Trolling is my exact concern. Perhaps it wouldn't nearly be a problem on GC as it is elsewhere, and maybe I'm just too pessimistic, but I fear that someone will put out a game and label it incorrectly in such a way that it actually turns away customers from GC all together. Maybe even as a joke, not with malicious intentions. I'm not well versed in business so I can't be sure that's even a valid concern, but I'm just concerned. Trolls lurk everywhere and do anything possible to get their fix.

I also whole heartedly agree that a game should be instantly rejected if its TIGRS rating isn't accurate, but that means that reviewers have to be at least somewhat familiar with it. Once again maybe I'm being pessimistic but that may be too much of a dependence on something external to the peer review process as factors such as culture come into play.

Nick Gravelyn:

But are you going to be bothered if someone else does use it?

Used correctly: absolutely not.
Risk of misuse? At least a little.

I'm not saying that I believe the risks outweigh the benefits, I'm just putting forth another opinion on what could happen.

Nick Gravelyn:

But are you going to be bothered if someone else does use it?

Possibly.  For two reasons:

1) The ESRB ratings were created to protect consumers and ensure they understand the content they're receiving - it's driven by consumer protection.

TIGRS on the other hand was designed to sell more games by presenting false assurances to wary and concerned customers - it's entirely sales driven, and not in the consumer's best interest.

Again with very strict rules for how ratings are applied to XBLIGs it could work, but any loose interpretations or accidents will damage the credibility of the system and potentially XBLIG.

If I download a questionable Unrated game for my kids, I'd blame my self.  If I download a questionable game with a family rating from any service, I would immediately question the legitimacy of the service and think twice before making that mistake again.


2) The ratings are providing some perceived benefit to the developers, otherwise why bother?  So having some developers opt-out (which is no different than the games currently being Unrated and seems like what part of the community is trying to overcome) effectively splits the games into two classes - "rated" and Unrated.


I agree with Mentil - why not just display the current ratings with the game, or overlay them on the box art.

DarkSquirrel:

TIGRS on the other hand was designed to sell more games by presenting false assurances to wary and concerned customers - it's entirely sales driven, and not in the consumer's best interest.

That's quite the accusation. "false assurances"? I believe idea behind TIGRS was to provide a possible system that indie developers who could not afford ESRB (or other) ratings, or simply didn't want to pay for it, could try and create a unified rating system on their own. 

Nick Gravelyn:

That's quite the accusation. "false assurances"? I believe idea behind TIGRS was to provide a possible system that indie developers who could not afford ESRB (or other) ratings, or simply didn't want to pay for it, could try and create a unified rating system on their own.

A developer makes a very bold claim by putting a "Family" rating on their game, it assures the buyer that the game is suitable for their (or at least the average) family.  With no, or a lax review system, that assurance is not guaranteed, and false.

There is no conceivable reason to "rate" a game other than to reassure or warn the consumer (depending on the rating level).

Nick Gravelyn:

I know I didn't bring this up thinking this would increase sales. I only thought of it as a way of presenting users with an easy to see and understand method for quickly figuring out the content level of a given game without having to parse out the text ratings from the description.

That's what game categories are for, or better yet tags.

Nick Gravelyn:

Why are those ratings any more reliable? They're still set by the creator just like this graphic would. There is absolutely no difference in validity between the two.

There's a huge difference - when a box only says "Family" it claims that someone assures the game is suitable for families.  What's worse is the TIGRS system mimics the ESRB, meaning parents now comfortable with ESRB are more likely to just buy a game based on the rating regardless of accuracy.

When a box says "Violence: 1" you think "I better check and see how much violence 'level-1' means" - it also doesn't make any claim as to who the game is suitable for.  The current system also helps identify what types of content are in the game and approximately how much.

Keep in mind I think TIGRS could work if strictly regulated, but I see the biggest benefit on the developer side not the consumer side.  And the consumer loses important details about the game's specific content ratings (which the current system provides).

