean those tutorials are worthless; the tutorials have helped me, and numerous others (who care about quality) an insane amount.  And I thank you guys for that time and effort to create them.  The tutorials are raising the overall quality (as without them most people would not have used the game state management code) however the overall quality is still so low that it still looks like complete crap to the common consumer, and this is what isn't going to change.  Besides, almost always it's the game themselves that are crap; not the programming ability of the programmer.

To answer your question: YES, you did make a difference.  I can attest to that. :)

This looks like another one of those lets blame something else for sales threads. Whats next the color scheme? All these developers who cannot properly market their tiny indie game are telling microsoft, one the the kings of marketing today, how to do some marketing. I mean really.

To use an analogy from a similar thread, we are not captains of the ship, we are the oarsmen in the bottom. Just providing the power.

Nick, multiple quoting really does break apart the flow of conversation, as now I have to address each of your post's points individually, in each their own context, which allows you and I to continue to miss the point of the thread (of which I will attempt to get back on course):

• I agree that the name of an unknown product doesn't matter to the person who doesn't know it.  This isn't relevant to marketing value of "Community Games".
  
• I agree that we must address the consumer's complaints.  A lack of complaints of the Community Games name doesn't dictate there's no better name.  (If they WERE complaining about the name it would be a GOOD thing: sometimes annoying commercials are made on purpose to initiate viral marketing.)
  
• We've given examples of what 'community' conveys to people.  It conveys 'everyone and their dog'.  It conveys the lowest common denominator.  'Indie', on the other hand, conveys small business owners rather than 'big blue' companies.  This isn't just a gut feeling.

The Shape of Games to Come:

... I guess it could have negative connotations if you view the term "community" negatively, but I look at community as a good thing, so I personally rather like the name.  A simpler, catchier name might help a bit ...

I think of "community" in a positive way too.  But I'm the developer here on the forums talking to the rest of you, all a part of the same community.  It's a nice feeling.  But, from the gamer's perspective... how does "community" look?

JasonD:

We've given examples of what 'community' conveys to people.  It conveys 'everyone and their dog'.  It conveys the lowest common denominator.  'Indie', on the other hand, conveys small business owners rather than 'big blue' companies.  This isn't just a gut feeling.

You've given what 'community' conveys to you. There have already been a number of people in this thread who don't see 'community' as meaning bottom of the barrel or lowest common denominator. It simply means it's a community; a group of people with common interest. And I don't see that as a bad thing at all.

Regardless of that, do you really think the difference in naming is going to greatly increase sales or even exposure at all? That's my primary point. If we're so concerned about the name, do we have any evidence at all that changing the name is going to do anything? Or will it simply alter all the headlines and complaints from "Community Games have low quality" to "Xbox Indie Games have low quality"?

JasonD:

It's a nice feeling.  But, from the gamer's perspective... how does "community" look?

Do you really think that Microsoft just popped that name out of thin air? Do you really think they don't know how it reads with the target audience they were going for? Maybe it's the people on our side that don't read community correctly and think it means hard core games.

I think that a lot of you are too close to the subject to make any arguments for keeping the name. You're not the target audience. People like myself are. We're not developers & programmers with a vested interest in making money off the service. And I think that is one reason why some of you are not making the right kind of games that we're looking for. The RC AirSim, Rumble Massage & Aquarium HD apps are and they are succeeding. What does this have to do with the name? A lot & anybody who knows even little bit about marketing can tell you that. It sets the mood of what the service is and from my non developer & programmer viewpoint it doesn't excite or entice me whatsoever. Check out EA's Sims Carnival service that lets you make any kind of game you want on the web. That's a catchy & inspiring name. Why not try keywords like 'Outpost' or 'Frontier'? 'Indie' is too dull. Get out a thesaurus and have some fun. Anyway, you've all shown that you can't market your own games effectively & the Community Games channel name just reinforces that belief.

Tommy McClain

JasonD:

We've given examples of what 'community' conveys to people.  It conveys 'everyone and their dog'.  It conveys the lowest common denominator.  'Indie', on the other hand, conveys small business owners rather than 'big blue' companies.  This isn't just a gut feeling.

Well... you've given an example of how someone reacts to a news item named "XNA Community Games is a Failed Experiment. PSN's Pub Fund is the Way to Go.", on a site called... wait for it... "http://www.ps3informer.com". I'm not sure that entirely reflects on the average Xbox user. But maybe I'm wrong...

article about Microsoft's view of the community games channel.

http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=12000DMB8RO0&full_skip=1

excerpt:

Moreover, the software giant is betting that accomplished gamers in search of new challenges will be enticed to try independently developed games, which are expected to be more inventive and quirky than those typically created for mass-market sales.

There are more articles repeating this marketing message, from Microsoft. You will notice they didn't say its the 80's and 90's clone channel, they didn't say it's the rehash channel. They marketed this channel to the world as a place to find something different than the other channels. Something different than XBLA. They are publishing Kodu on this channel, not XBLA. Apparently the consumers got the marketing message, but many developers didn't.

