Xbox One

[Tong]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

So instead of $60 for a physical copy, its $45 to $50 for a direct download that is tied exclusively to your console.

Still too much, at least $15 to $28!
Only way to make up for the downsides.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I agree with you here.

The XBox One would be more appealing to me if it cut out the middle man (almost) entirely. Sell the console itself in actual physical stores, but have an online game-shop for everything else.

If you're not going to let your customers own a game truly contained within a disk, then why bother at all with the disk? I'm not looking for coasters or frisbees here, I'm looking for a video game.

Surely XBox would save some money on cutting out the middle man, and cutting out the manufacturing of game disks and physical packaging. Those savings could be passed on to the customer to make the whole thing more palatable and constituting a trade-off.

So instead of $60 for a physical copy, its $45 to $50 for a direct download that is tied exclusively to your console.

I'd like that, but people are not ready to abandon the disk because of...

Low bandwidth
Internet traffic quotas
Inability to pay for shit online
Gift giving customs

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I agree with you here.

The XBox One would be more appealing to me if it cut out the middle man (almost) entirely. Sell the console itself in actual physical stores, but have an online game-shop for everything else.

If you're not going to let your customers own a game truly contained within a disk, then why bother at all with the disk? I'm not looking for coasters or frisbees here, I'm looking for a video game.

To be fair, we both know the answer to this: a lot of markets just aren't ready for it, whether due to technical limitations, bandwidth caps (Canadian example: $52 for 80GB a month on Rogers, when Sony offers some PS3 game downloads that are 20GB.), etc.

I don't think Microsoft wants to have to include a bluray drive in this thing any more than it wants to include HDMI in and IR blasters to control cable boxes. As opposed to, you know, having the console just act as an IPTV box (which the 360 can do in Canada... if you get TV through Telus) and not both with that stuff.

Surely XBox would save some money on cutting out the middle man, and cutting out the manufacturing of game disks and physical packaging. Those savings could be passed on to the customer to make the whole thing more palatable and constituting a trade-off.

So instead of $60 for a physical copy, its $45 to $50 for a direct download that is tied exclusively to your console.

Eh, you want it account based rather than console based so you don't lose the games if you lose the console due to mechanical failure or the like. Microsoft at least appears to be getting that part right.

[saravis]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I agree with you here.

The XBox One would be more appealing to me if it cut out the middle man (almost) entirely. Sell the console itself in actual physical stores, but have an online game-shop for everything else.

If you're not going to let your customers own a game truly contained within a disk, then why bother at all with the disk? I'm not looking for coasters or frisbees here, I'm looking for a video game.

Surely XBox would save some money on cutting out the middle man, and cutting out the manufacturing of game disks and physical packaging. Those savings could be passed on to the customer to make the whole thing more palatable and constituting a trade-off.

So instead of $60 for a physical copy, its $45 to $50 for a direct download that is tied exclusively to your console.

Except that by eliminating the middle-man, you eliminate the only source of competition for media on that system. One of the reasons that Steam has such sick deals is that there are various options. The PC is a very open ended platform. By eliminating the Amazons, Gamestops, etc; all you have left is Microsoft's own discretion. And considering their recent bedfellows *cough*EA*cough*, I have difficulty trusting Microsoft's discretion, look at what EA did with Origin.

[felix]

Originally Posted by cronnoponno

First off, selling something for 80% of it's value is only really going to attract REALLY persistent pre-owned buyers, like I have said before. No one is going to buy a pre-owned Black Ops 2 when it's 54.99$, compared to a new one that's 59.99$ and I will say it again, the LARGE LARGE majority of customers I could possibly recommend a used copy to WILL snort at me and will buy new regardless, only when the value goes down FURTHER does it start seeing popular sales, and by the time we've restocked to make a pre-owned supply of games the game is often years old and obsolete in regards to making developers money, other than your random customer who wants to buy it on a whim which isn't that big of a deal, and few companies would restock on new product of that sort anyway so used starts to become the only option unless you want digital(and not everyone does/has internet access).

