Ben-DutkaAh, good ol' point-and-click adventures. Don't you think they should make a comeback?
Even if they don't, at least we know a well-respected adventure title from the mind of Jakub Dvorsky is headed to the PlayStation Network. Developed by Amanita Design, Machinarium is scheduled to arrive on the PSN and tablets later this year. According to CasualGaming.biz , Amanita turned their attention to Sony after Microsoft passed on Machinarium ; this sort of supports statements from other PSN developers who say Sony is more willing to take chances on different/innovative concepts. As for the tablet, they haven't quite decided yet but it seems they're shying away from the iPad; they'd rather focus on the Blackberry PlayBook, which arrives in North America next month. For our part, we're always happy to see PSN games that would act as pleasant, relatively unique diversions. And yeah, there was a time when the point-and-click adventure wasn't "unique;" it was actually quite popular.
But even if those days are long gone, we can still revel in past glories. You know, provided the game is good…
Related Game(s): Machinarium
The artistic design alone is enough to make me want to play it.
I'm with DB in that the artistic design immediately makes me want to try this game. Point and click adventures are also a lot of fun, because as everyone knows whatever the interface for an adventure, it's the story and puzzles that matter. I'm glad Microsoft passed on this, perhaps increased word of mouth among developers will get the message out that PSN is a much more concept friendly place?
Definitely excited for Machinarium.I love the puzzles and art style in this game,hope they give us a release date.
As if Alan Wake and Heavy Rain aren't strong enough examples…
Original ideas belong on Playstation.
i don't disagree with anything you say, but would like to point out aw has sold over a million copies. that's poor compared to the insane numbers of other xbox exclusives, but it's hardly a flop.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 3/28/2011 11:45:34 AM
I played the demo for this on my PC. I'll definitely pick this up when it comes out.
I'd definitely give it a try if there was a demo, but some point and click games have been done poorly on console.
As long as the pointing and clicking is good it could be awesome, story driven games are the best.
If you guys read the article it says Microsoft turned them down because the game was already on Mac and PC and they wanted the game EXCLUSIVELY on 360. Nothing to do with "taking chances" on creative games. They did publish Limbo which was one of my favorite downloadable games on XBLA or PSN.
Indeed, and this is exactly the point I was making the other day. The difference in approach over exclusivity between Microsoft and Sony is;
Microsoft demands exclusivity – or else. They'll pay you for it, but they demand it, and nothing less.
Sony appreciates exclusivity, but does not demand or require it, nor will they outright pay for it, unless of course you are contracted by Sony for a specific game that is their concept.
The proof is in the pudding. Microsoft's approach is restrictive, anti-competitive and developer un-friendly. Sony's approach is more open, more about competition through innovation and relatively friendly to developers. Now, I'd never say Sony does it their way just to be nice, it's because they believe as a corporate that is the best way to make money. I do think though, that in some ways, Sony is influenced by a Japanese quality of long term thinking and planning that concentrates on growing their presence in a healthy market.
Here's another story about the same thing. note how they talk of burning bridges….
http://www.develop-online.net/news/37368/Bridges-burnt-after-Microsoft-snubbed-indie-dev
Last edited by TheHighlander on 3/28/2011 12:31:39 PM
I understand that. But MS (like Sony) is in the business of making money, and they're quite good at it…Why would they help fund and publish a title on XBLA that is already available on other platforms? The game will now probably be a self-published title on PSN now.
It'd be naive to think that nearly all exclusivity decisions by both Sony and MS are not done soley based around financial analysis and how much money a certain project will cost vs. yeild in returns. MS has the money to throw around for these exclusive deals, and they obviously think that it'll pay off financially for them or they wouldn't do it. Its really more or less comes down to different corporate strategies, not mr. nice guy vs. mr. bad guy. They both want our money.
Jimmy, that's probably why Highlander said Sony does it, not out of being the nice guy, but because at a corporate level, they feel that kind of developer relations will build them in the long term.
Exactly, Underdog. They feel that spending less (for exclusivity) will pay off down the line in terms of relationships w/ developers. MS's strategy is more short-term in a business sense. Doesn't mean that they don't green-light or support creative or "off-beat" ideas. And doesn't really make either decision "right" or "Wrong".
I guess my point is, the story seems to be taken slightly out of context in this article. Rather than talking about the issue of business common sense here (if MS is funding a project, they would want to make sure they receive their return on it. Having the developer release it on other platforms would kind of under value their investment) we see MS in a negative light as a company not willing to take on or support creative games. That's really not the case here.
Jimmy,
It is the case because Microsoft are in fact allowing their business goals of short term gain and competing through purchased/enforced exclusivity to prevent them from having an innovative game on their platform. So by their actions Microsoft are showing themselves to be "a company not willing to take on or support creative games".
