Xbox 360 Achievements policy amended
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Feb 2nd 2007 at 10:45AM }
Microsoft has revised its Xbox 360 Achievements rule book, agreeing to allow publishers to add an additional 250 Gamerscore points to disc-based games through add-on content. The content could be either free or paid. Xbox Live Arcade games can also receive a boost, as publishers are now allowed to add 50 additional points (to the required 200) via downloadable content, which could be similarly free or paid.
Each disc-based game must include 1,000 points that are accessible for free (excluding price paid to obtain game), but not necessarily included on the game disc; Crackdown, for example, will only ship with 900 unlockable points, while the remaining 100 will arrive built into a free content update. Microsoft admits that there have been "inconsistencies" in the past, but hopes that the new, supposedly clear policy will regulate publisher's Achievements.
Official rules (via Gamerscore Blog):
1. All regular disc-based games MUST have 1,000 Gamerscore in the base game. This means that any consumer who buys a retail game will have the opportunity to unlock the full 1,000 Gamerscore without having to pay for any add-on content. Note that a publisher may decide to deliver a portion of this Gamerscore via add-on content, but the add-on content will always be free to the consumer.
2. Game publishers will have the option to deliver another 250 incremental Gamerscore on top of the 1,000 via add-on content from Marketplace. This add-on content could be either free or paid. So if you complete a game and earn the full 1,000 GS, you could by getting new add-on content earn up to a total of 1,250 points from a game.
3. Xbox Live Arcade games will operate in similar fashion, but given the size of these titles they will allow you to earn up to 200 Gamerscore from every game and up to another 50 points from add-on content.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
teknomusik @ Feb 2nd 2007 11:21AM
I forsee the Shivering Isles expansion taking advantage of this...
Erwos @ Feb 2nd 2007 11:10AM
Nice policy. Seems to prevent the most flagarant abuse (*cough*Aquazone*cough*). I wouldn't have minded seeing "for every 2 points of free DLC achievements, you may have 1 point of paid DLC achievements" to encourage/force free DLC to go with paid DLC, but that's just an idea.
Matt @ Feb 2nd 2007 11:14AM
Nice. One thing that I really liked about both the Xbox and the 360 is that Microsoft continually makes incremental changes to improve the user experience. With the original Xbox they did things like change the controller and introduced Live. For the 360 we've seen the introduction of the video marketplace as the biggest change so far. However, even little changes like this improve the experience if only a small amount. With games like Oblivion that have huge amounts of downloadable content, it's nice to get some sort of reward for playing through that.
lectoid @ Feb 2nd 2007 12:10PM
It was only a matter of time till money talked. If you want all of the achievements of some future games, you're going to have to pay for it.
sheppy @ Feb 2nd 2007 11:20AM
Forgive me if I'm wrong, Matt. But didn't the reward for playing through a game USED to be playing through a game? I mean, don't get me wrong as Lost Planet seems like the first game I'll care about achievement with. But for the most part, I just play the games how I want to play them (the achievement rush ruined COD2 for me). Personally, I'm tired of the pissing contests that go along with achievement points.
Agent MOO @ Feb 2nd 2007 11:20AM
that's a good amendment to the policy. I'm glad they closed this hole before EA raped it
Intentless @ Feb 2nd 2007 11:33AM
I personally think that having a block of 1000 is not good though. It should be a team dedicated to the achievements looks at each game and set ups points for what the developers want for achievments. So that acheivments will actually reflect the challenge involved instead of just throwing them out in some cases and breaking your neck in others...
Jake @ Feb 2nd 2007 11:41AM
Achievement points can't be looked at as a bad thing. If you like getting them and enjoy building them, then that is your gain and I'm happy for you. Just like Horse Armor, if you don't think it is worth your money or effort, you can ignore it.
If you are stupid enough to let "the rush for achievement points" ruin a game for you, then you are retarded. I mean, how can you say rushing to get points ruined a game for you? Are you incapable of playing a game the way you want? And Sheppy, haven't you claimed to not have a 360. You always bad mouth it in favor of PS3.
Personally, I couldn't care less about gamerscore or achievement points. It is sometimes cool to have a rank in a particular game to give a heads up on how good people are for team setting, imo, but the lack of it wouldn't upset me one bit.
Matt @ Feb 2nd 2007 11:52AM
@ Sheppy
I'm by no means an "achievement whore". My score is a rather paltry 3500. And like you, I play the games to play them. However, I still get a rather satisfying feeling when I hear that "achievement unlocked" tone. Adding achievements to DLC doesn't really detract from any game in any meaningful way. For me at least, extending the achievements to downloadable content just makes an already good game just a little bit more satisfying.
