Xbox One

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Before Wii U released, EA was buddies with Nintendo, but then things went sour. What I hear is that EA tried to get Origin on Wii U but then Nintendo decided against it and so EA is being a pissy baby.

EA claims they aren't making games for the Wii U because the userbase isn't there. And even if it were the Wii already showed that Nintendo buyers aren't interested in the usual AAA blockbuster that EA is interested in selling. The Wii had a record low attach rate and the Wii U isn't showing any signs of turning that around.

[Waven]

Originally Posted by Dextro

EA claims they aren't making games for the Wii U because the userbase isn't there. And even if it were the Wii already showed that Nintendo buyers aren't interested in the usual AAA blockbuster that EA is interested in selling. The Wii had a record low attach rate and the Wii U isn't showing any signs of turning that around.

Last time I checked the reason was that EA's current engine (Frostbite 2) is working poorly on the Wii U (due to its measly hardware) which foreshadows the performance of the Frostbite 3.
But ofc there might be other business decisions behind this.

[Sides]

Originally Posted by Dextro

EA claims they aren't making games for the Wii U because the userbase isn't there. And even if it were the Wii already showed that Nintendo buyers aren't interested in the usual AAA blockbuster that EA is interested in selling. The Wii had a record low attach rate and the Wii U isn't showing any signs of turning that around.

Well the Wii had more problems just after release, iirc the drive's serial port was exploited, and homebrew followed a couple of months later.
But game like CoD:MW reflex did well, for being a 2 year late port. So demand was there but piracy and late releases did affect the Wii's software sales. Normally I would say piracy doesn't affect consoles that much, but something changed during last generation, games like xenoblade, punch-out!! and others were downloaded more that the game sold itself, which is really unique and probably the first time observed since the C64 days.

[Daniel E.]

I though I told people to drop the meme pics and videos.

Infractions for all that does this from this point forward and bans for anyone that dares to say they weren't warned about it.

[Jazzrat]

Originally Posted by cronnoponno

No one tried to make this, other than claim that used games can have benefits for companies(which they CAN), I don't see how you've come up with any good points yourself.


The damage used games do to the gaming industry is ludicrous, it does MINIMAL damage. Buying a new AAA title used is rare and almost pointless, saving 4$ on a game that was used by someone else is something people RARELY do, and acting like this has a noticeable impact on the gaming industry is even worse.

It's not some business killer, it doesn't put gaming companies out of business, it is far more complicated and there are far, FAR worse things that damage the game-industry, and targeting used games, one of the only things that actually DO benefit customers isn't fixing anything.


People are also ignoring that, people who trade in games aren't just limited to pre owned games, they often go for new as well. The ability to trade in games give people WITHOUT MONEY to buy new games as well.

Ugh, please don't go all caps, it's a pain to read anything on it. I apologize that I gnore your post but again, I already said it's not a business killer. It's just bad for the producer of the game, I mentioned that the profit distribution is uneven with the current scenario where retailers are taking most of the benefits while the producers getting none. Getting better profit is good for game developers.... you seem to missed that in my tirade.

While you made a point in regards of stocking, you forgot that with the current system there is little incentive to order more copies from publisher since a part of the initial sold copies will return as trade ins and resold and all the profit goes into retailer. This isn't just about big multiplayer AAA titles that people retain, it's for all games. I think a lot of folks here mentioned they don't need everything to be AAA and how big budgets games only are not the only way to go with games.

Also not all PC gamers can afford new released games and many people often wait for sales. While removing used games will certainly impact the amount of people that can afford new games at release, it doesn't necessarily mean they wont buy it at later discounted price because many people do.

I think this video is a better arguement that i can give since i never worked in game retail before.

[cronnoponno]

That video has already seen some counterpoints in this thread, and I personally am not trying to relate the game sales to used car/music/anything so the first chunk of it trying to take those arguments away didn't really address what I said.


Now, about the part where he said Gamestop makes demands and threatens companies for reserve bonuses, can you honestly imagine Gamestop saying ''Give us a forest skin camo armor reserve bonus for Halo 4 or we WILL NOT STOCK YOUR TITLE!''? Gaming companies can request certain things to go with their package, but that doesn't really have anything to do...with anything.


It is also true that we are pressured to prioritize pre-owned sales(I work at Gamestop), however it's also true that they make chump-change on new games and it has been this way for awhile, Gamestop is not the only ''evil'' here, developers keep increasing their prices and taking money away from the retailers and it is a vicious cycle, one that Gamestop is not solely responsible for.


And I don't understand where these arguments come where people literally hold guns to people's head and force them to get pre-owned product, at least at the Gamestop I work at we're trained to give them the better deal, and at plenty and plenty of times, new is simply the better deal. I'm not going to sell someone a pre-owned xbox for 149.99$ with no hardrive when they can buy a new one that's 249.99$, comes with a 100+GB harddrive, and comes with 3 games ONE OF THEM BEING SKYRIM, it'd be ridiculous to screw over a customer like that, and 9 times out of 10 offering someone a pre-owned title when it has no aesthetic difference and is a measly 5-6$ cheaper is going to get us laughed at, and then insulted. There are times when pre-owned simply is a better deal however, and if it is, we will make that known.


They are also pressured to get reserves, you know, the thing that pushes new sales? Lack of reserves does far more damage to new sales because they base their product on how many reserves they get, if a cute JRPG that everyone on the internet loves gets 2 reserves at a Gamestop, they'll maybe get....3 or 4 copies? Including the 2 of them that are reserved, and if no one demands the game enough, there becomes no need to restock it, and the game never even reaches mainstream awareness. THIS is something you guys want to attack.


At the Gamestop I work at, at least, new sales are VERY important and many customers ARE picky and don't want pre-owned games, especially if it's a new AAA title, very rarely does a customer come up to me and ask for a pre-owned black ops 2, unless they're unsure whether or not they'll enjoy it, THAT is the benefit of buying pre-owned titles that are relatively new, you have the power to return it if you don't like it. Used sales DO push new sales, if we never restocked on Black Ops 2, the amount of pre-owned copies we'd have gotten for the first few months could be counted on our fingers(which they actually kinda were for the first month), and even today people still want new copies, very rarely is someone going to accept a 5$ difference for a pre-owned title, ESPECIALLY onthe xbox because tiny cosmetic damage shoes more on the Xbox, the average mainstream customer has no idea how to even clean the scratches on them.

Used game sales primarily effect old, old, OLD games, Call of Duty, World at War is a commonly bought pre-owned game for a parent who wants to give their kid a COD game and doesn't want to pay.



Also, Halibiscuit talks about DLC, not very many people are AGAINST DLC, they're against shit DLC, when Mass Effect 3 came out, it INSTANTLY had DLC which employees were required to push down people's throats(yes, employees are very pressured to push DLC, which the company make CENTS for) which annoyed customers FURTHER, the game doesn't feel complete at all when they immediately start throwing on add-ons. However, if you take something like Skyrim, they released Dawngaurd plenty of time after they released the game in it's fullest form and experience, the DLC felt like an ''expansion'', and even for a 20$ price tag(that's a LOT), many were excited as all hell to pay it, Hearthfire was cheaper and misc, but it added something console gamers can't experience without the PC and the average Console gamer has a vendetta against mods so they were happy for this, and then DragonBorn need I even say how awesome that turned out to be?

Dark Souls had a complete game before it released it's DLC, and it didn't release ''skin packs'', or ''a new character for 14.99$'', it released an ''expansion'', the complete experience was expanded upon, and this DLC is totally awesome, and it does siphon out a good 40$ to persistent people who buy pre-owned copies of Skyrim a lot(although they still usually buy new, especially since it's going down in price, then when legendary edition comes out that's going to be the norm for every future customer).



On the server argument, that's just bollocks, buying new copies of a game doesn't increase their payload to support the servers, having a popular game that demands more distribution does, among other things.



http://www.gamesindustry.biz/article...-of-used-games

This is another argument against pre-owned games that got a lot of popularity, yet you only need to read the comments to see good counter-points to this argument.

Spoiler for Huge argument by commenter:

I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone miss the point by such an enormous distance. He may have actually hit some sort of anti-point in another galaxy or alternate universe.

"Mid-tier" games have died because nobody in their right mind is going to pay 50 quid for a "mid-tier" game ("Buy me! I'm mediocre!") and publishers are too stupid/arrogant to price sub-AAA games sensibly. Originality has died because nobody in their right mind is going to pay 50 quid for a game they don't absolutely know they're going to like, so no developer in their right mind is going to spend tens of millions of pounds making one.

The industry has a near-fatal entitlement culture that says "We spent loads of money making this game, so you have to buy it". Inconveniently, though, most consumers don't have infinite amounts of disposable income, so their response tends to be "Fuck you, I can only afford four games a year at these prices so I'm buying FIFA, Call Of Duty, Skyrim and Need For Speed, because I know I'm going to enjoy those".

Mr Browne's fantasy of a wealthy adult demographic is wishful-thinking bollocks - games have a short window between adolescence and adulthood in which to make money from their audience, because you only get a few years between someone getting a job and suddenly being able to indulge an expensive hobby, and them having a partner/family who will frown on such frivolities with skyrocketing bills to pay.

The industry drove the hardware arms race that made development costs explode, and the industry is reaping the whirlwind. Good, smart designers don't go bust - they develop for iOS, where consumers will happily buy inventive ideas and original IP because it only costs 69p or £1.99, and they make lots of money (relative to their expenditure at least, and sometimes just get insanely rich by any standards).

Of course, the downside is that they don't get to make absurdly overblown epic games about macho, scowling space marines to compensate for their lack of childhood male role models, but they try to live with it.

If you can't make a profit on first-instance sales of your game without scrabbling around trying to grab after-market money you're not entitled to (once I've bought a game that disc in a plastic box is my property, and whether I keep it, sell it on or shove it up my arse is absolutely none of your fucking business), YOU'VE EITHER SPENT TOO MUCH MAKING IT OR IT'S JUST PLAIN NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Cut your cloth according to your means, do a better job, and stop bloody whingeing that the public owes you a living.

[kenjiharima]

Jeremy Jahns

YouTube

https://youtu.be/UMIrjBWeus0

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Mars Mode]

I dont know a single thing about this and this is just my opinion.

They talk about cars and dvds and cds, yeah they have a lot of sources of revenue. So what?

Were the companys who made the systems mentioned above smart. Yes they were.

Is my fault the developers and companys ruined themselves with their own sistem? No it was not.

Is something they should fix among themselves without screwing the customer. Yes it is.

Is my fault a game doesnt generate so many sources of revenue. No it is not.

Does the client have the right to buy all the things they use, used. Yes is their right.

Can they sell, give as a gift and lend a friend their used games? Yes they can.

This is not something that can be discussed. A lot of the claims made in the Totalbiscuit video sound logical and they have a lot of thought put into it. But it all boils down to do I own the game I buy? If the answer is yes(and I see no reason why it shouldnt be mine), then I can do whatever the hell I want with that copy without going overboard in the rights of copyright.

And a lot of people said I worked for this place, and they are entitled to have their own opinion(but unless they were some kind of higher up in the industry I dont see how some of the claims in that video could hold true) He talks of policys of the industry and some of them are of course from the level of a cashier and attendant of the shop. but the others was he some kind of big shot on the store or something to know this for a fact and were are the proof to back this up. I do believe this practice is in place but I also believe the developers hold more power, if they do not use it is their own fault.

Im not someone who gives money for free my good friend. If someone is going to ask me money, I expect them to have earned it. If I ever buy a used game from a friend (is because he convinced me otherwise I woud not) or gave it a try in a rental (is to know do I need this game).

I still play some games from the ps2 with my friends. And I have fun with it, Im probably never going to get rid of that game. And if I ever do Im probably going to give away the console with it. So can I do that for free yes because is mine.

In this case is the fault of the developers, publishers and the industry. So all I ask is one thing leave me and my rights alone and go solve this problem by yourselves.

[cronnoponno]

If used games were generally such a problem that it was literally putting a gullotine to the gaming industry and destroying every fabric of reality within it, I would understand these arguments and understand the general distaste for the used market. The problem is, everyone seems to base their hatred on ''OMG I HATE GAMESTOP'' and misinformation that has no real numbers backed up by it and lack of knowledge to where money goes when it's spent on retailer products.


If someone can provide me with a chart that shows how badly used games damage companies and have put all these poor types out of business and is ONLY or almost entirely the fault of used games, I'd like to know, and I'd like to see more than just one example, I want to see how this is a literal plague on the gaming industry and how it forces developers to be Gamestop's bitch.

[felix]

Originally Posted by cronnoponno

[...]

Just out of curiosity here...

This whole business of taking something of X value for virtually nothing then passing it on for 80%? of it's original value, does seem like extremely parasitic behavior, and indirectly affecting both the quality of the goods traded and the prices at which the goods are traded initially—because that's what parasites do, feed on everything else.

Where exactly is the line drawn. Does it have to be a 10,000 USD product that you trade out and back for 5,000 USD profit for it to count as bad? How many copies constitute abusing someone's intellectual property and legal loopholes? I'm very much aware that if I say make 1 thing and sell it to you and you have the right to sell it to someone else then there's nothing legally to stop you from snuffing me out by abusing the market in such a way where I can't sell anything but you can resell the copy I sold to you over and over, even if that means I'll die starving. I understand, I just don't understand where I'm suppose to draw sympathy/appreciation towards the re-seller in such a scenario. The re-seller is doing nothing, and arguably if the re-seller didn't exist the system would be more healthy and the current re-seller price would be actually higher then the normal one of a healthy market (people like to give steam as an example here as goody-goody, steam is more like a re-seller in itself, but whatever).

Also. Why is the "parasite culture" itself not a bad thing? I mean if you have this "system" that you know exists and lowers price, much like you have steam holiday sales or discounts at release and so on, then obviously people will gravitate towards it. It's like if you have uber-stores that sell for cheaper then everywhere else, you'll naturally get less small stores that sell for higher, because the culture dictates part of the populace who is not in any way inconvenienced to go to the uber store will just go to the uber store. So obviously if the uber store has any practices that hurts the producer of the product then said product will become shittier over time if not go out of business since now all the business goes though the middleman, the uber store. In a sense this all essentially, the evil that feeds you. And thus the uber store motivates it killing the producer of the content, or "hurting" if the wording here sounds too strong, by virtue of it's culture it has generated around it, and that's suppose to be right?

I have no opinion for or against the whole "lend it to a friend," other then it can be done digitally and has been done with books (not that it means greedy corps will ever do it for games, but meh). And just for the record I have no love publishers either; nor policies for them, see: shitty microsoft for reference. And I also don't hold game developers to higher standards then book writers, artists, etc though a few studios like CD Projekt have done their fair share of good deeds to warrant my respect for their work.

[kenjiharima]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/2G_f8YBy39M

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

YouTube

https://youtu.be/NpKSYMnPs0o

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[cronnoponno]

Originally Posted by felix

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).


Secondly, sympathy or appreciation isn't needed towards people who parade in pre-owned product, they are however, not an acceptable target for the gaming industry to attack, they are virtually doing little to damage the gaming industry, CAN slightly benefit it, and more often than not would want NOTHING to do with new games if they were the only option available to them, barely any benefit is made, you're basically punching the comsumer in the face while the pirate next to him giggles and walks away, a large amount of game resale goes into new games.

Also, anyone who mentions steam sales clearly don't shop at Gamestop much, we have sales on new games a lot, I personally bought black ops 2 when it was on sale for half price, while pre-owned stayed the same price, and anyone who wasn't willing to work out in their head that they'd only be saving about 5$ anyway were told that buying a new one is a much better idea for them.



You guys are literally attacking a system that sells newer-used games for 5$ cheaper and treating that like it's some sort of threat, if that's really all it took to destroy the game industry then these people really need to consider new careers, if attacking a non-threatening business that gives customers more options is their clear-cut way of fighting the evil consumers who don't pay them their money, then I have no sympathy for the producers, and they probably shouldn't be putting their lives in the hands of such a fragile career, because there are plenty of people who resell new games overseas that they buy from retail and keep the profit to themselves, and destroying used games is not going to stop these individuals.


To what end does this Jihad on pre-owned game hate go towards? You guys honestly think they'll start making better games? You think the industry will magically be able to start standing on it's own feet again and things will start improving? Don't you guys think you're setting yourself up for disappointment here?


Keep in mind I'm not TOTALLY siding with Gamestop, there are a ton of things I'm not happy with them but used games are not doing the damage you guys seem to think it does.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Daniel E.

I though I told people to drop the meme pics and videos.

Infractions for all that does this from this point forward and bans for anyone that dares to say they weren't warned about it.

Is that a decision made by multiple moderators? It is just that, threads in so many other forums have people having fun with the meme pics and meme videos (about XBox One), so why can't we? More people are having serious discussions here than just posting nothing but meme material. It wasn't happening in other threads in the gaming forums and people weren't getting carried away with it.

Just giving that input. I know the strict moderation pays off here because it really keeps things in line and it is overall for the best, but sometimes we have a lot of fun taken away and have very little slack. I know you mods have to balance out letting us have more fun with keeping things in line, but that balance can be off center sometimes.

Not trying to be a rabble rouser. *ducks*

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

You know, I didn't know there was so much hate for game stores.

Who knew?

[cronnoponno]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You know, I didn't know there was so much hate for game stores.

Who knew?

I think the main reason people hate Gamestop is because they started getting pressured to upsell and offer like 20 things to every customer for every purchase, and trying to prejudge a customer based on what they're buying (''Oh they are buying Zelda, they won't want to reserve the upcoming call of duty'') is frowned on, people seem to treat the employees like they willingly participate in this and totally want to fuck every customer. Depending on how new or how much pressure is being put on the employee, they are going to have differing degrees of persistence based on their experience.


Also, working at Gamestop, some people expect wayyyyy to much damn money for their games, some people like trade in Assassin Creed 3, thinking it's worth a lot? We have so many and they're not selling because everyone wants new and while it's still highly priced, I think you're only going to get about 20 or so bucks in credit for it, and it'll probably stay in our back overstock for a few months and may be bought near Christmas when AC 4 is out and interest in it is higher and we have a half-off sale or whatever the heck we'll have for the holidays when nearly every new title will probably be on sale, they also don't know how to pay attention to our offers where we double the trade-in credit(or give it a 50% increase) or guarenteed 20$ offers if you trade in 3 games(on top of what those 3 games are worth).

There are also easy ways to discourage pitches, but I won't go into that.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by cronnoponno

I think the main reason people hate Gamestop is because they started getting pressured to upsell and offer like 20 things to every customer for every purchase, and trying to prejudge a customer based on what they're buying (''Oh they are buying Zelda, they won't want to reserve the upcoming call of duty'') is frowned on, people seem to treat the employees like they willingly participate in this and totally want to fuck every customer.


Also, working at Gamestop, some people expect wayyyyy to much damn money for their games, some people like trade in Assassin Creed 3, thinking it's worth a lot? We have so many and they're not selling because everyone wants new and while it's still highly priced, I think you're only going to get about 20 or so bucks in credit for it, and it'll probably stay in our back overstock for a few months and may be bought near Christmas, they also don't know how to pay attention to our offers where we double the trade-in credit(or give it a 50% increase) or guarenteed 20$ offers if you trade in 3 games(on top of what those 3 games are worth).

My problem with those who say "screw game stores, let's kill them by banning used games" is that they aren't trying to be treated fairly; they are trying to give the job to Microsoft. So instead of "Overthrow the tyrant", they are saying "We need a different Tyrant".

The "hate gamestop" movement is entirely illogical. Illogical when the suggestion is that everything would be better when it is Microsoft doing the profiteering. If you don't like their businesses practices, then go against it. Don't just demand a different slave master.

[kenjiharima]

Xbone a privacy nightmare

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/...ource=facebook

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kenjiharima

Xbone a privacy nightmare

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/...ource=facebook

I just can't get my mind around the argument for why Kinect needed to be turned on to use the Xbox1.

MS has made the statement repeatedly that "The kinect can be turned off". But they made no attempt to explain why the kinect needed to be physically attached for the consoe to function. There is NO EXPLANATION for that.

Kinect is a peripheral. To make its attachment mandatory is insane, and that's why no one believe Microsoft's explanations. It doesn't matter how many time MS say there is a way to power the kinect down, it still doesn't justify a physical cable connecting it to the console at all times.

[cronnoponno]

So, I haven't looked into this stupid detail, but the kinect IS build into it right? It'd be pretty stupid if a mandatory part of it was a seperate accessory.

[kenjiharima]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I just can't get my mind around the argument for why Kinect needed to be turned on to use the Xbox1.

MS has made the statement repeatedly that "The kinect can be turned off". But they made no attempt to explain why the kinect needed to be physically attached for the consoe to function. There is NO EXPLANATION for that.

Kinect is a peripheral. To make its attachment mandatory is insane, and that's why no one believe Microsoft's explanations. It doesn't matter how many time MS say there is a way to power the kinect down, it still doesn't justify a physical cable connecting it to the console at all times.

Probably even if it's turned off, it's still on and MS is spying on you. Creepy.