Big Daddio:

You will notice they didn't say its the 80's and 90's clone channel, they didn't say it's the rehash channel. They marketed this channel to the world as a place to find something different than the other channels. Something different than XBLA. They are publishing Kodu on this channel, not XBLA. Apparently the consumers got the marketing message, but many developers didn't.

Great insight.  One of the best posts I have read on these forums.

You're reading too much into propaganda from the competitor's site that's aimed to paint one of their competitor's advantages in a negative light! That rhymes. I'm a poet and don't know it.

Big Daddio:

There are more articles repeating this marketing message, from Microsoft. You will notice they didn't say its the 80's and 90's clone channel, they didn't say it's the rehash channel. They marketed this channel to the world as a place to find something different than the other channels. Something different than XBLA. They are publishing Kodu on this channel, not XBLA. Apparently the consumers got the marketing message, but many developers didn't.

Then the message must have been "stay away", based on the amount of exposure the channel has gotten.  Conversion rates are healthy, but XBLCG itself doesn't seem to be inciting much interest.  There are a lot of probable reasons for that--being buried in the Dashboard interface, the low average game quality, and the difficulty of finding good games are probably first on the list--but this thread is about the name.  And the name, quite frankly, is bad.

1. It's generic.  "Community" is a long, bland word, and "Games" is redundant (note that it is not present in the other downloadable Xbox game channels).  It doesn't sound like a place for inventive, outside-the-box excitement--it sounds like your grandma's weekly bingo meetup.
2. It's over-long.  Take a second right now to say it out loud.  "Xbox Live Community Games".  There's a reason customer-driven brands are almost never long--it has a negative effect on word of mouth, on how memorable and catchy the name is.
3. It implies something that is not there for the customer.  The "Community" in the name of the service is clearly a community of developers; the channel itself has no community of gamers.  If you're not a game developer, it doesn't sound like XBLCG is for you.

AzBat360:

And I think that is one reason why some of you are not making the right kind of games that we're looking for.

Or maybe people are making games that they find interesting?  I know that, personally, I'm making games that I would be interested in playing.  Is there a market for that?  Well, I would think so, since I don't really think of myself as being especially unusual, but at the end of the day I don't honestly know.  I do think it's kind of silly to say something like "the kind of games that we're looking for"; I was unaware that the tens of millions of Xbox gamers could be lumped together so easily.  There are all sorts of people who use Xbox Live, and I think developers would be very unwise to lump them all in together.

Anyway, you've all shown that you can't market your own games effectively & the Community Games channel name just reinforces that belief.

To the best of my knowledge, no one who has released a game here so far chose to call the service Community Games, so the correlation you draw makes no sense at all.

I said it out loud.  It's a mouthful.  I agree with everything you wrote, Anchorcast.  Technically correct often screams "no fun", and that's the case here.  Plus, do the gamers care we are community driven?  I don't think we need that aspect to be detailed.  Maybe XBLCG is going to expand it's "community" to the gamers themselves, where they rate the games?  Then, would it make sense?

I agree that the "Community Games" name could be improved.
I think that a smaller title could be easier to digest and catch on. I like that it's simply "Arcade" for XBLA. The acronym is easier to handle also as XBLA. I'd like a new title that's a single word (appended to XBL as needed).

Here's some ideas:

Xbox Live Unsigned
XBLU
"Unsigned" sounds interesting and conjures up the music industry and how there's lots of various bands making music, and occasionally there's some real standouts. It's feels experimental and a little wild.

Xbox Live Latitude
XBLL
"Latitude" implies more freedom with development. Also has a sort of relaxed connotation to it that should be generally appealing.

Alt Xbox Live
AXL (looks cooler and less confusing than AXBL  (keeping XBLA in mind))
Sure, "Alternative" is practically the mainstream in music, but it doesn't get used as a category often in games. Starting "Xbox Live" with "Alt" really suggests its different and that it can be a true alternative whats already on the service.

The Shape of Games to Come:

Or maybe people are making games that they find interesting?  I know that, personally, I'm making games that I would be interested in playing.  Is there a market for that? 

I'd say that is the one of the primary purposes of the channel. When people make what they find personal, sometimes that finds a market. It also gives the Xbox an diference over the Wii and the PS2. WiiWare is 100% Nintendo, it's in no way INDY. PS whatever they call it is also Sony controlled. Your game gets taken over by their people, and you have less and less say. XBLCG is pretty much totally free, make what we want and like. Some of it will sell, but we will all get to do whatever we want.


I believe many of us are missing the point. We are not here to compete with and cannibalize sales from XBLA. we are here to add to Microsoft's offer. To enhance Xbox and compete with the Wii. The PS3 is not really a problem, the Wii is family friendly and currently outselling Xbox. The name Community Games, the imagery in the launcher, they all say family friendly. They are cute and fanciful. When someone says community you can see the icon with everyone holding hands.