DarkSquirrel:

With no, or a lax review system, that assurance is not guaranteed, and false.

Not guaranteed and false are very different concepts. False implies that it is guaranteed to be inaccurate. While we can't guarantee that all of them will be accurate, it is rather unfair to say they will all be inaccurate. 

Nick Gravelyn:

Not guaranteed and false are very different concepts.

When you're "assuring" something that's a guarantee.  If you can't guarantee, a guarantee - that's false.  This is besides the point...


What I'm saying is that as a parent I find this system sketchy at best, dangerous at worst.  And less helpful, as it takes away the current content specific ratings.  The only value goes to the developer by making the consumer feel "safer" (and how long before that backfires?).

Do you see the difference between providing detailed information about the game content then letting the consumer make an educated decision, and boldly claiming the game is suitable for everyone's family (or at least most people's)?  What are the legal implications for this?  It's hard to claim the XBLIGs are as-is because they're Unrated, yet they're rated with a nearly identical system, designed to comfort (and potentially confuse - certainly not inform) the consumer.  And if the full ratings are staying in the game description, what did we really gain?  The descriptions are still a mess.

I'm actually interested in hearing the XNA team's take on this.  I'm guessing someone considered an ESRB like system while XBLCG was being developed - there are probably good reasons why we have the current informative system.

And just to clarify again - I do think the system could work if strictly regulated, but the consumer is losing a lot of detail in the process, and if anything goes wrong...

Nick Gravelyn:

The question is do you really need every last pixel? Look at most retail games. Some are nothing more than a fancy logo for the game plus the ESRB icon and then the dev/publisher icons. Box art shouldn't be a billboard or advertisement. I personally find things like what Snake360 did to be ugly by listing features. Show me a cool graphic with the title and I'm good. Plus, as most of you have said, people will download and try the games so is it really necessary to list features on the box art itself? Why not use the description or place that in the trial when they start it up?

Actually, the rule of packaging design is that if you lack advertising or sponsorship, you HAVE to put your "features" on your packaging to tell the consumer what you're offering, as that's really your only chance to do so.

Many of the retail games you're referring to have advertising, so they aren't forced to do so, but you'll find a trend where, the less advertising (or obvious draw like a celebrity on the box), the more explaining is on the box. And, also, retail games have the back of the box to advertise their game as well.

When you're talking about XBLA games, you have a similar situation where they expect their magazine coverage to provide the advertising to tell people what the games are.

Nick Gravelyn:

Here's another way to look at this idea:

If you don't like the idea, don't use it. Simple as that. But are you going to be bothered if someone else does use it?

OK, but don't get defensive.  This thread started with the question "Would you use these ratings for your games?", if people say no and then explain why not then it's not an attack on people who do.

DarkSquirrel:

2) The ratings are providing some perceived benefit to the developers, otherwise why bother?

I'm curious, has anyone here ever had complaints from parents that games they downloaded for their kids are not what they expected?

The ESRB puts a fortune into advertising their ratings, and still a lot of parents seem unaware of them.  I suppose the TIGRS ratings will ride on the coattails of that advertising to a certain extent, but it seems to me like it'd just be a unidentified colored square to most people.

AzBat360:

Are you a parent with kids who play games?

As a matter of fact I am. The ESRB ratings are still useless to me, or at least irrelevant.

Wow... this is conversation is full of itself...

I would agree that instead of putting that god awful text up in the description that a Tigrs rating would be better, but it would have to be community moded.

Any whats is with the people looking at sales, i doubt that there are Dads on XBLCG buying games for their sons... Maybe if the service was bigger that would be a concern, but now it is just nitpicking. The TIGRS system only brings a sense of legititmacy to the service. ESRB ratings are the norm for Disc Games... why not atleast try to adopt some standards of our own... The is one of the bigger problems that we face here... no one is willing to adopt standards... will it hurt your sales "Oh no... i didn't get a download today... i blame TIGRS". If we adopt some standards of higher quality, beta testing, universal project tracking, polish time, etc we would be much better off...

