Xbox Live VIP rumours abound

360 Rumour | Could Microsoft be introducing a new tier to its successful subscription model?

The latest rumour going around the traps at the moment comes courtesy of a post over at the Hip Hop Gamer Show, where they talk about a possible new Xbox Live membership tier which is said to include a new membership level - VIP membership.

The website cites a French Microsoft customer survey as the catalyst behind the rumour, stating that the VIP level of membership will come with free online content storage, a brand new matchmaking option, better multiplayer connectivity and the option to send out free invites to Silver level subscribers to allow them to join in on the multiplayer antics - a`la Steam's guest pass system.

With no hard evidence to back up the facts - let's face it, customer surveys are chock full of hypothetical questions - we'll take this rumour with a grain of salt at the moment. But with our interest piqued at the notion of new Xbox Live features, be rest assured that the newshounds at PALGN will sniff out more on this story if it veers outside of rumour territory.

Related Content

Xbox Live maintenance on Monday
24 Sep, 2008 Service will be down for up to 24 hours.

Halo 3 Multiplayer Beta begins May 16
10 Apr, 2007 About time.

2 new classic maps for Perfect Dark Zero
01 Nov, 2006 Facility, anyone?

Page12 Next

28 Comments

El Taco

4 years ago

I really hope not. It'll cost more

meier

4 years ago

Rumour or not, I still don't like paying just for Gold. :/ The guest pass system would be nice though (if only Gold class could do that now).

Ghost of Zeon

4 years ago

I'll only like this if it costs the same as Gold and the Gold subscription drops in price.

The guest pass idea is pretty good. I'd imagine that there are a lot of Silver members out there that are itching to play online but can't afford Gold.

Tom101007

4 years ago

^ oh there are, and im one of them...

barrett

4 years ago

And the only winner here is MS.

"better multiplayer connectivity"....Errrr shouldn't we be getting that as a Gold Members standard NOW?

"free online content storage".....a way of overcoming the poor HD size in your 360 and still making you pay for it despite it being "free"

rufati

4 years ago

Gold Membership isn't that expensive, almost like giving up on buying one (new release) game a year so you can play all the ones you have online.

I just think it'd be ridiculous for there to be a new tier for subscriptions. Especially if it comes with exclusive and enhanced matchmaking and other features. We're already paying for XBL to be the match-making middle-man for what are essentially P2P hosted games. Any enhancements should apply to all paying customers, and not just a new-and-improved tier.

Ghost of Zeon wrote

I'll only like this if it costs the same as Gold and the Gold subscription drops in price.

This. Or a lot of people will not be happy.

Let's hope it's just a rumour.

Jellyfish

4 years ago

rufati wrote

We're already paying for XBL to be the match-making middle-man for what are essentially P2P hosted games.

Most games actually aren't "P2P" in the sense of the PC gaming term. They do I believe however nominate a host that the other plays sync to in order to reduce amount of bandwidth used in certain parts of the chain. It's not a flawless system but it works most of the time and you've got to balance costs when you've got a system on the scale of Xbox Live.

On the rumours, it says a customer survey. Nintendo and Sony have had a few of those as well and nothing has come of it, I can see the results being in favour of improving gold membership as opposed to introducing more confusion.

LeonJ

4 years ago

I really don't like the idea of this. If anything, this stuff should be added to the Gold service.

macca macca

4 years ago

wow, i'm still surprised they can get away with charging for XBLA...

Qbert

4 years ago

I think that this would upset more people in the long run and do harm for Microsoft. The only way I could see it maybe working if they do what Ghost of Zeon said and charge $80 for this, $40 (or something) for Gold and free silver.

Peveus

4 years ago

I'm amazed people pay for gold at all. I've survived since 2007 on free trials. XD

Nietzsche

4 years ago

Enhanced matchmaking??? If the system worked as its supposed to there should be nothing to advance. That's like saying the original has bugs but the special edition has them fixed

ArcherGrave

4 years ago

WTF,

that is all

kartanym

4 years ago

It costs me $70 a year for Gold ... honestly, that's nothing in the scheme of things, especially considering how much I use it, either for online gaming or downloads.

VIP membership would have to have a really good catch to bring in the punters. Online storage probably wouldn't be the way to go, but perhaps the ability to stream arcade games over the internet without having to download them, and just paying for a license to play? That would make more sense to me, if it could be done, and would save hard drive space in the process.

legend166

4 years ago

Gold should not cost anything.

You're essentially paying for your own bandwidth and for them to sell things to you. It makes me angry.

