I can make the Xbox 720 work, without DRM

[Aikayai]

So Microsoft are going to screw up the 720 right? We all know its going to happen, just as Sony will mess up the PS4. Its always been a contest of who does less things wrong.

To get things right in this generation though isn't as hard as I imagined it would be. The consumer is more passionate than ever, and it takes something truly special to appease a passionate person. That being said, making money is the name of the game. If the customer isn't happy, they aren't going to waste time and money on investing in a product. Most gaming publishers and the big trio are pretty short sighted when it comes to customers, believing they only have money to spend. But its time that is a prime currency in our fast paced lifestyle that is key to win over.

Enter League of Legends. Love it or hate it you have to admit its free-to-play model is genius. The idea that you spend nothing to play the game, but can spend money to enhance your experience or save time is great. I know many of my friends are tired of playing but can't stop because they feel they've invested too much in the game.

Now I've devised a way of making the same work for consoles. No, you still have to buy the console but this time, time is a currency. Gamer-score and MS points are already there so we'll use those.

Consider each game can give you up to 1000GS. This is now your equivilent of IP, or any time to play currency. You can spend this on cool unlocks exclusive to the game, or use GS from another title to buy something you want now. You can also purchase these with a small amount of MS points, but the total you can spend on a game cannot exceed 1000GS. This gives the player all the optional unlocks if they play the game until everything is unlocked. Now take this a step further.

Xbox live in the UK is £40. Lets add our FTP currency to the buy price, say 24,000 GS. Now you can have Xbox Live for "free". Lets face it, its not free, you need to buy 24 titles a year and 100% each, that's 2 games a month. But because the option to pay with GS means consumers will buy more games just to achieve that goal. You probably aren't going to get it for free every year, but you might get your 3rd or 4th year free and you'll feel like you've achieved something by doing it. Plus, considering the cut Microsoft take from each game sale I'd say it would be pretty fair for everyone.

Of course, DLC mission packs etc. could also cost GS. The same situation plays out. People buy games, play them, then save up to get something for nothing. You've spent time but you've not realized. You've invested in lots of titles but you haven't noticed. Same way the FTP model gets you if you're impatient.

Imagine paying your Netflix subscription with GS? Or getting Sky TV by playing games? If you were going to buy the games anyway its a massive plus. The system works for customers and publishers by giving gamer-score real world value.

I'd like your opinions on this. A play-to-pay system always sounds a little backward to some people but just think about that gamer-score or those trophies you have just sitting there telling you how good you are. They could be cashed in for valuable prizes!

 

[Costia]

So Microsoft are going to screw up the 720 right? We all know its going to happen, just as Sony will mess up the PS4. Its always been a contest of who does less things wrong.

No. Maybe you are a prophet, but i am a mere mortal and cannot see into the future. I cant even figure out if the wiiu is going to be a commercial success, and it's already out.

To get things right in this generation though isn't as hard as I imagined it would be. The consumer is more passionate than ever, and it takes something truly special to appease a passionate person. That being said, making money is the name of the game. If the customer isn't happy, they aren't going to waste time and money on investing in a product. Most gaming publishers and the big trio are pretty short sighted when it comes to customers, believing they only have money to spend. But its time that is a prime currency in our fast paced lifestyle that is key to win over.

Enter League of Legends. Love it or hate it you have to admit its free-to-play model is genius. The idea that you spend nothing to play the game, but can spend money to enhance your experience or save time is great. I know many of my friends are tired of playing but can't stop because they feel they've invested too much in the game.

I suggest you tell them to stop playing. I was in a similar position with WoW, and the moment i noticed i was mindlessly grinding, i quit, and started playing other games. Playing a game because you feel obligated to play isn't fun, and there are a lot of games out there that are fun.

Now I've devised a way of making the same work for consoles. No, you still have to buy the console but this time, time is a currency. Gamer-score and MS points are already there so we'll use those.

