Phil hints at freeing apps from Pay Wall.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Following is not specifically a response to you but just an observations to similar posts in this thread.

 

Remember last generation? remember how paying for multiplayer was "stupid"? Why is everyone suddenly okay with XBL Gold for multiplayer? They always described XBLGold as a multiplayer requirement and all additional features as benefits of the gold and not the other way round.

 

FTR, I do think that Gold requirement for apps is stupid but then buying a $99 Roku/whatever makes more sense than buying a $4-500 console in the first place.

 

Paying for MP is stupid, but because PS+ is now required the argument for it has been muted. At the same time there are some small benefits to MP being a pay for service when you look at the enforcement team. It's not perfect by any means but a lot better than any of the alternatives. The time has come and gone where they had the opportunity to switch to free MP IMO.  If it was going to happen it would need to have happened last generation. Plus the way the networks are growing they need that feature especially to sell the subs. Without it behind the paywall I'm sure many wouldn't bother with Gold at all.

 

As for the Roku comment, it's palming off the issue. Why not save yourself $300 and just buy a PS3. Use that mentality and you're beginning to sound like Don Mattrick as if you don't even want any customers :laugh:

[compl3x]

A netflix streaming app or a browser is radically different to miltiplayer and the costs associated with it. Especially when you consider no other platform restricts apps behind a paywall.

[Showan]

I can see peoples position of the "Paywall" and how it has to come down.  Never bothered me personally.

 

To me there is a "Quality" that comes with paying $60yr for Live. 

I can see why Microsoft does it though.  No one is basing their decision to purchase a $200-$500 box (360 or One), based on Netflix being behind a paywall or not (unless money is of NO object to you).

 

Can Microsoft really loosen up a bit and keep the quality at the same time?  I know it, is still up to Microsoft as far as approval process goes.

 

 But I think we also, need to be careful of what we ask for.  Especially if there are ramifications that come with this.

 

We've seen Microsoft do the "I'm taking my ball and going home." thing already.  When they did the 180 and nixed a lot of things that looked really cool.

[Showan]

Paying for MP is stupid, but because PS+ is now required the argument for it has been muted. At the same time there are some small benefits to MP being a pay for service when you look at the enforcement team. It's not perfect by any means but a lot better than any of the alternatives. The time has come and gone where they had the opportunity to switch to free MP IMO.  If it was going to happen it would need to have happened last generation. Plus the way the networks are growing they need that feature especially to sell the subs. Without it behind the paywall I'm sure many wouldn't bother with Gold at all.

 

As for the Roku comment, it's palming off the issue. Why not save yourself $300 and just buy a PS3. Use that mentality and you're beginning to sound like Don Mattrick as if you don't even want any customers :laugh:

 

 

I don't think paying for MP is stupid at all.  Especially if there is a well established backend that comes with that (ie WoW, or LoL, Azure, etc).  We pay ISP's for a connection.  What I pay Cox (my ISP), doesn't go to Blizzard or Microsoft, etc

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I can see peoples position of the "Paywall" and how it has to come down.  Never bothered me personally.

 

To me there is a "Quality" that comes with paying $60yr for Live. 

I can see why Microsoft does it though.  No one is basing their decision to purchase a $200-$500 box (360 or One), based on Netflix being behind a paywall or not (unless money is of NO object to you).

 

Can Microsoft really loosen up a bit and keep the quality at the same time?  I know it, is still up to Microsoft as far as approval process goes.

 

 But I think we also, need to be careful of what we ask for.  Especially if there are ramifications that come with this.

 

We've seen Microsoft do the "I'm taking my ball and going home." thing already.  When they did the 180 and nixed a lot of things that looked really cool.

 

If there wasn't 10's of other platforms with free access/apps then you'd have a point, but there is and none of them are any less functional or perform lesser than the 360/X1 counterparts.

 

Microsoft have nothing to do with the quality of the apps, they have a set of essentials which must be met for the UI i.e Kinect friendly, the rest is up to the service provider to create.

 

 

I don't think paying for MP is stupid at all.  Especially if there is a well established backend that comes with that (ie WoW, or LoL, Azure, etc).  We pay ISP's for a connection.  What I pay Cox (my ISP), doesn't go to Blizzard or Microsoft, etc

 

And for 8+ years you paid $60 for P2P MP 90% (guesstimate) of games.

[Showan]

If there wasn't 10's of other platforms with free access/apps then you'd have a point, but there is and none of them are any less functional or perform lesser than the 360/X1 counterparts.

 

Microsoft have nothing to do with the quality of the apps, they have a set of essentials which must be met for the UI i.e Kinect friendly, the rest is up to the service provider to create.

 

 

 

And for 8+ years you paid $60 for P2P MP 90% (guesstimate) of games.

 

I've never paid full price for Live (even though it is only $60yr) .  It can just be perception on my part.  But outside of the occasional bad host in the P2P matches, I've never felt too cheated.  

I don't have a beef with the paywall, because IMHO (speaking for me personally) Live as a service has no equal.  

 

But it can also be that, I'm blessed enough to be able to have it, that I take it for granted.  

 

This is easily one of those "fine line" situations.

[trooper11]

If there wasn't 10's of other platforms with free access/apps then you'd have a point, but there is and none of them are any less functional or perform lesser than the 360/X1 counterparts.

 

Microsoft have nothing to do with the quality of the apps, they have a set of essentials which must be met for the UI i.e Kinect friendly, the rest is up to the service provider to create.

Um, I hate to oppose this view again, but are you saying that every single app on the Xbox has an equal on another platform in both functionality (i.e. UI, ease of access, etc) and performance?

I'll just say this: You have not used all of the apps out, so unless you are basing this on a report or something, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. And no, its not just the 'essentials' that you discount that I'm talking about.

[compl3x]

Um, I hate to oppose this view again, but are you saying that every single app on the Xbox has an equal on another platform in both functionality (i.e. UI, ease of access, etc) and performance?

 

 

Which apps do you think performed better or worse on which platforms?

-----------

 

The Netflix app is one that probably gets used the most and I don't recall reading about anyone having issues on any platform. The only issue people have is it being behind a paywall, especially if you no longer want to pay for Gold (maybe you don't game as much because of other responsibilities) and you can't even just use it as a streaming box.

 

Simplifying this whole issue down to one question: why bother restricting the apps to Gold members?

 

...Just because? It's weird and out of step with their competition.

[Showan]

Um, I hate to oppose this view again, but are you saying that every single app on the Xbox has an equal on another platform in both functionality (i.e. UI, ease of access, etc) and performance?

I'll just say this: You have not used all of the apps out, so unless you are basing this on a report or something, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. And no, its not just the 'essentials' that you discount that I'm talking about.

 

 

This is a "Fine Line" situation.

 

I have used NetFlix, Amazon Instant Video on my Roku, PS3, PS4, 360, One, TV (LG 47LW6500), and it is a tad bit different on each and every one of these.  Sure the core of it is the same (click on movie you want to play).  But the UI/Feel is a bit different on each.  

 

Edit:  I wonder how ALL Live users feel about the whole paywall thing as whole.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I've never paid full price for Live (even though it is only $60yr) .  It can just be perception on my part.  But outside of the occasional bad host in the P2P matches, I've never felt too cheated.  

I don't have a beef with the paywall, because IMHO (speaking for me personally) Live as a service has no equal.  

 

But it can also be that, I'm blessed enough to be able to have it, that I take it for granted.  

 

This is easily one of those "fine line" situations.

 

I've never paid full price either but for sake of discussion let's stick to absolutes and RRPs. People didn't pay $500 for X1s on their own but we still recognize the $100 price difference between PS4.

 

And let me be clear, I'm not being negative about XBL, I think it's great. But don't kid yourself that you spent 8 years paying the sub and the money was going towards dedicated servers. So that is why many have a beef with it being a paid for service when you compare it either to PSN on PS3 or PC MP.

