XBLIG has been a growing dissapointment over the years, and with the drop of support for XNA, things just don't look good.

It really is a shame. It was a fine idea, and the early implementation seemed like it was heading in a positive direction. But Microsoft just wasn't willing to promote or support it properly. They buried it, almost as if they were embarrassed of the community they had helped to create.

In terms of profit or exposure, just about any other platform is better. You'll have better luck on PC, OSX, Linux, Android, iOS, PSN, or even the upcoming OUYA. XBox just isn't the place for indie development anymore.

Valid points, to be sure.

It's true that the article is more of a rant, and doesn't actually offer much in the way of solutions to the problem it presents. At the same time, I can easily think of a few off the top of my head, so I think the point of the article was just to highlight the problem, and describe how it has come to be.

And while I agree that publishers are becoming less relevant, I don't think they are irrelevant, and that there is still a fairly large need for them in the industry. "AAA" game development still requires an obscenity of venture capital in order to carry out. And with the economy still being in the state its in, venture capitalists aren't as eager to invest in individual developers. (with how risky big-budget game development is these days, I can't blame them) So having mid-to-large publishers is still necessary for big-budget development projects.

@Paul Eres:
I don't agree that its impossible to get better publishers than the ones we currently have. I think the article's author is right that a lot of current publishers are entrenched in an approach to game publishing that is antiquated. I think there's a real opportunity for a new game publisher with a better understanding of development and developer relations to step up and really change how the industry runs.

Still sounds fishy. If it could really play any Games on Demand title, it would have to come with a frighteningly large hard drive. (assuming it really isn't going to have any optical drive) Games on Demand titles are full 360 games. They don't really have any memory limits (as many XBLA games do) and can take up multiple DVD discs. We're talking around 4.5 Gigs each, on average. And I've seen how Microsoft has approached hard drives already. Having to purchase expansion space for a $99 digital-only Xbox is not going to be a value.

And that's not even the real problem. As I already pointed out, the bandwidth of downloading those games would be the real impediment. The kind of market that would be interested in a $99 XBox 360 is less likely to be able to afford, or even have access to high-speed internet. You can't pitch a budget box like that when it's fueled by expensive services. Anyone who can actually afford high-speed internet would probably prefer to just pick up a regular XBox 360 and be able to play disc-based games as well.

If you want to pitch a budget-priced console with a digital-only service, the software needs to be budget-priced as well. That's part of the reason why there might actually be a market for something like the OUYA.

JS seems like fun. I'm already imagining all the things I could do with this... One of those times I wish I had my own small server box in the closet to be able to properly tinker with all this interesting stuff.

Just do what I did. Grab a few old PC boxes, Frankenstein them together, and install Ubuntu on the results. (or whatever flavor of Linux you prefer, it's up to you) From there it's fairly easy to set up your own Apache installation, throw in Bind9 for DNS, and a little subversion for source control. Congratulations, you now have your own development box. You can just keep it plugged into your router and let it run.

One argument against releasing games for free is that this practice de-values other entries in the medium. The same argument is leveled against app stores where there is constant pressure to release games for very, very cheap. There is some truth to this argument. When you release a game you made for free, it makes it much easier for your game to compete against larger efforts for the time of players.

At the same time, if major developers and publishers with all of their millions of investment capital can't compete with a hobbyist just doing this sort of thing in his free time, then screw them.

How games are sold is a big question mark in this industry going forward. But there is nothing wrong with just wanting to make games as a hobby. Not having to worry about turning a profit takes a lot of the pressure off, and can free a developer up to experiment freely with their design. Game development needs that R&D every bit as much as it needs giant blockbusters. If you just want to develop for the fun of it, then go right ahead. There is nothing wrong with that at all. And if the big commercial entities whine about being challenged, then nuts to them.

We Need Better Publishers: A Kotaku Article

Ran across this article on Kotaku, and I was struck by some of the thoughts it presented.

I found one theory particularly thought-provoking. In many ways, it could be said that the current state of the video game industry is due to the actions of Sony. The first two Playstations did a lot to expand and stabilize the game industry into a big business focused on home console development. The failings and mistakes of the third Playstation opened the door for competition to fragment the industry into a much more even race. And as the article points out, the environment that the first two Playstations helped to shape the current Mega-Publisher model, and is responsible for a lot of the current failings therein.

