|
11589 Posts
On June 20 2013 08:20 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:15 FakeDeath wrote:
XBONE should be called the Xbox 180 now. Pretty petty. Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:18 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:13 Elwar wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. Hey, get this...I'd rather pay once for the game, have it be my property, and then let it be up to me whether or not I sell it privately to a mate or to any company I want. I don't even sell my games but still screw people trying to get rid of my rights. The irony of course is they weren't cutting gamestop out anyway, it would've been one of the only places you could sell your games, meaning less competition for them, lower resale value for you. But the game isn't your property when you buy it. The game is the intellectual property of the developer/publisher. So I fully support the idea that they should have more control over the sale of their game, yes. You don't have a right to anything but to play the game when you buy it. On June 20 2013 08:14 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 yamato77 wrote:
So Microsoft wanted to make Xbox One more like PC gaming, console players vehemently rejected it, and people are still trashing Microsoft for changing their stance on DRM and always online?
I can't begin to imagine how all of you rationalize your hate towards Microsoft when PC gaming has had these sort of features for forever. I guess you're new here? Well welcome to the internet! Email your address and we'll send you your starter package of pitchforks and bottled rage and instructions on how to never be happy with anything unless its awesome and free. Just because it is the status quo doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged. The contents, ideas, art and such are the IP of the dev/publisher. However, that disc that I buy which contains the content to be played is mine. Or should be. If I buy the disc, I have the right to use that disc how I see fit.
And they want to make that disc basically worthless, just like PC gaming has done for years, and just as is their right to do since it is the access portal to their IP.
If you see a problem with this, you have a distorted idea of property. If you created something original, would you want a third party to be able to cut your potential profits by buying and reselling access to your content that you had no control over? Wouldn't you want control over the access to your content?
That's what developers and publishers obviously want. The problem is that console consumers are used to an outdated model of selling games that ignores the realities of the 21st century.
EDIT: The point here is that SOMEONE is going to make money selling "used copies" of games, and Microsoft and their publishers want control over that. The theory debate over property is practically meaningless because you're arguing against something larger than DRM in that case. DRM is a control, nothing more, nothing less. If you think companies shouldn't own the games they make, this is an entirely different argument.
|
PC gaming has always been, when you buy a game, you get a code that activates the game, and the disc just makes installation (not updates) faster. As many of you have noted, console gamers want nothing to do with this, even though it does make a lot more sense for developers (minus the piracy).
|
On June 20 2013 08:12 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:07 Jophess wrote:On June 20 2013 08:01 TheRabidDeer wrote:On June 20 2013 07:56 Jophess wrote:On June 20 2013 07:49 TheRabidDeer wrote:On June 20 2013 07:44 Jophess wrote:On June 20 2013 07:40 TheRabidDeer wrote:On June 20 2013 07:35 Jophess wrote:On June 20 2013 07:33 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 07:24 Blisse wrote:
[quote]
Making people start to come to terms with the idea that you're soon always going to be online, even though you don't like it. Basically that.
Doing this changes nothing about the console really for me so I don't see a "victory" in this if that makes sense. I guess it's a "consumer wins" thing where taking away these features don't really negatively affect the console and allows more people the ability to use the console (+ diminishing the backlash), but it means that future endeavours for companies who want to push for always-online things (even though lots already exist) are going to take a look at Microsoft's turnaround here and tell themselves they can't do it because look at how bad the backlash is going to be.