 

Um, I hate to oppose this view again, but are you saying that every single app on the Xbox has an equal on another platform in both functionality (i.e. UI, ease of access, etc) and performance?

I'll just say this: You have not used all of the apps out, so unless you are basing this on a report or something, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. And no, its not just the 'essentials' that you discount that I'm talking about.

 

Ignoring things like Kinect obviously. That's clearly a platform specific feature much like tablet/phones use Siri or off screen beaming. But yes, as far as ease of access/performance there is nothing special about either platforms apps, I'm not saying 360s/X1s are bad. But I can just as easily navigate Netflix on PS4, iPhone or browser as Xbox apps. And no I've not used all the apps, but unless you know something I don't and bearing in mind I'm not talking about things like Kinect/Siri...

 

And I forgot to reply to your question earlier, as far as breaking down the sub money, neither MS or Sony have detailed it, but MS have gone on record to say they use it for the purposes I said.

[Knife Party]

Yes. I believe that. Of course I use privacy and controls, and reporting liberally. I find the steam community to be rather stupid dudes with Internet bravado, Internet ganster wannabes etc. It's just boring as is the Steam service. XBL has same issues but easier to control and more "normal" people IMO. Of course when you get into the typical ###### games such as the FPS' like BF and Halo, you have to decide if you even want to bother, but in general I'd recommend XBL for normal people wanting to be in an online community with straight forward controls and parental controls. Like Steam, if found PSN to be a lower grade community overall. Sometimes you get what you pay for which is why in general I don't have a problem with Gold, I just think there's too much behind the pay wall.

This doesn't make sense. Steam community are "Stupid dudes"  - wow talk about summarising everything you know about Steam/online distribution channels in one go! Shocking to say the least, i have no words!

[trooper11]

Which apps do you think performed better or worse on which platforms?

-----------

 

Simplifying this whole issue down to one question: why bother restricting the apps to Gold members?

 

...Just because? It's weird and out of step with their competition.

The performance issue alone does not mean anything. The same app can sometimes perform differently on different platforms and that does not mean its a good idea to put that app behind a paywall. If the only difference between an app on one platform or others is performance/reliability, then there is no value that is worth restricting.

Now beyond the whole paywall discussion, in general, I can say that apps run on my ps4 are less reliable then on the X1 just from a stand point of crashes to the dash, but that may not be fault of the apps themselves, so I don't blame any one group for that. Likewise, I have seen apps on the pc or even mobile that offer more functionality then their counterparts on the consoles.

So to your question, I think I already answered this:

Offering an app behind a paywall could only be justified if it offers exclusive content (either to keep or just access) wrapped in a unique experience (i.e. a UI that is functionally better then similar examples)

99% of the X1 apps do not fall into this category and even the couple that I think might (NFL app and ESPN), probably don't offer enough that is special to qualify. So yeah, MS will open up a standard app store for the Xbox, that part just seems clear. I was just suggesting a way that MS could offer more value to Gold without it feeling like a rip off.

Not everyone is interested in stuff like that though, so it probably is not a good option to try and add value for as many users as possible.

 

 

This is a "Fine Line" situation.

 

I have used NetFlix, Amazon Instant Video on my Roku, PS3, PS4, 360, One, TV (LG 47LW6500), and it is a tad bit different on each and every one of these.  Sure the core of it is the same (click on movie you want to play).  But the UI/Feel is a bit different on each.  

 

Edit:  I wonder how ALL Live users feel about the whole paywall thing as whole.

Netflix and Amazon do not offer anything unique beyond the 'essentials' and those essentials are not implemented in a great way either. The Netflix UI was first deployed on the Xbox, but its everywhere now. So yeah, I would not consider it something special, just a regular app.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I still don't get the argument for keeping it. None of the sub money goes towards it and if you all argue that "every" XBL member has Gold anyway, why not make it a standard free feature and not ask for something which actually puts your money to use. What benefit does it have to you keeping it behind the paywall?

