XBox One AND PS4 Discussion

[XXXIV]

It looks like the first casualty of the XONE fiasco is Don Mattrick. He's going to run Zynga.

[Macca00]

XBOX Live's free game for the first part of this month is Defense Grid. PSN+'s free game this month is BATTLEFIELD 3* (http://www.polygon.com/2013/7/1/4484404 ... ction-july).

C'Mon Microsoft - time to up your game!


* AND Saint's Row: The Third, X-COM, Payday: The Heist and Jet-Set Radio.

[Teal]

Hell, I play Defense Grid more than any other game in my library. It's awesome.

[Macca00]

Hell, I play Defense Grid more than any other game in my library. It's awesome.

TBH I've never played it but we tend to like the same games so I'm sure it's awesome but comparing the profile of titles (Battlefield 3 and X-COM!!!) I'm just annoyed Microsoft don't seem as pressured as Sony when it comes to 'buttering-up' their consumers/users. Will definitely check out defense-grid once I'm done with State of Decay.

[Danimal]

Hell, I play Defense Grid more than any other game in my library. It's awesome.

TBH I've never played it but we tend to like the same games so I'm sure it's awesome but comparing the profile of titles (Battlefield 3 and X-COM!!!) I'm just annoyed Microsoft don't seem as pressured as Sony when it comes to 'buttering-up' their consumers/users. Will definitely check out defense-grid once I'm done with State of Decay.

It's not comparable. Defense Grid is a lot of fun but it's a tower defense game and worth about the $10 I paid for it on Steam. Considering the titles Playstation is offering I would agree that MS "entry" into the field looks nothing more than a way to spin PR.

I just saw this on Twitter and it sums up my feelings.

"Tiger 14 came out in March for $60, Now on GoD on Live for $60. This is why people don't trust MS digital distribution strategy."

[Aristo]

http://majornelson.com/2013/07/01/xbox- ... s-today-2/


July 2nd Offers
Assassin’s Creed 3 $14.99
Borderlands 2 $9.99
Far Cry 3 $19.99
Max Payne 3 $9.99

Games on Sale now through July 8, 2013
Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway $4.99
Far Cry Instincts Predator $4.99
Crysis $4.99
Command and Conquer Red Alert 3 $4.99
WWE ’13 $14.99
Mass Effect $4.99
Prey $2.99
Bulletstorm $4.99
Perfect Dark Zero $2.99
Dragon Age Origins $4.99
Divinity II: The Dragon Knight Saga $4.99

[Teal]

It's pretty amazing that Xbox has never in its life cycle offered free games before, but no moaning or complaining over that fact occurred until they DID...lol. Hells bells, they're FREE for pity's sake.

[Naples39]

Interesting; http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/26/ ... t-on-price

When Sony announced that PlayStation 4 would be priced at $399 to an uproar of applause from the audience at its E3 press conference, it secured a critical edge over the Xbox One. But the advantage came at a cost: the PlayStation 4 camera (formerly known as the PlayStation 4 Eye). According to multiple sources, in the months leading up to E3, Sony nixed plans to include the camera add-on with every system and shave $100 off its originally planned price of $499. Most importantly, it did so quietly, informing its retail partners only of the removal of the camera, not specifying the lower price so as not to tip its hand to Microsoft.

But in its efforts to undercut the Xbox One, Sony has damned the accessory to a future of fragmented consumer adoption and inconsistent software support. The decision has also rendered a major design element of the DualShock 4 controller — the built-in LED Move tracker — largely useless.

Race to the bottom, or simply giving gamers what they want? Probably more of the latter.

[Pete1210]

It's pretty amazing that Xbox has never in its life cycle offered free games before

You forget about Aegis Wing and Hexic HD?
And we got Doritos Dash for Destruction, Doritos Crash Course (1 and 2), Harms Way, Happy Wars and ... Yaris!

[wco81]

Interesting; http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/26/ ... t-on-price

When Sony announced that PlayStation 4 would be priced at $399 to an uproar of applause from the audience at its E3 press conference, it secured a critical edge over the Xbox One. But the advantage came at a cost: the PlayStation 4 camera (formerly known as the PlayStation 4 Eye). According to multiple sources, in the months leading up to E3, Sony nixed plans to include the camera add-on with every system and shave $100 off its originally planned price of $499. Most importantly, it did so quietly, informing its retail partners only of the removal of the camera, not specifying the lower price so as not to tip its hand to Microsoft.

But in its efforts to undercut the Xbox One, Sony has damned the accessory to a future of fragmented consumer adoption and inconsistent software support. The decision has also rendered a major design element of the DualShock 4 controller — the built-in LED Move tracker — largely useless.

Race to the bottom, or simply giving gamers what they want? Probably more of the latter.

Only Eye game I recall is that card trading game.

If that's typical, it's not much of a loss.

