The nature of XBLA, and these more casual games is that you’re going to have a more discerning audience that will go towards what they know they like. Cost of entry is so low, and ease of access is so high, that I can get to the games that I know I want. As a consumer, I don’t have to make a bet. This is compounded even more by the free trials.

As a result the likelihood of a megahit is fundamentally smaller than with retail games. With retail games there’s a grouping and flocking behavior due to the high prices and people following the crowd to hedge their bets.

Should you really be looking at XBLA to make blockbusters? It’s unlikely to me that in its current form a single XBLA game will sell someone on a $279/$350 Xbox. It’s the entirety of the service that is compelling, and in that regards making sure the lineup is diverse and innovative is the most important thing.

Uniqueness in innovation is extremely important as well. EchoChrome was mentioned before, and that’s precisely the kind of thing I’m talking about. PSP/PSN is the only place you’ll be able to play that game. Whereas I can get the Lumines experience on a variety of platforms. I can get the GeoWars experience on a few platforms. etc. How many uniquely innovative titles does XBLA have?

There are five major aspects of the XBLA platform that make game approval a totally different ballgame than retail in terms of choosing games to draw in new customers. One is the low price of games (as well as the corresponding customer expectations), another is the instant availability, another is the competitive features (Leaderboards), another is the level of coverage/hype before a game is released, and the last one is the required Trial version of the game. All of these factors affect purchase decisions much more than they would affect retail game sales.

I\’ve never had any trouble getting the XBLA submissions I\’ve written approved, so I\’m not going to complain about the approval process at all. What I would like to see, though, are more first party (or at least, MS-funded) efforts to fill in some of the holes in the game selection. For example, an action RPG with co-op play would be a no-brainer (no, Gauntlet doesn\’t count). Attracting new customers to the platform with flagship games that don\’t directly compete with something else on the platform helps all of us who develop for XBLA by increasing the size of the market, which, while much larger than everyone expected, is still capped out at a level that makes blockbuster a relative term.

Complex problems rarely have a single, absolute solution, so I’m not sure it’s wise to position this as “content vs. relationships.”

There’s one thing that all business problems share in common: people. That’s because business is a human activity. You need people for business to be business, and you need relationships for business to occur. You can engage in commerce without content, but you can’t without people. Ultimately, all business problems can be simplified to the point where they can be solved by managing relationships. Relationships, however, are complex.

In other words, I disagree. :)

a) Open up XNA games to truly be a YouTube experience (I’m hoping this will be announced this Fall). At that point you have the masses indicating the kind of games they find interesting (to help with general portfolio decisions) let alone a way MGS can find games to truly polish. Then of course you have options like advertising dollars in the XNA/YouTube pages and turning XBLA into THE place for publishers to find fresh new talent/games.

b) Expand from beyond peers to those in the community. Think of it as something a bit similar to eBay\’s Voices group.

c) Take a few wildcards. The problem with asking people what they want is that they sometimes don\’t really know until they see and play it (definitely the crux of the problem you describe).

And in terms of portfolio suggestions:

a) Ensure a certain level of \’artistic\’ games. In general I find too little emphasis on creativity. As an example, Sony is not afraid to go avant-garde (games like flOw, Echochrome, etc). In general the few original titles on PSN seem to have more polish and show Sony’s willingness to experiment. Yes creative titles are more risky, but having critically regarded titles that may not sell well still have the side benefit of attracting publishers/developers and give a greater impression of quality of the platform to consumers (i.e. some things cannot be measured by the direct return on investment).

b) Expand to the entire family by signing up with folks like Nickelodeon/Nick Jr.; get games based on properties like Dora the Explorer/Diego, Backyardigans,etc. They have to be more than the Flash games found on their respective websites. Downside is that a controller for kids may be needed (if the Scene It! controller does allow direction movement, that may be sufficient … or maybe even that rumoured Arcade stick).

c) Support more \’wife-friendly\’ co-op/team play. This means games that aren’t shoot-em ups and allow for local multiplayer (a problem with things like Card games).

Please don\’t take my comments as a negative. I’m a big fan of the Xbox 360 and XBLA. This is just some, hopefully useful, feedback.

@morgan: read the sentence immediately after the one you quoted, dude. ;-) Anyway, this isn’t a beer commercial (“great taste! less filling!”) Complex problems rarely have a single, absolute solution, so I’m not sure it’s wise to position this as “content vs. relationships.”

@adrian: Thanks for the props!

That’s called Stage-Gate. It’s an NPD technique. I don’t know why more large dev/pub outfits don’t use it, really.

Good article, David!

So, if you believe all this to be true, what’s the solution? One obvious answer: more content!

Have you read Andrew Odlyzko’s Content Is Not King? The solution isn’t more content; it’s stronger relationships with consumers. Even the article by Watts that you cited argues that instead of focusing on “designing, marketing, and selling would-be hits”, marketers should “focus on creating portfolios of products that can be marketed using real-time measurement of and rapid response to consumer feedback.” Emphasis added.

Watts doesn’t argue that you should just place more bets. He also suggests that the size of the bets should be decreased. In the context of his argument, Watts is actually recommending something much simpler: more connections to consumers. Check out “Differentiation or Salience” in the Journal of Advertising Research, Nov-Dec 1997. The authors state that “[f]amiliarity leads to liking … Brand A being ‘salient’ to more people than B is then usually also linked with whether A has, if anything, wider distribution; more shelf-space and display; more sales-people; more promotions; more word-of-mouth; more media mentions; more advertising; and probably bigger absolute profits.”

The beauty of XBLA (and similar systems) is that there are an infinite number of points at which consumers can interact with both the Microsoft and Xbox brands. Any of those interactions can lead to more experiences with other organizations and products (attached, in some way, to Microsoft and Xbox) and any of those points can become, or serve as, what Andy Sernovitz in Word of Mouth Marketing calls “pure viral products.”

In retrospect, I think there’s value in defining “content.” The products in a portfolio should not be viewed as content. Content should be viewed as what products can offer, and products should be viewed as points of interaction with consumers. Calling products “content” just confuses the issues.

That won\\\’t help with the chemistry of timing, connections, and promotion, but it would be an interesting working process.