I do remember that now certain achievements net you avatar awards. In my opinion this is better, because with points you can't tell if someone bossed through a game or got all of the baby's first achievements for dozens of titles. You can tell that guy is pretty good at Halo if he has Kat's helmet on.(Go through a level of campaign without dying once)
Xbox owners - I've had an idea...
- Thread starter NinjaDeathSlap
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd be perfectly content with just getting rid of the monthly Xbox live fee, I don't even buy DLC..
Seems like a great idea, if you couldn't go to gamestop, get a used game, beat said game in a week and get some achievements, return it for full price, and keep the gamerscore.
It sounds great for the consumer, but not for Microsoft. If they don't charge you money for downloads, how else are they going to afford to make the new innovative features for windows 8.
Microsoft could implement a system that everytime you earned 1.000 or 2.000 or any other number, you would get 1.000 MS points, but there should also be a possibility to purchase Microsoft Points as you do now
As a gamer I would love this idea. But if I were to put my Business Owner hat on I would never implement it. Even if I was feeling generous and I wanted people to love my console there would be too many achievement whores and too many people renting 'easy achievement' games. When you are in control of an economic system you can't allow it to fluctuate based on the people's tastes alone. The system you suggest basically hands them the lock and key.
This idea would suck. I don't want to have to grind through several games just to get the gamerscore to buy DLC for one game! At the current rate, you couldn't afford the map pack for Black Ops even if you got all 1000 gamerscore. To buy all the map packs for Halo 3 you would need to get all 1000 gamerscore in at least 3 games, plus a few achievements in another game. Not to mention Rock Band games. If you only play Rock Band you could only get like 6 or 7 songs if you could manage to get all the gamerscore. I think in the end it would cost you more buying all the other games it takes to get the DLC for 1 game than it takes buying a MS points card for $20.
EDIT: I just read the idea a couple post above mine and I like that idea. Microsoft could set up a milestone system and every time you hit a certain amount of gamerscore you could get some free points. Like getting 20,000GS could get you a free 400MS and then getting 40,000 you could get a free 800MS and so on.
EDIT: I just read the idea a couple post above mine and I like that idea. Microsoft could set up a milestone system and every time you hit a certain amount of gamerscore you could get some free points. Like getting 20,000GS could get you a free 400MS and then getting 40,000 you could get a free 800MS and so on.
I'm not an economist, I can't pretend to know what every impact is. If they could use gamerscore for something though, right now it's a arbitrary rating that at most tells people I spend too much time playing games.Cliff_m85 said:
The gas analogy doesn't work, and I'll tell you why: you forget, the person has to buy the game in order to reap the benefits of the achievements (and gamerscore by extension) that come with it. Now, that could be bypassed by folks who rent games or borrow them from friends, but you'd be hard-pressed to underestimate the number of people who like their games new.StBishop said:
I'm not saying I agree with the original stance one way or the other, just merely adding a voice to the discussion. As such, I take my leave. Good day, sir/madam.
this will become a problem because people can glitch/ alter their gamerscore many different ways. so before this works MS would have to severely clamp down on these fiends.NinjaDeathSlap said:
MS's other concern would be they are very happy with the MS points system as it makes you end up buying more points than you need for whatever your buying (most of the time), and some people are stupid enough to spend those points on unnecessary purchases simply because they are there. so MS would lose out on not only normal sales but possibly lose out on possible sales too.
good idea though, i like the sound of this, but even if this is officially presented to MS, i would not be very hopeful.
also...
what the fuck, i cant read this??? it doesnt even exist on my keyboard...
Well the problem with that is that MS and the third-party companies they are paying to develop games would just not get paid...
changed that for you...CrazyJuan77 said:
but why do you think GS should be eliminated entirely?
personally i like it because it means i am able to squeeze a little more enjoyment out of a game before i move on.
It seems like a great idea, though I would only extend it to memberships and not games, developers should be paid.
But the problem is that it would prevent Microsoft from cleaning our pockets to the extent they prefer...why would they do this when we still have pennies in the jar on our nightstands?
But the problem is that it would prevent Microsoft from cleaning our pockets to the extent they prefer...why would they do this when we still have pennies in the jar on our nightstands?
What about indie/smaller devs? You would see them all abandon the Xbox and move to the PS3/PC.NinjaDeathSlap said: