Aeropause: Get paid for your content

The difference between XNA and PC mods though is that people that make the PC mods aren't paying a $99 yearly subscription to make their mod. On top of that, PC mods are easily uploaded to any site willing to host them. With XNA, user-created content is going to have to be approved by Microsoft that it won't do any damage to the 360 and then posted by them into the marketplace. That is unless Microsoft hasn't developed a way for XNA subscribers to post it themselves, which I doubt.

I thought open source was the mantra. Of course people should provide content for free.

MS will just act like RedHat and take a support fee. :)

I realize that most people are content to just say "I want free stuff... so people should just make it for free". But if you're willing to realize that your personal desires might NOT actually be able to coerce reality into forming a certain way, and decide instead to THINK about your position on the subject, you may come up with something much different.

The Internet has erased much of the significance of geography. It brings people closer together, conceptually, than is possible without it. A service such as Xbox Live and the platform of consoles brings with it a very interesting possibility. Individuals can bring their talent to the world. There are really 2 ways this can happen, and I don't think anyone bothers to consider the kind of environment we'd end up in if we accept the idea of paying for user generated content.

Scenario 1 (users generating content get no monetary benefit): A person whips up a really neat new toy to use in a game world, submits it to a corporate review board, and when it is improved, it gets posted to the service. Maybe he gets some kudos on a message board, but that's it. Every day he gets up, goes to work, slogs through the day, and comes home no more better off than he was before.

Scenario 2: A person whips up a really neat new toy to use in a game world, and he releases it right out into the wild. The company doesn't need to approve it because they've decided to let the market decide and increase their opportunity to make a (small, no more than a 10% finders fee) portion of the amount people pay for the content. It's a numbers game. So people like the new toy. His toy stands out much more easily because the marketplace itself helps target new game additions to customers likely to enjoy it. Customers submit their ratings of it, and that helps other people know whether they are likely to enjoy it and find it worth their while or not. Lots of people download it and play it. He gets kudos on message boards, and starts getting checks in the mail. Every morning, he wakes up and, having quit his job, he plays around with new ideas and tries to come up with more interesting things people might like. His life is happy because he's doing what he likes, freed from the restrictive wake-work-sleep-repeat-until-dead mentality.

Having too much user generated content is NOT A PROBLEM. Well, not for anyone except those creating the marketplace architecture. Amazon sells a lot of crap you really have no interest in. How do you deal with it? Easy, you don't. Only the things you're interested in are brought to the forefront. An exansive user-driven marketplace of content would be the exact same way if done right.

A future where you're buying things from other people rather than buying them from large companies enriches everyones life. That's not to say large companies will, or should, go away. Absolutely not. We need them to make complicated things like cars and computers. But when it comes to things which a single person CAN do, a single person SHOULD do. Less money is lost in the machinery of 'business' and more is used to generate more human happiness which benefits us all.