Support NeoGAF

[Alx]

I can't imagine how sterile someone's imagination has to be, or how positively reptilian their greed, for them to think that this is exciting.

It's been mentioned in the previous threads about this subject, but there are many ads that are designed to be viral and that people are glad to forward to their friends or family. The coke ad is a bad example, but you could replace it by Kevin Butler, Old Spice, Budweiser, Honda, Levi's, ...

There are whole TV shows based on gathering funny ads from around the world. So yeah I think that some people will indeed tweet about an ad they liked, or display it on their facebook wall.

And I don't think they expect the user to be especially excited by it (even those who would use it). The ones they're trying to seduce are the advertisers. The video was made for Cannes Advertising Festival, not E3. Think GDC, but for marketing instead of development.

 

[Salazar]

So yeah I think that some people will indeed tweet about an ad they liked, or display it on their facebook wall.

Sure. But there is something discomfortingly detached and pawn-like about it being a scripted tweet (perhaps just at this stage, of course).

I'm predisposed to find all this shit inherently a bit repugnant, but that video was just creepily banal.. That was some DeLillo level shit.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

The difference between cable services and xbox live. Is the fact that cable companies actually dug ditches and layed cable for thousands of miles or shot up satellites in to space. Billion dollar infrastructure investments.

Ms leeches of internet service providers and doesnt even have dedicated servers. Money for nothing. And now they want ads too.

its just too much. thank god for pc and psn.

 

[maeh2k]

Ads are everywhere. Might as well be good ads

I don't see a problem with Kinect integration. Doesn't mean ads have to be more annoying/intrusive than regular ads.


This whole thing reminds me of an Apple keynote. Steve Jobs introduced some "magical" new ad framework for the iPhone that allowed ads to be more interactive/app-like.
I don't really remember the reactions to that, but I'm guessing apple fans were really happy about their "revolutionary" new ads...

 

[Kafel]

Instead of ads, there will be interactive ads.

Crazy.

 

[TheOddOne]

It's not nothing though. You may have convinced yourself otherwise for whatever reason but let's not try downplay the fact that these are ads on a paid service. People have a legitimate right to feel annoyed.

Nobody is downplaying the fact that the ads should not be there, they only big annoyance here is that people tend to act like those ads are in your face every 10 seconds. That and apparently people are trying to convice that you have to click the ads. If MS goes the route for ads every 10 seconds, on every dash, in every game, in every feature then I could get behind why people should be mad, but this seems like making a bigger deal then it actually is.

 

[Audioboxer]

Why do people compare this to TV? In the UK anyway, I pay Sky for my package, then they give me "free" content to watch supported by ads. Well, what I mean is I don't pay them, then pay more money for TV content.

As far as I know, you pay MS for Gold, and you also pay for your games. The games being the main content, just as the TV Shows are to a TV package.

Silver users are the only thing that's remotely similar to all the TV comparisons, even then it's still a crappy comparison IMO.

 

[Alx]

I'm predisposed to find all this shit inherently a bit repugnant, but that video was just creepily banal.

I understand and agree with that... but like I said, the video is aimed at advertising professionals, and for them it is indeed banal. You frequently get this sort of cynicism (or pragmatism) when you look behind the curtain and see what it's like for those whose job it is.
It is true for marketing, but from my experience I think it's also true for all other jobs in the world (software development, health, education, security, ...)

 

[Maleficence]

Why do people compare this to TV? In the UK anyway, I pay Sky for my package, then they give me "free" content to watch supported by ads. Well, what I mean is I don't pay them, then pay more money for TV content.

As far as I know, you pay MS for Gold, and you also pay for your games. The games being the main content, just as the TV Shows are to a TV package.

Silver users are the only thing that's remotely similar to all the TV comparisons, even then it's still a crappy comparison IMO.

Simple: The people defending MS have little to no defence.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

They removed the ability to use third party memory units at the end of October 2009 (which is anti-consumer) and added support for any USB device to be used as a memory unit at the start of April 2010 (which is not anti-consumer).