The lack of any openess on just how much said part of the industry makes compared to the rest is kind of iffy though. Especially when, just like the knee jerk reaction in this thread to my earlier post, the promoters of said business practices are quick to claim the used game market not making a dent with out ever giving any sales figures and sources in that regard. (Albeit, the ball swings both ways with that part of the arguments.) Even with this entire shitstorm we're under at the moment, nobody comes forward and says "hey guys, we're not really hurting anyone, here's around how much sales go to out of which [this] much is for games a year old, [this] much for games 2 years old and [this] much for older titles [blah blah blah]." The best I could come up with was a general article for Q4 2011, http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/npd-u...was-90m/097024 written in early 2012. It's needless to say suspicious even with (no money-to-the-creators arguments aside) various good arguments in their favor, the more memorable of which (to me at least) go along the lines of mediating the industry towards a both more reasonable prices and making the ecosystem more friendly for people to adopt games into their lifestyle. What's there to hide? Especially at a time like this, where mostly every other option is "lose lose lose."

Originally Posted by kyp275

I propose that you should then avoid participating in such "parasite culture" in all its forms. You shall not buy used cars, you shall only live in brand-new houses, you shall not borrow your friend's music or movies - in fact, you shall never borrow anything from anyone, without first paying the original manufacturer.

My point there (and in the rest of the post) wasn't if doing so is the words that should be written in stone as "the one true way for everything" (which is what most people backing it are doing, "the law that works for everything"), it was if doing so isn't better for the game industry to grow, and if not doing so isn't really bad for the game industry to grow.

Things like cars, houses, are to at least the majority a long term investment, at least in the order of years. This investment naturally limits them to where they won't pass though too many hands and if/when expectations appear it's clearly due to the owner passing it on not making use of it. Games however have an effective span of 10h to 20h, rarely 40h. The disc has little to no value associated with it, it's just the key to the game at most. If you trade in your house, or your car you lose the ability to use the main component which makes that object useful to you. If you trade in your game, which you've played and gotten everything from, you lose... nothing. This is my problem, it's not a fair trade since you're not trading "your fun" to the other person, and "your fun" is the main thing you bouth with your money not the box, just like "going places" is the main thing you bouth when you bouth a car, and a roof on top of your head is the main thing you bouth when you bouth a house.

Music and Videos, along with Books, are pretty close to games, but it's kind of hard to argue they are the same just because of how they effectively work differently, are handled differently (by the one purchasing them), and have very drastically different infrastructure behind them. That said I have no opinion on the whole TB "multiple revenue streams" argument, I just think their equally complex and so a bad analogy (ie. doesn't simplify the problem).

I've been thinking of it a little, and I think the best analogy to games would be a "ticket system." Doesn't matter to what, circus, theme park, bus ticket. Just as with games tickets can be different price points, and they can be of different duration, but generally are at most a day (ie. hours, a day, and such). Also as with games the physical component, the ticket, has little value other then being a key to "a place you go to" or "a service you benefit from one time." For the sake of the analogy I'll use buses since like with games there's a lot of automation.

So then: you need a ticket to get on the bus, the ticket costs money, the ticket is checked automatically, there are no humans involved in checking it, but you must have it in your possession while on the bus. The money from the ticket goes to keeping the bus system running, introducing new routes, new buses, new stops, better buses, etc. (the system is assumed honest)

Now in this system you then introduce people who once they get off the bus sell or pass the ticket to another (be it stranger or friend of theirs) since there is no system about it being your ticket. The ticket is valid and so be it for a lower price or free people are riding the bus with these second hand tickets (obviously this can go on to where it's passed multiple times, but ignore that possibility so that the wording can remain obvious: seller, buyer, re-seller, etc).

