And now, the last of the leaked MS/Acti news items for the day. Included in Intellisponse's marketing/survey data was some information on Microsoft's User Generated Games program, which is what they were calling the service we know better as "Community Games On LIVE". The material says that it's a "new destination" for Xbox Live customers, offering "hundreds" of inexpensive games. Buying one "looks and feels just like buying anything else from Xbox Live", but most importantly, will be "most likely less expensive" than the "typical Xbox Live game". Hrm. If Microsoft wrote/approved that, it's a peculiar choice of words. For user-generated content on shoestring budgets (if a budget at all), shouldn't they be "definitely less expensive"?
I find it amusing how people assume they know what XNA is and what it should be. It doesn't matter if the game was developed by students, an old lady and her bridge club, or a 20 year professional developer. The developers' have the right to decide how much they will charge, and the consumers will decide if that price is "right" or not. I've seen amateurs create games that I'd much rather play than some full priced stuff on the market.
XNA is a tool. It can be used to create a masterpiece or something entirely forgettable. Just as a woodcarver can take a piece of wood and create something masterful, I could take the same piece of wood and fail miserably. Some of you people need to understand what kind of tool XNA is and get off your high horses.
And by the way, if a "student" makes a game that knocks my socks off, than I wouldn't mind paying FULL PRICE for it. It's all about the experience of the end user, or gamer.