But, god forbid that Tigrs kills my unheard of 100 downloads today. It is better than that text in the description which turns me off as a consumer. Maybe, if we can adopt some  defacto rules  Microsoft would make a better investment in this experiment... But, if we keep whining about sales don't expect anything.

DarkSquirrel:

What I'm saying is that as a parent I find this system sketchy at best, dangerous at worst.

But I still don't see why it is any more sketchy than the current content ratings. Both are chosen by the developer and both have to pass peer review.

DarkSquirrel:

And just to clarify again - I do think the system could work if strictly regulated, but the consumer is losing a lot of detail in the process, and if anything goes wrong...

Nothing would be lost. Again I'm not advocating this at all as a replacement, but as a supplement. Much like how the front of a retail box has a simple ESRB logo and the back has the full content descriptors. So the entire discussion about loss of data or not giving them all the information is not what I'm talking about since the existing content descriptors would still exist to act as our "back of the box". 

Bradleat:

i doubt that there are Dads on XBLCG buying games for their sons

Well, I buy for both myself and my son. :)

Bradleat:

If we adopt some standards of higher quality, beta testing, universal project tracking, polish time, etc we would be much better off...

Not according to some people. There are whiners already about now XBLIG is being held to a higher standard than XBLA.

Bradleat:

But, if we keep whining about sales don't expect anything.

Some people around here will never stop whining about sales.

I'm not being defensive, I was just setting up the question I wanted to ask.

Ok then. Sorry for insinuating that you were.

The biggest issue I see is that it's a system of ratings that people simply aren't aware of nor will they know how to get more clarification of what a Teen Game or a Family Game entails. Of course if this was used more, people could get familar with it and this problem goes away.

I can't really see how it's a bad thing to have these rating... I think you can definately debait on whether or not it adds any value to our games (I personally see it as adding very little and so likely won't use it).

King Andy:

I'm not being defensive, I was just setting up the question I wanted to ask.

Ok then. Sorry for insinuating that you were.

No worries. :)

Kris Steele:

The biggest issue I see is that it's a system of ratings that people simply aren't aware of nor will they know how to get more clarification of what a Teen Game or a Family Game entails.

But what about "Violence: 1/3"? What does that entail? What differentiates it from "Violence: 2/3"? I'd argue the current system is just as vague as one of these three graphics.

Very interesting discussion!

Firstly: I was not complaining about sales. I did not mean it that way. I was coming at the issue from a logical perspective: what is the benefit of having ratings on the box, and what are the potential risk factors? Even ignoring profits, you want your game to be played by the maximum number of people, right? So regardless of how it may or may not affects profits you would want to maximise your game's merchentability for it to be downloaded, played and enjoyed the maximum number of times. That's the position I was coming from.

Let's dissect this through risk vs. reward:

Reward: Parents may appreciate having a slightly-easier-to-understand rating right on the front of the box.
Reward: Parents who may have shied away from XBLIG since they are "Unrated" may take a closer look now.

Risk: Parents may skip over games they otherwise may have looked closer at if they have anything higher than Family.
Risk: It will take a relatively good sized portion of space on your box art. Now for most games, in reality it wouldn't be too bad (sorry if I sounded a little defensive about my project, but I had just spent a day in Photoshop perfecting it) but it will still take up space nonetheless, that you could use for advertising to draw the user in as I previously mentioned (and as Arrogancy pointed out).
Risk: Very few of us even knew about TIGRS, and we are independent developers! The odds of a parent knowing what they are will be slim to none. This may increase over time and it could be close enough to the ESRB that parents will understand, or they could think it means nothing and be rendered moot. This one could go either way.
Risk: If a single game gets out that grossly misrepresents the content, it would be a terrible blow to the service. Now theoretically it should be caught in review, but broken games have slipped through before and it could always happen again. Even if it was pulled shortly afterwards the damage would still have been done.

