IMO == In MY opinion... I don't get to make the rules round here hence why I suggested people discussed what they think that means.

Remember thatn XBLIG is a business for Microsoft, its great that your games are good enough that people will still buy them even though they don't have to but imagine if everyone did that. MS stump up the bill for all the downloads and get nothing back in return. For all you know Microsoft may have had complaints about people who bought the game and then realised they got nothing. I know there's a couple of games in the xbox.com forums where people complained about similar. For $1 or so its generally not worth making the phone call or posting a complaint in the forums. I know that I personally would be bothered if I purchased a game and got nothing extra.

Its fairly simple to add some unlockable content or limit your levels like Nick did on PixelMan.

By the same token can the games that already passed but fail the "no trial" or "no video" rules be pulled? Is it just a matter of us going through old games & submitting for abuse? Not sure if you some of you(even some MVPs) will like that since there are games that passed last November that fail quite of few of those rules too.

BTW, now that this written in stone, what do we do about people who only provide video or screenshots of the gameplay during trial? The rule only states "All games must have a trial mode that showcases the actual game experience". It doesn't say the actual game experience needs to be playable. This is something I warned about last time.

Tommy McClain

Games in marketplace, anyone can report abuse about anything - but in general the rules are stricter. Xbox folk are not expected to know about evil checklists etc. They justsay 'this trail mode sucked' or 'i couldnt play this game'. If they bother you then feel free to report abuse. Those are dealt with by Microsoft though not peers and like I said are much stricter.

I dont recall any previous games that had no trial or were videos - which ones? (email me if you dont want to name names in here). In general I dont think Microsoft is going to go back and pull games though as they were within the rules at the time.

Video or screen shots IMO is not a 'showcasing the actual game experience'.. I will be failing games that dont let me play something.

The ZMan:

Games in marketplace, anyone can report abuse about anything - but in general the rules are stricter. Xbox folk are not expected to know about evil checklists etc. They justsay 'this trail mode sucked' or 'i couldnt play this game'. If they bother you then feel free to report abuse. Those are dealt with by Microsoft though not peers and like I said are much stricter.

I dont recall any previous games that had no trial or were videos - which ones? (email me if you dont want to name names in here). In general I dont think Microsoft is going to go back and pull games though as they were within the rules at the time.

Video or screen shots IMO is not a 'showcasing the actual game experience'.. I will be failing games that dont let me play something.

There are previous games like Nick's Block that can be completely played in the 8 minute trial(he said it himself). There are a lot games that don't allow playing with more than controller, etc, etc... Get my point? This can get very messy. You start failing some of these games and those creators might retaliate by reporting you older games for abuse.

Here's the definition of "showcase" from Dictionary.com...

–verb (used with object)
4. to exhibit or display.
5. to present in or as if in an entertainment showcase: The bar showcases young jazz pianists. 
6. to show to best advantage: The part minimizes her acting ability and showcases her singing. 
7. to present as a special event: The TV network plans to showcase a new production of the play. 

If you are choosing a definition that means "playable", then I think you should be reprimanded for failing games because it doesn't mean that. If they meant "playable" then they should have said that instead.

Tommy McClain

I think what they mean is that you have to give the player at least a portion of the experience that they will actually get if they purchase the software.  So if your game is a platform game, there has to be a level for players to try.  If your game is a massage app, the player must be able to try at least one of the massage functions, etc. 

Bloc and one of James's games (ZXPK14 - I know that was a game I saw a complaint about no extra content after buying for 200MSP) both suffered from the change in trial time from 4 to 8 minutes.. and yes maybe those wouldn't pass today. Bloc technically is like Geometry wars in that if you are REALLY good you could last more than 8 (or 4) minutes...

Failing games in peer review is not the same thing as reporting abuse its a very different process... if people want to report for abuse then thats just fine and dandy. Its a Microsoft process and they will determine if there's a problem - if there is they will pull the game. Its not something for us to worry about.

I'll mention the wording to the Microsoft people but as always we shouldn't spend hours on dictionary definitions and over analysis... making Microsoft rewrite the rules is far more than just a quick edit. They have review meetings and legalities to worry about and every minute they spend doing that is a minute they are not spending on the product. The wording to me means 'you better have a trial mode like every other game on XBL does because thats what customers expect and deserve' and thats what I will be failing for. If I'm wrong then I'm sure you will all report me and I'll be told....