But honestly I don't think for a lot of society (EU, other places?), our infrastructure is ready for this however much I would prefer it. But as a resident in a major city in North America, the infrastructure is available to the point where I don't care whether it does the activation check. I'm still definitely positive that the future of our technology is going to be "always online", so I don't see as much problem from the 24 hour activation check as others do either. And we also didn't get to see Microsoft's plan for the used games/DRM/Steam/iTunes-like system to unfold so we can't really comment on whether it was a loss or a gain here, but since I have about 0 used games I see it as a loss since we could've had potentially lower prices. its having the option of going offline, taking it somewhere without internet, whatever. you're right, majority of people who buy this wont have lack of internet problem but the option was always there to play offline. xbox basically removed this option without giving anything in return. they could have allowed both (now they have it). always online is fine (auto update, w/e), but i want to be offline too (no internet). so fuck periodic check up. there is zero reason why offline mode can't be added, unless, its for DRM (hello simcity). The 24hr checks were clearly for the family sharing and discless play since both of those are now gone. Family sharing maybe, but discless play is still possible if you buy the digital copies. Right, but not anymore when you buy the disc. Being able to buy a disc, install it, and forget about it would be awesome, and it would let you avoid downloading 15gb+ for every game you buy. They could still do that if they remove the ability to sell used games. Actually, depending on how they had it set up it might still be possible with some tweaks... at least I can't think of a reason that it wouldn't... or I am struggling to come up with an idea of why it isn't possible anymore. They can't allow it now without changing something because I could install my disc, then give it to somebody else so they could install it, etc. Before, the disc was basically a serial key for the digital version, which proved that you owned the game. The 24hr checks made sure you haven't given the game away or sold it back to an authorized retailer. I know what it did before, but before with discless you could play as long as you did the check-in. Do the discs have serial numbers to link it to your account? Or what prevented you from giving the disc to a friend after you install it and link the game to your account proving ownership? Every game had to be installed on your hard drive to play, no matter if they were disc or digital. I obviously don't know how it actually worked, but there must have been some kind of license (which was checked daily) attached to it in order for them to prevent duplicate installs and allow their "authorized" reselling. Edit: Something similar to Steam where once you activate the game, it's yours. Alright, so lets say it is like that. Why can't they allow it to be played discless then? With the check-in they had a way to ensure that when you sold it to a retailer that it would become unlinked from your account somehow... that should still be in play even without a check-in. Right? EDIT: Example being the next time you go online it'll become unlinked. Which means you cant really play any online games without it updating your account.
It didn't only ensure that you didn't sell the game back, but also that it was only on your xb1/account. If they allowed discless play after installing a disc now, you could theoretically install a game on a bunch of xb1s and everybody could play it offline. For multiplayer only games, you're right, it could probably still work.
|
Getting rid of the retarded online DRM shit that clearly is much better when used with PCs than with temporary consoles is great. Well done Xbox, there's nothing to be ashamed of with listening to the consumer. HOWEVER, the Kinect forced bundling, the high price, the worse specs, the unimpressive increase in specs when compared to PCs...the obsession with getting the customer to pay for some TV based gimmicks...these are things that upset me almost as much.
|
11589 Posts
On June 20 2013 08:32 sc4k wrote:
Getting rid of the retarded online DRM shit that clearly is much better when used with PCs than with temporary consoles is great. Well done Xbox, there's nothing to be ashamed of with listening to the consumer. HOWEVER, the Kinect forced bundling, the high price, the worse specs, the unimpressive increase in specs when compared to PCs...the obsession with getting the customer to pay for some TV based gimmicks...these are things that upset me almost as much.
I fail to see how DRM is any worse for a console than a PC, aside from the console gamers' objections.
EDIT: And by that I mean that console gamers somehow see themselves as more entitled than PC gamers, not that the objections themselves are legitimate.
|
On June 20 2013 08:24 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:20 TheRabidDeer wrote:On June 20 2013 08:15 FakeDeath wrote:
XBONE should be called the Xbox 180 now. Pretty petty. On June 20 2013 08:18 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:13 Elwar wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. Hey, get this...I'd rather pay once for the game, have it be my property, and then let it be up to me whether or not I sell it privately to a mate or to any company I want. I don't even sell my games but still screw people trying to get rid of my rights. The irony of course is they weren't cutting gamestop out anyway, it would've been one of the only places you could sell your games, meaning less competition for them, lower resale value for you. But the game isn't your property when you buy it. The game is the intellectual property of the developer/publisher. So I fully support the idea that they should have more control over the sale of their game, yes. You don't have a right to anything but to play the game when you buy it. On June 20 2013 08:14 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 yamato77 wrote:
So Microsoft wanted to make Xbox One more like PC gaming, console players vehemently rejected it, and people are still trashing Microsoft for changing their stance on DRM and always online?
I can't begin to imagine how all of you rationalize your hate towards Microsoft when PC gaming has had these sort of features for forever. I guess you're new here? Well welcome to the internet! Email your address and we'll send you your starter package of pitchforks and bottled rage and instructions on how to never be happy with anything unless its awesome and free. Just because it is the status quo doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged. The contents, ideas, art and such are the IP of the dev/publisher. However, that disc that I buy which contains the content to be played is mine. Or should be. If I buy the disc, I have the right to use that disc how I see fit. And they want to make that disc basically worthless, just like PC gaming has done for years, and just as is their right to do since it is the access portal to their IP. If you see a problem with this, you have a distorted idea of property. If you created something original, would you want a third party to be able to cut your potential profits by buying and reselling access to your content that you had no control over? Wouldn't you want control over the access to your content? That's what developers and publishers obviously want. The problem is that console consumers are used to an outdated model of selling games that ignores the realities of the 21st century.
Well put. Thought I wouldn't even care if Joe sold a game to Sally, it really wouldn't cut into dev/pub profits much. The problem is Joe selling to Gamestop and Gamestop making huge bucks off of it without giving any to the developer/publisher. As it stands, what is the point in putting a bunch of money budget wise into a game when they wont make it back due to used games being sold weeks after launch? This used game model is holding games back in the long run and the way MS had it set up would allow devs to put more into games, give gamers a better experience than ever before and still make their profit if the product was good.
Now we can expect more dev closings and less of a jump in game quality console wise than ever before. We can expect more micro transactions than before. We can expect more content being held out so the devs/pubs can make their profit off of DLC that might have been in the original game if they didn't have to worry about used game sales.
|
On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think it's haters as much as MS trying to bite the bullet and admit to lying out their ass to secure more bucks from gamers while not providing anything in return. So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM? I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree.
i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. (this hurts consumers too)
for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop.
gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game.
so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win.
digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs.
|
On June 20 2013 08:34 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think it's haters as much as MS trying to bite the bullet and admit to lying out their ass to secure more bucks from gamers while not providing anything in return. So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM? I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop. gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game. so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win. digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs.
It would be extremely hard and limiting development wise for them to compete with Gamestop. What do you want them to do? They have to make some kind of profit.
They would have to cut the overall budgets and limit their game or sell at a lose and go out of business. Or they can do what they seem to be currently leaning towards and sell a cheaper game while withholding content that would have been in the game to begin with then make consumers pay for it through microtransactions and DLC.
|
11589 Posts
On June 20 2013 08:34 takingbackoj wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:24 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:20 TheRabidDeer wrote:On June 20 2013 08:15 FakeDeath wrote:
XBONE should be called the Xbox 180 now. Pretty petty. On June 20 2013 08:18 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:13 Elwar wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. Hey, get this...I'd rather pay once for the game, have it be my property, and then let it be up to me whether or not I sell it privately to a mate or to any company I want. I don't even sell my games but still screw people trying to get rid of my rights. The irony of course is they weren't cutting gamestop out anyway, it would've been one of the only places you could sell your games, meaning less competition for them, lower resale value for you. But the game isn't your property when you buy it. The game is the intellectual property of the developer/publisher. So I fully support the idea that they should have more control over the sale of their game, yes. You don't have a right to anything but to play the game when you buy it. On June 20 2013 08:14 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 yamato77 wrote:
So Microsoft wanted to make Xbox One more like PC gaming, console players vehemently rejected it, and people are still trashing Microsoft for changing their stance on DRM and always online?
