A new tier for xbox live membership at $ ...

I have seen rumors abound concerning M$ raising yearly membership fees. What if they are not raising prices, just adding a new tier- Silver membership(how this is considered membership, I have no idea)free, Gold membership $50 and Platinum(made up name)membership $100.I have thought about this since yesterday and here is my hypothesis. M$ keeps silver membership(free) and gold($50 per year)membership exactly how they stand and with the same amenities they have now. M$ introduces a new tier called ''platinum membership''(I just made up the name), which allows the platinum members free DL of everything. That includes game add-ons, arcade%26 indie games and maybe whole games for a limited amount of time. Also, free netflix rentals and maybe music too, if they get around to adding it.Or Platinum could allow you only Netflix for free. Another of many possibilities is that you get music like any subscription on zune or apple. Obviously giving away everything for free won't work but there could be one free game a year or the ability to have any three arcade games at a time.This way everyone stays where they are but are given the option to upgrade. Sort of like the public option in healthcareYou are smart group, what do you gamespotters think about that?*Edit* Remember these are simply suggestions for you to think about. I do not stand behind any of these ideas as workable and legitimate. I would like to hear other options on how a third tier could work.For those that doubt it is a possibility, a friend just sent this to mehttp://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=25723A new tier for xbox live membership at $ ...
You obviously have no idea how economics work,,,this may give microsft a slight profit boost but the devs who make the content would be seriously hurt by any such ''tier''Would never work in real life and thus I know microsoft arent doing this.A new tier for xbox live membership at $ ...
[QUOTE=''penpusher'']You obviously have no idea how economics work,,,this may give microsft a slight profit boost but the devs who make the content would be seriously hurt by any such ''tier''Would never work in real life and thus I know microsoft arent doing this.[/QUOTE] That is funny, I'm an econ prof. and was considering doing some work with my students on this subject. I thought I would test it on the forums first and by no means am I saying that each example I gave is necessary. Try being a little less rude next time and work on the spelling and grammar.
I see what your getting at. Sounds cool. They would obviously have to work out differnet feautures to see if they'll make money. Its not for me, but my firend would jump on platinum without hesitating.I could see it becoming a headache for microsoft to get it all setup. Maybe not. Do they own everything on the marketplace, or do they get a percent of profit for hosting content?
I don't see them giving all DLC for free. But I could see this ''Platinum'' membership be given stuff like everything in the Avatar Marketplace for them is free, gamerpics and themes as well would be free as this does not require as much work to make. Then they could better discounts on Microsoft published products ALL THE TIME. And discounts on media ALL THE TIME. Maybe even some of the that suff for free. They could get many perks Gold members don't have without having to make Map Packs and stuff for free. All my opinion and I know nothing of economics so if this would not work I am sorry.
[QUOTE=''gatsbythepig''][QUOTE=''penpusher'']You obviously have no idea how economics work,,,this may give microsft a slight profit boost but the devs who make the content would be seriously hurt by any such ''tier''

Would never work in real life and thus I know microsoft arent doing this.[/QUOTE]

That is funny, I'm an econ prof. and was considering doing some work with my students on this subject. I thought I would test it on the forums first and by no means am I saying that each example I gave is necessary. Try being a little less rude next time and work on the speling and grammar.[/QUOTE]



Your an econ prof. and you think that Microsoft taking all the profit for development companies DLC is a good idea? I don't buy it...
''Try being a little less rude next time and work on the speling and grammar''Am I the only one that thinks it is funny that 99% of people that attack someone for SPELLING go make a SPELLING error themself?
[QUOTE=''gatsbythepig''][QUOTE=''penpusher'']You obviously have no idea how economics work,,,this may give microsft a slight profit boost but the devs who make the content would be seriously hurt by any such ''tier''Would never work in real life and thus I know microsoft arent doing this.[/QUOTE] That is funny, I'm an econ prof. and was considering doing some work with my students on this subject. I thought I would test it on the forums first and by no means am I saying that each example I gave is necessary. Try being a little less rude next time and work on the speling and grammar.[/QUOTE]First of all, the guy didn't really make any grammar/ spelling mistakes, and I definitely see his point. Could you please explain how Microsoft and third parties (indie developers, artists/ musicians, DLC releases) would both profit from this? I really don't see how this would ever work, but i wuold appreciate some clarification on the matter.
[QUOTE=''EternalDecay'']''Try being a little less rude next time and work on the speling and grammar''

Am I the only one that thinks it is funny that 99% of people that attack someone for SPELLING go make a SPELLING error themself?[/QUOTE]

