Xbox Live Market Place - General Discussion Thread 1

[MartyG]

Given that it's a full price game on the PSP, I'd suggest it's likely to be towards the higher end of the Live Arcade scale. Other price points in that jpg have turned out to be correct.

[Brats]

You're probably right, but whether the cost is 1200 points for the whole thing or 800 points for the 'basic' package and 400 points for the Live add on is academic, no?

[MartyG]

Looking at it from that perspective I'd agree.

As a trend of having to pay to make a game multiplayer on Live though, I don't like it one bit, especially given the Live integration of Xbox360 is a key differentiator.

[Brats]

It depends how it's used. A comparison would be the original Doom, where you got the first few levels free (the equivalent of the Live Arcade trial) and then paid for the extra levels. However the total cost was never more than the game would have cost in the shops.

A price structure like this makes sense for arcade, where there are no advertisments, promotions or news about the arcade games outside of the 360 screen itself. Why not make the games cheaper to download initially and then you pay more for the extras if you want them? Hopefully it would increase the attach rate even more than it already is and encourage even more developers to bring games to arcade.

[Gavin]

Looking at it from that perspective I'd agree.

As a trend of having to pay to make a game multiplayer on Live though, I don't like it one bit.

I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing if it meant a significant game price drop - say ?29.99 for a game (talking disc based rather than XBLA) and then pay ?10 more if you want to use it on live. Got loads of games that I never play on Live just cos my mates haven't purchased it too....

[jimmbob]

But gold subscribers have already paid to play on live. ?40.

[Yoshimax]

Yes but as somebody has already mentioned it is written into MS T&C's that any game which has multiplayer must work over live - To then charge for the privelidge seems shoddy.

How does it work for Silver Subscribers for example (do they actually exist ?) - Do they pay the extra and ARE then able to play over live (for this game) or are they in a situation where they could download the component but it wouldn't work till they upgrade to gold.

Bizarre - I just don't see it happening.

[Brats]

But gold subscribers have already paid to play on live. ?40.

That pays for the network though, not the multiplayer portion of any game you buy. Line of Contact was an online only game, but you wouldn't expect to get it for free just because of your live subscription.

Conversely, someone who doesn't play games online could argue why are they paying for the online content in games that they never use.

As I see it, this isn't a sign of prices going up, it's just a different structure that offers more choice.

[Brats]

How does it work for Silver Subscribers for example (do they actually exist ?) - Do they pay the extra and ARE then able to play over live (for this game) or are they in a situation where they could download the component but it wouldn't work till they upgrade to gold.

You might have hit the nail on the head there. Maybe in order to encourage more users play games online and then sign up to Gold, they allow the odd game to be played online using a silver account but you have to pay for a small amount for it.

[MartyG]

I've never seen an example of a Publisher passing on cost savings in this way. Such structures are a method of getting more money out of punters, not saving them money.

I could have sworn I'd read about some live arcade games allowing multiplayer with silver, but not according to Microsoft's press release, so I must have dreamt it.

[Brats]

I've never seen an example of a Publisher passing on cost savings in this way. Such structures are a method of getting more money out of punters, not saving them money.

Well for a start let me mention again my previous example of Doom. This was a game that made millions, partly because of the shareware pricing structure. Word of mouth carried the game across the globe without any need for advertising or promotions.

Good pricing structures like this can benefit everyone. Consumers only pay for the parts that they need, but because they can get wany they want, more of them buy it, which in turn benefits the publisher.

This is especially true in digital distribution where there are tiny unit costs. The cost of making one copy of Lumines the same as making a billion. And for that reason, publishers want the game to be as available to as many people as possible. Better to sell ten million copies for ten pence, than to sell 10,000 copies at ten quid.

A recent example away from videogames was Pret a Manger with their 'half sandwich'. You buy exactly what you want, but the price costs no more. Pret's sandwich sales as result went up.

[MartyG]

That's not the way market place is structured though and the assumption here is that the cost of the initial purchase is reduced; I don't think this is or will be the case. There's a lot of profit to be made through these microtransactions. They look cheap, and so lots of people purchase things like gamer pics ( 100 points ), or themes ( 150 points ) or add-ons, but once you start totalling things up the picture changes at ?1 for around 116 points, and you've found you've spent 10, 20, 30 quid on bitmaps and jpgs.

Publishers are out to maximise profits for their shareholders, not to save us cash.

The Doom example doesn't work the same, the shareware part was free and iD were trying to establish themselves, granted it worked well. However, once you'd bought the full game that was it, there were no additional features to pay for. I don't recall iD releasing Doom 2 as shareware because they'd then already established their market.

[Brats]

Publishers are out to maximise profits for their shareholders, not to save us cash.

I agree, but often maximising profits can result in consumers saving cash. When Virgin took the lead in reducing PSone games to ?30, they weren't doing it out of the kindness of their heart.

Of course it could all be some big scam to con us of money, but given that the reputation of arcade is the only promotion it really has, I doubt it.

Alternatively, it could be because the highest attach rates by far are for Arcade games that cost only 400 points (specifically Geo Wars, Uno, Gauntlet and Joust) and MS are experimenting with ways to increase the attach rate for titles that cost more. Therefore they go for a lower initial price point and charge more for the extras. I believe you'll be seeing this more and more with Arcade titles as the tiny unit cost supports this approach.

The Doom example doesn't work the same, the shareware part was free. Once you'd bought the full game that was it, there were no additional features to pay for.

The additional Doom levels were sold in sets. You got the first set free (like the Live Arcade trials) and sets 2 and 3 came seperately and cost money. I don't see much difference between that and Lumines where you get the trial free and the full single player and multiplayer games cost extra.

[TheForce]

if Lumines is 1200 points all included... then it's still a bargain.. I almost bought an PSP to play the game (glad I didn't do it).
I bet if they released the game as a full price game (in the shops) people would still be buying it.
I'm glad it comes on live arcade and for 1200 points (?) I think a lot of people are going to buy, it seems to be great fun to play it on multiplayer !
So 1200 for Lumines is a bargain IMO

Now just hope the'll release it soon enough

[Family Fry]

Apparently.....Out this Thursday, costing aboot 800 Points.
CoD 2 Invasion Pack.
Which includes five new maps....

Antoville, France (Crossroads)
St. Louet, France (Newvillers)
Amaye sur Seulles, France (Normandy)
Alam Halfa, Egypt (Decoytown)
Rostov, Russia (Harbor)