General

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

Nick Gravelyn — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:33:32 GMT

We're getting way off topic again. Take it back to the discussion on the name of "Community Games" or start a new thread for your discussion.

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

Anchorcast — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:49:41 GMT

I'm not big on the way the ratings are presented, myself. Maybe it's intentional, but the numeric representation (0/3, 2/3, 1/3) isn't very immediately clear and I wonder if it makes some parents iffy even about games that are zero in every category. I wish they were presented on the 360 kind of like how they are on the site, as notched bars.

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

Jim Perry — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:16:00 GMT

Nick Gravelyn:
... but I'd be very much against anything that even closely resembles a parental advisory label. I know we're already classified as unrated, but I don't want parents thinking that everything in here is going to be full of blood, guts, and swearing.

Agreed.

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

Nick Gravelyn — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:43:06 GMT

arrogancy:
This talk about rebranding has morphed the thread into talking about some rather decent ideas. It's a GREAT idea to structure Community Games with a "Parental Advisory" type label, and introduce it as something like "the place where anything goes - find some experimental titles, rare gems, or basement projects here" only wordsmithed.

I'm definitely supportive of changing the text surrounding the channel with something like that, but I'd be very much against anything that even closely resembles a parental advisory label. I know we're already classified as unrated, but I don't want parents thinking that everything in here is going to be full of blood, guts, and swearing.

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

arrogancy — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:40:42 GMT

This talk about rebranding has morphed the thread into talking about some rather decent ideas. It's a GREAT idea to structure Community Games with a "Parental Advisory" type label, and introduce it as something like "the place where anything goes - find some experimental titles, rare gems, or basement projects here" only wordsmithed.

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

Matthew Doucette — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:35:10 GMT

Jim, I meant conversations specifically about changes, sorry. But, you answered it. Thanks.

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

Jim Perry — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:26:10 GMT

Matthew Doucette:
What is the role of the moderators and XNA MVPs?

Umm, to keep the forums on track and get rid of flames, spam, etc.

Matthew Doucette:
Tell me straight out, is it pointless to talk about ideas?

Nope, as long as those ideas aren't things that Microsoft has already made decisions about.

Matthew Doucette:
Is conversation pointless unless it goes through connect?

Depends on the conversation. Suggestions about changes or improvements go to Connect.

Matthew Doucette:
It would seem beneficial if the mods and MVPs would raise community concerns, even when there is not a 100% agreement, to the XNA team to see if the concern could potentially improve XNA and XBLCG. Am I completely out of the loop?

Somewhat. We do this every year at the Summit (and on and off during the rest of the year). That doesn't mean you can't do it yourself via Connect.

What I'm saying is that saying something should be changed like the name of the service is more than likely pointless as it's probably not something that's open to change. You might as well say XNA Game Studio should be changed to XNA Games and Apps Studio since it's not only games that make it to XBLCG.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

Big Daddio — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:10:43 GMT

I am certain it's not going to change. I don't want to change it. I just cannot believe all the Don Qioxotes love to tilt at windmills.

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

Matthew Doucette — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:56:18 GMT

What is the role of the moderators and XNA MVPs? I always feel they want to stop conversation and "naysay". Conversation is healthy, as that's where ideas are inspired and shared. No offense, please hear me out. There is certainly miscommunication here. Tell me straight out, is it pointless to talk about ideas? In other words, is this thread meaningless in the sense it makes no difference at all? Is conversation pointless unless it goes through connect? I don't understand how this community works, and I have been here a while. Some of you are in the loop and don't understand how the rest of us don't get it. I am just some guy sitting in my office at the keyboard, and the only connection I have to this community at all is this forum. Connect is very "disconnected" you could say. It feels like bug report system and little else. Where do the ideas come from? Please someone break this down to me so that I can understand. I don't mean any offense by this at all. It would seem beneficial if the mods and MVPs would raise community concerns, even when there is not a 100% agreement, to the XNA team to see if the concern could potentially improve XNA and XBLCG. Am I completely out of the loop? Thinking about it, this thread is the community at work, isn't it? Someone mentioned somewhere that the "community" aspect of XBLCG never really happened, but it's happening right here, unless I am wrong. (Help me understand, please!)

Back on topic: I love "XBox Live Underground"!

