GTA San Andreas is coming to windows phone

[Kage Maru]

We already started an online movement via Twitter under the hashtag #SaveXboxWP when Asphalt 8 launched without Xbox integration, the first Gameloft game to do so. Read here for details. We've let both Microsoft and Gameloft know our opinion. If GTA launches without Xbox support, we'll add them to the list and lobby them continuously. If you think online social movements don't work then you need to go back and look at the aftermath of Microsoft's Xbox One announcements at E3. People mobilized online and Microsoft changed their policies. (I was not one of them as I preferred the original Xbox One policies, but that's a different rant). The best way to get what you want is to boycott a product and let companies know exactly why you are doing so. Then you encourage others to do the same. How do you not get what you want? You buy their nerfed product anyway hoping that that will somehow encourage them to give you what you want later (news flash: it won't). You want me to spend my own money on a game that doesn't have the features I want? Eff that. I buy games that already have what I want in them. I'm not running a charity here.

I hope your #savexboxwp movement works, I really do. However you’ll have to excuse me for having major doubts. What happened with the Xbox One is more of an exception to the norm than anything else. The ONLY reason why MS changed anything with the Xbox One is because the negative reaction was so overwhelming, they really had no choice if they wanted that system to sell at all. I don’t see this same overwhelming demand for XBL integration for WP games. If this demand was there, the sales would show for it. However as we see with games such as Chickens Can’t Fly (which previously had XBL integration) and Asphalt 8, the sales of WP games does not seem to warrant the extra investment necessary to add XBL features.

I’m sorry but your view of this whole thing seems to be clouded by ignorance. You claim games without XBL features are “nerfed”. These games are generally the same as they are on IOS and Android, so they aren’t nerfed at all, they are actually up to the industry standard. They are only nerfed compared to your unrealistic expectations. Speaking of unrealistic expectations, do you even have the slightest idea how game development works? You say you’re not running a charity here, but ignore that men and women still work very hard to produce the games that appear on our platform of choice. These developers rarely get to choose what features they wish to add to a game, any major developments would need to be approved by the publisher first. So even IF the team wants to add XBL features, this would need to be green-lit by the publisher.

You say you’re not running a charity. That’s fine, but I much rather not punish hard working people for my own selfish desires, especially if I want the game. As long as it’s a good port that can stand with the IOS and Android versions, it deserves my sale IMO. Makes no point to deny myself of enjoying a good game.

Xbox integration makes games better: it increases replay value, it provides a unified experience, it increases the social aspect of gaming, and it offers a sense of exclusivity that other products don't have. I won't buy a game without it, and I know thousands of other people who feel the same way (these are also the same people who are more likely to buy games and more likely to encourage other people to buy games). It is in my opinion that the growth of the platform is dependent on the growth of Xbox games on the platform (not vice-versa). This feature is the only way to compensate for the fact that iOS and Android get more games and they get them faster. So we get fewer games and we get them later, but at least they had something extra, something unique to set them apart from iOS and Android; they had exclusive Xbox features. Without that, they're merely boring ports. The trend away from Xbox gaming on Windows Phone is detrimental to the growth of the platform and goes against the appeal and uniqueness of Microsoft's "One Microsoft" strategy.

I’m sorry but huh? When I asked whether or not XBL integration makes a game better, I was referring to it directly contributing to the gameplay itself, it does not. So while I think it’s great that you and thousands of people you “know” enjoy these extras, the facts show that these features are not a selling point. In fact all of the evidence contradicts what you claim in this paragraph. It may be your opinion that the growth is dependent on the growth of Xbox games, but it’s clearly a flawed and misguided opinion. Sales of the platform has continued to increase year over year while support for XBL has gone down. If what you say is true, sales of the platform would decrease, not increase. You also point to getting games later as an excuse for your demands of XBL, but what if we don’t get GTA:SA later? What if we get the game the same time as IOS and Android owners? Why make frivolous demands when we’re treated the same as IOS and Android users? What you also may not notice is that adding XBL features adds considerably to the development process, which may result in us getting the game late. I've seen an estimate that porting a XBL WP game to another platform, or vice versa, can add up to a month (or more) of development time. Really, read this quote to get a better understanding of what you're asking:

Microsoft originally claimed that porting games from iOS to Windows Phone would be a fast and easy process, with Fairway Solitaire (pictured above) supposedly taking just two weeks to translate to Windows Phone. That game actually took months to bring to release though, and multiple developers have since told us that porting is no minor feat of work.

The best comparison one of them made is that it an iOS game can be ported to Windows Phone in about half the time it takes to make a brand new iOS game – and that’s if the game doesn’t use Xbox Live. If it does, double the porting time at minimum.

In other words, it can take one or more months of effort to port a game. The bigger the game, the more work required. To get release date parity, Gameloft would have to delay the iOS and Android versions to match the Windows Phone version’s release, losing potential sales from those platforms in the process.

If a platform is large enough to represent a significant portion of a game’s potential sales – for instance, Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 have similar worldwide install bases – then holding on to one version until another version is ready makes sense. Windows Phone has a much smaller user base, and so games won’t typically be ported until the lead version has already been released.

That extra time to add XBL features requires extra investment (i.e. extra money) on a platform with by far the lowest install base, and least likely to recoup the cost of said extra investment. This isn't even counting the extra hoops that MS requires developers/publishers to go through just to add XBL functionality.

Regardless if you care to admit or see it, WP does NOT have the marketshare for the users to make any demands. Regardless if you care to see it, XBL integration doesn’t matter to the majority of owners. Again, if it did, the sales would be there. If the sales were there to begin with, we wouldn’t see companies like Gameloft dropping XBL support. You can keep thinking what you want to think, but that doesn’t make it anymore true. You should at least give companies such as Gameloft the credit of trying with XBL support. It’s not their fault the extra investment didn’t pay off, that would be MS’ fault and the fault of the userbase (us WP owners).

So to recap: the demand (regardless of the thousands of people you supposedly know) isn’t there, what happened with the Xbox One doesn’t support your theory, and really in the end you’re still doing more damage than good to WP by not supporting these devs. Thankfully more people don’t think like you, because if they did, we wouldn’t have any support. I would love it if every game had XBL integration, but at the end of the day, I’m happy to pay for an app/game as long as it’s a quality app/game. The integration of XBL alone should not be the basis of what we consider “quality” and worthy of our money. I'm just being realistic about the situation, and I would suggest others do the same before we lose what support we do have.

 

[coip]

I hope your #savexboxwp movement works, I really do. However you’ll have to excuse me for having major doubts. What happened with the Xbox One is more of an exception to the norm than anything else. The ONLY reason why MS changed anything with the Xbox One is because the negative reaction was so overwhelming, they really had no choice if they wanted that system to sell at all. I don’t see this same overwhelming demand for XBL integration for WP games. If this demand was there, the sales would show for it. However as we see with games such as Chickens Can’t Fly (which previously had XBL integration) and Asphalt 8, the sales of WP games does not seem to warrant the extra investment necessary to add XBL features.

I’m sorry but your view of this whole thing seems to be clouded by ignorance. You claim games without XBL features are “nerfed”. These games are generally the same as they are on IOS and Android, so they aren’t nerfed at all, they are actually up to the industry standard. They are only nerfed compared to your unrealistic expectations. Speaking of unrealistic expectations, do you even have the slightest idea how game development works? You say you’re not running a charity here, but ignore that men and women still work very hard to produce the games that appear on our platform of choice. These developers rarely get to choose what features they wish to add to a game, any major developments would need to be approved by the publisher first. So even IF the team wants to add XBL features, this would need to be green-lit by the publisher.

You say you’re not running a charity. That’s fine, but I much rather not punish hard working people for my own selfish desires, especially if I want the game. As long as it’s a good port that can stand with the IOS and Android versions, it deserves my sale IMO. Makes no point to deny myself of enjoying a good game.



