GOLD VS. SILVER

[TRIGGER M4N]

http://www.xboxic.com/news/1868

Nice article Curry, very well written and all, but in all honesty, I don't feel you have put up a good enough argument.

The way I see it is, we're paying for our service, opposed to what Silver are paying for (which is nothing) so why can't we be treated special, whether it be TIMED exclusive trailers or demo's?
If I have pre-orderd a normal version of GoW (for example) and a new special edition one is announced, that costs more, is it right for me to moan that I can't get that content, even though I'm paying less for the title? I don't believe so, if I wanted it that bad, I would of had cancelled my pre-order, and got me myself a Collectors edition. (one of MANY examples that could be used, it might not be the best one, but...)

You did say MS promised that

The only difference between the paid Gold and the free Silver Xbox Live subscriptions will be that Gold members can play online and Silver members can’t.

I'm sorry, but I can think of MANY lies that happened with MS, Sony Nintendo and game developers themselves, it's just what happens in the gaming scene.

The reason this topic was made was to have a proper discussion without the comments being spammed.

A rule here: This is not a plan to segregate Silver and Gold apart, just a discussion.

[Nino]

I can't believe people are defending this bullshit, seriously. And it's not like you're getting shit earlier, it's the people who aren't the multiplayer-halo2-fanboys that are getting it later.

 edit:

Bah

Seriously, this shit is retarded in so many ways. I'll list a few.

1. Demos are advertisements, why should paying subscribers get advertisements fist?
2. I don't play online. Not enough to pay 5 bucks per month for that. Does this mean that I should get the advertisements a week late? I don't think so
3. Sony's online service is free. FREE! NO MONIES! Why the fuck is MS crippling their free service? Because this shit isn't working to their advantage.

[Curry]

The comparison with the Collector's Editions is valid, but poorly executed. Correct would be if MS promised the cheap version would come in a tin can and contain a bonus DVD, and then all of a sudden ship the cheap version without any bonus material and charge $10 extra for the tin can. Would you be aggravated?

This Silver/Gold thing is even worse, because it makes you pay to get advertising (that's what trailers and demos are yeah). Thing is that people are hyped up through advertising to want more advertising. That's what makes this situation kinda screwed up.

I would've minded a lot less actually if it were announced well in advance with an apologetic press release pointing at them not being able to guarantee a decent Quality of Service if they release for everyone, or even just be bluntly honest that they want more paying customers. Just doing it and then stating in the comment of Major Nelson's site that this will be a common thing is just not Microsoft imo. I'm used to them being honest and direct about changes, especially if they're related to financial stuff.

The Gold membership is for online gaming, and $60 a year is a lot of money to lots of people. Why screw them over with late demos and trailers for not wanting online gaming?

[Messiah]

Why is Microsoft changing their strategy? Money? That's the only reason I think. Because MS wants to sell as many Gold memberships as possible. Because who wouldn't play the Gears demo on day one?

[Rival24]

I have to be honest, I haven't formed an opinion about this yet. I understand what you're saying T-man but and I'm paying for XBL Gold myself so I wouldn't really mind from my own perspective, but Silver members are being discriminated a little bit.

[TRIGGER M4N]

Originally Posted by Rival24

T-man.

offtopic:
This is now my new nickname

[UKJAY]

Well MS bent the truth a little. I can imagine all us Gold Members (da duh da dulla - da duh da dulla - yes Austin Powers) anyway if gold subscribers had slow downloads because tons of silver members were downloading content all at the same time - we'd be moaning to MS that we pay money for a service the silver subscribers don't - next I should imagine Silver members wanting to play against people online!!!

The point is, Gold gotta take first bite and it's not as if Silver Members are denied access to content. It would just be wrong if Silver members took up all the bandwidth and slowed down the servers, theres obviously tons more silver members than gold ones and as gold pay - it makes sense to allow those who are paying for the servers have first downloads

[Cage]

It's all about marketing. I don't like it either but can understand why they do this. You honestley don't think MS created the xbox and 360 so it could give gamers what they want. It's all about the benjamins for them. They could steal a big peace of the console-pie with a good console which would get the stocks up for the company. They had a target set for number of live subscribers for the end of the year and what better way to get kids to get a live subscribtion then with a good marketing stunt. Kids who where thinking of getting gold could get pulled over the line with some extra features, like a new halo3 trailer, one week before the silver members.. a lot of kids go with this hype.. It's like jamba and their cellphone stuff; get a free ringtone (but subscribe first).

Good move to get some more souls but bad move for reliability and respect..

Originally Posted by Curry

The comparison with the Collector's Editions is valid, but poorly executed. Correct would be if MS promised the cheap version would come in a tin can and contain a bonus DVD, and then all of a sudden ship the cheap version without any bonus material and charge $10 extra for the tin can. Would you be aggravated?

Also a poorly executed one in my mind, cause they aren't charging any extra money for it but deliver it some time later.. It would go something like this :
MS promised the cheap version would come in a tin can and contain a bonus DVD, and then all of a sudden ship the cheap version without any bonus material and send the tin can and bonus DVD a week later..

Unless you're counting on people wanting it from day one. Then they'd have to subscribe to (for example) OXM for a year and get the extra stuff on day one..

[Nino]

Originally Posted by welljasona

It would just be wrong if Silver members took up all the bandwidth and slowed down the servers, theres obviously tons more silver members than gold ones and as gold pay - it makes sense to allow those who are paying for the servers have first downloads

They can easily fix it so that you have two servers; one for the gold members (his fascha? HIS FATH-ER) with a shitton of bandwidth and one for the silver members their own bandwidth. The two don't have to interfere with each other.

[Number 13]

I would like to add something to this argument, too...

I don't get to play online very much - I don't have a lot of free time, and when I do play online against anyone who isn't a friend, it always tends to be fuckwits or asshats who do nothing but trashtalk over the mic, or those really annoying people who disconnect whenever it looks like they've the remotest chance of losing.

Despite this, I still pay for Gold, even though I barely use online play at all, so it's nice that I'm getting something a little extra from silver users.

[Curry]

Originally Posted by Nino

They can easily fix it so that you have two servers; one for the gold members (his fascha? HIS FATH-ER) with a shitton of bandwidth and one for the silver members their own bandwidth. The two don't have to interfere with each other.

Could easily implement this with common Quality of Service implementations too. I'd find it fairer.

[UKJAY]

Yeah a server for gold and silver would be good, in fact another server for us to use whilst they're doing updates would be even better lol...but keeping to the thread...I guess MS should just make things clearer with most of their products and services. Im surprised actually that its not the gold subscribers having to wait a week whilst the silvers get it first...we should be pleased

[huricanelane]

I pay for GOld but I also don't play online very often; I ussually play online in streask of a couple days in a row for a while, then not for a couple of weeks. ITs maily because I'm not on when my friends are anymore due to working nights.

I could have swore that from the begining that MS didn't say that the only benefit of Gold was online playing, Ithough from day one there was some exclusive content for GOld Suscribers. I very well could be wrong, but I swore i read that somewhere a long time ago.

[Sir SpankalotUK]

Originally Posted by Nino

3. Sony's online service is free. FREE! NO MONIES! Why the fuck is MS crippling their free service? Because this shit isn't working to their advantage.

and its absolutely shit (talking from a ps2 point of view, psp ain't much better). Ps3 service aint going to be much better hence why many of the developers have dropped the multiplayer from the launch titles that and the fact they have only just announced the format of the online service. Microsoft run their own servers for the matchmaking etc., whereas the sony games require the game developers to run their own, meaning that online abilities on the sony platform are not consist like xbox games are. Sony aren't even playing catch up they are still fumbling in the dark.

Xbox live is great, personally everyone should have a gold account as its worth every penny, those that only want silver should be put second behind the paying members, but only using the system that silver users get a throttled service during high demand, e.g. gold subscribers could download the halo3 demo faster than someone with a silver account.

[Voyager2k]

Better late than never I guess

You all seem to miss one very significant point about this whole thing. M$ is actively splitting the xbox360 communities with this. That's very obvious if you just look a the few posts in this thread and there are much much bigger (and worse) discussions about this out there in the www jungle.

Gold subscribers, for the most part, pretty quickly develop a protective sense for M$ even tho they do not gain anything. They thrive on silver members losing and fascinating enough rather quickly adapt a "I'm paying money so I am better than you cheapskate are!" attitude.

Silver members on the other hand lose big time because getting demos and trailers is what keeps them connected. It's their only reason to go online. They volunteer for the marketing efforts while gold members actually just want to play. They never intended to pay for advertising in the first place.

To me that sounds pretty screwed up: giving the advertising to those who don't want it and keep it (for a specific time) from those who actually seek it.

A Job well done Microsoft.

In the end, gold subscribers feel like they are the better ppl and silver members feel discriminated. Both groups will constantly argue with each other over stupid things like advertising that should be free and readily available to everyone because it is what it is: ADVERTISING FOR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS

Every way you look at this, it's incredibly stupid and the only reason why M$ actually did this superior act of stupidity is to create a sense of added value for gold members because there is no such thing as gold/silver subscription for the PS3 online service. We don't know how exactly Sony will handle this but for the most part they keep saying it's free.

Now, I do not have a gold subscription and I will tell you why. Most importantly I prefer relaxed and non-competitive gaming. I play for fun and to relax, not to measure the size of my virtual penis. With that beeing said, there still are plenty of opportunities to use a gold subscription in a not so competitive way. Trading cars, trading Pinatas are just a few examples.

But what really keeps me from actually buying a gold subscription is because it's a grand ripoff. Plain and simple. XBOX Live is PEER2PEER gaming, not client server based. Hence the only thing M$ servers actually do is authenticate you and track your stats (aka invade your privacy with your consent). There are no game servers at all, it's all p2p networking and therefore the cost is unjustified in my opinion. With that in mind and the fact that Sony intends to provide the same service for free it is understandable that Microsoft feels the need to create added value for gold subscribers.

I am just not sure if discriminating 60% of their own customers is the right way to do it.

-Voy

[TwoXist]

Em i the only one that that doesnt have a issue? Honestly why is there a arugment? You either pay for it or you dont. Im not to concerned with the whole "but you get a demo a week before i do" People in thr UK get games a week or two after i do. But they suck it up. You either get with the program or you dont its that simple.

[Curry]

Originally Posted by Voyager2k

Better late than never I guess

Good post, the wait was worth it

[Parm]

I may as well jump on the bangwagon too, I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Much ado about nothing in my opinion.

Yes Gold members may get certain things a little bit sooner, but it's not the end of the world. By doing so, it'll free up a lot of bandwidth and Gold members may now get the downloads a bit quicker. Something which their payments certainly warrant.

Silver members aren't being left out in the cold, they still get the downloads for free eventually. Does it really warrant an argument when Silver users are in fact getting the content (just a little slower) and it is in fact free.

It all makes perfect sense to me, I really can't see why there's so much debate about it. The other argument about the PS3's online service being free is a bit mute too. Yes it is free, but at present it pales in comparison with Live.

[Sir SpankalotUK]

keep hearing this sony online is free crap, sonys service is crap, EA are charging or you can have it free but expect adverts with fifa on the ps2. I expect this trend to continue with the ps3.

Sonys service is riddled with cheats that makes it virtually impossible to play online on their console. Admittedly the ps3 might be a new kettle of fish. Socom games on the ps2 are peer to peer, you just have a server with the lobbies and available games, M$ just choose to implement it a different way.

Microsofts service is worth the 40 quid a year definitely, sonys service lacks support commitment from the developers to implement features to make gaming online feel like a community event. Being a member of the sony online beta group (the only reason my ps2 hasnt been shelved), I have played a fair few online titles, socom is probably the best lobby system going, but it still falls well short of the features available to xbox 1 live titles. Messaging and friends lists are vital to online gaming and each game requiring you to make your friends list up again is just plain annoying.

[Chris]

If Sony can actually pull off 40 player online in resistance, Microsoft has some explaining to do. Don't you guys think? I'm guessing whatever network they're using will actually crumble when 40 people are using it at a time. If it doesn't though..............................why am I paying $50 a year again?

[Parm]

From what I've read, Resistance Fall of Man has a seperate friends list to that on the PS3 itself. As opposed to the one unified friends list on the 360. You can't find out what your friends are doing, it just pops up a notification saying they're online. If you send them a game invite for Resistance, they won't see it unless they load up the game. So you've got to sit their hoping. To make it worse, if they do happen to get the invite, they can't just accept it. It's just a message telling them to come and play, it won't actually bring them to the game.

There is also no default headset support, no voice support on the PS3. Therefore talking your friends through the process might prove to be a problem too. It's up to developers to add this themselves, as opposed to the 360 where it is mandatory for each game.

The PS3 online service is at best, poor. However, please bare in mind that the Playstation Network is a brand new online service. Xbox Live itself wasn't perfect when it launched years ago and has been improved and is still improving over time. The same will be the case for the Playstation Network. Hopefully we'll have some more info after the 17th when PS3 launches in North America.

At present it's clear to see why we're paying $50 a year.

[Sir SpankalotUK]

the ps2 can do 32 people on socom 3, you need a very good connection to hold that many, think a 2mb upload, my 1mb doesnt quite cut it.

battlefield 2 on the 360 does 24 people.

[Voyager2k]

Originally Posted by Chris

If Sony can actually pull off 40 player online in resistance, Microsoft has some explaining to do. Don't you guys think? I'm guessing whatever network they're using will actually crumble when 40 people are using it at a time. If it doesn't though..............................why am I paying $50 a year again?

I was thinking about that too when they announced resistance would have 40 player MP. And so far, from the reviews that are already out, it seems Resistance is keeping it's promises.

But more on the topic of Resistance MP technology ....

40 player cannot be done with P2P technology over asynchronus lines. Quite plain and simple. To pull that off they must have dedicated gameservers and a client/server based technology (same way MMORPG's handle lots of players in a tight area) which requires far more resources on their end than the cheap p2p networking M$ is feeding us.

That of course isn't much of a problem since SOE has pioneered the area with Everquest/Planetside and has over 7 years of experience with that and they can probably get a decent amount of networking knowledge from Square-Enix from FF-XI.

That technology in itself should cost money, but it's provided for free by Sony. Now, it's clear to see why they would do that with a launch title and I wouldn't expect this to repeat itself with other large MP titles. This many ppl online in 1 game simply requires some form of cashflow to maintain the infrastructure.

But M$ asking 55 Euros a year for a p2p based service ? I consider that almost as bold as EA's latest micropayment stunts. If you don't question the technology sold to you and are fine with what you get, great. But don't jump the gun if others disagree and are disappointed because M$ takes something away from them to make YOU feel better about spending your money without even giving you added value for it.

All you ppl who readily throw your money down M$ and EA's throats without questioning what's beeing offered will one day be responsible for online gaming beeing one huge commerce act where NOTHING will be free or cheap, for everything you will need to pay extra.

"Please insert credit card to proceed to the next level."

-Voy

[Chris]

"Please insert credit card number for firmware update."

[Voyager2k]

Seriously, ppl need to question the value of what they get when they are asked to pay "on top". Don't forget that you already dropped a wad of cash for the box and you also dropped quite some for games which are quite expensive to begin with. Every penny you are spending on top of that should be well considered because it sends a message to publishers and developers about how much you are willing to spend and how to get you to spend even more.

You are the cash cow and companies like M$ and €A are quite good at milking you. Don't forget that, ever. They are not your friends, they just want your money. So make sure you get something in return.

-Voy