JeBuS:

If I can't tell the difference between a video and your screensaver / slideshow, then I'll simply assume it's a video.

You can't assume. If you can't be sure you just don't submit a review. There is a way to check for sure - examine the .ccgame file. Simply rename it to .cab and pull out the files.

Jim Perry:

You can't assume. If you can't be sure you just don't submit a review. There is a way to check for sure - examine the .ccgame file. Simply rename it to .cab and pull out the files.

Just because it's not a wmv doesn't mean it's not a video.  If the only criteria is that it must not just work to display wmv files, that's one thing.  But that is not what the new rules say.  It says 'video', not wmv.  Therefore, if it works like a video player, and that's all it does, then I will call it such.

Jim Perry:

JeBuS:

If I can't tell the difference between a video and your screensaver / slideshow, then I'll simply assume it's a video.

You can't assume. If you can't be sure you just don't submit a review. There is a way to check for sure - examine the .ccgame file. Simply rename it to .cab and pull out the files.

Cracking open .ccgame files is getting excessive, and as mentioned in the thread there are way around that as well.  I think the intent of the rule is more important than the exact wording, and if Microsoft wanted it could make a statement telling us that screensavers and slideshows are 100% okay.  I don't agree with the assumption that the only things you can fail a game for are on the evil checklist.  If something isn't on the evil checklist (and also not on the not so evil checklist), then it's up to the reviewer to decide if the item should fail the game or not.

My interpretation is that screensavers and slideshows that comprised only of menus leading to the content would be a fail.  They can behave exactly as videos, and the reason videos are not allowed can't be because of file size, given how small the size limit is to all indie games.

Of course Jim, if you and the other leaders agree screensaves and slideshows are allowed, my understanding is you guys control the checklists and can add it to the not so evil list, making it clear for the reviewers and Microsoft how the rules are interpreted ;)

For the record, I don't know that a game has been failed for this (slideshow), the two I know have have failed on not providing a trial mode that encourages a purchase, but it was mentioned in the review thread as something else to consider.

Also, Jim, in the past all rules Microsoft gives that are not explicit (this doesn't explicitly state video files) are open to interpretation by the community. It seems that in general, most members on this thread feel that non-interactive displays such as slide shows are considered video, and are failable. Not responding to any PlayerIndex is an accepted rule created entirely by the community, and this interpretation of Microsoft's rule is certainly within it's bounds in my opinion.

We do not rule on the type of content that can be displayed, just user experiences what could frustrate or confuse the player, which is already a failable issue. MS has stated "video", not "looks like a video". If you're not sure and don't want to look in the .ccgame file or watch as it's deployed to the 360, DO NOT submit a review.

And they said "video" not "WMV". If I render a cutscene in real time that would pass, but if I pre-render and play it as a WMV that would fail in your estimation, is that right? Well, the "user experience" is the same. It's a video.

This discussion obviously isn't getting resolved, so let me sum up the thoughts of the 2 camps.

Only Encoded Videos
Only those programs that simply display specially encoded videos with no other purpose should be failed under the new criteria.
Reasoning: MS specifically said "videos".

Anything That Acts Like A Video
Any programs that act like the previously mentioned programs, whether with specially encoded video files or not, should be failed under the new criteria.
Reasoning: What is a video but a progression of images displayed in a set order?

Jim Perry:

We do not rule on the type of content that can be displayed, just user experiences what could frustrate or confuse the player, which is already a failable issue. MS has stated "video", not "looks like a video". If you're not sure and don't want to look in the .ccgame file or watch as it's deployed to the 360, DO NOT submit a review.

You seem to be making a semantic argument, without giving your definition of 'video'. I can think of two relevant definitions: a 'video file' which could be easily identified by looking inside the .ccgame, and a 'moving picture' which refers exclusively to the on-screen user experience and has nothing to do with backend technology or file types. Which definition of 'video' did Microsoft mean? I would guess the latter, given that the other clarification regarding trials specifically refers to the user experience and not specific technical methods by which a trial is restricted.
Further, the clarification suggests to use common sense, and common sense tells me that the user experience determines what is a video, and not backend technical details. Since the user experience for something 'like a video' is potentially identical to the user experience for an obvious video, I would say that being like a video makes it a de facto video. Any significant randomized element would make something unlike a video, however.

JeBuS:

This discussion obviously isn't getting resolved, so let me sum up the thoughts of the 2 camps.

Only Encoded Videos
Only those programs that simply display specially encoded videos with no other purpose should be failed under the new criteria.
Reasoning: MS specifically said "videos".

Anything That Acts Like A Video
Any programs that act like the previously mentioned programs, whether with specially encoded video files or not, should be failed under the new criteria.
Reasoning: What is a video but a progression of images displayed in a set order?