Shmil @ Feb 2nd 2007 11:52AM
i agree with jake, nothing bad can really be said about them, achievement rushing ruins games for you? wow you must pretty shallow and have a low self esteem for that to happen, its not a pissing contest unless you make it one
Agent MOO @ Feb 2nd 2007 11:55AM
@6, I think it should be left to the developer to decide how to divvy up the achievements. You usually want a mix of varying difficulty, but a game like Halo3 where people are going to be playing it 24/7, there will be a lot of people competing for bragging rights so they should mostly or all be hard to get.
on the flip side when you have a game like king kong, you get a new audience with easy points. I played it when I wouldn't have otherwise considered it, and I'm glad I did because it was a fun game.
Matt @ Feb 2nd 2007 12:16PM
@ Lectoid
Because you weren't paying for games before? I'm sorry, but if you're buying content just for the achievement points then that's your problem. You're still getting the full 1000 points out of the retail game anyways. Meanwhile for anyone who's ever played through lengthy DLC, like Nights of Nine, this is a welcome bonus. God, people will complain about anything.
bpops @ Feb 2nd 2007 12:23PM
Granted, it's NOT true that all 1000 points are available for free. You must pay for xbox live to get any of the multiplayer acheivements.
sheppy @ Feb 2nd 2007 12:26PM
Jake, no. I never denied owning a 360. I have stated numerous times that I'm a proud owner of all three and, as such, the console war is a joke to me. I bought them all for their individual strengths and I don't intend to get rid of any of them anytime soon.
Having said that, maybe I should explain exactly what I meant. When I first got the 360, a friend of mine and I were used to "races" and naturally, constant fighting game beatdowns. So he thought the achievement points would be a perfectly excellent way for me to play catchup. I concured. Another friend of mine handed me off Call Of Duty 3 since many of my other games had their achievements tied to the online multiplayer and I just never did online enough to warrant their pursuit. Anyone familiar with COD2's achievements will understand my pain at this point. There is only one achievement possible unless you are playing on the hardest difficulty. If you are playing the hardest difficulty, you get an achievement for each level and I instantly thought "Why the hell would I play this twice?" Now keep in mind, I'm not the biggest WWII shooter to begin with so my patiences with this game is already strenious at best. But I blaze on, through the many challenges, until I got to that point where you have to keep the hordes of nazis from invading the town. It's frustrating to say the least, but eventually my patience died, as did my desire for achievement points. Now, that's how achievement points ruined COD2 for me. Some achievements, like on PDZ for example, are absolutely insane. Some achievements take forever to accomplish like RR6 and Burnout Revenge. Both games have 5+ hours put in from me with zero achievements.
The kinds of achievement points I agree with are the extra stuff. You know, like "downing a moth" in Lost Planet versus just blazing through the game. Or gathering all the target marks. I like the extra stuff. I don't like the achievement points that force you to go online since I prefer to play with friends and often, I'm not playing what their playing.
I'm not knocking the achievement system but I have seen message board rants break out between "closely pointed" players which is always amusing to me. So it seems like some people use them in pissing contest.
And BTW, if you complain about a 3500 point gamertag, just imagine me... 2440 as of last night when I finally busted down mission 10 in Lost Planet...
FoxSan @ Feb 2nd 2007 12:39PM
I realize that the additional 250 points comes from the Marketplace, and that this content may be free. But doesn't it seem a bad idea to allow the points from paid content as well?
This is all depending on the content, of course. Allowing an extra 250 points for a paid-for expansion that adds a bit more life to a game is fine and good. But couldn't the paid-for content just as easily be an NPC or in-game button that just drops 250 points on your account when you interact with them?
Seems like a half-assed method to protect the "integrity" of achievement points.
sheppy @ Feb 2nd 2007 12:30PM
Damn, correction... Call Of Duty 2 was the game in question
Matt @ Feb 2nd 2007 12:36PM
Sheppy, I wasn't complaining about my score. I'm relatively indifferent about it. I just mentioned it to show that I'm not one of those people who view achievement points as a pissing contest, as you put it. Achievement points will only get in the way of the game if you let them. If you do indeed think that playing the game is it's own reward then why do you care about how the points are alloted? If some toolbag on a message board wants to gloat about the 30,000 points he racked up playing EA sports titles, what does it matter to you? It certainly doesn't matter to me.
Agent MOO @ Feb 2nd 2007 12:44PM
@13
No, you get achievements with the free silver accounts too.
