By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - XBLA is a "slaughterhouse" for smaller developers

MrBubbles said:

ninjabee is a small team(3 employees according to their wiki page) and have made a number of good games for xbla.  they dont feel that need to work in less competitive environment just because they are a small team and clearly dont feel that theyve been slaughtered...


I agree. Thats why i love opinions, one developer can feel a certain way and make their decisions and another, ninjabee i suppose is your reference, can go another route...and in the end no one is wrong and no one is right. Pretty cool.



Around the Network
steverhcp02 said:
MrBubbles said:

ninjabee is a small team(3 employees according to their wiki page) and have made a number of good games for xbla.  they dont feel that need to work in less competitive environment just because they are a small team and clearly dont feel that theyve been slaughtered...


I agree. Thats why i love opinions, one developer can feel a certain way and make their decisions and another, ninjabee i suppose is your reference, can go another route...and in the end no one is wrong and no one is right. Pretty cool.


i think its pretty safe to conclude that sean murray is very wrong regarding xbla being a slaughterhouse for small developers.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

steverhcp02 said:
ImJustBayuum said:
TRios_Zen said:
shio said:

In which case, people have been saying that he made a mistake and meant "up to", because otherwise it would mean that no game is selling at 40k, 50k, 75k, 130k, 150k, 170k, etc...

either way it means that only 30% sold more than "around" 100k. And since many developers only break even at 100k, you figure it out.

Wait I'm confused. 

Is the argument that too much content on XBLA means developers don't have a chance, so the PSN is easier to succeed on (the implication being that there is less content on the PSN as competition)...  OR is there supposed to be some kind of indication that ALL games sell well on the PSN?

From what I read in OP, it seemed like the former.  But the discussions about sales percentage seem to be trying to prove a point, that frankly as we don't have PSN numbers to compare too, seems a bit myopic in scope.

Why is the OP ignoring this post?


My guess is because the person who said it isnt the OP and he probably isnt registered at VGChatz nor borwsing the forum anonymously.

but thats just a guess.....

the OP was heavily defending this article/opinion, so I was referring to Shio, not the person who said it. But my guess is you are not that smart to figure that out.

But thats just a guess....



Barozi said:

I do because

1. It's a comparable game (it's not a Trials copy and I never claimed that)

 

2. similar quality (same Metascore)

3. it sold very well for a PSN game, just like Trials sold very well for an XBLA game

Both of which they couldn't have known by the time they made their decision to go PSN only, which he is explaining here.   

 

The highest chance to break even is a multiplat release.

They have been working for 2 years on a self-financed project, they probably had to release sth. to get some cash flow - multiplat development would've further lengthened the dev time especially for a team of 4 people, but maybe they'll do a 360 version now that they have funds and the recognition.

 

I'm not criticizing that the developer decided to put it on PSN instead of XBLA, I just criticize the way they're talking about XBLA, because like I said earlier, XBLA is way bigger games wise and even with a third party publisher, they would have made tons of money.
Sean Murray talks about the chances of a self published breakthrough game on XBLA, but he fails to see that his game would definitely count towards the "few" efforts of 200k plus sales.

So what exactly is he bitching about ?
"OMG we could have made some 200k extra sales with a XBLA release, thank god we didn't do that ! Now let's hate the XBLA platform, because other, less capable developers can't make millions of dollars with their mediocre games"

Of course the term "slaugtherhouse" is a strong and maybe offensive one, but I don't think he "hated" on XBLA. I think he just wanted to clarify how they felt when they received those stats (which are not official, but they believe them to be "realistic", no idea if they really are) and their fear to be "slaughtered" if their work didn't receive a high eighties, but maybe a seventies meta. I mean of course they had some feedback, but do you really know it will be reviewed that highly?

Your characterization of him is quite sad. 

 

and for the last part... who are you to defend them for that decision ? Ah right, just what I thought....

I like to think of myself as someone who thinks decisions others made through, if that makes me a "Sony fanboy" or whatever in your view, then so be it, I couldn't care less. 





MrBubbles said:
steverhcp02 said:
MrBubbles said:

ninjabee is a small team(3 employees according to their wiki page) and have made a number of good games for xbla.  they dont feel that need to work in less competitive environment just because they are a small team and clearly dont feel that theyve been slaughtered...


I agree. Thats why i love opinions, one developer can feel a certain way and make their decisions and another, ninjabee i suppose is your reference, can go another route...and in the end no one is wrong and no one is right. Pretty cool.


i think its pretty safe to conclude that sean murray is very wrong regarding xbla being a slaughterhouse for small developers.

No, thats how he feels. Maybe the company you mentioned is doing fine. But the gentlemen speaking on behalf of his company doesnt feel the conditions are conducive to what he wants for his employees or himself.

Why is it so wrong he feels differently than you? Its his business to run, its just his opinion form his presentation....why cant he feel differently about the terms or conditions of th emarket in which hes running a business.

Not saying i agree with him, but youre argueing against a competitive marketplace and a companies choice of how to sell its product. Theres simply no right or wrong.



Around the Network
ImJustBayuum said:
steverhcp02 said:
ImJustBayuum said:
TRios_Zen said:
shio said:

In which case, people have been saying that he made a mistake and meant "up to", because otherwise it would mean that no game is selling at 40k, 50k, 75k, 130k, 150k, 170k, etc...

either way it means that only 30% sold more than "around" 100k. And since many developers only break even at 100k, you figure it out.

Wait I'm confused. 

Is the argument that too much content on XBLA means developers don't have a chance, so the PSN is easier to succeed on (the implication being that there is less content on the PSN as competition)...  OR is there supposed to be some kind of indication that ALL games sell well on the PSN?