As for the point about "Why would they help fund and publish a title on XBLA that is already available on other platforms?" This isn't/wasn't about funding the project. Microsoft won't publish to XBLA without an exclusivity deal. In that case, how can Microsoft justify supporting any multi-platform game on XBLA? They didn't just want their share of the cake, they wanted everyone elses' share, and now they have no share.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 3/28/2011 2:49:43 PM
Highlander,
In this case, yes they're not allowing the developer to release the game on their platform. However, this has nothing to do with the fact the game is creative or not. It has to do with the fact that the developer already had released the game on other platforms, and therefore did not fit into MS's business model.
The fact is MS DOES support creativitey and indie developers. They have an entire section of XBLA dedicated to "Indie games" (comparable to Mini's on PSN). They have put forth and published alot of quirky titles actually, from Limbo, ilomilo, World of Keflings, Monday Night Combat (not really quirky but not your average shooter either), Darwinia+(it might not be published by MS but I'm pretty sure its XBLA exclusive, and its highly addictive), etc.
In other words you're saying that Microsoft's business model only supports exclusive content. That by definition excludes a lot of content that is on other platforms. Any time you restrict the possible content you stifle innovation and creativity. Microsoft's business model has on this occasion cost them an innovative game title. It seems to me that a business model that requires complete exclusivity is bound to exclude more than it includes, and so Microsoft is not supporting creativity or innovation because of their restrictive publishing business goals.
http://www.gamerbytes.com/2011/01/indepth_xbox_live_arcade_sales_18.php#more
Thats XBLA content released in 2010 alone. Doesn't look like their short on titles released. Again, I'm not saying I agree 100% with shunning of certain developers if they are unwilling to be exclusive, but MS is clearly the ones making the business decisions here, and they generally know what they're doing in that aspect. Developers, it seems, will often fight tooth and nail to be included in their promotional periods like "The Summer of Arcade" because those titles sell exceptionally well for downloadable titles, as they get most of the advertising costs from MS. There is obviously a benefit for these developers to "sell out" to an exclusivity contract with MS…and that is greater sales and more exposure. More money=more titles they are able to produce.
Whether they have a list as long as my arm or not, that says nothing of the innovation or creativity. Nor does forcing the exclusivity issue detract from the inherent innovation and creativity of the titles that *are* accepted into distribution via XBLA. However the very fact that their contracts come with a ball and chain that prevents a developer seeking publishing deals on other platforms for their own product does clearly reduce the number of developers that are willing to bring their creativity and innovation to Microsoft.
You can defend XBLA all you like, it's not under attack. The business model chosen by Microsoft is inherently restrictive of the content available and therefore inherently discourages innovative and creative games from developers who choose not to be locked into a contract with Microsoft alone.
I understand what your saying about MS business model and how developers could be scared away by their tactics. I do. What I'm trying to convey is that there are plenty of developers that would WANT that financial backing that MS provides. That list is proof that what MS is doing works in terms of number of titles (alot of them ARE innovative) and sales.
You can also make an argument that Sony's less aggressive approach reduces the number of new and innovative titles distributed on PSN if MS is quick to snatch them up. It swings both ways, ya know?
gotta agree with jimmy on the tone of the article, and it swinging both ways. i often do not like ms tactics, but it's tough to question their success. the tone of the article conveys big bad ms won't green light unique titles while sony will. if ms funds the project i think they have the right to *demand* exclusitivity. that's a business decision.
i often ask my xbox loving friends why they are so loyal to the platform. they will often cite ms backing them up by locking down early dlc. and content. that seems to be a strategy that's paid off for ms.
i wish sony were more aggressive in this area and would try to lock down exclusive content of their own.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 3/28/2011 7:45:14 PM
Since you raise it Excelsior, are you suggesting that Microsoft funded the game? That's the implication of your post.
Jimmy, I'll give you a hint about my attitude towards Microsoft. I've been involved with Microsoft on a Business level for more than two decades, and I've gone from liking them, to disliking, and then loathing. Right now, I'm somewhere between loathing them and thinking that they are the most destructive element of the IT/gaming industry ever. Now, sadly, as things stand, Microsoft's power in the IT world is not under serious threat, and they know it, and they act like it. The trouble is that the same executives with that same attitude make the high level decisions and set policy for the other divisions, so that style of autocratic business is near universal with Microsoft – including their gaming division.
However, I understand that not everyone see's Microsoft either for what it is, or as I see it. So I moderate my opinions of them as much as I can. However in this case, you are defending a practice that suppresses innovation and creativity. It's got little to do with whether I like Microsoft or not, their entire business model suppresses creativity – it's the nature of the beast.
@ Highlander,
Fair enough. I don't have such a deep-rooted hatred for them. From a consumer level most of their products that I've purchased have been strictly videogames, and for the most part I haven't been disappointed with 360. I do understand why some people don't like their tactics, though.
http://machinarium.net/demo/
Demo is pretty cool, the art style is definitely fantastic
Mamills,
Thanks for the demo link
If it plays anything like Secret Monkey Island, then count me in. I had an absolute blast with that game, hilarious too!
Played the PC version two years or so ago. Was a really enjoyable puzzle/adventure. Though I prefer the humor of the Monkey Island series. Sure hope Lucasarts resurrects the film they were planning to make.
Guybrush Threepwood was a BAMF pirate!