So far the risks outweigh the rewards.
Risks #3 and #4 could be fixed, but there is no way to know unless it starts being used, so it's a chicken and egg scenario right now... What we need is a bootstrapper to see how it would work out in practice. (sorry, been helping a friend reinstall Windows so I'm still partially in DOS-mode.) Would that mean someone using it on their game to test the waters? Maybe. I would consider trying it myself except my project is more of an app than a game, so a rating really wouldn't be necessary for it anyway.

Right now we've been throwing out our personal opinions on the issue, but none of us really fit the audience this would be targeted to, so I don't know how helpful that would be in deciding whether this would be a good idea for XBLIG or not. We've had semi-official-ish word from Pheel that it's a bad idea, but what do the customers think? Reaching them through forums wouldn't work since that automatically removes them from our target audience: non-computer-literate parents just looking out for their techno-savvy kids, trying to make sure the content they consume is age appropriate. But we would also need a cross section from the gamer population, asking if they would care at all that a ratings icon would cover up part of the box art. This may be very difficult to research...

UberGeekGames:

Risk: Parents may skip over games they otherwise may have looked closer at if they have anything higher than Family.

But if rated appropriate and that parent only wanted family friendly games, wouldn't that be a reward? It's only a risk if the developer gave their game a Teen when it could've passed as Family.

UberGeekGames:

Risk: Very few of us even knew about TIGRS, and we are independent developers!

Quite true. This is a large hurdle. In my opinion the clarity of the colors, face, and text makes it quite easy to understand - I'd argue easier than the ESRB. I worked at a GameStop for three years; many parents don't know the difference between E, E10, and T ESRB ratings and you can't really blame them.

UberGeekGames:

Risk: If a single game gets out that grossly misrepresents the content, it would be a terrible blow to the service.

That is very true, but I still hold that there's very, very little incentive for someone to grossly misrepresent their rating when the rating image is entirely voluntary.

UberGeekGames:

We've had semi-official-ish word from Pheel that it's a bad idea

I don't think I'd consider his response official at all. It sounded much more like his personal opinion since there was never a suggestion to actually have Microsoft implement this. I'll even restate that I wouldn't want the team to implement this. I was just curious about what could happen if developers chose to apply this to their games voluntarily, which is how TIGRS was designed to be used.

UberGeekGames:

what do the customers think?

I think the important thing is who are the customers. It could be that the parents that would care about ratings have parental controls on their kids accounts, rendering the whole thing useless. If the only parents shopping for their kids on the service are like Jim and George, then we probably don't need the ratings either. There's every chance that the segment of the market that would like these ratings aren't going to ever see them because Microsoft had to mark the whole channel as unrated.

Nick Gravelyn:

But if rated appropriate and that parent only wanted family friendly games, wouldn't that be a reward? It's only a risk if the developer gave their game a Teen when it could've passed as Family.

Possibly. There would always be the edge case of a game that might be rated high but would be appropriate for children in the parent's eye. For example (and this is also why I think the ESRB system is flawed), Violence doesn't take into account the context of the situation. If I made Need For Speed: XBLIG Edition where you ram through police roadblocks and take out police cruisers, it would most likely get a Teen rating, and rightfully so. But what if instead I have a racing game where you are the cop and have to safely catch the street racers without causing collateral damage? It may have the same level of violence, but in an entirely different context that the parent may want their child to play, more so than the first game. If there was a bright orange Teen label on the front, they might skip over it without a second thought. That's the kind of case I'm talking about.

And I second the poster above that mentioned theTIGRS labels make you think of a stop light, with Family being green "Go!", Teen being orange "Caution" and Adult being "Stop!". It subconsiously gives a bad impression, IMO.

Nick Gravelyn:

UberGeekGames:

Risk: If a single game gets out that grossly misrepresents the content, it would be a terrible blow to the service.

