Silver XBL users must now wait a week for new content
- Thread starter chakan
- Start date
[quote name='KingDox']Um, DLC used to be free to only XBL users back in the Xbox 1 days. Silver members should be happy they get any free content. Back in the OG xbox days there was no "silver" membership. If you wanted those extra cars for Midtown maddness or those extra maps for mechassault you needed to pay for XBL.
But that's ok, no one needs to remember that.[/QUOTE]
By offering Silver membership MS gained a lot of paying customer for DLC. IT is not like they have nothing to gain.
[quote name='BULL_Ship']Another benefit to gold users is that free content will download faster with less server load from silver members on release date.[/QUOTE]
Maybe if they want to do it for a few bigger things, but it make little difference to do this for DLC and themes that are a few MB. If they really want you to have faster download they can do other things
But that's ok, no one needs to remember that.[/QUOTE]
By offering Silver membership MS gained a lot of paying customer for DLC. IT is not like they have nothing to gain.
[quote name='BULL_Ship']Another benefit to gold users is that free content will download faster with less server load from silver members on release date.[/QUOTE]
Maybe if they want to do it for a few bigger things, but it make little difference to do this for DLC and themes that are a few MB. If they really want you to have faster download they can do other things
[quote name='aznguyen316']I don't know what's up with this widescreen patch, but OP I wouldn't worry b/c I played through Bioshock on my HDTV and didn't know there was a patch on the way... what exactly is it for? It looked fine on my tv..[/quote]
Up until now, Bioshock got its widescreen ratio by cropping it out of a standard 4:3 ratio screen. Thats the opposite of how its usually done.
If you played it in Widescreen, you were missing things from the top and bottom of your picture. People playing the game in 4:3 got more in their view.
This patch rectifies that.
Up until now, Bioshock got its widescreen ratio by cropping it out of a standard 4:3 ratio screen. Thats the opposite of how its usually done.
If you played it in Widescreen, you were missing things from the top and bottom of your picture. People playing the game in 4:3 got more in their view.
This patch rectifies that.
Stingermck
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Corvin']I may stand alone, but I think it's great. I pay for service so there should be some perks other than multi-player.
Getting rid of ads is #1 on my list, but this is a start.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I have to be a snob on this one. I pay, I win
Getting rid of ads is #1 on my list, but this is a start.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I have to be a snob on this one. I pay, I win
[quote name='Stingermck']Yeah I have to be a snob on this one. I pay, I win [/QUOTE]
[quote name='Liquid 2']Makes my gold subscription more worth it. No problems here.[/QUOTE]
No, you are not winning or getting a better service because MS decide to downgrade the service for silver member. Existing gold member are getting the same thing as before.
[/QUOTE][quote name='Liquid 2']Makes my gold subscription more worth it. No problems here.[/QUOTE]
No, you are not winning or getting a better service because MS decide to downgrade the service for silver member. Existing gold member are getting the same thing as before.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Puffa469']This patch rectifies that.[/QUOTE]
Ooh. I guess I may rebuy Bioshock, then.
Ooh. I guess I may rebuy Bioshock, then.
Damn this thread got ugly for such a simple topic.
[quote name='PyroGamer']
Why the
would I want to play a demo for an upcoming game a week later, when the actual game is now out and I can rent it, instead of playing it the day it comes out? Why the would I want to play downloadable content for a game a week later, after better games have since come out to occupy my time?
I wouldn't.
Why not?
Because the VALUE OF THE ITEM HAS DECREASED. A silver user used to have the ability to download valuable content, but now they have to wait a week. In the fast moving world of videogame nobody gives a shit about week-old demos. In the fast moving world of cinema, nobody gives a shit about week-old movie trailers.[/QUOTE]
see:
[quote name='Corvin']
...typical in this modern "It's all about me" society...[/QUOTE]
Seriously? Week old content is not new anymore? Do you have ADD or something that prevents you from enjoying a week old demo before you rush out to the video store? How up to the minute do you really need to be? Can you even name 5 games that came out within a week of their demo? I'm going to guess, no. I'd say the majority come out weeks prior and sometimes months. Same with trailers. These companies are promoting a product, very seldom will a company decide to throw up some last minute promo. Clearly a fallible argument.
