Is MS forcing charging for Live content?

Indiana

Indiana

CAGiversary!
So, I listened to the CAG cast and the statement was made that MS is forcing publishers to charge for content.

Is this confirmed and true? If this is true it could be huge and damaging for MS. I hope some light is shed on this, I want more free downloads.
 
I don't know if you are addressing strictly game content or if live arcade games are included, but I recall reading an interview with someone from Bizarre Creations regarding the issue. Evidently Bizarre didn't want to charge gamers for Geometry Wars at all, but MS basically forced a charge. Naturally, Bizarre asked what the lowest possible asking price could be and MS responded with 400 points.
 
Epic apparently wanted to release GOW DLC for free but MS told them not to, rumoured reason is that if too much good content is given away for free then EA and the like will look even worse with they crap they try and charge for.
 
[quote name='benjamouth']Epic apparently wanted to release GOW DLC for free but MS told them not to, rumoured reason is that if too much good content is given away for free then EA and the like will look even worse with they crap they try and charge for.[/QUOTE]

LOL
 
[quote name='thegamer4787']I don't know if you are addressing strictly game content or if live arcade games are included, but I recall reading an interview with someone from Bizarre Creations regarding the issue. Evidently Bizarre didn't want to charge gamers for Geometry Wars at all, but MS basically forced a charge. Naturally, Bizarre asked what the lowest possible asking price could be and MS responded with 400 points.[/QUOTE]

That sorta conflicts with Bizarre's extreme defensive measures at shutting down copy cat games. I mean, if they wanted it to be free...why go after cheap knock offs. They weren't interested in profit so why protect the brand. My guess is Bizarre just wants to endear themselves as "your ol' pals at Bizarre" instead of a gaming company.

And no, there's never been any concrete proof outside of "anonymous developer" statements in Game Informer.

When Cliffy B develops the balls to say "Yeah. Microsoft is fucking their fanbase. We tried to offer shit for free, but they don't care" I'll put more stock in it.
 
[quote name='terribledeli']That sorta conflicts with Bizarre's extreme defensive measures at shutting down copy cat games. I mean, if they wanted it to be free...why go after cheap knock offs.[/QUOTE]

Because, free or not, they must protect their copyrights. If they don't, it can set the stage for someone else to make a knockoff and charge for it.
 
[quote name='KaneRobot']Because, free or not, they must protect their copyrights. If they don't, it can set the stage for someone else to make a knockoff and charge for it.[/QUOTE]
You're confusing copyright with trademarks. There is no requirement for copyrights to be actively protected like trademarks.
 
It is true, sorta.

Microsoft will not let you give away certain content for free, especially games. I have heard it myself from devs.

I'm not sure if the GOW DLC rumor is true but it's very likely.

I can see both sides. Microsoft does give most profit to the devs for dlc, including games. But you are also using Microsoft's service to do so, and they want to make money too. Microsoft spends a lot of money on hosting servers, marketing Live, and maintenance.

I don't know of too many industries where the middleman can be expected to sell something for free if the manufacturer wishes it.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']They are coming out with a PC version which is why shut down those ripoffs.[/QUOTE]


Ah. But if they didn't care about making money off of it, why shut them down? Wouldn't customers flock to the better product at the same price (in this case free)?

Unless Bizarre intended to charge gamers for the product, regardless of format.

If the truly wanted to make it free and Microsoft gave them shit, why wouldn't they sneak it in PGR3? Instead, they just tossed in the demo version.

I'm just not buying their whole angle. They could have fought it. Or even offered via their own website if they truly intended it to be free.

My guess is Bizarre was doing half assed damaged control for Boom Boom Rocket against naysayers who are stupidly opposed to the game because EA is publishing it.
 
