UberGeekGames:

However, other things such as removal of the 8 minute trial require more trust in the developer that they aren't trying to game the system. A small rep threshold is the easiest way to help ensure that the features wouldn't be abused, IMHO.

Again, your game taking less passes to go through is trust.

Any issues where trust is a factor cannot be decided through rep, unless that rep point is extremely high and even then I still think it shouldn't be an automatic thing. The developer could request that the perk be made active and if they have a high enough rep the request goes through, but it should still have to be manually approved.

Of course, this means more work for the team, which means more time taken away from things that are actually important.

George Clingerman:

I'm sure they have better things to spend their time on...

There will almost always be stuff that the team could spend their time on that will be more important than implementing rep perks so this whole discussion is mostly pointless. :|

I've yet to see any discussion topic or request that wasn't eventually tagged as pointless or wasting MS time. Most ideas posted in this forum would be better off posted on Connect to bypass those inevitable replies. "These aren't the droids you're looking for." LOL

Tommy McClain

It seems as though the easiest perk would be removing or easing the 7-day "jail" if your game fails peer review--based on your rep at the time you submit. This would prevent people from submitting, then going and doing a ton of reviews in the hopes that they'd be given a reprieve. Theoretically the more active community members are going to have more playtesters anyway (and "need" the reprieve less), so as benefits go it's a pretty minor thing that would be a nice show of faith in the active community members by the XNA team.

George Clingerman:

I personally don't feel we NEED an equal playing field. I'd rather see people play nice in the community first before they get to have an equal status.

Take a moment to think through the implications if such a thing were implemented.  How many people do you think are going to come to the service if they've got the disadvantage of not being part of the established "in crowd" on the forums added on top of the general disadvantage an XBLIG has vs. an XBLA title?  How quickly do you think people already developing on the platform are going to lose interest and go back to whatever else they do with their lives once they realize that the way has been cleared for these "chosen few" based on forum participation?

It's an absurd idea, counter to the whole point of XBLIG if you ask me, and I sincerely hope that you simply haven't thought it through.

AzBat360:

I've yet to see any discussion topic or request that wasn't eventually tagged as pointless or wasting MS time.

There have been useful discussions. What I get tired of are the ones that keep rehashing things that have been brought up at least a dozen times - trial times, "Why can I submit games in my country", etc.

One thing that worries me is that, is it fair use all reputation perks for that you can get some special advantages, because it's harder to others to take part
of discussions because english isn't their native language. I propably answer lot of more questions, but sometimes I just don't find right words to make
answers clear enough and I don't want to use dictionary all the time. But if this kind of system uses playtest/review perks, then it can be good solution.
But probably this kind of system needs too much work to keep on.

Kneedeep in Duty:

George Clingerman:

I personally don't feel we NEED an equal playing field. I'd rather see people play nice in the community first before they get to have an equal status.

Take a moment to think through the implications if such a thing were implemented.  How many people do you think are going to come to the service if they've got the disadvantage of not being part of the established "in crowd" on the forums added on top of the general disadvantage an XBLIG has vs. an XBLA title?  How quickly do you think people already developing on the platform are going to lose interest and go back to whatever else they do with their lives once they realize that the way has been cleared for these "chosen few" based on forum participation?

It's an absurd idea, counter to the whole point of XBLIG if you ask me, and I sincerely hope that you simply haven't thought it through.

Firstly, it's not a question of "chosen few".  Mods have a certain amount of power relating to community member rep, but the biggest influence you can have on it is to be an active, effective and positive member of the community.  Secondly, the worst games come from inexperienced devs who think "I've finished it, I'll publish it and hang the playtest".  If the mods got $5 for every time they posted "you should go to playtest before peer review" they would be able to club together and BUY then damned platform.  If you feel you're at a disadvantage being on XBLIG relative to XBLA, then talk to Microsoft about the XBLA requirements.  We have a relatively easy ride (some would say too easy) on XBLIG.

