Objectively, one of Live's biggest obstacles is the sheer density of its offering and wildly variant quality levels - it's hard to tell what there even is to play, let alone if what you're checking out will be a worthy experience, despite the numerous demos. With that in mind, a standard methodology for trimming the fat might help the cream rise to the top, right?

Slaughterhouse and farming metaphors aside, a new opinion column by Lionhead and Climax veteran Tadhg Kelly presents a fascinating perspective on why Microsoft's new sales and scores-based "de-listing" strategy might actually spell the death of the service.

Basically, Kelly opines that opting for a standard supported by sales performance and Metacritic scores will saddle XBLA with the same struggles we're seeing in retail - publisher attempts to coerce or incentivize media and developers, for one, and more importantly, increased risk aversion.

Weren't digital distribution platforms supposed to provide an alternative route for developers wishing (or needing) to avoid the tight control score-and-sale scrutiny that many people think is stifling innovation in retail?

Also, writes Kelly:

Lastly, and far more seriously, it means that the developers will increasingly pitch for products that they think Microsoft will like, or products that Microsoft themselves might think should be on the service, and so XBLA will become a much more for-hire service.

If you're like me, you may have wondered why there wasn't a YouTube-esque content aggregator system for XBLA. That's because Microsoft sees its service as more of a "portal" offering, and Kelly says this and other issues are even more of a problem for XBLA, since its competition's quickly catching up:

Is it too late for XBLA? Well I hope not, but I suspect it is. Microsoft increasingly have competition from Sony (whose online play is free after all) and now Nintendo - who have announced a very interesting scheme for WiiWare that is squarely aimed at the sorts of innovative small developers that Microsoft wanted to attract but ultimately repelled with their portal structure.

Microsoft had an early-market advantage with XBLA 3 years ago, but their competitors have now matched (and may supercede) their offering. And with sales of the 360 console itself being caught by PS3 and out-classed by Wii, I would imagine there isn't much of an appetite in Redmond for large-scale changes to the system.

It could be that Microsoft's well-intentioned attempts to address what many have called XBLA's biggest problem may stand as a turning point for the service. We've contacted Microsoft to discuss, and hope to learn more soon.

Aggregation vs. Portals: Where Microsoft is Going Wrong With Xbox Live Arcade [GameSetWatch]

Easy to say from the outside looking in, but independent game developer Matthew of the Magical Wasteland blog shared his insider experience with an unidentified major publisher to explain that it's not always so simple, even when executives "talk the talk" about quality control.

Matthew cited the institution of bonuses for developers based on Metacritic scores, similar to the practice of hinging developer royalties on good scores that MTV Multiplayer's Stephen Totilo recently investigated.

Said Matthew:

Armed with the knowledge that higher review scores meant more money for them, game producers were thus encouraged to identify the elements that reviewers seemed to most notice and most like – detailed graphics, scripted set piece battles, “robust” online multiplayer, “player choice,” and more, more of everything. Like a food company performing a taste test to find out that people basically like the saltiest, greasiest variation of anything and adjusting its product lineup accordingly, the big publishers struggled to stuff as much of those key elements as possible into every game they funded.

The result, said Matthew, was that development became rushed and disjointed, all in the pursuit of the mighty Metacritic review score.

Multiplayer modes were suddenly tacked on late in development. More missions and weapons were added to bulk up their offering – to be created by outsource partners. Level-based games suddenly turned into open-world games.

Before you cry in despair, keep in mind that all these people wanted in the end was the best game possible – or, more precisely, the best-reviewed game possible.

Matthew's entire story is well worth a read, even with the (logical) absence of his career specifics. I find it ironic that the games press, many of whom are indirectly responsible for those scores, so rarely gets opportunities like these to look inside the developers' experience.

You Can’t Fake Quality, But That Never Stops Them from Trying [Magical Wasteland]

With the R2 button hanging by a thread, a sweeping upward motion is required to press it. The R1 button is missing entirely, and thus unusable. The L1 button has been knocked off its axis a bit, although it still works. And the PS button is stuck in the depressed position. Analog stick functions seem to work fine, as does patented SIXAXIS tilt control, insofar as patented SIXAXIS tilt control works at all.

I'm not the controller flinging type, though I do frequently threaten to toss consoles out my window; still, it's a funny (and perhaps relevant, depending on your play style) read.

Control Pad Stress Test: PlayStation 3 SIXAXIS, Control Pad Stress Test: Xbox 360 Control Pad, Control Pad Stress Test: The Wii Remote [Insult Swordfighting]