The 360 is here, ushering in the next generation of games and gamers. For some, it will be their Commodore, their 2600, their Nintendo. Joe Blancato looks at what the expanding industry means to the current generation of gamers.Joseph Blancato
Issue 21: Casual Friday - How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Xbox
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Original Comment by: Tortanick
If this comes true I'll allways miss being a neich. The Public is a lot dumber than an individual and like all things as they grow in size the things held in common are the lowest common denominators.
If this comes true I'll allways miss being a neich. The Public is a lot dumber than an individual and like all things as they grow in size the things held in common are the lowest common denominators.
Original Comment by: Dustin Hubbard
http://www.spookytornado.com
Great article! Some what I call "Gaming Elitists" will likely hate this happening but it's really pretty inevitable as a medium becomes more accesible and popular. I think it's a good thing as it will give me that much more to talk about with everyday folks as well as the ladies
But yes it could be pretty funny to watch kids talk about how "Such and Such Company or Developer" used to keep it real and underground etc. but has now sold out! I guess we see that a little bit now though really...
The next batch of consoles has a great potential to either drive the gaming market into a huge crater in the ground or pull in all sorts of new folks. Just depends how accessible Sony and Microsoft make their systems to everyday folks! (Personally I see nothing but good coming from them allowing the homebrew scene easy access to creating apps similar to the original XBox but doubt we'll see it). If mom can record her shows while playing a round of bejeweled... well then add another "gamer" to our population.
http://www.spookytornado.com
Great article! Some what I call "Gaming Elitists" will likely hate this happening but it's really pretty inevitable as a medium becomes more accesible and popular. I think it's a good thing as it will give me that much more to talk about with everyday folks as well as the ladies
But yes it could be pretty funny to watch kids talk about how "Such and Such Company or Developer" used to keep it real and underground etc. but has now sold out! I guess we see that a little bit now though really...The next batch of consoles has a great potential to either drive the gaming market into a huge crater in the ground or pull in all sorts of new folks. Just depends how accessible Sony and Microsoft make their systems to everyday folks! (Personally I see nothing but good coming from them allowing the homebrew scene easy access to creating apps similar to the original XBox but doubt we'll see it). If mom can record her shows while playing a round of bejeweled... well then add another "gamer" to our population.
Original Comment by: Evil Timmy
http://10mbit.com
I've assumed this was coming for a long time, and I'm sure many other people have too, because they remember being fascinated with games from early childhood through adulthood, but also know the reasons why the mainstream has historically stayed away from games. It'll be amazing to see what happens when the budgets of games start edging towards those of current Hollywood movies. The production quality of a game like F.E.A.R. is spectacular, and in terms of how much time I spend on it vs. development budget, it's maybe 1/100th that of, say, King Kong.
But the gaming industry has the potential to do so much more. Imagine a game with dozens of different paths, and options at every turn, with the same quality you'd expect of any game-on-rails today. It'd definitely raise the importance of sound in the development budget, as voice actors and music would have to be extended far beyond what they are now, and could be thing that makes high-quality voice acting a standard rather than a surprise.
Interacting with other people is something that modern systems lack, but that I can really see taking off. At the moment, standard multiplayer seems to be limited to short-term competition or single-player running through the main game co-op. Now imagine your 8-player deathmatch group instead fighting through two interwoven storylines, with the successes and failures of one side affecting the other, and news of the other team's progress being echoed in your own game. Or a multiplayer adventure game, with players picking up at different parts of the story and accomplishing different parts of the story, to create a unique finale each and every time.
The potential here is just starting to be tapped; the influx of cash from widespread and mainstream acceptance may push such dreams into reality before the end of the decade. Who knows what games will be sitting under the tree come Christmas 2010?
http://10mbit.com
I've assumed this was coming for a long time, and I'm sure many other people have too, because they remember being fascinated with games from early childhood through adulthood, but also know the reasons why the mainstream has historically stayed away from games. It'll be amazing to see what happens when the budgets of games start edging towards those of current Hollywood movies. The production quality of a game like F.E.A.R. is spectacular, and in terms of how much time I spend on it vs. development budget, it's maybe 1/100th that of, say, King Kong.
But the gaming industry has the potential to do so much more. Imagine a game with dozens of different paths, and options at every turn, with the same quality you'd expect of any game-on-rails today. It'd definitely raise the importance of sound in the development budget, as voice actors and music would have to be extended far beyond what they are now, and could be thing that makes high-quality voice acting a standard rather than a surprise.