As always these edge case rules are there to stop certain categories of things that Microsoft don't want to see on the service. 99% of the games will never have to worry about this and therefor neither will most of the reviewers.

The Shape of Games to Come:

I think what they mean is that you have to give the player at least a portion of the experience that they will actually get if they purchase the software.  So if your game is a platform game, there has to be a level for players to try.  If your game is a massage app, the player must be able to try at least one of the massage functions, etc. 

I agree, but you can do all that by playing video or displaying screenshots. It doesn't have to be playable to showcase the paid content.

Tommy McClain

The ZMan:

As always these edge case rules are there to stop certain categories of things that Microsoft don't want to see on the service. 99% of the games will never have to worry about this and therefor neither will most of the reviewers.

Agreed, but it always seems like those edge cases are the ones slipping through because of badly worded rules.

Tommy McClain

The ZMan:

I will add something to the checklist once I find a better link than the reviewers guide.

I already added these new items to the list a few hours ago, just didn't have the time to post here yet. I did not add them as test cases, since they're not really something you need to specifically "test" for (they're just something that you see right away when you start the game), but added them under the list of things that games are failed for.

There's already a link to http://creators.xna.com/en-US/help/peerReviewStep20 too (where this rule is explained), but a few bullets further up in the list...

Doc

The ZMan:

I dont recall any previous games that had no trial or were videos - which ones? (email me if you dont want to name names in here). In general I dont think Microsoft is going to go back and pull games though as they were within the rules at the time.

Every single GoVids game?

Oh I thought you meant besides those ;-)

I honestly don't know if they will be pulled but as indicated here http://forums.xbox.com/29110267/ShowPost.aspx several xbox.com folk reported abuse over the trial issue. If enough abuse reports happen, and Microsoft decides they are within whatever rules are applied to 'report abuse'  then they could pull them. I'm sure some of their rules are similar to our peer review rules but I dont know what they are or how they are applied... totally different process.

If a trial mode of a game consists of nothing but a video (be it wmv or programmatic slideshow) of the gameplay available in the full version, does it truly "showcase the actual game experience"?  I would argue that it showcases video playback, not gameplay.  In the strictest sense, the only thing you're demoing in the trial would be the developer's ability to display video.  As a consumer, the only thing I could be sure of is that the game can playback video of some sort.  I would not be able to tell if there was a game in the full version.  As such, I would fail any games with a trial mode consisting of a video.

Noone has yet suggested the possibility of in-engine demos that can't be controlled by the player, usually called 'rolling demos'. For a game sold on the prettiness of its graphics engine, a rolling demo may make perfect sense (especially if the gameplay isn't very good.) Even if the gameplay is adequate, it may distract the demo viewer from the graphics. Look to racing games, where a rolling demo would likely use camera angles that are unsuitable for play yet show off the pretty cars. Or Lair for the PS3. The presence of the word "experience" probably implies that the demo should contain gameplay if the full version contains gameplay, though.

I'm wondering how you separate games where a video is a large part of the gameplay, and the whole video can be seen in the trial e.g. The Headsman, from games where the whole video is the obviously primary focus with some trivial gameplay that may have been tacked on to evade the rule. Then it seems to be subjective which the focus is on, and how tacked-on the gameplay is, which will cause problems considering the low quality of many games' gameplay already. Maybe the solution is to allow full videos so long as there's some gameplay, but then I don't see the usefulness of a rule that can be evaded so easily, and someone could conceivably push the limits of what constitutes 'gameplay'.

My advice - make games that fit the platform restrictions.

My advice... look at XBLA - see any pre rendered trials? See any video trials? See any static screen shot trials (though they do use screen shots to tempt you with the extra stuff right before you buy)..

XBL customers EXPECT to play the game before they buy it. Do what they expect and they will be happy and might buy your game. Do something else becuase you think you are special and they won't. This is what Microsoft intend by that rule so just do it. Examining every word, trying to work around it causes them to have to work hard to change the rules. Causes the mods to spend all their time clarifying things. I know most of you are very sensible people so just do the right thing...

