Xbox owners - I've had an idea...

[Isgandar]

Here's how the presentation of that 'manifesto' might play out:

Dear Microsoft,
Are you interested in a costly and utterly impractical change to the way you offer DLC on Xbox Live?

Dear NinjaDeathSlap,
No

 

[teh_spartan]

sounds great! but it wont happen.

 

[Mad1Cow]

See what you have described is an ideal world, but unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and Microsoft like money, so there is no way in hell that is going to change. Personally I think it should be sorta like a Neopets system (bare with me here). See they recently brought in a currency you have to pay for but the whole system used to work on playing games to get points to spend points on things for your pet. Well if you had say your gamerscore, you should be able to buy certain things with it, like I dunno a daily sale for map packs or indie games, or items for your avatar or whatever. Use the microsoft points for the big things.

Oh also early on the Xbox 360 was like half the price of the PS3, so the difference was that you had to pay for online for the 360, which equalled out at the time. Obviously not now since we're heading towards the next console line but back then, yes it did matter. Also I can't find the source for this but I heard that the PS3 online services were going to be paid for, until the bad reaction at the E3 of the year it was announced. You can either take my word for that or just don't believe me, but I swear I read that somewhere...

 

[T-Bone24]

Okay... but what about people who don't want to grind for their DLC? People who bought the game but don't feel compelled to collect every collectible so that they can buy new content? It can work, but there would have to be some kind of paid alternative.

Also, I can't see many of the companies who produce paid-for DLC supporting this.

Although a Gamerscore store for things, not actual game DLC but bragging items like the Avatar store, would be a very good idea.

 

[Moriarty]

Oh come on, you can't seriously try to defend the system of forced Microsoft Points? This isn't even against ms specifically, many online shops are trying to trick their customers the same way. The currency you have to buy to be able to purchase goods is usually worth just a bit more than actually currency so that wares appear to be cheaper as they actually are. (72points looks cheaper than 99c), they're just trying to obscure the true cost of the content.
Also they can force people to buy points in greater quantity than needed for the desired product so consumers pay more than they'd have to and have some currency left in the system that motivates them to buy more to "close the gap" to the next more expensive purchase.

You are correct that the purpose is to obscure the true cost of the content from unfamiliar people so that they will be more likely to purchase items. It doesnt cause people to pay $2 more every time they purchase something it just makes it slightly less likely that they know the true cost of the item they are buying.

While true, you only answered to the first half of my comment.
You still have to buy ms points in certain amounts everytime you need them. If you want to buy a 99c song from zune store you still have to buy 5$ worth of ms points.

 

[Vykrel]

i had the same though, but it just wouldnt work for several reasons...

first of all, microsoft does not create even a tenth of the content on the XBL marketplace. imagine if we COULD buy XBLA games and whatnot with our gamerscore, then the creators of those products would be giving them away for free to whoever has enough gamerscore. for instance, if 1 Gamerscore were to = 1 MS point, i could probably "buy" every single indie game without paying a cent. that wouldnt be very good for the creators, considering how cheap their games are, and that MS gets like 70% of the profits or however much they get.

second, a lot of people mod and boost their gamerscore. free content for no real work.

 

[Diligent]

Even if it was something like 8000-10k gamer score = 1 free DLC, and MS more strictly regulated how you receive GS points so you don't have games like "Jumper" (which I played for 5 minutes and racked up like 20 achievements).
That would reward people who own more games, and play them all the way through.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

Oh come on, you can't seriously try to defend the system of forced Microsoft Points? This isn't even against ms specifically, many online shops are trying to trick their customers the same way. The currency you have to buy to be able to purchase goods is usually worth just a bit more than actually currency so that wares appear to be cheaper as they actually are. (72points looks cheaper than 99c), they're just trying to obscure the true cost of the content.
Also they can force people to buy points in greater quantity than needed for the desired product so consumers pay more than they'd have to and have some currency left in the system that motivates them to buy more to "close the gap" to the next more expensive purchase.

You are correct that the purpose is to obscure the true cost of the content from unfamiliar people so that they will be more likely to purchase items. It doesnt cause people to pay $2 more every time they purchase something it just makes it slightly less likely that they know the true cost of the item they are buying.

While true, you only answered to the first half of my comment.
You still have to buy ms points in certain amounts everytime you need them. If you want to buy a 99c song from zune store you still have to buy 5$ worth of ms points.

Actually that was done because of credit card fees, $.99 purchase on a credit card MS would not get any money but would actually lose money due to fees at $5 a credit card purchase they pretty much break even on cost anything above that is where MS makes its money on points.

 

[StBishop]

What if, for the next console generation, Microsoft got rid of MS points and let us use Gamerscore as currency?

