We're not talking about what's fun and what's not.  Someone with a great deal of influence on the future of XBLIG has said that he'd love to give us access to achievements, but that apps on the service are a major blocker to that moving forward.  Now we can sit about and say "well I'm permitted to do it now so I'll write a text editor/world clock/paint drying sim and publish it" and give him reason to throw his hands in the air and say forget it, or we can smell the coffee and say "right, we need to focus on making games which are good enough to be associated with one of the most important features of the xbox experience" and give him reason to throw his hands in the air and say "Yes!  Let's give them achiements access from the framework".

The Xbox is a good fit with movies, music videos, twitter and facebook or none of them would have been implemented.  People have asked for those things.  People are looking forward to getting hold of them.  Anyone ever heard a gamer say, "I wish I could use winword on my xbox"?  A fairly senior member of MS staff has (I think) made it clear that apps are NOT a good fit, and are blocking progress toward XBLIG being able to implement achievements - which could also mean access to online leaderboards which we've all been screaming for since day one.  Now I personally think that the argument that achievements would dramatically boost indie games sales has been overstated, but at least if we pay attention to what the guy says we increase the chances of getting an actual answer to the question!

We've got gamers screaming "make better games, don't let the channel turn in to the iPhone store", and Microsoft saying "we want to give them achievements but the apps are a problem".  A lot of reviewers see apps as contrary to the fundamental idea of making XNA available to us.  I might be jumping to conclusions but I would call that a pattern.  Apps aren't a good fit to the aims of MS or the requirements of mainstream gamers.  If you want an app, use a PC or (gasp) even a mac.  If you want games, use an xbox.  Why should any indie game have to compete for space with something which isn't entertainment, and which the owners of the platform aren't sure they like having there anyway?  I'm not saying drum 'em out, but if devs stopped to think about what's going on around them, we might have achievements and leaderboards in 6 months, and Natal support from launch day.  Then we ALL win.

Regards,
Mike

I dont think apps are all bad... there's a higher percentage of shovelware in the 'other' category than in any of the others but IMO there's several games out there that would be just as bad for having achievements as any of the apps.

If an app/game has some decent interaction, quality, has some effort put into it and a decent target audience then I say let them try to sell it to the millions of people out there. The ratings will sort it out.

If its part of a scheme to put (for example) 2 screen savers a day, or an app for each city in America, like you see on the iPhone where the name of the game is to blanket the platform in the hope that someone will buy something then ratings alone doesn't seem to be enough.

DrMistry:

Someone with a great deal of influence on the future of XBLIG has said that he'd love to give us access to achievements, but that apps on the service are a major blocker to that moving forward. 

Do you really think it is this blocking them? They have the power to change the rules in every istant and blow out every non-game, but they don't.

And in the case we block every app we see (I don't know how) and as a result we get the achievements but the rules remains the same... who would stop future apps having achievements into?

And again... there are actually some apps into the system, do you want delete them? If apps are an obstacle to the achievements so they will continue to be an obstacle even if you stop every further app in the market, forever. They have full right to exist and submit udpdates.

Rules is the key. If rules permits and people buys there's nothing we can do.

Running Pixel:

They have full right to exist and submit udpdates.

To be clear and fair, no game or app has the right to exist on the Xbox Marketplace; Microsoft has given us the privilege and can change or revoke that as they please. I think it's good for people to remember that.

I don't see why such a big debate on this. Are there other apps on the 360? Sure, but I didn't get an achievement for updating my Facebook status or watching a movie on Netflix. With that train of thought I don't think we need to wipe out apps in XBLIG but that also doesn't mean they should get achievements. The quote Jim gave is really simple, though. They're finding it hard to get XBLIG achievements because XBLIG includes games and apps and they don't feel apps should have achievements.

Running Pixel:

And again... there are actually some apps into the system, do you want delete them? If apps are an obstacle to the achievements so they will continue to be an obstacle even if you stop every further app in the market, forever.

Nick Gravelyn:

To be clear and fair, no game or app has the right to exist on the Xbox Marketplace; Microsoft has given us the privilege and can change or revoke that as they please. I think it's good for people to remember that.

Sure! They have the power to remove every app (or game) if they want! They have also the power to change the rules and we would see no other apps in future.
The word right is related to the rules we know and follow, once approved every app has the same right of every approved game to exist.

Big Daddio:

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.