LunarDuality @ Feb 2nd 2007 12:49PM
Why do you think that EA won't continue to "rape" us with their unlockables/consumables? This won't prevent the stuff that they did in The Godfather or Need for Spped at all because in those games you can play for the unlocks or you pay for them. And since you *can* "unlock" the full 1000 gamerscore without purchasing anything, this change won't effect EA's plans in the least.
I think that a policy like this is overdue but I'm glad it's finally here. I'm glad that DLC can now have Achievement points but it will be important for Microsoft to take a more hands on approach to make sure that devs don't just tack on premium (read, purchasable) DLC that is just glorified achievement points. The quality control will be difficult.
sheppy @ Feb 2nd 2007 12:52PM
Agent Moo, how can a Silver member earn achievement points in a game that requires things like "Achieve S ranking in online multiplayer?"
Matt @ Feb 2nd 2007 12:53PM
@18
True, but many achievements are awarded for things you do in online multi-player. Online multi-player is the primary feature that does not work with the Silver account so these achievements are not available to silver members.
Agent MOO @ Feb 2nd 2007 1:17PM
@above,
Whoops, I misread. Yeah, multiplayer achievements do require gold. Those achievements suck, because they are usually dependent on playing said game for an obscenely long time like 10,000 kills... I'm looking at you Perfect Dark and Gears of War.
I'm letting my gold subscription expire because online play is rife with whining people and bad and/or repetitive gameplay mechanics.
Judd @ Feb 2nd 2007 6:07PM
Condemned has 970 points. Monolith was supposed to have added points later on, but they still have not released any updates.
http://www.achieve360points.com/game/condemnedcriminalorigins/
And as teknomusik point out, this is probably also being done because of the Shivering Isle expansion. I know that GRAW had downloadable co-op chapters, but Shivering Isle is the first time I can think of that a game of this size is available on the Live Marketplace.
Vidikron @ Feb 2nd 2007 1:36PM
The whole online achievement points is a total non-issue. Obviously having a Gold account has bonuses.
I like this policy, but I think FoxSan brings up a good point. MS needs to make sure that the points are actually assigned to DLC that is worthy of having the points added. I could easily see EA tacking 250 points onto a special outfit or something. It should be limited to actual game expansions, not crap like the now famous horse armour.
Also, Sheppy, it just sounds like you let yourself get caught up in the points race. I like the achievement system myself, but I'm not a point whore. Like others here, by points are somewhere in the 3000's. I'll typically don't "chase" the achievements. I'll play through a game once or twice and the point I happen to get along the way are likely the only ones I'll acquire. I'll sometimes browse the list to see if any of the achievements sound like they might be fun to try and get, but otherwise I just play for my own enjoyment.
I also don't play online enough to get most of those points. I'm more of a co-op guy than VS multiplayer... at least on consoles. I do play multiplayer on PCs from times to time and am currently awaiting the PC release of UT3.
Anyway, back to achievements, have you guys seen that video of the Crackdown achievements? Those look like a blast, so I may actually chase those just because they seem to be highly entertaining.
One downside to achievements are the online points. Some people don't gain them honestly. You know how many of them say things like "Kill 25 players without being killed in a single online ranked match"? You'll get groups of friends that will just go into a match together and simply allow their friends to kill them over and over to get the achievement. That really cheapens those sorts of achievements.
But overall I do like them. If some point whore wants to subscribe to Gamefly so he can rent as many games as possible to pump up his gamerscore, that's his business. I'm not getting into that pissing contest.
Anonymous @ Feb 2nd 2007 2:51PM
Man, I like being an achievement whore. It's particularly satisfying when I'm playing Civil War: A Nation Divided (actually a pretty awesome FPS, despite being a History Channel title) and I get 2 achievements per level.
ToRo @ Feb 2nd 2007 5:08PM
Achievements have both pros and cons. Their good because they add replay value to the game and they bring you into games that you would have never seen yourself playing last gen (Sports games for me) but now, i love whopping my brothers arse in b ball. The only bad thing about achievements is that some people cheat to get the points.
I don't make achievements my main priority, but if they are there and i can acomplish them, then why not? Thats why i have a score of 16345.
ElToRo15
CKaz @ Feb 12th 2007 5:53PM
I see both sides, mostly I don't care but I can see it driving some of your choice - I have similiar thoughts about CoD2, it seems to be set up oddly.
Also a lot of online seems a bit crazy, rockstar table tennis as far as challenging off and online come to mind
It can add/complement but it can also be a bit silly and possibly even detract or lean you down a different path - eg rentals and one-thru run-thrus