I can't begin to imagine how all of you rationalize your hate towards Microsoft when PC gaming has had these sort of features for forever. I guess you're new here? Well welcome to the internet! Email your address and we'll send you your starter package of pitchforks and bottled rage and instructions on how to never be happy with anything unless its awesome and free. Just because it is the status quo doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged. The contents, ideas, art and such are the IP of the dev/publisher. However, that disc that I buy which contains the content to be played is mine. Or should be. If I buy the disc, I have the right to use that disc how I see fit. And they want to make that disc basically worthless, just like PC gaming has done for years, and just as is their right to do since it is the access portal to their IP. If you see a problem with this, you have a distorted idea of property. If you created something original, would you want a third party to be able to cut your potential profits by buying and reselling access to your content that you had no control over? Wouldn't you want control over the access to your content? That's what developers and publishers obviously want. The problem is that console consumers are used to an outdated model of selling games that ignores the realities of the 21st century. Well put. Thought I wouldn't even care if Joe sold a game to Sally, it really wouldn't cut into dev/pub profits much. The problem is Joe selling to Gamestop and Gamestop making huge bucks off of it without giving any to the developer/publisher. As it stands, what is the point in putting a bunch of money budget wise into a game when they wont make it back due to used games being sold weeks after launch? This used game model is holding games back in the long run and the way MS had it set up would allow devs to put more into games, give gamers a better experience than ever before and still make their profit if the product was good. Now we can expect more dev closings and less of a jump in game quality console wise than ever before. We can expect more micro transactions than before. We can expect more content being held out so the devs/pubs can make their profit off of DLC that might have been in the original game if they didn't have to worry about used game sales.
Micro-transactions are actually ingenious and are obviously successful models for profitability as seen by the success of LoL. DLC is also not an entirely stupid idea, the problem comes when the lines are blurred between true DLC as an addition to the complete game and a paywall used as a way to restrict player's access to content that should have been included with the game at release.
The real problem, obviously, is the declining overall quality in console games, and the decline in the longevity-based value of those games. PC games have longevity because of DRM and always-online models that allow publishers/developers to constantly release new content for their games and have micro-transactions be a viable business model.
|
On June 20 2013 07:32 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 07:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now everyone is calling it the Xbox 180 there is no way they can't be mocked. H8ers gonna h8? Really it's to be expected fanboys are always looking for excuses to put others down. It's kind of pathetic when people shout crap like you're ignoring consumers etc, and microsoft listens and makes the changes people want and still get criticized.
Not a PS fanboy, but when I buy a next gen console, it will not be a Xbox. Microsoft has spent months developing the technology and the system, there's nothing stopping them from changing their policies back after selling a few million consoles.
|
On June 20 2013 08:40 takingbackoj wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:34 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think it's haters as much as MS trying to bite the bullet and admit to lying out their ass to secure more bucks from gamers while not providing anything in return. So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM? I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop. gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game. so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win. digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs. It would be extremely hard and limiting development wise for them to compete with Gamestop. What do you want them to do? They have to make some kind of profit. They would have to cut the overall budgets and limit their game or sell at a lose and go out of business. Or they can do what they seem to be currently leaning towards and sell a cheaper game while withholding content that would have been in the game to begin with then make consumers pay for it through microtransactions and DLC.
do whats always been done and a few months after release drop the price of digital game by $5?
new used games are cheaper by $5 if i recall. so from developer's point of view, lose that sale to gamestop or do i make that sale?
i dont think it has anything to do with overall budget or something. just adjusting price to be competitive with gamestop instead of giving everything to gamestop.
a consumer would have a choice to buy used a disc of Last of Us for $45 at gamestop (without online pass), or buy the digital version for $45 (which includes online pass, since its new).
