"OXM: Will Community Games ever have Achievements?
Scott Austin (MS director of digitally distributed games): It's something we're considering. The challenge is that not all Community Games are actually games. Some are applications, and applications giving out Gamerscore and Achievements goes against our goal of keeping the system purely about gaming. needless to say, we have some more homework to do on this one."

August 2009 Official Xbox Magazine

There you have it! Make it easier for them to make a decision by not making apps! :D

At the end of the day, I think you'll see that over the long haul (i.e. next console) XBLA and XBLIG are probably going to converge.  That quote only re-enforces that train of thought.  The problem though, is the minute you start allowing XBLIG to hand out achievements, the certification process needs to become more stringent, which translates into a more involved process, and a more lengthy process.  This doesn't mean it still can't be a community driven/run process.  However, I think it clearly means the rules and requirements for what can and cannot be released, will change.

Of course, this is all speculation...

Good to hear Achievements are being considered. Perhaps a good solution to the problem would be to finally give Apps their own category and not allow them to have Achievements.

Achievements would definately help sell more of our games and keep people playing our games longer.

Jim Perry:

"... The challenge is that not all Community Games are actually games. ...

In my simplistic view of the world, there seems to be a prety easy solution to this.

XBLIG

EDIT: I kind of regret posting in this thread now. It's all an academic argument anyway.

If anyone can come up with a watertight, logical, non-contradictory definition of "game" I'll be interested to hear it.  There's no simple way for this to be implemented.  What about musical visualizers?  What about the drumkit "gameplication"?  What about some of the sandbox games with no score and no quantifiable goal?

Don't get me wrong, I'm as keen to get my filthy hands on achievements as the next dev, but I'm assuming one of the reasons they're thinking so hard is that it's got to be fair.

Regards,
Mike

Yes, defining "game" is very hard.  Sure, some stuff may "obviously" not a be game, but there's not fine line separating app from game, it's a big gray zone.

I think the only way achievements and leaderboards and other XBLA goodies are going to get into a XBLIG game is with direct Microsoft approval on a per-game basis.  Maybe a second MS approval review queue could work.  However, I doubt MS has the resources or inclination to provide such a service, but who knows...

Get the MVPs to do it, if they got time to make kiddie games and steal my dollar they got time to give some payback baby!

No I joke of course.  If MS were to start reviewing they'd have to start charging one hell of a lot more than the current fees, or you'd have to cough up for it pre release.  But that sounds more like XBLA than XBLIG so what you gonna do?  I'm just glad I'm not the one who has to sign off on any of this!

Regards,
Mike

DrMistry:

If anyone can come up with a watertight, logical, non-contradictory definition of "game" I'll be interested to hear it.  There's no simple way for this to be implemented.  What about musical visualizers?  What about the drumkit "gameplication"?  What about some of the sandbox games with no score and no quantifiable goal?

I agree, there is a large grey zone, and some of the things we call "proper games", just like the sandbox games, fall into this zone having no goal into because (sometime) they're experimental or simply different.

DrMistry:

What about musical visualizers?  What about the drumkit "gameplication"?  What about some of the sandbox games with no score and no quantifiable goal?

Those would be toys, not games. I think the wikipedia entry is pretty good:

A game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more concerned with the expression of ideas. However, the distinction is not clear-cut, and many games are also considered to be work (such as professional players of spectator sports/games) or art (such as jigsaw puzzles or games involving an artistic layout such as Mahjong solitaire).

Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational or psychological role. According to Chris Crawford, the requirement for player interaction puts activities such as jigsaw puzzles and solitaire "games" into the category of puzzles rather than games.

I disagree with Chris that there has to be player interaction. Tetris requires no player interaction, but I'd consider it a puzzle game. There is a goal and rules.

Even so, break XBLIG into two pieces, games and apps and if the submission is judged to be in the wrong section during peer review, it's rejected. Done.

I don't really see what's wrong with giving achievements in apps though.

Harald Maassen:

I don't really see what's wrong with giving achievements in apps though.

To me, it boils down to the fact that in many apps (expecially things like screen savers), there are no real tasks one can accomplish that take any amount of skill. Thus if you purchase an app, would that mean you simply get all the available Achievement points for running it? Then it almost becomes buying Achievements instead of earning them.

That said, I'm not terribly opposed to it. Perhaps though Achievements should be based not on the game itself but on the merits of the Achievement itself... for instance, a valid Achivement must be something that is earned through some sort of interaction or skill based play and Achievements that are give out simply because you play a game are invalid.