 

There is obviously some part of you that thinks that sub money is going towards the way the app is made which makes it special, or simply because you pay to access it, it is somehow different or better, when you've yet to put forward compelling evidence why or what.

 

There is absolutely nothing you can do on Netflix I can't do on any other platform (besides the hardware specific features such as Kinect/siri whatever).

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I still don't get the argument for keeping it. None of the sub money goes towards it and if you all argue that "every" XBL member has Gold anyway, why not make it a standard free feature and not ask for something which actually puts your money to use. What benefit does it have to you keeping it behind the paywall?

 

There is obviously some part of you that thinks that sub money is going towards the way the app is made which makes it special, or simply because you pay to access it, it is somehow different or better, when you've yet to put forward compelling evidence why or what.

 

There is absolutely nothing you can do on Netflix I can't do on any other platform (besides the hardware specific features such as Kinect/siri whatever).

 

Isn't that argument just flat out wrong anyway? I know this is a little outdated, but http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/04/20/always-on-microsoft-xbox-live-subscriptions-up-to-46m-will-never-be-free/

 

and it looks like it included all live accounts?

 

There?s simply no way on earth that Microsoft would ever consider forfeiting 46 million subscriptions (though some are free, limited access Silver variants)

 

 

So just chucking out the point "Everyone has gold" really needs to be scrutinized more IMO because it's simply not true enough to be used as a case closed bullet point in this argument.

[trooper11]

Ignoring things like Kinect obviously. That's clearly a platform specific feature much like tablet/phones use Siri or off screen beaming. But yes, as far as ease of access/performance there is nothing special about either platforms apps, I'm not saying 360s/X1s are bad. But I can just as easily navigate Netflix on PS4, iPhone or browser as Xbox apps. And no I've not used all the apps, but unless you know something I don't and bearing in mind I'm not talking about things like Kinect/Siri...

 

And I forgot to reply to your question earlier, as far as breaking down the sub money, neither MS or Sony have detailed it, but MS have gone on record to say they use it for the purposes I said.

Heck, you brought up the NFL app, which is a good example. It offers functionality not found on NFL apps elsewhere.

The ESPN app is not as strong a case, but it too offers functionality that you can't find from say the mobile versions or the web page.

You cannot navigate around the ESPN web experience like you can on the Xbox app. You just can't.

Regarding the sub money, I do seem to remember MS mentioning that partnerships such as the one with ESPN and the NFL are thanks to the success of Gold. Well in that case, a lot of this is going to be subjective. I do agree that securing timed exclusives to dlc is NOT a smart way of investing that money. I may want more game content, but the only content that has value in this situation is truly exclusive content or free content.

[trooper11]

I still don't get the argument for keeping it. None of the sub money goes towards it and if you all argue that "every" XBL member has Gold anyway, why not make it a standard free feature and not ask for something which actually puts your money to use. What benefit does it have to you keeping it behind the paywall?

 

There is obviously some part of you that thinks that sub money is going towards the way the app is made which makes it special, or simply because you pay to access it, it is somehow different or better, when you've yet to put forward compelling evidence why or what.

 

There is absolutely nothing you can do on Netflix I can't do on any other platform (besides the hardware specific features such as Kinect/siri whatever).

Netflix is not a good example.

In fact its the perfect example of an app that has no place behind a paywall.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Heck, you brought up the NFL app, which is a good example. It offers functionality not found on NFL apps elsewhere.

The ESPN app is not as strong a case, but it too offers functionality that you can't find from say the mobile versions or the web page.

You cannot navigate around the ESPN web experience like you can on the Xbox app. You just can't.

Regarding the sub money, I do seem to remember MS mentioning that partnerships such as the one with ESPN and the NFL are thanks to the success of Gold. Well in that case, a lot of this is going to be subjective. I do agree that securing timed exclusives to dlc is NOT a smart way of investing that money. I may want more game content, but the only content that has value in this situation is truly exclusive content or free content.