Actually, I don't think it's necessary to resolve this here. "Reality" will resolve this, just like other differences in the community about rule interpretations were resolved by reality. A good example for this is the good old "Must support more than PlayerIndex.One" discussion. There is no specific rule for this, just a general rule (the "confusing/frustrating" rule) which was interpreted by many members of the community to require support for all PlayerIndexes. Other members thought differently though! And there was never an official consensus reached about this in form of a discussion or vote or whatever. There also never was an official decree by MS about which opinion was right (AFAIR).
What happened instead was that the proponents of the first interpretation simply started to fail games for not supporting all PlayerIndexes. And after this, MS did not step in and did not say "Oh sorry, that's not what we meant with the confusing/frustrating rule. Please don't extend this rule to PlayerIndex questions so please allow games which only support PlayerIndex.One". This did not happen, so by accepting the review fails for PlayerIndex issues, MS effectively endorsed this interpretation.
That's how the disagreement about this issue was finally settled. Not by discussion and not by voting.

And here with the "videos", I think it will work out in the same manner: We have two interpretations of a relatively vague rule (and yes, even if Jim talks with the authority of a MVP and uses words like "can not" or "must not", his interpretation of the rules is still only an interpretation too - not an absolute fact/truth).

I think the thread here now has given all the various arguments to support boths sides, so it should be enough for every reviewer to make up his own mind about how he interprets the rule and then apply this during his reviews. If people start failing apps that mask as screensavers or slideshows but which essentially only contain videos or video-like experiences, then just like with the PlayerIndex issue, we'll see from MS' reaction/non-reaction if this rule interpreation is acceptable or not. And of course the other way round too: If people continue to pass this kind of video-app-lookalikes, there also will be a reaction or non-reaction from MS telling us if they think this is OK or not. Actually, it may even be that they leave this entirely to the community and accept both passes and fails for these kinds of apps without intervention. I guess we'll just have to see...

And to repeat this just for completeness' sake: I'm not extending this to screensavers/slideshows in general, just to ones which fall into the video-like experience category!

Doc

Yep, that was my point with that post.  Not that the issue could not be resolved, simply that the discussion in this thread wasn't going to resolve it.  The argument had become circular, so there is no point in continuing it.

Very well said, Doc! :)

We've had screensaver apps on the service for quite some time and Microsoft has never made any sort of comment about them being unacceptable.  However,when actual video recordings like the Rachel Star Stunt Show went up on the service Microsoft almost immediately amended the rules so that those types of apps would no longer be allowed on the service.  That seems to indicate to me that it is very much the "video file" definition that is not allowable and that the rule is meant in a very literal way.

The thing that I dislike about the rule amendments/clarifications is that games which passed peer review fairly and in good faith in the past must now be updated to reflect rules that were not in place when those games were created and put through peer review.  In my own case this means that I probably now have no option but to simply watch my game get removed from the service because my current employment contract forbids me from doing any work on other games in my own time, and so I can not alter it to fit the rule that games must not be entirely playable in their trial version.  Yes, I recognise that this is Microsoft's service and they can allow or disallow whatever content they like, but I think it's quite unfair to punish developers for not abiding by rules that didn't even exist at the time that they released their game.

Here's how I will be reviewing... you may or may not follow my lead, or you may choose to spend your time arguing in here... after last week I'm not going to argue with people who don't actually review or submit games and just like to come up with edge cases and accuse the mods of stifling their creativity.

1. If the app allows me to simple play a video from a menu e.g. GoVids Rachel the stunt girl, the recent Japanese game with avatars overlaying videos, and the Sri Lanka game - then thats a video player app and I will fail it. This is what Microsoft made the rule up for.
2. Video intros to apps/games with other content later... just fine
3. In game cut scenes, games that use videos as part of game play (e.g. headsman, the quiz show one....) - also just fine
4. Slide show apps with still images - just fine. They have existed for a while and Microsoft didn't use any of them as reason to add a rule.
5. Screen savers that happen to be a single looped video to look like something else. e.g. pretty pattern, fireplace etc. - stupid and pointless but also allowed becuase Microsoft didn't put a rule in for this. Looping Racehl Stunt girls != screen saver... I think we all know that they look like.

Remember the more you push this the more time Microsoft has to waste on this stuff! So if you see an game/app that appears to be purposly trying to push the rules just say no. Move on to the next game. The developers will eventually get the message.

#4 and #5 - be wary of failing under the 'no trial' rule. If there's no difference between trial and full then I don't think that 'people will want to watch it for more than 8 minutes' is a good enough excuse

#4 and #5 - personally I won't spend any time of you becuase I don't think people banging together copycat apps is good for the service. I will spend my time elsewhere and I suggest that if you don't like these apps then don't review them. If you like such apps then do a proper review.