That is very true, but I still hold that there's very, very little incentive for someone to grossly misrepresent their rating when the rating image is entirely voluntary.

As had been mentioned earlier, there will always be people that try to do stuff like that just for the fun of it. Plus, as I mentioned above, someone could try to cheat the system thinking it would get them more downloads. :-( Sadly, I don't think we can discount any contingencies such as that given the importance of the issue and the potential risk to the service's "brand".

Nick Gravelyn:

UberGeekGames:

We've had semi-official-ish word from Pheel that it's a bad idea

I don't think I'd consider his response official at all. It sounded much more like his personal opinion since there was never a suggestion to actually have Microsoft implement this. I'll even restate that I wouldn't want the team to implement this. I was just curious about what could happen if developers chose to apply this to their games voluntarily, which is how TIGRS was designed to be used.

That's why I heavily qualified it as much as I did. ;-) I'm curious as well to how this could play out, and I think discussions like this are really good for the community.

Nick Gravelyn:

UberGeekGames:

what do the customers think?

I think the important thing is who are the customers. It could be that the parents that would care about ratings have parental controls on their kids accounts, rendering the whole thing useless. If the only parents shopping for their kids on the service are like Jim and George, then we probably don't need the ratings either. There's every chance that the segment of the market that would like these ratings aren't going to ever see them because Microsoft had to mark the whole channel as unrated.

My thoughts exactly. We just don't know, and as I said there's no easy way to find out.

A Community drafting and setting standards for itself isn't bad. This TIGRS is better than the ugly text that eats away on the description space. Impulse buys make up most of our sales and no one is going to shy away from community games because we put ratings on our games. The one or two fathers/mothers out there who care enough prob. already block Mature rated content and that means our service is blocked. If anything they might make an exception for games with clear ratings.


This crap about people getting confused is just that... crap. Any body with eyeballs can read something that says Teens and lists a few reasons why it rated that way. Your customers are not stupid!!

I am all for this system and would love to see more self set standards for the community, such as universal ways for handing with storage device disconnect (or at least suggested ways so any developer can do it). The community needs standards so we can meet them. The market out there for the 2d-shooters that XNA seems to produce hundreds of will not shy away because your shooter has a green symbol on its page. If we start running games through another, higher form of testing (Community Testing lets say) we will have a more standard interface and system meaning an improved environment for the user. He knows that the game won't crap out and exit to the menu if he ejects his memory card on game A because we would have standards.

Another thing:
Standards don't decrease sales or stop creativity. They adapt to new ways of doing things...

At EVERYONE:
Stop talking about parents... those who care enough are not stupid when they look at a rating...

The haphazard, ugly, put-offish, wall of text that rates our games now sucks. I was over at a friends house trying to get him to check out some new shooter that I played online for a bit and he didn't buy it... You know why??? The wall of text, the box art was decent... but he started ripping on the freaking rating system.

The truth is rating system introduce a since of legitimacy. Nice, simple graphics to look at. But, oh... yea i wouldn't want to take away from your SALES... phh, maybe we could get some real sales if we grow up, adopt some standards and prove to Microsoft that we as a community are worth a greater investment... who knows maybe Major Nelson could start reviewing community games or promoting them.... but that would hurt your sales... who knows what parents would think rite?


The god honest truth is that most people who buy these are impulse sales... it could be a kid, or grown man, but either way he doesn't care what his parents think. Community games are not worth getting into an argument with ones parents. These are not Halos, GOW's, or COD's where you see kids throwing fits... if a kid has to ask his parents because of a block he wont bother... they are not worth it...

I will use TIGRS on all my games... maybe if enough people start using it that god awful description rating system can be taken away... it puts people off... it is unbecoming, unprofessional, etc... but the parents like it rite?

UberGeekGames:

If there is quantifiable evidence that having a ratings icon on the box will increase appeal, then I would be willing to try it. If there is none, then it feels like we are in a room, blindfolded, and wandering around desperately trying to find the door that leads to the promised land of the Most Popular list. ;-)

This is an older post but...