Cyph

4 years ago

I've been hoping MS would be shifting towards a free Xbox Live model that would still allow people to download free game updates, free game content, paid game content and still access multiplayer. All the other stuff, demos for example, would then be placed on the subscription based tier. For how much I use Xbox Live Gold, I'm really not getting the most out of (and that's not saying it's MS fault, just my own personal usage).

Azza

4 years ago

Tom101007 wrote

^ oh there are, and im one of them...

Ditto.

Seriously though, sounds like Microsoft looking for more monies to me.

barrett wrote

"free online content storage".....a way of overcoming the poor HD size in your 360 and still making you pay for it despite it being "free"

AND a way of selling more HD-free Arcade consoles.

Ghost of Zeon wrote

I'll only like this if it costs the same as Gold and the Gold subscription drops in price.

Me too, except I'd still get Gold anyway.

TheAnswer

4 years ago

If this is true, it'd probably be double the price of gold, so about A$160 a year

LeonJ

4 years ago

http://www.analoghype.com/xbox-360/news/xbox-live-vip-not/

Quote

Rumors of a new Xbox Live VIP service hit the web a couple of days ago via hiphopgamershow.com. Immediately after reading the features, I had to question the reality of the rumor. The Majority of the features are either not possible or not cost effective for Microsoft. I'll debunk this rumor with common sense after the jump.

Online storage for their content

Sounds like a great feature at first, until you sit back and think about it. What would you store online? All downloadable content can be re downloaded if needed via your purchase history. The only thing I can see being stored online is game saves. With the money being made from accessories such as memory cards and hard drives, this feature is unlikely.

A new matchmaking option

Matchmaking is done by a game by game basis. To make a new matchmaking option would mean changing the entire Xbox Live infrastructure.

An option that allows the user to send free invitations to silver members

There are way too many possible exploits to this feature for it to be even considered. With millions of Xbox Live users willing to pay for Xbox Live Gold, why would they jeopardize losing a potential gold subscriber for a new service?

Better connectivity

With the majority of games on Xbox Live being player hosted matches, there is only one way to create better connectivity, dedicated servers. This would require every multiplayer game to release a patch as well as major changes to the Live infrastructure.

Lord Haart

4 years ago

Knowling what multiplayer would be like without a subscription model (ie how bad the service would be), I really don't mind that much. I've spent around $110 for 26 months of subscription, really not a bad deal. The guest pass system sounds good, though I agree that they need to either cheapen the current model or provide the improved service to everyone.

EDIT: Good points LeonJ. I didn't think this really sounded feasible. Cloud computing is one thing, but assuming every service will move to it is a little wishful+impractical.

fatpizza

4 years ago

Piece of advice for everyone here. Never, ever, ever listen to any of the crap that comes off of the hiphopgamer website. All they do is take ideas that random users post on internet forums and then write articles claiming they are rumours...

One of their latest articles was regarding the Final Fantasy XIII demo. The author basically said that the fact that the PS3 demo looks awesome proves that the 360 is just as powerful as the PS3...(i'm not starting a console debate here, just stating what was said) How in the hell would anyone come to that conclusion you may ask?
His only reasoning was that because Square-Enix have been good buddies with Microsoft this generation, they wouldn't release an inferior port on the 360. 2 + 2 = 5 anyone?
Hiphopgamer are the videogame world equivalent of Michael Moore.

legend166

4 years ago

Lord Haart wrote

Please explain. Live currently uses P2P hosting. It literally couldn't get any worse.

LeonJ

4 years ago

Well there are pros and cons for both with P2P. Live still needs dedicated game servers for matchmaking, leaderboards, universal friends list etc t. Plus you have to remember that Live feature work across all games, i.e. invite from anywhere. So there is more behind the scenes going on that just a basic P2P service.

The big advantage with P2P is scalability and long term support for a game. If you don't need heaps dedicated servers, keeping a game running online forever is much more cost effective. I'm sure a few PS3 games will be turned off at some point which have small online communties.

rufati

4 years ago

nikack wrote

Most games actually aren't "P2P" in the sense of the PC gaming term.

They are P2P in that they are hosted by players.

Why don't Microsoft/Developers offer some kind of dedicated server utility/software/whatever so that ISPs can host their own servers for games? That way the popular high-traffic games get some proper online support, and less popular or obscure titles can get by with p2p.

LeonJ wrote

The big advantage with P2P is scalability and long term support for a game.

The downside is that the quality of connections from game to game (and I guess match to match) is inconsistent. It doesn't help that Australian internet connections aren't that great to begin with.

I can't even get a green connection in SF4 playing against my mates back home in Sydney =/ (I'm currently on the Gold Coast)

Page12 Next

View as forum topic

Add Comment