[Aristo]

The PS+ deals are pretty amazing, but I don't believe they will continue in near the same manner. Sony screwed up when they made PSN free, and had to find a way to walk their customers towards the idea of paying for their online service. Too good to be true deals did the trick.

But it comes at a cost in two ways. First, somebody has to pay for the games. The math is easy to see, and Sony is giving away more than they bring in. Second, you are already seeing gamers wait on games and predicting when they will come for free or at a huge discount. Couple that with the pile of games building up digitally, it has to have a significant effect on game sales.

But for getting gamers to pay for something they used to get for free, it was probably worth the cost. In fact, I doubt it cost Sony much, it just didn't make them much money either.

But if this continues on the PS4, it pretty much kills the idea of Sony generating more revenue to improve PSN. But I think this has really just been a way to roll into the next gen with a strong base of gamers conditioned to pay for a service that most consider weak compared to the competition. I think Sony will have to continue to give away something, but I can't believe it is going to be games like BF3 and Saint's Row 3. Sony needs that revenue to try and catch up to Microsoft in terms of online service.

But it's an uphill battle. Microsoft has more than 10 years of collecting $50-$60 a year from millions of gamers. That's money Microsoft invested in growing and improving their service.

[LAking]

Only Eye game I recall is that card trading game.

If that's typical, it's not much of a loss.

But that's the rub. The reason why that would be typical is because the Eye is an add-on accessory that only a fraction of PS4 will have. Basically you won't know what you're missing because developers won't bother making games for it. With XB1 you'll see developers actually utilize the Kinect and we may get to see some truly innovative uses for it. Something that can improve our gaming experiences.

[Aristo]

Only Eye game I recall is that card trading game.

If that's typical, it's not much of a loss.

But that's the rub. The reason why that would be typical is because the Eye is an add-on accessory that only a fraction of PS4 will have. Basically you won't know what you're missing because developers won't bother making games for it. With XB1 you'll see developers actually utilize the Kinect and we may get to see some truly innovative uses for it. Something that can improve our gaming experiences.

And it probably was a loss to any developers that had begun work on games taking advantage of the Eye before Sony puled the plug and essentially killed off their funding.

[Danimal]

It's pretty amazing that Xbox has never in its life cycle offered free games before, but no moaning or complaining over that fact occurred until they DID...lol. Hells bells, they're FREE for pity's sake.

Why is comparing what one service offers over the other complaining?

Competition caused this. MS can no longer sit on their asses and they know it. Playstation Plus is offering more value to the consumer from this standpoint currently and if MS wants to use this as a selling point for XB1 they better step up there game is all that is being pointed out.

I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand or offense to some. If you're happy and content with what is being offered then be that way and ignore the conversation. Personally I think all this competition on prices, features etc will benefit all of us in the end.

[LAking]

Hell, I play Defense Grid more than any other game in my library. It's awesome.

TBH I've never played it but we tend to like the same games so I'm sure it's awesome but comparing the profile of titles (Battlefield 3 and X-COM!!!) I'm just annoyed Microsoft don't seem as pressured as Sony when it comes to 'buttering-up' their consumers/users. Will definitely check out defense-grid once I'm done with State of Decay.

It's not comparable. Defense Grid is a lot of fun but it's a tower defense game and worth about the $10 I paid for it on Steam. Considering the titles Playstation is offering I would agree that MS "entry" into the field looks nothing more than a way to spin PR.

I just saw this on Twitter and it sums up my feelings.

"Tiger 14 came out in March for $60, Now on GoD on Live for $60. This is why people don't trust MS digital distribution strategy."

Wait, you've upset that a game that is only 4 months old is still $60? When people say digital distribution ends up being cheaper they don't mean brand new games will be instantly discounted. What they mean is you'll see big sales far more often.

Bioshock: Infinite was released in March and it is still $60 on Steam, but I can assure you it will be massively discounted during Stream's annual Summer Sale. It's also seen big discounts on other digital distribution services such as gamefly. Digital Distribution doesn't mean that the MSRP is all of a sudden going to drop to $50 for brand new releases. After all, there are people who are still willing to pay $60 for new titles that they are very interested in. What it means is that you will see more sales that would encourage gamers to make impulse buys on games they never would have bought to begin with, thus increasing the sales and the fan base for a particular franchise or developer.

[wco81]

Well if they really had a motion-control scheme that was really a breakthrough, comparable to the original waggle on the Wii or touch on mobile devices, then that will sell the peripheral, which is only $60.

But the truth is, for core games, which are the main differentiators that consoles have left, motion-control can't even replicate the precision (timing) of physical controllers.

And as we discussed in all the threads about games like Tiger Woods supporting motion control, we found that the technology just can't track accurate mechanics well enough, so you can do shitty swings and the results on screen would not be too different from good swings.

OTOH, if motion controls were so accurate that you had to develop good technique, then people would get frustrated by the learning curve, because a lot of times people want to just be entertained, not put in work.


The only reason MS and Sony still work on motion-controls is that the memory of the Wii is still fresh and they don't want to pass up the chance of hitting on the next big thing.

If there is another console generation after this next one, motion controls will be accessories, not much more developed than in their current form.

[Danimal]

Wait, you've upset that a game that is only 4 months old is still $60? When people say digital distribution ends up being cheaper they don't mean brand new games will be instantly discounted.

But they should be and that is the point. Digital Distribution should bring down the cost from the get go. There is no box, no disc, no manual, no pressing or gold master. No shipping to stores etc. Until games like Bioshock games on Steam were $10 or more cheaper than the console releases. A few companies decided to test if they could get $60 for the Steam / PC release and it worked.

So I'm not mad that a 4 month old game still cost $60, I'm mad that a digital distributed game cost the same as one in the store. I can't help it if the average consumer are sheep and will pay the same price to get less product but that doesn't mean I need to be happy about it.

[wco81]

Bioshock: Infinite was released in March and it is still $60 on Steam, but I can assure you it will be massively discounted during Stream's annual Summer Sale. It's also seen big discounts on other digital distribution services such as gamefly. Digital Distribution doesn't mean that the MSRP is all of a sudden going to drop to $50 for brand new releases. After all, there are people who are still willing to pay $60 for new titles that they are very interested in. What it means is that you will see more sales that would encourage gamers to make impulse buys on games they never would have bought to begin with, thus increasing the sales and the fan base for a particular franchise or developer.

But those games will also be discounted at retail too right?

And discounted just as much if not more?

Digital should give them more room to discount, since their costs are much lower. But that doesn't mean they will give a greater discount.

Really if digital is going to disrupt things, they should start at a lower price, since the costs of distribution are so much less, not to mention zero manufacturing costs -- remember how expensive cartridges were and how some companies took a bath when they were stuck with a lot of unsold carts?

[Rodster]

I don't understand how big corporations price things. I just smh at their pricing structure. The PS Vita is a flagrant violator. If Sony had introduced the device at $199 and included a 4GB card and priced their DD games at a lower price point than retail things could have gone better for the Vita. Instead they stuck to their price and gave stuff away anyway which resulted in the device being relegated to the FAILED heap.

The same goes for DD games. If these companies want to get the gamers attention they should price DD games at $39.99 for release day then incrementally lower the price after 6 months to eventually $15-20 after the game has been out for a year. That would have a far better impact over retail.

[LAking]

Wait, you've upset that a game that is only 4 months old is still $60? When people say digital distribution ends up being cheaper they don't mean brand new games will be instantly discounted.

But they should be and that is the point. Digital Distribution should bring down the cost from the get go. There is no box, no disc, no manual, no pressing or gold master. No shipping to stores etc. Until games like Bioshock games on Steam were $10 or more cheaper than the console releases. A few companies decided to test if they could get $60 for the Steam / PC release and it worked.

So I'm not mad that a 4 month old game still cost $60, I'm mad that a digital distributed game cost the same as one in the store. I can't help it if the average consumer are sheep and will pay the same price to get less product but that doesn't mean I need to be happy about it.

This is not how capitalism works. They aren't about to cut prices across the board just because their overhead has gone down. If people are willing to pay $60 at launch then they will charge $60 at launch. They will then use big sales that are possible due to the smaller overhead to lure in gamers who wouldn't normally buy said games at MSRP.

Steam offers sales because it makes them money. They aren't some kind of benevolent publisher that just wants to help all the gamers in the world. They are out to make money, just like every other company. The good news is that they know how the market works and have found a business model that works BECAUSE of the sales they offer. And guess what, it's f***in amazing! I love Steam. I can't say that enough. I've gotten so many games at great discounts. I've played games I never would have bought because they were offered on sale. I love the convenience of the entire service.

[LAking]

I don't understand how big corporations price things. I just smh at their pricing structure. The PS Vita is a flagrant violator. If Sony had introduced the device at $199 and included a 4GB card and priced their DD games at a lower price point than retail things could have gone better for the Vita. Instead they stuck to their price and gave stuff away anyway which resulted in the device being relegated to the FAILED heap.

The same goes for DD games. If these companies want to get the gamers attention they should price DD games at $39.99 for release day then incrementally lower the price after 6 months to eventually $15-20 after the game has been out for a year. That would have a far better impact over retail.

Why would a company price a game at $39.99 when they KNOW they can charge $60 for it and still make sales to the hard core gamer who pre-orders his favorite game every time a sequel is announced? That's just stupid. You charge what you can up front and then discount later to increase sales. It's basic capitalism folks.

