Jonathan Blow, the twisted mastermind behind critical darling Braid, has criticized Microsoft's certification requirements, suggesting that the overall quality of an Xbox Live Arcade game can be hurt if too much time is wasted making the platform holder happy.
"They removed some of the requirements for XBLA games, but there are still a lot of requirements, and I believe that, at least for a single-player game like my game, the vast majority of these requirements are unnecessary," Blow explained. "I put in a tremendous amount of work meeting all these requirements, when I could have put that work into the actual game, and made it even a little more polished, little bit better."
Blow stated that the certification process certainly wasn't bad enough to stop him releasing the game on Xbox Live (obviously), but that the requirements are geared toward triple-A titles, which isn't useful for everybody. On a differing subject, he also stated that money wasn't his goal, and he actually doesn't care how well Braid sells. He also stated he has no sequel planned, nor is he "waiting in the wings with a level pack, or DLC or anything."
Microsoft's problem, as it always has been, is that it's far too controlling. If it wants XBLA to have a library of fun, creative games, then it needs to stop applying chokeholds to everything that passes through its hands. Maybe XNA will be a fertile soil for budding developers, but I don't know if The 'Soft will ever lose its megalomaniacal tendencies long enough for indie developers to want to stick around.
Contest:
12:02 PM on 08.08.2008
| 
Right. Wasn't this the same guy who was talking about the pricing of the game at $15 and citing "the Space Giraffe problem"? I don't mean to call him out, but it's obvious that he does care how well it sells -- it's only natural, so why even pretend that the opposite is true?
and this will never change.
I'm all for quality control and platform standards, though. If you're gonna show up to dinner party, its good to follow the customs.
Not necessarily. Not all artist create art for profit.
That is if you subscribe to the school of that thought that games are art.
Jason Rohrer doesn't get paid for Passage, or any of his games.
Um, cynical much? Money certainly isn't the only reason anyone makes games. It's a factor, more for some than for others. You can't honestly tell me that no one does it for the love, though. You don't make a game like Braid to make tons of money. If he makes Braid 2: Back In The Habit, then yeah, but as it stands...
Now take your XBLA money and make us another excellent game Mr. Blow.
What I think he was trying to say is that he's not trying to make a ton of money off of the game but he doesn't want to end up in debt because of it.
Before you become to critical of Nihon, watch the 1Up Interview with Jonathan Blow where he clearly states he wants to make money on this game.
I think this is partly the maturity of Indie developers as they are dealing with bigger publishers. They make these statements partly because they are not very accustomed to how big publishers do things and also, on a lesser level, they want to control expectations. Before N+ came out, that developer went shooting off at the mouth about XBLA quality and how it would hurt his game... he ended up having one of the best XBLA launches ever. The fact is XBLA games have online, achievements, Standard definition support as well as HD, and a whole slew of other things because Microsoft tries to get as much of that in for us, the consumers.
Yeah, certs suck but it does the end-user good in the long run. I'm okenny and I approve this message.
- Paid for by Microsoft.
Not necessarily. Not all artist create art for profit.
That is if you subscribe to the school of that thought that games are art. "
No. But only the ones with any business sense and a hope to make a living, do.
So, first he says it wasn't his fault, it was Microsoft's fault that it costs this much.
Then he tells 1up that he priced it at 1200 points so he would break even because it was not well known and he wanted to at least not lose anything.
Now, he doesn't care how well it sells?
Make up your fucking mind.
Or blow me.
Hah. ._.
This gentleman deserves paid for his art. So what if he's talking out both sides of his mouth?
"They didn't try to dictate the game design, as many publishers might -- they were very hands-off there, and what is in the final game is exactly what I wanted to put there."
So, does that mean that Microsoft's guidelines are largely biased towards product presentation and compatibility, and not game content? What exactly is the problem?
Making games for a distribution network is not like making them for the PC. A lot of small developers do not understand this.