Interacting with other people is something that modern systems lack, but that I can really see taking off. At the moment, standard multiplayer seems to be limited to short-term competition or single-player running through the main game co-op. Now imagine your 8-player deathmatch group instead fighting through two interwoven storylines, with the successes and failures of one side affecting the other, and news of the other team's progress being echoed in your own game. Or a multiplayer adventure game, with players picking up at different parts of the story and accomplishing different parts of the story, to create a unique finale each and every time.
The potential here is just starting to be tapped; the influx of cash from widespread and mainstream acceptance may push such dreams into reality before the end of the decade. Who knows what games will be sitting under the tree come Christmas 2010?
Original Comment by: Adam Westall
As long as mainstream gaming continues to make games that are more about polygon count and framerate than compelling storytelling, AI, and gameplay, I find it hard to believe we'll reach the mainstream in the way the article describes. It's as if Hollywood only made big special-effects blockbusters; sure, they're popular, but not everyone is up for seeing a series of pretty explosions. In that sense the Xbox 360 isn't the harbinger of a new era, only the biggest and prettiest in a long line of consoles sold by how big and pretty they are.
Nintendo is getting closer with the Revolution. How do we reach people who aren't reached by gaming currently? By finding something they enjoy. The success of Popcap Games shows there's a market for simple puzzle-type games, but it's hard to build the kind of mainstream shown in the article from Bejeweled and Text Twist. So we need to expand our paradigm. Nintendo sounds committed to doing their part by adding new means of control. The rest is really up to the game developers making something that appeals to a different audience than big flashy explosions, in the same way that movie studios make different genres of movies for different crowds (action, romantic comedy, drama, and so on).
As long as mainstream gaming continues to make games that are more about polygon count and framerate than compelling storytelling, AI, and gameplay, I find it hard to believe we'll reach the mainstream in the way the article describes. It's as if Hollywood only made big special-effects blockbusters; sure, they're popular, but not everyone is up for seeing a series of pretty explosions. In that sense the Xbox 360 isn't the harbinger of a new era, only the biggest and prettiest in a long line of consoles sold by how big and pretty they are.
Nintendo is getting closer with the Revolution. How do we reach people who aren't reached by gaming currently? By finding something they enjoy. The success of Popcap Games shows there's a market for simple puzzle-type games, but it's hard to build the kind of mainstream shown in the article from Bejeweled and Text Twist. So we need to expand our paradigm. Nintendo sounds committed to doing their part by adding new means of control. The rest is really up to the game developers making something that appeals to a different audience than big flashy explosions, in the same way that movie studios make different genres of movies for different crowds (action, romantic comedy, drama, and so on).
Original Comment by: Mark
Only one thing about this article really depresses me, which is this: modern mainstream gaming seems to be heading toward puzzle games and social games, whereas I personally play games to get away from people and usually prefer more depth than the clever manipulation of blocks. It's all well and good if the game industry is becoming more mainstream, but if it's not matched by diversifying the sort of game it makes then it runs the risk of losing fans. As the game industry broadens its player base, it must also broaden its focus - it must be all things to a greater diversity of interest.
Only one thing about this article really depresses me, which is this: modern mainstream gaming seems to be heading toward puzzle games and social games, whereas I personally play games to get away from people and usually prefer more depth than the clever manipulation of blocks. It's all well and good if the game industry is becoming more mainstream, but if it's not matched by diversifying the sort of game it makes then it runs the risk of losing fans. As the game industry broadens its player base, it must also broaden its focus - it must be all things to a greater diversity of interest.
Original Comment by: Tortanick
In responce to Joe Blancato
Its true that there will allways be someone who makes a good game that the eliteists can enjoy without feeling like its identical to, say every other WWII shooter they've played. However an increase in casual gamers will drastically decrease the relative size of the Hardcore gamers neiche.
If EA expects each game to have a bigger budjet and sell cargo freighters of copys its going to be a lot harder to convince the suits to buy a new idea like the Sims, I may not like the sims but its responcible for EA funding Spore.
And although I've played plenty of the hidden gems of gameing I do know that there are a lot of games made for everyone but still good because their made well. Prince of Persia sands of time was brilliant, and it was made for the average guy. When they figured that it wasn't average enough for everyone they created warrior within. It had Rock Music (god knows why), far worse acrobatics and they even tryied to sell the game on the existance of a scantaly clad femail boss. I wouldn't be suprised to see this treand continueing.
