Playstation 4

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Solace

So the developer is not making money from the used sale that could have been a new sale if the used wasn't available.

Publisher, not developer. Furthermore, if they want to curb used sales, they should creative incentives for buying new, NOT punishments for buying used.

Every single other industry can deal with the resale of products without throwing a huge tantrum about it. Why are video games special?

Originally Posted by GDB

Most compelling quote I've read about it was that people will buy the game on day 1, and then sell it back by day 7. Then, those who waited a week can buy it used and the companies are already losing money from potential sales.

Then they need to make games that are worth keeping. The problem is not and will never be the consumer. The problem is that they are unwilling to change their business models to deal with the situation.

[Jazzrat]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Publisher, not developer. Furthermore, if they want to curb used sales, they should creative incentives for buying new, NOT punishments for buying used.
Every single other industry can deal with the resale of products without throwing a huge tantrum about it. Why are video games special?
Then they need to make games that are worth keeping. The problem is not and will never be the consumer. The problem is that they are unwilling to change their business models to deal with the situation.

I agree with incentive instead of punishment for buying new games however, unlike other media, games usually only have a single major sales outlet which is through the sale of the game itself unlike for example, movies which can draw revenue from things like DVD sales and royalties from tv/cable broadcast after cinema release.

Originally Posted by FlareKnight

Another annoying part of the speculation is killing backwards compatibility from the start. Is there something wrong with wanting to just have one system for the ton of games that have accumulated? Especially if you play from the multiple consoles out there, room is just going to get limited. At least start out with it so I can hang onto that original system with all I've got.

The lack of backward compatibility is going to hurt initial adoption rate and developers usually go for platforms with bigger userbase when it comes to development. I m really curious what's the thought process for not including it in the initial version unless they can guarantee lots of exclusive system selling title on release (which i doubt). Either that, or they plan to re-release PS4 compatible version of their PS3 games.

Originally Posted by Keroko

Regardless of the truth of this rumor, I just wish devs and publishers would go after the actual problem: The prices of their games and the retail stores themselves.

Isn't that why they are actively promoting digital sales these days and the introduction of stuff like Online Pass? Granted it's not an ideal solution and they are still reiterating the model.

Anyway, Sony have been rather arrogant and over optimistic of their brand since their success on PS1 and PS2 for me. Not surprised that they continue to be crazy like this

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Exactly. So why complain now?

If it's because overadvertised overbudgeted games aren't selling as much as they need to, is there a problem with consumers, or a problem with the way games today are made?

It's because the industry has grown to the point where a good amount of the important people running it are no longer involved with the creational process, but focused solely on the profit game. For these people, maximizing profit is their entire job, which includes identifying problems in the profit and finding ways to eliminate them.

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

Isn't that why they are actively promoting digital sales these days and the introduction of stuff like Online Pass? Granted it's not an ideal solution and they are still reiterating the model.

Anyway, Sony have been rather arrogant and over optimistic of their brand since their success on PS1 and PS2 for me. Not surprised that they continue to be crazy like this

It's an attempt to convince the customer to buy first hand be sure, but it addresses neither concern. Games are still expensive, so people will still buy and sell used games, and game stores will still sell second hand because there are no agreements in place to share a cut.

Now trying to negotiate such a way with stores is a long and painful process. Especially the larger chains are better organized and have an army of lawyers in place. It's easier to block the consumer, who is scattered and lower on funds and lawyers.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Publisher, not developer. Furthermore, if they want to curb used sales, they should creative incentives for buying new, NOT punishments for buying used.

Every single other industry can deal with the resale of products without throwing a huge tantrum about it. Why are video games special?

The other entertainment industries are much, much cheaper to get into and continue purchasing in. Games....not so much. Especially in a very hard economic downturn. Beyond that, traditional consoles are facing new markets in the form of smartphones and tablets, and a huge resurgence in PC gaming (hardcore and casual). Even further down the road, new technologies are looming, like cloud computing. Besides, it's not like the DVD/BR market is flourishing, and for the first time in years the music industry reported sales figures just barely in the black. The old models are changing, and the gatekeepers aren't happy about losing those formerly safe and secure revenue streams.

Used markets have always been despised by media companies. Here's Nintendo a few years ago. Here's Nintendo back in the 80's.

Originally Posted by 1up

As the Nintendo Entertainment System grew in popularity and entered millions of American homes, some small video stores fed their registers some extra profit by buying their own copies of Nintendo games, and renting them out to customers who paid a fraction of the game's original price to play it for a few days. Nintendo received no profit from the practice beyond the initial cost of their game, and unlike video cassette rentals, a hot game could be put up for sale and for rent on the same day. Nintendo took steps to stop game rentals, but they didn't come out roaring until Blockbuster Video began to make game rentals a large-scale service. Nintendo lost the lawsuit, however; the only thing Blockbuster could be nailed for was including original, copyrighted instruction booklets with their rented games. Blockbuster simply switched over to photocopied booklets, or handed out a card that explained the game's basic premise and controls to the player. Despite threats to rental kiosks and retailers who sold multiple copies of certain games, video game rentals were free to prosper, and still do.

