Xbox One

[Jazzrat]

Oh boy, I'm glad this isn't reddit because judging by the reply.. i would be downvoted to hell... though i really shouldn't care about their silly point system in the first place.

Anyway lots of replies so i ll just put em into category instead of a giant multi quote.

Music as an example
This is really a general question, I know people still buys CD/vinyl but it's no longer the primary format that most people listens to. It's quite evident by the state of record stores you see in malls. People that do usually are the audiophile crowd which last i checked isn't exactly the majority. (I hope you guys got atleast a Grado or better headphones to listen to it!)

Media as a commodity
This is something that current trade law hasn't fully finalized yet. While we can own movies, musics or games but it often came with restriction (can't broadcast or commercialized it) so essentially, you only own a restricted license to use it unlike other products we use in daily life. You might disagree with it but again, it's not a groundbreaking bad thingy that M$ and EA cooked up in their tower of evil to eff gamers in the butt. There's already stuff we don't own despite paying money for it.

Used games need new games to exist
Used games sale with the current system gives all the profit to the distribution company. I'm not saying used games are bad but the current system for it isn't really helping the game producer at all.

Industry is failing because of overblown budget & crazy expectation
Actually that's just Square Enix .

Changing the current used games market will benefit all the publishers and game developers across the board and not just the big AAA title guys. If Dark Soul was a success for FROM SOFTWARE with the current model, what do you think the sales figure and profit will be like if things were different with the used game market?

Lowering the budget or expectation isn't going to save anyone. Being efficient with your resources will. While having more money doesn't necessary meant a better product but it meant developer have more options and choices to create their work with instead of being forced to cut features due to limited funding.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

If you continue to assume money will magically spring from nowhere if you start to take a cut from 2nd hand sales of games, then we have nothing to talk about.

No, seriously. There is no free money to take. Doing that just makes 2nd hand games expensive and undesirable. But if you want to live in a dream land where all of a sudden EA will start to rake in millions after being in the Red for years, go right ahead.

The current system is fair to game producers the same way it is fair to everyone else. If you are NOT happy with the profits you are making, then raise your prices. It would have the same effect as making 2nd hand games more expensive. In both cases the customer feels your game is less value for money.

Used games sale with the current system gives all the profit to the distribution company. I'm not saying used games are bad but the current system for it isn't really helping the game producer at all.

And WHY do you think it should benefit the game producers, who are ALREADY paid for these games? Where is your justification for saying they deserve to get a cut, when they got paid once already? If they don't want games to be sold 2nd hand, maybe they should make better games that people want to keep.

Game Producers do not deserve free money. If you want to donate cash to them, be my guest, but don't tell the rest of us to donate in your stead. We are customers, not donors. And we do not NEED to give game developers any more money after people paid full price for their games.

If you can't make money by selling what you produce, you are doing something wrong.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Tong

I take that after all the negative thoughts and discussions about the XBONE, and this generation, most of you are not going to get one, right?

Correct, at least for me.

But is this really practical or possible?

Easily. I have a job.

I bet most of you couldn't live without certain exclusives titles (Believe me, they WILL appear).

Only games I buy consistently are the Tales Of series, Fire Emblem, and Super Smash Bros anyway. The latter two are on the 3DS. The next Tales Of will be on the PS3 more likely than not still, so it'd be the one after that that might be "next gen". By the time it reaches the US, it'd easily be 2016 or 2017. I'll have even less time to play video games by then, so why should I care?

is this boycott really feasible?

Boycott makes it sound like we have to deliberately go out of our way to not purchase it. Looking at how many Wii and PS3 games I ended up buying and keeping this gen, I had already pretty much decided I wasn't likely to end up buying the next gen consoles.

[cronnoponno]

When a game is released for sales:

Gaming retailers will buy new copies of the game to sell for a few dollars in profit, the producers make their money

If customers wish, they can trade it in for credit

Regardless of whether or not the future customers buy them or not, all those new copies on the shelf were already paid for, the publishers made their money on them.



Now, where used gaming does some damage is it slightly threatens to decrease restock times, which is what you'd think would happen. I only speak for Gamestop, but this is certainly not true, look up Gamestop ''circle of life'', if used games sell enough, they need more new games and sales to increase the potential pool of pre-owned product, the damage it does is minimal and laughable.

Stopping used games is only going anti-consumer, if you want publishers to be able to stop pre-release reviews and pre-owned product for people who want to try games then good luck ending up with a bunch of companies that feel safe making crap content like Aliens Coloniel Marines, buying a new copy, hating it, then being stuck with it, the game industry will thank you because you believe you're saving a few niche JRPG anti-mainstream titles.