What's the result here? The initial buyers of the ticket payed for it and got part of their money back, and the receivers of the ticket didn't pay for it or any money they did pay never reached the official ticket sellers. The re-sellers (original buyers) aren't losing anything since they aren't selling the thing they effectively bought "the bus trip" (not that it's in their power to even do so) but a useless item associated with the bus-ticket-system, the physical ticket itself. And in a situation (unlikely as it is outside of scamming) where they are selling the ticket back at the price they bouth it, they would have essentially went on the trip with out paying anything; but I digress. Since the bus system is funded by the selling of the tickets and the reselling of tickets is not generating any money to the system, because the only point of reselling the tickets is to artificially lower the price of the tickets with out more less just not buying a ticket to begin with, the system is likely to degrade in quality. Yes, you would also get the effect that now the tickets may be cheaper, but that STILL comes with a shittier service, as opposed to a proper service. And YES the tickets in a system where the re-selling doesn't exist to bully it into lowering it, can become super pricey, but no matter how expensive they are there's always the choice of going to a different bus system of a competitor; where-as in the reselling-out-of-control scenario, you don't, everything is shitty because there is no money flowing (at least not in all directions).

Yes the analogy continues, sorry about this... Effectively my perspective on, in this case the ticket, system is that the "product" is not "the service" you buy, as opposed to a car where the service and the product are physical and one and the same. In a system, like the bus-ticket-traveler system, where the two are separate the product is essentially an equivalent of "money." I mean that's what money is, a means by which you buy services, or from another perspective a means by which you pay with something of value to you for something else of value that can not be directly traded (ie. the bus trip and the maintenance of a bus system), since god knows I can't even wipe my ass properly with it. So when you're re-selling the tickets, you're essentially devaluing the value you put in them. And because everyone is devaluing it, then obviously there is no equality in the trade with the bus system which is what the "ticket money" exists for.

So again, I'm NOT arguing about if you legally (ie. based on the current legislation) have the right, since for what's it's worth in the EU you (probably/from-what-I-heard-a-while-back) have the damn right for digital stuff too, regardless of the license agreement. I'm just presenting my own perspective on why I find it hard to see it as a fair trade, it's potential positives considered; just as I find it hard to see pirating as a fair trade, it's positives considered. Also, to me, there's no point in arguing "details" (eg. X shady thing happens, etc) if the system just plain doesn't function. And before anyone jumps the gun, as I eluded in my earlier post, steam and publishers (in particular big ones) don't exactly function under a balanced system either. Feel free to strategize the best way to choke the tumors with each other, but that's not what I was talking about in my post, this one or the previous one.

[Snuffle]

I just realized something, what's the point in lowering the sale price for their games? I haven't given it much though so feel free to help me out or correct me here.

If the used game market is such a big concern, then won't lowering the brand new condition price make it worse? Right now the average is about $60 for a new game, used games go for about $50 and under from that. If brand new condition games were lowered from $60 to $50, won't it just make the used game market more appealing since now the used games will be about $40? Heck it might even stay the same. So in the end, since the new game had it's priced lowered from the start, doesn't that mean that overall the game makers loose that much more than they could have otherwise?

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

To be fair, we both know the answer to this: a lot of markets just aren't ready for it, whether due to technical limitations, bandwidth caps (Canadian example: $52 for 80GB a month on Rogers, when Sony offers some PS3 game downloads that are 20GB.), etc.

This is another issue, a pretty big one for those of us that use that rip off download limit system... I personally hate Rogers, there is one company out there that allows true unlimited downloads but their speed is about half at the price you would pay at Rogers.

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Eh, you want it account based rather than console based so you don't lose the games if you lose the console due to mechanical failure or the like. Microsoft at least appears to be getting that part right.

Speaking of console based and account based, does the PS3 use the account based system? My Blu-ray player in my PS3 is malfunctioning, and I can't copy all of my save data since for some really dumb reason, they are locked to the PS3 HDD..... Aside from that, I'm wondering if I could re-download the games I have for free if I were to get the new slide tray thingy PS3 model, since I already paid for them.