Sony has intentionally designed the PS3 and the Vita to be as used market unfriendly as possible. Microsoft is rumored to be doing the same with the next Xbox. Developers have also been coming out recently against the used market.

Remember that copy protection exists to prevent piracy, and this isn't the first time we've seen companies use some pretty silly tactics to keep buyers away from rentals and second hand/pirated products. DRM, Macrovision, the old Divx DVD model, various scramblers, watermarks, etc., have all been done with the intention of discouraging consumers from using anything that isn't brand new. This goes back to the BETAMAX decision that had huge ramifications in the 80's. Basically, the decision made it legal for the used/renter market to exist in America and legalized the concept that once you purchase a product, it is yours to do with as you please (within limits). This grey area extends to modern day file sharing, another thorn in the side of major media.

You are right, these companies should be embracing techniques that don't punish consumers for legal purchases, but that's just not how these companies work. They want the revenue from the day it hits the shelves until the day no one is purchasing it anymore. They want to milk the product with sequels, revamps, collections, dlc, emulation, subscriptions, and so on for as long as they can. Public domain? User control? Heh. No. Not if they can help it. Remember Game Genie?

And you can't blame them really. When you sink so much into console and game development, and watch your old model struggle against changing consumer tastes and rapid technological advancement, it's only natural that you'd want to protect your revenue source as much as possible. Companies are in the business of making money, after all.

For the average consumer though, disposable income is limited and there are a lot of options out there. When the entry barrier to every current console but the Wii averages 200 dollars or more, it's difficult to jump into this generation. Especially when you factor in system failure rates, the costs of each game, the peripherals, and so on. It's no wonder that older consoles like the Ps2 are still selling well. For the gamer on a budget, your dollar can go really far these days.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Solace

You are right, these companies should be embracing techniques that don't punish consumers for legal purchases, but that's just not how these companies work.

Then, frankly, they deserve to suffer.

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

I agree with incentive instead of punishment for buying new games however, unlike other media, games usually only have a single major sales outlet which is through the sale of the game itself unlike for example, movies which can draw revenue from things like DVD sales and royalties from tv/cable broadcast after cinema release.

As I said, they need to create incentives to buy new or, for a more direct solution, for people to not sell their games back to retailers. This is not the consumer's fault.

In fact, wasn't this one of the points behind DLC in the first place?

[fict_ticious]

If it's because overadvertised overbudgeted games aren't selling as much as they need to, is there a problem with consumers, or a problem with the way games today are made?

Signed. Also, marketing arms have way too much money and say in these things.

Looks like they are not playing Neptune MKII and getting the Bad End.

Cursed Swords = DRM.

Is there something wrong with wanting to just have one system for the ton of games that have accumulated?

I think the idea is they'd rather sell you back "backwards compatibility" one game at a time. Which is a shame, because one can really grow an install base with an already available game library, especially in cases where there are very few/weak launch titles.

Have to keep in mind this IS a Kotaku piece, so we'll just have to wait and see.

[GDB]

Main problem with "one game at a time" in terms of PSN downloads or whatever is that, inevitably, they never get around to releasing the games I own and keep my PS2 for. Those being Kingdom Hearts I and II, and Digimon World I, II, and III.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by fict_ticious

Have to keep in mind this IS a Kotaku piece, so we'll just have to wait and see.

wel it has been ref by cnn

As for this “won’t play used games” rumor, in which you’d be required to tie each game to your PlayStation Network account, it sounds more like Sony moving with the times than a purely Machiavellian maneuver. On the PC, the number one games distribution platform, Steam, has no physical retail presence (to speak of). Playing games through Steam requires the Steam client, which ties them to your personal Steam account and makes their resale functionally impossible. You’re not paying for a physical product, you’re buying access to a digital one. It all but eliminates piracy, while ensuring the money from each copy sold ends up in publisher/creator pockets. And I suspect even the days of paying for games as one-offs are numbered: In the future, we may simply pay monthly access fees, ala Netflix, to play a range of games, be they downloadable and local or cloud-based via streaming services like OnLive.

http://techland.time.com/2012/03/30/...ll-used-games/

[Tyabann]

As for this “won’t play used games” rumor, in which you’d be required to tie each game to your PlayStation Network account, it sounds more like Sony moving with the times than a purely Machiavellian maneuver. On the PC, the number one games distribution platform, Steam, has no physical retail presence (to speak of). Playing games through Steam requires the Steam client, which ties them to your personal Steam account and makes their resale functionally impossible. You’re not paying for a physical product, you’re buying access to a digital one. It all but eliminates piracy, while ensuring the money from each copy sold ends up in publisher/creator pockets. And I suspect even the days of paying for games as one-offs are numbered: In the future, we may simply pay monthly access fees, ala Netflix, to play a range of games, be they downloadable and local or cloud-based via streaming services like OnLive.

