XBox One AND PS4 Discussion

[Teal]

Right. I also like Nintendo's take on it:

Make games people want to keep instead of trade in.

From the mouth of the one video game company that isn't relevant to the discussion in any real form. Convenient, ain't it?

Not relevant? We're talking about how used games kill developers, right? Nintendo sees less frequency than the industry average, so perhaps they are worth heeding?

So we see that the trade-in frequency on Nintendo content is much less than the industry average – much, much less. So for us, we have been able to step back and say that we are not taking any technological means to impact trade-in and we are confident that if we build great content, then the consumer will not want to trade in our games."



http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/arch ... sales.aspx

Not. Relevant. These are the people that bring us the WiiU and Mario #567043, Luigi #4543, Mario Kart #15 or whatever. They have their fan base, I'm sure, but relevant to the current discussion? Uh, sure. It's not a bad WORD, per se, but it'd mean more coming from someone other than the regurgitation masters.

[Teal]

I was just trying to liven up the place with a good flame war because everyone is all serious and I miss the good old days. We need a good JackB off topic post, fake pictures of the Brazilian women's soccer team, or a countdown thread to ease the tension. LAKing I'm not mad at you. It takes a lot to offend me but it is hard to convey that in writing when a tongue is firmly planted in cheeck. Maybe if you work for Microsoft you can spy on me in real life on Kinect and see.

Seriously?!?

[Leebo33]

I was just trying to liven up the place with a good flame war because everyone is all serious and I miss the good old days. We need a good JackB off topic post, fake pictures of the Brazilian women's soccer team, or a countdown thread to ease the tension. LAKing I'm not mad at you. It takes a lot to offend me but it is hard to convey that in writing when a tongue is firmly planted in cheeck. Maybe if you work for Microsoft you can spy on me in real life on Kinect and see.

Seriously?!?

Yes, I do miss JackB.

[Teal]

I was just trying to liven up the place with a good flame war because everyone is all serious and I miss the good old days. We need a good JackB off topic post, fake pictures of the Brazilian women's soccer team, or a countdown thread to ease the tension. LAKing I'm not mad at you. It takes a lot to offend me but it is hard to convey that in writing when a tongue is firmly planted in cheeck. Maybe if you work for Microsoft you can spy on me in real life on Kinect and see.

Seriously?!?

Yes, I do miss JackB.

No, really...all that huff 'n' puff and feigned "offendedness" just to start something called a "flame war"? Setting something on fire just because you like to watch s*** burn isn't cool, man.

[Leebo33]

Sorry, terrible choice of words. Like the arguments/counter points in the thread...would like to see more of it....just trying to explain why I jumped on Danimal in the beginning but not offended in the least after he clarified his post. Was just messing with LAKing because any time someone says no offense it is usually followed by something offensive. But I don't know him that well and shouldn't have.

..back to console discussion...sorry for the derailment.

[Pete1210]

When YOU buy something new, you are giving the developers their due for doing what they do for you. When you TRADE it, everyone else that buys it pays them...nothing. And more people buy used games than new. And it's killing the industry. There is no way to dispute that. It's simple economics.

And "YOU" in my last post is a generalization of the loud bunch. Not "you" personally. You just provided an example.

There is some debate.
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2013/05/n ... mes-study/

Used game sales for many gamers, myself included, allow for for more new game purchases.

[WillHunting]

When YOU buy something new, you are giving the developers their due for doing what they do for you. When you TRADE it, everyone else that buys it pays them...nothing. And more people buy used games than new. And it's killing the industry. There is no way to dispute that. It's simple economics.

And "YOU" in my last post is a generalization of the loud bunch. Not "you" personally. You just provided an example.

There is some debate.
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2013/05/n ... mes-study/

Used game sales for many gamers, myself included, allow for for more new game purchases.

Exactly, it is not like people trade in their games at Gamestop for cash and spend it on hookers. They spend it on games (both used and new), so a good percentage spurs new sale.

I like digital distribution to an extent, but $60 for just the rights to play a game will never fly with me. Videogame companies seem to take no blame on putting out shitty product and by-the-numbers sequels year after year (Maddening/Call of Doodoo/Gran Turdismo). I wouldn't want to keep these games too since the next annual update will make the old version redundant (especially for multiplayer).