*online pass example i'm basing on ps3.
|
On June 20 2013 08:44 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:34 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:24 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:20 TheRabidDeer wrote:On June 20 2013 08:15 FakeDeath wrote:
XBONE should be called the Xbox 180 now. Pretty petty. On June 20 2013 08:18 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:13 Elwar wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. Hey, get this...I'd rather pay once for the game, have it be my property, and then let it be up to me whether or not I sell it privately to a mate or to any company I want. I don't even sell my games but still screw people trying to get rid of my rights. The irony of course is they weren't cutting gamestop out anyway, it would've been one of the only places you could sell your games, meaning less competition for them, lower resale value for you. But the game isn't your property when you buy it. The game is the intellectual property of the developer/publisher. So I fully support the idea that they should have more control over the sale of their game, yes. You don't have a right to anything but to play the game when you buy it. On June 20 2013 08:14 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 yamato77 wrote:
So Microsoft wanted to make Xbox One more like PC gaming, console players vehemently rejected it, and people are still trashing Microsoft for changing their stance on DRM and always online?
I can't begin to imagine how all of you rationalize your hate towards Microsoft when PC gaming has had these sort of features for forever. I guess you're new here? Well welcome to the internet! Email your address and we'll send you your starter package of pitchforks and bottled rage and instructions on how to never be happy with anything unless its awesome and free. Just because it is the status quo doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged. The contents, ideas, art and such are the IP of the dev/publisher. However, that disc that I buy which contains the content to be played is mine. Or should be. If I buy the disc, I have the right to use that disc how I see fit. And they want to make that disc basically worthless, just like PC gaming has done for years, and just as is their right to do since it is the access portal to their IP. If you see a problem with this, you have a distorted idea of property. If you created something original, would you want a third party to be able to cut your potential profits by buying and reselling access to your content that you had no control over? Wouldn't you want control over the access to your content? That's what developers and publishers obviously want. The problem is that console consumers are used to an outdated model of selling games that ignores the realities of the 21st century. Well put. Thought I wouldn't even care if Joe sold a game to Sally, it really wouldn't cut into dev/pub profits much. The problem is Joe selling to Gamestop and Gamestop making huge bucks off of it without giving any to the developer/publisher. As it stands, what is the point in putting a bunch of money budget wise into a game when they wont make it back due to used games being sold weeks after launch? This used game model is holding games back in the long run and the way MS had it set up would allow devs to put more into games, give gamers a better experience than ever before and still make their profit if the product was good. Now we can expect more dev closings and less of a jump in game quality console wise than ever before. We can expect more micro transactions than before. We can expect more content being held out so the devs/pubs can make their profit off of DLC that might have been in the original game if they didn't have to worry about used game sales. Micro-transactions are actually ingenious and are obviously successful models for profitability as seen by the success of LoL. DLC is also not an entirely stupid idea, the problem comes when the lines are blurred between true DLC as an addition to the complete game and a paywall used as a way to restrict player's access to content that should have been included with the game at release. The real problem, obviously, is the declining overall quality in console games, and the decline in the longevity-based value of those games. PC games have longevity because of DRM and always-online models that allow publishers/developers to constantly release new content for their games and have micro-transactions be a viable business model.
Completely agree. And I have played a few games in my day where it was pretty obvious that DLC was either just thrown together to get a little cash out of gamers or where a game didn't seem complete without the DLC.
But I don't have much of a problem with DLC most of the time. I am willing to pay fair price for good product really. Its just real annoying to see DLC come out the same day a game launches or pay for something that should have been in the main game. But I can't blame the makers for it really, they have to make a profit.
|
On June 20 2013 08:34 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:32 sc4k wrote:
Getting rid of the retarded online DRM shit that clearly is much better when used with PCs than with temporary consoles is great. Well done Xbox, there's nothing to be ashamed of with listening to the consumer. HOWEVER, the Kinect forced bundling, the high price, the worse specs, the unimpressive increase in specs when compared to PCs...the obsession with getting the customer to pay for some TV based gimmicks...these are things that upset me almost as much. I fail to see how DRM is any worse for a console than a PC, aside from the console gamers' objections. EDIT: And by that I mean that console gamers somehow see themselves as more entitled than PC gamers, not that the objections themselves are legitimate.