I’m sorry but huh? When I asked whether or not XBL integration makes a game better, I was referring to it directly contributing to the gameplay itself, it does not. So while I think it’s great that you and thousands of people you “know” enjoy these extras, the facts show that these features are not a selling point. In fact all of the evidence contradicts what you claim in this paragraph. It may be your opinion that the growth is dependent on the growth of Xbox games, but it’s clearly a flawed and misguided opinion. Sales of the platform has continued to increase year over year while support for XBL has gone down. If what you say is true, sales of the platform would decrease, not increase. You also point to getting games later as an excuse for your demands of XBL, but what if we don’t get GTA:SA later? What if we get the game the same time as IOS and Android owners? Why make frivolous demands when we’re treated the same as IOS and Android users? What you also may not notice is that adding XBL features adds considerably to the development process, which may result in us getting the game late. I've seen an estimate that porting a XBL WP game to another platform, or vice versa, can add up to a month (or more) of development time. Really, read this quote to get a better understanding of what you're asking:



That extra time to add XBL features requires extra investment (i.e. extra money) on a platform with by far the lowest install base, and least likely to recoup the cost of said extra investment. This isn't even counting the extra hoops that MS requires developers/publishers to go through just to add XBL functionality.

Regardless if you care to admit or see it, WP does NOT have the marketshare for the users to make any demands. Regardless if you care to see it, XBL integration doesn’t matter to the majority of owners. Again, if it did, the sales would be there. If the sales were there to begin with, we wouldn’t see companies like Gameloft dropping XBL support. You can keep thinking what you want to think, but that doesn’t make it anymore true. You should at least give companies such as Gameloft the credit of trying with XBL support. It’s not their fault the extra investment didn’t pay off, that would be MS’ fault and the fault of the userbase (us WP owners).

So to recap: the demand (regardless of the thousands of people you supposedly know) isn’t there, what happened with the Xbox One doesn’t support your theory, and really in the end you’re still doing more damage than good to WP by not supporting these devs. Thankfully more people don’t think like you, because if they did, we wouldn’t have any support. I would love it if every game had XBL integration, but at the end of the day, I’m happy to pay for an app/game as long as it’s a quality app/game. The integration of XBL alone should not be the basis of what we consider “quality” and worthy of our money. I'm just being realistic about the situation, and I would suggest others do the same before we lose what support we do have.

No doubt the odds are stacked against the #SaveXboxWP movement for the reasons you point out: the WP user base is not as large or as passionate as the Xbox 360/One community was, and many WP users are not gamers (and thus don't care about Xbox games on WP). Thus, it is important, really important, that as many people as possible continue Tweeting the Microsoft Twitter accounts delineated in the #SaveXboxWP thread. Even if you personally don't care about Xbox achievements, help out your fellow gamers by regularly going to Twitter, searching for #SaveXboxWP and retweeting it.

That said, I stand by my declaration that Xbox on WP is important, both for the growth of Windows Phone and the growth of Xbox (there is a lot of cross-pollination going on there). Your arguments about sales numbers--i.e. that Windows Phone sales are increasing despite Xbox games on WP decreasing--is irrelevant. It is not possible to know how much more the sales would've increased had Xbox on WP been more prominent. Sure, WP sales are increasing (very slowly), but perhaps they would be increasing more rapidly if Microsoft promoted mobile Xbox more.

Likewise, none of us have exact sales numbers on Xbox on Windows Phone / Windows 8 games, but it surely seems, from circumstantial evidence, that Xbox-branded games sell better. Your examples of Doodle Jump and Chickens Can't Fly actuall work against your argument--neither of them sold as well once they came back to the Store stripped of Xbox branding. But those are bad examples because they're old games. A better comparison is to compare Asphalt 7 to Asphalt 8 on both Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8/RT as both games are priced the same, are in the same genre, and are made by the same company. We don't have exact sales numbers, but we know from anecdotal evidence from Windows Phone developers that the number of user ratings in a store is a fairly reliable indicator of how well the game sold, with most games having an average 'response rate' of 1-3%. Here are the ratings numbers for each game on each platform, in the U.S. market.
Windows Phone
Asphalt 7 (Xbox): 3,543 users
Asphalt 8 (no Xbox): 1092 users