The system we have sucks... the ESRB sucks as well but it doesn't matter... You look at a game and the fact that is comforms to a standard lets you know (At some level) that is is major enough to be forced to comply with a standard.


Also what is this crap about box art...

do users say:


"Oh, he has a rating thing on his box art... I hate this game"

or

"If only I could see what was going to where that rating is... darn"


The things that i know they do say is:

(in some words): "That text looks like crap"
furthermore, if we could opt in and use TIGRS instead of that text then our games would look much better... the muddled text turns people away


I ask my friends on XBL, hey do you ever check out the XBLCG and if they have they think one thing:

"Yea, but it looks like garbage"


and yea it does... looks are everything..

Maybe because we are indie everyone thinks we can do without those evil marketing people... you can, you can also keep on looking at your LOW (yes LOW) sales figures... I haven't sold a game yet, but if i did i wouldn't expect a penny with the service looking the way it does...

The same way nobody shows up to court in street attire, we should take a good hard look at the pile of mess on the service and clean is up... create some standards for ourselves.

I would bet that even if ESRB wasn't mandatory for Disc games that studios would still have them there... they don't deter sales. Kids know how to nag their parents into getting stuff. Tons of kids are on Halo. According to you guys they would rather see what was below the rating, or Parents hurt Halo sales... BULL

UberGeekGames:

Possibly. There would always be the edge case of a game that might be rated high but would be appropriate for children in the parent's eye. For example (and this is also why I think the ESRB system is flawed), Violence doesn't take into account the context of the situation.

Indeed, and I agree that the ESRB is flawed in that respect as well. Any rating system that tries to hint at who the content is appropriate for is immediately going to fall victim to this. Perhaps then the solution is simply a cleaner, clearer way of showing what content is in those games? Rather than a rating that tries to indicate an appropriate age for the user, it simply shows, in some clean and clear way, what that game contains. As is the text ratings try to do this but fail because they don't really tell you anything besides some arbitrary number and they are a jumbled mess in a big block of text.

UberGeekGames:

And I second the poster above that mentioned theTIGRS labels make you think of a stop light, with Family being green "Go!", Teen being orange "Caution" and Adult being "Stop!". It subconsiously gives a bad impression, IMO.

Maybe, but do the people who want Adult games really care about the ratings at all? For a parent with a younger child (the people who usually care about ratings), those colors are perfectly suited. Heck, a big red sticker with an evil face might just sell your game better to those teens whose parents don't care. I call it the "M Phenomenon". Kids and teens seem to want M rated games largely because it's seen as something they shouldn't have. From working at GameStop, I can't count the number of times I've seen teens choose between two games based on one being T rated and the other being M.

Bradleat:

At EVERYONE:
Stop talking about parents... those who care enough are not stupid when they look at a rating...

Parents like George are a rarity from my experience. As I said before, I worked as a manager for GameStop for three years. A lot of parents really wanted to make sure their kids had appropriate games and quite a few had no idea what the various ESRB ratings meant. Some even wanted more clarification on the content descriptors (for instance, what exactly is "Comic Mishief" or "Cartoon Violence"?). It's not that they're stupid, they simply need more clarification. So it is important to make sure the parents can quickly and easily understand these ratings or they'll be just as confused as they are with ESRB (except in this case they don't have a person in a store to ask for help).

One of my points was that kids wont ask their parents for our games unless we clean up our act... there are plently of FPS Shooters to whine about already

I would bet that even if ESRB wasn't mandatory for Disc games that studios would still have them there... they don't deter sales.

1) That's silly. ESRB has put a lot of time any money into promoting their standard.  Advertising, lobbying, etc.  They aren't doing that because they're bored. And they wouldn't be where they are now if they hadn't.  Even so, have you ever watched parents of young children at a GameStop? At least 50% of them ignore the ratings completely and simply take the game up to the counter to ask the clerk if they're child-safe.

