This wouldn't work. A dev would make a map-pack or some DLC and then not make any profit on it because everyone "bought" it for free using points they earned from achievements.
Xbox owners - I've had an idea...
- Thread starter NinjaDeathSlap
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I like my paid for DLC if it adds to the game, having to grind my way through games to get gamerscore is just not worth my time. I have a 9000 gamerpoints on my Xbox/GFWL account, thats about $120 worth of stuff over 5 years. I spend that every month getting movies tv and dlc off of the live network.
2 things:
1. What if I want to just play the extra content for a game? Now I have to go out and play something else just to play the game I want to play. No good.
2. Online achievements would be even more absurd because games would just be flooded with people trying to boost to get more content. On a side note, they should ban online achievements altogether. Call of Duty 4 had it right... all 1000 points were single player leaving the online game for killing each other instead of trying to rig things.
3. I know I said two, but I can't count... This already exists in Ubisoft to a degree. It was called UPlay and doing certain things in one game earned you points that allowed you to get things from Ubisoft in other games.
1. What if I want to just play the extra content for a game? Now I have to go out and play something else just to play the game I want to play. No good.
2. Online achievements would be even more absurd because games would just be flooded with people trying to boost to get more content. On a side note, they should ban online achievements altogether. Call of Duty 4 had it right... all 1000 points were single player leaving the online game for killing each other instead of trying to rig things.
3. I know I said two, but I can't count... This already exists in Ubisoft to a degree. It was called UPlay and doing certain things in one game earned you points that allowed you to get things from Ubisoft in other games.
Dude, I've already had this thought like 3 months ago. The only difference between yours and mine is that you made a forum and I just asked a few friends.
On topic: it probably wouldn't work because Microsoft likes having money. A nice thought but a dream that will never be.
On topic: it probably wouldn't work because Microsoft likes having money. A nice thought but a dream that will never be.
Its not even that, his system is just a bad idea in current form. I'm not going to go play 3 games grind to 1000 gamer score on each just so I can buy all the Fable 3 DLC.Woodsey said:
YEs lets switch to the free PS3 method. It's not like that money we pay... which may I add is pretty minor for the entire year, goes into something useful like....security so we don't have to go weeks without XBL? IF you want a free network like with the ps3. then go buy a PS3. they are practically the same anbd the PS3 has some badass exclusives. Demon Souls. Infamous. etc etc etc
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 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?
Edit: Oh, and I would make achievements give out much more Gamerscore so it wouldn't feel so much like grinding.
Other than that I really do believe there would be an increase in Xbox/Xbox Game/Live subscription sales 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?
Edit: Oh, and I would make achievements give out much more Gamerscore so it wouldn't feel so much like grinding.
No it would push me to a different console, I do not want to play 3 games to get DLC for one.NinjaDeathSlap said:
The reason it wouldn't work is simple. Gamerscore modders.
They could simply mod themselves a fortunate in score, download a bunch of DLC that would be usable by other accounts even if the original was banned.
They could simply mod themselves a fortunate in score, download a bunch of DLC that would be usable by other accounts even if the original was banned.
The way your thinking about this is that your thinking that its all Microsoft that makes the games and then makes money based on those games. There are tons of developers and publishers out there. say "Publisher A" makes a game, not as many people buy his game but the people who do all download the DLC for they're game using all the Gamerscore they got from the more succesful "Publisher B" game. So how does Publisher A make money?NinjaDeathSlap said:
Strange... but it could work.
Although you have to keep in mind how the world works today. It's a far cry that anyone would actually risk that in this day and age.
Although you have to keep in mind how the world works today. It's a far cry that anyone would actually risk that in this day and age.
The only problem is that most of the DLC goes to game companies, and they would see a substantial loss in profits if this change was easier.
Honestly, it would be easier if they made Live free and kept DLC prices how they are, because changing it the other way around makes no sense.
Honestly, it would be easier if they made Live free and kept DLC prices how they are, because changing it the other way around makes no sense.