Consider each game can give you up to 1000GS. This is now your equivilent of IP, or any time to play currency. You can spend this on cool unlocks exclusive to the game, or use GS from another title to buy something you want now. You can also purchase these with a small amount of MS points, but the total you can spend on a game cannot exceed 1000GS. This gives the player all the optional unlocks if they play the game until everything is unlocked. Now take this a step further.

Uplay already does that. You can buy in-game items like armor and additional missions for achievment points.

Xbox live in the UK is £40. Lets add our FTP currency to the buy price, say 24,000 GS. Now you can have Xbox Live for "free". Lets face it, its not free, you need to buy 24 titles a year and 100% each, that's 2 games a month. But because the option to pay with GS means consumers will buy more games just to achieve that goal. You probably aren't going to get it for free every year, but you might get your 3rd or 4th year free and you'll feel like you've achieved something by doing it. Plus, considering the cut Microsoft take from each game sale I'd say it would be pretty fair for everyone.

XBOX live should be free, not "free". I already pay my ISP, don't see why i should pay MS as well. It's like paying to get into a store.

Of course, DLC mission packs etc. could also cost GS. The same situation plays out. People buy games, play them, then save up to get something for nothing. You've spent time but you've not realized. You've invested in lots of titles but you haven't noticed. Same way the FTP model gets you if you're impatient.

Imagine paying your Netflix subscription with GS? Or getting Sky TV by playing games? If you were going to buy the games anyway its a massive plus. The system works for customers and publishers by giving gamer-score real world value.

I'd like your opinions on this. A play-to-pay system always sounds a little backward to some people but just think about that gamer-score or those trophies you have just sitting there telling you how good you are. They could be cashed in for valuable prizes!

I think your idea will make people spend more time playing the same game - which will reduce overall real-money sales. Instead of paying 60$ for a new game people will grind old games to get enough achievement points to get the game without paying any actual money.
FTP works because you cant buy some of the things for sale with in-game currencies like achievements. And if you can they will try to discourage, not encourage, you to do so by making it a lot more difficult in-game.

 

[Keoul]

How does this solve the DRM issue?
As in how does this prevent people from buying second hand games or modifying their system to play homebrews? You haven't solved their problem at all!

Also your suggestion seems... optimistic at best and foolish at worst.

Consider each game can give you up to 1000GS. This is now your equivilent of IP, or any time to play currency. You can spend this on cool unlocks exclusive to the game, or use GS from another title to buy something you want now. You can also purchase these with a small amount of MS points, but the total you can spend on a game cannot exceed 1000GS. This gives the player all the optional unlocks if they play the game until everything is unlocked. Now take this a step further.

I want to know what you mean by the bolded part specifically. Do you mean that you can only spend a maximum of 1000GS on a certain game's unlockables or do you mean there are only 1000GS worth of loot available? Also are you restricting GS to specific games? such as say GS gained from Halo 3 can only be spent on Halo 3 loot? When you think about these questions you can see there's a lot of flaws in your idea. Why spend all day getting 100% in a halo to get that sweet weapon at the cashshop when you can just buy 2 games from the XBLA and score up to 1600GS for a lower price to spend on halo instead?

I just don't see this idea working, it would require complete re-structuring of the entire system and frankly none of the big company has time for that well there's money to be made through other methods.

 

[Aikayai]

OK a few things in perspective:

Content purchases are made online only. This doesn't mean "Always Online" so in one case it means the purchases must be verified at some point.

Second, the system would be restructured based of the 720, NOT the 360. As a new system, it would not replace the old one, just work separate to it.

Finally, Xbox Live is expensive because its not free to run. The server costs alone are ridiculous for Microsoft, but that is because they chose their system that way and now they're stuck with it. Until games are entirely peer to peer, XBL will not be cheap. Just remember that you're paying half the cost of a Minecraft server and it will give you some perspective.

As additional content goes, the shop is not a strong point. If publishers want to add more content it will put too much pressure on the free to buy structure. Still, it would encourage publishers to be more tactful with their sales, making their product more appealing while remaining competitive in cost.

