Slashdot Mirror
Xbox Live Silver Accounts Becoming Second Class
Ben Kuchera, at Ars Technica's Opposable Thumbs blog, points out a troubling development on Xbox Live. While paying members of the service (those on the 'Gold' level) have always had more options than those on the free 'Silver' level, Microsoft is now making that gap even wider. From the article: "While the demos and videos are cool, almost everyone I've talked to about the system sees having an Xbox Live Gold Account as an almost required piece of the 360 puzzle. Those with Silver accounts may start to feel the pinch though, as content is starting to be released that can only be viewed with a Gold account. The first thing? The new Gears of War Trailer." Tycho has some choice words on this development as well. "This is really quite a trailer. The term 'trailer' may even be insufficient. But, um... When you make people pony up for instant access to ads? They might get the impression that you are taking advantage of them. I'm just throwing it out."
When you make people pony up for instant access to ads?
When people want to watch them as badly as they seem to want to. Normally advertisements are a parasitic thing. Apparently this is more than just your run-of-the-mill ad (as Tycho concedes himself)
B-but I thought that silver DOES mean first, including first class? Doesn't it?!
I personally think it'd be better to let silver have access, but I guess it's just Microsoft doing business.
What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?
It's really a similar thing to what's going on with "micro" payments for content. You can make the customer pay more if you make him or her believe that the extra money is actually buying something.
As an example, I used to work in a university IT department. The administration came up with this plan that basically pitted the various departments on campus against each other for funds, and we had one particular upper management guy in our IT department who went for that all the way. Everything, in his mind, suddenly got this ability to have value added. Give customers a baseline for free, and then nickel and dime them to death with extra levels of service. A 10 Mb Ethernet port? Free. 100 Mb? That'll cost you.
Invariably, it seems like what you end up with are companies who aren't offering increased levels of service for a small price, but are instead scaling back the basic level so that they can rake in more dough on micro payments without making better or more product. Monthly payments can degenerate to the same kind of deal when there are tiered levels of service, one of them being free. The service provider only has incentive to offer the most basic of features and service for free: just enough to get the customer to see how great the service could be if they paid a little money for it.
I'm not against micro payments or monthly fees on principle. I played WoW for a while, and never begrudged them their $15/mo. I know that it's the way the industry is going. And it's early, yet, so they don't know how to implement it, and we don't entirely know what to expect. But I suspect that when companies like EA push this far enough, and Tiger actually has to stop at the pro shop and buy a box of golf balls using xbox live points before playing, people are going to start pushing back. Hopefully, things will balance out sooner rather than later.
Bandwidth isn't free, even for Microsoft.
The gap is widening because trailers aren't available without a gold account? Overblown don't you think? When they start to limit the games you can play, then I think we can have this conversation.
It's only really an advertisement if it's designed to expose you to a product you've never been exposed to before and get you interested in it; otherwise it's a promotional material, designed to make those who are already interested in it more interested. This may be quiddling with semantics, but I think it's important when "advertisement" is a loaded word that echoes concepts such as inconvenience and marketing.
Furthermore, if people are willing to pay to see something, it's not exactly an advertisement anymore, is it? It's a product. I don't view this as making Silver customers second-class citizens; I view it as creating more incentives to upgrade to Gold.
Long, long ago Microsoft after missing the boat on the Internet and scrambling to try to catch up to the rest of the industry, they envisioned a future where Microsoft acted as a toll-keeper to all Internet traffic. It was clear to Microsoft that they were reaching saturation in their two main monopoly markets, OS and office software, and that one of the few ways that could significantly grow a company already as large as Microsoft was the insanely large amount of revenue that would flow into the company with the regularity of a public utility company.
As we all know those plans didn't work out, but Microsoft has been trying smaller scale versions of their grand Microsoft Network ever since. The online service for the Xbox is probably the final attempt to make some semblance of those original dreams a reality. Nintendo and Sony offering free online gaming for their consoles have really put Microsoft in a desperate position with their forcing players to pay for just being able to play games online.
With the first Xbox Microsoft made some obviously bogus but at least hard number claims for how many actual people were paying each month for the service. With the new Xbox Microsoft is clearly avoiding any mention of how many people are actually paying for the service each month. It is hard to imagine that if the number of people paying for the service went up from the first console that Microsoft would be so reluctant to state hard subscriber numbers and not these useless numbers for free and paid for accounts.