The problems I have with the current system are twofold:

- I think that it is unfair that we should have to pay for downloads AND for a full Xbox Live membership, when on the PS3 you only have to pay for downloads.

- Although it is satisfying to get achievements, the Gamerscore that comes with them doesn't really serve any useful purpose.

Whereas I think using my idea (at least I hope it's my idea and nobody's already thought of it) would have three significant benefits.

- The system would be fairer because we would only have to fork out money for one thing, just like the PS3.

- Getting achievement would be even more rewarding if the Gamerscore had a useful purpose, and gamers would be more inclined to try for the more obscure/harder/more interesting achievement that usually come with the biggest payouts.

- Despite not making money through MS points anymore I think it would actually earn a bigger profit for Microsoft and the entire industry. The fairer system would persuade more gamers to buy Xbox's which helps Microsoft, and the idea of using Gamerscore earned from achievements to buy DLC will encourage gamers to buy more Xbox games to get their Gamerscore. This not only helps Microsoft, but the Dev's, Publishers, and Game Retailers too.

So That's my manifesto. Discussion value: Can this idea work? If so do you have anything of your own to add and would you be prepared to support this idea if it were presented to Microsoft? If this idea wouldn't work for some reason, can you please explain so I can correct/alter it.

I got about halfway down the page and was surprise to find no one had already said this but. No, you're not the first.
People have been suggesting this since Gamerscore was introduced. There's a reason it's done the way it is.

What if I want DLC but have 100% Gamerscore on all my games and have spent it?
What if I like having a big ePeen and the thought of parting with my gamer score is too much for me to bear so I never buy DLC?

Also. Pretty much everyone that'll be buying a 360 has one by now. From here on in it's a couple of different people buying them:
- kids who're getting older and want to get a console, who usually pick whatever the people they know have or if they don't know anyone with a console they end up with either a Wii or 360 due to price or a PS3 if they think that more expensive = better.
- Old people who want to keep active, they will probably get a Wii anyway, because they're the target audience and Nintendo work hard to get these people into Wii's.
- People who've been RRoD'd out of warrantee.
- People who already have a PS3 and want an exclusive or want something gaming related to spend money on.
- People who're getting in to gaming for the first time (or the first time in a couple generations) who will get what ever the sales person pushes or make a decision based on price, not niggly little features.

Also, PSN is now no longer free for a full subscription, but a full subscription is not necessary to play online.

And you see, the whole point of the Gamerscore is bragging rights. That's it. If you make it currency then Gamerscore means nothing to plenty of people. Including me.
It already means nothing to many, why take it away from the few who care.

On the "Unfair to pay twice" issue:
If you don't want to play online, don't pay for Gold XBL.
If you don't want DLC don't buy MS points.
The thing is it's not unfair to pay for two services separately from each other.

And, this will not happen. At all. Just so you know. You may find MS point bonuses for milestones one day but there's no incentive for MS to do this, people already get Gamerscore, and they already pay for MS points; and by the way, Gamerscore is distributed by the devs, not MS. If you want to hear about easy Gamerscore farming look up a GS boosting guides online, there's guides for something stupid like 10,000 GS in 2 weeks out there.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Seems like a fine idea. I know when I got my first cheevo I thought "cool! What do I do with gamerscore?"

Fine idea for you. Economically horrible. What you want is for a person to, theoretically, finish a game fast. Why? So they buy a new game. Doing the above would have people playing their games for much longer to obtain points. Add that they could then download games that earn them more points. It'd end up costing the company more than allowing them to earn off of it.

 

[StBishop]

Basic economics would tell you that this would never work. So a company spends money and produces a DLC addon, and instead of getting paid for it someone downloads it using they're gamerscore. So that right there is no profit. Unless of course MS starts paying developers for the're DLC addons to recoup the dev's costs. Then you have MS spending money without recouping any of those costs.

TLDR: Bad idea and would never work

But what if gamers started buying more games than they did before because even if they don't like the game they want to get more gamerscore? Wouldn't that be helping the developers?

People will rent and borrow shitty game for the gamerscore. It already happens. People buy games like CSI and get 1000 GS then return it in less than 7 days and get the game they actually want.

 

[Moriarty]

snip

Actually that was done because of credit card fees, $.99 purchase on a credit card MS would not get any money but would actually lose money due to fees at $5 a credit card purchase they pretty much break even on cost anything above that is where MS makes its money on points.

Again, while that motivation might be true, it doesn't change the facts. Customers are still getting screwed over to maximise company profit. Other online stores like Steam, iTunes or GoG sell goods at low prices per purchase without forcing customers to pay in 5$ brackets.

 

[Thespian]

I think it would only work if you were still able to buy points as well. If a new DLC comes out that I want I don't want to be forced to rent some game just to grind cheevo's on it.