New games that you see on shelves are purchased, and the developers have made their money ALREADY, regardless of whether or not Gamestop sells them, or any gaming company, those games were BOUGHT, whatever gamestop sells them for DO NOT go to the producers, they already were paid for their content.

[kenjiharima]

It's like now we're only "borrowing" games from the companies and not really owning them, if they implement this, oh wait Xbox One already did. Imho this only increases the piracy rate.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kenjiharima

It's like now we're only "borrowing" games from the companies and not really owning them, if they implement this, oh wait Xbox One already did. Imho this only increases the piracy rate.

I am just amused by Jazzrat's view that we should give more money to game companies so they can make better games later.

No, that's not how it works, Jazzrat. They should make better games so we would give them more money. That's the order of things. They deliver the goods, then we pay for the goods. We are not suppose to gift them with showers of gold out of good will.

[synaesthetic]

Companies do not have a right to profit. They have a right to pursue profit, but they don't get to put a legislative gun to our heads and force us to make them profitable.

It's not just Squeenix making the budget mistake. Actually, I'd say they aren't even the biggest contributor (though Japanese developers have a weird habit of making a new graphics engine for every new title, so that's bad on budgets, too).

No, the biggest perpetrator of this Hollywood-sized budget nonsense is none other than Electronic Arts. Activision isn't innocent in this, either.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

Oh boy, I'm glad this isn't reddit because judging by the reply.. i would be downvoted to hell...

I wouldn't of downvoted you, if that is worth anything.

Originally Posted by Tong

I take that after all the negative thoughts and discussions about the XBONE, and this generation, most of you are not going to get one, right?

But is this really practical or possible? I bet most of you couldn't live without certain exclusives titles (Believe me, they WILL appear).

Sure, you wouldn't buy the console in launch and maybe wait for better prices... but in the end, is this boycott really feasible?

XBO would have to get an exclusive or exclusives that I just felt I'd really, really want in order to get this system. I mean, XBox 360 is pretty good and I never ended up getting one of those. Chances are XBO won't get a game or a few games that I feel like I can't do with out because chances are the very best XBO games will go on PC, PS4, or both. I don't expect XBO to have many AAA exclusives. And I just don't care about MS 1st party works.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Companies do not have a right to profit. They have a right to pursue profit, but they don't get to put a legislative gun to our heads and force us to make them profitable.

Tell that to the friggin' med companies. They didn't get that memo.

[kenjiharima]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I am just amused by Jazzrat's view that we should give more money to game companies so they can make better games later.

No, that's not how it works, Jazzrat. They should make better games so we would give them more money. That's the order of things. They deliver the goods, then we pay for the goods. We are not suppose to gift them with showers of gold out of good will.

Better games later? I want a better now.

Oh the company lacks money, then stop the bad business practices so consumers will buy your games day 1 at full price $60 or $100+ limited edition and not wait for the price cut. People have integrity on using money.

[Tong]

Even though I talked about XB, keep in mind that if Sony decides to follow this trend, we'll have pretty no choice but to buy one of those to play our beloved series/games

Originally Posted by GDB

Only games I buy consistently are the Tales Of series, Fire Emblem, and Super Smash Bros anyway. The latter two are on the 3DS. The next Tales Of will be on the PS3 more likely than not still, so it'd be the one after that that might be "next gen". By the time it reaches the US, it'd easily be 2016 or 2017. I'll have even less time to play video games by then, so why should I care?

Boycott makes it sound like we have to deliberately go out of our way to not purchase it. Looking at how many Wii and PS3 games I ended up buying and keeping this gen, I had already pretty much decided I wasn't likely to end up buying the next gen consoles.

That's good, at least you're free

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

Car is a terrible example because it's a product that not only degrades overtime but also requires regular maintenance and doesn't cost $60 at walmart.

And games don't degrade overtime?

With many a story-driven game, once you beat it, it's value to you goes down drastically.

iTunes, Steam Games, phone apps... the ecosystem model already shown how well it works.

Those are all purely digital in nature. XBox One games aren't. This is a very significant distinction that XBox One defenders on this thread just don't seem to get for some reason.

When people buy something tangible, they expect to one day be able to sell it at a lower cost. When people buy a "hard copy" video game, they see it as buying a copy of a video game. Of course they're not buying Mario, the franchise, but they do view it as buying a copy of a Mario game. A copy that they should have every right to do whatever they want with after they buy it.

