XBox One AND PS4 Discussion

[Leebo33]

I heard just as much white noise from those in favor though. Games will go on sale if they are digital! Just for the heck of it go look through the deal thread for the past 12 months and count the sales of console games and then consider that the thread is probably only a fraction of the actual deals on games available and doesn't even take into consideration the resale markets where tremendous value can be had outside of Gamestop.

But not deals that keep game makers from shutting their doors due to lack of income, because of the asinine trade in policies. When a game is traded in, and resold, it financially benefits everyone but the people who spent all that time and money making and publishing the game. Once it leaves first purchase, they never see another dime. Do you think musicians would bother if they didn't get royalties off of radio play and other avenues? No. Of course not. What if a baseball player only got paid by the first team he played for, but as soon as he got traded, he was never making another dime? It's not fair for everyone to make out like bandits except the creators of the games.

Truthfully? I couldn't care less about the used games market anymore. Because the free market, as it has been demanded by the consumers, just can't continue to justify doing business when people want something for nothing.

Besides that, if you ever use Steam...well, you're kinda talking out of both sides of your mouth, brother.

I have one game on Steam that I bought 3 years ago. I did just try a demo for FM though.

There I am, stealing out of the mouths of developers children again and putting people on the unemployment line. It must not be that bad or surely they would come up with a better system than forcing me to go to GAMESTOP to sell my game!

[Leebo33]

Darn it. My company just announced that it changed its entire long range plan 2 weeks after announcing it because some of our customers complained. Or maybe it was because most of them complained. One or the other. Either way, they just played it safe and decided to do exactly what the biggest competitor is doing. I'm so comfortable with that I'm investing my entire 401k in company stock. Thank you masses!

Wait...see, that's my problem with this. First, you complain about what they're doing, then they change, and...you complain about that! It's surreal. It's also why my stance has been for them to hold the line. Because I knew this would happen.

I'll look through my post history, but I don't exactly remember complaining too loudly...believe I said a couple times I would own an Xbox one. Just preferred the Sony model at launch.

[Teal]

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.

[Rodster]

Whoever was responsible for this PR/DRM nightmare should be fired in the way it was presented and explained to the public. It was like they knew the backlash that was awaiting them as soon as the public found out.

What they should have done was start slow and implement a hybrid activation scheme. You can buy and sell your game and you don't have to check-in as long as you don't install it on your hard drive. The check-in period should have been longer than 24 hours. If they had allowed gamers to warm up to the idea then the next-next gen could have seen a full implementation of always online DRM. Now they have 300K servers gone to waste.

But most gamers were ready for battle after the fiasco of Ubisoft's always on DRM and their server attacks which left people without the ability to play their games.

[LAking]

Teal mentioned it was like an election and the discourse was certainly heading in that direction. It's not enough to tout your candidate you have to besmirch others or use them as an example of the dimwitted unwashed masses. No offense.

Obviously this is geared towards me. I simply had to make an example of your post and i honestly didn't mean to make it personal. It's just that I kept seeing people getting angry about things that were completely untrue. You kept asking questions and basing your arguments on the idea that MS wasn't going to allow games to be re-sold, which indicated that you didn't know about the possibility to sell used games and gift them to friends. I understand you want to be abel to sell to ebay and that's understandable. You know you can recoup a certain amount of your money that way and you'd prefer not to see that disappear.

Here is a link in response to your skepticism that games will become cheaper if digital distribution becomes more accepted on consoles. I posted it earlier in the thread but not sure anyone even saw it: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1745 ... _games.php

I believe that customers become more prone to impulse purchases that they never would have bought int he first place when shopping via a digital download service. It's so much easier to just click, buy and play within minutes or hours. This means publishers would be more willing to participate in these massive sales knowing that even if they are selling a game at say $15 compared to $40, that's $15 they never would have gotten out of me in the first place.

I also do not think that MS has abandoned their vision for the future of digital distribution. I think they simply made a strategic business decision. They felt that ultimately it's more important to get a good head start on the installation base. I am positive MS will still be pushing digital distribution as the primary way of purchasing games for xbox. I wouldn't be surprised to see free games included when you pre-purchase certain games via Live. They didn't give up on it, I think it's a still a priority for them, they just accepted that it's going to take longer than they hoped to go completely digital.

[pk500]

Absolutely. Just grab a 20 pack from Costco, and drop em in the mail. Print labels at home (costs all of $2.50 to ship games) and just bring them to work and drop em in the out box. Easy as pie. So selling video games is actually fairly profitable and doesn't take much time at all. It was a definite advantage of the PS4 (tho not anymore).

You don't even need to buy a 20-pack from Costco. A game will fit tightly into the Priority Mail boxes provided for free by the post office. Charge the fee for Priority Mail and a few extra cents for your trouble as your shipping cost, and selling games via eBay is simple.

Leave it to me to find the cheapest method.

[pk500]

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.

Simple economics also say if new games were priced more cheaply, more would be sold new at retail than through the used game market.

Used car sales haven't killed the auto industry. Overpriced, poorly engineered and built cars manufactured by unionized companies with unsustainable benefit programs are what nearly killed the American auto industry.

Using that same analogy, tired, uninspired sequels and a lack of imagination in games that cost $60 at retail are killing the gaming industry, not used game sales.

[webdanzer]

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.

Simple economics also say if new games were priced more cheaply, more would be sold new at retail than through the used game market.

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

Make games people want to keep instead of trade in.

[pk500]

I believe that customers become more prone to impulse purchases that they never would have bought int he first place when shopping via a digital download service. It's so much easier to just click, buy and play within minutes or hours. This means publishers would be more willing to participate in these massive sales knowing that even if they are selling a game at say $15 compared to $40, that's $15 they never would have gotten out of me in the first place.

Word. I was ecstatic to buy some excellent, older titles on XBL via digital distribution around the holidays for $5 to $10. Low price, and the age of the game eliminates trade-in value. So digital distribution works great there.

But I'll be f*cked if I'm going to pay full retail to MS for a digital product when I can buy the EXACT SAME product on physical media and recoup some of that expense through a future trade-in or eBay sale.

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.

[Teal]

Thing is, I would have been perfectly happy with the PS4 doing its thing, the XB1 doing its thing, and let the market decide. In a world where everything is as it should be, this is what we would have. And I have had nothing disparaging to say whatsoever about Sony, the Playstation 4, or anything they're doing. Hell, I even gave them props for their one-upmanship at E3. MS left a door open, Sony deftly took advantage of it. Sure it was nothing more than a sleight-of-hand PR stunt, but people pay big bucks to see sleight of hand, so give 'em what they want.

Where this comes completely off the rails for me is that it hasn't been good enough to simply choose which system people prefer; many just HAVE to scream bloody murder about the other one, creating a scenario that even George Orwell couldn't concoct. I was very much looking forward to what the XB1 was touting. The 24 hour check in was never a blip on the radar, because the only time my internet was ever down for more than 24 hours was during the major tornado outbreak here two years ago, and the last damned thing on my mind was playing my video games.

The DRM doesn't bother me, because THEY made it, and should be able to make sure people aren't stealing food from their mouths. I totally get that.

I was tremendously excited about installing complete games off of the disc, and having that install happen while I was also able to play the game. I was very excited about the family sharing. I hope I'm right in that digital downloads will still be in the Cloud, and I can still play my game on my profile anywhere there's an XB1.

I would love to have what I wanted, and allow those who wanted more of what PS4 had in mind just simply buy one of those. No problem. But the lynchmob mentality, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth toward what MS chose to do, instead of just making your choice (because you had one), effectively killed almost everything I was looking forward to with MY console of choice. It wasn't enough for Sony to do what they wanted-MS MUST do what we want, too.

Why? I just don't get it.

[Teal]

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.

Simple economics also say if new games were priced more cheaply, more would be sold new at retail than through the used game market.

Used car sales haven't killed the auto industry. Overpriced, poorly engineered and built cars manufactured by unionized companies with unsustainable benefit programs are what nearly killed the American auto industry.

Using that same analogy, tired, uninspired sequels and a lack of imagination in games that cost $60 at retail are killing the gaming industry, not used game sales.

It doesn't cost 60 million dollars to make a car. Bad example.

[Teal]

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.

Simple economics also say if new games were priced more cheaply, more would be sold new at retail than through the used game market.

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?

[dbdynsty25]

Absolutely. Just grab a 20 pack from Costco, and drop em in the mail. Print labels at home (costs all of $2.50 to ship games) and just bring them to work and drop em in the out box. Easy as pie. So selling video games is actually fairly profitable and doesn't take much time at all. It was a definite advantage of the PS4 (tho not anymore).

You don't even need to buy a 20-pack from Costco. A game will fit tightly into the Priority Mail boxes provided for free by the post office. Charge the fee for Priority Mail and a few extra cents for your trouble as your shipping cost, and selling games via eBay is simple.

Leave it to me to find the cheapest method.

Then you'd know that at around .75 per padded envelope and the 2.50 for First Class Shipping equals $3.25 when you can AT MOST, charge $4.00 to ship a game on eBay (they restrict you to that number or LESS), it's easily the way to go. Come on now.

[RobVarak]

But I'll be f*cked if I'm going to pay full retail to MS for a digital product when I can buy the EXACT SAME product on physical media and recoup some of that expense through a future trade-in or eBay sale.

I'd pay more for a digital product just to avoid having to deal with the clutter of physical media and the likelihood of damage to the disc.

[Teal]

But I'll be f*cked if I'm going to pay full retail to MS for a digital product when I can buy the EXACT SAME product on physical media and recoup some of that expense through a future trade-in or eBay sale.

I'd pay more for a digital product just to avoid having to deal with the clutter of physical media and the likelihood of damage to the disc.

+1

[Leebo33]

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.

[Danimal]

Grr I meant to edit this post not make a new one. I'm sure someone already read it but anyway.

EDIT: One final note but I'm done arguing this as it is pointless. I'm only going to discuss console features and games going forward. Everyone enjoy the system(s) they get and lets hope this is money well spent.

[Leadfoot5]

But I'll be f*cked if I'm going to pay full retail to MS for a digital product when I can buy the EXACT SAME product on physical media and recoup some of that expense through a future trade-in or eBay sale.

I'd pay more for a digital product just to avoid having to deal with the clutter of physical media and the likelihood of damage to the disc.

+1

I love the convenience of Digital Distribution and don't mind the problems associated with it. Haven't bought a boxed PC game or movie in nearly 2 years now, and am looking forward to the day when I can do that with all console games too. When I was in my 20's and 30's I might have cared about being able to get $10 back for a used game, but now trading in games is just a chore I don't have interest in. Of course I wish they would lower prices on digital distributions to offset the trade-in value, but I'm not going to stop paying full price because of it.

[Danimal]

DUPLICATE POST

[RobVarak]

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 don't do anything to them. My kids have messed up more than a few by placing them down without placing them in the case etc. I've also had a few just go belly-up for seemingly no reason. Plus there have been several cases where entire runs of DVDs were improperly manufactured.

The rate of failure is low, but it's several hundred percent higher than a purely digital file.

Then again I've never sold a game on ebay or Amazon, so that's not even a consideration.

[pk500]

It doesn't cost 60 million dollars to make a car. Bad example.

Uh, wrong. GM reportedly spent $1 billion on the development of the new GMT900 architecture upon which models such as the Escalade and other large SUV's were built.

It costs an automaker an estimated $200 million to develop a new model off established architecture.

[pk500]

Then you'd know that at around .75 per padded envelope and the 2.50 for First Class Shipping equals $3.25 when you can AT MOST, charge $4.00 to ship a game on eBay (they restrict you to that number or LESS), it's easily the way to go. Come on now.

Damn, you're good. I haven't sold anything on eBay in almost two years, and it shows.

I've been the king of the 100 percent trade-in bonus at Best Buy recently.

[Leebo33]

I am done too. I may even pre-order a Xbone just for the f*ck of it tonight. 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.

For the record, I love digital distribution of games. I just bought $30 worth of games on the iPad last night in preparation of a few weeks vacation I have coming up this summer. Started the download of one right before bed and woke up and it was installed. Got to play a bit at lunch. I just think there is a happy medium somewhere and I don't think we had to settle for Microsoft's original plan just because it was first. I really didn't expect them to do a complete 180. Wow. Anyone with a business background does have to agree that Microsoft's approach to this thing will be case studies years from now in MBA classes on how not to do something.

[webdanzer]

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

[webdanzer]

It doesn't cost 60 million dollars to make a car. Bad example.

In all honesty, that cost is the main problem. If the market can't bear the cost of your game, make a cheaper game. Why do we need market controls to subsidize cliffyb's extravagance?


http://www.destructoid.com/used-games-a ... 6227.phtml