I don't think you understand the point I was making about storage space and propietrary hardware.

Proprietary hardware is inherently anti-consumer, and for over 4 years of its lifespan this was a decision MS chose to enforce.

In fact, given that USB ports were always present on the console, this was a decision that MS had to go out of their way to implement in the first place.

Should you see ads in games if you're paying for them?

Seen any ads in games recently?

From a business perspective I don't see how MS would make up the shortfall in revenue if they made Live free and got rid of the ads.

Nobody is suggesting that.

I know gamers don't care, but something would have to replace that revenue going forward, because it's not like MS is raking in huge profits from their gaming business.

They are raking in huge profits from their gaming business though.

Their Live fees are almost pure profit, as they provide basically nothing of any cost for that money, and then double dip on consumer spending by adding advertiser spending on top of that.

Unless you're an MS shareholder, why the fuck would you care about their revenue streams anyway?

As a consumer I can see why you might want 'your favorite games company' to stay profitable so that they can continue doing whatever it is you like about them, but I don't know why as a consumer you would want that same company to bleed you dry of every penny they can at every opportunity, so that they can fund a whole bunch of shit unrelated to gaming in other sectors of their business.

Ads are everywhere: Movies, Television, Radio, Internet, Newspapers, Magazines, Billboards, Sports events, and the list goes on. No sense in crying about it. This was going to happen sooner or later anyway. And it won't be just Microsoft. It's going to be Nintendo and Sony, too. We might as well be thankful that it took this long. And I hardly equate advertisements in video game services to taking it up the butt with no lube. Totally hilarious.

You might see it with Sony but you won't with Nintendo.

And you really can't see how your attitude of 'fuck it, why not just let them do what they want to me' is BOHICA?

 

[freddy]

Nobody is downplaying the fact that the ads should not be there, they only big annoyance here is that people tend to act like those ads are in your face every 10 seconds. That and apparently people are trying to convice that you have to click the ads. If MS goes the route for ads every 10 seconds, on every dash, in every game, in every feature then I could get behind why people should be mad, but this seems like making a bigger deal then it actually is.

Oh come on the post I quoted was downplaying it.

I don't see why the ads are a surprise though as I could only see the battle for the lounge room being fought over few revenue streams, one of the main ones being advertising. Expect more.

 

[dragonelite]

What about devs pimping their next game in their previous games.
I started playing bad company 2 again and saw a bf3 preorder text bottom right start menu. Like a fool i am i preordered it.

 

[Maleficence]

What about devs pimping their next game in their previous games.
I started playing bad company 2 again and saw a bf3 preorder text bottom right start menu. Like a fool i am i preordered it.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, you're changing the subject.

 

[TheOddOne]

Simple: The people defending MS have little to no defence.

Seems like your running in circles. People agree, that there should not be ads on the service. But truth is, this is not as obtrusive as you seem to make it out to be. They are not part of the whole system, only tabs, the rest is ad free and work as intented. You act like the force you to watch every ad. You seem to think that people who defend MS = accept the ads.

 

[Maleficence]

I've not once commented on how intrusive the ads are. Not once. It's completely separate to my argument.

 

[Audioboxer]

Well if there's coca cola ads on my dash, that's intrusive to me regardless of the pixel by pixel size. Incredibly distasteful.

 

[RPGamer92]

I can't wrap my mind around the concept that a service you pay for is littered with ads.

That's because Sony cares about its consumers

 

[PetriP-TNT]

Instead of ads, there will be interactive ads.

Crazy.

Oh no, normal ads aren't going anywhere either

 

[Mr_Zombie]

Seen any ads in games recently?

There was a billboard promoting "The Hangover 2" movie in Mortal Kombat. I think it was added through a patch. But to be honest, this kind of ads, that blend into the environment (ie. use real world products on billboards, magazine stands, drink machines etc. instead of fictitious ones), doesn't bother me.

