aka Bitter

Randomnine is right, working towards a degree in art or programming gives you the opportunity and structure to point you towards a portfolio to get "your foot in the door". But it's not a guarantee.
Some people can teach themselves, gain practice on their own time fueled by passion and self discipline, for that I commend them. I have little cousins that ask me what's the best way to get into the game industry, which schools to go to? For the most part I tell them to try to learn this stuff on your own first, teach yourself, if that fails then spend the time in school to get what you need. A LOT of schools that are teaching "gaming" are full of shit, and are a waste of time and money! You know what I mean, the "Institutes of Science that feature Gaming Curriculum's". The pay-us-20K for you to be ill-guided and tricked into thinking that you'd be guaranteed a job afterwards. Bleah. You could get more value out of spending that money on a kickass computer, and an internet connection. Use tutorials, read forums, "buy Teach yourself X" books.
Most studios value experience over "white pieces of paper that let them know you spent 4 years and a lot of money in school". Think about this this way, you have 2 applicants for the same position. Applicant A has a degree, fresh out of school. Applicant B has no degree, but has shipped or has already made a game...who do you think is less risky to hire?

opt2not

On the flipside, this also means that the servers have to be on 24/7, and there has to be enough bandwidth available so that even during the most user-heavy periods the customer can receive their purchase within minutes (at least I would be rather put off if I had to wait for a 50-100 meg game for over, say, half-an-hour).

Now, relying on potential ad-based profits, on an exponential increase of buyers, on a small percentage... it is all well and good in theory, but I can't see that having them be the cornerstones of the business would please any stockholders. Microsoft is a company first and foremost, and they want to make a profit. Plus, while Microsoft does have many deals with bandwidth-providers, that does not mean that the Xbox-division gets to access all of it (as Microsoft has many more important, bandwidth-intensive operations that have nothing to do with the Xbox). I'm sure you remember the problems Live had during the Christmas season?

This whole thing has been nothing but hearsay, and the 35% has not been confirmed. If it is true, then I do not agree that it is fair, but neither do I believe that 70% is necessary, though it is a very nice carrot. Even 60% would be very generous.

All in all, I hope that the percentage that the developers do get is fair, and that hopefully, as this kind of business model gets a little more established in the future, more small developers will get their chance in the spotlight. There is money in it for everyone, and maybe a few good and innovative games as well.

mexxxant

Studios are generally very pragmatic and care about talent, not credentials. Most places, for an artist, a strong portfolio will get you a job. Programmers can have a portfolio of completed projects too, in a way. The problem is, where do you get the time to build that portfolio?

A degree gives you time to practice and put together some work you can show. That's its real value. You can get that other ways - say, by working your ass off in your spare time for a year or two. It's been done.

Some studios do specifically value degrees, but many will take anyone who can prove their talent. I suspect most developers do have degrees, because game development *is* an advanced field... but if you do choose to pursue a career in gamedev you'll meet a good number who don't.

randomnine

Garo

Garo

It's not just minimizing leakage to move from 70% to 35%, it changes the market they're getting access to. At 70%, you get big companies, mid-sized companies, small companies, and individual developers. At 35%, you get big companies and mid-sized companies. You cut your market down to almost nothing.

How about looking at it this way... by cutting the royalty rate so harshly, even though they are getting it in line with the royalty rate other publishers use, they are making sure that it is more difficult for people to publish on their service. If less people publish on their service because it is difficult, they lose money. Microsoft doesn't have to only make money off of the royalties. I think they would be better served by investigating other revenue sources. For instance, if there are hundreds of developers getting involved (and there won't be at 35%) and a lot of them are individuals or very small teams instead of faceless corporations (again, not happening at 35%), fanbases really come into play. Games start selling because Dev X has a following. Where does that following gather? Forums, websites, etc. Microsoft could provide those sites. And advertise on them.

What'll happen though is MS will cut the rate, individual developers will continue working their day job and not providing content for them to sell, companies will, EA will buy up anyone who makes a few bucks, crush their soul, chain them to a desk and get them to work on the next Madden. Gaming will be much less colorful, and much less fun for it.

otakucode

35 - 45 % is the max you get now on royalties and the 45% is only if you go over a million units sold.

Tkat

Minimising extra leakage is only sound, especially since the Xbox has just now barely even begun to post a profit (or at least less losses), and I expect that Microsoft would at least like to have the next iteration of the Xbox to already be something that will really bring in revenue.