How does this solve the DRM issue?
As in how does this prevent people from buying second hand games or modifying their system to play homebrews? You haven't solved their problem at all!

Also your suggestion seems... optimistic at best and foolish at worst.

Consider each game can give you up to 1000GS. This is now your equivilent of IP, or any time to play currency. You can spend this on cool unlocks exclusive to the game, or use GS from another title to buy something you want now. You can also purchase these with a small amount of MS points, but the total you can spend on a game cannot exceed 1000GS. This gives the player all the optional unlocks if they play the game until everything is unlocked. Now take this a step further.

Do you mean that you can only spend a maximum of 1000GS on a certain game's unlockables or do you mean there are only 1000GS worth of loot available? Also are you restricting GS to specific games? such as say GS gained from Halo 3 can only be spent on Halo 3 loot? When you think about these questions you can see there's a lot of flaws in your idea. Why spend all day getting 100% in a halo to get that sweet weapon at the cashshop when you can just buy 2 games from the XBLA and score up to 1600GS for a lower price to spend on halo instead?.

The gamerscore is transferable. I could play another game and buy Halo gear with that gamerscore. Like you say, you can buy two games from XBLA for the lower price. This is the point of the system. You didn't need to buy those games but logic says you can get more gamerscore out of it, thus you'd buy something you didn't want. So you'd own Halo AND the games from XBLA, even if you didn't want them. You just wanted the gamerscore. See the point? It'd mean people would spend more money online buying titles for real money just to farm the free currency, exactly how F2P games work. Plus since you're buying from Microsoft's online stores directly there's no need for excessive DRM, saving them money and consumers the hassle.

 

[DoPo]

Finally, Xbox Live is expensive because its not free to run.

I'd imagine that no other website or indeed Internet service is free to run. Yet, if I am not mistaken, PSN is free for the users, so is Steam, Origin, GreenManGaming, GameFly, and a number of other platforms. Let's expand this to Facebook, Google, eBay, Amazon. Neither of these are paid for. And they are enormous - Facebook not only has its own data centres, it also powers them with their own powerplants. I'd be very surprised if Google don't do something similar.

And you were saying?

Furthermore, exactly how is your solution attractive or desirable for Microsoft? Yes, they can have the next Xbox work without DRM by...removing the DRM. But why would they do that and what is the incentive for it. I never really found a clear statement why just a bit of talk about adopting a sort of a F2P model that is entirely unrelated to the matter.

 

[Aikayai]

Finally, Xbox Live is expensive because its not free to run.

I'd imagine that no other website or indeed Internet service is free to run. Yet, if I am not mistaken, PSN is free for the users, so is Steam, Origin, GreenManGaming, GameFly, and a number of other platforms. Let's expand this to Facebook, Google, eBay, Amazon. Neither of these are paid for. And they are enormous - Facebook not only has its own data centres, it also powers them with their own powerplants. I'd be very surprised if Google don't do something similar.

And you were saying?

Furthermore, exactly how is your solution attractive or desirable for Microsoft? Yes, they can have the next Xbox work without DRM by...removing the DRM. But why would they do that and what is the incentive for it. I never really found a clear statement why just a bit of talk about adopting a sort of a F2P model that is entirely unrelated to the matter.

Xbox live is free, its the paid gold membership that we're talking about. Same as PSN's premium service. The others are digital distribution services and don't require their own servers for other people's titles (for hosting multiplayer). They're fronted by clans and other groups. Facebook and Google are advert powered, they generate massive revenue just by their user base visiting. I get what you're saying, but it works from an economic point that players aught to share the server cost. You can cry multi billion dollar company until the world ends but they aren't going to change unless something that sustains them better financially. They're rich for a reason.