Windows 8/RT
Asphalt 7 (Xbox): 3,195 users
Asphalt 8 (no Xbox): 495 users

As you can see Asphalt 7 holds a significant edge in sales over Asphalt 8 on both Windows Phone and Windows 8/RT. Now, keep in mind that Asphalt 8 is a much newer game so those gaps will shrink, but it is unlikely they will ever catch up completely (as Asphalt 7 is still selling well on both platforms). Furthermore, one could argue that Asphalt 8 should have much higher overall sales because it is a newer and better game and the userbases of both Windows Phone and Windows 8/RT are much larger now then they were when Asphalt 7 launched (and I believe Asphalt 8 would've outsold Asphalt 7 quite handidly had it been Xbox branded). The fact that it is trailing so much, and likely won't catch up, indicates that Xbox branding does help games sell better. That said, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is advantageous for publishers to use Xbox branding (in fact, it seems that the extra sales are not worth the extra headache of the extra steps in the certificaiton process, and thus, we see studios eschewing it--this is a problem that Microsoft needs to fix).

For further evidence, take a look at the top selling games in the Windows Phone marketplace. Microsoft updates these every week and they are automated (i.e. Microsoft isn't manually selecting the games that are presented as best selling; algorithms are): 40 of the top 50 best selling games this week (in the U.S. market) on Windows Phone 8 are Xbox games. Numbers are comparable on Windows 8/RT as well.

Now, this is not to say that you are wrong when you say the Xbox certification process is needlessly complex and time consuming. It is terribly flawed and it needs to be fixed. I don't blame a lot of developers (especially indie developers) for eschewing it. The extra time it takes to get a game Xbox certified is absurd. I blame Microsoft for this, and that's what the #SaveXboxWP campaign is all about. It is important to pressure developers as well (particularly big studios like Gameloft, EA, Ubisoft, and Rockstar Games as they can all handle it), and I understand your concern about punishing developers for things outside of their control, but on the flip side, if we reward them now all hope will be lost, and I think this will be detrimental to both Windows Phone and Xbox growth (for example, see that Sony is launching Playstation services on Sony Android phones--Microsoft is really dropping the ball here). On top of that, I personally enjoy Xbox games a lot more so I'm self-interested in the outcome. I've already stated above all the ways that Xbox branding makes the overall gaming experience better, so I'll save you the lecture again.

There is evidence that Microsoft is changing their strict ways in their new ID@Xbox campaign, which enables indie developers to self-publish games on Xbox One. This is a great program and it needs to be brought to Xbox games on Windows Phone and Windows 8/RT immediately. That's why I just updated the #SaveXboxWP thread with information on new Twitter accounts relevant to the ID@Xbox program, and I've begun tweeting them to expand the program to Windows Phone as well.

 

[rakesh1995]

Too long to read


Sent from my Uuusumm Lumia 520 using Tapatalk

 

[rakesh1995]

I am going to buy Lumia 1520, will enjoy cj following a dam train

Sent from my Uuusumm Lumia 520 using Tapatalk

 

[MrunanI_I]

Assasins creed : Pirates coming soon to windows phone
http://mblog.gsmarena.com/asus-december-11-event-will-make-the-padfone-mini-official/

 

[rakesh1995]

Don't want to break the game but my cousins pc with 512 Mb ram pc runs san andres. I want the answer why it wont run on 512mb mobile. SA was released like 10 year ago. Our mobiles have better hardware than those pc's

Sent from my Uuusumm Lumia 520 using Tapatalk

 

[Keith Wallace]

Hardware restrictions from Microsoft.

 

[rakesh1995]

Hardware restrictions from Microsoft.

MFk M$ where did their "hardware restrictions" in windows on pc?



Sent from my Uuusumm Lumia 520 using Tapatalk

 

[Keith Wallace]

MFk M$ where did their "hardware restrictions" in windows on pc?