I'm not against profits for small companies, but if Microsoft would suddenly have to cut back on its Xbox Live Arcade distribution, marketing and whatnot, it would not be good for anyone, now would it?

mexxxant

Oh. Yeah. Valve. "

Don't mean to burst your bubble there, but I seem to remember a bit of dodginess with some in game advertising added after a game's release to full paying customers. Not to say there isn't one, though! Just be careful before putting someone on such a pedestal. But keep looking, there ARE good companies out there.

PurpleSfinx

@Garo: Do you really think that people give a shit about whether you have a degree when they want to hire you as a digital artist? I've seen graduates from Full Sail and SCAD that couldn't paint or model for shit, and I've also seen people on deviantArt who have no formal education make stuff that is just incredible. As a game artist, what matters the most is your artwork portfolio, because one can easily tell from that how good you would be at your job. Having a degree would just be a bonus, and a small one at that.

Toasticus

nevergod

LOL what is your job if you have no degree?
Janitor?

Garo

opt2not

I am ignorant because I believe that Crecente has spoken to several developers who think PSN is now after the cut of XBLs royalties more interesting?

I am ignorant because I believe that the PC with its gazillion installbase, with more freedom to choose your project and with its easy accesibiltity is more interesting for every indie than anything consoles are offering at the moment?

Sure, whatever!
Go ahead roam the blog, call me names and be self-righteous.
If it makes you feel better?

@randomnine:

Off course devs are humans too, but the least I can expect from a person with a degree is to behave like a mature person and not like an internet troll.
Even the minor development members should adopt a diplomatic tone!
If they can't I don't see them working for very long in any team...
and that's no only in the gaming industry :/

Garo

thanks microsoft, thanks for trying to rip off more brave developers by pocketing more cash, depleting live of nothing by shitty, corporate developed cash ins, or half baked retro crap.

thanks for XNA too, now you can get wide eyed enthusiastic game developers put shit up for free, see nothing from it, and you guys can rake in more advertising revenure.

thanks a fucking lot, you've just cut out a choice, made the PS3 the go to console for indie talent.

gique

Irenicus-the one and only

@mexxxant: Of course 70% is economically sound. What does Microsoft have to do? Put a file on a server and push it over their lines. That borders on being free for them. They could get away with only charging a dollar per sale and still wallow in profit.

PSN might be cheaper, but the price of devkits is astronomical and there is no PC-based easily available development environment.

otakucode

XBLA, you're right on the money in regards to very few if any fully original titles been released, most of the games on XBLA are ports or remakes of other releases. Though I think there are a bunch in development now that are in high enough profile to make XBLA look real appealing to the Indie scene. Castle Crashers, being amongst them (really excited to play that one).
The thing that I'm interested in seeing what pans out is *if* this rumor is true, and business is lost for M$ to the PSN, would there be a drop in regulations on XBLA? There could be a back and forth of policy changing..."PSN is getting our market! Drop our prices!"..."M$ is getting our business, increase our support!!" Interesting times for sure.

@Garo: Profile trolling ftw! You're right, you're not dumb. You were just ignorant. Totally different. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity can't. And now you know, and knowing is half the battle. GEEEE-IIIII-JOOOOOOOOOE!!!! What do you want me to say, sorry? I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I try to educate the public from the viewpoint from people that actually make games instead of just playing, complaining, raving about them. We're not gods, we're normal dudes that play games, have opinions and experiences, that read your lame-ass asinine uninformed comments and feel that we have to justify, defend and explain our passion for this medium. We are fanboys as well. I don't hate fanboys, I hate ignorance. Does it make me sound more credible? Nope, it just makes me sound snarky and condescending. Hey no one's perfect...how about I work on my snarkizms, and you work on your ignorance, and we'll meet half way with a hand-shake and a "how-do-ya-do". :)

opt2not

VakeroRokero

Coldbrand

PSN might have a different and more lenient model, but it has yet to be proven that it will be even half as successful as XBLA in bringing out many different and smaller-scale games (though this could indeed change, but right now everything is just pure speculation). Potential is just that, potential, but the realisation of said potential is quite another beast altogether...

mexxxant

Irenicus-the one and only

RemyDuvalle

something related a friend of mine just told me:
friend: In Bioshock, there are only two different types of vending machines, and they're probably owned by the same company.
friend: This, of course, is because of Libertarianism!
Friend: The company that owns the vending machines probably bought out or drove all the other companies out of business, and then to further cut costs they don't even hire people anymore, they just jam all their stuff into vending machines and charge crazy-high prices for everything.
Friend: and Ryan, being a Libertarian, figured this is a good thing and didn't bother to regulate the market at all.
Friend: END RESULT: you can barely afford a medkit whenever you need one, and you end up practically broke after every time you use a vending machine!