[quote name='Damian']You're confusing copyright with trademarks. There is no requirement for copyrights to be actively protected like trademarks.[/QUOTE]

They don't have to be actively protected, that is true, but by actively protecting their copyrights, it gives them two advantages. A) When they do want to come out with a commercial version, they have a clear playing field, instead of trying to sell what a bunch of people are offering for free, and B) legally, it is much more convincing to a court that a game is infringing on your copyrights when you can show you have actively pursued previous games of the same nature.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket'] they want to make money too. Microsoft spends a lot of money on hosting servers, marketing Live, and maintenance. .[/QUOTE]

Um, i thought everyone paid for Live for a reason....

i do think its true, and perhaps the best argument is that EA wants to make money and they(MS) dont want them to look bad.

if we recall, Madden wasnt initially on LIVE and was only online for ps2. So M$ has to make sure they keep the EA giant happy because lets face it, now that they are the only NFL game makers you cant afford to lose them. Not to mention its extra money in the pocket.

We already got lucky enough with the first Gears map pack since discovery sponsored it for us, and if being free is the only thing thats keeping the update out, id gladly pay to freshen the game up for me once again.

I also dont mind paying to be honest. There was once a time when you had to wait for the sequel to see more things implemented in a game. Shit 10 bucks for 8 characters in Marvel UA? Im down. $5 for 2 maps on Lost Planet? Im down. Any $ for some horse armor? Ill pass. Really dont care if they charge for everything because even if some of the stuff were free i wouldnt make much use of it.

The only thing that ticks me off for microtransactions is when you have to pay to unlock something thats already on the game disc YOU PAID FOR!!!!
 
this has been confirmed as true - best examples are Gears of war and Geometry Wars. I'm pretty sure JetPack was supposed to be free too. A lot of the stuff that they dont 'want' to charge for they offer at a minimum thy're allowed to (ie jetpack at 400 pts)
 
[quote name='Weedy649']
The only thing that ticks me off for microtransactions is when you have to pay to unlock something thats already on the game disc YOU PAID FOR!!!![/QUOTE]

Don't even tell me you paid to like unlock everything in Tiger Woods or Need for Speed or something. If you did. Just. Wow.

Also, Yes, we do pay for Live for these great services, but MS is a company. Companies love money. If they can make even more money through DLC, why wouldn't they go after it? Also, no one is forcing the DLC on you. If you're a big enough fan of a certain game, it seems reasonable that you would be willing to pay for some extra piece of content. But yes, I see the argument that some of the DLC on the marketplace should have been included in the game originally, but that's not necessarily MS' fault, they're not the ones making the games, don't shoot the messenger.

I'm surprised more people aren't pissed off at Nintendo for the VC. At least XBLA puts some effort into re-vamping a game, new graphics, leaderboards, achievements, online play, etc. But Nintendo wants you to pay $8 for Comix Zone??? The SAME Comix Zone from like 10 years ago? With NO new features? WTF?
 
[quote name='A Happy Panda']I'm surprised more people aren't pissed off at Nintendo for the VC. At least XBLA puts some effort into re-vamping a game, new graphics, leaderboards, achievements, online play, etc. But Nintendo wants you to pay $8 for Comix Zone??? The SAME Comix Zone from like 10 years ago? With NO new features? WTF?[/quote]

Yeah you can buy the original cartrige for that much or less.
 
I never even played Tiger Woods or Need for Speed, im just saying my only beef is that they have the audacity to make you pay for shit already on the disc you paid for. So you basically have to pay to unlock it if you want it. I wouldnt buy it if it were on the disc or not but its the principle of the matter.
 
[quote name='Weedy649']I never even played Tiger Woods or Need for Speed, im just saying my only beef is that they have the audacity to make you pay for shit already on the disc you paid for. So you basically have to pay to unlock it if you want it. I wouldnt buy it if it were on the disc or not but its the principle of the matter.[/QUOTE]

??? Examples? I'm not confronting you or anything, I just can't think of anything.
 
