Live testing pay-to-pay-to-play?

[cthellis42]

Here's a particularly bad habit for them to start, IMHO.

Gamers still playing one of Xbox's most admired titles, MechAssault, have some additional content to explore. Word from Microsoft is that two new multiplayer game types and three new multiplayer maps are available now via Xbox Live.

The new game content and maps will set you back $4.99. The downloads continue the tradition that regularly sees new content being made available to MechAssault gamers. However, it is the first time that Microsoft has charged them for new, downloadable content.

Part of what was to make it stand out as a pay service is the "look at all the shiz you get!" And in their statements and detractors of PS2's model is that "hey, developers can charge you whatever they WANT!" which makes it just a tad ironic that the first example of this should come from Live. Meanwhile, not something PC gamers ever do, nor that Live users have done before...

Sad part it is will likely sell just fine to those currently playing a lot of MechAssault, which basically just means the habit will spread to any developer--on Live or off.

Why oh why pull the cap and let this genie loose? -_-

 

[AlphaWolf]

Charging for new content isn't exactly new. That this is the first time a console game has charged for an upgrade doesn't make it a new idea, it was bound to happen sooner or later.

 

[cthellis42]

Yes, but usually it comes in "expansion pack" form, which I would have expected--and also usually comes with more than just a few new maps and MP formats.

Tycho also brings up a good point in that this could split up the active player base, and that just seems like a Bad Idea(TM) as well.

The basic point, though, is that the Live subscription charge was supposed to get around paying fees for individual games themselves (excepting MMO's). If MS has had to lower their price to the point where devs will want to charge anyway, it loses a major part of its initial appeal, and puts it in the same place PS2's service is at, only not free to begin with.

 

[chapback]

Sony was already charging people for some online golf game in Japan.
STILL, it ain really the pay to play online thingy(coz i believe it is inevitable), but pay to whom to and the controlled standard.

XBL is still the superior setup.

 

[zurich]

I think it has more to do with Xbox Live being forced to turn big profits to offset the hardware costs/losses.

 

[cybamerc]

Everyone not blinded by M$ PR knew it was just a matter of time. I've been saying it since before the service was launched. It's a scam, simple as that.

 

[Magnum PI]

MS never hidden the fact that they would market paying content through xbox live.

 

[cybamerc]

Magnum PI:

> MS never hidden the fact that they would market paying content
> through xbox live.

Yes they did.

 

[cthellis42]

Sony was already charging people for some online golf game in Japan.

Really? Hadn't heard of any. Is it MMO-like in any way and running off its own servers?

Amusingly, Live's developer advances have diminishing returns, as the work they do on one side--if received well--can be moved to another (PS2 or Nintendo or whoever else) with only the technical changes, as the design work is already done and they can see and measure results. Offhand, I've never found the Gamertag to be a huge advantage, as I don't WANT to be known as the same thing in every game I play. I'm rather hoping they start pushing developers to allow nicknaming in their games, or PS2 keeps what it has but tosses a central reference file for other features. Best of both worlds. Also in the future I'm hoping they'll all support voice and keyboard and mouse options on the games. (Can always come in handy.) Eventually they'll start resembling one another... I'm just hoping Sony wouldn't ADD a charge.

And offhand I'm not sure MS ever used "you won't ever get charged for content otherwise" in their own releases, but certainly every person shouting the advantages of Live from the hilltops has evoked the "with Sony, developers can charge you whatever they WANT!" card, attempting to invoke fear despite being the same model PC's have had forever, and will likely always offer the best online experience. Seems everyone will pretty much let developers/publishers charge what they want... even if the publisher is Microsoft itself! Heh...

 

[Grall]

XBL is still the superior setup.

Did anyone expect you to say anything else? Chap, no matter what alias you post under, you're still just as easily predictable.


Anyway, assume one deletes this extra contents from their XBs, will they have to pay those five bucks again to download it all over again?

*G*

 

[cthellis42]

Well, with luck they pay to activate "permission" that can be tagged per account. Not just for download but for playing with in the games (else you could use your account to download to another's box).

 

[Legion]

Everyone not blinded by M$ PR knew it was just a matter of time. I've been saying it since before the service was launched. It's a scam, simple as that.

How is it a scam?

 

[Legion]

XBL is still the superior setup.

Did anyone expect you to say anything else? Chap, no matter what alias you post under, you're still just as easily predictable.


Anyway, assume one deletes this extra contents from their XBs, will they have to pay those five bucks again to download it all over again?

*G*

They may have a digital receipt. You could always show them credit card billing statements or whatever else. I would assume it would be much like ordering other things online.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I don't have a problem with it for the most part, but think $2.99 would be a better price. My main concern is that although MechAssault was a complete game with around 20 single-player levels (15 hours or so) and decent range of online stuff, including the free content; Crimson Skies on the other hand is not really a complete game.

Don't get me wrong, I love Crimson Skies, but the single player is only about 10 hours long and there are only 5 maps (4 of which are good) in the Live play. They were obviously holding back content for later release.

Am I mad? No, but it does mean that I'm seriously going to evaluate what I'm getting with my Live titles. Did they skimp on the single-player (Counterstrike, Crimson Skies)? Did they hold back obvious gameplay modes for later download (like CTF for MechAssault)? These are all questions we'll have to ask ourselves from now on.

The solution is simple - wait until Crimson Skies is $29.95 and then buy it knowing you'll end up spending another $10-15 on content somwhere down the road to flesh it out.

Rainbow Six 3 is probably the most fleshed out Live title. It has a solid single player AND Live experience right out of the box. I don't think people would have a problem paying $5 to expand it. After all, they payed $30 to expand Ghost Recon with Island Thunder.

PS: When you download this content it gets flagged and you can download it again at any time for free after the first purchase. You "own" the license to use that content forever.

 

[function]

I've always understood the ability to charge for additional downloadable content to be one of the central points of having a broadband based, hard drive enabled platform. This is further reinforced by the way that Xbox Live is set up, allowing you the option of "pay for content" in the billing setup.

To my knowledge Microsoft have never ruled this out, and why would they?

Anyway, I've been paying for expansion packs for PC games for donkeys years. If I don't want something, I don't buy it, it's that simple. Besides, without the extra funding that charging for the expansion is expected to bring, it may never have been produced in the first place.

Just because something is downloaded, as opposed to bought from a shop on a disk, doesn't mean I expect it to be free.