[LAking]

Bioshock: Infinite was released in March and it is still $60 on Steam, but I can assure you it will be massively discounted during Stream's annual Summer Sale. It's also seen big discounts on other digital distribution services such as gamefly. Digital Distribution doesn't mean that the MSRP is all of a sudden going to drop to $50 for brand new releases. After all, there are people who are still willing to pay $60 for new titles that they are very interested in. What it means is that you will see more sales that would encourage gamers to make impulse buys on games they never would have bought to begin with, thus increasing the sales and the fan base for a particular franchise or developer.

But those games will also be discounted at retail too right?

And discounted just as much if not more?

Digital should give them more room to discount, since their costs are much lower. But that doesn't mean they will give a greater discount.

Really if digital is going to disrupt things, they should start at a lower price, since the costs of distribution are so much less, not to mention zero manufacturing costs -- remember how expensive cartridges were and how some companies took a bath when they were stuck with a lot of unsold carts?

Why would they be discounted at retail as well? Toys R' Us already paid for those retail copies. They may not want to offer the same insane sale that Xbox Live or Steam is offering because it would be a loss on a product they already paid for. They make those decisions based on their own business model which is not the same as digital distribution.

Retail video game stores are ultimately doomed. Their business model cannot compete with digital distribution. They'll stick around for this coming generation but they will probably start disappearing sometime during the next gen. It's the same as record stores. How many of those do you see these days? The only ones left tend to cater to the hard core collectors.

EDIT: I'm posting too much

[Rodster]

Why would a company price a game at $39.99 when they KNOW they can charge $60 for it and still make sales to the hard core gamer who pre-orders his favorite game every time a sequel is announced? That's just stupid. You charge what you can up front and then discount later to increase sales. It's basic capitalism folks.

Which is why gamers gave the middle finger to MS. If there is NO incentive to buy digital games like a lower price then it won't ever gain acceptance. I buy retail games only after a heavy discount like when they hit $20 or less. It's another reason why Steam is the current king of digital distribution. They have sales at least once a week and certain times of the year they have their blowout sales.

It is capitalism and I vote with my $.

[wco81]

LA, I haven't shopped the bargain bins that much but I've heard that most of the stuff discounted on Steam have been offered for comparable prices at retail.

If a store can't sell games, they either return them or if they can't, sell it even if they do it for a loss because old games are taking up shelf space, which could be used to sell new games or other product.

But I'm pretty sure when stores have sales or have those BlackFriday deals, the manufacturer has agreed to compensate them some way. IOW, they had a $60 game for a couple of months but there's a sale to $30 or $40. I think the stores and the makers are sharing in that discount many times. Or other considerations like co-op advertising where if a store puts a game prominently on the ad, the publisher is paying part of the advertising costs.

You're right, everything goes by supply and demand for pricing. Publishers and game cos. have a duty to get the highest prices they can.

But consumers can see that digital should not be priced the same, because of the lower costs and the loss of the ability to re-sale digital vs. the disc. To me, the $60 disc is more valuable than the $60 digital game, because I can swap or re-sell the $60 game. If the publishers and developers don't like it, that's tough s*** because first-sale rights preceded the whole gaming industry.

I'd be less inclined to re-sell a $30 or $40 disc than a $60 one and I'd be more inclined to buy a $30 digital game than a $60 digital game. That extends to things like movies. The studios charge the same or more for movies on iTunes than the DVDs they sell at the big chains stores. I don't re-sell movies as much as I do games, because most of the ones I buy are under $15 or even $10. So a resale would not bring back much. But I still would not buy a $15 digital movie, which is slightly inferior in quality to the disc, not to mention overpriced relative to the shrink wrapped copy.

[Danimal]

This is not how capitalism works. They aren't about to cut prices across the board just because their overhead has gone down. If people are willing to pay $60 at launch then they will charge $60 at launch. They will then use big sales that are possible due to the smaller overhead to lure in gamers who wouldn't normally buy said games at MSRP.

Steam offers sales because it makes them money. They aren't some kind of benevolent publisher that just wants to help all the gamers in the world. They are out to make money, just like every other company. The good news is that they know how the market works and have found a business model that works BECAUSE of the sales they offer. And guess what, it's f***in amazing! I love Steam. I can't say that enough. I've gotten so many games at great discounts. I've played games I never would have bought because they were offered on sale. I love the convenience of the entire service.

First I don't need an economics lesson but thanks.

Second did you miss this line? "I can't help it if the average consumer are sheep and will pay the same price to get less product but that doesn't mean I need to be happy about it."

Of course no publisher wants to help gamers and they want to make money. If people will pay $60 then they will sell it for $60. They are still making more of a profit and the consumer is getting less and in this case the consumer is not smart enough to say no. So what your saying is I should just be Ok with it because that's the way the world works. Yep, ok we will disagree.

Finally I love Steam as well but people tend to forget Steam sucked when it was launched. Why do people assume MS or Sony's model is going to be on par with Steam?