In responce to Joe Blancato
Its true that there will allways be someone who makes a good game that the eliteists can enjoy without feeling like its identical to, say every other WWII shooter they've played. However an increase in casual gamers will drastically decrease the relative size of the Hardcore gamers neiche.
If EA expects each game to have a bigger budjet and sell cargo freighters of copys its going to be a lot harder to convince the suits to buy a new idea like the Sims, I may not like the sims but its responcible for EA funding Spore.
And although I've played plenty of the hidden gems of gameing I do know that there are a lot of games made for everyone but still good because their made well. Prince of Persia sands of time was brilliant, and it was made for the average guy. When they figured that it wasn't average enough for everyone they created warrior within. It had Rock Music (god knows why), far worse acrobatics and they even tryied to sell the game on the existance of a scantaly clad femail boss. I wouldn't be suprised to see this treand continueing.
In response to Tortanick.
I don?t really consider entry into the mainstream to mean we?re only going to attract casual gamers to the industry. There are fanatics (good, positive version of ?fanatic,? here) in every walk of life; it?s just a matter of giving them a gaming point of entry. Think of the guys who actively contribute to IMDB.com. Not all of them play games, but when they do, I?d wager they?ll get into gaming as much as they get into movies. (And let?s hope so - most of them will demand high quality storytelling!)
Even if the influx is nothing but casual gamers, it?ll still increase revenue on ?blockbuster? type titles, be it GTA or Madden or the next Blizzard game. Then, it?s just a question of what the developer and publisher choose to do with that money. Sure, a lot will go into continuing those franchises, because by all rights, that?s what should happen. When a million people vote with their wallets, a company should listen. But that doesn?t mean we won?t see money expanding into new areas. Here?s a current example: GTA. It pays for Max Payne. Personally, I don?t get why people bothered with Vice City, San Andreas, or Liberty City, but I?m glad they did, because it means Max Payne 3 will get a budget, even if fewer people are fans of the Max Payne franchise.
I think companies realize it?s still in their best interest to branch out, and if they don?t, they?ll learn what happens when they don?t. Just look at basketball shoe companies. Nike made a killing because they met a demand many consumers had, even with very little money compared to the big guys of the day.
And yeah, I agree, Warrior Within was a tragedy. But so was Mario Bros. 2. (That?s right, I said it.) Just think of how great SMB3 was. Hope isn?t lost, even if our hero seethed with generic rage in the previous version.
I don?t really consider entry into the mainstream to mean we?re only going to attract casual gamers to the industry. There are fanatics (good, positive version of ?fanatic,? here) in every walk of life; it?s just a matter of giving them a gaming point of entry. Think of the guys who actively contribute to IMDB.com. Not all of them play games, but when they do, I?d wager they?ll get into gaming as much as they get into movies. (And let?s hope so - most of them will demand high quality storytelling!)
Even if the influx is nothing but casual gamers, it?ll still increase revenue on ?blockbuster? type titles, be it GTA or Madden or the next Blizzard game. Then, it?s just a question of what the developer and publisher choose to do with that money. Sure, a lot will go into continuing those franchises, because by all rights, that?s what should happen. When a million people vote with their wallets, a company should listen. But that doesn?t mean we won?t see money expanding into new areas. Here?s a current example: GTA. It pays for Max Payne. Personally, I don?t get why people bothered with Vice City, San Andreas, or Liberty City, but I?m glad they did, because it means Max Payne 3 will get a budget, even if fewer people are fans of the Max Payne franchise.
I think companies realize it?s still in their best interest to branch out, and if they don?t, they?ll learn what happens when they don?t. Just look at basketball shoe companies. Nike made a killing because they met a demand many consumers had, even with very little money compared to the big guys of the day.
And yeah, I agree, Warrior Within was a tragedy. But so was Mario Bros. 2. (That?s right, I said it.) Just think of how great SMB3 was. Hope isn?t lost, even if our hero seethed with generic rage in the previous version.
Original Comment by: Tortanick
In response to Joe Blancato
Like most things in life there is a balance to be struck, if we only have a lot more, perhaps connoisseurs is a better word than elitist, and fewer casual gamers who buy most things. Then games like Max Payne won?t be funded because mediocre games like Area 51 didn?t sell enough to fund them. (ignore the wrong dates)
If we had a lot more casual gamers without a significant increase in connoisseurs then the market will make enough money spewing out the same sure bets it did yesterday and not even bother to branch out. Yes Nike found that the market wanted something and wasn?t getting. Yes it became a total giant by filling that need. The other, and arguably more important side of that coin is that the giants Nike took on didn?t try to fill that niche. And games have a much higher cost of entry to the market than trainers.