Windows is fairly open-source when it comes to allowing applications to run on the OS, outside of the Windows Store. Windows 8 functions on a plethora of devices, some 5+ years old. They can't really set restrictions on applications for that OS because you're talking about forcing people into buying new PC hardware, which can be several hundred dollars to upgrade. Even then, you see those soft restrictions on PC game boxes. Ghosts wouldn't even launch on a PC with fewer than 6 GB of RAM (even though it used 2, at most).

 

[xandros9]

MFk M$ where did their "hardware restrictions" in windows on pc?

dude, chill

 

[rakesh1995]

Windows is fairly open-source when it comes to allowing applications to run on the OS, outside of the Windows Store. Windows 8 functions on a plethora of devices, some 5+ years old. They can't really set restrictions on applications for that OS because you're talking about forcing people into buying new PC hardware, which can be several hundred dollars to upgrade. Even then, you see those soft restrictions on PC game boxes. Ghosts wouldn't even launch on a PC with fewer than 6 GB of RAM (even though it used 2, at most).

ghost even runs on my 1gb ram pc. Its fake specs. I mean look at xbox and ps3 they have 512mb ram but runs the games at HD graphics.

Lazy developer doesn't ever optimise games for pc.

I mean ghost is about 32gb of install. I have a version which is just 16gb has all feature of 32gb one. They just add more botware and unwanted **** to make people spend more money





Sent from my Uuusumm Lumia 520 using Tapatalk

 

[Keith Wallace]

ghost even runs on my 1gb ram pc. Its fake specs. I mean look at xbox and ps3 they have 512mb ram but runs the games at HD graphics.

Lazy developer doesn't ever optimise games for pc.

I mean ghost is about 32gb of install. I have a version which is just 16gb has all feature of 32gb one. They just add more botware and unwanted **** to make people spend more money

Does anything in there actually make sense? Yeah, it CAN run on a PC with 1 GB of RAM, but not well. Heck, I'm not sure I even believe it can at all, really. It's not a matter of just being too lazy to optimize for PC. Consoles are more developer-friendly, because they don't have to work through a layer of drivers (something AMD's Mantle is hoping to improve upon), let alone a big OS like Windows. Also, what sense does bloating a game to make money make at all? The ONLY thing a larger game does is take up more HDD space, and Activision isn't in the HDD sector, so they wouldn't see money if people had to buy bigger HDDs to hold games.

This is easily the most-flawed logic I've ever heard...

 

[rakesh1995]

Does anything in there actually make sense? Yeah, it CAN run on a PC with 1 GB of RAM, but not well. Heck, I'm not sure I even believe it can at all, really. It's not a matter of just being too lazy to optimize for PC. Consoles are more developer-friendly, because they don't have to work through a layer of drivers (something AMD's Mantle is hoping to improve upon), let alone a big OS like Windows. Also, what sense does bloating a game to make money make at all? The ONLY thing a larger game does is take up more HDD space, and Activision isn't in the HDD sector, so they wouldn't see money if people had to buy bigger HDDs to hold games.

This is easily the most-flawed logic I've ever heard...

1-HDD companies can pay them to make bigger games.
2-Minimum required spec mention med 6gb ram to run the game but the games run fine even on 1gb. Even the games refused to start on a pc without 6gb ram. Was it not a lie?



Sent from my Uuusumm Lumia 520 using Tapatalk

 

[geoghotas]

When my dear...

 

[Nick_1020]

I cannot wait!! Excellent news.

Things are constantly improving on WP. Very happy.

 

[Kage Maru]

No doubt the odds are stacked against the #SaveXboxWP movement for the reasons you point out: the WP user base is not as large or as passionate as the Xbox 360/One community was, and many WP users are not gamers (and thus don't care about Xbox games on WP). Thus, it is important, really important, that as many people as possible continue Tweeting the Microsoft Twitter accounts delineated in the #SaveXboxWP thread. Even if you personally don't care about Xbox achievements, help out your fellow gamers by regularly going to Twitter, searching for #SaveXboxWP and retweeting it.