Just because it's on the disk doesn't mean anything. Did you ever think that there's locked content on a disk because developers WANT that to be part of DLC? Come on... if you like the game, you'll pay extra for DLC whether or not it's already on the disk.

People are taking the fact that it's already on the disk as an argument, but not even a valid one. Would you feel different if the content wasn't on the disk? Would that make you feel better? Fact is, you can't play it yet until you pay for it no matter where it's placed.
 
[quote name='strummerbs']
A) When they do want to come out with a commercial version, they have a clear playing field, instead of trying to sell what a bunch of people are offering for free, and[/quote]
That's irrelevant. There is no law guaranteeing you a monopoly over a certain type or style of game. How many Bejeweled clones are there? Do you think PopCap can (or should be able to) do anything to stop them?
B) legally, it is much more convincing to a court that a game is infringing on your copyrights when you can show you have actively pursued previous games of the same nature.
Click to expand...
Again, you are confusing copyrights and trademarks. There is no "proving" something infringes on copyrights. It either does or doesn't. Copyrighted material would include the art from someone else's game, or actual code.

Trademarks are the vague area that need to be protected. You have to prove that Ruff Trigger is confusingly similar to Crash Bandicoot.
 
[quote name='strdr4']People are taking the fact that it's already on the disk as an argument, but not even a valid one. Would you feel different if the content wasn't on the disk? Would that make you feel better? Fact is, you can't play it yet until you pay for it no matter where it's placed.[/QUOTE]
The point about that is that people expect to buy a complete game at the time of purchase. If new material is added on to their game most people would be fine that there is a cost associated with that. But content that is actually included with your game but unavailable to you just smacks of deliberately delivering less than they could have specifically so they can sell it to you later. That's the sort of behavior that needs to be discouraged unless you want every game to end up like the (canceled) PS3 Gran Turismo where you buy a disc includes nothing but the privilege of buying tracks and cars.
 
If they put it on the disc then sell it to you as a game, everything on that disc should be allowed to be accessed for "free". if they wish to add new material that is not on the disc then by all means charge if someone wants it then they will purchase it.
Is like buying a some land which has a house on it, only to move into the house and being told you didn't buy the house so pay "rent" now.
 
[quote name='Damian']That's irrelevant. There is no law guaranteeing you a monopoly over a certain type or style of game. How many Bejeweled clones are there? Do you think PopCap can (or should be able to) do anything to stop them?

Again, you are confusing copyrights and trademarks. There is no "proving" something infringes on copyrights. It either does or doesn't. Copyrighted material would include the art from someone else's game, or actual code.
[/QUOTE]

Popcap absolutely could go after clones of its game, if it can prove substantial similarity and access. I am not confusing copyright and trademark (I practice copyright law, so I'm decently well versed in it). You do have to prove infringement. It's a similarity standard, it does not require copying. A game can infringe on another without copying code or artwork, if the style is so close as to constitute an infringement of the original creator's creative work.
 
[quote name='strdr4']Just because it's on the disk doesn't mean anything. Did you ever think that there's locked content on a disk because developers WANT that to be part of DLC? Come on... if you like the game, you'll pay extra for DLC whether or not it's already on the disk.

People are taking the fact that it's already on the disk as an argument, but not even a valid one. Would you feel different if the content wasn't on the disk? Would that make you feel better? Fact is, you can't play it yet until you pay for it no matter where it's placed.[/QUOTE]

First, it's not downloadable content when it's on the disc. Second, it's complete bullshit to charge for content already on the disc because people already bought access to that when they... y'know, bought the fucking disc.
 
[quote name='Mister Switch']this has been confirmed as true - best examples are Gears of war and Geometry Wars. I'm pretty sure JetPack was supposed to be free too. A lot of the stuff that they dont 'want' to charge for they offer at a minimum thy're allowed to (ie jetpack at 400 pts)[/QUOTE]

Why not just wait and fuck MS over by tagging a couple of games or more at 400 points together?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top