Allen wants to make a shooter. An old-school tactical shooter (first person or third) like he used to develop at Red Storm. A game like the old Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon. (Here's his Kickstarter entry for it: Crowdsourced Hardcore Tactical Shooter.)

This is what it would feel like to play his game, as he described it to me in San Francisco last week:

"The biggest thing is tension. You've been given a scenario. It's non-linear. You've made decisions on where to go, where to place your guys, getting ready to go in. You don't know what's in there. A real [hostage rescue] team doesn't always know where everything is. There's only a few enemies, but you don't know where they are. If they get the drop on you, they're going to kill you. There is an element of reflex to it, but a lot of it is just proper planning and observation and figuring out your situation. But even if you do everything right, it doesn't mean you are going to succeed. "

And what happened when he pitched his tactical shooter to publishers? Mind you, he was one of the top designers on Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and Halo Reach.

The pitch hasn't gone so well. "It's like pitching a flight sim," Allen says. And the publishers rattle off the excuses: "'It's a super-vocal audience.' 'They don't buy a lot of games.' 'They buy one game a year.' 'Console gamers are too impatient; they won't play this kind of game.' Console gamers literally are too dumb to play this kind of game.'

Wait… did you catch that one?

""Console gamers literally are too dumb to play this kind of game.'"

Really?
Really, Allen said. "I won't say which publisher, but, yes, literally, 'console gamers are not as smart as PC gamers.' The logic is that, well PC gamers can install drivers and video cards. Console gamers are just 15-year-olds who sit in front of their couch and press a button."

A few years back we received a scoop from an industry vet about the unpublished achievement policy of retail games. That scoop proved prophetic and the rules he outlined have stayed true thus far, though it was recently revealed that the new cap would be raised to 2000, a mark we'll first see with Gears of War 3's Forces of Nature DLC later this month. Our friend (who still wishes to remain anonymous) is back with a new scoop on an upcoming change to the Xbox Live Arcade achievement policy! Microsoft is upping the ante quite a bit. First, let's discuss the evolution of these rules to date.

OLD RULES 
Base: 200 Gamerscore / Max of 20 Achievements
DLC: Up to 50 Gamerscore + 5 Achievements per Quarter (3 Max)
Total: Up to 350 Gamerscore / 35 Achievements

The very first set of achievement rules for XBLA stood the longest: 200 Gamerscore and 12 Achievements. That was the only option for years. As Downloadable Content became more and more prevalent, we had an increase of 50 Gamerscore and up to 5 new achievements available. Then they made allowances for up to three DLC additions, garnering a new cap of 350 Gamerscore. Later, alongside the release of the Windows Phone platform, the base game could have up to 20 achievements instead of only 12, while the DLC rules remained the same. Starting soon, the policy is set to change once again.

NEW RULES
Base: 400 Gamerscore / Max of 30 Achievements
DLC: Up to 100 Gamerscore + 8 Achievements per Quarter (4 Max)
Total: Up to 800 Gamerscore / 62 Achievements

The new rules as seen above are a gigantic step up. Doubling the base requirement of the Gamerscore itself, greatly increasing the number of available achievements and allowing for more DLC additions gives companies much more room to work with. These new rules give more opportunities for better progression of achievements through story and multiplayer, as well as allowing for more unique and fun achievements that we often see in retail games, but can be rare for an arcade. It also can lengthen the development cycle for a single game, allowing a company to offer up to a full year of DLC additions that can increase the game's Gamerscore.

I personally think the main factor that went into this decision for Microsoft may have been the growing number of "achievement whores" and the mentality that can sometimes pervade our species. There is a widespread trend of both "no achievements, no buy" in DLC and the avoidance of games all together if they do not offer a great enough (and easy/short enough) reward for your overall Gamerscore (aka e-peen). While the price of arcade games has steadily risen in the past few years, I believe this is only to coincide with the increased size and quality of the releases.

I won't bother to get into the debate of paying for game content versus paying for Gamerscore. It's painfully obvious which is true. But that's also the state of mind many gamers adhere to (especially in our community), and I can commiserate when there are so many quality games to play. Gamerscore is often one more (or less) reason to invest time and money into a game, especially in the case of DLC for something that you've already completed. Perhaps Microsoft has seen this debate and wanted to do something to please that other half? They certainly changed the landscape of gaming with this system, so it only makes sense that they continue to shape it according to the growth of their faithful.

According to our source, companies that release a game between April 1st and May 31st have an option of which policy they would like to use. The first two games to fall in this window (Diabolical Pitch and The Splatters) are still on the old system, so we'll see who takes advantage first! As of June 1st it will be required for all releases.

So what do you think? Does offering more Gamerscore change your mind about the increasing price of an arcade game? Do you even bother with arcade games due to their low Gamerscore values? If not, will you reconsider with this new policy?