That said, I stand by my declaration that Xbox on WP is important, both for the growth of Windows Phone and the growth of Xbox (there is a lot of cross-pollination going on there). Your arguments about sales numbers--i.e. that Windows Phone sales are increasing despite Xbox games on WP decreasing--is irrelevant. It is not possible to know how much more the sales would've increased had Xbox on WP been more prominent. Sure, WP sales are increasing (very slowly), but perhaps they would be increasing more rapidly if Microsoft promoted mobile Xbox more.

Sure, I’ll support the whole SaveXboxWP movement, it wouldn’t hurt to at least try.

That said, the point of increased WP sales but decreased XBL support is not irrelevant. It’s one of the few metrics we can actually follow. Your “what if” scenario of a possible stronger increase in sales with better XBL support is what’s irrelevant here. Statistics don’t really rely on what ifs and neither should we to support an assumption or point.

Likewise, none of us have exact sales numbers on Xbox on Windows Phone / Windows 8 games, but it surely seems, from circumstantial evidence, that Xbox-branded games sell better. Your examples of Doodle Jump and Chickens Can't Fly actuall work against your argument--neither of them sold as well once they came back to the Store stripped of Xbox branding. But those are bad examples because they're old games. A better comparison is to compare Asphalt 7 to Asphalt 8 on both Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8/RT as both games are priced the same, are in the same genre, and are made by the same company. We don't have exact sales numbers, but we know from anecdotal evidence from Windows Phone developers that the number of user ratings in a store is a fairly reliable indicator of how well the game sold, with most games having an average 'response rate' of 1-3%. Here are the ratings numbers for each game on each platform, in the U.S. market.
Windows Phone
Asphalt 7 (Xbox): 3,543 users
Asphalt 8 (no Xbox): 1092 users

Windows 8/RT
Asphalt 7 (Xbox): 3,195 users
Asphalt 8 (no Xbox): 495 users

As you can see Asphalt 7 holds a significant edge in sales over Asphalt 8 on both Windows Phone and Windows 8/RT. Now, keep in mind that Asphalt 8 is a much newer game so those gaps will shrink, but it is unlikely they will ever catch up completely (as Asphalt 7 is still selling well on both platforms). Furthermore, one could argue that Asphalt 8 should have much higher overall sales because it is a newer and better game and the userbases of both Windows Phone and Windows 8/RT are much larger now then they were when Asphalt 7 launched (and I believe Asphalt 8 would've outsold Asphalt 7 quite handidly had it been Xbox branded). The fact that it is trailing so much, and likely won't catch up, indicates that Xbox branding does help games sell better. That said, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is advantageous for publishers to use Xbox branding (in fact, it seems that the extra sales are not worth the extra headache of the extra steps in the certificaiton process, and thus, we see studios eschewing it--this is a problem that Microsoft needs to fix).

I don’t believe for one second that the number of ratings for an app/game is a reliable way to determine sales, at all. If that were the case, we wouldn’t see games with less ratings on top of games with far larger rating counts.

Also as you pointed out, Asphalt 7 has been around longer, so comparing sales now is pointless. The ONLY way to make such a comparison valid is if you measure X amount of months of sales for each game directly. These stats you show here are pointless and prove nothing. Just like your assumption that Asphalt 8 is “trailing” its predecessor. You have no way of knowing this and really shouldn’t even be making such comments without any support to back it up. The only thing we know for sure is that XBL support is being dropped by one of its biggest backers. Everything else in this part of your post is nothing more than assumptions and guesswork.

For further evidence, take a look at the top selling games in the Windows Phone marketplace. Microsoft updates these every week and they are automated (i.e. Microsoft isn't manually selecting the games that are presented as bestselling; algorithms are): 40 of the top 50 best selling games this week (in the U.S. market) on Windows Phone 8 are Xbox games. Numbers are comparable on Windows 8/RT as well.

