You've heard of them. You've seen them occasionally on Major Nelson's blog. You've probably met several and didn't even know it. I am, of course, talking about the quiet masses of Silver members on Xbox Live. My confession today is: I'm one of them and my story is a cautionary tale for Microsoft, a stark warning for OnLive and a heads-up for Sony. As for Nintendo...well, who cares really.
I have owned an Xbox Elite for over two years now and have enjoyed most of that ownership. Initially, paid Gold membership was a foregone conclusion. 'Surely there must be lots to justify it' I thought and so I signed up right away and carried it for 24 months. Within that time, I have spent more time waiting for *something* to happen. Knowing a bit about technology, I understand that the 360 is a peer-to-peer device for most games (E.A. is the exception I think) so I assumed that Gold membership couldn't just be about multiplayer gaming. After all, paying for an 'online gaming' service that basically connects the dots between players on the Internet is like hiring a skipper to tell you where to row your own boat rather than rowing you himself. Essentially, the whole notion that Xbox Live multiplayer gaming requires financial 'support' is a bit of a joke. Sure, there's infrastructure involved - but the 'meat and potatoes' part of online gaming is done by your console, not Microsoft servers (because they're aren't any).
It's particularly interesting that Sony and Microsoft have such different marketing methods which seem to be diametrically opposed to their actual service provision. For instance, considering that the Playstation DOES use servers, it's a bit strange that it should remain free yet Microsoft would charge. I am aware of Sony bringing in a 'Premium' service, but I would presume that by nature of that they will have to create the value-added content to drive subscriptions for it whereas Microsoft has taken a harder line by locking off online play altogether if you don't pony up. The latter is the real problem and we have made it so. Year after year, people continue to hand over their money for (I think) very little reason considering what you actually get as a Gold member. Yes, you can play online. Yes, you get access to certain demos before anyone else. Yes, occasionally you get to sit in a gi-normous virtual studio and play a rather grinding version of '1 vs 100' whenever someone decides to run an actual 'season' which may or may not have an actual 'host' depending on whether the folks at the other end of the line give enough of a crap to show up for it.
But so what? Really.
I really do still like my Xbox but since cancelling my gold membership I'm starting to play it less and less. A year ago, I talked one of my friends into getting a 360 so that we could play online together. For a while, we did - but as we both have kids and wives who demand things like working appliances, Gold membership soon became one of those unnecessary expenses that had to go. My friend is also a PC gamer and soon released that the lure of the 360 was far diminished considering that he could sit in front of his gaming rig and play online for free. To date, I have no valid argument as to why that is flawed thinking. At any rate, once my friend left Gold, I started to lose interest in online play. Sure, I have lots of 'friends' but it all gets a bit tricky trying to meet up and find somewhere to play that isn't over-infested by whining, virginal 13-year-olds practicing their 'badness' on each other, shouting obscenities and 'tea-bagging' conquests and the like, all in a vain effort to deny their own existence as the scrawny little wretches that they are. -Not my idea of a fun Saturday night in front of the tube. Furthermore, games I really like to play online such as XBLA Billiards or some slightly older games I've bought don't have any players to speak of; leading me to believe that my demographic (25-40) either doesn't bother anymore because of the extra expense or is still obsessing over limited-cerebral titles like 'Modern Warfare' that I have no interest in playing anyway.
What I find ironic is how many Playstation players complain that there's not enough 'Warhawk' players: a game I'd really fancy if I ever scrounge up enough to buy a PS3. I bet there's a lot of guys my age who play that, particularly those who are old and clever enough to know the history of Single-Trac and like their style of multiplayer gaming. However, even on a FREE network it's hard enough finding players, so what hope can I really have on Xbox Live Gold? Answer: None whatsover.
So here I sit with a console that I can't play online with and I yearn for one that I can yet I can't justify spending the money anymore. I suppose you get to an age where budgets mean everything and you suddenly get really angry when you pay for something and get so little back for it. Microsoft has been trumping up their 'Live' services for ages and at first, I believed them. However, when you're paying for something, you expect results. If there are no results, then anticipation turns to impatience, then frustration, then apathy and eventually terminating the subscription becomes a no-brainer because you just don't give a crap anymore. That's the point I'm at and it's unlikely I'll ever subscribe again unless Microsoft can actually create a substantial reason that a) is not free elsewhere, b) is actually fun, c) isn't riddled with micro-transaction nonsense and most important d) delivers what was promised and exceeds expectations. Microsoft is more than welcome to treat the world as its marketing labratory where it actually pushes the boundries to see how much money it can charge people for b.s. services before people start questioning it. It's a bizarre approach - but they're welcome to it and the U.S. is a great place to start (and probably end) - but you can count this guinea pig out. I've tried the kibble and it tastes like a horse's ass.
Lovingly Yours,
The Angry Rabbit.
No comments:
Post a Comment