I don't know what the Live connection requirements will be for the final version. I believe that mostly comes down to security requirements, but am not sure what the final conclusion will be.

Yes, games are categorized, using the same genres XBLA has today.

I think that the concern over what constitutes a "full game" is a legitimate one. Maybe it would be possible to add one more bit of information to the game ratings/descriptors to reflect the level of completeness:

Completeness

1. Alpha - The initial build of a game. There may be major errors or bugs, but the game should not freeze or crash.
   
2. Beta - More complete than the alpha, the beta build may still have minor non-crashing errors or consistencies. Most of the functionality of the full game should be present.
   
3. Final - The final build of the game. There should be no known errors or bugs.
   
4. Demo - Demonstrates a portion of a game, including technical demos, but is not itself a fully featured game. May be time or level limited.
5. Updated - A previously released final build which has been updated to add new capabilities and levels, or to correct bugs found after it was released.

After all, what is one more checkbox for the peer review process? :D

You should only "release" finished games.  The peer review and distribution system isn't intended as a developer workflow system as you move from alpha, beta, etc.

As it goes hand in hand with the "business model" question, I'll say we'll have more details about demo/trial modes as well later this year.  But we'd love to hear opinions on this.  Time based? API based (i.e. game limits functionality)? Something else?

 

Chris Covington:

After all, what is one more checkbox for the peer review process? :D

That's a dangerous question! Last summer, Julian, who has been working behind the scenes on the community stuff, referred to his early efforts as the "check boxes of doom". XNA is a dish best served doom-free :-)

Maybe XNA Version 3 + N where N > 1 could support the development life cycle complete with the ability to run betas. Unfortunately, it's never quite as easy as adding just adding one more check box. Some creators may only want to peer review complete games, but more importantly how do you manage the state transitions between the various stages? 'Completeness' introduces new states into the workflow which represents the peer review process.

In addition to complicating the dev process and the distribution/review system, releasing beta and un-finished games is a sure-fire way to turn the community off of the Community Games section. If I'm Average Joe and I start downloading indie games only to find they are mostly unfinished or betas, I'm going to ignore ALL of the community games. Then when your game actually is finished, that's one fewer person downloading it. Once you figure there are lots of people who will think like that, you will realize you definitely don't want to distribute unfinished games. I know that I, when peer review time comes, start reviewing submissions, I will be super-harsh on unfinished games simply because I don't want betas and things like that ruining this amazing opportunity for the rest of the people who are trying to get their finished products out to gamers.

Mitch Walker:

You should only "release" finished games.  The peer review and distribution system isn't intended as a developer workflow system as you move from alpha, beta, etc.

It should be, these are "community" or "indie" games. Without exposing their game to the whole community they won't be able to use their direct feedback to refine their games and make them better as they progress through the development cycle. This in turn makes these amateur developers into better developers. If you're going to want keep developers from distributing their works in progress, then I highly suggest you recommend that they become retail developers instead.

Mitch Walker:

As it goes hand in hand with the "business model" question, I'll say we'll have more details about demo/trial modes as well later this year.  But we'd love to hear opinions on this.  Time based? API based (i.e. game limits functionality)? Something else?

I seriously hope that demo/trial modes will not be required. I want the developers to be able to release their complete work without the worries having to gimp their games. That should be reserved for XBLA games.

Tommy McClain

AzBat360:

Mitch Walker:

You should only "release" finished games.  The peer review and distribution system isn't intended as a developer workflow system as you move from alpha, beta, etc.

It should be, these are "community" or "indie" games. Without exposing their game to the whole community they won't be able to use their direct feedback to refine their games and make them better as they progress through the development cycle. This in turn makes these amateur developers into better developers. If you're going to want keep developers from distributing their works in progress, then I highly suggest you recommend that they become retail developers instead.

You should not use end-users as your tests. How would you feel buying (or even getting for free) a game on DVD, taking it home, and finding out it's just a beta? That'd be annoying. It's really no different with a download service such as this. Nobody wants to browse through a huge list of games, download one, and find out it's an unfinished product looking for feedback. They'll probably just delete it and get frustrated with the Community Games section.