Akin

Irenicus-the one and only

Most of the rest of us are gamers like anyone else and still enjoy talking shit on games sites. No-one knows who we are, so no-one cares what we say. So it doesn't matter! Chill out and stop putting developers on a pedestal, we don't deserve it :)

@opt2not: Steering clear of NDAs... Everyday Shooter demonstrates both that: (a) Sony are looking out for tiny indie developers with interesting projects, and have actually put their money where their mouth is. Though XNA is promising, I don't recall Microsoft putting a game to market through it yet; (b) porting a small game to the PS3 is not such a fantastically onerous task (reportedly Jonathan Mak had ES running on the PS3 three days after receiving a devkit). Theoretically, retail games have to push the PS3 to its limits to compete, so they need to deal with its foibles... a simpler game can dodge much of the complexity purely by ignoring most of the more complex facilities available.

Now, I think XBLA is great service. Still, you can't deny that Microsoft have let its appeal to hardcore gamers slide somewhat with the flood of ports and casual titles since launch (though I'll give them credit for Rez HD!). Sony run an attractive alternative. They are specifically funding innovative projects that keeps things interesting, and that is already making PSN more engaging to the typical audience for arthouse-ish indie games - and thus also, in turn, to the indie developers that make them.

They're both real contenders for developer attention at the moment. We'll see if XNA will change the game when it eventually launches, and if Nintendo's WiiWare can hold its own when it enters the ring. It's an exciting time, and any serious change like this could alter the course of indie console gaming over the next five years.

I bet people who have XNA projects underway but unsigned are feeling a little burned by the bait-and-switch. Not that Microsoft ever publicised the previous royalty rates... but they never indicated they were subject to change, either.

randomnine

Wait Mr. "I am a games-developer vistiting this blog to show you how superior I am" you can call me a fanboy, Xbot or Playslave or... well whatever your "creative" mind makes up.
You can say that Jade sucks at her job!
You can say that you encounter the worst types of gaming scum while you are playing NHL'08.

But what you can't call me is "dumb"...
or do you think that somethink like this makes you sound more credible?

Garo

Irenicus-the one and only

opt2not

Tzepish

And you're right, Microsoft does bring more traffic from more customers. That entitles them to 10%. It's called a Finder's Fee. If you hook up a seller with a customer, you get 10%, that's just standard. Standard in terms of ethics, not standard in terms of business or law obviously. If you ask for any more, you're being greedy and taking more than you deserve and, in this case, you'll hurt your own market.

@7ucky: Yes, I am talking of PopCap in their capacity in which they publish their own games and distribute them online. Like RealArcade and places like that that provide a place to find and buy small games on the net. They're not losing money, really, so it's not totally ridiculous to copycat their model I guess. But the alternative they have, leaving the 70% cut in place for XBLA and duplicating it on the XNA side, would turn them from a ho-hum business move into an unbelievable phenomenon. It would be more fantastically successful than their wildest dreams. The Xbox division of Microsoft would start turning more profit than the Windows division within a couple years. This will not happen if they do not make it possible for developers to develop a title in their bedroom and then rake in enough cash to quit their job.

BTW if anyone thinks I'm a Sony fanboy, keep dreaming. I own all the consoles and I'd like to see them all succeed. Microsoft got me absolutely excited when they coined the term "YouTube of Gaming". I tried like hell to get a copy of that speech Moore gave but the conference people wouldn't release it. I am well aware of just how hellish the PS3 is to develop for, I've read a great deal about it. I'm also aware that it costs an arm and a leg to develop for too. The XNA Game Studio toolkit is marvelous and, even if Microsoft destroys the market with a move like this, it will have been a good thing for the gaming community after all. I'm sure it will lead lots of gamers into the realm of being authors and probably even trick a few into going into the game development industry where they'll be destroyed as a human being and pump out more licensed sequel crap.

otakucode

Irenicus-the one and only

XNA requires the developer to use Microsoft tools: Visual Studio, C# programming language, XNA Game Studio, Windows OS, etc. I'm presuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that before you can publish an XNA game, you have to buy the full versions of these softwares from Microsoft. They already get money this way, and there is little or no support for open-source alternatives.