The ZMan:

1. If the app allows me to simple play a video from a menu e.g. GoVids Rachel the stunt girl, the recent Japanese game with avatars overlaying videos, and the Sri Lanka game - then thats a video player app and I will fail it. This is what Microsoft made the rule up for.
2. Video intros to apps/games with other content later... just fine
3. In game cut scenes, games that use videos as part of game play (e.g. headsman, the quiz show one....) - also just fine
4. Slide show apps with still images - just fine. They have existed for a while and Microsoft didn't use any of them as reason to add a rule.
5. Screen savers that happen to be a single looped video to look like something else. e.g. pretty pattern, fireplace etc. - stupid and pointless but also allowed becuase Microsoft didn't put a rule in for this. Looping Racehl Stunt girls != screen saver... I think we all know that they look like.

I very much agree with this criteria.  I know number 5 is the sticking point, but I agree that if it's not intended to be a visual app, but rather a bit of video entertainment, then it's failable.

I think this thread should include recent changes.

http://forums.xna.com/forums/t/36113.aspx

The ZMan:

1. If the app allows me to simple play a video from a menu e.g. GoVids Rachel the stunt girl, the recent Japanese game with avatars overlaying videos, and the Sri Lanka game - then thats a video player app and I will fail it. This is what Microsoft made the rule up for.
2. Video intros to apps/games with other content later... just fine
3. In game cut scenes, games that use videos as part of game play (e.g. headsman, the quiz show one....) - also just fine
4. Slide show apps with still images - just fine. They have existed for a while and Microsoft didn't use any of them as reason to add a rule.
5. Screen savers that happen to be a single looped video to look like something else. e.g. pretty pattern, fireplace etc. - stupid and pointless but also allowed becuase Microsoft didn't put a rule in for this. Looping Rachel Stunt girls != screen saver... I think we all know that they look like.

#4 and #5 - be wary of failing under the 'no trial' rule. If there's no difference between trial and full then I don't think that 'people will want to watch it for more than 8 minutes' is a good enough excuse

Well for once I'm amazed there was no huge debate on this ;-) (Yes even though I said I wouldn't argue!)

Unless anyone seriously objects I'm going to find an FAQ to attach this to as an explanation of how to determine 'video player' apps.

The ZMan:

1. If the app allows me to simple play a video from a menu e.g. GoVids Rachel the stunt girl, the recent Japanese game with avatars overlaying videos, and the Sri Lanka game - then thats a video player app and I will fail it. This is what Microsoft made the rule up for.
2. Video intros to apps/games with other content later... just fine
3. In game cut scenes, games that use videos as part of game play (e.g. headsman, the quiz show one....) - also just fine
4. Slide show apps with still images - just fine. They have existed for a while and Microsoft didn't use any of them as reason to add a rule.
5. Screen savers that happen to be a single looped video to look like something else. e.g. pretty pattern, fireplace etc. - stupid and pointless but also allowed becuase Microsoft didn't put a rule in for this. Looping Rachel Stunt girls != screen saver... I think we all know that they look like.

Well for once I'm amazed there was no huge debate on this ;-) (Yes even though I said I wouldn't argue!)

Unless anyone seriously objects I'm going to find an FAQ to attach this to as an explanation of how to determine 'video player' apps.

No arguments here.  I agree with what you've written.  Your logic seems pretty sound to me.  They've (#4 and #5) been on the service for a long time, and Microsoft didn't complain.  The GoVids "games" popped up and they made a new rule almost immediately.  Though I have to wonder if anything would have happened if there hadn't been such an uproar over them not including a trial mode.  I think that's what bothered people the most.

Microsoft did say that they would remove games already passed that were in violation of the new rules, so if one wanted, one could just wait until Jan 2010 to see if any screen savers / slide shows were pulled down.  If not, then I haven to say Microsoft is okay with them.  Course, if you had a slide show up for review and everyone waited til Jan 2010 to review it, that would be just awful...

The ZMan:

The ZMan:

1. If the app allows me to simple play a video from a menu e.g. GoVids Rachel the stunt girl, the recent Japanese game with avatars overlaying videos, and the Sri Lanka game - then thats a video player app and I will fail it. This is what Microsoft made the rule up for.
2. Video intros to apps/games with other content later... just fine
3. In game cut scenes, games that use videos as part of game play (e.g. headsman, the quiz show one....) - also just fine
4. Slide show apps with still images - just fine. They have existed for a while and Microsoft didn't use any of them as reason to add a rule.
5. Screen savers that happen to be a single looped video to look like something else. e.g. pretty pattern, fireplace etc. - stupid and pointless but also allowed becuase Microsoft didn't put a rule in for this. Looping Rachel Stunt girls != screen saver... I think we all know that they look like.

