...that require a Gold membership. You can't even get the new Doritos Crash Course game without Gold now.
so the iron man tv series and dc marvel etc tv series say hello
well hello back, cant say ive heard of them (seen a couple but face it theyre not that popular) but always nice to meet new faces
BD1: Microsoft requires publisher, does not allow self publishing
BD2: Microsoft does not allow F2P
How is that not relevant?
...that require a Gold membership. You can't even get the new Doritos Crash Course game without Gold now.
what? is that true?
MS really pushing away from me. Xbone getting less interesting if its going all gold too.
lucky for me... i always download free games ASAP
got doritos, harms way, and the most interresting are Kinect Party
Sounds like this gen with the gold membership you get your whole house hold included and you get dedicated servers.
For how much? $120? $160?
I think you need publisher status before you can self publisher. I don't think indies can set themselves up as a publisher to publish their own game, otherwise there wouldn't be these complaints against MS.If you self publish you are a publisher. EA self publish their own games.
I think you need publisher status before you can self publisher. I don't think indies can set themselves up as a publisher to publish their own game, otherwise there wouldn't be these complaints against MS.
well I currently pay $100 for a 4 person subscription . I don't see the price changing much.
What constitutes a publisher in MS's eyes? As you say, sounds easy for indies to form their own publisher identity in principle, so I guess there's reason not to such as financial requirements.
wasnt there a rumor they were doing away with family plans and you could just have multiple people under one $60 account now?
for people like you it could be a boon.
not sure how they would enforce that against abuses though, i've seen for example my sisters friends repeatedly log into her account from elsewhere while she was playing at my house once. as i guess a way she allowed them to use her gold.
What constitutes a publisher in MS's eyes? As you say, sounds easy for indies to form their own publisher identity in principle, so I guess there's reason not to such as financial requirements.
I've never asked him, but I can't imagine the financial burden was that unreasonable given what he was paying for games and the size of the company.
The did do Disk based games as well and that might have been a requirement for XBox Live, there is a significant risk involved in that because there are minimum orders and you pay upfront.
To boil it all down to the essential point I want to get to, an experienced indie developer recently put it to me like this: "Microsoft has no concept of a digital publisher."
What does that mean? To get an opportunity to publish a digital game on an Xbox platform, you must publish retail titles. I had thought that this was one-to-one -- meaning for each retail title a publisher releases, it can also release one Xbox Live game. But I recently spoke to someone who worked at a publisher with a two-to-one ratio.
"Two digital games for each retail release?" I asked. Nope. It worked the other way around: Two retail games released meant the publisher got one digital download slot. And someone from another publisher told me that to even be allowed to publish games on Xbox 360 in the first place, the company had to slate three retail games up front.
Seems an odd restriction seeing the nature of digital distribution. Perhaps its just legacy thinking that was reasonably sound when the platform launched and just hasn't been updated yet?Unverified, but it should give some idea as to what MS considers a "publisher". Based on that, it's clearly about the publication of physical retail discs:
Are we anywhere near confirmation that XB1's Indie channel will effectively become Windows 8's appstore with, I presume, Android-like freedoms of publishing? That seems to me the most logical way forward. MS probably still need to update their official games platform to be less convoluted, but the focus on the new platform may solve a lot of problems for a lot of MS's business battlefronts.I'd imagine that's likely to change going forwards, MS have announced all titles day and date and it isn't a huge step from there to allow download only.
I could still imagine them requiring some minimum guarantee or commitment, there is a cost to MS for every game they release, so they really don't want everyone an their dog just throwing shit out there to see what sticks.