Posted by Trylks (829 posts) 1 year, 5 months ago

Poll: Idea about the future of Microsoft in E3 (46 votes)

They must not do that, I don't like the idea 33%
They should not do that, it doesn't make sense (at least for them) 41%
They should do that, sounds great, but they probably won't 28%
They must do that, it's required to stay competitive and empower XBL 15%
Stop trying to guess the future and let it be 30%
The way you chose options for polls doesn't make sense, I'll reply with a post 39%

I was thinking about that and how Microsoft is the only company charging for the online play, which is free in other consoles and of course in PC (except games that require some subscription). XBox Live Gold is a major source of revenue for Microsoft, so they are unlikely to stop that in the future and they are probably more prone to empower XBLG and base their business more on it. The question is, how could they do that further?

So I had a crazy idea, what if XBox (the next one) became a subscription based service, where users pay an annual fee and download and play any games for "free" (technically, the price would be included in the subscription). This is a poll where you can choose several options.

This is nothing new, there are already services that offer a catalog of games for a subscription fee, Microsoft experimented with this idea with songs (instead of games) and they are also offering some games with important discounts (about 50%) for gold members, that means, half of the price is paid by their gold subscription and the other half is paid on demand, this would mean taking the next step in that direction.

They can monitorize how many people download some games and how much time people spend on different games and pay developers according to that, or with any other formula, there are no problems wrt information for retribution. It is also a closed platform, so basically they can centralize distribution and this kind of things without problems, it's already there.

This could be a problem for retailers, I think that is the main weak spot in the whole strategy. Retailers are important because they are sellers, a father looking for a gift may look at a retailer before than the Internet. That is why the idea is crazy.

Also, they are charging now for online play and the games, companies usually don't like giving up on some source of revenue, but considering competition in the market, they may need to do something. The milkage may look good for stockholders in E3, but users are not going to allow it too far. Either they bring something really exciting for gamers that is worth the price or they will be fueling their competitors.

Personally, I think that's the only thing that would make me buy another console, I have to change my old PC now (still running windows XP...) and spending a few more bucks gives me a gaming platform with free Internet play (as usual) and cheaper games, so it pays off fast. I know my single opinion is biased, that's why I'm asking also for yours, in the poll and the comments.

Thank you.

#1 Posted by jimmyfenix (3855 posts) -

the problem with Microsoft is there in house fighting. clearly the xbox guys hate the top Microsoft guys and that can seriously hurt the xbox brand. at this event the world will be watching Microsoft and knowing Steve balmer he would probably advertise the shit out of the other Microsoft products such as IE , bing , windows 8 and the surface and leave the xbox last because there sales in these other markets are not doing well

#2 Edited by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

Xbox Live is perfect how it is. Even better, the next Xbox will probably work like a cell phone contract, where you subscribe to Xbox Live for 2 years and get the Xbox for cheaper than if you buy it outright (they are already doing that now, you can get a 360 for $99 with a 2 year commitment to Xbox Live).

Paying for Xbox Live is most definitely worth it, it's the best multiplayer / online experience in all of gaming.

As for subscribing and getting to play any games? That wouldn't benefit Microsoft or developers. I mean unless it's $500 a year, it would never happen. Think about it, how many $60 games do you buy a year? I easily spend $300 on an average year, sometimes $500 + (Madden, FIFA, Call of Duty, MLB...that's $240 right there and that's not even counting the games that don't come out every year).

#3 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

like a netflix for games? yeah i'd be down.

#4 Edited by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

Does anyone else always check all the boxes in check box polls?

#6 Edited by WEB_War4 (111 posts) -

I picked the last option for weird organization. The title refers to Microsoft in E3. The first four poll options are about doing or not doing "that". The question ends up being in the second paragraph. If the poll was after the text it would make sense. As for the question ... if games get to the point where they are barely indistinguishable from one another to the point where a large portion of the consumers pirate everything they use, like music, a subscription model might work. The other problem from the producer's standpoint is that there would be a limit from how much you could make per customer. If you're only getting a small portion of their subscription, why make more than one game? You might get a larger share of that limited pie. As it is, they're getting multiple $60 purchases from people. Multiple pies instead of a sliver of one.