I'm not saying new users are not to be trusted, but I am saying that the community should be a meritocracy in some ways.  Now I'm never going to be one of the top posters because I'm not really as confident in my technical abilities as some so I don't (as a rule) reply to questions directly about code, but I would be more than happy to see the most productive (in all senses) members of the community being rewarded for making XBLIG better than they would be without their participation.  We're not talking about new users being penalised, we're not talking about "putting people off", we're talking about making the service ultimately more community-focused in an organic way.

The point of XBLIG is not some grand socio-philosphical altruism.  You pay for the right to deploy products you've written to your Xbox and submit them for testing and release, and you have to follow the rules - and the spirit - of the community as defined by Microsoft.  If you go to MS and say "I'd like to have a 20 minute trial period", or "I want to have more than 8 slots for projects" they would be well within their rights to say "why should we give you that?  What have you done to merit such treatment?"  Being able to say "I have participated in a positive way to the community, and have the reputation to show for it" could well go a long way.  MS are duty bound to protect their brand.  Who would they prefer to give more lattitude, a newbie who goes direct to peer review, or someone who's already released 3 games and devoted a lot of time to helping out others, making the games available on the XBLIG channel better as a result?

Regards,
Mike

It looks like there are two camps here. The "Pro Perks", who think that some features that require more trust in the dev should be limited to those with a higher reputation, and those that think everything should be open for everyone. I think DrMisty summed up the "Pro Perks" argument very nicely so I won't bother quoting or summarizing it.

To address the possible disadvantages:

1) This will lead to forum spamming and low quality reviews

Again, this will be pretty obvious. The sheer amount of work needed to work around the system coupled with the risks of being caught would end up taking more time and effort than just being helpful.

2) Newbie developers will be at a disadvantage.

The only way this would be true is if said developer worked on a game for months without visiting the forums, and then put his game up for review (maybe playtest first) with 0 posts. Wouldn't it be much better if the developer instead was motivated to spend time playtesting other games while working on his, to learn how the system works, become aware of common pitfalls, and gain experience about the process?

Any way you look at it, quality games take time to make. If the developer dedicates a small amount of their time to helping others in Playtest or on the forums first, then they will be better equipped to make their game better. By the time said developer is ready to put BestGameEver into Playtest, he will most likely have a good amount of rep and have access to the perks that might help make their game better (ie no 8 minute trial).

The case where this wouldn't work is where the new developer is putting out a game he spent one or two days working on, and thus wouldn't have had time to build up any rep. I don't think we want to encourage 1 day games on the service, and this would very indirectly motivate devs to spend more time on their products.

3) The XNA Team has more important things to do so discussion is pointless.

While possibly correct, I think that MS wants us to discuss this. See here from the Reputation article:

Reputation:

This Reputation system is brand-new for us – it will probably take some tweaking as we go. We’ve got a few ideas already on ways we hope to improve it, but it is your feedback that is the most valuable to us.

Feel free to share your thoughts and ideas in the forums or email us directly at creators@microsoft.com!

Unless I'm misinterpreting its meaning, in which case my apologies.


At the very least, even if everyone gets release dates and no 8 minute trial restrictions (which might be more fair), there is still a good argument for perks relating to more visibility in Playtest and Review, and fewer passes needed to go to Marketplace. So IMHO, an argument specifically against limiting such features (trial and release dates) shouldn't become a blanket "no perks whatsoever".

UberGeekGames:

At the very least, even if everyone gets release dates and no 8 minute trial restrictions (which might be more fair), there is still a good argument for perks relating to more visibility in Playtest and Review, and fewer passes needed to go to Marketplace. So IMHO, an argument specifically against limiting such features (trial and release dates) shouldn't become a blanket "no perks whatsoever".

I could agree with that.

In my personal opinion, reputation in here should not give you any marketplace advantages (such as release dates and trial restrictions). That should be kept equal for all.
But yes, if we are talking about perks inside the community, such as Playtest/Review visibility, or fewer review passes, (or other stuff that helps them have a smoother experience until they hit the marketplace)  then yes, people with a great involvement in the community should benefit from such things. If you give to the community, you might as well receive something from the community.

