News - Microsoft considering free-to-play model on Xbox 360, claims Hi-Rez

[HEXUS]

A change in Microsoft's Xbox Live policy could see free-to-play games coming to Xbox 360, claims developer.

Read more.

[crossy]

But at the moment Xbox Live subscription fees makes it difficult for developers.

Hmm, I'm probably being dense here, but is there some developer side payment that's needed, or is it purely the fact that the punters out there have to get an XBL subscription?

If it's the latter then I really can't see what he's getting at. After all, at £3ish per month the XBL Gold subscription isn't exactly a bank-breaker.

What worries me (slightly) is that the "free-to-play" bit - if you're saying that these games are available to non-XBL subscribers then surely it stands to reason that they've got to be paid for another way - which means hordes of adverts.

Still I suppose that's the way things are going, and it's less objectionable (to me at least) than the idea of having to buy a game, then get an XBL subscription and then another subscription from the publisher to be able to play all the features of certain games - especially if the publishers subscription is (rumours) at more-or-less the same price point as the XBL one.

[cheesemp]

If it's the latter then I really can't see what he's getting at. After all, at £3ish per month the XBL Gold subscription isn't exactly a bank-breaker.

No it isn't but i found it was a lot to pay for the odd occasion I used it. I just stick to the PC for multiplayer now...

[Brewster0101]

Also this move by Microsoft would allow BBC iplayer to appear on the 360. The reason BBC won't allow it, is because of the XBL subscription requirements.

Oooo , interesting topic....

[Biscuit]

No it isn't but i found it was a lot to pay for the odd occasion I used it. I just stick to the PC for multiplayer now...

same, i would probably be more inclined to spend a bit more on a couple of micro transactions here and there which would be money the developers and microsoft would see, compared to the minute where i buy al my games fro the second hand shelves and only play them offline because i find a constant subscription fee a bit of a con.

[crossy]

(No it isn't but i found it was a lot to pay for the odd occasion I used it. I just stick to the PC for multiplayer now...) same, i would probably be more inclined to spend a bit more on a couple of micro transactions here and there which would be money the developers and microsoft would see, compared to the minute where i buy al my games fro the second hand shelves and only play them offline because i find a constant subscription fee a bit of a con.

Pay-As-You-Game (PAYG)? Joking aside, that's maybe a good idea - being able to buy a "session" of online/update/etc when/if you need it, in the same way you can buy an app from iTunes or GMP. However, if you're using this kind of "pre-pay" arrangement, then surely that's not really "free to play" is it?

Don't forget that you can also buy XBL access in unit's of one month. Extending the mobile phone metaphor maybe there's some folks who'd appreciate being able to buy access in units or one day or one week too?

It's an interesting topic. Personally I'm going to stick with the Family pack we've got at the moment - it's not that expensive, plus you get some good "exclusive" discount offers on games and DLC.

[Dareos]

I hate the "micro-transactions". I pay for XBL, i love it, use it most days. Its a decent system and I have no complaints about it. I also pay for every game that I play, usually bought online at the cheapest I can find it (forza 3 for a tenner this month), not always at the release date.

Lets take a classic example, Burnout Paradise

Fantastic game, I mainly played it offline, great escape and loadsa fun.

Then you see it for a tenner less than you paid, with 2 extra packs in GAME, ok, but I got it a few months earlier. Then you download the packs, at a premium because you cant get them any cheaper, so effectively I have paid roughly £20 more than the box price, more than double what it was available for in GAME, and then they want to charge you per sodding car.....

police car, 300 MS points, super duper stunt car, 300 MS points


sorry, no, not gonna happen, not now, not ever.

If you are going to create extra content, new levels, game expansion or changing content then ok, but sticking a couple of lights on a car and making the turbo last longer and then charging money for something that should have been in the game from the start, unlockable through skill, not paying for it.

And Burnout is not the only game/studio that does this, Crackdown was guilty of it and im sure there are plenty more.

How many kids have plundered their folks bank accounts to get a lightsaber for their avatar or something similar, its a complete rip off.

micropayments bad, blanket payments good mmkkaayy?

[Agent]

If this means Live will turn into PSN in terms of quality, I'll happily pay for Live (although a lower price would be nice)

[crossy]

Lets take a classic example, Burnout Paradise. Fantastic game, I mainly played it offline, great escape and loadsa fun.Then you see it for a tenner less than you paid, with 2 extra packs in GAME, ok, but I got it a few months earlier. Then you download the packs, at a premium because you cant get them any cheaper, so effectively I have paid roughly £20 more than the box price, more than double what it was available for in GAME, and then they want to charge you per sodding car.....

Dirt3 is another one that does that particular "trick". In fact, I'm wondering if this increasingly-popular trick of "giving" you a one-time-use pass for some core features is 100% legal. After all, it's a clear case of the publishers trying to prevent folks from buying pre-owned/used, because if the one-time-passes are available separately (and in some cases they aren't) the cost of them means that a relatively recent pre-owned is going to work out more expensive than a new game if you want the full functionality.

Apologies that this is off-topic.