#7 Posted by jimmyfenix (3855 posts) -

@jdh5153 said:

Xbox Live is perfect how it is. Even better, the next Xbox will probably work like a cell phone contract, where you subscribe to Xbox Live for 2 years and get the Xbox for cheaper than if you buy it outright (they are already doing that now, you can get a 360 for $99 with a 2 year commitment to Xbox Live).

Paying for Xbox Live is most definitely worth it, it's the best multiplayer / online experience in all of gaming.

As for subscribing and getting to play any games? That wouldn't benefit Microsoft or developers. I mean unless it's $500 a year, it would never happen. Think about it, how many $60 games do you buy a year? I easily spend $300 on an average year, sometimes $500 + (Madden, FIFA, Call of Duty, MLB...that's $240 right there and that's not even counting the games that don't come out every year).

i dont know

#8 Edited by DarthOrange (3864 posts) -

If they can still making money with their current then why would they switch to a consumer friendly model that would yield less profits? Unless you see Sony really start to dominate America and the UK then Microsoft will probably not change things from the way they are now.

@jdh5153 said:

Paying for Xbox Live is most definitely worth it, it's the best multiplayer / online experience in all of gaming.

Have you tried playing a game online on the PC or PS3 in the last year? It is the same thing.

#9 Posted by Trylks (829 posts) -

@jimmyfenix: I didn't know about that in house fighting, if you have a winning horse it doesn't make sense to stop it while hitting the others so that all you get is a bunch of losing horses. But then again I may be biased.

@jdh5153: I didn't see that option, where not the games but the console is free with the subscription. That may be another possibility, which would in effect count as free online play and the console costs whatever is the cost for the online play, weird. About being the best out there, idk, I haven't seen any MMO in XBL yet. Personally, I spend about 60€ per year on XBox games and I could get about three times more content on Steam for that money plus online gaming, that's why I say my opinion may be biased.

@clonedzero: exactly, nothing really new, but great IMHO.

@guided_by_tigers: whatever makes you happy.

@web_war4: well, you would get money based on downloads of your game or hours played on your game (preferably the second), thus if you consider each hour as a pie, there would be trillions of pies. That's the way Microsoft would encourage developers to make more and better games for their system, something they would obviously want to get more subscriptions.

@darthorange: That's my fear, but I think the competition is not only in Sony and Nintendo, but also in PCs. There are not so many exclusives, and even considering them, the model is becoming expensive beyond reason, IMHO.

#10 Posted by Sgtpierceface (624 posts) -

It's spelled "Xbox". Not that hard people!

#11 Posted by Bollard (5550 posts) -

I could check all of the options so I did. Nothing beats 215%

#12 Posted by Trylks (829 posts) -

@sgtpierceface: they should spell it as XBox, as in ABox and TBox. Every time I spell XBox consider it a thoroughly thought proposal to change the spelling to XBox.

@chavtheworld: you sure chose the right option.

#13 Posted by Sgtpierceface (624 posts) -

@trylks: What's an "ABox" or "TBox"?

#14 Edited by mrpandaman (866 posts) -

@jdh5153 said:

Xbox Live is perfect how it is. Even better, the next Xbox will probably work like a cell phone contract, where you subscribe to Xbox Live for 2 years and get the Xbox for cheaper than if you buy it outright (they are already doing that now, you can get a 360 for $99 with a 2 year commitment to Xbox Live).

Paying for Xbox Live is most definitely worth it, it's the best multiplayer / online experience in all of gaming.

As for subscribing and getting to play any games? That wouldn't benefit Microsoft or developers. I mean unless it's $500 a year, it would never happen. Think about it, how many $60 games do you buy a year? I easily spend $300 on an average year, sometimes $500 + (Madden, FIFA, Call of Duty, MLB...that's $240 right there and that's not even counting the games that don't come out every year).