Originally Posted by Tong

I take that after all the negative thoughts and discussions about the XBONE, and this generation, most of you are not going to get one, right?

I currently own a XBox 360. I own it mainly to play pro sports games that stopped being supported on the PC a few years ago. I've never been all that much into the FPS genre of games (so I'll readily admit this is easier for me than it is for many).

Saying goodbye to my annual NHL game will be a bit painful, I'll admit. But I consider that a price I'm willing to pay to fight against a future where gamers don't even have control over their own games after they buy them. Not to mention fighting against a future where I'm getting spied on everyday by my own console.

[cronnoponno]

I understand that we're likely going to be threatened with these new systems, and that's pretty much how they're going to get sales at this rate....but doesn't that itself sound sad and dangerous? Sure, holding Halo 5 hostage is going to pressure some people to buy The One, but can they keep that up? Can they keep content that makes you feel like you'd rather have The One rather than whip out their 360 and play the plentiful pool of games it already has/will probably still get for a few years/will get even MORE support due to the new console and the lowered price of the games and system itself/even MORE games that they'll release through their Xbox live store?


I bought a Wii, I wanted Brawl, I hated nearly every game the Wii released and never bought that many, in fact I might even be able to count the titles I bought with my fingers....I see The One doing something like this for a lot of customers, and the exclusives will actually be the cause of this.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Tong

Even though I talked about XB, keep in mind that if Sony decides to follow this trend, we'll have pretty no choice but to buy one of those to play our beloved series/games

Still have my PC. But I assume Sony knows they are sitting on an opportunity to get a leg up over MS.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Tong

Even though I talked about XB, keep in mind that if Sony decides to follow this trend, we'll have pretty no choice but to buy one of those to play our beloved series/games

It's actually getting rather annoying how everyone is ignoring Nintendo. And as long as Microsoft/Sony keep their servers going, companies can continue to develop for the 360 and PS3 too.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

And games don't degrade overtime?

With many a story-driven game, once you beat it, it's value to you goes down drastically.

I think he meant actual depreciation, not amortization.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by GDB

I think he meant actual depreciation, not amortization.

I'm talking about depreciation.

The fact is that many a video game's value goes down over time just as assuredly as a car's value does. In fact, a video game's value can go way down for its own owner after marathoning it to completion on a lone weekend.

So I don't see anything wrong with Vallen's comparison between cars and video games.

[cronnoponno]

Games depreciate if I am using the term correctly...

http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/gam...arfare-3/91051

[GDB]

A car's value decreases because it gets wear and tear. A video game's value decreases as more people complete it. The former is tangible, while the latter is intangible. That's why I was differentiating them with depreciation and amortization. Yes, it's technically depreciating, but I wanted to differentiate them further due to the nature of how they lower their value.

It's not about value "to the owner" but "actual value" as a monetary value.

It's still an apt comparison, as the value goes down and can be purchased used. But there are minor differences. Not like it's the only available comparison, just the most common.

[DingoEnderZOE2]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I'm talking about depreciation.

The fact is that many a video game's value goes down over time just as assuredly as a car's value does. In fact, a video game's value can go way down for its own owner after marathoning it to completion on a lone weekend.

So I don't see anything wrong with Vallen's comparison between cars and video games.

Not really. Just because you beat a game doesn't make its value go down. If all you care about in a game is beating them then for sure the value might drop, but if you're like me and care about the overall experience and enjoyment of a game from beginning to end then it's value will stay with you and should the day come when you have children you can pass that feeling to them.

[Akito Kinomoto]

I must have missed it in the dozens of pages talking about it but how much DRM is the Xbox One looking at?

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by GDB

A car's value decreases because it gets wear and tear.

That's not the only factor in a car's value decreasing. A car's value decreases also because (theoretically, at least) newer and better cars are coming out on the market on an annual basis. In theory, newer and better games are also coming out on the market on an annual basis.

It's not about value "to the owner" but "actual value" as a monetary value.

It's about both. Not all gamers are collectors, as DingoEnderZOE2 seems to think.

If you're not a video game collector, then its value drops after you've exhausted the content offerings of the game. Most people would rather play something new than replay the same game over and over and over again (especially if it's a story-driven game).

Originally Posted by DingoEnderZOE2

Not really.

Yes, really.

Just because you beat a game doesn't make its value go down.

To plenty of gamers it does. Again, not all gamers are collectors.