With the comprehensive and free online service Sony has with the PS3 the Xbox 360 community is demanding anywhere from refunds for the money they have spent so far to Microsoft following Sony's lead and doing away with the monthly fees that add up to 200-250 dollars over the life of the console.
Microsoft needs to do something drastic to fix the bind they are in. The online fees the get from 360 owners is one of the main ways they are hoping to offset the losses on the hardware.
Just to clarify for those who don't know (the summary is a little misleading I think) the GoW trailer in question will be available to Silver subscribers, it just isn't yet. Major Nelson was quoted as saying that this (delayed access to trailers etc for Silver members) will be getting more common place. I haven't yet seen any mention (other than speculation) of plans to actually prevent Silver members getting specific content, and to be honest that would be a big turn around as MS have consistently said that Silver members will get full access to the marketplace. Rather, I think they've realised that trailers and demos are very valuable commodities and having access to them right away will appeal to a certain segment of the userbase, and might encourage them to sign up for Gold.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
EA started this with a pay per view of the developers playing Madden. Microsoft is following the idea.
To my knowledge they haven't made anyone buy gold unless they want to play online. It's true they now require gold for one trailer, but the way fanboys are salivating after it. I have a gold account, but I use it once in a while with my buddy, it's not required, but it'll be nice with GOW. I just hope more games do Co-op with it.
Microsoft needs to be careful and keep gold as a feature, not a necessity. Silver accounts are really good, but Gold should be multiplayer only if possible.
"When you make people pony up for instant access to ads?"
No...
Must resist...
The urge... the URGE!!!
Can't.. hold... back... any... longer...
OMG P0n13Z!1!!
(Commentary: It is a sad indication of the quality of my life that I find this as amusing as I do.)
long live the free market.
I am fully confident that plenty of people will laugh at this new tactic, ignore the GOW trailer, and go on with their lives. Who cares if ALL their trailers have to be paid for? I can use one of my free rental coupons at Blockbuster and play the game when it comes out, and see if it sucks; if not, I'll buy it. Who needs the trailer?
I avoid games that REQUIRE a Gold account to play, and if I need something via Xbox Live, I get live points cards for that. Total anonymity, and no need to pay monthly charges for a Gold account. I'm not into online play so I'm utterly untouchable on that front even if they make online play a pay-per issue. I use my PC to play online. Or I'll get the PS3 for next-gen online action.
I don't know if avoiding it will make it go away, but it makes me immune to it, and I can get around it.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
.. patches being released first on Gold, and only a week later on Silver. Granted, I'd prefer games didn't need patches at all, but it seems MS are actually letting games be patched via Live.
GoW is not really the first content.
I am 100% positive that there were content that was only available for gold members download back during E3, last spring.
This news is just really late... By about 6 months.
Of course all content that was available last E3 has been removed from the marketplace soon after the show's end. I still have some of it's content on my 360's harddrive though.
But I suspect that when companies like EA push this far enough, and Tiger actually has to stop at the pro shop and buy a box of golf balls using xbox live points before playing, people are going to start pushing back. Hopefully, things will balance out sooner rather than later.
Actually, as a gamer I'm not sure I have a problem with that. It would bring back an element of challenge into games, because suddenly you would have real motivation to not loose balls into that lake...
I know in my heart the idea is evil, but for some reason the gamer in me likes it.
Other evil ideas:
* Sliding payment scale for respawning closer to the flag
* Buy virtual "markers" with limited amounts of "ink" to hand-decorate in-game items.
* Main game is free but you pay for each minigame
* Can purchase time-limited God Mode (I had already read elsewhere about being able to buy what are essentially cheat codes - why not ones that expire?).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Tycho did provide a link to the ad...
The web makes using content as a lure for subscription somewhat irrelevant and thus a bad idea.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The trail'r ah live in shur wurnt free.