 

Things like ESPN and NFL tend to end up an American exclusive, so there's still the argument that the EU are paying for Americans to get exclusive content while we get nothing (last time I checked they were US only anyway). At least things like Netflix are global, along with YT/Twitter and the web browser (still can't believe a web browser is locked behind a paywall).

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Heck, you brought up the NFL app, which is a good example. It offers functionality not found on NFL apps elsewhere.

The ESPN app is not as strong a case, but it too offers functionality that you can't find from say the mobile versions or the web page.

You cannot navigate around the ESPN web experience like you can on the Xbox app. You just can't.

Regarding the sub money, I do seem to remember MS mentioning that partnerships such as the one with ESPN and the NFL are thanks to the success of Gold. Well in that case, a lot of this is going to be subjective. I do agree that securing timed exclusives to dlc is NOT a smart way of investing that money. I may want more game content, but the only content that has value in this situation is truly exclusive content or free content.

 

Yep and I agree with the NFL app staying behind the paywall. It's offering something you can't do elsewhere. Well I'm sure fantasy football has some sort of front end because it was around long before the app, but I digress.

 

And ESPN, we've been over this and I keep repeating it, that UI is a conforming rule that you must abide to on X1/360. Look at NXE when it first came out and how every app used the slide X/Y axis and then in 2011 when the current iteration of metro was introduced it all changed to the scrobbler UI. It's not a design choice by the app developer to make it so, it's a rule. So yes, it's great and works and lovely to look at (I disagree cause I hate Metro :p) etc etc, but it wasn't paid for. Just as every app on iOS7 now is conforming to the new minimal design and leaving behind skeuomorphism (a little different because we're dealing with devices on multiple OS versions). The very reason Metro was used and ported to 360/X1 wasn't because they were harmonising their UIs, it's designed to make it easier to use on devices like tablets and consoles. The large panels are much easier to select than a tiny line of words on Kinect (especially inaccuracy on Kinect 1).

 

So while it's easier, it's not what you're paying for and it's certainly not exclusive. All the same content and features like favouriting, or adding to playlists etc will all be there.

[trooper11]

So just chucking out the point "Everyone has gold" really needs to be scrutinized more IMO because it's simply not true enough to be used as a case closed bullet point in this argument.

Your right, it would be nice to know how many X1 owners are just silver users.

See here is the thing, even if its just one user that is a silver user, the argument against keeping apps in general behind Gold has weight. Heck, even if 0 users don't have Gold on the X1, the point still carries weight for future implications.

Just because people are paying for Gold, does not mean they completely agree with all of the practices MS adopts. I pay for Gold, yet I want to see an open app market not bound by Gold. So already the premise that Gold users don't care is incorrect.

[trooper11]

Things like ESPN and NFL tend to end up an American exclusive, so there's still the argument that the EU are paying for Americans to get exclusive content while we get nothing (last time I checked they were US only anyway). At least things like Netflix are global, along with YT/Twitter and the web browser (still can't believe a web browser is locked behind a paywall).

 

But then that is a completely different subject, not related to this topic.

Things like Netflix and IE should not be behind a paywall as they fall into the general app category.

 

Yep and I agree with the NFL app staying behind the paywall. It's offering something you can't do elsewhere. Well I'm sure fantasy football has some sort of front end because it was around long before the app, but I digress.

 

And ESPN, we've been over this and I keep repeating it, that UI is a conforming rule that you must abide to on X1/360. Look at NXE when it first came out and how every app used the slide X/Y axis and then in 2011 when the current iteration of metro was introduced it all changed to the scrobbler UI. It's not a design choice by the app developer to make it so, it's a rule. So yes, it's great and works and lovely to look at (I disagree cause I hate Metro :p) etc etc, but it wasn't paid for. Just as every app on iOS7 now is conforming to the new minimal design and leaving behind skeuomorphism (a little different because we're dealing with devices on multiple OS versions).