Time for some Ben... http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr119121.html

Unfortunately the rules aren't made for the creators who already do the right & sensible thing to do. There is a small percentage of developers who are trying to find loop holes in the rules. That's who these rules are being written for. However, if the rules were written correctly in the first place, then you wouldn't have these problems. I've pointed out these issues in hope that the MVPs & Microsoft would want to fix it, but if you can't be bothered then just remember I warned you. We'll back in here in less than 6 months time complaining about developers gaming the system. BTW, Indie Games is not XBLA. We've had this discussion before, they have different audiences & different rules. One should not use XBLA as a way to develop Indie Games. If they wanted that, then they wouldn't have put it in the hands of the community in the first place.

Tommy McClain

AzBat360:

However, if the rules were written correctly in the first place, then you wouldn't have these problems.

They were written correctly. They were also written to try to give the community as much leeway as possible so they could create the game they wanted to create. Unfortunately, the idiots out there had to ruin it for everyone else by submitting crap. Don't blame MS, blame the crap-submitting developers. Freedom to create/innovate != submitting crap. :(

I would also like to chime in here to back up Jim. I feel very strongly about this.

Everyone has to remember this is OUR club!

Microsoft gave us the bare minimum rules that they could get sued over. Things like bad language and pornography and the like. Other than that this is OURS. We make the rules and define what our games do. This is supposed to be an chance for just about anything goes.

True we would like to keep crap out of the system. If we as a club deside something doesn't warrant getting put out as a game because we as a group don't like it, then that is OUR choice not Microsoft's. I totally support Microsoft on this. As long as we don't cause Microsoft any legal issues, then I think we can deside whatever we want.

hotshot 10101:

As long as we don't cause Microsoft any legal issues, then I think we can deside whatever we want.

Actually, we can only "decide" things within the rules they've laid out for us.  If you decide to fail something on a subjective basis (ie, because it's "crap") then you're outside those rules.  That's not a decision you get to make.  We can make decisions on how to apply the rules MS has given us, but we can't change them.

AzBat360:

in hope that the MVPs ...... would want to fix it

You underestimate the powers of the MVPs... we can't write any of those rules directly. Add your requests to connect if you want Microsoft to deal with them. We do echo many of the concerns back to Microsoft - to the point that sometimes we probably annoy them.

AzBat360:

BTW, Indie Games is not XBLA. We've had this discussion before, they have different audiences & different rules.

For some things yes we should not compare... for others like this when we are talking about an end user experience you will find that the end users don't care about the differences. They want to play a demo - thats what they have always done and will expect from XBL (A or IG).

As for the rules I've talked about this before - if Microsoft had to anticipate all the ass-hat things people would do then there would be 20 pages of rules and they would still be working on them and there would be no XBLIG. They tried to keep it as short as possible while satisfying the lawyers, accountants and business people. This approach means that yes not everything will be covered to the satisfaction of everyone and yes it means every 6 months we will revisit to stop those who like to mess with the system. But its a vlaid approach that got them to market in a short amount of time.

JeBuS:

hotshot 10101:

As long as we don't cause Microsoft any legal issues, then I think we can deside whatever we want.

Actually, we can only "decide" things within the rules they've laid out for us.  If you decide to fail something on a subjective basis (ie, because it's "crap") then you're outside those rules.  That's not a decision you get to make.  We can make decisions on how to apply the rules MS has given us, but we can't change them.

I hope you didn't misunderstand. I totally agree that we can only work within the rules. That is why they are there. I kind of meant that when I said what I said. I just didn't make it clear.

The ZMan:

As for the rules I've talked about this before - if Microsoft had to anticipate all the ass-hat things people would do then there would be 20 pages of rules and they would still be working on them and there would be no XBLIG. They tried to keep it as short as possible while satisfying the lawyers, accountants and business people. This approach means that yes not everything will be covered to the satisfaction of everyone and yes it means every 6 months we will revisit to stop those who like to mess with the system. But its a vlaid approach that got them to market in a short amount of time.

I agree with almost everything you always post, ZMan, but in this case I think I disagree. Specifically in why Microsoft kept the rules simply and didn't cover everything. I think the reason they did it is what I posted above. I think it was to give us leaway.

I think one of the things most of us don't get about Indie games is the purpose. When I first heard about this and after my first game started selling well, I actually thought I might make some serious money doing this. As it turns out some people will make some good money, most won't. I don't think that is the reason Microsoft created Indie games. Sure we all would like to make some cash and I am sure Microsoft hopes we will feel that the time we spent was worth it. In the end, however, Indie games is about experimenting. It is about trying out new ideas that are have enough risk in them that it is not worth spending a ton of money to develop the idea the normal way (XBLA or Full game). If you want to make some serious money in making games, then Indie is not for you. It may be your starting point where you try out some ideas and find something that people really like. If that is the case then you enhance it and go full game or XBLA with the idea.