Not to mention not every gamer buys every new release on release day. I'd say those people are in the minority, ESPECIALLY on CAG. So how exactly has the value of the FREE demo decreased for those people?
[quote name='PyroGamer']
Honestly I didn't even really give a about this to begin with, it just amazed me that Corvin considered REMOVING FEATURES from Silver as an IMPROVEMENT to Gold. Why I didn't realize he was ing insane at that point and ignore it, I know not. I regret going any further with him.
I'm done with this thread.[/QUOTE]
Where did I say it was an improvement? All I said was it was a great idea and a step in the right direction. You're reading things between the lines that aren't there. I've really got nothing against you, I just like debating, but looks like you'll never see this, :lol: right. Like I said before, I'd love to see new features for Gold members, mostly the removal of ads, but since we aren't getting those yet, might as well start somewhere. I doubt we will start seeing improvements to Gold until Sony makes their service comparable to Live(in other words, maybe by next Gen... zing!), a graphical avatar doesn't count.
I find it quite funny that as two gold users we are debating over content for Silver losers. And to that, I bid everyone a good night!
[quote name='PyroGamer']
Why the
would I want to play a demo for an upcoming game a week later, when the actual game is now out and I can rent it, instead of playing it the day it comes out? Why the would I want to play downloadable content for a game a week later, after better games have since come out to occupy my time?I wouldn't.
Why not?
Because the VALUE OF THE ITEM HAS DECREASED. A silver user used to have the ability to download valuable content, but now they have to wait a week. In the fast moving world of videogame nobody gives a shit about week-old demos. In the fast moving world of cinema, nobody gives a shit about week-old movie trailers.[/QUOTE]
see:
[quote name='Corvin']
...typical in this modern "It's all about me" society...[/QUOTE]
Seriously? Week old content is not new anymore? Do you have ADD or something that prevents you from enjoying a week old demo before you rush out to the video store? How up to the minute do you really need to be? Can you even name 5 games that came out within a week of their demo? I'm going to guess, no. I'd say the majority come out weeks prior and sometimes months. Same with trailers. These companies are promoting a product, very seldom will a company decide to throw up some last minute promo. Clearly a fallible argument.
Not to mention not every gamer buys every new release on release day. I'd say those people are in the minority, ESPECIALLY on CAG. So how exactly has the value of the FREE demo decreased for those people?
[quote name='PyroGamer']
Honestly I didn't even really give a
about this to begin with, it just amazed me that Corvin considered REMOVING FEATURES from Silver as an IMPROVEMENT to Gold. Why I didn't realize he was ing insane at that point and ignore it, I know not. I regret going any further with him.I'm done with this thread.[/QUOTE]
Where did I say it was an improvement? All I said was it was a great idea and a step in the right direction. You're reading things between the lines that aren't there. I've really got nothing against you, I just like debating, but looks like you'll never see this, :lol: right. Like I said before, I'd love to see new features for Gold members, mostly the removal of ads, but since we aren't getting those yet, might as well start somewhere. I doubt we will start seeing improvements to Gold until Sony makes their service comparable to Live(in other words, maybe by next Gen... zing!), a graphical avatar doesn't count.
I find it quite funny that as two gold users we are debating over content for Silver losers.
And to that, I bid everyone a good night!
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Corvin']Where did I say it was an improvement? All I said was it was a great idea and a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE]
This is what I disagree with. I have no qualms whatsoever if Gold members *get* more perks for paying up. Give Silver account holders the ads w/ video and sound, give Gold members discounts on XBLA titles/DLC during certain times of the year, exclusive "themes" and "gamerpics" (ooooooh! aaaaaah!), or something.
That, to me, is the key. "Give" Gold members something. The problem I have with the "deal with it" approach is that you're justifying the purchase of XBL Gold premised upon something everybody had access to until recently. If you have Gold now, you think it's a worthwhile investment for reasons other than access to these items...otherwise you would have held out until now.
I don't see how this makes Gold a better idea, or improved in any way. You won't notice a lick of difference. Nor will I.
This doesn't make Gold any better, and it is absurd to think it adds another reason to get Gold in the first place. Gold's not changing. Silver is. It's improved through taking things away from a group of consumers (time limited yes, as I've already admitted it's a tiny thing to grouse about, but still grouse-worthy). So, while it may be a step in the "right direction," it isn't at the same time. What the problem I have is that some people seem to think that this makes XBL Gold an even *better* purchase, when the reality is that it was something taken away from others that created this scenario. It's not an improvement; it's a rebalancing of a zero-sum game that, because it harms Silver users, Gold users suddenly feel better and more justified.