A hobbyist or fledgeling developer will have to throw down mad cash before they can publish their first game, after which they may have a game that no one will want to pay for. If Microsoft wasn't so strict about developers using only Microsoft products, I wouldn't mind the royalty cut. But now it just seems like they're trying to gouge the developer.

"Gouge the Developer." That does seem to be the Microsoft modus operandi.

Highlander Wolf

opt2not

Irenicus-the one and only

chiefpoopingpants

Darkest Daze

Irenicus-the one and only

Irenicus-the one and only

@Garo: What's funny is how fanboys actually adapted negative connotations toward the word Fanboy. What's wrong with being a fanboy? You like our games, we like your attention. No hate here.

The thing that bugs me is the ignorance that is sometimes associated with fan-boy-isms, just because a game or feature isn't on your favorite console or in your favorite IP doesn't mean you need to speak out about it, nor dismiss every outside of it. Nor do you need to comment on things that you clearly don't know the intricacies of.

Oh and btw, game devs are gamers like you, we just make the games for a living.

opt2not

Garo

Now that platform will not be as profitable as it as when they made those decisions. Also there is this 'democratisation' process going on which just seems to mean that more developers will be able to make more stuff more cheaply - which will lessen the value of the platform even further. By flooding it with crap that has to filter to the top I presume (is that the democracy bit?).

I would say plenty of them have a good reason to be pissed off about it.

It hardly seems a wise business move as PSN is becoming more of a competitor as the numbers grow, and WiiWare just around the corner. It's not like XBLA is the only small-game service out there (though ms may think that - they think strange things), and the technology isn't that much of a tie in that people can't change fairly cheaply.

$Bill$G$

mx5

Garo

Or are you referring to PopCap as distribution portal? Can you clarify what you mean? (Sorry - I'm just trying to better understand what you're trying to say).

7ucky

1. As you already said: why should he/she move away from the obviously easy to program XBL if he/she wouldn't get a better deal from the other console makers?

Well my friend you are on the Web nobody knows who you are and what you do.
You can't breach the NDA if nobody knows who you are.
So, how are the royalties on PSN? Come on, don't be so shy!

2. For a developer (what you are trying to make us think you are) you have a very unprofessional and rude approach, you're proving this with how you adress me: dummy dumb.

Garo

mx5

This statement doesn't actually say they are getting a better deal with Sony's PSN, in fact it seems to have been said in sheer propagandistic spite if anything.
Like I posted, my main point is the ease of development and support advocating. I'm not willing to submit any details of contracts or potential contracts of our company to a game rumor/news site. That is a breach of our NDA's (Non-Disclosure-Agreement).

2. Guess what an Xbox is? It's a glorified PC dummy-dumb! Guess how closely PC development and Xbox development is? It's like having a twin sibling, their personalities are the different but to the average developer they look the same. :)

opt2not

Purple Dave

TheHun

1st.
Actually a dev has already said that PSN offers better royalties (check the article)
But if you know how much you get from Sony or Nintendo why don't you enlighten us all?

2nd.
For an indie the best way to go would be the PC!
Nobody tells you what you are allowed to do and what not.
You get the best royalties possible with one negative side effect: piracy!

Garo

Given that the few of you who actually know the ins and outs of game development, why would it make sense for an indie developer to say this? is it just a case of FUD since only one has said this?

Tepoz

Islandkiwi

opt2not

Retail stores ARE dead. They just don't know it yet.

otakucode

okenny :)

And what do your comments sound like? Good ol MS defense no? Honestly, the fact that they didn't outright deny something like this, and the fact that Crecente has multiple sources that are backing up don't lead you to believe that this is likely true? I mean you're showing your bias if you don't even feel suspicious of this. Will it ever get fully confirmed? Microsoft won't ever admit it, so we have to take the word of thse multiple sources.

You have to ask yourself, are these people independently lying to Crecente. What reason would they have to lie? Why would they all give the 35% figure?

LittleBigPlaneteer

@7ucky: Well it's like I said... if they want their service to become just another PopCap and make a little bit of money, they're getting right in line for it. If they want to make a LOT of money and improve the market and even the world a little bit, they're going exactly the wrong way... and that makes me very sad.

otakucode

TheHun

okenny :)

Tepoz

Killtacular

Manny

Right now there are indie devs all over the world who are getting that rate for casual PC games, but they [usually] also have to invest $$ into developing a lot of their games from the ground up.

What puts me off, though, is one thing: doesn't MS charge devs to use XNA? It seems like charging for access AND offering lower royalties is a low blow, but I don't see problems with either in a standalone scenario.