I agree with this, except I think there should be an app category and there are certain features such as achievements and avatars that should not be allowed in apps, also it would be fair to restrict apps to the lowest price point.  All of this could be done to encourage game development on the platform and XBLIG marketplace without getting rid of apps.  Apple is able to do it.

It may not be easy to clearly define what a 'game' is, but I can certainly come up with a list of criteria that would make a submission qualify as a 'first person shooter', 'rpg', 'side scroller', 'top down shooter', 'puzzle game', etc. 

So, a modification to the current system could be to include checkboxes for what 'genre' you think your game falls into.  You can select the boxes you think your game falls into and attempt to pass peer review as one or many of those types.  And reviewers can fail a game for not fitting the mold of any selected archetypes.  There could be a checkbox for 'app'.  Submitters don't have to claim to fit any mold or do not have to claim every checkbox that their game would actually fit.

At that point, one would have a stronger case for adding achievements to indie games, because the definition of 'game' can be then stated to be any submission that passes with certain genre qualifications.

Games that don't fit any mold that are truly games can be marked as 'misc' or something. And lets face it, if your game doesn't fit any of the commonly accepted molds, then you should have already accepted that your game is an experiment to begin with.  If you felt deserving of new genre in order to qualify for achievements, then that would be something to fight for.

I'd like to say once again that Brodurbund did not want to publish Sim City because it wasn't a game, so to appease them Will Wright added the 10 scenarios. Thinking out of the box and doing it differently is what moves us ahead. This is especially true of indie games. My thought is we are here to do something different, not make crappy knockoffs of something existing. For someone else it's not letting older styles of gameplay die. This is Indie, stuff publishers probably wouldn't touch. Yet I have seen people saying they would have to fail Dishwasher if it were an Indie game.

So if we start picking apart what is game play and what is not, how long before we start saying the artwork is not worthy, or the music, or who knows what. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Some things pretty clearly are not games, MS has taken a stand and removed the video apps. If MS didn't want the screen savers they wouldn't be here.

All that was said in that quote was it made them have to look at things differently, they didn't expect what they got. Not that they didn't want it. I'd also add that it's too late now anyway. The apps are here.

DrMistry:

Yes they DO fit in to one or the other. 

NO THEY DONT!  Not every one.  My "Scare Me" game for example isn't really a game, per say, but it's definitely not an app either (you can certainly sit down and play it).  It's something in between.

Take games like "The Sims" or "Grand Theft Auto" for example.  Would you call them a game? or could they be something else?  There's no real goals (if you don't play the 'campaign' part of GTA).  Theres no real rules that you have to follow.  You are free to do with them what you want.  Do they serve a purpose or perform a function like an app? (they serve to provide entertainment)  What would the achievements be for games like that?  (You achieved the "Played for 10 hours" achievement?).  There are no objectives.  There are no requirements.

Since they're not really games as some of you describe them, then they must be apps then?  We have to pick one or the other right?  That's just ridiculous...

There are MANY different kinds of games, and many people are entertained in different ways.  We should not take it upon ourselves to determine for them (the XBox gamers) what kinds of entertainment they can or cannot be entertained by.  Let them choose for themselves.  If its a game, so be it.  If its an app, so be it.  If it's something in between, so be it.



Heres the simple solution:
Let the games that can make use of achievements, do so.
Let the rest of the titles on the system, be without achievements.

What's the harm in that?

I can give someone a baseball glove and go outside and toss a ball around.  We can have fun and get some exercise.  The ball isn't a game.  Tossing it around isn't a game.  It isn't until we set some rules and goals that it becomes a game.  A rule like catching a ball without letting it hit the ground is a 'good catch'.  And a goal like whoever has the most 'good catches' at the end of a set time wins.

Entertainment != game

The Sims is not a game.  It is entertainment software for sure.  But not a game.  There are no achievable goals set by the program.  You just play until you are tired of playing, like playing in a real sandbox.  You can make a game out of it by deciding to build the best sim house out there and make the decision of when you reach the appropriate level of awesomeness yourself.  But the Sims still remains as just being the glove and ball.  You still have to make the game.

GTA is similar.  My cousins certainly don't play the storyline much in the game.  They would rather use the cheat codes go about causing random mayhem.  However, there is a story mode to GTA with real accomplishable goals.  It is a game.  The openness of GTA doesn't disqualify it.  Most games can be played in the same way.  GTA just makes it easier and more obvious.  I know that I spent several hours in the same levels of the original Mario games just running around, killing turtles and throwing their shells in random directions looking for hidden blocks.