I would argue that the bestselling games are more dependent on the IP than any XBL integration. Looking at the best paid games, other than Dark Lands (which has no XBL integration) most of the other titles are well-known IPs. The vast majority of the top paid games using XBL is an IP that is widely known, and I would bet these games are selling because Assassins Creed (which was on sale recently), Angry Birds, Plants vs Zombies, etc. are all very well known names that would sell well regardless. It’s the same reason why GTA:SA is likely to sell well (for a WP game) because these types of games sell on the name alone. So if you actually think games like Angry birds wouldn’t sell well without XBL integration, I don’t know what else to say. ;p

Now, this is not to say that you are wrong when you say the Xbox certification process is needlessly complex and time consuming. It is terribly flawed and it needs to be fixed. I don't blame a lot of developers (especially indie developers) for eschewing it. The extra time it takes to get a game Xbox certified is absurd. I blame Microsoft for this, and that's what the #SaveXboxWP campaign is all about. It is important to pressure developers as well (particularly big studios like Gameloft, EA, Ubisoft, and Rockstar Games as they can all handle it), and I understand your concern about punishing developers for things outside of their control, but on the flip side, if we reward them now all hope will be lost, and I think this will be detrimental to both Windows Phone and Xbox growth (for example, see that Sony is launching Playstation services on Sony Android phones--Microsoft is really dropping the ball here). On top of that, I personally enjoy Xbox games a lot more so I'm self-interested in the outcome. I've already stated above all the ways that Xbox branding makes the overall gaming experience better, so I'll save you the lecture again.

You don’t blame the developers but you will punish them. IMO there’s no reason why people can’t support the #SaveXboxWP efforts while still supporting the developers at the same time. Like I said before, one of the likely outcomes to people not buying these games, is future support dropped entirely. Trust me, if I had it my way, I too would prefer to have XBL support for all games, even though I care little about it. However in the end, I much rather have some support than no support.

There is evidence that Microsoft is changing their strict ways in their new ID@Xbox campaign, which enables indie developers to self-publish games on Xbox One. This is a great program and it needs to be brought to Xbox games on Windows Phone and Windows 8/RT immediately. That's why I just updated the #SaveXboxWP thread with information on new Twitter accounts relevant to the ID@Xbox program, and I've begun tweeting them to expand the program to Windows Phone as well.

You can’t keep comparing the actions MS is doing with the Xbox One with what they will do with WP. As you mentioned in your post, the Xbox community (and “core” gamers in general) are a far more vocal bunch than the more casual smartphone owners of today. Microsoft is facing fierce competition from Sony in the console market, a market where its users have some high and loud demands. While Microsoft is also facing stiff competition from Apple and Google in the smartphone market, this competition is more directed towards OS features for the phone itself, missing apps, and some specific games (such as Candy Crush). I could be wrong, but I don’t see the same type of competition for XBL features, or else MS may be more willing to look into changing their stance on WPXBL policies.

I want you to succeed, but I want WP to succeed more and I only hope that games like GTA sell well on WP, even without XBL features so we can see future support from companies like Rockstar.

 

[coip]

Sure, I’ll support the whole SaveXboxWP movement, it wouldn’t hurt to at least try.

Thanks.

That said, the point of increased WP sales but decreased XBL support is not irrelevant. It’s one of the few metrics we can actually follow. Your “what if” scenario of a possible stronger increase in sales with better XBL support is what’s irrelevant here. Statistics don’t really rely on what ifs and neither should we to support an assumption or point.

Sorry, but my point still stands. This is a common problem in business: not knowing the effects of X on the potential sales of Y. Current Windows Phone sales don't tell us much (other than that they aren't fast enough), and they certainly don't tell us anything about Xbox Live integration into Windows Phones affecting sales. All we can go by is qualitative evidence and I can tell you that I know of tens of thousands of gamers on niche, specialty sites that bought Windows Phones solely because t hey had Xbox integration. Likewise, I know of no one who purposefully did not buy a Windows Phone because it had Xbox integration (there are certainly people who don't like Xbox--mainly PlayStation fanboys--but these people wouldn't buy a Microsoft product like Windows Phone regardless.