Think about it. Today EA will recycle the same formula time and again and that sells. It funds, for example, Spore. I?m happy with this arrangement. As you know everyone makes a WWII FPS, the battle seems to be fought mostly on graphics and expensive set pieces. Now what happens when the proportion of casual gamers to connoisseurs swings largely towards casual gamers? The high class graphics that attracts casual gamers increases the risk of making a game effective out-pricing innovation. EA would never dream of creating a bad graphics game.
Somewhere there is an equilibrium point I?d argue that we?ve already gone past it but I hope your right and more casual gamers will simply fund more innovation because like it or not the mainstream is coming.
In response to Joe Blancato
Like most things in life there is a balance to be struck, if we only have a lot more, perhaps connoisseurs is a better word than elitist, and fewer casual gamers who buy most things. Then games like Max Payne won?t be funded because mediocre games like Area 51 didn?t sell enough to fund them. (ignore the wrong dates)
If we had a lot more casual gamers without a significant increase in connoisseurs then the market will make enough money spewing out the same sure bets it did yesterday and not even bother to branch out. Yes Nike found that the market wanted something and wasn?t getting. Yes it became a total giant by filling that need. The other, and arguably more important side of that coin is that the giants Nike took on didn?t try to fill that niche. And games have a much higher cost of entry to the market than trainers.
Think about it. Today EA will recycle the same formula time and again and that sells. It funds, for example, Spore. I?m happy with this arrangement. As you know everyone makes a WWII FPS, the battle seems to be fought mostly on graphics and expensive set pieces. Now what happens when the proportion of casual gamers to connoisseurs swings largely towards casual gamers? The high class graphics that attracts casual gamers increases the risk of making a game effective out-pricing innovation. EA would never dream of creating a bad graphics game.
Somewhere there is an equilibrium point I?d argue that we?ve already gone past it but I hope your right and more casual gamers will simply fund more innovation because like it or not the mainstream is coming.
Original Comment by: Tortanick
Ug, I got lost between my brain and my fingers (surprise surprise) so I've got a couple of corrections for the above post.
1) When I say EA, all its rivals are close enough to be counted.
2) First line second paragraph, third word from the end "market" should be: market. EA will make...
3) Third paragraph, replace everything after "towards casual gamers?" with the far better written:
Now what happens when the proportion of casual gamers to connoisseurs swings largely towards casual gamers? The greater revenue funds the high class graphics that attracts those casual gamers, because of this development budgets increase thus giving two choices when EA has a new innovative game idea before them:
1) Fund it with low graphics (as if)
2) Risk a greater amount of money than they would do today. Will Wright only just managed to get the Sims funded. Imagine if he needed twice the money?
Ug, I got lost between my brain and my fingers (surprise surprise) so I've got a couple of corrections for the above post.
1) When I say EA, all its rivals are close enough to be counted.
2) First line second paragraph, third word from the end "market" should be: market. EA will make...
3) Third paragraph, replace everything after "towards casual gamers?" with the far better written:
Now what happens when the proportion of casual gamers to connoisseurs swings largely towards casual gamers? The greater revenue funds the high class graphics that attracts those casual gamers, because of this development budgets increase thus giving two choices when EA has a new innovative game idea before them:
1) Fund it with low graphics (as if)
2) Risk a greater amount of money than they would do today. Will Wright only just managed to get the Sims funded. Imagine if he needed twice the money?
I think you're overreaching in regard to graphics only attracting casual gamers. I'd argue it scares them away, mostly because casual gamers don't have $500 video cards. If anything, casual gamers rely more on gameplay than they do eye candy. I won't say graphics don't help sell a title; they do, but more people skewed toward hard core seem to worry about how pretty something is, at least beyond a basic threshold. Just because you don't care about graphics, it doesn't mean your peers don't.
The one thing I've noticed most in an office filled with gamers ranging from "hey, games are cool" to "holy God you mean you read books that aren't sci-fi or fantasy?" is the more immersed in the culture you are, the more apt you are to care about graphics. It just takes more to wow you after a while, and bragging about your FPS in Half-Life 2 is something that's decidedly computer jock.
