[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!

[KisielPL]

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

And it works on iPhone 4S with 512MB RAM. So maybe WP8 devices with 512MB can run it too.

[Kage Maru]

And it works on iPhone 4S with 512MB RAM. So maybe WP8 devices with 512MB can run it too.

It's already confirmed to require 1GB for WP. Is there different detail levels for the IOS version determined by your phone? For example, low detail when played on a 4S but high detail when played on a 5S? I honestly have no idea how it is on IOS devices.

Edit:

I looked into it and there are different detail settings depending on which IOS device you own, so maybe Rockstar hasn't had a chance to optimize the game enough for 512MB devices?

[Divjot Singh]

When is it coming ? They said next week a week ago...

[Nogitsune Micah]

There is some issues with the android version. Perhaps that may be the reason for the WP version

[smurfercom]

It will be interesting to play on WP no doubt.