We really shouldn't say game versus app, because really games are apps.  Just a certain kind of app.  We really should be talking about game versus non-game, which is what I really think the spirit of the original post's quote is about.  If you don't qualify as a game, then you are a non-game, no matter how entertaining you are. 

WolRon:

Heres the simple solution:
Let the games that can make use of achievements, do so.
Let the rest of the titles on the system, be without achievements.

What's the harm in that?

There is no harm, persay, if we can agree on which titles can make use of achievements.  However, according to the original post, the blocking matter seems to be that there is no distinction between game and non-game, so how do you decide which indie submissions get achievements and which don't?  So, the argument seems to be that if we want achievements, we need to label things black and white, which goes against the those that feel it stifles creativity, or we don't label anything and continue on without achievements.

Eckish:

WolRon:

Heres the simple solution:
Let the games that can make use of achievements, do so.
Let the rest of the titles on the system, be without achievements.

What's the harm in that?

There is no harm, persay, if we can agree on which titles can make use of achievements.  However, according to the original post, the blocking matter seems to be that there is no distinction between game and non-game, so how do you decide which indie submissions get achievements and which don't?  So, the argument seems to be that if we want achievements, we need to label things black and white, which goes against the those that feel it stifles creativity, or we don't label anything and continue on without achievements.

Why do we even have to agree?  If someone wants to make an achievement for "sitting in front of the fireplace for 10 minutes" then why not let them create it?  Does it REALLYmatter?  Who really cares what the achievements are?  They are all game-independent anyways.  No achievement in any one game affects any achievements in any other games.

Let 'em all have achievements.  Let the developers be creative (there's that creative word again) in how they are earned in their specific title.  If you want to compare your massaging achievements against your friends, so be it.

I just don't see what all the fuss is about...


What this thread REALLY is about:
If you don't like non-games (so-called 'apps') then simply don't 'play' them.  Don't use achievements as an excuse to try to get rid of them.  There are a ton of GREAT, ENTERTAINING, and FUN non-games on XBLIG.  And I, for one, enjoy 'playing' them as well as do 10's of 1000's of other XBox Live gamers.  (I bought my copy of Physics Sandbox.)  If they were 'hurting' XBLIG, then the gamers wouldn't be paying for them, would they?

Well, my posts are not about denying the existence of such programs on the service.  Simply about classifying them. 

Achievements have value to gamers, because they are percieved as requireing skill to obtain.  Games that currently support achievements have to go through a review process to verify that achievement values match the effort required to get.  The OP's quote says to me that they are trying to maintain that integrity with achievements, which is why the non-games are an issue. 

You can argue that it doesn't matter, but the powers at be seem to want only games to have achievements.  And indie game devs want achievements, because they believe it will add more value to their games and help them sell them.  Hence the argument.

WolRon:

There are MANY different kinds of games, and many people are entertained in different ways.  We should not take it upon ourselves to determine for them (the XBox gamers) what kinds of entertainment they can or cannot be entertained by.  Let them choose for themselves.  If its a game, so be it.  If its an app, so be it.  If it's something in between, so be it.



Heres the simple solution:
Let the games that can make use of achievements, do so.
Let the rest of the titles on the system, be without achievements.

Yesssss. Microsoft post rules about achievements (if/when they do so) and if an xblig stuff can make use of them there's no problem at all. Thinking that only "games" can make use of them is wrong, there are lots of way an app could make a good use of achievements. (Do you know Wii Fit?)

Someone said "no avatars for apps too". Why? If you're able to use avatars in a app why not? Actually there are very borderline avatar games, where the avatar is a two pixel thing in the screen (and I suspect this will be the first of many). Because it is a game is it a good avatar usage?

My two pence (cents?) worth is that a much bigger barrier will be policing introduction of new equity into a controlled economy (why do you think there aren't cheat codes in shipped 360 titles?) and the risk of reducing the competitive edge of publishers who generate a lot more revenue for Microsoft than us lot combined - yes, even including Jamezila.

WolRon:

What this thread REALLY is about:
If you don't like non-games (so-called 'apps') then simply don't 'play' them.  Don't use achievements as an excuse to try to get rid of them. 

You completely missed the point of the thread (shocker!) The point of the thread was improving XBLIG. Getting achievements (and true global leaderboards, but that's another subject ;D) would exponentially improve the service. There are many gamers out there that won't even consider buying something on XBLIG just because there's no achievements.