7ucky

7ucky

their response was vague at best. which leaves the topic open for discussion for this site and its members. i think that is a very basic principle. i don't need to know insider info on the industry to make that conclusion. hop off of MS nutsack dude.

zanzibarlegend

@7ucky: Sure 35% if pretty common. And if Microsoft wants to be common, I guess they can roll with it. It'll end up being a flop like all the other independent game services out there, a place where gaming companies instead of creative individuals go and every once in awhil esomething decent comes out. If they want to make a couple million a year off of XNA instead of a couple billion, I suppose it is their choice. An epic-grade of stupid choice, but theirs to make.

@balls187: I'm betting that is Microsoft's thought process. They know that an indie title trying to make money online by itself is essentially a hopeless effort. It's like winning the lottery except a lot more work and less reward. That is irrelevant to the fact that Microsoft won't make nearly as much money giving a measly 35%. Look at something like RealArcade or PopCap. Small companies. Sure, they make money. But not much. If that is what MS wants XNA to be, then 35% is right up that alley.

@zPhreak: The things Microsoft does are nearly worthless. They host the content and distribute it. That's nearly worhtless. Distribution is dead. The music companies are starting to figure this out and the game distributing companies need to figure it out too. Anyone can send some bits. No big deal. What Microsoft provides that is valuable is the push-button purchase experience and the aggregation of content into one place. THAT is valuable. But it is not so valuable that customers are going to pay $20 for games that ought to be $5. And developers are going to have to charge $20 for those $5 games so that they can eat.

High percentage going to developers = lower prices = higher sales = higher repeat customers = fanbases developing for developers which sells even MORE games... all of it leads to more profit for Microsoft... but they're moving to set a nuclear bomb off right under it all.

@Manny: Steam and PSN are not holding themselves up as the YouTube of Gaming, and are not meant for small developers. They are both meant for well-established developers who can drop $50,000 to develop and float a title. It's an entirely different market than MS claims XNA was meant to address.

Err, sorry for the length... I am loquatious.

otakucode

xDiscoStu

So really, what's your issue again?

Killtacular

LeBaron

Kotaku - The Happy Clique for Hypocrites!

FelicioLostHorizonPT

Microsoft has the resources to make that a possibility. Previously it might have been argued that Microsoft could think that striking a balance where middle-sized development companies with a few hundred developers could offer a game would be the right way to go... but this is 2008. It is abundantly clear to anyone not intentionally closing their eyes to it that the creative community on the Internet is legion. When given the opportunity and a LOW BAR TO ENTRY with potential for high rewards, the viral popularity of a service can become monumental.

The only explanation for Microsoft not wanting to move to become a YouTube of gaming with community-driven efforts is pure malice. They want more to hurt gamers and creative people than they want to make money. Because that's the end result they are acting to pbring about - protection of the status quo at the cost of less profit for themselves.

otakucode

Oh and for those of you who moan and bitch about MS shooting themselves in the foot, where are the developers going to go? PSN (maybe if their rates are in fact better ), internet (see balls187's comment). xbl is still attractive, it just might not be the gold mine it once was.

TheHun

Irenicus-the one and only

The witless consumers have already been gouged to death, so now it's time to pass on the cost to the developers.

TheFaze

People really shouldn't be so self-righteous when they have no frame of reference. Yeah, cutting rates in half sounds bad, but 35 percent's still a fairly standard rate. As mentioned in the last topic, the old 70% rate smacks of a subsidy to get early interest drummed up with indie developers.

You can argue about the minimal costs of digital distribution all you like, but try asking Realarcade (or any other casual games portal) for a 70% cut and see if that gets you anywhere other than laughed off the site. It sucks, but when you're dealing with game publishing, the idea of the dev getting a fair cut goes out the window, regardless who you're working with. If Sony or Nintendo offer significantly better rates, I'd be very surprised.

Couldn've done without the garbage PR speak from MS, but that stuff seems to be rife with everyone these days. Doesn't make it any less excusable, but short of a mass PR suicide (finger crossed, people!) looks like we're stuck with it.

cheeba

Yes, in Steve Bailmer logic this makes perfect sense.

After all, they value developers three times as much as anyone else (again, ask bailmer

huginn

AwShucks

Yep. What sucks is that seems to be exactly what they are doing.

Too bad, since it seems to be more MS screwing up than Sony doing stuff right that is causing this very obvious momentum change that has been going on the last couple of months.