Remember how popular modifying consoles was for playing copied games? DRM happens because that happened. Make the service more attractive and people use that service. I can tell you now Steam is successful because getting games, friends and tools in one place is better than how torrents work. Now if XBL was attractive enough that getting the console modified was a bad thing then people wouldn't mod right? Since people who would play offline only aren't using the service they're never going to need a multi-player service. For those who are, they need a service that's attractive. Why not have a service that rewards the user for using it?

 

[DoPo]

Remember how popular modifying consoles was for playing copied games? DRM happens because that happened. Make the service more attractive and people use that service.

I don't see how that would stop people from still playing illegal copies of games on there. Or using the console for stuff Microsoft doesn't want them to. MS have several objectives when it comes to Xbox and I doubt they've changed their minds too much for the past years. OK, actually they have one objective, to be precise - sell Xboxes, take a loss on selling them but make up the money from games afterwards. That's why Xbox is. The DRM, on the other hand has several objectives:
1. it should stop playing non-legit copies being played. MS already lose money on the Xbox itself, they need to sell games, so illegal copies shouldn't be playable. They could very well turn around, change theoir mind and add second hand copies on there - they don't make much money on them, maybe none, so it makes more sense to not allow them. At any rate, point one - non-legit copies.
2. The Xbox being used as a cheap PC. As it was said, MS are taking a loss on hardware - anybody can just buy it for cheap and set it up as a home computer. It might not be good but it'd be quite adequate, especially in the beginning. And when they do, they won't be playing games. Or may not be playing games. Or whatever, point being, Microsoft are still at a loss after that sale.
3. Hobbyists turning the Xbox into a home entertainment system or something similarly non-profitable for MS. This may bleed from 2. and it partially overlaps so I don't need to explain that - it's to prevent loss.
4. Everything else that doesn't help Microsoft make money off sales through Xbox.

This is their plan, their idea and the reason behind Xbox. Adopting a F2P-like model does nothing at all to help. At most, you might claim it'd reduce 1. but this would be a pure guess. Microsoft do not really operate on optimism. OK, they sometimes do operate on wishful thinking but that's different - they just have idiots in their midst, actual optimism doesn't factor into their plans.

But even leaving aside not addressing those issues (because somebody wanting a cheap PC would be so-o-o bummed if they can't grind for a DLC) the actual fact that Microsoft are selling the hardware at a loss remains. Let's assume you're successful in encouraging people to use the online system so they do...Microsoft are still not making much money. Players would focus on playing the old games more, in order to get the Xbox currency, so they probably won't increase their buying habit. And when they do buy stuff, they are also encouraged to make big savings which, again, are not in favour of Microsoft.

Bottom line: the solution proposed, not only fails to prevent what Microsoft want prevented, it also fails to provide what they need provided. Or at best, things would go roughly as before...which is also not something they want - Microsoft would want to expand and increase profits, not spend time, effort, and money on a system that would probably just leave everything as it was before.

 

[Aikayai]

Be that as it may, I have never pirated a free to play game.

I don't see the advantage of pirating games if it stops you from using a play to pay service.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

Ow thank god we have been blessed with another gaming messiah with the gift foresight and obviously a marketing pedigree that it's an wonder their a free agent....

Seriously it's one thing to say what you would like to see from the next generation, or even what your worried about with xyz rumors but

So Microsoft are going to screw up the 720 right? We all know its going to happen, just as Sony will mess up the PS4. Its always been a contest of who does less things wrong.

Really? No official specs have been released at all or even the name for the new xbox, everything out there is all conjecture and rumors and your declaring it a failure?

If they implemented the system you suggest one thing and one thing only would happen, the price of games would go up, you have not addressed any of the big rumor's of concern around the next gen.

Finally, Xbox Live is expensive because its not free to run.

I'd imagine that no other website or indeed Internet service is free to run. Yet, if I am not mistaken, PSN is free for the users, so is Steam, Origin, GreenManGaming, GameFly, and a number of other platforms. Let's expand this to Facebook, Google, eBay, Amazon. Neither of these are paid for. And they are enormous - Facebook not only has its own data centres, it also powers them with their own powerplants. I'd be very surprised if Google don't do something similar.