If you want to test out your ideas and refine your games then you have two routes:
1) Finish your game. Like really finished. Done and complete. Release that on community games and use the feedback to improve future games. Don't release a half-finished version expecting to use feedback to finish that game.
2) Release a PC version to anyone who wants it (and Xbox 360 versions to CC subscribers). Then you can test out your alpha and beta versions without junking up the Community Games section with partially completed games. There are plenty of people who can just plug a 360 controller into their PC and test your alpha version there. And if they have a CC subscription they can even put your alpha and beta versions onto their Xbox.

The jist is that being indie isn't an excuse to release unfinished games to end-users. That's a sure way to guarantee that you remain indie forever because people will soon start doing brand (or developer) association where they will see your name and instantly assume (correctly or incorrectly) that your games are never finished. It's bad for you, it's bad for the Community Games section, and therefore is something everyone should avoid.

Nick Gravelyn:

In addition to complicating the dev process and the distribution/review system, releasing beta and un-finished games is a sure-fire way to turn the community off of the Community Games section. If I'm Average Joe and I start downloading indie games only to find they are mostly unfinished or betas, I'm going to ignore ALL of the community games. Then when your game actually is finished, that's one fewer person downloading it. Once you figure there are lots of people who will think like that, you will realize you definitely don't want to distribute unfinished games. I know that I, when peer review time comes, start reviewing submissions, I will be super-harsh on unfinished games simply because I don't want betas and things like that ruining this amazing opportunity for the rest of the people who are trying to get their finished products out to gamers.

 

I'm sure glad you're not an average joe, because if you were then we would never see any progress. I'm sure there are a few Halo 3 and COD4 players out there that would wholeheartedly disagree that unfinished/beta games are not welcomed. Most of the people out there that will be downloading these community games know full well that these are mostly done by amateurs and hobbyists and that they will likely be in unfinished states. So come on give these people some credit. If these were real productions with real budgets, then they would be on XBLA or a disc. Go look at YouTube as evidence of type of content you can expect. There's no original Star Wars or Transformers-quality content there. I might have to join the Creator's Club to do my own peer reviews just to offset people like you who are overly harsh on these developers.

Tommy McClain

AzBat360:

Most of the people out there that will be downloading these community games know full well that these are mostly done by amateurs and hobbyists and that they will likely be in unfinished states. So come on give these people some credit.

I am giving lots of people credit. Look at the seven games up there now. They are all spectacular displays of what a single person or small group can accomplish. I'm not saying people need to make 10+ hour games will 16 player multiplayer. I'm simply saying that being an individual doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for excellence and try to release finished games.

If these were real productions with real budgets, then they would be on XBLA or a disc.

Go look at YouTube as evidence of type of content you can expect. There's no original Star Wars or Transformers-quality content there.

Like I said, I'm not expecting multi-million dollar production quality. But you also don't go to YouTube and find people who were half-way done with a movie and just ended it. Well, you might find some on YouTube since there is no review system, but you can be sure those aren't the popular ones making the front page. Again, the key isn't about making your game look like a full studio quality game. The goal is simply to avoid releasing unfinished products. I'm not going to start rating games low because the graphics aren't the greatest or other things, but if they try to put through a game that is clearly not finished, that's when I'm going to start suggesting they finish up their game before releasing it.

Nick Gravelyn:

You should not use end-users as your tests. How would you feel buying (or even getting for free) a game on DVD, taking it home, and finding out it's just a beta? That'd be annoying. It's really no different with a download service such as this. Nobody wants to browse through a huge list of games, download one, and find out it's an unfinished product looking for feedback. They'll probably just delete it and get frustrated with the Community Games section.