That's pretty silly, IMO. There are plenty of things that MS can do to improve Live (I'd pay $70 for an XBL "Titanium" where I wouldn't have to deal with a deluge of being called "fag" or "nigger" because I happen to kick your ass in Rock Band), but I'm not being fooled by this dog and pony show. I don't benefit from this, and I don't benefit from other users being temporarily barred from access to content.
In short, don't take something away from somebody else and then tell me just how my life just got even better; do something to make it better,ers.
This is what I disagree with. I have no qualms whatsoever if Gold members *get* more perks for paying up. Give Silver account holders the ads w/ video and sound, give Gold members discounts on XBLA titles/DLC during certain times of the year, exclusive "themes" and "gamerpics" (ooooooh! aaaaaah!), or something.
That, to me, is the key. "Give" Gold members something. The problem I have with the "deal with it" approach is that you're justifying the purchase of XBL Gold premised upon something everybody had access to until recently. If you have Gold now, you think it's a worthwhile investment for reasons other than access to these items...otherwise you would have held out until now.
I don't see how this makes Gold a better idea, or improved in any way. You won't notice a lick of difference. Nor will I.
This doesn't make Gold any better, and it is absurd to think it adds another reason to get Gold in the first place. Gold's not changing. Silver is. It's improved through taking things away from a group of consumers (time limited yes, as I've already admitted it's a tiny thing to grouse about, but still grouse-worthy). So, while it may be a step in the "right direction," it isn't at the same time. What the problem I have is that some people seem to think that this makes XBL Gold an even *better* purchase, when the reality is that it was something taken away from others that created this scenario. It's not an improvement; it's a rebalancing of a zero-sum game that, because it harms Silver users, Gold users suddenly feel better and more justified.
That's pretty silly, IMO. There are plenty of things that MS can do to improve Live (I'd pay $70 for an XBL "Titanium" where I wouldn't have to deal with a deluge of being called "fag" or "nigger" because I happen to kick your ass in Rock Band), but I'm not being fooled by this dog and pony show. I don't benefit from this, and I don't benefit from other users being temporarily barred from access to content.
In short, don't take something away from somebody else and then tell me just how my life just got even better; do something to make it better,
ers.That point I can see. It's really doing nothing for gold users (maybe less traffic the first couple of days, but who cares?).
It's just MS trying to give people more incentive to get gold accounts. Which I don't see working as most people aren't going to care about waiting a week to get DLC.
But I guess I can see the view that some gold members may see it as a new perk. i.e. that since they have a gold acount THEY don't have to wait a week.
But again, it's just a week and most DLC is useless anyway.
It's just MS trying to give people more incentive to get gold accounts. Which I don't see working as most people aren't going to care about waiting a week to get DLC.
But I guess I can see the view that some gold members may see it as a new perk. i.e. that since they have a gold acount THEY don't have to wait a week.
But again, it's just a week and most DLC is useless anyway.
-Never4ever-
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 107 (100%)
I was originally going to post: "that's what you ing freeloading SOBs get for not paying for Live" But then I realized that I didn't renew my Gold subscription, which means that pretty soon I'll be a Silver member.
DAMN.
ing freeloading SOBs get for not paying for Live" But then I realized that I didn't renew my Gold subscription, which means that pretty soon I'll be a Silver member.DAMN.
D
Dick Tracy
Guest
[quote name='KingDox']Um, DLC used to be free to only XBL users back in the Xbox 1 days. Silver members should be happy they get any free content. Back in the OG xbox days there was no "silver" membership. If you wanted those extra cars for Midtown maddness or those extra maps for mechassault you needed to pay for XBL.
But that's ok, no one needs to remember that.[/QUOTE]
Mentioning this is pointless, being that, back then, there was only one type of Xbox Live membership -- no free; only premium.
But that's ok, no one needs to remember that.[/QUOTE]
Mentioning this is pointless, being that, back then, there was only one type of Xbox Live membership -- no free; only premium.
triforcer
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Brak']Mentioning this is pointless, being that, back then, there was only one type of Xbox Live membership -- no free; only premium.[/quote]it's not pointless because non-paying people now get something in the form of a silver membership versus nothing, so they shouldn't complain.