While I still maintain we'll draw in more hard core gamers, too, I think casual gamers follow games with interesting gameplay or social aspects more closely than they do graphics. Take the Sims, for example. Or games like Tetris, or anything on Pogo. They all have low barriers of entry, yet human skill and strategy opens the door to a deeper experience.
But let's say you're right, and EA does nothing but crap out WWII shooters and Madden sequels into perpetuity. I'd wager each game is going to cost $50, and development teams will see very little of that. Why? Because EA, in order to reach casual gamers without broadband, has to buy real estate in stores like Best Buy, which drives up the price of production.
However, hope isn't lost. While EA builds EA Cambodia in order to churn out more sequels, independent developers and forward-thinking publishers will start abandoning the retail model in order to cater to the hard core, broadband-using player base, who are more than happy to pay $20 to download a cool game at 500 kb per second. Take a look at Uplink (http://uplink.co.uk/). Introversion has played the publisher game a few times, but they're left hocking their wares online. Steam is a giant leap forward in this regard, as well. The big guys will get on board with this, but it's a trail the little guys (both catering to the casual and the hard core) are going to blaze.
The one thing I've noticed most in an office filled with gamers ranging from "hey, games are cool" to "holy God you mean you read books that aren't sci-fi or fantasy?" is the more immersed in the culture you are, the more apt you are to care about graphics. It just takes more to wow you after a while, and bragging about your FPS in Half-Life 2 is something that's decidedly computer jock.
While I still maintain we'll draw in more hard core gamers, too, I think casual gamers follow games with interesting gameplay or social aspects more closely than they do graphics. Take the Sims, for example. Or games like Tetris, or anything on Pogo. They all have low barriers of entry, yet human skill and strategy opens the door to a deeper experience.
But let's say you're right, and EA does nothing but crap out WWII shooters and Madden sequels into perpetuity. I'd wager each game is going to cost $50, and development teams will see very little of that. Why? Because EA, in order to reach casual gamers without broadband, has to buy real estate in stores like Best Buy, which drives up the price of production.
However, hope isn't lost. While EA builds EA Cambodia in order to churn out more sequels, independent developers and forward-thinking publishers will start abandoning the retail model in order to cater to the hard core, broadband-using player base, who are more than happy to pay $20 to download a cool game at 500 kb per second. Take a look at Uplink (http://uplink.co.uk/). Introversion has played the publisher game a few times, but they're left hocking their wares online. Steam is a giant leap forward in this regard, as well. The big guys will get on board with this, but it's a trail the little guys (both catering to the casual and the hard core) are going to blaze.
Original Comment by: Tortanick
We seem to have gone off topic from the effect of causal gamers to the future in general, good thing too its much more optimistic. But anyway, I'm kind of surprised at my own comments, in retrospect. I based my assumptions of the casual gamers desires on the marketing departments assumption when I knew it wasn?t true, Sims being no1 and all that.
However that said its not the truth that matters but what the publishers do with their perception of the truth. If they think that another Medal of Honour franchise or a Halo clone will sell, ignoring the proven fact that traditional genres are tired and the market wants something new like The Sims (and despite its realise the publishers haven?t learnt, EA has a Sims franchise and it trust Will Wright but apart from that no difference)
So I?d argue that publishers will just foolishly increase game costs by continuing a graphics war, I don't think they know how to do anything different. The increase of cash generated by more customers would speed up the graphics wars and the big publishers will become more immobile. Indie devs, especially now valve has made steam are being innovative but the few innovative games made by the big publishers will decrease in number and that?s the problem with the X-box. It?s not a big problem in your predicted future and outweighed by its pros but currently I can?t see that much innovation today so every last drop matters. Lets hope your proven right
P.S. A hard core gamer is probably twice as concerned with graphics and 10 times as concerned with game play than a casual gamer.
We seem to have gone off topic from the effect of causal gamers to the future in general, good thing too its much more optimistic. But anyway, I'm kind of surprised at my own comments, in retrospect. I based my assumptions of the casual gamers desires on the marketing departments assumption when I knew it wasn?t true, Sims being no1 and all that.