 

[enzo_gt]

Instead of ads, there will be interactive ads.

Crazy.

I know right? God save us all from this impending doom of unforeseen proportions.

 

[corporate cheerleader]

Instead of ads, there will be interactive ads.

Crazy.

I can choke people in commercials with Kinect? Cool.

 

[Goldmund]

I can choke people in commercials with Kinect? Cool.

What an idea. Maybe in one of those Christmas Coca-Cola ads you could wave to stop the action, strangle Santa Claus till he is almost dead and then drown him in a basin filled with Coca-Cola. I'd be watching ads all the time.

 

[CadetMahoney]

What an idea. Maybe in one of those Christmas Coca-Cola ads you could wave to stop the action, strangle Santa Claus till he is almost dead and then drown him in a basin filled with Coca-Cola. I'd be watching ads all the time.

You know, you're not far from the truth I think.

They'd find ways after going through focus groups and market research how best to target an audience with some "fun" gimmick and have shills go on forum saying how it sucks but they had a great time on it anyway.

 

[Goldmund]

You know, you're not far from the truth I think.

They'd find ways after going through focus groups and market research how best to target an audience with some "fun" gimmick and have shills go on forum saying how it sucks but they had a great time on it anyway.

Isn't this already heavily at play?

 

[StudioTan]

Why do people compare this to TV? In the UK anyway, I pay Sky for my package, then they give me "free" content to watch supported by ads. Well, what I mean is I don't pay them, then pay more money for TV content.

As far as I know, you pay MS for Gold, and you also pay for your games. The games being the main content, just as the TV Shows are to a TV package.

Silver users are the only thing that's remotely similar to all the TV comparisons, even then it's still a crappy comparison IMO.

Not true in NA. If you want to watch channels like HBO you need to pay for the basic service first. In your example HBO is the game you need to pay for, Xbox Live is the basic cable package you need to have if you want the privileged of purchasing specialty channels.

The whole TV thing is not a perfect analogy but it's just funny when people get so up in arms about having ads in something they paid for when that is true of many things: TV, magazines, inside public transportation etc

 

[childplease]

Ooooo kinect how you slowly ruin gaming.

 

[Goldmund]

Not true in NA. If you want to watch channels like HBO you need to pay for the basic service first. In your example HBO is the game you need to pay for, Xbox Live is the basic cable package you need to have if you want the privileged of purchasing specialty channels.

The whole TV thing is not a perfect analogy but it's just funny when people get so up in arms about having ads in something they paid for when that is true of many things: TV, magazines, inside public transportation etc

Great, now I have Greggery Peccary stuck in my head. All 20 minutes of it.

 

[StudioTan]

Great, now I have Greggery Peccary stuck in my head. All 20 minutes of it.

Hehe

 

[DangerousDave]

Not true in NA. If you want to watch channels like HBO you need to pay for the basic service first. In your example HBO is the game you need to pay for, Xbox Live is the basic cable package you need to have if you want the privileged of purchasing specialty channels.

The whole TV thing is not a perfect analogy but it's just funny when people get so up in arms about having ads in something they paid for when that is true of many things: TV, magazines, inside public transportation etc

The problem is not "Live is paid" or "Live had ads". The problem came when all the other services are free and without ads. Then, there is no TV, magazine or public transportation analogy that works, because in all that analogies, all the services has ads, not only one.

Is like defending a new phone company that instead of making local calls free, they made it of payment and adding an ad when you are waiting to the other person to get the phone. You cannot say "but there are ads in TV and in the public transportation", because the main issue here is that the other phone companies don't make you pay for the calls (even if their voice quality is lower) but also don't have ads before a call. So someone can understand that is worthy to pay to have better voice quality, or have ads to have better voice quality. But not both.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

It's crazy to me Microsoft wants ads in the dashboard. This is their console. They should be striving for the best customer experience money can buy. I barely use XBL at all anymore, it's that terrible now. It's amazing how far the 360 has come functionality wise, but holy shit is it a chore to use nowadays. I'm not going to buy another one nextgen.