[quote name='mykevermin']
I don't see how this makes Gold a better idea, or improved in any way. You won't notice a lick of difference. Nor will I.[/QUOTE]
No, but this is a sign that MS sees the writing on the wall for their $50 fee and are scrambling to justify the price. Like I've said before, this is just a babystep in the right direction where we might see some actual features for Gold users, and part of the reason why I said this was a great idea. This is merely a starting point.
I don't see how this makes Gold a better idea, or improved in any way. You won't notice a lick of difference. Nor will I.[/QUOTE]
No, but this is a sign that MS sees the writing on the wall for their $50 fee and are scrambling to justify the price. Like I've said before, this is just a babystep in the right direction where we might see some actual features for Gold users, and part of the reason why I said this was a great idea. This is merely a starting point.
D
Dick Tracy
Guest
[quote name='triforcer']it's not pointless because non-paying people now get something in the form of a silver membership versus nothing, so they shouldn't complain.[/QUOTE]
Apply within the context of what he quoted.
Apply within the context of what he quoted.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Corvin']No, but this is a sign that MS sees the writing on the wall for their $50 fee and are scrambling to justify the price. Like I've said before, this is just a babystep in the right direction where we might see some actual features for Gold users, and part of the reason why I said this was a great idea. This is merely a starting point.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it already justified for what it offers? Do you believe this week delay will make people jump from silver to gold in meaningful numbers?
Isn't it already justified for what it offers? Do you believe this week delay will make people jump from silver to gold in meaningful numbers?
I'd have to agree it really adds nothing meaningful to gold to remove this option from Silver. Also I don't think this will mean a mass influx of gold members because they want the demos right when they come out. Right now you get live because you want to play with other people across the country.
In my situation a few friends from back home and a few occasional pickup matches in Halo3 to have that option I"m willing to pay 50 a year its "worth" that to me. If it wasn't this change "certainly" wouldn't do it and I don't think it will for anyone else either.
In my situation a few friends from back home and a few occasional pickup matches in Halo3 to have that option I"m willing to pay 50 a year its "worth" that to me. If it wasn't this change "certainly" wouldn't do it and I don't think it will for anyone else either.
[quote name='mykevermin']Isn't it already justified for what it offers? Do you believe this week delay will make people jump from silver to gold in meaningful numbers?[/QUOTE]
No. $50 just for online play is too much IMO. I probably wouldn't have paid for when I jumped on board in October if I hadn't gotten a deal on 13 months for $28.99 at buy.com.
I don't think he says it will make people jump on. He's just saying he's glad that it looks like MS is starting to realize that just online play isn't enough for $50 a year, and maybe this is the FIRST indication that they MIGHT start offering more for Gold members. And maybe some of the future offerings will be more worthwhile.
Mainly, they just need to ditch the fee period. If Sony can do it for PS3, so can MS--then again they haven't lost billions do to faulty hardware.
No. $50 just for online play is too much IMO. I probably wouldn't have paid for when I jumped on board in October if I hadn't gotten a deal on 13 months for $28.99 at buy.com.
I don't think he says it will make people jump on. He's just saying he's glad that it looks like MS is starting to realize that just online play isn't enough for $50 a year, and maybe this is the FIRST indication that they MIGHT start offering more for Gold members. And maybe some of the future offerings will be more worthwhile.
Mainly, they just need to ditch the fee period. If Sony can do it for PS3, so can MS--then again they haven't lost billions do to faulty hardware.
PyroGamer
Banned
[quote name='Corvin']Where did I say it was an improvement? All I said was it was a great idea and a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE]
I assumed that as a sane, rational human being, you would believe in order for something to be a "step in the right direction" or a "great idea", it implied that it was an "improvement".
But apparently the "right direction" for you is regression, rather than progress.
I regret my generous and faulty assumptions of your sanity.
[quote name='Corvin']I find it quite funny that as two gold users we are debating over content for Silver losers. And to that, I bid everyone a good night![/QUOTE]
I don't understand how you find that funny. I also participate in gay rights rallies and NAACP events, and I'm neither black nor gay.
Whether I have silver or not, that fact could not possibly affect the objective fact of whether or not this new limitation sucks.