When someone goes on TV and says nobody is on control of the situation, I can _hear_ the long-snouted very large dragons in Redmond atop their hoard grinning their dagger-toothed grins. Control is what they want, and if this plays into Microsoft being able to lean heavily on publishers to enforce what kinds of things can be sold on their marketplace and at what prices, this will be bad for gamers. That said, the microtransactions-in-gaming sphere is very young. Those publishers really are feeling their way around. The Oblivion horse armor was really the first thing of its kind on in the mass-market gaming world of consoles. But what the Lumines guys really did was throw spaghetti at the wall and see if it would stick. You have to admit it's bold, even if I'd agree with those who say they hyped the game as a game, priced it as a game, and then really sold you a demo with many hooks to take more and more money from you. Also keep in mind, though, that publishers are really trying to start forcing American consumers to act in a way they DO NOT ACT IN ANY OTHER MARKETPLACE. I may lack imagination, but I can't think of any digital service where people are willy-nilly making micro purchases. We just don't work that way. As a high-choice market-saturated society we demand options and we demand value for the money we spend. Why else would gamers hold in high regard the number of hours it takes to get through a good game. In what other industry do they have to worry about the depth and replayability of a previous release in a franchise when planning the next one? Certainly not the movies or in music. It's the value, stupid! Value perceived is value achieved. Lumines Live ain't it
Dude A: Hey, I got an Xbox 360!
Dude B: Cool, I got one too! Do you have racing game X?
Dude A: Yeah, I bought it with my Xbox 360!
Dude B: Cool, log in Xbox Live and we'll race against each other!
Dude A: Ok... hey, it won't let me?
Dude B: Dude, you have to have a gold account to play against other people online!
Dude A: What?! I've been playing non-MMORPG games online against other players for years, WTF is that "gold account required for online multiplayer" crap now? Thanks Microsoft, I'll go play Tetris DS on Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection! FOR FUCKING FREE!
That's the way I feel about it, anyway. Requiring people to have PAID ACCOUNTS to download ADS to HELP THEM SELL MORE GAMES is the stupidest marketing idea I've ever heard. In a while, anyway.
Sounds to me like the advertising is only being delivered to people who paid for service, while those who don't pay aren't required to view advertising. Sounds like a pretty twisted reversal of the usual approach, where those who don't pay have to suffer the indignity of perpetual ad-pushing.
I think it'd be pretty pathetic to pay to see a preview without actually getting real content. It makes about as much sense as paying for a CD case, but not actually getting a disk inside. All the gloss and advertising, but no product.
Surely there is some other reason people pay for memberships?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Sony: Our online service is free!
Nintendo: Our online service is free!
Microsoft's response?: Not only do you have to pay for the best parts of our service, we're now going to make you pay for the mediocre parts as well!
There goes the whole "XBox Live Gold for free in response to Sony and Nintendo" hypothesis...
At first there were no "gold" or "silver" accounts. There was simply
X-Box Live and it was widely understood that membership to X-Box Live brought with it
the priveleges of online play.
Then Microsoft created a tiered system where users could pay more to access advertisements for new
games, and pay even more dollars to download 3rd rate games created in 1983.
The problem is that Microsoft has already made it perfectly clear that new content
and new services will always represent additional costs. There is no sense of
"membership priveleges", or that new content creation will come with even a Gold Membership.
For all of Microsoft's suggestions that Xbox LIVE is a content-rich service, the
reality is that Gold Memberships are essentially paid for Internet access.
PC games have better and more diverse online gameplay for a small fraction of the cost.
Demos are always free, and anyone who's played Diablo or Guild Wars has experienced
something that Microsoft will never, ever, ever offer: Free online gameplay.
The trend is clear. Microsoft wants to charge you more and more and offer you less and less.
Platinum Memberships will soon be discussed for even "more" premium content. Or maybe
just the same content previewed a couple weeks in advance.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
That's pretty funny. I have a DS and love it, but I won't pay £25 for Tetris because I can play it FOR FUCKING FREE on my PC.
MarioKart DS or Outrun 2006 would have been better examples, seeing as they're actually worth it.
However, it'd be pretty cool if the next Unreal Tournament had a mode where you can gamble on duels. I wouldn't mind if the publisher took a (small) cut, either.
Yeah, illegal in the US (blame your senators), and provides way too much motivation for haxxors, therefore never happen. Still, fun idea.
It may be the stupidest marketing idea ever... so what do you think that says about the XBox userbase?
Standing on the virtual curb with their "Will work for points" signs and their tin cups, panhandling for points... :-P
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME