'We Messed Up'. Microsoft Rescinds Xbox Live Gold Price Hike (forbes.com) 55
"We messed up today," the Xbox Live Gold team wrote late Friday night, "and you were right to let us know." Their blog post's new title? "No Changes to Xbox Live Gold Pricing, Free-to-Play Games to be Unlocked."
Forbes reports: It has been a very strange few days for Microsoft and Xbox fans. On Friday, Microsoft announced that for effectively no real reason, it was doubling the price of Xbox Live Gold from $60 a year to $120 a year. Immediately, this generated massive pushback from both players, who would bear those costs, and the press, who dubbed Xbox Live Gold suddenly "the worst deal in gaming."
It took all of maybe 14 hours for Microsoft to come back and...kill the entire idea. Not only that, as in addition to reverting the planned price increase, they also announced that they were working on making all free-to-play games able to be played without needing Xbox Live Gold, a long-requested change, which would roll out over the next few months...
Microsoft is trying very hard to push people into signing up for Ultimate and Game Pass, and this price increase was meant to be a win-win for them. Either people were now close enough to the yearly price of Ultimate where they'd just do that instead, or they would be paying twice as much for Gold which meant more sub revenue anyways. What could go wrong? What is not clear, however, is why Microsoft did not anticipate the reaction....
Citing a Twitter thread from analyst Daniel Ahmad, the article concludes that "Microsoft knows that it is losing the console sales battle, and they will likely continue to lose it to Sony.
"So their main desire is to increase Game Pass adoption as much as possible to essentially be the definitive game subscription service in the market before others catch up."
Forbes reports: It has been a very strange few days for Microsoft and Xbox fans. On Friday, Microsoft announced that for effectively no real reason, it was doubling the price of Xbox Live Gold from $60 a year to $120 a year. Immediately, this generated massive pushback from both players, who would bear those costs, and the press, who dubbed Xbox Live Gold suddenly "the worst deal in gaming."
It took all of maybe 14 hours for Microsoft to come back and...kill the entire idea. Not only that, as in addition to reverting the planned price increase, they also announced that they were working on making all free-to-play games able to be played without needing Xbox Live Gold, a long-requested change, which would roll out over the next few months...
Microsoft is trying very hard to push people into signing up for Ultimate and Game Pass, and this price increase was meant to be a win-win for them. Either people were now close enough to the yearly price of Ultimate where they'd just do that instead, or they would be paying twice as much for Gold which meant more sub revenue anyways. What could go wrong? What is not clear, however, is why Microsoft did not anticipate the reaction....
Citing a Twitter thread from analyst Daniel Ahmad, the article concludes that "Microsoft knows that it is losing the console sales battle, and they will likely continue to lose it to Sony.
"So their main desire is to increase Game Pass adoption as much as possible to essentially be the definitive game subscription service in the market before others catch up."
You can say that again, Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
heh, Bill Gates hasn't been involved in Microsofts day to day in like 13 years my dude.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s funny how, when customers complain, others come out of the woodwork to say “Microsoft can do whatever they want!”, is if anyone truly disputes that.
They act as if customers sharing their opinions is 1) wrong and 2) pointless.
Well, there is nothing more relevant in a truly free market than the customer’s opinion, and whether you agree with them or not, it’s weird when you opine that they’re irrelevant, or mean that “the company can’t make whatever decision
Anticipate the reaction? (Score:2)
Who can say that they did not? They have attracted attention to their platform, and their existing users are going to be much more greatful for the small recurring price increments to come.
Real reason? (Score:3)
On Friday, Microsoft announced that for effectively no real reason, it was doubling the price of Xbox Live Gold from $60 a year to $120 a year.
Simply because they could -- then they realized, "oops", they couldn't (or, more practically, shouldn't).
They also considered renaming it "New Xbox Live Gold", but then thought that would be too wordy and because, unlike (say) New Coke, they hadn't actually changed anything about the product to warrant the name (or price) change.
TL;DR: People are dumb, but not *that* dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
Value Pricing (read "greed"), eh?
So "we messed up" mean "we tried to squeze more cash out of you but you did not budge"?
If they just called it "Platinum" all would have been good, right?
A New Coke situation? (Score:2)
Re: A New Coke situation? (Score:5, Interesting)
...except, as the story goes, with HF corn syrup instead of the more expensive cane sugar. Which many believe was the entire goal -- once old stock of the original sucrose Coke was exhausted they hoped no one would notice the switcheroo.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. They will get their price hike but it will now be in tiny frog boiling amounts over a protracted period.
Re: (Score:1)
They didn't "mess up". (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft didn't "mess up," they got rejected by their customers. They don't give a shit about you, they don't feel and ounce of remorse, they just want your money and it turns out the price hike would result in them earning less money so they are trying to backtrack.