We have to stop looking at ourselves as XBLA jr. and start looking at ourselves as another alternative offer available only on xbox.  Try getting a WiiWare development kit. They don't just let anyone with the cash start developing. I think it would be easier to get an XBLA deal. Once again this channel is not designed to take sales or developers away from XBLA.

Xbox already has all the hardcore gamers, that market is tapped and happy with AAA and XBLA games. the only real growth we have now is in all the moms, little brothers, sisters, and grandmas. (remember all those stories of the old people playing Wii? Total marketing desguised as news)

I like the names Alt and Unsigned etc, however that just means take sales away from what exists, not add revenue and new markets to the Xbox offer as a whole.

Latitude on the other hand sounds pretty good, and can still get the message across. ; )

Perhaps something that implies 'no regulations' that makes people think they are in a new untested area where you'll find things not found anywhere else -- not even on other consoles.  Or maybe something that piques interest or makes people believe they are getting something not normally allowed, almost illegal, like 'underground', like an Area 51 where you're not supposed to be, but there's some really cool sh*t going on behind the fences...

Along the same thought process, the blue-screen that states the game hasn't been rated is just boring and makes people think the game is going to be crap.  This is actually an opportunity to improve appearance:  It could be something that looks very cool, like the Parental Advisory images that artists WANTED to show, because it meant their album was COOL:


P.S. I agree that "Xbox Live Community Games" is a mouthful, that "Community" is too long, technically correct, and boring, and that "Game" is redundant.

Big Daddio, the major flaw in your argument is that when you look at Xbox Live Arcade, it has TONS of family-friendly casual games available.  I would say that close to half of its games fall under that category.  So even if I buy that Microsoft intends XBLCG to target casuals (I don't--they've clearly set it up to offer a wide range of game types--just look at the genres and rating system), by targeting casuals, we're still competing with XBLA.

So any way you look at it, that's going to be the case.  I agree that part of the reason Microsoft has added this service is in the hopes that it will add value to the Xbox 360, but I don't think the overall image is supposed to be casual anymore than XBLA's is.  It's supposed to target a broad range of gamers.

Anchorcast:

Big Daddio, the major flaw in your argument is that when you look at Xbox Live Arcade, it has TONS of family-friendly casual games available.  I would say that close to half of its games fall under that category.  So even if I buy that Microsoft intends XBLCG to target casuals (I don't--they've clearly set it up to offer a wide range of game types--just look at the genres and rating system), by targeting casuals, we're still competing with XBLA.

So any way you look at it, that's going to be the case.  I agree that part of the reason Microsoft has added this service is in the hopes that it will add value to the Xbox 360, but I don't think the overall image is supposed to be casual anymore than XBLA's is.  It's supposed to target a broad range of gamers.

To a point sure, but I am not making any argument, I don't fancy myself a forum lawyer quibbling over the meaning of various phrases. I prefer to read the what the official Microsoft line is: from The Times Online

Asked whether bedroom developers could compete with the likes of Activision, the company behind games like Guitar Hero, Mr Harding-Rolls said: "You can definitely make extremely interesting, entertaining and addictive casual games that become popular with a huge number of people."

edit: I will still say XBLCG is here to compliment, not cannibalize. As you saw the uproar here over "non games" stealing sales etc, how do you think XBLA publishers would react to XBLCG stealing sales? especially after spending hundreds of thousands on development + dealing with official Microsoft licensing?

Big Daddio:

Asked whether bedroom developers could compete with the likes of Activision, the company behind games like Guitar Hero, Mr Harding-Rolls said: "You can definitely make extremely interesting, entertaining and addictive casual games that become popular with a huge number of people."

Sounds to me like he was answering the specific question about Guitar Hero and referring to the fact that it is a casual-friendly game with wide appeal, not saying that Community Games are supposed to be casual, exclusively.

Big Daddio:

edit: I will still say XBLCG is here to compliment, not cannibalize. As you saw the uproar here over "non games" stealing sales etc, how do you think XBLA publishers would react to XBLCG stealing sales? especially after spending hundreds of thousands on development + dealing with official Microsoft licensing?

XBLCG isn't anywhere close to that point.  Our sales are a drop in the bucket by comparison.  If it somehow does become anywhere near as successful as XBLA, I would expect those developers to be thrilled, because then they could come over here and release games for lower cost and get a bigger share of the revenue.  But I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, if ever.

JasonD:

Or maybe something that piques interest or makes people believe they are getting something not normally allowed, almost illegal, like 'underground', like an Area 51 where you're not supposed to be, but there's some really cool sh*t going on behind the fences...

I think "Xbox Live Underground" could potentially be a better name.  It's definitely catchy and simple.  Though they might run into problems with Sony who run a Playstation Underground (or used to, I don't know if it's still active).  But really, does anyone honestly think Microsoft is going to completely rebrand the service at this point?  I suppose they might if they thought the name was really hurting sales that much, but major corporations don't generally taking rebranding lightly.  It would probably be quite expensive.