Unfortunately, similar to Nintendo, both MS and Sony limit access to certified/approved developers … who rarely allow true UGC; and then, from what I’ve found, only during development of their game title (i.e. they’re desperate for development help). Instead, they become sub-gatekeepers by controlling additional content (“add-on packs”) and using their access status to help them sell it through the service.

For some developers, this makes sense because it can help keep employed content creators working steadily (i.e. they still have art content to create while programmers code the next game engine). However, I’ve read that some developers just farm out the work, mark it up with a middleman “handling fee”, and then sell it through an MS or Sony service.

>> csven last wrote: Next Generation Product Development Tools, Part 15

Yes, the opportunity has been there and I’ve blogged extensively on that very issue, but there are lots of problems with user-generated content. That’s why I follow Second Life so closely. Nothing comes close to it as far as providing a glimpse of the future potential for these technologies; both good and bad.

I think it does look like plain old market research eh?

But, I think Nintendo, is giving up a lot of opportunity, to create games where the users can make their own stuff. As they now have a huge access to the casual gamer market, the potential is too good to waste.

Unfortunately I think they have to rethink their creator/publisher game creation model. Right now it looks like there is no continuity.