KaneRobot

okenny :)

teeth7

Tiber

It's Microsoft.

If there's one thing they're good at, it's monetizing software, and despite all the money spent repairing shoddy hardware and providing ad overload, they know they can make it back selling code. It's really just their business model at work.

Datheron

Heh, they have to pay for the RROD somehow...

Andy D.

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

That's just crystal.

Twisk

maniacmayhem

If this turns out to be true I expect alot less indie developers to make games for the Xbox brand. If they can do the same thing and get paid better elsewhere...they will.

Bones_Jackson

Gam3r

rebelphoenix

Better stock up on the chair-proof armor.

cactaur

I don't particularly care for MS as a company as it relates to me the consumer, due to the reason they tend to do the least possible to satiate me as a consumer. They have far to conservative of a track record for me to want them to dominate any market (especially entertainment), but I think what they have done with XNA is pretty interesting and has helped things a great deal for developers and I'm glad they are competing in the game market. I don't want them to dominate though or even be in the lead. I like a separate but equal 3 way fight here as I'm happy with what each brings to the table. I personally find so far that being a pc/ps3/wii owner covers most everything I want, though.

Ehardergardens

There are multitudes of very creative people out there and a huge market of people wanting to experience whaty they have to offer. All they need is someone to provide the boring platform background. Yes, that platform is valuable, but cutting the developers to the bone for it is a terrible business decision.

Microsoft's Windows platform got huge because of developers. They know this. It is part of their history. Now we're seeing that if they had the ability at the time to charge every single developer an astronomical amount to develop for their platform, they would have and Windows would have withered and failed. Microsoft is preparing to abort it's own gaming platform in this way. I suppose it is the logical extension of their complete lockdown of their platform, doing in hardware what the legal system denied Nintendo the ability to do legally in the 80s.

otakucode

Saint Anima

If we know how much the rates are on PSN and others then we can probably guess if the threat is more of a writers strike and not an all out abandoning.

Tepoz

Tei

Seems simple to me that MS should allow the developer to find a host or host it themselves, either way let it be their decision on how much to spend for hosting. As for advertisements, I've never seen MS advertise any indy game and I'm sure if that was the case, the indy developer would rather persue their own avenue for advertisement.

I think you are giving MS too much the benefit of the doubt, plus what about the other stuff I posted. I guess the real key now is for Sony or Nintendo to capitalize off of this rumor and release their own royalty rates.

HurricaneDave

AnEternalEnigma

Morberis

Rabid_Fanboy

Now I'm not a fan of big business but sadly, they are the ones that make the video game world go around and not everything has to be sugar coated. everyone wants to make money. Tell it like it is and I bet you wouldn't see as much of a negative reaction as you would expect.

I'm sure that some developers will move to other platforms because of this but as that platforms user base grows, don't be surprized if you see their pricing plans change as well.

Hagame

bluesquareapple

"we work closely with all of our partners to provide the Xbox 360 community with the best entertainment possible while
(Between the lines it reads, We totally shafted Indie and dont give a shit, money money money money!)
making publishing a title on XBLA an attractive prospect."

Phenom88

zPhreak

magic_envelope

But whats 100% of nothing...

Anyone?

Bueller?

balls187

Kyle81

Nevertheless, anyone have any insight on how much indy game devs traditionally make without using a service like PSN or XBL to springboard their software? (Yes, I guess that means indy PC games...)

Dorphat the Insomniac

wild_world_girl

Manny

Even legality is no barrier to them.

SSJPabs

Microsoft. Come on. Who the fuck wants to develop for a commercial platform when they don't get reasonably paid for it?

redgopher

Moosebox

Seems to me that MS is letting their greed cloud their long term status in the console market.

HurricaneDave

Anarchist_Gamer

7ucky

Tepoz

Dorphat the Insomniac

Translation;

"YES, WE FUCKED THEM. WE FUCKED THEM RIGHT IN THEIR STUPID ASSES! HIGH FIVE"

They would've denied it if it wasn't true.

BlackDove

cheeba

Kaneda

Seriously, is there one game company beyond reproach?

Oh. Yeah. Valve.

Anarchist_Gamer

Archaotic

"they don't have to publish on the platform."

Exactly. Let MS charge what they want...then they can watch as they all flee from XBLA to PSN(or wherever). If MS wants to shoot themselves in the foot- I say let them.

romBox

SchoolBusDriver

Or possibly, "All your bases are belong to us."

I don't know marketing speech is tricky.

Tylahedras

Danin

Killtacular