Well, until MS say "no more things like THIS, THIS and THIS" there will be more apps written and published.  I see that bag of s*&^ Flashlight app got passed, so there's no shame on the part of devs OR reviewers.  Would YOU trust this lot with achievements if you were in charge?!

Regards,
Mike

Jim Perry:

Even so, break XBLIG into two pieces, games and apps and if the submission is judged to be in the wrong section during peer review, it's rejected. Done.

B. S.

Not all 'apps' or 'games' fall distinctly into either category.  My own 'game' being an example.  There IS a goal, just not always a goal that the PLAYER intended.

Attempting to segregate everything puts far too many restrictions on our creativity.  We certainly don't want that.

Chris Crawford:

However, the distinction is not clear-cut,

Ha ha you've entirely missed the point.

Yes they DO fit in to one or the other.  And I'm getting a bit fed up with this utopian crap about "our creativity".  Have you seen the results of that creativity?  Some would say it deserves to be killed, not just restricted.  If I had to loose all the RumbleBummers, screen burners and other non-games in return for achievements, I'd do it in a second.  Not all indies are hobbyists and the hobbyists making crap products need to realize that.  Be a little more careful with your "we"s please sir.

The line will be as clear as MS make it, if they make it.  Then everyone will jump in line as they should.  I pray that day is close myself, but I'm glad I don't have to draw up the rules.  I'm very safely on the "game" side with my projects and frankly I would not shed one single tear for things on the other side of that line.  If you have a defining goal in your game and the player doesn't see it, know about it or care about it then you've done something horribly wrong.  If you want to release a product in that sort of state go publish to a flash pit and not to the xbox marketplace, and let people who want to write real games get on with it and have a chance of making it without competing against crud which really shouldn't be there.

<Throws grenade and retires>

Regards,
Mike

This is definitely not a black and white issue. I also think restricting the service to what most call "games" is going to limit the creativity this was supposed to drive. I *WANT* to see people exploring different types of concepts that break the traditional sense of what I considered a game. Especially if it's interesting in fun.

To be honest, all this service EVER needed was reviewers who don't just immediately pass anything they see hoping for kickbacks on in an attempt to clear the queue of games ahead of theirs. The games we see on the service are the games we decided we wanted to pass. The community has decided they LIKE Flashlight applications on the service. Maybe a minority of the community, maybe a majority. I can't really tell. But I do know that's the only reason we're seeing those types of things on the service.

In the end, I think with over 500 games release, it's really not as big of a deal as everyone makes it out to be. Just relax and focus on the positives of the service.

And you know you could always just release your own games/apps that you feel are a better fit for the service to balance out those you think are not ;) 

All I know is that I am DEFINITELY not in favor of restricting the types of things that can be released. I'm all for improving reviewers and the review system though. And if after that happened, if things that I think don't belong on the service still pass I'll just have to accept that it really is what the community wants.

It's not really an achievement if there's no challenge to overcome to get it. That would be difficult to do with an app since apps should be easy to use.

George Clingerman:

All I know is that I am DEFINITELY not in favor of restricting the types of things that can be released. I'm all for improving reviewers and the review system though. And if after that happened, if things that I think don't belong on the service still pass I'll just have to accept that it really is what the community wants.

I'm with you. That said, the system is young, needs some adjustments and time and I see that all the involved parts in Microsoft are doing their best.
It will evolve more and more getting better and better. I was here an year ago and lots of things have changed for the better.
I'm pretty sure that if MS decides to give us achievements there will be shared common rules good for everything.

Running Pixel:

I'm pretty sure that if MS decides to give us achievements there will be shared common rules good for everything.

If I'm understanding this correctly you're saying that you believe all submissions to XBLIG will be given the ability to have achievements. If that's the case, what part of "applications giving out Gamerscore and Achievements goes against our goal of keeping the system purely about gaming" is not clear.

George Clingerman:

I *WANT* to see people exploring different types of concepts that break the traditional sense of what I considered a game. Especially if it's interesting in fun.

As do I. But flashlight apps and remote massagers can in no way be considered a game IMO. And if MS has the restriction of only allowing achievements for games, there has to be a way to segregate apps and games. Just as with any review fail, a developer could contact MS if they feel their submission is a game, but gets failed because reviewers feel it's not. That would have to be something MS decides if they want to allow achievements in XBLIG games.

Allowing XBLIG games to have "official" achievements and hand out Gamerscore will instantly jump us to the next level. I'm all for that.

Jim Perry:

Running Pixel:

I'm pretty sure that if MS decides to give us achievements there will be shared common rules good for everything.