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by Snuffle

Speaking of console based and account based, does the PS3 use the account based system? My Blu-ray player in my PS3 is malfunctioning, and I can't copy all of my save data since for some really dumb reason, they are locked to the PS3 HDD..... Aside from that, I'm wondering if I could re-download the games I have for free if I were to get the new slide tray thingy PS3 model, since I already paid for them.

You can get up to 2 devices of each in your account (as in 2 PS3, 2 Vitas and 2 PSPs. Sadly the Vita counts as a PSP for PSP games). Afterwards if you activate the game in your device it works on all accounts on the system. Btw you can deactivate devices at: https://account.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/

EDIT: btw I don't know if this is possible but couldn't you just take the hdd from your current PS3 and stick it into a new one?

[felix]

On a more amusing note, http://youngstown.craigslist.org/vgm/3774946356.html

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

To be fair, we both know the answer to this: a lot of markets just aren't ready for it, whether due to technical limitations, bandwidth caps (Canadian example: $52 for 80GB a month on Rogers, when Sony offers some PS3 game downloads that are 20GB.), etc.

But those markets are probably going to get hurt anyway, by XBox One's "Connect to the internet daily" requirement.

Eh, you want it account based rather than console based so you don't lose the games if you lose the console due to mechanical failure or the like.

I was speaking loosely here. I just meant that your game couldn't be transferred to another person's possession.

Originally Posted by felix

Music and Videos, along with Books, are pretty close to games, but it's kind of hard to argue they are the same just because of how they effectively work differently, are handled differently (by the one purchasing them), and have very drastically different infrastructure behind them.

Nah, I think you're really off-base here. Music, videos, books, and games are all very similar. In each case, the "infrastructure" you buy for them is largely, if not solely, a means to get at the content within. Its the content that matters the most.

A book that you have fully read is very similar to a video game that you have completed. In both cases, owning the product gives you a re-experience option (be it re-read or re-play), and the product might hold sentimental value to you, but otherwise the product has been reduced to just paper with binding, or just a coaster/frisbee.

Much the same is true of Music CDs and videos on Blu-Ray/DVD.

Now, are anime fans allowed to sell their Blu-Rays if they so choose? Yes, they are. But the anime industry, which is certainly much smaller than the video game industry, is able to cope with this. So the same should be true of the video game industry.

Besides, the video game industry has survived for decades alongside the selling of used games. And for much of this time, the video game industry has thrived.

So to argue that the video game industry just can't cope with the existence of used game sales is sheer and utter nonsense.

Video game makers simply need to lower their production budgets back down to sane levels.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

But those markets are probably going to get hurt anyway, by XBox One's "Connect to the internet daily" requirement.

Having unreliable internet will interfere with that. An 80GB bandwidth caps shouldn't at all, a daily check in shouldn't consume much bandwidth at all.

(auto-patching, which is common on digital download systems, will burn quite a bit of bandwidth, but that's a different issue)

[Triple_R]

Still, on the whole, I think that Microsoft would have been better off by pitching this as a digital distribution console.

Now, what I would have most liked, is simply a slight upgrade on the XBox 360, without all of these "features" that have caused the negative backlash.

[Vajra]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Still, on the whole, I think that Microsoft would have been better off by pitching this as a digital distribution console.

Now, what I would have most liked, is simply a slight upgrade on the XBox 360, without all of these "features" that have caused the negative backlash.

I would be quite happy if my Xbox 360 only had the games feature on it, while I am happy that I can watch episodes of Angel or Doug on the fly it IS a gaming console and even right now it feels like a second TV-Cable/Satellite box that happens to come with a gaming function.

[Slayerx]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Still, on the whole, I think that Microsoft would have been better off by pitching this as a digital distribution console.

Since internet is REQUIRED, they might as well gone that extra step. Or maybe halfway there... ignore the used sales and let publishers do what they want, while the games that Microsoft publishes itself switches to 100% digital distribution. Publishers feel secure that they won't be tied down to digital distribution, which they fair may limit their sales, while Microsoft alone takes the risk of going all digital and tries to get gamers used to the idea of 100% digital distribution; other publishers can follow suit with microsoft if they want. If it fails, microsoft can cave in and start making hard copies again.