I wouldn't have a problem with it. Eventually I would find that diamond. But what's the whole point of Community Games if it's just going to be 2nd tier version of XBLA? Community Games are suppose to foster new ideas and get the community involved helping the developer community do something that publishers wouldn't necessarily have green lit. If you're not going to use the largest and best resource you got: the community, to test these new ideas on, then I say what's the point? Microsoft has continually used the phrase: The YouTube of Games. Explain to me how YouTube has worked in a sea of unfinished works? As long as you let the community rate and comment on the content, the best content will always bubble up to the top, regardless if it's finished or not.

Nick Gravelyn:

If you want to test out your ideas and refine your games then you have two routes:
1) Finish your game. Like really finished. Done and complete. Release that on community games and use the feedback to improve future games. Don't release a half-finished version expecting to use feedback to finish that game.
2) Release a PC version to anyone who wants it (and Xbox 360 versions to CC subscribers). Then you can test out your alpha and beta versions without junking up the Community Games section with partially completed games. There are plenty of people who can just plug a 360 controller into their PC and test your alpha version there. And if they have a CC subscription they can even put your alpha and beta versions onto their Xbox.

But that's not point since there's no centralized distribution system for the PC or CC games. Currently the only way XNA games have so far got major exposure has been through the DBP contest and even then you had to go searching the Internet to find those works. Don't sound like a great way to get the community involved helping fleshing out great game ideas.

Nick Gravelyn:

The jist is that being indie isn't an excuse to release unfinished games to end-users. That's a sure way to guarantee that you remain indie forever because people will soon start doing brand (or developer) association where they will see your name and instantly assume (correctly or incorrectly) that your games are never finished. It's bad for you, it's bad for the Community Games section, and therefore is something everyone should avoid.

I think you're not giving the public and the developers enough credit. I'm sure if these developers do in fact release beta/unfinished games, that they will infact label them as such and the community will understand as such and grade them accordingly.

Tommy McClain

 

AzBat360:

I seriously hope that demo/trial modes will not be required.

Rest easy: if you want your game to be free, it will be free. Mitch's comment is just a hint at potential future announcements about the business model for independent game developers who wish to profit from XNA. I've been out of the loop for a while, so I'm quite excited to hear what they've cooked up!

Nick Gravelyn:

I am giving lots of people credit. Look at the seven games up there now. They are all spectacular displays of what a single person or small group can accomplish. I'm not saying people need to make 10+ hour games will 16 player multiplayer. I'm simply saying that being an individual doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for excellence and try to release finished games.

I specifically talking about the gamers who will playing these community games. Again, you're not an average joe or end-user. You have no idea of what we're interested in or even believe we're capable of nurturing the community games by ourselves.

Nick Gravelyn:

Like I said, I'm not expecting multi-million dollar production quality. But you also don't go to YouTube and find people who were half-way done with a movie and just ended it. Well, you might find some on YouTube since there is no review system, but you can be sure those aren't the popular ones making the front page. Again, the key isn't about making your game look like a full studio quality game. The goal is simply to avoid releasing unfinished products. I'm not going to start rating games low because the graphics aren't the greatest or other things, but if they try to put through a game that is clearly not finished, that's when I'm going to start suggesting they finish up their game before releasing it.

Suggest they finish? That's fine with me, but to be totally harsh in their peer review seems to me that you'll end up doing the opposite of what you intended. If they label their game as beta or unfinished then I believe that the content should be judged accordingly and then allow the community to decide whether it's good or not. You start letting the developers/peers do that, then the community will only be getting filtered versions of what kind of content you guys think is worthy. And I seriously would hate to see that happen.

Tommy McClain

I think there's two orthogonal issues here.  New game concepts are good and should be encouraged.  "Beta" quality code, in my mind, should be discouraged.  If you want to "prototype" new game concepts, that's fine.  However, if you want to release a game on the Community Games portal, I firmly believe it should be a full, release-quality game.  I think released games should be of professional quality, in terms of how stable they are.  I see no reason to allow XNA games to be less tested and less stable than real XBLA or full retail titles.

If a significant portion of the games available are unstable, buggy demos that crash all of the time, it's going to turn a lot of people off to the whole thing.

Now, a "beta" category may be in order.  That would allow people to release game concept demos that aren't ready for actual release, while casual users can stick to the other categories that have fully tested games.