Hey CliffyB, too bad used games destroyed your livelihood so you can only drive a Ferrari and not a Buggati.

[Macca00]

Exactly, it is not like people trade in their games at Gamestop for cash and spend it on hookers.

Speak for yourself.

[btmmayor]

Used game sales for many gamers, myself included, allow for for more new game purchases.

Bingo. Exactly the reason Xbox One was not in my future until they changed their plans.

[Teal]

You buy a game from developer x. You trade it and buy a new one from developer y. You trade that one and buy a new one from developer z, trade it, and so on. How does you buying new change the black hole that each subsequent developer's earnings go into when the used game gets passed around like a two dollar whore, and the only people who make money off it from that point on are the pimps? I sort of see your point, and that might help Gamestop, Amazon, and the like, but not necessarily the people who make the game.

[Feanor]

What the heck are you guys doing with these disks? I don't believe I've ever damaged a disk-based game to the point that it won't play...but then again I'm careful due to resale. And Danimal can attest to that based on my 100% ebay feedback. Plus, because I sell them I never have more than 5-10 at once.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to avoid the hassle of resale. Just drop the price to $40 and I would be all over it.

I have never damaged a disc in the last 20 years of PS1, PS2, GC, XBox, PS3, 360 and PC gaming, but I also don't have kids to worry about. I'm happy to buy digital versions of console games if they are priced reasonably. I bought Deus EX HR for the 360 thru Games on Demand for $25, and Just Cause 2 when it was $30. Both games were slightly cheaper new on Amazon, but it was worth paying a little extra for the convenience of having the game on my hard drive.

CliffyB is full of s*** on twitter. First claiming that Sony would have the same DRM restrictions as Microsoft, then crying like a b*tch when MS did their 180.

https://twitter.com/therealcliffyb/stat ... 6088956928

Cliff Bleszinski ‏@therealcliffyb 15h
I want *developers* who worked their asses off to see money on every copy of their game that is sold instead of Gamestop. f*** me, right?

Jeff Green ‏@Greenspeak 14h
@therealcliffyb and a lotta people on limited budgets would like to sell or lend the games they paid for to their friends. f*** them, right?

In_Limbo ‏@In_Limbo 14h
@Greenspeak @therealcliffyb come on Jeff. the reason games are $60 is cause new games have 2 weeks before the market is flooded w/used games

Jeff Green ‏@Greenspeak 13h
@In_Limbo @therealcliffyb assuming a joke post.

4:43 PM - 19 Jun 13 · Details
In_Limbo ‏@In_Limbo 13h
@Greenspeak nope. BTW you could share and sell your games on XBO's old policy.. incase you didn't know.

Jeff Green ‏@Greenspeak 13h
@In_Limbo yes, this was the line they were peddling, but since no one believed it, they were forced to reverse themselves. So here we are.

Jeff Green ‏@Greenspeak 13h
@In_Limbo and the real reason games are $60 is because of bloated budgets and incompetent management. Blaming consumers is just...wrong.

[Inuyasha]

The guy working on the game staying late hours doesn't get to see any of the big profits the exec's do, just like in any other business.


And I also do the used game selling thing. I use the money from my used games sales to buy other games on Amazon or Ebay etc.. But that's all I know about, I am not sure how the Steam thing that I guess MS wanted to do works. Maybe it's better, maybe it's not.

[Teal]

The guy working on the game staying late hours doesn't get to see any of the big profits the exec's do, just like in any other business.

He also didn't create the product. So what? That's comparing apples to...hell, I dunno...

[Inuyasha]

He does have a hand in creating the product.

[Teal]

He does have a hand in creating the product.

It's still not in the same universe. When someone creates a 'thing', and he wants to sell that thing and create a career out of it, but people find ways to buy that thing at not only a reduced rate, which isn't the biggest deal, but do so in a way that creates zero profit from user 2,3,4, etc, then the creator begins to bleed money instead of making money.

If the music industry operated like the games industry, musicians would cease to make being a musical artist a career, because there's no income to be made when everyone burns discs, trades discs, shares discs with their friends, etc. In fact, it's why the music industry is trying desperately to figure out a way to continue to be profitable, because all that happens, and the industries that have that happen all suffer for it. It's GOING to happen, and it IS happening. There is a way things work, and a way they don't.

[Brando70]

You buy a game from developer x. You trade it and buy a new one from developer y. You trade that one and buy a new one from developer z, trade it, and so on. How does you buying new change the black hole that each subsequent developer's earnings go into when the used game gets passed around like a two dollar whore, and the only people who make money off it from that point on are the pimps? I sort of see your point, and that might help Gamestop, Amazon, and the like, but not necessarily the people who make the game.

They need to sack up and deal with it. Industries change. Distribution models change. You can try to put roadblocks to preserve the status quo or you can adapt.

Look at the music industry. Musicians have gotten screwed more than anyone by digital distribution/piracy. The entire business model of he music industry turned on its head in the space of a few years where bands toured to support album sales and now they put out albums to support the tour. It's been a rough transition but most transitions usually are, and people still make great music. It sucks and I try to support bands I like, but that genie isn't going back in the bottle.

People also don't like DRM. If they have a choice between DRM and no DRM, they will choose no DRM unless they are like the one asshole dentist who doesn't recommend Trident. If developers are that concerned, then they should make a game that only allows for digital distribution. If the game is a great game, people will download it.

These poor developers are the same people who have turned early purchasers into beta testers. They release unfinished or buggy products because they need to make money and don't give a s*** if they release something that's flawed because they'll just patch it. How many times do we buy a game on launch and find immediate bugs with it, stuff that was certainly caught in QA but glossed over to make a release date? A Madden release alone can fill pages of a bug thread with things that should never have seen the light of release day.

Used games are not hurting the game industry as much as this industry cranking out games that simply are not worth a day one, full-price purchase.

[Teal]

You buy a game from developer x. You trade it and buy a new one from developer y. You trade that one and buy a new one from developer z, trade it, and so on. How does you buying new change the black hole that each subsequent developer's earnings go into when the used game gets passed around like a two dollar whore, and the only people who make money off it from that point on are the pimps? I sort of see your point, and that might help Gamestop, Amazon, and the like, but not necessarily the people who make the game.

They need to sack up and deal with it. Industries change. Distribution models change. You can try to put roadblocks to preserve the status quo or you can adapt.

Interesting choice of words. Funny how I can point that phrase right back at those who have so hyperventilated, shouted, ranted, and wailed the last couple of weeks over that very concept. What's good for the goose...

[Teal]

People also don't like DRM. If they have a choice between DRM and no DRM, they will choose no DRM unless they are like the one asshole dentist who doesn't recommend Trident.

Painting pretty broadly there, aren'tcha? I would posit that it's a very, very, VERY vocal minority, and of that group, only a few even really know what all that entails. I believe a great many of them are like Metallica Fans in Japan. They sing the words, but have little idea what it is they're even singing. But they can sure sing with gusto!

[Inuyasha]

This is not directed to anybody but everybody - why does it feel like the xbox fans are all up in arms about the next gen console war? Seems like everything posted about XB1 needs some kind of defense from the xbox crew. I don't really see much of the same vitriol responses from the Sony fanboys.


Not just on these forums but other forums as well.

[DivotMaker]

Right. I also like Nintendo's take on it:

Make games people want to keep instead of trade in.

From the mouth of the one video game company that isn't relevant to the discussion in any real form. Convenient, ain't it?

Not relevant? We're talking about how used games kill developers, right? Nintendo sees less frequency than the industry average, so perhaps they are worth heeding?

So we see that the trade-in frequency on Nintendo content is much less than the industry average – much, much less. So for us, we have been able to step back and say that we are not taking any technological means to impact trade-in and we are confident that if we build great content, then the consumer will not want to trade in our games."

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/arch ... sales.aspx

If I am not mistaken, the demographics for Nintendo are quite a bit younger than your 360/PS3 demographics which likely means younger kids who like the younger content of Nintendo and less likely to have the means to trade in games due to lack of transportation, access to eBay, or interest/knowledge of how trade ins work. I think Nintendo's market is quite a bit different than the PS3/360 market.

[dbdynsty25]

This is not directed to anybody but everybody - why does it feel like the xbox fans are all up in arms about the next gen console war? Seems like everything posted about XB1 needs some kind of defense from the xbox crew. I don't really see much of the same vitriol responses from the Sony fanboys.


Not just on these forums but other forums as well.

I was thinking the same thing earlier. It's everywhere...I mean there isn't much you can say bad about the PS4 except that it doesn't have the same online component chops that the Xbox does and a lot of people are really invested in the MS ecosystem so irregardless of DRM, a lot of people would be PRO Xbox, but I didn't think it would be this hardcore throughout the gaming sites. Oh well...its a semi-entertaining way to pass the next five months.

[Teal]

This is not directed to anybody but everybody - why does it feel like the xbox fans are all up in arms about the next gen console war? Seems like everything posted about XB1 needs some kind of defense from the xbox crew. I don't really see much of the same vitriol responses from the Sony fanboys.


Not just on these forums but other forums as well.

Really? All up in arms because a bunch of bomb throwing knuckleheads caused the more innovative of the two console makers to cave and give up most of what was innovative? Why on earth would anyone be irritated at that?

[DChaps]

I might be less strident in this stance if I was paying only $40 for a new game instead of $60.

I've asked this question before, so forgive my redundancy: Have the overall quality and innovation of games -- other than graphics and online integration -- really improved that much from the days of $40 PlayStation retail titles to justify the $60 price tag of titles today?

No.

Interesting question. On one hand, it may seem easy to say no, but keep in mind that the original Playstation came out about 18 years ago at this point, and original Playstation games were not averaging around $40 until a few years into the consoles life cycle if I remember right. I bought a Playstation at launch for $299 along with Ridge Racer, Battle Arena Toshinden, and Ace Combat and I know they were all at least $50 a piece, because I remember that my overall cost that day was over $500. According to the inflation calculator (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm), $300 of 1995 dollars would be worth $458.55 in 2013. Not far off the PS4 and Xbox One prices at all. Even if the PSX titles were all $40 in the beginning (which I believe they were closer to $50) $40 of 1995 dollars would be worth $61.14 in 2013. Again, right in the price range if you are taking into account inflation.

I loved Ridge Racer back in the day, but it does not even come close to what Forza Horizon or F1 2012 offer in terms of quality and quantity, even if you take out graphics and online integration. I would also argue that for most of the current gen console games I have enjoyed, the graphics and online integration are worth the additional $20 even if there was no additional quality or innovation.

The current gen has hurt itself in my opinion when it comes to quantity, over quality and innovation, but when it works (ie Forza Horizon or Battlefield 3) there is no doubt it is worth the additional $20. Hell, I paid $60 for Goldeneye for the N64 back in the 90's. Sometimes I think they go overboard and it hurts the overall quality. For example TW 14, too much going on, trying to please wide audience, but the end result is a buggy mess.

To be honest, we as gamers are very lucky/spoiled when it comes to our hobby. Compared to a lot of things (gas, cars, food, movies, college educations, airline tickets, concerts, sporting events, etc.) the video gaming hobby has really not increased with inflation hardly at all.

Atari 2600 was released in 1977 for the original price of $200. $200 of 1977 dollars would be worth $768.80 in 2013.

Intellivision was released in 1980 originally at $300. $300 of 1980 dollars would be worth $848.10 in 2013. I bought my Intellivision in 1981 after saving up lots of dough from lawn work, newspaper routes, babysitting, etc. and I think it was closer to $200-$250 when I bought it. But I do remember that Intellivsion Baseball was $30 when I bought it. $30 of 1981 dollars would be worth $76.88 in 2013. Damn that George Plimpton. It was those baseball commercials that forced my hand. We already had a "family" Atari 2600, but that thing looked like the future.

[RobVarak]

Great post.

[pk500]

Good points, Don.

But I still don't think the depth of games has kept pace with developments in other areas, such as graphics. We're still seeing single-player games with five- to 10-hour play times. We're still seeing features removed from current-gen games that existed in previous-gen games.

I understand short single-player games and removed features sometimes are due to the explosion of online gaming in the last decade, which has been the biggest development in this hobby probably since the Atari 2600! But I still sometimes think games could deliver more for value, especially with the endless trail of bland, reheated sequels that has infected the gaming industry as much as the movie industry.