PC gamers hated Steam as well. We stopped complaining once Valve regularly did Steam sales. That was how PC gamers got spending power better than console gamers in the used games market.
|
Patrick Klepek is the reporter for Giant Bomb that broke the story that Microsoft is reversing its DRM policy for the Xbox One. He talks about the process of confirming the story and dropping the bomb on everyone.
Soon after the story ran, Microsoft gave him the E3 interview they canceled last week. He will also known as Patrick "fucking" Klepek from now on.
Video on the subject and Patrick being Awesome
|
I hoped that they wouldn't change so they just died out. I would be so happy with just PS4 and Wii U, that's all we need. The Xbox doesn't add anything.
|
On June 20 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:34 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think it's haters as much as MS trying to bite the bullet and admit to lying out their ass to secure more bucks from gamers while not providing anything in return. So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM? I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop. gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game. so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win. digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs. It would be extremely hard and limiting development wise for them to compete with Gamestop. What do you want them to do? They have to make some kind of profit. They would have to cut the overall budgets and limit their game or sell at a lose and go out of business. Or they can do what they seem to be currently leaning towards and sell a cheaper game while withholding content that would have been in the game to begin with then make consumers pay for it through microtransactions and DLC. do whats always been done and a few months after release drop the price of digital game by $5? new used games are cheaper by $5 if i recall. so from developer's point of view, lose that sale to gamestop or do i make that sale? i dont think it has anything to do with overall budget or something. just adjusting price to be competitive with gamestop instead of giving everything to gamestop. a consumer would have a choice to buy used a disc of Last of Us for $45 at gamestop (without online pass), or buy the digital version for $45 (which includes online pass, since its new). *online pass example i'm basing on ps3.
You have to take into account Gamestops ability to further lower their price and still make a good profit. How much do they give you for used games? Between 5-25 dollars depending on the demand of the game. They could sell their games for so much cheaper then they do and still make a decent profit. Competing with that as a dev/pub is impossible.
Dropping the price by $5 dollars would only cause Gamestop to drop their price even further until Devs would have to sell at almost a loss if not a loss. It's not feasible from a business stand point.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/
|
On June 20 2013 09:01 takingbackoj wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:34 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think it's haters as much as MS trying to bite the bullet and admit to lying out their ass to secure more bucks from gamers while not providing anything in return. So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM? I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop. gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game. so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win. digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs. It would be extremely hard and limiting development wise for them to compete with Gamestop. What do you want them to do? They have to make some kind of profit. They would have to cut the overall budgets and limit their game or sell at a lose and go out of business. Or they can do what they seem to be currently leaning towards and sell a cheaper game while withholding content that would have been in the game to begin with then make consumers pay for it through microtransactions and DLC. do whats always been done and a few months after release drop the price of digital game by $5? new used games are cheaper by $5 if i recall. so from developer's point of view, lose that sale to gamestop or do i make that sale? i dont think it has anything to do with overall budget or something. just adjusting price to be competitive with gamestop instead of giving everything to gamestop. a consumer would have a choice to buy used a disc of Last of Us for $45 at gamestop (without online pass), or buy the digital version for $45 (which includes online pass, since its new). *online pass example i'm basing on ps3. You have to take into account Gamestops ability to further lower their price and still make a good profit. How much do they give you for used games? Between 5-25 dollars depending on the demand of the game. They could sell their games for so much cheaper then they do and still make a decent profit. Competing with that as a dev/pub is impossible. Dropping the price by $5 dollars would only cause Gamestop to drop their price even further until Devs would have to sell at almost a loss if not a loss. It's not feasible from a business stand point. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/
Most people who buy used games don't use gamestop. They realize gamestop is a fucking ripoff. In fact I don't have a single friend who buys anything from gamestop because they don't do anything good for the consumer. I'd rather buy a full price game than support game stop. It's already been discussed but production costs of video games is going through the roof for no reason. They're dumping millions more into games with less levels online, less weapons, smaller campaigns, but more DLC's.