 

So while it's easier, it's not what you're paying for and it's certainly not exclusive. All the same content and features like favouriting, or adding to playlists etc will all be there.

Finally! You actually agree with my point :laugh:

You can have apps that offer some value as an addition to a Gold membership.

We can quibble about the ESPN app till we are blue in the face, but the point was not to get stuck arguing about that, it was simply one possible example. Having used the 360 app for years and the X1 version since its launch, I really do appreciate what it does as a unique experience, whereas the web version is clunky and unreliable. That is why I value its presence on the Xbox and why I felt it could be offered that way. Talk to people that use the app, you'll probably hear the same impressions. By the way, you said the app wasn't paid for, do you know if MS helped design/build it? I could have sworn when MS announced the partnership on the 360 and then for the X1, they mentioned providing assistance to the guys at ESPN.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

 

But then that is a completely different subject, not related to this topic.

Things like Netflix and IE should not be behind a paywall as they fall into the general app category.

 

Finally! You actually agree with my point :laugh:

You can have apps that offer some value as an addition to a Gold membership.

We can quibble about the ESPN app till we are blue in the face, but the point was not to get stuck arguing about that, it was simply one possible example. Having used the 360 app for years and the X1 version since its launch, I really do appreciate what it does as a unique experience, whereas the web version is clunky and unreliable. That is why I value its presence on the Xbox and why I felt it could be offered that way. Talk to people that use the app, you'll probably hear the same impressions. By the way, you said the app wasn't paid for, do you know if MS helped design/build it? I could have sworn when MS announced the partnership on the 360 and then for the X1, they mentioned providing assistance to the guys at ESPN.

 

I think I just meant the least they could do for everyone (especially EU) is let the basic apps be free to compensate for the expenses everyone pays for exclusives like ESPN/NFL even if they aren't available in your region.

 

I don't see anything wrong with some apps being premium if they are exclusive and hand-made/tailored. It's the apps every device including your fridge has that shouldn't be paywalled now. Now if Sony get EPSN/NFL and do it for free, the argument might change, but that's always the case when you lose exclusivity and/or your competitors do something different from you.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

 

But then that is a completely different subject, not related to this topic.

Things like Netflix and IE should not be behind a paywall as they fall into the general app category.

 

Finally! You actually agree with my point :laugh:

You can have apps that offer some value as an addition to a Gold membership.

We can quibble about the ESPN app till we are blue in the face, but the point was not to get stuck arguing about that, it was simply one possible example. Having used the 360 app for years and the X1 version since its launch, I really do appreciate what it does as a unique experience, whereas the web version is clunky and unreliable. That is why I value its presence on the Xbox and why I felt it could be offered that way. Talk to people that use the app, you'll probably hear the same impressions. By the way, you said the app wasn't paid for, do you know if MS helped design/build it? I could have sworn when MS announced the partnership on the 360 and then for the X1, they mentioned providing assistance to the guys at ESPN.

 

Dude I've been saying that since the beginning. I was the one who used NFL as the better example remember :laugh:

 

And again, I don't even argue with you that the website is probably hard to navigate on PC compared to a console. But if the app were to launch on PS3/4/iPhone or whatever, do you seriously think it wouldn't be the same? It would, just like Netflix or YT etc all conform to whatever device you're using and to make it accessible.

 

And as for the specifics on payment, no I don't know -- nobody will, but I have said that when the deal was made I'm sure some of the money went towards the development of the app. But it doesn't cost 100 of millions to do so, let's be sensible. It's a toolkit for building these UIs hence why they are all almost identical save for branding and logos. I'm sure MS have some form of support for the developers, but that's not an exclusive feature either. Apple offer the same support for app devs. MS do the exact same thing for probably every game on the console too. You'll often hear E talk about visiting studios to get their game on the network or gearing up for their launches. Just part of the program and comes as standard. There's maybe more involvement when the app is a multi-million deal but it's not made by MS AFAIK.