#4 and #5 - be wary of failing under the 'no trial' rule. If there's no difference between trial and full then I don't think that 'people will want to watch it for more than 8 minutes' is a good enough excuse

Well for once I'm amazed there was no huge debate on this ;-) (Yes even though I said I wouldn't argue!)

Unless anyone seriously objects I'm going to find an FAQ to attach this to as an explanation of how to determine 'video player' apps.

You haven't consulted with the Japanese-speaking community yet. I don't know if other folks would object or not.
Unless you do so, I don't think that your new guideline can be a community agreement.

Personally, I have no problem with your explanation.

I would LOVE to ask them... but its really hard when I can't find anyone to help out with such things on a regular basis and I really have tried to find some of the Japanese MVPs in the hope that some of them speak some English. If you or Pino would like to translate and let them know that this is an interpretation of the 'no video players' application rule then let me know the response.

Also please feel free to let them know that no matter if their English is bad they are more than welcome to join us here.

The ZMan:

I would LOVE to ask them... but its really hard when I can't find anyone to help out with such things on a regular basis and I really have tried to find some of the Japanese MVPs in the hope that some of them speak some English. If you or Pino would like to translate and let them know that this is an interpretation of the 'no video players' application rule then let me know the response.

Also please feel free to let them know that no matter if their English is bad they are more than welcome to join us here.

I'd love to, but my written Japanese is too rusty (I'm working on it though, CCO has been a good excuse to revive my Japanese) as since decades I read it but I just write a few postcards to old friends. It's too much time consuming to me to properly write Japanese for now.

@Runaway 360: I don't get your recent Japanese post (諸事情から今は正確に翻訳する余裕がなく、原文のまま引用させていただきます。申し訳ございません。) You do manage English very well, so why to avoid to translate into Japanese? It puzzles me.

Out of interest (a bit OT): I've just lernt that now exists a "Japanese English", so using this new English one can flag the game Japanese only even if the content is shown in English! Have a look here... is the silliest claim I ever read :)

Cheers,
Pino

Spyn Doctor:

I think the thread here now has given all the various arguments to support boths sides, so it should be enough for every reviewer to make up his own mind about how he interprets the rule and then apply this during his reviews.

So does that mean I get to start failing for games that have no quit option? Because I'd like to and it seems reasonable to me but yet it is on the "no fail" list. So if I think for myself as a reviewer and start failing games based on a certain logic, there is potential conflict there in terms of community angst, maybe the revocation of reviewing privileges, etc.

Your logic naturally favors the people who prefer failing games because only a couple of fails are needed to reject a game. So if there is no consensus on a fail criteria, the stricter interpretation will always "win." Note that I don't have a problem with this because I am generally in the strict camp, but I thought I would point it out.

PinoEire:

Out of interest (a bit OT): I've just lernt that now exists a "Japanese English", so using this new English one can flag the game Japanese only even if the content is shown in English! Have a look here... is the silliest claim I ever read :)

Regardless of the existence of such a language, until there is a checkbox for it, that's an instant fail point just as me submitting a game with Russian language would be. Any game claiming to use "Japanese English" should be failed instantly.

BogTurtleCarl:

So does that mean I get to start failing for games that have no quit option? Because I'd like to and it seems reasonable to me but yet it is on the "no fail" list. So if I think for myself as a reviewer and start failing games based on a certain logic, there is potential conflict there in terms of community angst, maybe the revocation of reviewing privileges, etc.

If you really do think it's a major issue you're free to fail for it.  If someone files a complaint about their game being inappropriately failed by you for that, even if the MS staff agrees with them, the worst thing that will happen is that you'll receive a warning, and then you'll know it's not a valid fail reason.  I'm sure the XBLIG team would rather we sort out issues like that here than have to do it that way, but if you're absolutely convinced it's a fail point you've always got the option to fail for it and see if anything ever comes back.

Nick Gravelyn:

PinoEire:

Out of interest (a bit OT): I've just lernt that now exists a "Japanese English", so using this new English one can flag the game Japanese only even if the content is shown in English! Have a look here... is the silliest claim I ever read :)

Regardless of the existence of such a language, until there is a checkbox for it, that's an instant fail point just as me submitting a game with Russian language would be. Any game claiming to use "Japanese English" should be failed instantly.

What's the story with Ninja Bros then?  It's back on the Marketplace and contains Japanese and English and even if the use of mixed languages is now acceptable, surely it still needs to be flagged as containing both and reviewed as such which it wasn't?

FWIW I love the game and wish I could pick another example, but it does seem to highlight some inconsistencies.