I really like 1 vs. 100, I understand it is meant to be a prime time attraction, but I wish I could fire it on demand, but I know logistically that is going to work. In regards to the increased revenues, it is great news, one one hand, because it shows you how high quality titles can sell. But the difference was that three mentioned got a lot of press and if you think about it, they could have been successful if they were stand alone. Which makes this all the more complicated. This means that they aren't little, just Arcade titles. These are multi-million dollar, near AAA productions. Is this what MS had intended? Or was this supposed to be one of the places the smaller, not the smallest developer (ie community) could thrive?

I'm fine with a continuation of current trends. Most arcades games I have played are not worth the cost--exceptions Geometry Wars, Castle Crashers, Braid, etc. Older games, however, are usually a safe purchase, and many gamers don't have the old hardware anymore.

More than half of those titles were $15 which is ultimately good news for developers. The market has demonstrated that it would pay a "premium" price for quality titles.

steve roger said: "Is this what MS had intended? Or was this supposed to be one of the places the smaller, not the smallest developer (ie community) could thrive?"

That's a good question. With the introduction of the Community/Indie Games service their intentions may have changed. There are a lot of lessons learned over the past 4 years and as a result they could be changing their strategy.