While a lot of mistakes in the industry get pinned on developers, you also always hear that no developer tries to make bad games. There shouldn't be any question at this point that the development side of the industry has no lack of talent, motivation, enthusiasm, or work ethic. The vast majority of game developers love what they do and work very hard at it.

It makes sense that a lot of the problems plaguing the current industry would stem from the publishers. Developers could also benefit from better management, but publishers are the ones actually pulling the strings. When you look at it this way, it makes a lot more sense why companies like Valve seem to thrive, while other developers fail miserably. Perhaps its time for a new publishing house. One that is willing to trust its developers over its marketing department.

1. Yep no disk dive mean lower cost, = affordable console
2. Depend on how smartly they pull their head of their ass this time
3. win8 does not make sense for mobile or desktop, might make sense for a xbox (app driven console with kinect)
4. Yeah the assumption is that m$ is smart of course

Those are some compelling arguments. While Windows 8 isn't particularly good for mobile, and is atrocious for desktop, I can see where that style of OS would work well with a gamepad in a controlled environment like a home console. Stripping out the disc drive would not only lower costs, but would also make the hardware for the system simpler to design and theoretically more reliable.

Another point in favor of Microsoft making such a move is the potential extension of the 360's lifespan. While some people are all hot and bothered to kick a new hardware cycle off, the truth is that the greatest stability is to be found in the established hardware cycle. Trying to go all-in on a new hardware paradigm is very risky. Just look at the current performance of the Wii U and Vita for proof. There's going to be greater inertia going into the PS4 and Durango, and Sony and Microsoft would be wise to figure this inertia into their plans. Providing a revised, budget-friendly version of the 360 could be a great way to ease into the console transition.

And yes, the big question mark is how Microsoft will handle the whole affair. If they play their cards right, it could be a wise decision that will keep their brand strong through a difficult period of change. It could also end up being a fiasco on the same level as the PSP Go. (the other recent attempt at an all-digital game platform)

The biggest risk I forsee with an all-digital budget 360 is bandwidth. The geographic locations most likely to be interested in a cheap 360 are the same locations least likely to have high-speed internet. A lot of the market that would love cheap 360's would be very shy about downloading multi-gig games.

EDIT:
If m$ pull an ouya out of the xbox360 that would be the single smartest move ever on console gaming dev! Strong platform with huge install base, army of good games, maybe updated performance (more GB), Already optimized engine, good enough graphics, if they go app store style (win8) we have a winner!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the rumored "digital" $99 360 supposed to not have a disc drive? Meaning that any game you purchased for it would have to be installed on whatever hard drive it comes with?

After already seeing how Microsoft charged for upgrade hard drive's for the original 360, I'm not confident in how popular a digital-only budget version of the 360 would be.

After seeing how Windows 8 has been doing, I'm also not convinced that a digital-only store will work out well for Microsoft. I still remember the debacle that was Games for Windows.

There are any number of products that could potentially compete for a similar market as the Ouya. But I seriously doubt any of them will come from Microsoft. The big M has just been blundering from one mistake to the next in recent years. I'm feeling they could be in serious trouble going into whatever the Durango turns out to be. They stink of the same hubris that Sony was exhibiting going into the PS3.

Just set up my first SVN repository on my Ubuntu box. Got it running properly with http access (apache) so that I can log into it from any other computer in the house. I'm going to start doing my Unity development using this repository. I'll set up a second repository later for web development.

No shit sherlock.  The issue isn't just money needed to live off of, it's also having your game on basically a failed platform nobody cares about.

Like any number of hardware platforms backed by major corporations that have failed miserably over the years? Being sponsored by a major company is no guarantee of success. The same complaints you are leveling at a console that hasn't even been released to general consumers applies equally to consoles like the Wii U, and handhelds like the Vita. There are many developers that are making the same claims right now, afraid to develop games for these platforms.

The kind of risk you are citing is universal in the games industry, and always has been. It's pointless to single out the OUYA for risk aversion. There are no guarantees in an industry this fickle.

At the end of the day, all of this animosity boils down to misguided angst against the perception of "casual" gaming.

I recall most of the same arguments being leveled against the DS, and the Wii after it. When they announced the name of the Wii, I was one of the only people who thought it was a good idea. The vast majority of video game pundits believed it was concrete proof that the Wii was doomed for failure.

At the end of the day, every prediction I made about the previous console generation came to pass. And now I think there's a real chance for the OUYA to do decently, and at least turn a profit. Past experience has given me ample reason to be confident in my own analysis of the market.

There is a market for a low-cost, modern home console. The new crop of Android-based home gaming systems will be targeting that market. This new/old approach to console design is going to have an effect on the home console market going forward.

if you're poor and want to play some games a cheap pc is much better value for money. you could also get a PSP for $99

A cheap PC that can run mid-tier games would run no less than $300. And that's if you built it yourself. If you purchased it pre-built it would be in the $500 - $600 range. If you purchased a pre-built rig that was actually targeted at gaming, you would probably have to spend around $1000. Bump up all of those prices by $500 if you wanted an equivalent laptop. PC gaming has, and always will be, a luxury. There are quite a few more performance-friendly titles these days, largely thanks to indie development. But PC hardware is still not down to the $100 range.

And the PSP is not a good example. The 3000 model hardware may be $100 now, but the availability of games for the handheld has dwindled to nothing. Even GameStop has slashed their selection of PSP titles to little more than bargain-bin fodder. (the crap no one wants) And Memory sticks have grown very scarce. (they have fallen out of favor in the photography industry) The average consumer looking to get into the PSP is going to have a hard time finding physical games, or the memory necessary to take advantage of digital games.

A much better example would have been the DSi. It's also going for $100 these days, and DS games still have a significant retail presence.

Wikipad and Shield are both mobile game platforms. The Ouya is a mobile game platform that is stationary.

That's why I hate it, can't speak for others though. I'm just not going to pay 100 dollars to play shitty mobile games on my tv. That's not why I buy consoles and that's not why I bought my tv.

That makes absolutely no sense. The OUYA is a stationary system, and was designed to be stationary. The fact that it was produced with similar hardware to mobile devices, and an operating system that is popular on mobile devices, is irrelevant. The OUYA was designed to have a standard game controller as its primary input. All of the games that will succeed on the OUYA are going to be designed for that input.

You're just exhibiting a bias against mobile development. But mobile development is a fundamentally different beast. The OUYA has a touchpad, but no touchscreen. The same games that are popular on smartphones are not going to translate well when ported to the OUYA. The games that end up doing well on OUYA will be the smaller indie controller-focused games that currently find an outlet on Steam and XBLA, like Super Meat Boy.

If you want to make an inexpensive console, of COURSE you're going to use mobile components. They're designed to be small and efficient, and thanks to the smartphone market they're cheaper than they ever have been. And of course you're going to use an OS like Android. It's a free OS that they don't have to pay licencing on, and it already works with the kind of components they're using.

Interesting side question: Why does the Ouya get more hate than something like the Wikipad or Project Sheild? Is it really so awful that poor people get to play video games too? Seriously, I don't get all the wailing and gnashing of teeth here.

This is something that's been bothering me as well.

I'm really excited about the Retron5. I know it's a very niche product, and will be sold to a very limited audience. But I'm part of that audience and I'm glad it's getting produced. If Hyperkin can turn a profit off of it, good for them. The reason I'm excited is because the Retron5 is a device that uses modern technology to let me play my old cartridge games on modern screens.

Now take a look at the OUYA. With this device they are clearly focused on making game hardware and software cheaper and more accessible for the average consumer. In my mind this is a great approach to the console model. I would love to see some lower-budget titles get produced for the OUYA. I don't need all of my games to be AAA boom-fests.

I had acquired a copy of the Ratchet & Clank collection for the PS3 a few months back. And I had started playing the first game for the PS2 several years ago, but had gotten stuck on one level and never revisited it. Last week I pulled the collection off the shelf and gave the game another try.

I was glad I did. The overall experience of the original Ratchet & Clank was a positive one. The collection does a good job of up-scaling the title, without throwing in any overt changes. The exaggerated cartoon graphics hold up well over time. Insomniac's colorful and personality-infused creation has aged like fine wine.

If I had one major complaint, it would be some of the boss fights. They are very few, and the ones that are there feel a little lackluster. The final boss in particular was a study in frustration.

What really stood out as excellent was the level design, and the encounters for the basic enemies. These elements had been carefully crafted to encourage experimentation and flexible thinking with the game's wide variety of weaponry. This is where the game really shined.

I'm going to take a little break from the series after the first entry, but I am looking forward to revisiting R&C down the line.

i sort of dont see whats wrong with damsels in distress

I mean, if the main character is male, who are they going to care about the most? Their romantic interest, obviously. It's poor writing but it's only as sexist as men liking women is sexist.