 

[Agent X]

The problem is not "Live is paid" or "Live had ads". The problem came when all the other services are free and without ads. Then, there is no TV, magazine or public transportation analogy that works, because in all that analogies, all the services has ads, not only one.

Is like defending a new phone company that instead of making local calls free, they made it of payment and adding an ad when you are waiting to the other person to get the phone. You cannot say "but there are ads in TV and in the public transportation", because the main issue here is that the other phone companies don't make you pay for the calls (even if their voice quality is lower) but also don't have ads before a call. So someone can understand that is worthy to pay to have better voice quality, or have ads to have better voice quality. But not both.

This is a good analogy.

If Xbox Live was able to survive all of these years without ads (from subscription fees), then what's the purpose of the ads? The revenue coming in from ads should be enough to completely eliminate the requirement for users to pay for peer-to-peer online gaming. After all, no other major online gaming platform has such a fee in place. Some of them may sprinkle some ads here and there, but none of them require an upfront access fee and continue to pipe in ads afterward.

I'm also amazed to see so many people here defending the practice, although I suspect this has more to do with system allegiance than the practice itself.

 

[Roland Deschain]

So is this is an American thing? Where I live in Europe, we don't get ads at all. The dashboard boots to the Spotlight section where you can see the Deal of the week and new DLC and stuff like that. But never non-game related stuff.

 

[Phonomezer]

So is this is an American thing? Where I live in Europe, we don't get ads at all. The dashboard boots to the Spotlight section where you can see the Deal of the week and new DLC and stuff like that. But never non-game related stuff.

Yep. No ads on the Australian dashboard either.

 

[TheOddOne]

This is a good analogy.

If Xbox Live was able to survive all of these years without ads (from subscription fees), then what's the purpose of the ads? The revenue coming in from ads should be enough to completely eliminate the requirement for users to pay for peer-to-peer online gaming. After all, no other major online gaming platform has such a fee in place. Some of them may sprinkle some ads here and there, but none of them require an upfront access fee and continue to pipe in ads afterward.

I'm also amazed to see so many people here defending the practice, although I suspect this has more to do with system allegiance than the practice itself.

But here is the thing, they are not adding more ads. This has been said time and time before in this thread, that the current ads are getting a Kinect integration. Yet, people continue to gloss over that fact -- just to make arguments that its the most intrusive thing ever. Every analogy in this thread has gone to the extreme of ads -- yet none of them even fit in the profile of Live. The other thing is that their is the value over other services, which paints somebody who likes or sees value in the service as a ignorant fool. That is straight up bullshit. Nobody here is defending the ads, most if not all don't want them, but people like you seem to group them as "fanboys" and rather not listen or see their point of view. This is a worrying progress MS is making and nobody likes it, but this step isn't as big as people are making it. I support that people are outraged that it might become more in the future, this is appaling and should have never ever have been in a payed service.

If you seriously came in this thread and agreed with all the people saying this is bad and not even take into consideration why people don't see this as a big problem, but worries them, then you should really not be pulling the fanboy card. Question whether your the fanboy here.

It feels like where running in circles here.

 

[DangerousDave]

So is this is an American thing? Where I live in Europe, we don't get ads at all. The dashboard boots to the Spotlight section where you can see the Deal of the week and new DLC and stuff like that. But never non-game related stuff.

In Spain we have a Fanta static ad and a Nike video ad.

 

[surly]

Ms leeches of internet service providers and doesnt even have dedicated servers. Money for nothing.

How much did Xbox Live cost to set up? There's an article on CNET from 2002 that estimates that it was $500,000,000: -

http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-pushes-Xbox-online/2100-1040_3-965830.html

Do people really think that Xbox Live has no setup and running costs associated with it? It has demos of all downloadable XBLA, indie games and Game Room games, so who pays to host and serve up all of that? What about the Inside Xbox content and shows? Who pays to produce and host that? What about matchmaking services? How does the cross-game chat and party mode work? There must be servers there initiating those connections.