MS has stated that only games get achievements and that's one thing they're still trying to figure out with relation to XBLIG. If there were no apps on the service it would be almost a no-brainer.

Jim Perry:

If there were no apps on the service it would be almost a no-brainer.

Before we had heard the quote that started this thread, getting achievements was more complex than a no brainer... There's a lot more to the decision than removing the apps - he's just saying it would remove ONE of those roadblocks. Personally I think the 'cert' process to make sure indie games don't cheapen points is the biggest one.

Spot on Jim, as usual.

I can't understand why this is so contentious.  I would always defend something like eMuse, because it's a quality product which is entertaining to use from my perspective.  HOWEVER, the smoke signals from MS are that apps are causing headaches when it comes to allowing access to the achievements API.  Now, given everything which MS has done for us from coming up with the idea in the first place to giving us video and avatar functionality, is it not reasonable to give them a little payback and make THEIR life easier, make this decision easier, and the community agree to put a morotorium on app development for the xbox platform?  Existing apps will of course stay as long as MS or the creator wills, and I would never call for them to be removed - they were published within the rules - but come on, if this isn't a signal to the community I don't know what is!  If someone "lets it be known" they'd be willing to make you a huge concession but there's one particular thing stopping them, you'd be a fool not to remove the problem!  Some estimate a huge increase in sales if we had access to Gs and leaderboards.  At the very least the service would get a much needed boost in terms of media coverage and gamer awareness. 

Apps have been a bone of contention from day one.  Those who've been here for a while will remember some absolute hum-dinger threads about them.  We now have a situation where apps are considered a block to progress.  We can wait for the hammer to fall, and have some devs possibly waste months and months writing and testing only to be told "sorry, no more apps" or we can make a decision as a community to wise up.  If apps keep coming then 2 things can happen:  No achievements, or apps get blocked.  We can allow ourselves to be slapped, or we can choose to help MS in their planning and decision making, and set a precident which makes future improvements easier to justify.  If we do the right thing, as I said earlier, we make it soooo much easier for the upper echelons of MS managment to justify giving us access to things like Natal, Twitter updates, Facebook interaction...or you can be selfish, short-termist and pretend you're living in an isolated utopia where your actions have no impact on the rest of the community. If I had a dollar of every time I'd heard or read someone say "I don't look at Indie Games, it's all crap like Rumble Massage" I would buy the damned platform myself.  Now some may say "yea but Rumble Massage has sold a lot of units!"  Well a) so does crack cocaine, b) relative to what, and c) with what effect on the standing of the service?

As for this "I have the right to write and publish whatever I want" stance, well I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you have no "right" whatsoever.  The ability to go to peer review and have a game live on the service is GRANTED by Microsoft.  The tweaking of peer review guidelines (e.g. no video junk) should really have made people sit up and take notice but apparently it didn't.  Do we wait until the teacher is so p***ed off they take the ball away, or do we stop kicking the ball at the staff room windows before it gets to that point?  If you really DO think it's a right you need to remember that with rights come responsibilities - the responsibility to exercise your rights in a sensible, cohesive way.  If you don't, you'll have that right taken away eventually.  So you can stop smoking crack or you can wait for the sherrif to knock on the door.

ZMan is right, of course - apps aren't the only block to getting our grubby paws on Gs.  But if you show maturity and understanding, you get rewarded.  That's all I'm saying.  Set a precident as a community and the community will grow stronger, the image of the channel gets better, and the power of our tools could very well be increased with all the benefits that brings.

Regards,
Mike

DrMistry:

The ability to go to peer review and have a game live on the service is GRANTED by Microsoft

This is valid for both games and non-games.
I hate crap apps and I hate crap games as well. No difference for me, crap is crap. But they pass the review process and they (sometime) are top selling stuffs (both crap games and crap apps).

DrMistry:

So you can stop smoking crack or you can wait for the sherrif to knock on the door.

Sheriff knocks because there's a law about drugs, not because your neighbour says "I don't like that guy".
I'm all for rules; if MS doesn't like non-games (including the good one) it will make new rules to kick off non-games, they have the power.

DrMistry:

and the community agree to put a morotorium on app development for the xbox platform?

You know you can't fail non-games if there's no fail reason. You can choose to not review them, but someone else will do (newcomers, other appsmakers, apps fans etc..) edit: ...or simply because it is a good stuff with some efforts into.

The ZMan:

Before we had heard the quote that started this thread, getting achievements was more complex than a no brainer

I did qualify my statement with "almost". ;) :D

I could imagine that games on the service wouldn't get as many points as even XBLA games and there would have to be big changes to the review process to account for them.