From what I read in OP, it seemed like the former.  But the discussions about sales percentage seem to be trying to prove a point, that frankly as we don't have PSN numbers to compare too, seems a bit myopic in scope.

Why is the OP ignoring this post?


My guess is because the person who said it isnt the OP and he probably isnt registered at VGChatz nor borwsing the forum anonymously.

but thats just a guess.....

the OP was heavily defending this article/opinion, so I was referring to Shio, not the person who said it. But my guess is you are not that smart to figure that out.

But thats just a guess....


I believe Shio is simply taking what this developer said at face value. Theres already a huge red flag in the OP about the figures being what the developer feels is realistic.....it doesnt take much to infer if the developer feels these are bad sales then he must feel his company is in a better position selling via PSN. 

Sure, i could be gullibe but if this guys making decisions for these people slives and families and they area group of 4 people, who should i believe in terms of whether or not those sales are justified or whether or not its  agood decision? Some random internet person insulting me and argueing for a company they have no ties too....or a developer of a critically acclaimed game speaking at a developers conference? 

I see youre slightly on edge for some reason and cant enjoy a little internet forum humor since this is so serious. But i wasnt trying to be mean spirited with my comment about guessing, so your insults arent really well placed, but carry on with your anger.



50% of the games on XBLA suck. That's why they don't sell. It's probably the same way on PSN.



steverhcp02 said:
ImJustBayuum said:
steverhcp02 said:
ImJustBayuum said:
TRios_Zen said:
shio said:

In which case, people have been saying that he made a mistake and meant "up to", because otherwise it would mean that no game is selling at 40k, 50k, 75k, 130k, 150k, 170k, etc...

either way it means that only 30% sold more than "around" 100k. And since many developers only break even at 100k, you figure it out.

Wait I'm confused. 

Is the argument that too much content on XBLA means developers don't have a chance, so the PSN is easier to succeed on (the implication being that there is less content on the PSN as competition)...  OR is there supposed to be some kind of indication that ALL games sell well on the PSN?

From what I read in OP, it seemed like the former.  But the discussions about sales percentage seem to be trying to prove a point, that frankly as we don't have PSN numbers to compare too, seems a bit myopic in scope.

Why is the OP ignoring this post?


My guess is because the person who said it isnt the OP and he probably isnt registered at VGChatz nor borwsing the forum anonymously.

but thats just a guess.....

the OP was heavily defending this article/opinion, so I was referring to Shio, not the person who said it. But my guess is you are not that smart to figure that out.

But thats just a guess....


I believe Shio is simply taking what this developer said at face value. Theres already a huge red flag in the OP about the figures being what the developer feels is realistic.....it doesnt take much to infer if the developer feels these are bad sales then he must feel his company is in a better position selling via PSN. 

Sure, i could be gullibe but if this guys making decisions for these people slives and families and they area group of 4 people, who should i believe in terms of whether or not those sales are justified or whether or not its  agood decision? Some random internet person insulting me and argueing for a company they have no ties too....or a developer of a critically acclaimed game speaking at a developers conference? 

I see youre slightly on edge for some reason and cant enjoy a little internet forum humor since this is so serious. But i wasnt trying to be mean spirited with my comment about guessing, so your insults arent really well placed, but carry on with your anger.

@ bolded. I know your not trying to be mean spirited. I was merely responding to a smart ass response  with a smart ass response.

Of course its the developer who knows whether the sales are justified or not. no argument there. The argument is that he provided data for XBLA as a whole and claimed it a slaughterhouse without even providing data for PSN for proper comparisons. It just seems like he is speaking for all developers of XBLA.



loss of xbla only users..great game..good start for a VERY small dev teams first outing, look 4wrd to seeing more



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

ImJustBayuum said:
steverhcp02 said:


I believe Shio is simply taking what this developer said at face value. Theres already a huge red flag in the OP about the figures being what the developer feels is realistic.....it doesnt take much to infer if the developer feels these are bad sales then he must feel his company is in a better position selling via PSN. 

Sure, i could be gullibe but if this guys making decisions for these people slives and families and they area group of 4 people, who should i believe in terms of whether or not those sales are justified or whether or not its  agood decision? Some random internet person insulting me and argueing for a company they have no ties too....or a developer of a critically acclaimed game speaking at a developers conference? 

I see youre slightly on edge for some reason and cant enjoy a little internet forum humor since this is so serious. But i wasnt trying to be mean spirited with my comment about guessing, so your insults arent really well placed, but carry on with your anger.

@ bolded. I know your not trying to be mean spirited. I was merely responding to a smart ass response  with a smart ass response.

Of course its the developer who knows whether the sales are justified or not. no argument there. The argument is that he provided data for XBLA as a whole and claimed it a slaughterhouse without even providing data for PSN for proper comparisons. It just seems like he is speaking for all developers of XBLA.


But in the real world do you begin each statement you make with "in my opinion" or "in our opinion" or "not to speak on behalf of everyone" .....no, you dont. When one speaks or answers a question its generally assumed they are not speaking on behalf nor trying to represent the entirety of either their field or mankind.

Unless one is officially representing a group of people or claims to be, i dont understand why people dont understand whats being said is their/his feelings on the mater.

Had he said "its a fact...." or something along those lines id be right next to you, but its easy to distinguish that hes giving a presentation, or answering a question and giving what HE FEELS and giving reasons that his company chose what they did.

EDIT: and claiming someones not smart enough for anything isnt being smart ass, its a personal insult....theyre quite distinguishable