|
On June 20 2013 09:08 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 09:01 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:34 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think it's haters as much as MS trying to bite the bullet and admit to lying out their ass to secure more bucks from gamers while not providing anything in return. So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM? I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop. gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game. so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win. digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs. It would be extremely hard and limiting development wise for them to compete with Gamestop. What do you want them to do? They have to make some kind of profit. They would have to cut the overall budgets and limit their game or sell at a lose and go out of business. Or they can do what they seem to be currently leaning towards and sell a cheaper game while withholding content that would have been in the game to begin with then make consumers pay for it through microtransactions and DLC. do whats always been done and a few months after release drop the price of digital game by $5? new used games are cheaper by $5 if i recall. so from developer's point of view, lose that sale to gamestop or do i make that sale? i dont think it has anything to do with overall budget or something. just adjusting price to be competitive with gamestop instead of giving everything to gamestop. a consumer would have a choice to buy used a disc of Last of Us for $45 at gamestop (without online pass), or buy the digital version for $45 (which includes online pass, since its new). *online pass example i'm basing on ps3. You have to take into account Gamestops ability to further lower their price and still make a good profit. How much do they give you for used games? Between 5-25 dollars depending on the demand of the game. They could sell their games for so much cheaper then they do and still make a decent profit. Competing with that as a dev/pub is impossible. Dropping the price by $5 dollars would only cause Gamestop to drop their price even further until Devs would have to sell at almost a loss if not a loss. It's not feasible from a business stand point. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/ Most people who buy used games don't use gamestop. They realize gamestop is a fucking ripoff. In fact I don't have a single friend who buys anything from gamestop because they don't do anything good for the consumer. I'd rather buy a full price game than support game stop. It's already been discussed but production costs of video games is going through the roof for no reason. They're dumping millions more into games with less levels online, less weapons, smaller campaigns, but more DLC's.
Well you might not utilize gamestop but a lot of people do as evidenced by their profits. And like you said, developers are dumping more into DLC's to recover profits that are being taken away by these larger used game retailers that give nothing to the creators of the game. It's either DLC or go out of business after a few releases.
I agree with you though, I would rather buy fair priced and new and have no problem doing so as long as the product is good and complete. Problem is though, its hard to make a good and complete product when your profits are pretty much based on DLC and microtransactions.
|
I don't see why anybody buys OR sells to gamestop.
Sell it to gamestop for $15 or sell it to a person for $30 and you both win from that situation.
|
On June 20 2013 09:01 takingbackoj wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:34 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think it's haters as much as MS trying to bite the bullet and admit to lying out their ass to secure more bucks from gamers while not providing anything in return. So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM? I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop. gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game. so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win. digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs. It would be extremely hard and limiting development wise for them to compete with Gamestop. What do you want them to do? They have to make some kind of profit. They would have to cut the overall budgets and limit their game or sell at a lose and go out of business. Or they can do what they seem to be currently leaning towards and sell a cheaper game while withholding content that would have been in the game to begin with then make consumers pay for it through microtransactions and DLC. do whats always been done and a few months after release drop the price of digital game by $5? new used games are cheaper by $5 if i recall. so from developer's point of view, lose that sale to gamestop or do i make that sale? i dont think it has anything to do with overall budget or something. just adjusting price to be competitive with gamestop instead of giving everything to gamestop. a consumer would have a choice to buy used a disc of Last of Us for $45 at gamestop (without online pass), or buy the digital version for $45 (which includes online pass, since its new). *online pass example i'm basing on ps3. You have to take into account Gamestops ability to further lower their price and still make a good profit. How much do they give you for used games? Between 5-25 dollars depending on the demand of the game. They could sell their games for so much cheaper then they do and still make a decent profit. Competing with that as a dev/pub is impossible. Dropping the price by $5 dollars would only cause Gamestop to drop their price even further until Devs would have to sell at almost a loss if not a loss. It's not feasible from a business stand point. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/
let me just put it in simpler terms:
why can't consoles have steam-like pricing for their digital content (other than 'not yet')
i dont see gamestop matching steam prices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