I believe ShawMishrak was able to say what I was actually thinking in a much more accurate and elegant way. Thanks for that. Those are my thoughts precisely.

a quick question:  the detailed piece on GamaSutra says that only 1 version per region of a given title is allowed, implying that we can "update" our games by releasing an updated version through the peer review.

Will XNA games feature automated updates like that of commercial games?  If someone has version 1.0 of my game, and I replace it with 1.1, the next time they launch the game (assuming they are connected to Xbox Live) will they automatically get the latest version, or will they have to re-download for themselves?

A couple of questions.

1. Will we be able to put out demo and trial versions of games we want people to pay for?

I plan on creating commercial quality games and would like to make a little money off them if people like them. Obviously this means that releasing the full game for free is kind of defeating that purpose.

2. How will the submission process differ for such games?

That's pretty much it. I plan to do some free and a few charge for games if I have the time. I'm one of those people that work full time in the corporate games arena and get the odd "Your stifling my creativity" moments that XNA seems made to relieve :) 

If it has a searching and ratings system like Youtube then

with regard to completeness if a download is free I don't really mind how finished it is, although I think reliability is more important, it shouldn't crash out on start up kind of thing. I don't want practical jokes either.

with regard to content, this one could be so much more complicated, so I hope there is a clear set of guidelines or policies that outline what isn't allowed.

We don't really want to create a smaller cheaper country club.

For betaing being that XNA games can use Live well without betaing how are you to test multiplayer. K 130 Bucks is fine for a licence but that only covers one gamertag, if you wanted to test the mulitplay functionality on 4 consoles you need 4 CC subs, thats 520 bucks. Beta testing could allow for multiplayer testing without a large collection of gear yourself.

Say I wanted to make a multiplayer game that work on multiplay consoles I would need to get x number of consoles, tvs and players which would all need the CC my friends base would allow for testing a multiplayer game as I only know 2 people with 360s and like 1 person with a PC that can run shader 2.0, so testing would be a massive drain on my money.

Say if you had a op in beta testing section that would be great.

If there will be no built in support for windows games, does that mean there is no possibilty for cross-platforms games, the xbox on this system and the windows version downloaded as a .ccgame? As far as I am aware (and Ive done little with the netwokring api) all youi require is the same GUID.

gsolid:

For betaing being that XNA games can use Live well without betaing how are you to test multiplayer. K 130 Bucks is fine for a licence but that only covers one gamertag, if you wanted to test the mulitplay functionality on 4 consoles you need 4 CC subs, thats 520 bucks. Beta testing could allow for multiplayer testing without a large collection of gear yourself.

Say I wanted to make a multiplayer game that work on multiplay consoles I would need to get x number of consoles, tvs and players which would all need the CC my friends base would allow for testing a multiplayer game as I only know 2 people with 360s and like 1 person with a PC that can run shader 2.0, so testing would be a massive drain on my money.

Say if you had a op in beta testing section that would be great.

You can always use system link for free. The XNA framework also provides mechanism for simulating Live! networking latency when using system link. So developing and testing on system link, with latency simulation should give you a perfect playground, at a very low cost.

AzBat360:

I specifically talking about the gamers who will playing these community games. Again, you're not an average joe or end-user. You have no idea of what we're interested in or even believe we're capable of nurturing the community games by ourselves.

It seems you don't believer developers are also gamers. From what I've seen that couldn't be further from the truth. I know I'm looking forward to playing XNA Community games as well as developing them. I personally don't want to slog through half-finished games though. Releasing a beta as a demo is deceiving at best and nothing ticks me off more than to see that.

That said, if betas are allowed then they'll get through. The review process is not a judgment of the quality of a game, just that it meets standards with regard to not violating IP or releasing prohibited material (porn, etc). They should be noted as such however.

mikelid109:

If there will be no built in support for windows games, does that mean there is no possibilty for cross-platforms games, the xbox on this system and the windows version downloaded as a .ccgame? As far as I am aware (and Ive done little with the netwokring api) all youi require is the same GUID.

