Took the words right out of my mouth. I thought that gamerscore would allow you to earn fun stuff by playing their games.dosp5 said:
Xbox owners - I've had an idea...
- Thread starter NinjaDeathSlap
- Start date
Recommended Videos
well, its not just microsoft befitting from micro-points, the game developers them selves need some income from DLC. While the gamerscore things sounds like a good idea IN THEORY, it would probably back fire and cause a loss of money and by extension probably few to no DLC.
Not to mention i fail to see how gamerscore can be a legit form of currency.
Not to mention i fail to see how gamerscore can be a legit form of currency.
This still all makes no god damn sense.NinjaDeathSlap said:
So what incentive AT ALL would Microsoft have to put anything good and worth buying on XBL Arcade?
They ALREADY HAVE YOUR MONEY when you buy the disc copies, with the latent "currency" to get more games "earning" a gamerscore. So they should go to all the effort of
Even if they jsut allowed other developers to put their games on there then Microsoft would have to pay them for each sale.
The only possible way this could work is if Microsoft quadrupled their $12 per game licensing fee so each game would cost more like $90!
And here in lies the rub
-what if you don't want all the gamerscore/points to get a load
-what if you just want to buy a $15 game you have to spend $90(!) and then play through a shit load of a game you don't even want to whore for points. ZERO impulse buying.
-2nd hand games, what happens to achievement point then, Microsoft doesn't get a penny more but the gamer potentially gets a whole load more games to buy off XBLA for nothing. Are you saying achievements can only be earned once for each copy??!?!?!!
The gamerscore isn't supposed to even be something of inherent worth, it is quantified measurement of PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENT! It isn't worth anything to anyone else that you got 50G blowing up a tank. It's just a record keeping. Your gaming achievement is only worth anything to YOU!
All you seem to be doing here is thinking:
"Gamerscore is a number"
...
"MS points is a number"
...
"I have so much more 'numbers' for my gamerscore than my MS points... oh if Only I could use one as the other"
Then "rationalising" a contrived circumstance where this could possibly work.
Look I'm sorry your gamerscore is so undervalued, but you know there are two people to blame for that:
(1) shitty developers adding in easy achievements to boost sales to achievement whores
(2) achievement whores themselves who are more obsessed with the number than actually getting there.
See if there was a REAL market for achievement points then they might mean something. Unfortunately achievement "valuing" is 100% down to the self-interested publisher who effectively have lead to hyper-inflation as the value of achievement points has been devalued.
Bottom line:
[HEADING=1]Microsoft letting you buy anything with gamerscore is pure charity[/HEADING]
Wouldn't work you'd get free DLC out of it because you'd make the money back from beating the DLC and getting all the achievements and also it would also discourage small dev's from putting their games on Xbox Arcade because they wouldn't get that much money as putting it on PSN (granted that it's up har har).
I think it might work
but the last time I checked you just needed a internet connection to access the MS marketplace.
but the thing is that allot of achievements are piss ass easy like "get the first weapon" "beat stage 1" "complete the tutorial"
but the last time I checked you just needed a internet connection to access the MS marketplace.
but the thing is that allot of achievements are piss ass easy like "get the first weapon" "beat stage 1" "complete the tutorial"
I'm pretty sure a ton of people thought of this when Xbox 360 was announced so you are nowhere close to being the first person with this idea. Like many people have said, it won't work at all because its not profitable for the companies and it might not even be convenient for the customer (The inability to instantly get more points if you use them all). Also, currently you can just easily give yourself 1000gs in all the games ever and all you need is a transfer cable to do it.
League of Legends uses something similar to this. You earn IP by playing the game and can use it to buy champions, runes and other things. Then they sell RP for money, which things are cheaper if you buy it with RP, and skins can only be bought with RP. So there's a trade-off. Either you wait and play the game to earn enough IP, or buy the RP and get what you want immediately and for cheaper.
Uhm.....no. Game developers only make money when users buy a new game, and when they pay for DLC. Getting free points by simply playing the games they already bought would not give the developers a cent. And consider stores like Gamestop that sell used games. Players would buy the game used, with all of that money going to the store and not the developers, and then they get even more free stuff by simply just playing the game. (Watch "Extra Credits: Project Ten Dollar" to know a little more. In fact, just watch "Extra Credits" period.)NinjaDeathSlap said:
I can see what you're saying, by giving something to actually do with the gamer-score, and I'm not exactly fond of paying regular fees for XBLA, but let's be reasonable. XBOX Live needs money to keep it maintained and running. Maybe they could install some sort of, "The more gamer points you have, the bigger a discount you get on DLC?" I mean it's a good indicator of just how much you like and play XBOX games, why not make a "frequent flyer miles" of the XBOX?
It makes sense. Your gamerscore is even represented as a "G" with a circle around it. Isn't that how money was represented in a lot of games? I hadn't really had much experience with the 360 until recently and I thought you could use your Gamerscore as currency too. When I was told the disappointing truth, I had the same thought "Why don't they let us buy crap from XBL with our Gamerscores?"