[trooper11]

I think I just meant the least they could do for everyone (especially EU) is let the basic apps be free to compensate for the expenses everyone pays for exclusives like ESPN/NFL even if they aren't available in your region.

 

I don't see anything wrong with some apps being premium if they are exclusive and hand-made/tailored. It's the apps every device including your fridge has that shouldn't be paywalled now. Now if Sony get EPSN/NFL and do it for free, the argument might change, but that's always the case when you lose exclusivity and/or your competitors do something different from you.

Exactly, open up the market so that most app free to be purchased or downloaded like any app store without the additional cost of Gold. That is the future they must embrace in my opinion. It seems like MS are walking in that direction, so we will see.

If they want to offer additional apps behind Gold, then they must add value for the end user, something that they can't get on another platform. We can clearly see how that would apply right now, with most apps going to the general market.

[trooper11]

Dude I've been saying that since the beginning. I was the one who used NFL as the better example remember :laugh:

 

And again, I don't even argue with you that the website is probably hard to navigate on PC compared to a console. But if the app were to launch on PS3/4/iPhone or whatever, do you seriously think it wouldn't be the same? It wouldn't, just like Netflix or YT etc all conform to whatever device you're using and to make it accessible.

If the ESPN comes to the ps4 with a different layout but a UI that is still tailored for the tv, then that is all it needs to match the X1. Netflix did the same thing and that is why I said it is not an example of a unique experience.

So when the ESPN app comes to the ps4, then it will have ceased being a unique experience for the X1. As of today, it is only on the X1. So would you say that right now, in the present day, it offers a bit of value that you can't get elsewhere?

 

And as for the specifics on payment, no I don't know; nobody will, but I have said that when the deal was made I'm sure some of the money went towards the development of the app. But it doesn't cost 100 of millions to do so, let's be sensible. It's a toolkit for building these UIs hence why they are almost all identical save for branding and logos. I'm sure MS have some form of support for the developers, but that's not an exclusive feature either. Apple offer the same support for app devs. MS do the exact same thing for probably every game on the console too. You'll often hear E talk about visiting studios to get their game on the network or gearing up for their launches. Just part of the program and comes as standard. There's maybe more involvement when the app is a multi-million deal but it's not made by MS AFAIK.

Well if MS helped with the app, then I think that matters. If you don't know what work they did with ESPN, how can you assume it was superficial at best?

I mean its not about the dollar amount. This goes back to the idea that if MS helps build an app, that makes more of an 'exclusive' experience. They treated the ESPN (and the NFL app) as a special case, making a huge deal out of it and going as far as partnering with the groups in question and making some sort of investment.

For instance, MS did not help build the youtube app, Google did that using the tools MS provided. The youtube app isn't exactly good either, even if they just added the upload option. So obviously MS is not reaching out to all app developers and helping them build apps.

We were stuck on sports apps, but another has come to mind: Machinima

The Machinima app is another one that seems polished and even offers exclusive content in the form of assistance videos targeted as specific games which you can access while in the game. Now personally, that hasn't been a big deal to me, but it could qualify as something that adds value, but I don't know if you could justify having it behind Gold.

[coresx]

I don't think Microsoft would lose many Gold subscribers as long as online play is Gold only because that is what people primarly pay for. Their current Gold policy has done nothing but shoot themselves in the foot. Apps being free would get many people over to their platform. Value by addition not substraction which Gold hasn't followed for many years. Games with Gold, dedicated servers, NFL for some are worthy perks and they only turned up recently and one is pretty weak sauce compared to the competition, another is unknown and only useful to one country.

 

As for Xbox Live Gold numbers, over the years it started around 65% with original Xbox, around 50% for 360 and keep falling, currently it's down to around 38% of users. Even from a buisness perspectivie I don't think selling your platform to content providers with the cold hard truth, only 38% of our user base will even see your content is not a good selling point.