2) Commercial games have vastly more "cover" space than community games.  They can make the ESRB logo smaller than a postage stamp and still be perfectly legible, that way they avoid cluttering their cover with non-eyecatching material.   Community games will need that logo to take up a significant portion of the "box art" to be legible at all on SDTVs.   (Remember, the word TIGRS has to be legible so parents can look up what the standard is, since it's not a standard they're familiar with.)

A mandate and an interface change from Microsoft could solve both these issues.  I won't comment on whether it's a good idea, but it would resolve the real practical issues.

...nobody shows up to court in street attire...

That is probably why people are resisting the idea of plastering their games' "clothing" with a gaudy bumper sticker.

Every now and then a discussion comes along that starts as "What do you think of this idea ..." and ends with "OMG, we need to do this for the betterment of the community - it will save community/indie games". Welcome to that thread.

I am a parent, and I do pay attention to ratings. I do let my son play some creator games (though he only likes Johnny Platform's Biscuit Romp) and I don't think having a graphic vs. the current text version makes a huge difference either way when it comes to function. I will agree that the current text version is pretty ugly and takes away from the description, and that a nicer way to display the same information would help with aesthetics.

That aside, no one thing is going to fix community games, if in fact there is anything wrong. A nicer way to see game ratings is very likely not the biggest reason why your friends think CG is crap. If people want to self-rate their games with TIGRS I think that's a fine idea. I may do so myself, but kicking and screaming about it decreases my desire to do so.

Wow... just wow....

1st: ESRB doesn't go out and make commericals promoting its standard, they have a website and a reviewing board. It doesn't matter if it works, it really doesnt. It just matters because it is a standard. Imagine if Gears of War didn't have a ESRB logo on it. People would have no idea what is is. This isn't gamestop... this is online there is NO ONE TO ASK! Our system is very ugly. The text sucks and deters sales.

2. No they really dont... Commericial games have a front and a back. We have all that space Microsoft gives us... instead of putting up boring screenshots through some captions on them. The description should be just the decription, no a haphazard rating system. Perhaps we can use TIGRS to replace the unproffesional system we have. I know for a fact it turns people away. As i have said before, people on my XBL friends list rip on it.


Our games' clothing is street attire, the most torn down attire. Alot of box art looks like it was done in Paint. Regardless of what standard you want to be held to, gamers are going to hold you to the same standards they hold everything else to. That doesn't mean that you won't get sales, it just means that you will have to make things look better and have some sort of standard, good looking interface. A gamer is not going to come an expect Halo or Lego Rockband (lmao), but for $2.50 or $5.00 they want something that can hold their attension for a good hour or two.

When a gamer sees Message Game in the community games marketplace it confirms to them that the service is bad. When a gamer sees a system that lacks a standard, good looking rating system it turns them off.

I recommend anyone with a quality game to skip XBLCG and go to XBLA... this is like that used old gameboy bin at gamestop... However as a community if we were to strive for quality GAMES (not messages!) we could do something. Right now we are at stage one of saleing something... Impluse buys... I beg people, at least make it look good to the kids and adults who might be bored with their AAA title and venture into our service. Parents, etc are not going to be buying knock of's of sample games for thier kid (unless they hate their kid), they buy their kid Halo. However, if someone ventures into the service all they see right now is stuff that turns them off.


IMO the channel needs:

TIGRS for a rating system, (perhaps the TIGRS rating next to the feature slide)
Let us use all of the decription space.
Better Box Art
Captioned Screen Shots
Video and Other Media for player to stream or quickly download
A background... (when you select a game to look at, the back of the screen should be a developer defined picture)...

These things can give the Impluse buyer what he wants so he feels good about his purchase:
Order
Eye Candy
Some Value (which our games have, we have some really good games)


I look forward to User Ratings because that will help weed out the bad games, for the good and create a sense of value on the service.