Whether or not I have HBO, that objective fact could not possibly affect whether or not Big Love is a great series.
Whether or not I am black, that objective fact could not possibly affect the objective fact or whether or not there is oppression and inequality of blacks.
Whether or not I am in Guantanamo Bay, that objective fact could not possibly affect the objective fact of whether or not Guantanamo Bay is a cesspool for disgusting violation of human rights.
Whether or not I am you, that fact doesn't change the objective fact that you feel pain.
Whether or not I own a PS3, that objective fact could not possibly affect the objective fact that Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is an awesome game.
This isn't that complicated of a concept. People who don't understand this concept are referred to as "insane", and are locked up by society in institutions.
[quote name='mykevermin']In short, don't take something away from somebody else and then tell me just how my life just got even better; do something to make it better,ers.[/QUOTE]
Another ridiculously simply concept. The fact that you cannot understand this concept makes quite clear you are far too stupid to ever engage in meaningful discourse.
I assumed that as a sane, rational human being, you would believe in order for something to be a "step in the right direction" or a "great idea", it implied that it was an "improvement".
But apparently the "right direction" for you is regression, rather than progress.
I regret my generous and faulty assumptions of your sanity.
[quote name='Corvin']I find it quite funny that as two gold users we are debating over content for Silver losers.
And to that, I bid everyone a good night![/QUOTE]I don't understand how you find that funny. I also participate in gay rights rallies and NAACP events, and I'm neither black nor gay.
Whether I have silver or not, that fact could not possibly affect the objective fact of whether or not this new limitation sucks.
Whether or not I have HBO, that objective fact could not possibly affect whether or not Big Love is a great series.
Whether or not I am black, that objective fact could not possibly affect the objective fact or whether or not there is oppression and inequality of blacks.
Whether or not I am in Guantanamo Bay, that objective fact could not possibly affect the objective fact of whether or not Guantanamo Bay is a cesspool for disgusting violation of human rights.
Whether or not I am you, that fact doesn't change the objective fact that you feel pain.
Whether or not I own a PS3, that objective fact could not possibly affect the objective fact that Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is an awesome game.
This isn't that complicated of a concept. People who don't understand this concept are referred to as "insane", and are locked up by society in institutions.
[quote name='mykevermin']In short, don't take something away from somebody else and then tell me just how my life just got even better; do something to make it better,
ers.[/QUOTE]Another ridiculously simply concept. The fact that you cannot understand this concept makes quite clear you are far too stupid to ever engage in meaningful discourse.
[quote name='PyroGamer']I assumed that as a sane, rational human being, you would believe in order for something to be a "step in the right direction" or a "great idea", it implied that it was an "improvement".
But apparently the "right direction" for you is regression, rather than progress.
I regret my generous and faulty assumptions of your sanity.[/QUOTE]
kudos to you...
[quote name='pyrogamer']
I'm done with this thread.[/QUOTE]
keep reading (or looking at the jumble of letters on your screen before you post meaningless comments that contribute nothing to the discussion)...
[quote name='dmaul1114']
I don't think he says it will make people jump on. He's just saying he's glad that it looks like MS is starting to realize that just online play isn't enough for $50 a year, and maybe this is the FIRST indication that they MIGHT start offering more for Gold members. And maybe some of the future offerings will be more worthwhile.[/QUOTE]
Give the man a prize for reading comprehension. 
Pyro, sheesh,
I made peace, but apparently you still can't comprehend what I'm trying to say. Read dmaul's post, he nailed it on the head, then read it again. Maybe get your mom to read it to you a third time and then ask her to explain it to you so you can comprehend it.
How does "the FIRST indication that they MIGHT start offering more for Gold members" equate to "improvement?" You continue to imply things that aren't there.
A "step in the right direction" and "improvement" are not mutually exclusive.
But apparently the "right direction" for you is regression, rather than progress.
I regret my generous and faulty assumptions of your sanity.[/QUOTE]
kudos to you...
[quote name='pyrogamer']
I'm done with this thread.[/QUOTE]
keep reading (or looking at the jumble of letters on your screen before you post meaningless comments that contribute nothing to the discussion)...