I can agree with what Catalin just posted - the key point being no marketplace advantages.

I would be fine with that. In retrospect, there isn't any "trustworhtyness" needed in setting a release date. Removing the 8 minute trial is more appropriate for a perk IMHO, but since there are now stricter Peer Review rules on this it may be unnecessary.

So if we're in agreement on this, should I submit the Connect issue now for the perks related to Peer Review? Or wait for more discussion and possibly more ideas?

I would wait longer, the thread still appears to be active.

Another point you should take in consideration when you think up the list for Connect. And this is also somewhat related to "community only, no marketplace advantages" thought....

whatever idea you come up with, if it is something that only happens on this site (which is entirely under the control of the XNA team) it has a much greater chance to happen than something that happens on the marketplace (such as the trial time), because changes that deal with Xbox Live and the marketplace are controlled by other teams inside Microsoft besides the XNA one.

Before posting on Connect, I also suggest trying to make a longer list with possible perks (but don't exaggerate :P ) because it's much easier for the XNA people to analyze a list of carefully thought out ideas, than it is to analyze something like "we want bonuses for people with high reputation".

Ok, I've edited the original post and updated the list of ideas. Fire away!

Agree that once on marketplace it must be an equal field, I dont think we should turn that part of XBLIG into a game.

But, whilst agreeing with increased visibility of titles, more review power, shorter forced qa and increased title counts made by those with high rep, they should not have a lower review requirement for their own games. Just because they have a higher rep does not change the fact they are a developer like everyone else, and developers make mistakes. The peer review system should not change to make things easier, it's quite 'light' now as it stands.

Domipheus:

Agree that once on marketplace it must be an equal field, I dont think we should turn that part of XBLIG into a game.

But, whilst agreeing with increased visibility of titles, more review power, shorter forced qa and increased title counts made by those with high rep, they should not have a lower review requirement for their own games. Just because they have a higher rep does not change the fact they are a developer like everyone else, and developers make mistakes. The peer review system should not change to make things easier, it's quite 'light' now as it stands.

I mostly agree with this.

No one should get any special marketplace advantages, I really think it's against the spirit of what Indie Games is

As someone mentioned earlier, I think for the playtest and peer review games list you should be able to sort them by the developer's rep.

Having something like up to 1.5 times the normal power for passing games I think could be good. This is beneficial to everyone, not just people with high rep because it will get games that should be passed through faster. Failing should still take 2 reviewers though.

Review requirements (number of passes/fails) for their own games I think should remain the same.

The peer review jail period could maybe be reduced to 5 days from the 7 after a certain rep is achieved. But I think reducing it much more would become too unfair.

LocoPuyo:

Having something like up to 1.5 times the normal power for passing games I think could be good. This is beneficial to everyone, not just people with high rep because it will get games that should be passed through faster.

Not so sure that high rep corresponds well with high odds of finding bugs.  I think that linking review weight to rep would increase the number of code 4's that slip out into the marketplace.

No offense to anyone, it's just hard to find all the code 4's and I think it would be bad to reduce the number of eyes looking for them.

On having a shorter 7 day wait:

Domipheus:

But, whilst agreeing with increased visibility of titles, more review power, shorter forced qa and increased title counts made by those with high rep, they should not have a lower review requirement for their own games. Just because they have a higher rep does not change the fact they are a developer like everyone else, and developers make mistakes. The peer review system should not change to make things easier, it's quite 'light' now as it stands.

Here's my reasoning behind it: the 7 day wait was originally added early this year because a couple developers kept spamming broken games to review, pulling and fixing a single bug at a time, and then immediately resubmitting without doing any testing of their own. Devs with higher rep could be trusted that they wouldn't spam the review process with buggy games. See the first post:

Devs with high rep can be trusted that they know how the system works and won't abuse it in this way. While an argument can be made that "that dev should've tested better", there are always cases when this isn't the case, ie after several months in Playtest an obscure yet easy to fix bug is discovered, or some really good feedback on the game is given that wasn't in Playtest.

So it wouldn't be an unfair advantage, or even have any impact on the marketplace, but just be a nice perk for well meaning developers.

No one else seems to be suggesting any other ideas, but I came up with another one yesterday. I'm not sure if this is getting too close to having an impact on the marketplace or not, or even possible with the system, but I think it might be useful: access to more tokens.

UberGeekGames:

On having a shorter 7 day wait:
Here's my reasoning behind it: the 7 day wait was originally added early this year because a couple developers kept spamming broken games to review, pulling and fixing a single bug at a time, and then immediately resubmitting without doing any testing of their own. Devs with higher rep could be trusted that they wouldn't spam the review process with buggy games.

If you read my post again you will see I agreed with the shorter wait times (forced qa), the only thing I did not agree with was reputation bringing down the peer review barrier thresholds.

Oh I see now. I had read it several times and the way you transitioned I thought you were disagreeing with the lower wait time, not the lower # of reviews. That makes more sense.

So it seems like there's good support for this, with the small change that high rep == more review power but != fewer reviews necessary. If there's no more discussion in the next few days I'll put up the connect issue. (I don't mean to discourage more discussion, I'd like to see more on this)

I noticed that people with the best reputation (or best increase in reputation) will get listed on the XNA Creator's home page.  I think that is a pretty nice perk right there.  Not to mention that just being on the forums and genuinely helping people out will get you friends, popularity, etc.  People will be more likely to review your game anyways.  I'm thinking any more perks than that should be aesthetic.  Mainly because I think there would otherwise be too much of an incentive for people to game the system.  Those of you who visit Slashdot might remember the day's of karma hoarding (using incorrect word intentionally), and really karma did nothing after you got your automatic +1.

Sorry guys, I had totally forgotten about this thread. Since there wasn't much more discussion, I've opened up a connect issue here: https://connect.microsoft.com/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=513070&SiteID=226

I think the whole thing is dumb. Those restrictions are put there for a reason and these perks to lift those restrictions basically going against the whole reason to put those restrictions theres. Eventually, there will be alot of people who have high enough scores and alot of people will be above those restrictions and the abuse will come in. I say "No." to this idea. Just do your "job" and have fun doing it. This is a community, you shouldn't get special treatment because you did this out of the kindness of your heart (and to get free games somewhat), that's why you did it in the first place. I don't get rep and I help people in the IRC room (not officially supported) but do I care for this reputation business, no. It's not why I help, I help just because.

This approach is JUST LIKE multiplayer in Halo or Modern Warfare or alot of online games where you try to level up. Do this, this, and this and you get this special reward. There will be people who want to just get that reward, so they will do whatever it takes just to get there. There will be others who will just play the game and when they get to that level, they'll be happy but it won't be anything that different from before because they just like to play the game. Instead of giving perks to people who have been here, let's come up with ways in order to help newbies faster and developers faster as that is the reason for this. KTHXBAI!

Sorry but that's just nonsense.  The entire site is geared toward helping all devs, newbie or otherwise, create great products with XNA.  Some people are givers and some are takers.  The givers deserve props and rewards for everything they do.  I just can't understand your "Just do your job" approach, followed closely by the assertion that people who do things from the goodness of their heart shouldn't be rewarded - I thank God you're not MY boss!  You seem to only see the negatives - all this talk of "abuse" seems to presume that there would be no moderation or metrics to the rewards and their administration.  If you're into helping folk then carry on, but why would you complain if someone said "well done and thanks, have this nice new feature you can use in your game"?  The motivation for people to help out in the forums is irrelevent, provided the quality of the help is such that they get good feedback, and aquitt themselves well as community members and developers.  Maybe 3 years ago your "job" would have been writing game engines from scratch in C++ and having no reliable way to release them to a sizable audience.  Being an indie dev is tough enough for God's sake, why take things as useful and potentially valuable as some of the suggestions from people who really need it?

People who troll the forums and don't follow the rules are dealt with quickly, fairly and firmly round these parts and I see no reason why things would be any different for rep perks.