However that said its not the truth that matters but what the publishers do with their perception of the truth. If they think that another Medal of Honour franchise or a Halo clone will sell, ignoring the proven fact that traditional genres are tired and the market wants something new like The Sims (and despite its realise the publishers haven?t learnt, EA has a Sims franchise and it trust Will Wright but apart from that no difference)
So I?d argue that publishers will just foolishly increase game costs by continuing a graphics war, I don't think they know how to do anything different. The increase of cash generated by more customers would speed up the graphics wars and the big publishers will become more immobile. Indie devs, especially now valve has made steam are being innovative but the few innovative games made by the big publishers will decrease in number and that?s the problem with the X-box. It?s not a big problem in your predicted future and outweighed by its pros but currently I can?t see that much innovation today so every last drop matters. Lets hope your proven right
P.S. A hard core gamer is probably twice as concerned with graphics and 10 times as concerned with game play than a casual gamer.
Original Comment by: Ortwin Regel
http://gamefreaks365.com
Well, who cares if "the few innovative games made by the big publishers will decrease in number" on the Xbox 360? There is the Live Arcade. It is perfect for independent game developers I should think. Most of the Xbox 360 games in stores aren't interesting in any way. Still, the Boxx plays Outpost Kaloki. The funny thing about the Live Arcade (and about Indie games in general) is that it has the innovative fresh games we hardcore gamers, who are tired of the same old crap, want but that it also has the casual games that can attract new customers. Often those are made by the same developers or are even the same games. If I'd get an Xbox 360 it would be to try to play Wik and the Fable of Souls with a gamepad, not to play an updated version of Night Driver. I just hope that Nintendo has something similar on the Revo.
http://gamefreaks365.com
Well, who cares if "the few innovative games made by the big publishers will decrease in number" on the Xbox 360? There is the Live Arcade. It is perfect for independent game developers I should think. Most of the Xbox 360 games in stores aren't interesting in any way. Still, the Boxx plays Outpost Kaloki. The funny thing about the Live Arcade (and about Indie games in general) is that it has the innovative fresh games we hardcore gamers, who are tired of the same old crap, want but that it also has the casual games that can attract new customers. Often those are made by the same developers or are even the same games. If I'd get an Xbox 360 it would be to try to play Wik and the Fable of Souls with a gamepad, not to play an updated version of Night Driver. I just hope that Nintendo has something similar on the Revo.
Original Comment by: Tortanick
I care, if spore was cancled I would care. If the sims never existed but some crazy quantom thing ment people knew exactly what they could never play, thousands and thousands would care.
oh and as for X-box live being the great savour of inovative gameing; I've seen it before, we called it the "Internet", X-box live may get a few indi games to the people but no-one will make exclusive games because of it.
I care, if spore was cancled I would care. If the sims never existed but some crazy quantom thing ment people knew exactly what they could never play, thousands and thousands would care.
oh and as for X-box live being the great savour of inovative gameing; I've seen it before, we called it the "Internet", X-box live may get a few indi games to the people but no-one will make exclusive games because of it.
Original Comment by: Ortwin Regel
http://gamefreaks365.com
The "Internet" seems to work quite well for independent games, in fact I buy most of my games online. The point about Xbox Live is that it's on a console and that it is a central, easy to find place. I am pretty sure there will be some nice exclusive games, in fact Ninja Bee is just developing one if I remember correctly.
http://gamefreaks365.com
The "Internet" seems to work quite well for independent games, in fact I buy most of my games online. The point about Xbox Live is that it's on a console and that it is a central, easy to find place. I am pretty sure there will be some nice exclusive games, in fact Ninja Bee is just developing one if I remember correctly.
Original Comment by: Tortanick
Sorry it took so long to trply, anyway I looked up Ninja Bee, they are makeing a sequil/expansion of an existing game to go on X-box live, not a perticularly good game either. Anyway the origonal game was avalible on the PC so it seems likely that the X-box version is a port. Either the game failed on the PC (not suprising) so their not trying again or they've signed a deal with M$. Either way thats not an inherent benifit of X-boxes.
However your point about centraliseation is curious, if there was an inherent advantage of it, and I think there is. Why hasn't the internet grown some kind of indi-wiki. On the other hand centraliseation has its downsides, microsoft has to approve putting the game on the marketplace
Sorry it took so long to trply, anyway I looked up Ninja Bee, they are makeing a sequil/expansion of an existing game to go on X-box live, not a perticularly good game either. Anyway the origonal game was avalible on the PC so it seems likely that the X-box version is a port. Either the game failed on the PC (not suprising) so their not trying again or they've signed a deal with M$. Either way thats not an inherent benifit of X-boxes.
However your point about centraliseation is curious, if there was an inherent advantage of it, and I think there is. Why hasn't the internet grown some kind of indi-wiki. On the other hand centraliseation has its downsides, microsoft has to approve putting the game on the marketplace