I foresee that if Microsoft does allow achievements to be in indie games, they will do it at their discretion in a secondary review by them and not by us.  I could also see that if any game gets granted achievement points, the developer will lose an additional cut in the profits similar to how they currently do it with games they choose to promote.

Running Pixel:

DrMistry:

The ability to go to peer review and have a game live on the service is GRANTED by Microsoft

This is valid for both games and non-games.
I hate crap apps and I hate crap games as well. No difference for me, crap is crap. But they pass the review process and they (sometime) are top selling stuffs (both crap games and crap apps).

Obviously.  But I say again, apps have been a source of derision since the first dildonics app appeared.  Saying something is a top seller is meaningless without context.  Even the best selling indie game is absolutely dwarfed by even mediocre selling XBLA games.  Why?  Quality, features, reputation of the channel.

Running Pixel:

DrMistry:

So you can stop smoking crack or you can wait for the sherrif to knock on the door.

Sheriff knocks because there's a law about drugs, not because your neighbour says "I don't like that guy".
I'm all for rules; if MS doesn't like non-games (including the good one) it will make new rules to kick off non-games, they have the power.

And if there's no current law against it, but strong indications that there soon will be, you have to make a choice.  Continue on a harmful course or steer into clearer waters.  Further, the police may well knock on your door because your neighbour tells the police you're being antisocial.  They don't (as a rule) pick houses at random.  But one of the basic facts about metaphors is that they're vaugely illustrative rather than definitive so basing a counterargument on the metaphor rather than the core of the original argument is pointless.

Running Pixel:

DrMistry:

and the community agree to put a morotorium on app development for the xbox platform?

You know you can't fail non-games if there's no fail reason. You can choose to not review them, but someone else will do (newcomers, other appsmakers, apps fans etc..) edit: ...or simply because it is a good stuff with some efforts into.

Yea, which part of "morotorium on app development" is causing confusion here?  I don't see any inference of failing apps because they're apps in any of my posts.  We all know that's against the rules, abstention from reviewing them has been discussed over and over and over and all active community members are aware of it. 

Once again I state what I take to be the basic meaning of the original post:  The presence of applications on the service is one factor in our not currently having access to achievements and Gs.  We want access to achievements and Gs.  We can, as a community, continue to develop apps and cause MS to a) divert time and resource away from other things into segregating apps and games b) stop developing apps so that it's far far less of an issue.  THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.  Not the relative creative merits of apps vs games, not what constitutes a game, not the level of creative freedom inherent in the community mechanisms.  We're talking about the continued development and release of titles which are causing Microsoft to pause and think long and hard about giving us access to achievements, which the OP explicitly quotes as something they want to do.  That is clearly a reason not to submit apps to the service.  I can see no couterargument which holds water.

Regards,
Mike

Eckish:

I foresee that if Microsoft does allow achievements to be in indie games, they will do it at their discretion in a secondary review by them and not by us.  I could also see that if any game gets granted achievement points, the developer will lose an additional cut in the profits similar to how they currently do it with games they choose to promote.

That gets me thinking... Anyone else think the rebranding of the CCO team to IDN might be indicative of either their job spec being widened to include indie developers of XBLA titles? Could, perhaps, Microsoft be looking at offering a tiered service for indie developers, with CCO at the lowest level, and then acting in a pseudo-publishing role for games they think show promise? That'd be a super-sexy if move if it was true.

I think you are reading too much into that.  I think it is the natural progression that since we are no longer 'Community Games', that the dev team should no longer bear a similar name.

DrMistry:

Obviously.  But I say again, apps have been a source of derision since the first dildonics app appeared.  Saying something is a top seller is meaningless without context.  Even the best selling indie game is absolutely dwarfed by even mediocre selling XBLA games.  Why?  Quality, features, reputation of the channel.

Really? It wasn't just apps, it was also the games that were little more than bounce a ball on screen, or actually anything that didn't fit into what someone would call a game. I also seem to recall Kathleen literally gagging/stuttering on one of Major Nelsons podcasts over the existence of pong clones. I would say that the apps are easy to target but in reality they would still have the same problem if the apps did not exist at all with the caliber of the majority of games on here.

Alot of what we see are not made by people who are even that into becoming an indie developer. They are basically people wanting to make something for bragging rights, just to put something on the xbox and make a couple of bucks.