In December last year, an article on various gaming websites had an excerpt from an interview with Kaz Hirai where he said that PSN had yet to be profitable, even though in the closing fiscal year, PSN brought in just under $450,000,000 in revenue. Why is it not profitable?

I'm also amazed to see so many people here defending the practice, although I suspect this has more to do with system allegiance than the practice itself.

For me it's to do with just how intrusive the ads are (they're really not intrusive IMO) and the level of service I get in return for what I pay, which is around 60 pence a week. If one of the other consoles offered a service that had the features I need, but for free, then I would have used that instead.

The PS3 didn't even get in-game XMB until 2008. It still has no cross-game chat, party mode or private voice chat - things I use all the time on Live. It's also inconsistent when it comes to other features and downloadable games/DLC are more expensive on PSN on average in the UK. The patching system on PS3 annoys me too, because if you're about to dip into a game with friends but one of them has to wait while a huge patch downloads and installs, that can fuck up your gaming session. It's just not as well designed for online play with friends. The Wii's online service is awful and I don't think that anyone that games online a lot with friends would consider it a serious alternative to what Sony or MS offer.

As I've said, I own all of the consoles and a gaming PC, so I'm not paying for Live just because a 360 is all I have. It's not even the first console I bought this generation. I pay for it, because for my needs, it is easily the best online system available on a console.

The problem is not "Live is paid" or "Live had ads". The problem came when all the other services are free and without ads. Then, there is no TV, magazine or public transportation analogy that works, because in all that analogies, all the services has ads, not only one.

You can't really say "they're 3 online gaming services, but 2 have no fee and ads" without comparing what those services actually offer. If the experience and feature set was exactly the same across all of them, then you would have a point, but it isn't. For me Live > PSN > Wii's online service and so I'll pay a small fee for the service that suits me best rather than taking one that isn't as good, but is free. The higher the fee, the less likely I am to pay cos at a certain price point I would just make do with something inferior that's free, but Live is 60p a week.

 

[DangerousDave]

How much did Xbox Live cost to set up? There's an article on CNET from 2002 that estimates that it was $500,000,000: -

http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-pushes-Xbox-online/2100-1040_3-965830.html

Do people really think that Xbox Live has no setup and running costs associated with it? It has demos of all downloadable XBLA, indie games and Game Room games, so who pays to host and serve up all of that? What about the Inside Xbox content and shows? Who pays to produce and host that? What about matchmaking services? How does the cross-game chat and party mode work? There must be servers there initiating those connections.

Of course. But you don't have only the gold subscriptions, that are millions each year. We have to count that XBL is a selling point of the machine. MS sell consoles because of the online. So they are paying their servers with the console sales, the gold fees and the ad revenue.

Also, the cost of launching the service (also, online dedicated) is not the same cost as maintean the service (and with most of games using p2p or third party servers).

It's also inconsistent when it comes to other features and downloadable games/DLC are more expensive on PSN on average in the UK.

I don't know in UK, but in euro-zone, PSN content is cheaper than XBL. In XBL you have to buy points, that is the same prize € than $, but the PSN games are not straight $=€.

But, also, no one here debate that XBL is better, overall, than PSN. But XBL is a payed service, so is normal to be better. But Is really necessary to have ads to keep the same service quality, when they get so many benefits from the subscriptions? I don't think so.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

How much did Xbox Live cost to set up? There's an article on CNET from 2002 that estimates that it was $500,000,000: -

http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-pushes-Xbox-online/2100-1040_3-965830.html

All of the infrastructure was setup by Sega, MS bought it cheap when Sega dropped out of the hardware business.

Todays Live is yesterdays sega.net

Do people really think that Xbox Live has no setup and running costs associated with it? It has demos of all downloadable XBLA, indie games and Game Room games, so who pays to host and serve up all of that?

Mostly, you do through your ISP.

Unlike the Wii or the PS3 (which don't charge for service) XBL uses P2P swarm distribution for content.