Cross-platform network games will not currently be enabled.

mikelid109:

If there will be no built in support for windows games, does that mean there is no possibilty for cross-platforms games, the xbox on this system and the windows version downloaded as a .ccgame? As far as I am aware (and Ive done little with the netwokring api) all youi require is the same GUID.

While developing your game (inside the Creators Club) you can connect Windows to Xbox as long as they both have the same GUID. We felt this functionality was important, because without it there would be no way to test a networked Xbox game short of buying many Xboxes and many Creators Club subscriptions, which didn't seem like a reasonable thing to ask of people!

Once you distribute your game to Xbox Marketplace, though, it can only connect to other versions that were downloaded from Marketplace. It will no longer be able to connect to other Xboxes that are running a non-published version of the game through the Creators Club launcher, or to Windows versions of your game.

This is mostly a security thing. On the Creators Club side of the fence, there isn't really a lot of security. All we have to go off is the GUID, and we just have to trust people to be honest and give each game a different GUID. If someone discovered what GUID you were using, they could easily write a different game that would use that same GUID, so could connect to yours and send malicious packets, cheating in some way, implementing an aim-bot, or whatever. That sort of thing isn't too much of a problem as long as it is just a handful of people developing and testing a game (if someone starts messing around like that, you can easily just change your GUID to foil them) but would become a much worse issue if a game became popular so the cheating could mess up millions of gamers who were playing it.

To make this sort of spoofing impossible, games distributed through Marketplace run under an entirely different title ID to the Creators Club launcher, so there is no way for published games to connect to unpublished ones. As part of the upload process, we replace whatever GUID you selected with one that we pick for you, which we can then guarantee is 100% unique.

We like to think of the Creators Club as kind of the "wild west" - you can do whatever you like, which, although important while developing a game, also allows various kinds of bad behavior and cheating. That cheating is no longer possible once a game goes up on Marketplace, because we are then able to give it a strongly protected ID that is impossible for anyone to spoof.

Penhalion Wolfe:

A couple of questions.

1. Will we be able to put out demo and trial versions of games we want people to pay for?

I plan on creating commercial quality games and would like to make a little money off them if people like them. Obviously this means that releasing the full game for free is kind of defeating that purpose.

2. How will the submission process differ for such games?

That's pretty much it. I plan to do some free and a few charge for games if I have the time. I'm one of those people that work full time in the corporate games arena and get the odd "Your stifling my creativity" moments that XNA seems made to relieve :) 

1: We haven't finalized the details of how this is going to work yet. As my boss likes to say, though, "we have some of our best minds working on it". I think you'll be pleased with how it turns out.

2: The submission process will be the same no matter what you are uploading.

Stifled creativity, huh? I can't wait to see what happens if you're able to channel that somewhere productive :-)

Another scenario popped into my head.

Suppose that I created a wargame platform.  One that took input XML (or some other data file -- i.e., one not part of the content pipeline process) that described the battle: units, generals, initial setup, weather, etc.  I could ship with a number of XML (Gettysburg, Waterloo, etc.) and the game presents a selection dialog that grabs all of the XML from the game's directory and presents them.

After shipping I decide to make a couple of battle packs.  Maybe a set of four or five for the Civil War, another four or five for World War II, etc.  I'd like to be able to have those packs separately shippable (so that someone that could give two figs about the Civil War but loves WW2 could get just the WW2 pack).  They'd also have to ship to the platform's directory (not a new one).  Reshipping the whole platform with all of the map packs included in them isn't really an option either -- how would you be able to say charge per pack and not end up giving away all earlier packs for free (I suppose a "buy it on the PC, get a key, enter the key in the 360, and save a file to note the transaction" would work -- but ICK).

So, will shipping additional data content (subject to the review process for appropriateness, of course) into an existing game (so that they go into the same directory) be possible?

Also, I'm assuming a game that is updated won't nuke any saved user files and the like that were done with the original game?

Thanks for any insight you guys may have. =)