This is inaccurate. Microsoft just doesn't want to publish the game, which is completely different. They just need to find a publisher.

Why would there be a need for a publisher? Where is the problem for Microsoft to just host the game on their servers, let people buy it off XBLA, keep a certain percentage of the money and forward the rest to the developers?

Publishing console games isn't as simple as hosting a file on a server. There is significant testing and certification cost, assignment of liability, and much more. Are those costs worth it to Microsoft? Will they have to advertise the game themselves? Who handles the support calls (yes, there are support calls for games)?

It just seems like Microsoft said "Our personal pipes are full, but maybe one of our licensed partners has some bandwidth for this game." Extrapolating on the headline, it sounds like Microsoft's pipes are full of Xbox exclusive titles. Preferring exclusives seems like a reasonable general guideline when there are simply too many games worth investing in. This is especially true for simultaneous development of cross-platform games. Microsoft certainly wouldn't want to spend time and money waiting on or helping a studio finish up the Playstation 3 port of their game (PS3 development always takes longer).

Saying it was 'rejected from XBLA' is pretty misleading. Microsoft is just refusing to be their publisher.

Wow, if this is true (sounds sort of extreme, but I don't really know much about this area) -- that's really scary. It bodes very poorly for the WinPhone7 platform, too.

I'd like to see a quote from Microsoft... aren't there other non-exclusive XBLA games like Braid and Peggle?

Braid was Microsoft exclusive for over six months. Peggle is a pretty good counter-example, although it did add local multiplayer and good Live integration.

Microsoft is extremely aggressive with exclusivity agreements with XBLA these days.

Peggle is published by PopCap. The other multi-platform example mentioned here, Battlefield 1943, is published by EA. Braid was an indie title that went straight through Microsoft.

I think it's the direct route that Microsoft are trying to cut down on. They'd prefer to deal with publishers, or at least to use publishers as a buffer between them and the developers.

I'm particularly annoyed by that being a ps3 owner. You'd think they would spend their resources making xbox better, not screwing over people with PS3s.

In any case this just makes me avoid Microsoft products more.

Someone was predicting a more Balkanized and much less open Internet awhile back. In fact, IIRC, they were predicting this through increased reliance on proprietary walled gardens. We see it coming true right here. Being in one corporate camp or another trumps beauty and excellence.

Who said I'm in a corporate camp? So am I supposed to go out and by both a 360 and a PS3 to remain neutral? That's ridiculous.

I bought a PS3 because I needed a blu-ray player for my 12 foot projection screen, and I also happen to play some games.

Now I find out microsoft is trying to f me up the ass by paying to withhold shit from me. I'm just saying why don't Microsoft go take that money and integrate a blu-ray player instead. Maybe then I would consider a 360.

I'd only avoid microsoft products which employ similar tactics. Tactics which are anti-competitive.

I'm talking about the developer perspective. "Being in a camp," means developing for platform X or Y because platform X won't license you because you're on Y. This is a bad situation and I'm against it.

Sony has plenty of exclusive titles as well. God of War will never be ported to other consoles.

That's developed by a sony owned company right? So sony is not paying to keep it out of Xbox owner's hands. They're just not doing extra work to help out microsoft owners. There's a difference.

But that doesn't matter, I didn't say Sony is free from such tactics. I said I own a PS3, not that I'm a PS3 fanboy...

It sounds like MS don't want the overhead of supporting publisher-free titles unless they're exclusives or safe bets. Machinarium is a niche title from a small company. I know a lot of small indie companies are finding it hard to cope with the certification process. It'll probably be OK if they find a publisher to manage all the support and testing.

I'm sure there are a few, off the top of my head I know Battlefield 1943 was released on XBLA and PSN at around the same time. However, being the fastest selling download-only game ever, neither Microsoft or Sony were going to miss out on a piece of that action. Machinarium, on the other hand, isn't going to pull those kinds of sales. Still I guess, like the article says, with the weight of a big publisher behind them they might be able to get it done.

Just goes to show that a closed platform is a crappy platform.

So is an open platform with no market share.