Xbox Live Silver Accounts Becoming Second Class 58
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 to watch ads? (Score:2)
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)
Other outlets... (Score:3, Insightful)
The web makes using content as a lure for subscription somewhat irrelevant and thus a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
"The American public knows what it wants. And it deserves to get it....good and hard." - H.L.Mencken
As for me - if I have to PAY to get interested in your product? Then keep your ad, keep your product, and choke on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Trailer? (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally think it'd be better to let silver have access, but I guess it's just Microsoft doing business.
Re: (Score:1)
Whether patience is a virtue or not might well be debatable, but it can certainly save you a lot of money.
KFG
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
After all, this means that you will have to pay in order to see an ad. I don't care what the ad is for - it's still an ad.
Then again, Sony's online plan will require you to pay to download dem
Pay for what? Content or advertising? (Score:2)
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 advert
A recipe for poorer service (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Xbox (original) could use a Gamespy system or any other similar system to simulate a lan (technical).
It's a little like the Ipod and Itunes. You can't choose any other DRM system using their player.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they've already paid $400+ for an XBOX 360, and there's no way to switch services. With the PS3 and the Wii unshipped, the only next-gen option is (and has been) the XBOX 360.
Re: (Score:2)
A DEPARTMENT cannot quit a university. The analogy as stated the department as the equivilent of an Xbox users, not PEOPLE working IN the department.
And yeah, they can switch services. Or use Gametap or the PS2 (has online service) or just any other option out there - arranging games on message boards, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not for an Ethernet jack. But for computer support, which also ended up with tiered levels of service, departments certainly could try (and succeed at) finding other vendors to help them out. Unfortunately, xbox owners are not in a position to solicit bids from other service providers. They're locked in to the xbox live service.
It's Microsoft's right to run their service the way they want, of course. What I'm more concerned about is how this spreads in the rest of the industry. We haven't seen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh my god, shutup before EA hears you!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
There are show like pinballexpo that make use pay to get in but then most of games in there are free to play.
Re: (Score:2)
But it has high-definition support!!
That made sense (Score:2)
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
It's a LARGE trailer (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I think I almost would like a world where you had to pay to see advertising... be nice to not see any
Re: (Score:1)
Paying customers get access to all content. Non-paying customers don't get access to content that burns large amounts of MS's server BW. Why does this surprise anyone??
fuss over trailers? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Advertisements, Tycho? (Score:2)
Furthermore, if people are willing to pay to see something, it's not exactly an advertisement
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a long time since advertising moved well beyond simply creating awareness of a product's existence. Playing semantic games all you want doesn't change the fact that video game trailers ex
Clarification (Score:2)
Not really Microsoft's idea. (Score:2)
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.
For once, I say (Score:2)
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 nee
I hope it doesn't lead to.. (Score:2)
First thing? (Score:1)
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.
Xbox Live Silver was second class from the start (Score:2)
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 o
Re:Xbox Live Silver was second class from the star (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When the other vendors eventually launch online gaming on their consoles (like Sega did with the Dreamcast over 6 years ago, but that Sony and Nintendo both dismissed as irrelevant) or at least talk openly about what they intend to offer,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they arn't.
If you disagree, I'd be interested to hear a rebuttle with a detailed description of what both Sony and Nintendo have confirmed about their online gaming platforms. For example, I would love to know more about the friends system, the match paring system, if it has different 'zones' for different types of players, if there will be different subscription levels, and what the abuse mechanism is like (especially if there is no charge for the se
just wait until "Platinum Memberships" (Score:2)
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 se
Re: (Score:2)
A buncha freeloaders they are... (Score:2)