Minecraft Getting Preferential Treatment From Microsoft

[The Wooster]

Minecraft Getting Preferential Treatment From Microsoft

Minecraft has broken XBLA day-one sales records, but the playing field may not be entirely level.

Exact sales numbers aren't available, but Microsoft has confirmed that Minecraft has broken the day-one sales record set by Trials Evolution last month. Markus "Notch" Persson quickly took to his Twitter feed to announce that the game was profitable within an hour of going on sale.

Fez developer, Polytron, seemed confused as to how Notch had gained access to sales data so quickly.

"How did you get those stats from MS?" asked Polytron. "We still don't know exactly how much Fez sold almost a month later. You get stats in 24 hours?

"What? Really? I thought it was standard procedure! That sucks. ," Notch responded.

Polytron then added that the 360 version of Minecraft will be getting free updates, while every other XBLA developers are required to charge for content updates.

Notch replied: "We had to fight for that, and we got a limited number of them. Not sure why they don't like it."

Presumably this is a sign of how desperate Microsoft was to get Minecraft onto the 360, rather than a herald of some unannounced policy shift. Of course, Minecraft was always going to be a huge hit regardless of Microsoft's input, as the numerous knock-offs clustered at the top of the Xbox Live indie chart can attest to.


Microsoft's refusal to allow free updates to games has been a sticking point for a number of developers - such as Valve, which chose to simply stop supporting Team Fortress 2 on the 360 rather than charge for content updates. Gabe Newell went on label Xbox Live policies "a train wreck."

Source: Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-05-10-minecraft-breaks-day-one-xbla-sales-record]



Permalink

 

[octafish]

Minecraft without sporadic and occasionally game breaking updates isn't Minecraft. There would be no other way of getting a "true" Minecraft experience.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

And we should be happy because...?

 

[RvLeshrac]

Minecraft without sporadic and occasionally game breaking updates isn't Minecraft. There would be no other way of getting a "true" Minecraft experience.

OK. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the article regarding Microsoft's XBLA policies.

 

[Rutskarn]

Minecraft without sporadic and occasionally game breaking updates isn't Minecraft. There would be no other way of getting a "true" Minecraft experience.

OK. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the article regarding Microsoft's XBLA policies.

Well, it is, because Microsoft's XBLA policies would normally make the updates he's referring to impossible. It's actually directly addressing the article.

 

[80Maxwell08]

And we should be happy because...?

Where did it say that we should be happy about this?

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

Microsoft's refusal to allow free updates to games has been a sticking point for a number of developers - such as Valve, which chose to simply stop supporting Team Fortress 2 on the 360 rather than charge for content updates. Gabe Newell went on label Xbox Live policies "a train wreck."

"Damnit man! If you wont accept this free ice cream without asking to pay for it, I'm not going to give you this ice cream at all!"

^--- That's what I believe most Xbox Live fans think of when they think of Valve refusing to update TF2.

It sucks we have to pay for major updates, however most Devs need to realize we are more than willing to pay for them if we like the game.

Seriously, I still don't see Valve's line of logic. "If you wont let us be generous to you we aren't going to give you what you want... Even if you're willing to pay for it."

Well, it's more than just that. The update policy and things surrounding that were part of the problem, but after the first major update or two to the game was out, it was starting to get kind of impractical to get the game to run within the amount of RAM the 360 has, considering just the base game was ported with that limit in mind. At this point it's probably gone beyond impractical to more like not realistically possible without having to degrade the quality of the game. It's not just that they aren't willing to let you pay them for it even though you want to, it's that they also don't want to have to compromise on the quality of their game. Their more recent ones have avoided that problem by being designed with console releases in mind from the beginning.

It's kind of lame that Minecraft gets special treatment. The really weird/sad part is that the things that are considered special treatment are things that ideally should be fairly standard and not special at all. When distribution is completely digital and everything is tracked in an automated way, getting sales info to people should be almost trivial to do in near-real-time, and this update policy nonsense got old years ago...

 

[subtlefuge]

Fez didn't have the same bargaining power as Minecraft. It seems stupid to call that an uneven playing field. They promoted a proven game more than a completely unproven one, not exactly evil. Also, nobody has room to ***** when compared to how MS treated Super Meat Boy.

That was atrocious, this is just common sense. Fez got a lot of marketing from MS, just not the perks that come with being a multi-platinum seller being launched during a special promotional event.

Microsoft's refusal to allow free updates to games has been a sticking point for a number of developers - such as Valve, which chose to simply stop supporting Team Fortress 2 on the 360 rather than charge for content updates. Gabe Newell went on label Xbox Live policies "a train wreck."

"Damnit man! If you wont accept this free ice cream without asking to pay for it, I'm not going to give you this ice cream at all!"

^--- That's what I believe most Xbox Live fans think of when they think of Valve refusing to update TF2.

It sucks we have to pay for major updates, however most Devs need to realize we are more than willing to pay for them if we like the game.

Seriously, I still don't see Valve's line of logic. "If you wont let us be generous to you we aren't going to give you what you want... Even if you're willing to pay for it."

Microsoft charges companies for making a patch/update, then sets a suggested price point, then takes a large cut out of the sales for the DLC. So:

1. The update schedule for the PC version would not have been feasible to translate over to Xbox given the aforementioned costs.

2. Even if the updates were grouped together into a large chunk, there's no way to ensure that Valve could make their money back, even excluding the cost that it would take to code the updates for the Xbox.

3. The updates would likely cause console-specific bugs that would have to be patched.

4. By the time that the updates had enough to be grouped together, the number of people who still played on the Xbox had dropped significantly, even more than average for an online game.

5. Paid updates would divide the playerbase, which is something that Valve hates. Also, dividing such a small number would make it relatively impossible to find a game.

6. The increase in players would cause more people to go out and buy a copy of Orange Box, which at release was dirt cheap, and now has fallen to below bargain bin price (if you can even find it new).

It's a financial decision. They would rather devote a few resources into creating the content and handing it out for free, but MS would force them to pay tens of thousands of dollars to split up their small group of players, for the promise of maybe seeing some of that money back.

I had a long 2 years of playing TF2 on the Xbox to think and read about all the reasons that these updates couldn't happen. It's disappointing, but then I got my awesome gaming PC in 09 and haven't looked back since.

 

[glenbruton]

Minecraft without sporadic and occasionally game breaking updates isn't Minecraft. There would be no other way of getting a "true" Minecraft experience.

OK. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the article regarding Microsoft's XBLA policies.

Comprehension fail !

 

[subtlefuge]

It's kind of lame that Minecraft gets special treatment. The really weird/sad part is that the things that are considered special treatment are things that ideally should be fairly standard and not special at all. When distribution is completely digital and everything is tracked in an automated way, getting sales info to people should be almost trivial to do in near-real-time, and this update policy nonsense got old years ago...

It's not that the sales data would be difficult for MS to hand out, and it definitely wouldn't lose them any money whatsoever to allow free or nearly free updates as an option for developers. It's just another way for them to exert their control and dominance. When something with enough power like Minecraft comes along, Microsoft can't play the "we're doing you a favor" card. So they hand out the stuff that should be standard as gifts to the VIPs.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

It's kind of lame that Minecraft gets special treatment. The really weird/sad part is that the things that are considered special treatment are things that ideally should be fairly standard and not special at all. When distribution is completely digital and everything is tracked in an automated way, getting sales info to people should be almost trivial to do in near-real-time, and this update policy nonsense got old years ago...

It's not that the sales data would be difficult for MS to hand out, and it definitely wouldn't lose them any money whatsoever to allow free or nearly free updates as an option for developers. It's just another way for them to exert their control and dominance. When something with enough power like Minecraft comes along, Microsoft can't play the "we're doing you a favor" card. So they hand out the stuff that should be standard as gifts to the VIPs.

Well, yeah. That's what's sad about it: that they can get away with it, and that they do it (presumably) for that reason. I'm sure stuff like that happens all the time with plenty of publishers and distributers, but when there's a closed system that has no alternate way of doing things (which is where a lot of stuff seems to be heading with most console, handheld, and phone/tablet marketplaces...), there's not a whole lot of pressure to do things any differently unless it's so oppressive that it causes a significant number of people to leave. Just being kind of a dick isn't anywhere near enough for that though, because being kind of a dick seems pretty common and something you can get away with when you're in a position of power. Sometimes I'm a little torn between how cool all the stuff going on these days is and kind of missing back when companies didn't really "get" the Internet yet and how powerful it is. Heh.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Minecraft without sporadic and occasionally game breaking updates isn't Minecraft. There would be no other way of getting a "true" Minecraft experience.

OK. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the article regarding Microsoft's XBLA policies.

Well, it is, because Microsoft's XBLA policies would normally make the updates he's referring to impossible. It's actually directly addressing the article.

The point of the article is that Minecraft is being allowed to bypass all of the limitations Microsoft places on every other Live title. Saying that Minecraft "needs" that bypass is not relevant, because there have been other titles which would have "needed" that bypass, such as TF2.

 

[samsonguy920]

There is something crooked in MS-ville, but are we hardly surprised? Microsoft has had plenty opportunity to follow the hype on Minecraft, watching it build from day one. They know quite well it will be a money maker for them, so why not bend some of the rules and such to help propagate the sales? Need they worry other developers with their product on XBLA will end up with burned butts over this? No. They will either pull their measly product when the licensing allows and effect M$'s sales by the smallest of 'they could give a cares,' or deal with it and continue nursing from M$'s teats. If another publisher or developer decides to follow Valve's example, that won't make much difference, either.
What was the last game that really drew this much attention to Live Arcade? Braid?

Microsoft's refusal to allow free updates to games has been a sticking point for a number of developers - such as Valve, which chose to simply stop supporting Team Fortress 2 on the 360 rather than charge for content updates. Gabe Newell went on label Xbox Live policies "a train wreck."

"Damnit man! If you wont accept this free ice cream without asking to pay for it, I'm not going to give you this ice cream at all!"

^--- That's what I believe most Xbox Live fans think of when they think of Valve refusing to update TF2.

It sucks we have to pay for major updates, however most Devs need to realize we are more than willing to pay for them if we like the game.

Seriously, I still don't see Valve's line of logic. "If you wont let us be generous to you we aren't going to give you what you want... Even if you're willing to pay for it."

Think about something you produce and you want to give out for free or for very cheap. One company wants to distribute it for you, but they will charge extra for their own needs, with none of that coming to you. How right is that? It isn't. That is why Valve won't support TF2 on XBox until Microsoft quits ripping them off. Better they don't charge at all than share any of the "fee." I respect Valve for that. Any players butthurt over this can play TF2 on the PC, for free.

Edit: It might be worthwhile to read the Kotaku article that follows the same story here [http://kotaku.com/5909351/some-people-will-tell-you-how-many-copies-minecraft-sold-on-xbox-360-some-wont], as there are details put forth in there that suggest things put forth here might just be in the gray, and not so much sinister on the part of Microsoft. It may be worth it to wait and see what else may come out from this, if anything.

 

[Calcium]

snip

Well, it's more than just that. The update policy and things surrounding that were part of the problem, but after the first major update or two to the game was out, it was starting to get kind of impractical to get the game to run within the amount of RAM the 360 has, considering just the base game was ported with that limit in mind. At this point it's probably gone beyond impractical to more like not realistically possible without having to degrade the quality of the game. It's not just that they aren't willing to let you pay them for it even though you want to, it's that they also don't want to have to compromise on the quality of their game. Their more recent ones have avoided that problem by being designed with console releases in mind from the beginning.

I really doubt that's a problem. Just look at other games requirements.

Team Fortress 2 asks for 512MB RAM on the PC.
Mass Effect 2 asks for 1GB.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 asks for 2GB.
Battlefield 3 (must be at least 2GB).

All of these games run on the 360 which has only 512MB.

 

[Snotnarok]

He got free updates, there's gonna be some upset devs who had to spend what was it? 60k per update?

 

[Hunter65416]

This is a good thing, Firstly because my laptop just spazes out when if I play minecraft for longer than 10 minutes.. and secondly because now that they've given free updates for one devoloper its a step in the right direction of giving other developers free updates..I dont understand why microsoft are so shitty about it in the first place..the only answer I can come up with is that it takes alot of their bandwidth and server capacity or something..why cant they give the developers the option to either pay a fair amount to MS for them to send out updates (ive seen how much it costs and its not exactly small change) OR allow the devolopers to use their own servers to broadcast the update through xbox live.. Can that work or am I just terribly misinformed?

 

[SayHelloToMrBullet]

Wait a second, console users have to pay for updates!? Am I interpreting this wrong or is this for real? (I'm a PC guy so I wouldn't know)

 

[The Wooster]

Wait a second, console users have to pay for updates!? Am I interpreting this wrong or is this for real? (I'm a PC guy so I wouldn't know)

For content updates, not patches.