The problem isn't with the concept. It's with it's almost frightening over-use. I was a little shocked by the montage presented in the video. I knew this trope was a little tired, but I didn't realize how much.

And it hasn't gone away. Let's not forget the "Dom's Wife" storyline from Gears of War 2. It started off as an instance of Damsel-In-Distress and ended up as Ol' Yeller. Just brutal.

I was impressed that Anita intends to reference Elaine Marley in future episodes. Some people go directly to Samus Aran as an example of an empowered women in games. But Elaine is a much better example for numerous reasons. For starters, the games she features in are much more story-driven than any Metroid title. Moreover, Samus is never really involved in rescuing male characters, which distances here from the whole "Damsel" trope. Elaine's role in the Secret of Monkey Island is a textbook example of spoofing and even openly mocking the Damsel trope.

As I have delved deeper into Unity scripting, I've found myself wanting certain features that somewhat circumvent the standard conventions of the system. One of the more prominent features that I ran across was programmable assets. Unity's inspector panels all assume that you would be creating assets in the assets folder, and then dragging and dropping them into the inspector. But in some of the projects I've worked on, there have been times when certain assets have been better constructed through code and automation. But attempting to go that route removes those assets from the typical Unity workflow.

I experimented for a week or so with various approaches. I eventually came up with a solution that works, that I can be happy with, and that doesn't diverge to widely from Unity's basic structure. In this thread I'll be demonstrating how I cooked up this solution.

First, lets start with the asset I was attempting to create. (code is in UnityAPI C#)

Code:

using UnityEngine;
using UnityEditor;
using System.Collections;

[ExecuteInEditMode]
public class CustomAsset : MonoBehaviour {
     [SerializeField]
     private AnimationClip _freshAnimation;

     public AnimationClip MyAnim {
          get {
               return _freshAnimation;
          }
          set {
               _freshAnimation = value;
          }
     }

     void OnDestroy() {
          DestroyImmediate(_freshAnimation);
     }
}

This is my basic code for a Custom Asset. Many of the solutions I found attempted to use the ScriptableObject class. But the more I experimented with that the more frustrated I became. I eventually found that it was better to simply use script to create an empty GameObject, and apply a standard MonoBehaviour to it. The Asset I'm creating is specifically intended for use with the Unity editor. That's part of the reason why I added the "[ExecuteInEditMode]" attribute to the class. The rest of the reason is the object I'm "storing" in this Asset.

I found through my experiments that an animation clip that is created through code isn't really stored in it's containing component. When you delete the containing GameObject, or even just remove the containing component script, the Animation Clip remains floating around in the scene. Thankfully, Unity will remove the disconnected resource by itself the next time you save the scene, and will throw up a warning message in the console to let you know it has done so. But that's messy, and a good programmer cleans up after themselves. But you can't gain access to many standard functions in the editor unless you use the [ExecuteInEditMode] attribute. In this case I wanted to use the OnDestroy function. I never actually want to destroy the resource in question while the game is running, but I do need to delete it in the editor. The call to "DestroyImmediate()" allows me to "clean-up" the AnimationClip whenever the component or its containing GameObject are removed from the editor Hierarchy.

I would stick with C#. I just prefer the strict typing available in C#. It makes general development and especially bug checking easier.

The real challenge to learning Unity is not in the language. It's in the programming structures and methodologies that Unity is built on. Coming to grips with component development is the hurdle that you have to clear. Once you get used to treating most of your coding as attachable components, things start to get considerably smoother.

I've recently started digging into Unity's editor customizations. There are some limitations I've had to come to grips with, but overall I'd say there is lots of potential for developing your own editors.

Yes, I suppose it is a bit unfair for me to demand such details before Microsoft has even announced their next hardware iteration. It could be that we will see all sorts of exclusive titles when Microsoft gets around to revealing the Durango. For the time being, I do feel it significant to point out that Sony has done a better job of preserving their first-party development studios over the course of the current hardware generation. (RIP Ensemble)

New IP would be the ideal solution. After all, Halo was new IP once too, and that worked out pretty well for the original XBox. But what studio is going to develop that new IP as a new Durango exclusive? Bungie isn't owned by Microsoft anymore. A lot of top-tier studios that were once in the Microsoft stable have folded or been consolidated over the past five years. The only thing I can think of is perhaps they have Rare working on something. And we all know that Rare isn't as popular as it once was. (Viva Pinata was great, but not in line with the XBox's core demographics)