Sure, there's initial content delivery costs. But the majority is peer distributed. Check your upload bandwidth next time your 360 is online.

Also most other digital distributors don't charge people money to offer demos for products they want to sell them.

Funny that.

What about the Inside Xbox content and shows? Who pays to produce and host that?

What about them?
That's paid for by Microsofts marketing budget because that's what it is; marketing.

What about matchmaking services? How does the cross-game chat and party mode work? There must be servers there initiating those connections.

Online infrastructure costs aren't in servers, they are in bandwidth.
Matchmaking takes negligible bandwidth - less than serving an advert.
Cross game chat setup is also negligible, and when running all bandwidth is provided by you as a direct connection - like Skype.

I'm not going to derail this topic into how little Live actually costs MS and how Live fees are pretty much pure profit for them, but I would be amazed if any costs they do incur are not already adequately funded by the existing level of advertisements.

 

[Megadragon15]

All of the infrastructure was setup by Sega, MS bought it cheap when Sega dropped out of the hardware business.

Todays Live is yesterdays sega.net

Do you have a source to back this claim up?

 

[Equus Bellator Apex]

I know right? God save us all from this impending doom of unforeseen proportions.

Show me an example from any industry where advertisements have become less intrusive.

Don't even try because you can't.

The ads on XBOX are only going to get worse.

 

[surly]

So they are paying their servers with the console sales, the gold fees and the ad revenue.

The original Xbox lost them billions. The 360 was sold at a loss also, although I'm sure it's sold at a profit now, but they have lost billions this gen too and AFAIK they are yet to cross the break even point for the 360 business as a whole.

But, also, no one here debate that XBL is better, overall, than PSN.

Then nobody should have a problem with me paying a small fee for something that's better, when I don't find the ads intrusive. I would rather that there were no ads in the same way that I would rather I didn't have double-page ads in Edge magazine, but just like Edge magazine where I simply turn to the next page, on the 360 I just move to the next tile.

In the case of magazines you say that all magazines have ads which makes it OK, so that means it's not ads on their own that bother you, nor is it that you pay for something that still has ads. Your issue seems to be that Live is the only service that has a fee and ads, yet you're still happy to admit that it's the best service of the three, so what is your problem with people paying for the best?

@MrNyarlathotep - Do you have a source for anything you said there? You are implying that if I leave my 360 idling, that it's distributing demos to other users that are downloading them, a little like a torrent client of sorts.

Also most other digital distributors don't charge people money to offer demos for products they want to sell them.

But you don't have to pay for Live Gold to download demos. Most other digital distributors don't offer demos of all of the downloadable games on offer either. Sony have demos for about a third of the PSN games and they charge publishers a bandwidth fee per GB. Maybe that's why some of them don't put demos on PSN.

There's another thread on here where someone said that on Live you can voice chat to friends playing different games, so 2 people could be playing COD, 2 people could be playing Brutal Legend etc. but up to 8 could chat in a party cross-game and your reply was that you can do that on PSN for free, so I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about to be honest. You also said that the only difference between Gold and Silver Live is online play, which again is not true. If you have sources to back up the things you've said, I will retract that of course, but you didn't seem to know that Gold is not required to download demos of XBLA games, so I do question just how much knowledge you actually have on this subject.

 

[Sydle]

I actually like the advertising on 360 now because it helps me know what's new and makes it easy to find weekly deals and events for games, music and movies. As long as they keep the content and promotions related to my interests then I'm perfectly fine with it. I'm not crazy about the idea of in-game advertising.

I'm also amazed to see so many people here defending the practice, although I suspect this has more to do with system allegiance than the practice itself.

Not all of us are able to spend our time keeping up with every little release, discount, promotions, etc., so the ads help us out to get more of the stuff we like. They're not bad in any way. I wouldn't mind MORE ads if Microsoft can figure out how to take cues from the things that I like/rate highly and show more of that instead of something like a new CoD map pack (I don't play CoD).

Deep fuck the idea of ever going back to a UI like the blades that required someone to know what they're looking for.

 

[strem]

I would prefer no adds but honestly it doesn't really bother. By and large I totally ignore them. Adds are the reason I DVR everything I want to watch on TV (except sports)

The only adds that really bother me are the ones on YouTube and other web video where I can't skip them. It makes me want to punch my monitor

 

[kneePat]

Does anyone actually defend this from the consumer's perspective?

I'm willing to bet the majority of the people in this thread don't subscribe to XBL gold or have a current active subscription to XBL gold.

These 'consumers' you speak of are probably busy using the service they paid for, or doing something else rather than defending their purchase on a forum. So it's pretty hard to get a good perspective on this forum from people who enjoy a free service or don't game online regularly and generally feel angst towards MS and their money hoarding policies which seem to be working for them.

Also XBL gold is a choice and I don't buy the argument that it is not; what people do with their money is their choice and if that means paying for a service like XBL or not, they have chosen what they wanted even if it may not be something you would ever do or agree with.

As far as the ads go, the grass is always greener but the next iteration of PSN will assuredly resemble XBL because companies like Sony and MS are interested in making money and you can blame MS for that but it doesn't change a damn thing. From a consumer standpoint PSN users probably feel they have a lot to lose.

And to those MS consumers... well who knows what those idiots are willing to accept and force industry change because they're too stupid and casual to understand what they want and what is good for gaming. /sarcasm

 

[DarkKyo]

You know what sucks? Kinect.

 

[Maleficence]

I actually like the advertising on 360 now because it helps me know what's new and makes it easy to find weekly deals and events for games, music and movies. As long as they keep the content and promotions related to my interests then I'm perfectly fine with it. I'm not crazy about the idea of in-game advertising.

Not all of us are able to spend our time keeping up with every little release, discount, promotions, etc., so the ads help us out to get more of the stuff we like. They're not bad in any way. I wouldn't mind MORE ads if Microsoft can figure out how to take cues from the things that I like/rate highly and show more of that instead of something like a new CoD map pack (I don't play CoD).

Deep fuck the idea of ever going back to a UI like the blades that required someone to know what they're looking for.

1st place for craziest post goes to you.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

@MrNyarlathotep - Do you have a source for anything you said there? You are implying that if I leave my 360 idling, that it's distributing demos to other users that are downloading them, a little like a torrent client of sorts.

I don't have gold, I have never had gold, yet I upload gigs of data from my 360 while playing singleplayer games.

If I am not being used as (effectively) a torrent client to share demos I have downloaded, I don't know what the fuck kind of information MS are asking me to upload.

But you don't have to pay for Live Gold to download demos.

I never claimed that you did, because I can and do, and do not have gold.
And have been doing since the launch of the service, when silver users got demos day and date.

You do now have to pay to avoid an entirely arbitrary weeks wait however.

Most other digital distributors don't offer demos of all of the downloadable games on offer either. Sony have demos for about a third of the PSN games and they charge publishers a bandwidth fee per GB. Maybe that's why some of them don't put demos on PSN.

Demos require some effort on a developers part to create. Some publishers / developers just can't be bothered.

More fool them. A demo can sell a decent game better than any other form of marketing.
Look at Bioshock, or Dead Rising, or Crackdown, all of which sold on their demos.
(with the posisble exception of Crackdown which probably had Halo Beta appeal regardless)

Of course, a bad demo (or a bad game) can kill any potential sales stone dead, but it is fucking weird to think that access to demos (which are a marketing tool) is something people should pay for.

There's another thread on here where someone said that on Live you can voice chat to friends playing different games, so 2 people could be playing COD, 2 people could be playing Brutal Legend etc. but up to 8 could chat in a party cross-game and your reply was that you can do that on PSN for free, so I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about to be honest.

I don't know what thread you're talking about, but have never used party chat, presumably because its gold only, but even if it wasnt have no need to as I do not use the 360 for online play.