I don't know man... you're crazy. On PS+, it's more or less the same exact experience in multiplayer, but MP is not gated and PS+ you get a round of "free" games as long you're subscribed. On PC, there's no pay to play MP for most games, and you're treated with great discounts for a wide berth of games from Steam, GOG, GMG, and other sites. Also most games that come out on Xbox and PS3 come out for PC eventually anyways.

If you really look at it, I mean seriously look at it, there's not much value to XBL as much as before.

#15 Posted by Trylks (829 posts) -
#16 Edited by jimmyfenix (3855 posts) -

@jdh5153 said:

Xbox Live is perfect how it is. Even better, the next Xbox will probably work like a cell phone contract, where you subscribe to Xbox Live for 2 years and get the Xbox for cheaper than if you buy it outright (they are already doing that now, you can get a 360 for $99 with a 2 year commitment to Xbox Live).

Paying for Xbox Live is most definitely worth it, it's the best multiplayer / online experience in all of gaming.

As for subscribing and getting to play any games? That wouldn't benefit Microsoft or developers. I mean unless it's $500 a year, it would never happen. Think about it, how many $60 games do you buy a year? I easily spend $300 on an average year, sometimes $500 + (Madden, FIFA, Call of Duty, MLB...that's $240 right there and that's not even counting the games that don't come out every year).

I don't know man... you're crazy. On PS+, it's more or less the same exact experience in multiplayer, but MP is not gated and PS+ you get a round of "free" games as long you're subscribed. On PC, there's no pay to play MP for most games, and you're treated with great discounts for a wide berth of games from Steam, GOG, GMG, and other sites. Also most games that come out on Xbox and PS3 come out for PC eventually anyways.

If you really look at it, I mean seriously look at it, there's not much value to XBL as much as before.

#17 Posted by JasonR86 (9707 posts) -

I don't like any of those options. Plus, for my money, I think the future is Kinect 2.0.

Online
#18 Posted by phantomzxro (1577 posts) -

They don't really have to be all that different. they only need to refresh the XBL service and promise some awesome new IPs and i say most people would be happy. As far as refreshing XBL i think mp and services like netflix should be removed from the pay wall of gold and be free for everyone. Now if they want to add shiny new features to them with kinect support or easier ways to jump in and out of MP games as part of the pay wall that is gold i would say that is fair.

Secondly they would have to dismiss all these claims of an always online service for Xbox and step up their Xbox live Gold perks or even add a higher tier with greater benefits. On that note maybe reprice the tiers completely if they won't make these features free and to keep that pay wall up make it 10 bucks and you get just the basics of MP, netflix, etc. While other tiers give you greater benefits at a higher price point.

#19 Posted by Grilledcheez (3947 posts) -

If I could pay monthly, that would be interesting, but I don't see it happening. I think the cost would be too high on Microsoft's end and therefore our end.

#20 Posted by deathstriker666 (1337 posts) -

It's spelled "Xbox". Not that hard people!

That's not the way Microsoft spells it

#21 Edited by Jay_Ray (1101 posts) -

@trylks So I had a crazy idea, what if XBox (the next one) became a subscription based service, where users pay an annual fee and download and play any games for "free" (technically, the price would be included in the subscription). This is a poll where you can choose several options.

They can't do this for new games, MS would have to basically pay for the development of any 3rd party game they'd want on the service. Which would make the service at least $60 a month; this is great if you buy a new game or more a month but only like 5% of "gamers" buy that many new titles.

Streaming services for movies can do this because Disney, Warner, etc. already make a ton of money from the box office and the initial home release.

I can see a service that grants you access to older games for say $10/month. And we already have this. it's called PS+ and MS would be crazy if they don't mimic PS+.

#22 Posted by Sgtpierceface (624 posts) -