That is fantastic. You caught my error, I laughed pretty hard when I saw that. Is it too late to edit?
[QUOTE=''EternalDecay'']''Try being a little less rude next time and work on the speling and grammar''Am I the only one that thinks it is funny that 99% of people that attack someone for SPELLING go make a SPELLING error themself?[/QUOTE]Well since you bring it up, I believe it should be ''themselves.''
Definitely not viable... what happens in various industries is that you pay for a higher tier-membership and then you get a permanant discount on content. For example, you would pay 100$ what the OP suggested and then you get 25% off all content etc. However, there is no way they would let you download everything lol That means that if in a year you expect to pay 50$ for online content, might as well get the 100$ membership since you will then be able to download anything else for free anyhow. OP, what school do you teach at? Can you provide us with some examples of sustainable business models which follow the same principle as you mentioned here?
[QUOTE=''NOD_Grindking''][QUOTE=''gatsbythepig''][QUOTE=''penpusher'']

You obviously have no idea how economics work,,,this may give microsft a slight profit boost but the devs who make the content would be seriously hurt by any such ''tier''

Would never work in real life and thus I know microsoft arent doing this.[/QUOTE] That is funny, I'm an econ prof. and was considering doing some work with my students on this subject. I thought I would test it on the forums first and by no means am I saying that each example I gave is necessary. Try being a little less rude next time and work on the speling and grammar.[/QUOTE] Your an econ prof. and you think that Microsoft taking all the profit for development companies DLC is a good idea? I don't buy it...[/QUOTE]

I suppose I wasn't being clear. I am looking for your ideas and opinions. I am not suggesting that M$ takes the profits for DLC. M$ could very easily work out an agreement with each publishing house. Heck, M$ doesn't even need to include DLC in thier offer. It is open to discussion... do you have anything to add?
[QUOTE=''gatsbythepig''][QUOTE=''penpusher'']You obviously have no idea how economics work,,,this may give microsft a slight profit boost but the devs who make the content would be seriously hurt by any such ''tier'' Would never work in real life and thus I know microsoft arent doing this.[/QUOTE] That is funny, I'm an econ prof. and was considering doing some work with my students on this subject. I thought I would test it on the forums first and by no means am I saying that each example I gave is necessary. Try being a little less rude next time and work on the speling and grammar.[/QUOTE]Yeah and I just happen to be will smith you just cant tell because I'm on a forum,,, Sorry mate but I aint buying that you are a professor in anything just coming out with ''well I'm this'' is the oldest trick in the book for defending a weak idea.It just wouldnt work and if you were an economics prof you would know this much. I mean its not microsoft that make ALL the dlc that come out for games. Plus I would imagine microsoft take a certain percentage of the profit a dev makes on each dlc purchase so in my opinion I think microsoft could stand to lose profit if they were to allow all DLC to be downloaded free for a one off fee...let alone the kick in the teeth the devs would take
These rumors are from a Wedbush Morgan's analyst who never gets anything right. And all he said was.....''...you really want to hook every gamer who has a 360, you want them to buy all their games on 360, play everything multiplayer, pay you 50 bucks a year so that, in a couple years, it's a 100 bucks a year.''Not exactly something to take seriously imo.
[QUOTE=''dinb'']Definitely not viable... what happens in various industries is that you pay for a higher tier-membership and then you get a permanant discount on content. For example, you would pay 100$ what the OP suggested and then you get 25% off all content etc. However, there is no way they would let you download everything lol That means that if in a year you expect to pay 50$ for online content, might as well get the 100$ membership since you will then be able to download anything else for free anyhow. OP, what school do you teach at? Can you provide us with some examples of sustainable business models which follow the same principle as you mentioned here?[/QUOTE] I had considered the issue of people paying for 1 year, DLing everything then switching back to $50. M$ could make it so the downloaded content has a time period that the files can be kept- like Netflix. I will not divulge where I teach but I can say I also work for the Von Mises Institute. As far as a sustainable business model, I will include that after a full week of class discussion.
a quick note I do apologise for being rude. Theres been a slight family drama today that I would rather not go into but I apologiseThough my opinion still stands
[QUOTE=''penpusher'']a quick note I do apologise for being rude. Theres been a slight family drama today that I would rather not go into but I apologiseThough my opinion still stands[/QUOTE] No problem and I do appreciate the apology. As for my response, I was just a little irritated. Since we are being open with eachother, did you notice I spelled, spelling incorrectly?! Oh, how ridiculous we can all be.
[QUOTE=''DZBricktop'']These rumors are from a Wedbush Morgan's analyst who never gets anything right. And all he said was.....

''...you really want to hook every gamer who has a 360, you want them to buy all their games on 360, play everything multiplayer, pay you 50 bucks a year so that, in a couple years, it's a 100 bucks a year.''

Not exactly something to take seriously imo.[/QUOTE]

The whole discussion really revolves around Pachter's prediction. I have to say that I am not very impressed by this guy. Wedbush Morgan could have hired almost any of you people that use this website with about the same results, if not better.
The rumor you speak of was started by a analysist who was justing saying something outragious so that he can put his name out in the news. From economic perperceptive why would Microsoft double the price of XBox Live, when the other systems have free alternatives? If the analysist would have said Microsoft to raise the price of XBox Live to $75 it wouldn't have made that big of wave. This would have been more of realistic amount for an increase to announce. If I were to predict an increase for XBox it would be $65.
Why do you keep typing M$ in a serious discussion...?

wrinkles