Re: (Score:2)
while true, they messed up as well. they believed gamers would receive a 100% price hike with open arms. that's a big mess up
Re: They didn't "mess up". (Score:3)
they believed players would receive a 100% price hike No, they want to move players from Live Gold to Ultimate and Game Pass.
Re:They didn't "mess up". (Score:4)
They don't give a shit about you
No company does. Companies don't exist to give shits.
Re: (Score:1)
No company does. Companies don't exist to give shits.
Depends on the type of company. For profit companies are sociopathic entities.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can still worship someone who doesn't give a shit about you when your goals align. I want a better world, Musk wants to profit off making it better. I'll happily cheer him on in his for profit money making scheme if it also means I don't need to breath shitty fumes every day in the city.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Don't worry I won't "bullshit" you. Based on your post just now you're already too far gone. Don't worry, we won't let people like you get in the way of progress despite being misunderstood geniuses.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is such a thing as enlightened self-interest, or looking after the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't give a shit about you
No company does. Companies don't exist to give shits.
I'm the CEO of Manure S.L., you insensitive clod!
MS fault (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This just stuck out as odd to me (Score:2)
Re: This just stuck out as odd to me (Score:2)
I don't know what it is like on Sony but (Score:3)
A simple policy would be "no means no" they should ask me exactly once if I would like to go online. Not even one of those, "Yes/Maybe later" choices, but "Never show this to me again." This would apply to account signups, loot box purchase type crap, marketing other games, DLCs etc.
But most importantly, I should be able to play offline. As in, never ever go online if I want.
I don't like the fact that these game companies are effectively monitoring my time gaming. I highly suspect they are selling this data to various data aggregators that make facebook look good. Does anyone here think that EA wouldn't sell your soul if they thought they could make a buck.
The reality is that I expect no less from Microsoft. They seem to think that I use Windows because I want to have their products pushed at me endlessly. So very many of their declines are "Yes/Maybe later" which is asshole design at its finest. This is a lesson for all companies founded by people who want to make good products. Don't hand your company over to grasping MBAs.
Re: (Score:2)
oh no, a whole banana a month.
Re: Mistakes were made (Score:2)
Avacado.
Re: (Score:2)
It was when they apologized. 10 bucks a month is almost literally nothing
For something that is usually free, it’s a lot.
because some marketing twonk (Score:1)
double standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Literally ANY company other than Microsoft: We messed up
Slashdot: OK, please learn from it
Microsoft: We messed up
Slashdot: How dare you! Unforgiveable! Burn them at the stake! Next year will be the year of the Linux Desktop!
And so the cycle continues....
Re: (Score:2)
They've been like this for decades. They don't deserve any doubt benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally ANY company other than Microsoft: We messed up
Slashdot: OK, please learn from it
Microsoft: We messed up
Slashdot: How dare you! Unforgiveable! Burn them at the stake! Next year will be the year of the Linux Desktop!
And so the cycle continues....
Literally ANY company other than Microsoft... Comcast, Charter, AT&T, I'm sure there are others that have repeatedly annoyed their customers to the point the customers are far too tired of trying to forgive.
Apparently someone at Microsoft (Score:2)
...thought they were Comcast.
That's not a price hike... (Score:3, Insightful)
Going up $10-$20/month is a price hike.
Doubling the cost isn't a "price hike".
It's fucking extortion.
Re: That's not a price hike... (Score:3)
Going up $10-$20/month is a price hike.
Doubling the cost isn't a "price hike".
It's fucking extortion.
Confused, what do you call doubling from $5 a month to $10 a month then.
It's not a mistake if you did it on purpose (Score:1)
The big three are all shmucks. (Score:3)
I really don't get the corporate fanboys this generation. None of the major players are particularly likeable. Maybe they never were and I just didn't see it. At least there are nice things happening on PC. Between GOG pushing DRM-free, Steam pushing Proton, and more developers than ever porting stuff to PC, it's been a nice couple of years being a PC main. And I don't have to pay any stupid subscription bullshit (outside of MMOs, but none of them are good right now anyway).
Sigh. (Score:2)
I won't pay a subscription to play games.
I'm not paying any subscription now.
I've never paid any subscription in the past (I will tell you that I "subscribed" to the Ubisoft thing with a trial code for one month to play Watch_Dogs:Legion, basically completed the game, and then terminated the subscription before it charged me - similar for OnLive when that was a thing, one free game, I used it to play Space Hulk, never paid a penny, and then bought Space Hulk later when it was on Steam).
I don't buy subscript
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, great strategy... (Score:2)
"So their main desire is to increase Game Pass adoption as much as possible to essentially be the definitive game subscription service in the market before others catch up."
Most companies would think, "Let's decrease the price of Game Pass in order to increase adoption and then slowly raise the price back up over time. We will take a loss at first, but we will benefit when we have thoroughly secured the market." Microsoft thinks, "Let's double the price of another service in order to scare people into getting Game Pass. And if our users end up paying us twice the money for no added benefits, then who's to complain?" Yeah... what could go wrong?