Personally I think we have gone too far. I think we are limiting the creativity of Indie games with all the requirements. We need to keep in mind what this is about....trying things and playing around with ideas. The rules are very clear. We just need to follow them as reasonablly as we can.

hotshot 10101:

We need to keep in mind what this is about trying things and playing around with ideas.

Its a goal but not the main one... the main one is to make Microsoft money. If consumers are complaining about crap on the service and blogs are mocking the stuff then you better belive Microsoft are going to change the rules if they think it will stop people from buying other stuff on there. If people are writing games with less than 8 minutes of content so that nobody buys it but Microsoft have to foot the bandwidth bill then they are going to change the rules.

If you don't want creativity further restricted then people need to stop producing and reviewing stuff that Microsoft are going to end up restricting. I think we all know what that is when we see it. Review the creative and well made stuff. Don't produce an app every week just becuase you can... etc etc.

The ZMan:

hotshot 10101:

We need to keep in mind what this is about trying things and playing around with ideas.

Its a goal but not the main one... the main one is to make Microsoft money. If consumers are complaining about crap on the service and blogs are mocking the stuff then you better belive Microsoft are going to change the rules if they think it will stop people from buying other stuff on there. If people are writing games with less than 8 minutes of content so that nobody buys it but Microsoft have to foot the bandwidth bill then they are going to change the rules.

If you don't want creativity further restricted then people need to stop producing and reviewing stuff that Microsoft are going to end up restricting. I think we all know what that is when we see it. Review the creative and well made stuff. Don't produce an app every week just becuase you can... etc etc.

Hmmm. I certainly agree that Microsoft can't loose money on this. At the same time I think they went into it from the beginning not planning on making a ton either. There are a lot of other benefits to Indie games than just money in the games. They will sell more consoles. They were the first platform that any person could make a game for easily and with little cost, etc.

The 8 minute thing I also agree with, but I don't think that will be a big deal because most devs are going to want to make at least something and that should offset the few that don't.

I don't we or Microsoft needs to do anything to deal with the crap. That is what a free market and the reviews are all about. Crap just won't get purchased. Even not very good games won't get purchased. They won't even really get downloaded.

If we just stick with the rules and make sure they are not violated, we might get a little more crap, but at the same time we won't limit some great ideas that just don't have great devs behind them. If a really crapping version of a great idea comes out there is also nothing that says I can't make the same game, but make it better. Then the crap version gets left in the dust, but the great version I make sells well and makes up for it. If I never would have thought of that idea in the first place and the crap version never made it out because it got failed, then there went a great idea that nevers gets done.

Free market is the way to go.

hotshot 10101:

At the same time I think they went into it from the beginning not planning on making a ton either.

They may plan to make an initial loss to be made up later when it grows, or they may intend one branch to make a loss so that something else within Microsoft maks more (e.g. give away epress editions becuase it ends up making people like VS who will later buy it) but rest assured that Microsoft (like every big company - lets not pretend google or sony do things to be nice either) intend IG to make it significant money somewhere somehow. Microsoft has whole teams of people ensuring this happens and teams get shut down all the time to achieve this goal.

Nobody is buying a console for indie games... though i bet people are buying them for NetFlix. Indie games is not a gateway drug to the 360 - its the other way round. IG is a little more attach rate to subsidize the hardware which is what console makers really care about. Remember the hardware is a loss leader to the later upsells.

The problem with the free market in this case is the reputation issue. Games on IG rarely stand alone like "I maed a game with Zombies" - you rely on people knowing that there is quality there if they look. I talked to some people at PAX and heard 'oh isn't that all vibrator games and screen savers'* or 'its like the iTunes store right full of things people wrote in an hour'? Its clear to me that the shovelware does not help attract people who would buy the good stuff to the area. So saying that reviews and ratings will solve that isn't enough. To be honest I am seing that change slowly - more and more review sites are noticing the good and the joking is slowing down. But IMO removing the crap would speed this up - I dont think free market is working here yet.


*Note that almost all of them said 'no achievements' as the 1st thing but thats off topic for this thread.