Might not be convenient? It's so far from convenient its retarded, playing through a shitty game for 10 hours to get 1000 gamer score that will buy about half a games worth of DLC or buy it with money get my DLC right away for the game I want without playing games I don't.Slash12 said:
Because even after 5 years on live I would only have enough for $120 worth of DLC.Con Carne said:
Wouldn't work and wouldn't happen. Microsoft use some of the money we pay for gold privileges is used to support servers so that we can play games, not so that they can put games up. Microsoft only gets a cut of the money made from downloads and not the whole thing, so you would be taking money away from developers, money that they desperately need. Aside from that, people who have played on the XBOX for years and those who have cheated to get their Gamerscore will be able to have all of the downloads while those who start up and want to download a map pack will have to wait until they've played a large portion of the single player game; something that they might not want to do.
The intention was good but the idea was bad. It would cause havoc for a lot of people and many companies, it simply would not work.
The intention was good but the idea was bad. It would cause havoc for a lot of people and many companies, it simply would not work.
That sounds like a good system. It wasn't like I'd been planning this theory for ages and I was completely set on it, it was just an idea that's been at the back of my mind for a while so I thought a good way to test the water would be to introduce it to a gaming community who tend to be very knowledgeable. I can see now that my theory has flaws in it that no amount of tweaking can really solve so I guess it's back to the drawing board. See, the problem I personally have with MS points is that I don't have my own credit card. I really should but my family is stingy like that, so while I can buy games myself if I want to get MS points online I essentially have to do it with my parent money and with their permission, which can get frustrating as they not the most clued up people when it comes to games. Also the set prices to get MS points online are stupid, and they don't let you just manually set a specific amount that you want. There must be SOME way of making this better without hurting anyones profits.Reishadowen said:
Sony skimped on their security front to make up the loss of offering free online service. Not to mention that the service isn't as fluid as Xbox Live. You get what you pay for.NinjaDeathSlap said:
It serves enough of a purpose in enough players eyes for it to have spawned a metagame, and to provoke copycats in almost every gaming installation. Sony, Apple and Newgrounds are the immediate ones to come through.
Don't forget, Gamerscore is merely a universal high score table or a percentage complete list within a game. The bragging ability, nay just the badge of honour is more than enough for most. In my case, it gives me something further to do past the standard - therefore providing more value for my cash.
You are never the only one, and certainly not by a long short in this idea.
You don't have to fork out for anything. Like any service, you opt in and therefore pay the entry fee. Sky or Virgin don't give you free subscriptions for watching certain of television.
Also you're forgetting that there's a greater downpayment for Sony's service - and that they've begun rolling out their PS+. Come PS4, they'll charge you just the same; they learnt a hard lesson this time round.
Once you've bought the game, Microsoft nor the developers nor the publishers care about what you think about it - or if they do for future customer retention; I'm sure your opinion on numbers is the least of their concerns. If you are inclined to achievement hunt in the first instance you always will, and if you weren't then you never will. Insignificant rewards will not change this mindset of someone.
Also remember - there will be a lot of cross publisher friction - in that in theory an individual could only purchase BioWare products and use attained Gamerscore to purchase Rockstar items; never giving them a dime.
I'd like to know where your experience outweighs that of entire legions of marketing strategists. You seem to forget that your idea is circular, and that people will not only get free games/DLC by completing other free games/DLC claimed by the programme, but also that the entire retail market will collapse in on itself because people will no longer have a reason to purchase instead of visiting Blockbusters or becoming patrons of Lovefilm/Gamefly.
Bar simple ownership desires of course - but these people would not hold the market afloat, as proven by the growing popularity of digital ownership.
Categorically no. What would be more sensible is a prize draw system similar to what many mobile operators do with pay as you go contracts, to encourage people to spend more money on phone credit than they need.
What I mean by this, is that O2 offer a silver and gold prize programme dependent on how much you top up each month. This can easily be replicated by having gamerscore related gateways. The more gamerscore you earn in a month, the better prize window you enter.
Your idea is just not practical and manifests itself from what appears to be a sense of entitlement.
One essential problem (aside from what everyone has already stated) is that you are rewarding players for being good at games. Now of course that's not a bad thing and is the current purpose of gamerscore, when you start applying real monetary value to the achievements, you start saying "You want to play our games? You better be damn good at them."
Let's say a kid only has Halo games, and loves playing them, but isn't very good. If there is a new map pack released that he wants to play, he can't, even if he'd be willing to fork over the $15 for them, he can't because he isn't a good enough player.
Also, you'd have MS coming in and dictating the achievements system because if you're going to start making them worth REAL money, it gets very serious from a business perspective.
Let's say a kid only has Halo games, and loves playing them, but isn't very good. If there is a new map pack released that he wants to play, he can't, even if he'd be willing to fork over the $15 for them, he can't because he isn't a good enough player.
Also, you'd have MS coming in and dictating the achievements system because if you're going to start making them worth REAL money, it gets very serious from a business perspective.
I actually went to the marketplace and tried to spend them. Heh. This thread takes me back to a more innocent time.dosp5 said: