Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Console Gaming' started by Pheran, Jan 21, 2013.
Sold used game= $0 for developer. That is pretty basic economics.
You've hit on another reason for DRM. The industry doesn't just want to sell every gamer their own copy. They want to sell every gamer their own copy multiple times. They see what the online marketplace has done for vintage games and emulators, and they want more of that moving forward. Right now you have the option to find an old console and play old cartridges on it if that's your style. They want to eliminate that.
Wow. You've successfully mapped all of economics into a single transaction. The Nobel committee will surely want to hear from you.
I just hope they set up a way out. It sounds like it could lead to disaster. I for one would not buy the console if I couldn't sell my unused games. And I 9/10 buy new.
They'd have to drop the price like Steam-level.
What about people like me, who wait 6+ months to get a better deal. Games get cheaper as they age - I just bought Heavenly Sword used for $10 two months or so ago.
Saving $10 or $15 off the price of a new game isn't worth it when I can just wait a while and get it for $30-40 off.
That's a pretty narrow sighted view of game sales. If I have the possibility of recouping part of the purchase price on a game, I'm more likely to take a risk and buy more games. Take that option away and my purchases will be far less.
So you're saying the perceived residual value of a product has no influence on its price when new? Are you really saying this?
Before you answer that with a yes please consider homes, cars, art work, firearms, etc.
However, the developer gets their money as soon as it hits the shelves. The retailer pays an amount for each copy. The retailer makes up for it and then a profit on top. Used games do NOT hurt developers.
The only reason developers are afraid of used is because theyr games have increasingly become garbage shovelware or yearly map packs sold at $60 with additionmal DLC including day one DLC at $5 or more. They will lose that market if people stop buying new titles.
The price going down over time isn't exclusive to used games, though. The longer a game is out, the more likely it is to go on sale (new or used). So the longer you wait, the better deal you can get for a new copy as well. For most AAA games, if you look around, you can get them for $30-40 within two months after release every couple weeks, and once you get past 6 months, they'll routinely go for $30 or lower. While it takes an annoyingly long time for MSRP on most console games to fall (and truthfully, many AAA PC games as well), it's not that hard to find games going for below MSRP.
And I looked around, and it looks like Heavenly Sword is actually not an easy game to pick up new. Amazon doesn't have any in it's warehouse (only some Fulfilled by Amazon merchants do), and Gamestop and Best Buy only carry it pre-owned. I wouldn't be surprised if, since it wasn't a big hit, there just aren't that many new pressings of the disc out there anymore. Which would drive up the price of a new copy solely due to scarcity. Which the digital distribution networks of both consoles should hopefully help to solve.
VGLeaks has a quick but interesting article on how display planes work in the new GPU.
That Durango doesn't look good in comparison to Orbit. MS was being smart by being the easy to program for console in the last generation. If they can't retain that I see PS4 getting the better titles and the preferred performance
No, you're right, but I'm a cheap bastard with limited funds for gaming. So take a used copy for $10 vs a new copy for $20, and I'm buying the used one.
That's a great point and something I think that Microsoft & others should consider when instituting policies that reduce the indirect value of their goods.
A salient example in my mind is the Android open source community: I wouldn't have kept my Note 2 had I been forced to stay with TW ux; and had Verizon enforced a policy preventing custom ROM installation they would have lost a ~$2200 sale.
What's worse is that even if I wanted to buy a less-than-popular game new, they don't make it easy to do. I still don't get why the entire back catalog from 2005/6-2011 or so isn't just sitting on XBL Marketplace and PSN at reasonable prices waiting for you to buy them at $ 14.99 or something. Instant profit from people would rather just play the game RIGHT NOW instead of fumbling around Gamestop for a used copy or waiting 2 days to get one from Amazon.
This, so much this. It seems crazy too. The cost of delivering a game online is negligible and the price is almost pure profit. They must think there's a real problem doing that with current gen consoles because otherwise they are leaving a lot of money on the table.
I am hoping that the real reason for all this is that MS wants to do away with discs entirely. I suspect that they are looking at how successful Steam has been with PC gaming and want to move to that model for Xbox. If I could just download games to my Xbox and delete/reinstall as needed from my XBL account I might pay for XBL Gold. If we get a Steam style features on consoles I'd be happy to never buy another game on disc.
Specs on the Kinect 2 sensor
This looks like a huge upgrade over the original Kinect.
Woohoo! Now it will be an even better experience when I wave my hands and yell at my tv.
Microsoft likely to reveal Xbox 360 successor at April event http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/22/4018424/microsoft-likely-to-reveal-next-gen-xbox-april
Lots of time between Sony's and Microsoft's events. Hopefully they show the console
One thing I wonder, a lot of people are thinking it will have pretty close specs to the PS4 and will undercut the price a bit. But if they are going to be a lot a like and MS is packing in Kinect 2.0, how can they afford to charge less than Sony?
I don't see how they can. I think they'll both be the same price and as of right now, Xbox is the name brand in gaming but as we've seen, this can easily change.
That's the thing that a lot of people are ignoring. I really hope MS isn't too full of themselves and come out and shock us. I am heavily invested in the 360, so I would love to roll right in to the next xbox. But I am very worried that they will focus on all the wrong things instead of awesome games.
Maybe they will come out in the press conference and say "Yeah, we have improved Kinect in these ways and it will be cool, and yes we have these cool apps and plans to improve the way you use us for everything, but here are our awesome games". I just don't see it going that way, but hopefully I will be surprised.
Edit: I also think it is a mistake for them to wait until April. They don't need to rush out and announce something, but waiting two months while the PS4 gets all the attention is a bad move, IMO.
I don't. I think the Sony event was rushed out with a "me first!" type mindset and they didn't even show a console. It makes them look desperate for attention.
True, we didn't get to see a plastic box that will give us the games they showed. That is the most important thing to me. They showed off games, and now game studios can talk about their games on the PS4, but not on the next Xbox. We all know one is coming, but the developers can't say that they are working on games for it, so it will hurt them for now.
Keep in mind that the PS4 is supposed to include some kind of stereo camera, though I have no idea if it will actually include any Kinect-like functionality. Sadly, if the rumors about the upcoming Xbox specs are true, it looks like Sony will have the edge in graphics performance this generation. The CPUs sound pretty similar though.
I'm still eagerly waiting to see if MS includes any backwards-compatibility feature.
I would take a more powerful console for the next 6-7 years over being able to play older games on my system, but that's just me.