[quote name='dmaul1114']
I don't think he says it will make people jump on. He's just saying he's glad that it looks like MS is starting to realize that just online play isn't enough for $50 a year, and maybe this is the FIRST indication that they MIGHT start offering more for Gold members. And maybe some of the future offerings will be more worthwhile.[/QUOTE]
Give the man a prize for reading comprehension. Pyro, sheesh,
I made peace, but apparently you still can't comprehend what I'm trying to say. Read dmaul's post, he nailed it on the head, then read it again. Maybe get your mom to read it to you a third time and then ask her to explain it to you so you can comprehend it.How does "the FIRST indication that they MIGHT start offering more for Gold members" equate to "improvement?" You continue to imply things that aren't there.
A "step in the right direction" and "improvement" are not mutually exclusive.
PyroGamer
Banned
[quote name='Corvin']A "step in the right direction" and "improvement" are not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]
Exactly my point: they're not mutually exclusive, rather, they are synonyms.
Taking AWAY features does not hint towards further IMPROVEMENT of features. If anything taking away features hints at further regression of features.
Taking away features doesn't even put Microsoft in a better position to improve features.
Exactly my point: they're not mutually exclusive, rather, they are synonyms.
Taking AWAY features does not hint towards further IMPROVEMENT of features. If anything taking away features hints at further regression of features.
Taking away features doesn't even put Microsoft in a better position to improve features.
PyroGamer
Banned
[quote name='dmaul1114']He's just saying he's glad that it looks like MS is starting to realize that just online play isn't enough for $50 a year, and maybe this is the FIRST indication that they MIGHT start offering more for Gold members. And maybe some of the future offerings will be more worthwhile.[/QUOTE]
Hey, Sony just removed rumble from their controllers. Maybe this might possibly be the first indication of a hint at the possibility of them sometime perhaps maybe eventually improving the PS3.
At least it's a step in the right direction
Hey, Sony just removed rumble from their controllers. Maybe this might possibly be the first indication of a hint at the possibility of them sometime perhaps maybe eventually improving the PS3.
At least it's a step in the right direction
[quote name='PyroGamer']Exactly my point: they're not mutually exclusive, rather, they are mutually dependent.
Taking AWAY features does not hint towards further IMPROVEMENT of features. If anything taking away features hints at further regression of features.
Taking away features doesn't even put Microsoft in a better position to improve features.[/QUOTE]
But why would you assume that? There's not much left to regress Silver to. The only direction now should be forward.
Publishers won't allow MS to restrict demos/content to just Gold members, that will never happen.
Taking AWAY features does not hint towards further IMPROVEMENT of features. If anything taking away features hints at further regression of features.
Taking away features doesn't even put Microsoft in a better position to improve features.[/QUOTE]
But why would you assume that? There's not much left to regress Silver to. The only direction now should be forward.
Publishers won't allow MS to restrict demos/content to just Gold members, that will never happen.
PyroGamer
Banned
[quote name='Corvin']But why would you assume that?[/quote]
I never assumed that. You just took my highly qualified statement that "if anything it hints at further regression of features" and turned it into "it does hint at further regression of features".
My point was not that this hints at further regression of features, but that your fanboy-esque idea that a REGRESSION of features even suggests the possibility a future IMPROVEMENT in features is absolute rubbish.
I never assumed that. You just took my highly qualified statement that "if anything it hints at further regression of features" and turned it into "it does hint at further regression of features".
My point was not that this hints at further regression of features, but that your fanboy-esque idea that a REGRESSION of features even suggests the possibility a future IMPROVEMENT in features is absolute rubbish.
WeLoveDaisuke
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
When I bought my xbox, a booklet inside it said "XBOX Live Gold will deliver the best access to online content and gaming".
I'm sure MS had a sound business reason to pull this garbage. Users with Gold are probably more likely to try a demo then buy the game (or are at least more willing to spend money on 360 products). The 7 day wait is probably A. Short enought that non-hardcore gamers won't care or notice and B. Long enough that hardcore gamers will be happy to have better access to new big demos if they have gold (see BioShock demo clusterShaq-Fu), or be nudged into paying for Gold if they don't. It's a bit devious, but it's a very smart business decision.
I doubt many Gold users will cancel over this - and silver users don't pay for a scrip anyway.
I'm sure MS had a sound business reason to pull this garbage. Users with Gold are probably more likely to try a demo then buy the game (or are at least more willing to spend money on 360 products). The 7 day wait is probably A. Short enought that non-hardcore gamers won't care or notice and B. Long enough that hardcore gamers will be happy to have better access to new big demos if they have gold (see BioShock demo clusterShaq-Fu), or be nudged into paying for Gold if they don't. It's a bit devious, but it's a very smart business decision.
I doubt many Gold users will cancel over this - and silver users don't pay for a scrip anyway.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='PyroGamer']Another ridiculously simply concept. The fact that you cannot understand this concept makes quite clear you are far too stupid to ever engage in meaningful discourse.[/QUOTE]
I hope you are not directing this comment at me.
[quote name='dmaul1114']No. $50 just for online play is too much IMO. I probably wouldn't have paid for when I jumped on board in October if I hadn't gotten a deal on 13 months for $28.99 at buy.com.[/quote]
Fair enough. You will not be included in the battle cries of "$4.25 a month!" motherer type, then.
I'd rather see some positive reinforcement to get people to jump, like making Gold ad-free (lord knows they may even sell some more a' them dumbass "themes" if some users can actually see them behind the ads!). Of course, that affects revenue for them negatively, so we can't do that.
I'd rather see Gold bolstered by positive reinforcement. Give me more reasons to want to stay Gold; this negative reinforcement crap is not the direction to go. It is, perhaps, a good sign for Gold owners, but I'm still not buying it with any optimism until I see the promise of added content for Gold members, rather than reducing content/access for Silver.
Well, to be fair, Sony has taken a bath over the losses of selling their hardware, reliable or not. Additionally, MS had made a pretty convincing case to gamers (here, anyway) that XBL is the place to game online, and PS3 is free because it sucks. I know that CAG is by no means a representative sample, but go look at the posts in the 360 and PS3 Call of Duty 4 threads. I think there are over 2,000 in the 360 forum, compared to 100 or so in the PS3. Not a great proxy of online activity, sure, but you'd have a hard time convincing me that there is as much activity on the PSN than XBL. I think PSN is far better than most people give it credit for, but the critics have spoken, and they don't see PSN as anything but a laughable attempt at mimicking XBL.
I hope you are not directing this comment at me.
[quote name='dmaul1114']No. $50 just for online play is too much IMO. I probably wouldn't have paid for when I jumped on board in October if I hadn't gotten a deal on 13 months for $28.99 at buy.com.[/quote]
Fair enough. You will not be included in the battle cries of "$4.25 a month!" mother
er type, then. I'd rather see some positive reinforcement to get people to jump, like making Gold ad-free (lord knows they may even sell some more a' them dumbass "themes" if some users can actually see them behind the ads!). Of course, that affects revenue for them negatively, so we can't do that.
I'd rather see Gold bolstered by positive reinforcement. Give me more reasons to want to stay Gold; this negative reinforcement crap is not the direction to go. It is, perhaps, a good sign for Gold owners, but I'm still not buying it with any optimism until I see the promise of added content for Gold members, rather than reducing content/access for Silver.
Well, to be fair, Sony has taken a bath over the losses of selling their hardware, reliable or not. Additionally, MS had made a pretty convincing case to gamers (here, anyway) that XBL is the place to game online, and PS3 is free because it sucks. I know that CAG is by no means a representative sample, but go look at the posts in the 360 and PS3 Call of Duty 4 threads. I think there are over 2,000 in the 360 forum, compared to 100 or so in the PS3. Not a great proxy of online activity, sure, but you'd have a hard time convincing me that there is as much activity on the PSN than XBL. I think PSN is far better than most people give it credit for, but the critics have spoken, and they don't see PSN as anything but a laughable attempt at mimicking XBL.
WeLoveDaisuke
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
If Gold was free, there would be double the racial slurs/people quitting before a match is over/bad experiences overall.
I'm not pidgeonholing silver members in general by any means, I'm just saying that if Live was unrestricted, it would be too easy for thousands more Johnny-13-year-olds to go on verbal rampages while TK'ing the whole squad. There was quite the taste of this during the free live weekend at Halo 3's launch.
I'm not pidgeonholing silver members in general by any means, I'm just saying that if Live was unrestricted, it would be too easy for thousands more Johnny-13-year-olds to go on verbal rampages while TK'ing the whole squad. There was quite the taste of this during the free live weekend at Halo 3's launch.
Funniest statement in the whole thread.
bread's done