My primary complaint with the 360 as a platform is that MS has failed, SPECTACULARLY, in opening the market to non-traditional demographics.

I would agree that they’ve not cracked the mainstream quite yet, but I’d hesitate to call it a spectacular failure just yet. The Wiimote alone isn’t going to get my dad playing video games (but the media center stuff will get a 360 in his living room, and Tiger Woods for Xmas).

My money has been, and will be on MS to win the mainstream video game market, with the Wii coming in a close second… and PS3 trailing in a miserable third (or fourth compared to the PC). The only thing that will move PS3 units will be exclusive titles from developers like Insomniac (and that’ll be the only reason I pick one up).

And don’t forget: this isn’t Web 2.0. This is on the Xbox in your living room. You’re not surfing a webpage, it’s not being integrated into people’s blogs, it’s still an extension of the traditional set-top box. Sure, it’s a compromise, and as web/game sophisticates we’re anxious to jump straight to the unfettered uber-indie-gaming social paradise that awaits us, but we gotta take baby steps to ensure we bring the rest of society along with us! :)

I think the rest of society, in regards to the idea of leveraging Web 2.0 as a buisiness model for indie games, is already quite ahead of us, and the function of indie game dev is to bring the medium up to this par (which probably won’t happen through traditional funding channels). My primary complaint with the 360 as a platform is that MS has failed, SPECTACULARLY, in opening the market to non-traditional demographics. I don’t think you can argue with that, despite their (ig)noble marketing intentions. HS students and hobbyists can have at it, but if theres no commercial prospect, why not just mess around with Flash?

BTW, thanks for the heads up on WT, I’m now again conflicted between that and Flash 9 as a platform.

Now, the company I’m baised for, Nintendo, has something in development similar to XNA with Freecell Inc.

I think you mean FreeScale, the folks who make the SDK for the Wii (because they acquired Metrowerks, makers of CodeWarrior). I’ve got an interesting connection to FreeScale which I’ll tell you about early next year. And I can pretty safely say that what Metrowerks (err, FreeScale) will be bring to the table for Wii development won’t equal the quality offering from Microsoft. MS simply creates some of the best software development tools in the world — and by far the best softdev tools in gamedev — by far!

…pigeon-holeing themselves into MS distribution platforms when there are more inclusive (and therefore more useful to a real buisiness standpoint) platforms available for only slightly more money and technical effort.

While there may be platforms more inclusive than MS’s, the idea that it’s useful to a “real” business is a farce. Windows is the definitive game playing platform for PC games (including web games). They’ve got, what, 90% of the market? You can’t make a business argument for a more inclusive platform, unless your specific niche is non-Microsoft platforms (which is valid).

…a new game engine that does browser embedded 3d…

Probably mean WildTangent. They’ve been around for quite a while, but broadband penetration (and some successful titles in the casual game space) and some minimum 3D hardware on lots of machines out there have made them much more viable.

There are other options [than XNA], and I think in the long term, these options are better for an indie dev.

I won’t necessarily argue that point. XNA is simply another opportunity for indies, a huge opportunity for those that are wanting to take a stab at console development, and all information points toward Microsoft having done this one “right.” But, as can certainly be seen in my own past posts, I’m very open to other mechanisms for achieving similar goals.

If MS wants this to be have the power of Youtube but for video games, they will HAVE to open it up and let the crap in. The power of Web 2.0 is found when you develop a system to allow individuals to sort through the wheat and chaff. If MS is deciding what’s good enough and what isn’t to be on the Marketplace they’ve totally missed the point of upgrading to Web 2.0.

I was thinking exactly this when I wrote the post and the above comment. And in fact, MS has stated that they’d like to eventually move the service in that direction. As I pointed out in my comment, though, because of the way the Marketplace is associated with Xbox, they can’t just open the floodgates without risk of devaluing the Marketplace and/or confusing consumers. A website like YouTube is one thing: it provides a foundational service (video sharing) with appropriate filters on top of it. But it doesn’t stand in a vaccuum. It’s not the only video sharing service, it’s not the only source for downloadable video on the web, and a user who’s first introduced to the web is not going to immediately be proficient at using something like YouTube.

Xbox, on the other hand, is targetted at both traditional gamers and non-traditional gamers. MS is trying to carve out a slice of living room entertainment, including music and movies (along with games, obviously). For that reason, Xbox Live Marketplace is designed to not only cater to the web literate but also the “dumb” consumer who basically sees the serivce as fancy pay-per-view for video games. In other words, MS is attempting to appeal to an audience that may not have the sophistication to distinguish between a game like Gauntlet of XBLA and a half-ass clone that doesn’t really work put out by some guy in his garage.

And don’t forget: this isn’t Web 2.0. This is on the Xbox in your living room. You’re not surfing a webpage, it’s not being integrated into people’s blogs, it’s still an extension of the traditional set-top box. Sure, it’s a compromise, and as web/game sophisticates we’re anxious to jump straight to the unfettered uber-indie-gaming social paradise that awaits us, but we gotta take baby steps to ensure we bring the rest of society along with us! :)

Do you realize how cluttered and insignificant the Xbox Live Marketplace would get if titles did not have to be approved by MS before they were on there? It would quickly obfuscate the selection beyond what the average consumer would be willing to troll through, and from a practical business perspective, would utterly limit the value Marketplace brings to big budget developers

Do you realize how cluted and insignificant Youtube.com would get if videos did not have to be approved by Youtube, Inc before they were on there? It would quickly obfuscate the selection beyond what the average websurfer would be willing to troll through, and from a practical business perspective, would utterly limit the value Youtube.com brings to big budget filmmakers.

If MS wants this to be have the power of Youtube but for video games, they will HAVE to open it up and let the crap in. The power of Web 2.0 is found when you develop a system to allow individuals to sort through the wheat and chaff. If MS is deciding what’s good enough and what isn’t to be on the Marketplace they’ve totally missed the point of upgrading to Web 2.0

Now, the company I’m baised for, Nintendo, has something in development similar to XNA with Freecell Inc. and they’re doing a more constrained program with university students (doing GC development). So Nintendo is actually even more guilty of my criticisms than MS, which seems to be not very guilty.

I guess my problem is that lots of enthusiastic people will be enticed by the low price tag into pigeon-holeing themselves into MS distribution platforms when there are more inclusive (and therefore more useful to a real buisiness standpoint) platforms available for only slightly more money and technical effort. I’m thinking specifically about Flash (free, but as you informed me about a grand to publish commercially with anti-piracy) Wii’s Dev Kit (2k for commercial quality development, hopefully if Freecell pulls through it’ll be easy to port and build for) and a new game engine that does browser embedded 3d which I cannot name (500 for an indie liscence, I can’t name it because I’m not sure of it, not because I don’t want to).

There are other options, and I think in the long term, these options are better for an indie dev. MS isn’t like my dad trying to give me a civic, they’re like a wanna-be step-dad trying to give me a civic. You can understand why I wouldn’t want MS to fuck my mom, if you interpret “mom” to be market penetration options.

But once again, I hate MS, so I’m a bit biased.

And that bias shows through magnificently.

Seriously, though, I’m not quite sure what this grumble from folks about “only MS approved games can get on Xbox Live” is all about. It’s like your dad just gave you a car for your 16th birthday and your response is, “but I wanted a Porsche!”

Do you realize how cluttered and insignificant the Xbox Live Marketplace would get if titles did not have to be approved by MS before they were on there? It would quickly obfuscate the selection beyond what the average consumer would be willing to troll through, and from a practical business perspective, would utterly limit the value Marketplace brings to big budget developers (you know, the guys who actually make money for MS?).

Of course, I love the completely unsubstantiated suggestion that an MS approved game would have an “IP stripping funding deal to produce enhanced graphics…” In fact, they’ve said exactly the opposite, that games would be treated identically to any third-party licensee; in other words, MS has to approve, but they in no way take ownership, etc.

In fact, they’ve stated they absolutely do plan to get more open. From conversations I’ve had with the folks at MS, I suspect that the Creator’s Club will eventually be accessible to the general public once it’s been sufficiently stocked and the wheat and chaff are properly separated (through classic social rating systems, no doubt).

BTW, Xbox Live subscribers absolutely do not have to pay to enter the Marketplace, but they do have to pay to enter the Creator’s Club. As mentioned above, I suspect that eventually there will be a “read-only” entrance to the Creator’s Club that’s free to all Xbox users, while uploading priveleges will require subscription (reasonable, considering that MS loses money on hardware and would in fact be subsudizing a free game distribution service if they didn’t charge the pittence… $100 annually to develop games for retail devkits!? That’s practically science fiction!).

I was expecting a bit more of an optimistic response. It’s a shame to see that people’s old, poorly justified biases can tint their opportunities so much… ;)

They may get more open after they’ve tested this out, but even then they still don’t have the marketing technique (or spread, considering that Xbox Live subscribers, who have to pay to enter the store BTW, are in the millions, while general internet users are in the hundreds of millions). Manifesto is getting there as we speak, though of course their marketing prowess on the net has yet to be demonstrated.

But once again, I hate MS, so I’m a bit biased.