This would pretty much be the point where I give up on gaming. Not like it will happen though, I'm not alone in preferring physical releases.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

This would pretty much be the point where I give up on gaming. Not like it will happen though, I'm not alone in preferring physical releases.

not immediately but the industry is headed to that model.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

not immediately but the industry is headed to that model.

And if it turns out the consumers don't like it, you know what they'll do? They'll find something else to blame. Anything other than their perfect, all-knowing business models.

I'm also not the only one who wants to see another video game crash.

[FlareKnight]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

not immediately but the industry is headed to that model.

Well the future definitely sucks then. But even then I don't think the industry is going to get to the very extreme stage of only having online access to a game and no physical copies existing. Even PC games still have their physical copies. I'm sure the publishers hope for it so they can keep even more money for themselves but that seems like too huge a leap to fully happen even decades down the road.

Of course if I am wrong it will be a sad farewell to current gaming. At least by that point there will be so many good games already out there that I can just stock up on those.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by FlareKnight

Well the future definitely sucks then. But even then I don't think the industry is going to get to the very extreme stage of only having online access to a game and no physical copies existing. Even PC games still have their physical copies. I'm sure the publishers hope for it so they can keep even more money for themselves but that seems like too huge a leap to fully happen even decades down the road.

Of course if I am wrong it will be a sad farewell to current gaming. At least by that point there will be so many good games already out there that I can just stock up on those.

you will still have physical copies but it will be key to only 1 account and you will have activate it online.

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

And if it turns out the consumers don't like it, you know what they'll do? They'll find something else to blame. Anything other than their perfect, all-knowing business models.

I'm also not the only one who wants to see another video game crash.

i want to see it to, along with the movie and music crashing.

[Tyabann]

Assuming that all potential consumers have reliable internet access is not a wise assumption to make... look at Ubisoft's various DRM fiascos.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Assuming that all potential consumers have reliable internet access is not a wise assumption to make... look at Ubisoft's various DRM fiascos.

no one has ever accuse a corporation of being wise.

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by GDB

Main problem with "one game at a time" in terms of PSN downloads or whatever is that, inevitably, they never get around to releasing the games I own and keep my PS2 for. Those being Kingdom Hearts I and II, and Digimon World I, II, and III.

Still waiting for Legend of the Dragoon.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

wel it has been ref by cnn

Yeah. No. Because steam still has offline mode, buggy as it may be and is a retail platform, not a physical console that limits my physical games. And every time steam pulls the "even if you buy physical you still need steam" it's no less machiavellian.

[Dhomochevsky]

Making second-hand copies worth less is already a common practice on a game by game basis.
Companies use free release-day DLC linked to the first buyer's account, restriction of online game modes to one account and so on to achieve this.

So this is not such an unrealistic rumor. Even if Sony does not support it directly, the practice will surely increase with the next generation of games.

Given that, it might not be such a bad idea, to have a single point to handle and maybe transfer ownership of a game and it's DLC content, instead of having every game company doing it by their own means.
Except that this is Sony we are talking about. As a customer I wouldn't want them to have any inpact on things like that...

[King Lycan]

I won't be buying it sadly, Sony has fallen its only preventing the use of used games because its still mad about the PSP.

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

it is my imagination or does game companies think their consumers are sheep?

This is retarded bull....I want to get a console but this is seriously turning me off...

Shall just stick to my PSP and PC....

[synaesthetic]

I don't mind digital distribution if the prices fall as a result. Cutting out the overhead cost for pressing discs, printing covers and shipping all those discs (which is not a small expense), the cost of big-studio AAA titles could easily be lowered to $40 with no real loss of profit.

I'm not a fangirl who thinks Steam can do no wrong. It's especially annoying if I buy a game and decide I hate it *coughfable3cough* but when the game is on sale for $12, it really doesn't sting that badly.

The reason Steam is given a lot of leeway by gamers and fans is because they compete heavily on price, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I own well over a thousand dollars worth of games on Steam, but I paid less than 25% of that to buy them.

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Then they need to make games that are worth keeping. The problem is not and will never be the consumer. The problem is that they are unwilling to change their business models to deal with the situation.

This. So much.

They don't have a right to profit. They aren't our keepers. Our interest in their product keeps them in business. We're their bosses, and they're doing a shitty job. Unfortunately when they get as huge as EA, it's hard to gather up the few million or so gamers needed to fire (boycott) them.