Equally the free PSN has literally crapped out for what was it a month? and security was so lapse 1000's of people's credit card details were stolen..... Equally I think I'm correct in thinking there's not even access to basic features like party chat? No wonder sony don't have the guile to try and charge people for it.

So bored of the "xlive is expensive debate" if you shop around for 5 mins on google you can normally get it for £30, I do every year, since when has £2.50 a month been considered expensive? That's less than a bottle of coke and a sandwich. In exchange you get an incredibly reliable service, 1000's of update, 1000's of demo's, chat and party facility's, game updates, access to a huge network of online users, video content, there's even a quite a few free games on the arcade. Microsoft even sent me an email out of there blue once saying essentially thanks for your continued custom here are 1200 Microsoft points.

When I dropped and broke my xbox, they repaired it and gave me 2 months free live to make up for the fact they took 2 weeks to fix it. Everyone just loves to hate on the big corporations, you don't get flame wars spreading across the internet about great service unfortunately.

 

[Woodsey]

Xbox live is free, its the paid gold membership that we're talking about. Same as PSN's premium service. The others are digital distribution services and don't require their own servers for other people's titles (for hosting multiplayer). They're fronted by clans and other groups. Facebook and Google are advert powered, they generate massive revenue just by their user base visiting. I get what you're saying, but it works from an economic point that players aught to share the server cost. You can cry multi billion dollar company until the world ends but they aren't going to change unless something that sustains them better financially. They're rich for a reason.

Uh... isn't it the paid gold membership that you need if you want to play the other half of the games you've already paid for? Last time I checked Sony's thing didn't block multiplayer.

So bored of the "xlive is expensive debate" if you shop around for 5 mins on google you can normally get it for £30, I do every year, since when has £2.50 a month been considered expensive? That's less than a bottle of coke and a sandwich. In exchange you get an incredibly reliable service, 1000's of update, 1000's of demo's, chat and party facility's, game updates, access to a huge network of online users, video content, there's even a quite a few free games on the arcade. Microsoft even sent me an email out of there blue once saying essentially thanks for your continued custom here are 1200 Microsoft points.

All of which is outdone by Valve, who do it for free.

 

[Aikayai]

So is a play to pay system a good idea? Would you use a service that rewarded you? Will people buying more games than they need fill the void created by piracy? Is piracy really a service issue?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

So is a play to pay system a good idea? Would you use a service that rewarded you? Will people buying more games than they need fill the void created by piracy? Is piracy really a service issue?

People mod their gamerscores, or cheat to get GS (Windows Live games +console commands = free GS). With that system people could essentially get free stuff for doing absolutely nothing. I also doubt 3rd party dev's would go for that idea.

 

[Costia]

So bored of the "xlive is expensive debate" if you shop around for 5 mins on google you can normally get it for £30, I do every year, since when has £2.50 a month been considered expensive? That's less than a bottle of coke and a sandwich. In exchange you get an incredibly reliable service, 1000's of update, 1000's of demo's, chat and party facility's, game updates, access to a huge network of online users, video content, there's even a quite a few free games on the arcade. Microsoft even sent me an email out of there blue once saying essentially thanks for your continued custom here are 1200 Microsoft points.

It makes it even more weird. Why even bother if it's so cheap? All it does is piss off users.
For me it's not about expensive, it's about meeting the user's expectations. They can get everything you mentioned for free , and legally, on the internet on the PC, on smartphones, tablets, basically any device that can connect to the internet except consoles.
It makes no sense for people to pay MS for these services.
Edit: and IIRC even if you do pay for xbox live you still get ads. The least they could do is remove the ads for paying customers, and give xbox live gold for free with ads to the others.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

So bored of the "xlive is expensive debate" if you shop around for 5 mins on google you can normally get it for £30, I do every year, since when has £2.50 a month been considered expensive? That's less than a bottle of coke and a sandwich. In exchange you get an incredibly reliable service, 1000's of update, 1000's of demo's, chat and party facility's, game updates, access to a huge network of online users, video content, there's even a quite a few free games on the arcade. Microsoft even sent me an email out of there blue once saying essentially thanks for your continued custom here are 1200 Microsoft points.