Though granted, as others have said this might not be a good thing... If Microsoft becomes the soul retailer for their console then they can pretty much set any price they like. Steam is all digital, but steam has competition...

[Snuffle]

Originally Posted by Dextro

You can get up to 2 devices of each in your account (as in 2 PS3, 2 Vitas and 2 PSPs. Sadly the Vita counts as a PSP for PSP games). Afterwards if you activate the game in your device it works on all accounts on the system. Btw you can deactivate devices at: https://account.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/

EDIT: btw I don't know if this is possible but couldn't you just take the hdd from your current PS3 and stick it into a new one?

Hmm I need to look into the register devices thing, not sure if I ever did that before or if it's automatic for PS3. Sadly I won't be putting this to use until I am able to get the money to catch up on all the RPGs I've missed ever since my PS3 BD player started acting up for about a whole year, or maybe more... This will be the biggest backlog I've ever had ever since I've became a gamer 15+ yrs ago. Thanks for the info though, I'll check it out when I'm able to.

I'm not sure about taking the HDD from the older model PS3s and sticking it into the newer models (I'm using a slim btw). I will check up on that some other time.

Please excuse the off topic.

Now regarding the XBONE, I doubt I will even care about it. I don't have an XB360 since there aren't any games I want to play from that system, aside from Tales of Vesperia and Lost Odyessy. But I've decided to at least keep tabs on the info regarding the system since there could be a chance there there will be something that will appeal to me. So far it sounds a bit creepy... Microsoft is always watching you, even when you're sleeping while you download a game overnight.

[Jazzrat]

This pie chart should give everyone a slightly better idea on the cost of a $60 games in retail.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Snuffle

Hmm I need to look into the register devices thing, not sure if I ever did that before or if it's automatic for PS3. Sadly I won't be putting this to use until I am able to get the money to catch up on all the RPGs I've missed ever since my PS3 BD player started acting up for about a whole year, or maybe more... This will be the biggest backlog I've ever had ever since I've became a gamer 15+ yrs ago. Thanks for the info though, I'll check it out when I'm able to.

I'm not sure about taking the HDD from the older model PS3s and sticking it into the newer models (I'm using a slim btw). I will check up on that some other time.

Please excuse the off topic.

Now regarding the XBONE, I doubt I will even care about it. I don't have an XB360 since there aren't any games I want to play from that system, aside from Tales of Vesperia and Lost Odyessy. But I've decided to at least keep tabs on the info regarding the system since there could be a chance there there will be something that will appeal to me. So far it sounds a bit creepy... Microsoft is always watching you, even when you're sleeping while you download a game overnight.

He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!

You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Gates is coming to town
Santa Gates is coming to town
Santa Gates is coming...
Santa Gates is coming...
Santa Gates is coming to town.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

This pie chart should give everyone a slightly better idea on the cost of a $60 games in retail.

45% return per disc? And how was a game company not suppose to survive on such a healthy margin?

If you can't make money from these sales, your product either suck, or you burned money in production.

There are places where factories live off margins of 5%. This is nothing.

[Jazzrat]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

45% return per disc? And how was a game company not suppose to survive on such a healthy margin?

If you can't make money from these sales, your product either suck, or you burned money in production.

There are places where factories live off margins of 5%. This is nothing.

You're wrong. This is just the income per unit sale for the publisher not profit margin. It doesn't show the cost on publisher side.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

You're wrong. This is just the income per unit sale for the publisher not profit margin. It doesn't show the cost on publisher side.

The "costs" on the publisher's side is up to them. Not the customer's fault they blow it on office parties and giant statues of their mascots in the lobby. I have noted how much money game companies can burn, the point is that it is their job, not the consumer's, to watch their own costs. If they blow a few million dollars and had nothing to show for it, it is not our problem.

I remember Duke Nukem.

[Destined_Fate]

There's also Digital for the future as well!

Every game should have a Digital Copy at launch too!