 

[JRCrusher]

This topic seems to have been well and truly settled, but I would like to offer one more observation. In a system like the one given, game sales would for many, no longer be driven by the quality of the game and instead by the ease of acquiring achievements. There is already a very small subset of consumers who are marketed to in this fashion as revealed in an interview with, I believe it was Borderlands' creators. No need to reiterate the "its broken duuude" line but changing the currency from something tied to actual currency tends to have weird side effects beyond the collapse of the system.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

snip

Actually that was done because of credit card fees, $.99 purchase on a credit card MS would not get any money but would actually lose money due to fees at $5 a credit card purchase they pretty much break even on cost anything above that is where MS makes its money on points.

Again, while that motivation might be true, it doesn't change the facts. Customers are still getting screwed over to maximise company profit. Other online stores like Steam, iTunes or GoG sell goods at low prices per purchase without forcing customers to pay in 5$ brackets.

True but many business do make you spend $5 min when using a credit or debit card, how MS is screwing you out of money when the are following a established money saving business practice? I'm pretty sure every time I got MS points I got all the goods I was promised so I fail to see the problem other than people just like conspiracy theories. I like the value adding systems, steam has it now with its steam wallet and I love it and they make it $5 min to put money on it.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

I thought of this a while back.

The only way to make it even slightly profitable would be to make it so you only get 10 MS points per 100 gamerscore.

Still would like this system though.

 

[Ritalynn]

Bad idea since day 1.

 

[La Barata]

BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA.
You actually think that Microsoft would abandon the chance to straight out rob us?
They've got a nice little monopoly going, do you actually think that they'd let us gain stuff based on actual skill and not on them lining their pockets?

Oh boy, thanks for that. I needed a laugh.

 

[StBishop]

OK, so far a lot of people have made a good point, I didn't consider how indy developers making titles for the Xbox Live arcade would make a profit. However, a solution to that would be to keep MS points around but SPECIFICALLY for this situation. Microsoft could make the rule that only DLC can be bought with Gamerscore, while all full games (weather on disk or on XBLA) have to be paid for.

Other than that I really do believe there would be an increase in Xbox/Xbox Game/Live subscription sales

I really don't think there are that many people who aren't buying a xbox because they can't afford to buy enough games. I think there are people who don't have them because gaming isn't a high enough priority to sacrifice other aspects of their life or they can't afford the console more so than the MS points for DLC. Anyone who would think that much about the console is probably going to get the console anyway, or boycott on some ill conceived notion of "sticking it to the greedy corporations".

that would make up for not using MS points anymore. I know that's speculation on my part, but isn't every idea at least in some part speculation until you put it into practice?

Yes, but most people who speculate about these sorts of things have to show precedents or sound market research etc. to get their plans put through, you have neither and Microsoft have plenty of both and have made a decision opposite what you're suggesting. There's a reason for that.

Edit: Oh, and I would make achievements give out much more Gamerscore so it wouldn't feel so much like grinding.

So you're going to make the currency worth less by virtue of being easier to obtain? Or the product worth less, which ever you prefer.

 

[William Dickbringer]

What if, for the next console generation, Microsoft got rid of MS points and let us use Gamerscore as currency?

The problems I have with the current system are twofold:

- I think that it is unfair that we should have to pay for downloads AND for a full Xbox Live membership, when on the PS3 you only have to pay for downloads.

- Although it is satisfying to get achievements, the Gamerscore that comes with them doesn't really serve any useful purpose.

Whereas I think using my idea (at least I hope it's my idea and nobody's already thought of it) would have three significant benefits.

- The system would be fairer because we would only have to fork out money for one thing, just like the PS3.

- Getting achievement would be even more rewarding if the Gamerscore had a useful purpose, and gamers would be more inclined to try for the more obscure/harder/more interesting achievement that usually come with the biggest payouts.

- Despite not making money through MS points anymore I think it would actually earn a bigger profit for Microsoft and the entire industry. The fairer system would persuade more gamers to buy Xbox's which helps Microsoft, and the idea of using Gamerscore earned from achievements to buy DLC will encourage gamers to buy more Xbox games to get their Gamerscore. This not only helps Microsoft, but the Dev's, Publishers, and Game Retailers too.

So That's my manifesto. Discussion value: Can this idea work? If so do you have anything of your own to add and would you be prepared to support this idea if it were presented to Microsoft? If this idea wouldn't work for some reason, can you please explain so I can correct/alter it.

I agree but I think MS points should stick around you know as in like an instant buy and the gamer score points should be doubled the price of MS points (possibly more) that way developers are still getting their money
Or gamerscore can buy some games off of the indie market place (you know those 99 cent games that way they can't get even more achievements) and avatar items like TornadoFive said