I doubt I did say what you claim however, as the PS3 hasn't got cross game chat in any form.

You also said that the only difference between Gold and Silver Live is online play, which again is not true.

The only meaningful difference is online play.
Most of the shit gold gets related to gaming, I get as a silver user.

If silver users could play games online, very few people would subscribe to gold.

If you have sources to back up the things you've said, I will retract that of course, but you didn't seem to know that Gold is not required to download demos of XBLA games, so I do question just how much knowledge you actually have on this subject.

Well I didn't say that, and don't even think that because - as stated above - I do not have and never have had gold, but have multiple XBLA purchases and demos.

 

[surly]

1st place for craziest post goes to you.

There's nothing crazy about that.

I also find some of the ads on the Spotlight channel useful. There is a tile just for the deal of the week and other discounts. People will copy and paste the deal of the week info from Major Nelson's site to here and nobody screams "he's posting ads! Ban him!", but that's exactly what that person is doing. Because it's advertising something that gamers want, it's fine though. The same when game trailers get posted up, which are also adverts.

It's fine to say "I'd rather choose when and where I seek out this information, so I don't want it on the dashboard", but it's also perfectly fine to say "I find some of this info on the dashboard useful, and if they could better target the ads to my interests, I would find it even more useful" which is basically what Paco is saying. Note that he said he finds ads useful when they are related to his interests, not that he finds all ads useful.

 

[surly]

I don't have gold, I have never had gold, yet I upload gigs of data from my 360 while playing singleplayer games.

This is a lie. You have said in another thread that you have been a Gold member before. Also, your 360 uploading data is not proof that it's acting as a torrent client that's distributing game demos. You have no source for your claim. I have never heard anyone make this claim before, nor can I find any information to back it up with a Google search.

I doubt I did say what you claim however, as the PS3 hasn't got cross game chat in any form.

Someone made this post, breaking down the Live Gold party feature: -

Playing Call of Duty 4 matchmaking with two friends while carrying on a conversation in a Party with another two friends playing Dirt 2 together, another friend playing through Brutal Legend, and a sixth friend playing through Batman: Arkham Asylum.

You quoted him and said this: -

If you own both an Xbox360 and a PS3 you can actually do all that for free right now.

If you only have silver you can do all of that except for the 'playing online' part.

Which is incorrect. A couple of people corrected you.

The only meaningful difference is online play.

Gold is required for the following: -

Online play
The party mode
Gold-only discounts
Video chat
Demos 7 days earlier
Netflix
Sky Player
Twitter
Facebook
Last.FM
Zune Music
MSN
ESPN
Halo Waypoint
Hulu Plus
Avatar Kinect

Well I didn't say that, and don't even think that because

Then what did you mean by this?...

Also most other digital distributors don't charge people money to offer demos for products they want to sell them.

This implies that MS charge people money to offer demos for products they want to sell them, but demos are free.

I do not have and never have had gold......

But from the other thread: -

I've never used Gold outside of the month I got free with my Xbox and the months Ive got free when I've had replacements.

So you may not have paid for it, but you have "had Gold".

And your claim that MS bought SegaNET and turned it into Xbox Live? I can't find a single source for that information online. SegaNET was a dial-up ISP that offered gaming services. Sega shut down the ISP part of it in the US in September 2001, but continued to offer the gaming part via Earthlink. The European version of SegaNET ran until early 2003. Xbox Live launched in November 2002. Please provide me with a link that shows that MS bought SegaNET and relaunched it as Xbox Live, as I think it's something else that you're just making up or getting confused about. How did they launch Xbox Live before SegaNET even shut down?

 

[NullPointer]

Gold is required for the following: -

Online play
The party mode
Gold-only discounts
Video chat
Demos 7 days earlier
Netflix
Sky Player
Twitter
Facebook
Last.FM
Zune Music
MSN
ESPN
Halo Waypoint
Hulu Plus
Avatar Kinect

Yes, and like he said, online play is the only meaningful difference.