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

Jim Perry — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:57:52 GMT

I really don't see the problem with the current name

* Jim Perry is hoping someone from the XNA team will come in here and say "It's not going to change" so he can lock this thread and move onto some more constructive

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

The Shape of Games to Come — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:21:24 GMT

JasonD:
Or maybe something that piques interest or makes people believe they are getting something not normally allowed, almost illegal, like 'underground', like an Area 51 where you're not supposed to be, but there's some really cool sh*t going on behind the fences...

I think "Xbox Live Underground" could potentially be a better name. It's definitely catchy and simple. Though they might run into problems with Sony who run a Playstation Underground (or used to, I don't know if it's still active). But really, does anyone honestly think Microsoft is going to completely rebrand the service at this point? I suppose they might if they thought the name was really hurting sales that much, but major corporations don't generally taking rebranding lightly. It would probably be quite expensive.

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

Anchorcast — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:40:14 GMT

Big Daddio:

Asked whether bedroom developers could compete with the likes of Activision, the company behind games like Guitar Hero, Mr Harding-Rolls said: "You can definitely make extremely interesting, entertaining and addictive casual games that become popular with a huge number of people."

Sounds to me like he was answering the specific question about Guitar Hero and referring to the fact that it is a casual-friendly game with wide appeal, not saying that Community Games are supposed to be casual, exclusively.

Big Daddio:
edit: I will still say XBLCG is here to compliment, not cannibalize. As you saw the uproar here over "non games" stealing sales etc, how do you think XBLA publishers would react to XBLCG stealing sales? especially after spending hundreds of thousands on development + dealing with official Microsoft licensing?

XBLCG isn't anywhere close to that point. Our sales are a drop in the bucket by comparison. If it somehow does become anywhere near as successful as XBLA, I would expect those developers to be thrilled, because then they could come over here and release games for lower cost and get a bigger share of the revenue. But I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, if ever.

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

Big Daddio — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:14:35 GMT

Anchorcast:
Big Daddio, the major flaw in your argument is that when you look at Xbox Live Arcade, it has TONS of family-friendly casual games available. I would say that close to half of its games fall under that category. So even if I buy that Microsoft intends XBLCG to target casuals (I don't--they've clearly set it up to offer a wide range of game types--just look at the genres and rating system), by targeting casuals, we're still competing with XBLA.

So any way you look at it, that's going to be the case. I agree that part of the reason Microsoft has added this service is in the hopes that it will add value to the Xbox 360, but I don't think the overall image is supposed to be casual anymore than XBLA's is. It's supposed to target a broad range of gamers.

To a point sure, but I am not making any argument, I don't fancy myself a forum lawyer quibbling over the meaning of various phrases. I prefer to read the what the official Microsoft line is: from The Times Online

Asked whether bedroom developers could compete with the likes of Activision, the company behind games like Guitar Hero, Mr Harding-Rolls said: "You can definitely make extremely interesting, entertaining and addictive casual games that become popular with a huge number of people."

edit: I will still say XBLCG is here to compliment, not cannibalize. As you saw the uproar here over "non games" stealing sales etc, how do you think XBLA publishers would react to XBLCG stealing sales? especially after spending hundreds of thousands on development + dealing with official Microsoft licensing?

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

Anchorcast — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:56:35 GMT

Big Daddio, the major flaw in your argument is that when you look at Xbox Live Arcade, it has TONS of family-friendly casual games available. I would say that close to half of its games fall under that category. So even if I buy that Microsoft intends XBLCG to target casuals (I don't--they've clearly set it up to offer a wide range of game types--just look at the genres and rating system), by targeting casuals, we're still competing with XBLA.

So any way you look at it, that's going to be the case. I agree that part of the reason Microsoft has added this service is in the hopes that it will add value to the Xbox 360, but I don't think the overall image is supposed to be casual anymore than XBLA's is. It's supposed to target a broad range of gamers.

Re: Is the "Community Games" name itself poor marketing?

JasonD — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:54:43 GMT

Perhaps something that implies 'no regulations' that makes people think they are in a new untested area where you'll find things not found anywhere else -- not even on other consoles. Or maybe something that piques interest or makes people believe they are getting something not normally allowed, almost illegal, like 'underground', like an Area 51 where you're not supposed to be, but there's some really cool sh*t going on behind the fences...

Along the same thought process, the blue-screen that states the game hasn't been rated is just boring and makes people think the game is going to be crap. This is actually an opportunity to improve appearance: It could be something that looks very cool, like the Parental Advisory images that artists WANTED to show, because it meant their album was COOL:

P.S. I agree that "Xbox Live Community Games" is a mouthful, that "Community" is too long, technically correct, and boring, and that "Game" is redundant.