It makes it even more weird. Why even bother if it's so cheap? All it does is piss off users.
For me it's not about expensive, it's about meeting the user's expectations. They can get everything you mentioned for free , and legally, on the internet on the PC, on smartphones, tablets, basically any device that can connect to the internet except consoles.
It makes no sense for people to pay MS for these services.
Edit: and IIRC even if you do pay for xbox live you still get ads. The least they could do is remove the ads for paying customers, and give xbox live gold for free with ads to the others.

One word, convenience. The same reason the majority of people do their gaming on consoles. Press one button on the tv, another on the Xbox, 5 mins later your in a party, playing what ever game it is you fancy in a part chat with all your mates.

Same principle as when Skype came out, people were predicting the phone company's were all going to go tits up, as anyone can make a call to anyone anywhere in the world for free, all they need is a computer and a reasonable internet connection. But people still use land lines. The problem with computers is that they are advanced pieces of kit essentially, you can do allot of different things on them, but most people can't be bothered with all that. Think thats why people are willing to pay £400 for an IPad that's far less capable than a PC, just because it's simple to use.

People will pay for convenience, simplicity and a easy user interface, time and time again.

 

[Costia]

One word, convenience. The same reason the majority of people do their gaming on consoles. Press one button on the tv, another on the Xbox, 5 mins later your in a party, playing what ever game it is you fancy in a part chat with all your mates.

Same principle as when Skype came out, people were predicting the phone company's were all going to go tits up, as anyone can make a call to anyone anywhere in the world for free, all they need is a computer and a reasonable internet connection. But people still use land lines. The problem with computers is that they are advanced pieces of kit essentially, you can do allot of different things on them, but most people can't be bothered with all that. Think thats why people are willing to pay £400 for an IPad that's far less capable than a PC, just because it's simple to use.

People will pay for convenience, simplicity and a easy user interface, time and time again.

What does it have anything to do with what i said? It is convenient, but it's also free anywhere else.
I didn't say "shut down xbox live" I said make it free, like all the other companies do.
Like with skype, would you pay for PC to PC calls? I don't think so, you will just switch to a different service. This has nothing to do with convenience. If anything it's about being competitive.
You pay for a console/iphone because that's the standard. Nobody is offering free consoles/iphones (without somehow screwing you in a different way, like an expensive contract)

 

[AT God]

What ever happend to paying a certain amount of dollars, taking the item home. Buying a disk/cartridge for a certain price, putting the disk into the device, and turning it on.

I never had to install a firmware update on my Dreamcast, Nintendo 64, Gamecube, PS1, PS2, or Genesis, and I seemed to enjoy them a lot. Why does adding online capability ruin everything? Why can't the machines be built properly the first time so they don't have to add firmware, just make the games run and thats it.

 

[J Tyran]

Xbox live is free, its the paid gold membership that we're talking about. Same as PSN's premium service. The others are digital distribution services and don't require their own servers for other people's titles (for hosting multiplayer). They're fronted by clans and other groups. Facebook and Google are advert powered, they generate massive revenue just by their user base visiting. I get what you're saying, but it works from an economic point that players aught to share the server cost. You can cry multi billion dollar company until the world ends but they aren't going to change unless something that sustains them better financially. They're rich for a reason.

So why do Microsoft fill the 360 dashboard full of ads gold subscription or not? Sony don't do it even with the free service, subscribing to PS+ gets you discounts on the PSN store, 60 minute demo trials of games on the PSN store and a load of games to play for free. It also applies to any Sony device linked your account.

Microsoft have no excuse for the pitiful level of service XBL Gold provides any more.