I don’t believe for one second that the number of ratings for an app/game is a reliable way to determine sales, at all. If that were the case, we wouldn’t see games with less ratings on top of games with far larger rating counts.

On other threads on WPcentral we have heard from app developers who has said that the number of ratings for an app or game is fairly stable and is the best indicator non-developers can use to gauge app sales. It's not ideal, but it's the only metric we have. The reason you see games with fewer ratings atop gamers with higher ratings in the 'best selling' apps and games section of the Windows Phone store is because that 'best selling' metric is for last week's sales. Things get shaken up a bit. For instance, if you look at the 'top paid' games right now, you'll see that 3 of the first 5 are Disney titles (Where's My Perry? for $2.99; Wreck-it-Ralph for $1.99; Where's my Mickey? for $1.99). This is very misleading because the reason they 'sold' so well last week is because they were offered for free. Same goes for Dark Lands at $.99--it was offered free. This is a trick developers do to get their apps and games highlighted in the Spotlight section of the Windows Phone store: offer it for free for a limited time so that a ton of people download it, then increase the price and for the next week people think it's a hot selling title.

Also as you pointed out, Asphalt 7 has been around longer, so comparing sales now is pointless. The ONLY way to make such a comparison valid is if you measure X amount of months of sales for each game directly. These stats you show here are pointless and prove nothing. Just like your assumption that Asphalt 8 is “trailing” its predecessor. You have no way of knowing this and really shouldn’t even be making such comments without any support to back it up. The only thing we know for sure is that XBL support is being dropped by one of its biggest backers.

The Asphalt comparison is also not ideal, but it is also the best that we've got. I said in my previous post that the comparison is premature. It'll be more valid in 6 months, but my argument is that Xbox-branded games sell better and I believe that to be true because no one on Windows Phone deliberately chooses not to buy a game because it has Xbox on it, but many people deliberately choose not to buy a game that does not have Xbox on it. Comparing Asphalt 7 and 8 on WP and Windows 8, it's unlikely that Asphalt 8 will ever catch up to Asphalt 7 (we'll have to check back in a year) even though it should outsell Asphalt 7 since the user bases of WP and Windows 8 are larger now than when Asphalt 7 launched, and people tend to buy newer versions of games (especially since Microsoft is promoting Asphalt 8 more than they ever did 7, putting it in commercials and whatnot.

I'm not saying games without XBL don't sell; I'm saying they don't sell as well as they otherwise would have, and that's true.

You can’t keep comparing the actions MS is doing with the Xbox One with what they will do with WP. As you mentioned in your post, the Xbox community (and “core” gamers in general) are a far more vocal bunch than the more casual smartphone owners of today. Microsoft is facing fierce competition from Sony in the console market, a market where its users have some high and loud demands. While Microsoft is also facing stiff competition from Apple and Google in the smartphone market, this competition is more directed towards OS features for the phone itself, missing apps, and some specific games (such as Candy Crush). I could be wrong, but I don’t see the same type of competition for XBL features, or else MS may be more willing to look into changing their stance on WPXBL policies.

Actually, Sony is invading the phone market now too by making PlayStation-enabled phones similar to what Microsoft was doing with Xbox on WP. So clearly they see a benefit. Meanwhile Apple and Google are both integrating a similar unified achievements-type experience on their platforms. Both should be pressuring Microsoft to fix XBL on Windows Phone, but instead we have no idea what they're doing and it's very frustrating.

 

[Kage Maru]

Yeah, I'm sorry but at this point you seem to be just moving the goal post, keeping to the same flawed logic, or making things up as you go along. I wish you the best on your efforts, but it's clear that you are too invested into XBLWP to look at the situation objectively and realistically.

On topic, GTA:SA next week! Only 1GB devices as we assumed. Really curious to see how it runs on my 928.

 

[Dave Blake]

Can we please make an attempt to get back on topic here.

The latest blog post says we can expect the game to launch next week.

GTA: San Andreas comes to Windows Phone next week | Windows Phone Central

 

[lexus232]

I srsly hope it works on 1gb RAM. It works on ipad mini with 512mb RAM!