If I'm understanding this correctly you're saying that you believe all submissions to XBLIG will be given the ability to have achievements. If that's the case, what part of "applications giving out Gamerscore and Achievements goes against our goal of keeping the system purely about gaming" is not clear.

Yes and no. I say that MS would put on the plate some rules, and every creator will stick to these rules to get benefits from achievements. They (MS) decide if they want apps. If the rules are against apps then there will be no apps in our future, if they do something that could be used in apps then we will continue to have apps between us. I don't know if/when/how they will give us achievements but I'm convinced that they're thinking something that will not penalize apps.

I can understand what you're saying, and I do (despite the tone of my previous posts) realize that as much effort goes in to a decent app (eMuse for example) but if I were program manager trying to convince the higher powers in the Xbox hierarchy that Gs and awards for products on the indie games channel would be great, the one thing I would be expecting to get smacked back at me was "why should we devalue G system so that some screensaver app does better?"  It would be the single biggest blocker to getting Gs open to the framework.

I would say the general quality of games on the service has increased significantly since launch.  So that's going to help the project team make a better case.  But it's a GAMER score, specifically built to represent the commitment a player has made to a particular game or part thereof.  Since it original post clearly said that apps are the problem, I just can't see how you reach that conclusion about MS wanting to be "fair" to apps.  Gamerscore is absolutely a core part of gamers lives now, and if we want XBLIG to be part of the overall Xbox experience then gaining access to Gs would be a major boost in that direction.  I'm treating this as a real call to action - if we all build games which are worthy of access to gamerscore, and stop producing apps, we're more likely to get them, surely?

Regards,
Mike

DrMistry:

if we all build games which are worthy of access to gamerscore, and stop producing apps, we're more likely to get them, surely?

I would think so, yes.

DrMistry:

I can understand what you're saying, and I do (despite the tone of my previous posts) realize that as much effort goes in to a decent app (eMuse for example) but if I were program manager trying to convince the higher powers in the Xbox hierarchy that Gs and awards for products on the indie games channel would be great, the one thing I would be expecting to get smacked back at me was "why should we devalue G system so that some screensaver app does better?"  It would be the single biggest blocker to getting Gs open to the framework.

I would say the general quality of games on the service has increased significantly since launch.  So that's going to help the project team make a better case.  But it's a GAMER score, specifically built to represent the commitment a player has made to a particular game or part thereof.  Since it original post clearly said that apps are the problem, I just can't see how you reach that conclusion about MS wanting to be "fair" to apps.  Gamerscore is absolutely a core part of gamers lives now, and if we want XBLIG to be part of the overall Xbox experience then gaining access to Gs would be a major boost in that direction.  I'm treating this as a real call to action - if we all build games which are worthy of access to gamerscore, and stop producing apps, we're more likely to get them, surely?

Regards,
Mike

Dark Flow Studios:

I agree with this sentiment 100%.  Well said.  I could not have said it any better.  Thank you.

At the end of the day I think there is a place for "apps", it's just not the Xbox 360.  The 360 is a gaming machine first and foremost.  Zune HD (soon), iPhone, Android devices, Palm devices, and the PC etc. all have great avenues for "apps".

Just like on the iPhone store now, I think XBLIG is quickly starting to see the demise of the "novelty app".  Hopefully MS will help facilitate that (demise) and simply put some additional guidelines in place clarifying what can and cannot be submitted to XBLIG, if/when achievements and leader boards ever become available to XBLIG.

I would hate for my xbox to anything except play games, I certainly would not want to do anything like play movies, check facebook, twitter, chat with friends etc. I am certain that Microsoft agrees with this point of view. Get your head out of 1992 and understand that they want the xbox to be a family entertainment center. Not just a more powerful Dreamcast.

Stop dissing people who do not fit into your narrow view of what is fun. Is that flyswatter thing or the camel adventure more worthy of the title game than RC Air Sim? Until MS makes some set of rules I'd say we can just let this rest and not climb all over someone because their idea of a product is not something you approve of. The best thing you can do is not pass these non-games when they are in review. But as you can see with the flashlight someone else will.

Before XBIG can even get Achievements they will need to add support to show XBIG under your gamertag's game list, and also when comparing games with friends.
In the mean time be thankful that apps & screensavers are making a lot of news around the web and brining a lot of new people to check out the service every day.
The Xbox has moved on from being just a gaming machine, we now have movies, music, twitter, facebook, last.fm, and even sky.tv.
Leaderboards & Project Natal support for the win!

EDIT --- posted just too late ;P