|
On June 21 2013 15:35 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 15:12 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 21 2013 14:49 Blisse wrote:On June 21 2013 13:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 21 2013 09:58 Blisse wrote:
My arguments have been the same throughout - the Kinect is a quirky gimmick to gamers, but not to the audience that the console is supposed to appeal to as a media center point. It's just that the gamers is a huge population MS cannot afford to lose, and the thinking that the Kinect is a gimmick is analogous to the Wii's remotes as a gimmick - the Kinect is and should be an integral part to development and XB1 games. In the case there, if you don't like the Wii's "gimmick", then don't buy the Wii instead of bashing Nintendo for their console. Here's the question though...would anyone buy the XB1 solely as a media centre? Even if it's 100% capable of doing that, it's still a $500 box, which is far too expensive unless you're playing games. Plus there's the stigma of it being a gaming console at all, which means no one will ever view it as anything except a gaming console. Compare the PS3's launch, which was also extremely expensive. However, when compared to the prices of BluRay players at the time, it was close enough that some people could justify adding a couple hundred to also get a gaming console. Well why would anyone buy the PS3 solely as a Blu-ray player? It's the same. A huge part of its price is still gaming. It's leveraging a lot of the features required for gaming (along with some other Windows stuff I don't know enough about) in order to bring you a better media experience. But with the huge emphasis MS placed on showing off the Kinect and TV features during their reveal, it's pretty clear that this doesn't have to be just a gaming console. I would try to put it like the PS3 where you weren't sure of whether Blu-Ray would actually become this much more meaningful, because it really was seen as a gimmick and unsure whether DVDs would win out (even though BR v. DVD seems silly now I do remember people have discussions about it (price/benefit ratio etc.). I'm not actually sure if this is in-line with my earlier thoughts but this seems to make sense in response to your question. The Kinect and SmartGlass can be seen as a gimmick just like BR would've initially - maybe that makes more sense to talk about? I just don't know right now how it would improve your life that much, just like I can't really justify Blu-Rays now anyways because the price/benefit/convenience ratios aren't there yet. Maybe it'll look like BRs now, or maybe it'll look like something completely necessary - like mp3 players versus CD players. I'm more inclined to think the latter because of the emphasis other companies have placed on visual systems, and I'll use Samsung's Galaxy S4 with the recognizing hand gestures and other companies attempting face recognition as examples. Did you not read what I said? The price of the PS3 was comparable to the price of a BluRay player at the time. In fact, I think on release it was actually the cheapest on the market. I can't say the exact date when BR players got a lot more affordable, but I think it was at least a year before the difference was more than $50. The XB1 is not comparable to any other media centre setups. If you have a computer and an internet connection you can already stream to your TV (which you'd still need for the XB1 to do the same). A DVD/BR player is dirt cheap, definitely sub $100. Music, once again computer, if not iPod/Smart Phone. ? I would say the cost of the BluRay player was like $100 (since how would they get $500 BluRay technology in their console without accounting for all that other shit unless they took huge losses on the console), alongside the gaming console at let's say $400. Just like the cost of Kinect + all that media stuff is $100 alongside the gaming console at $400? There's a Kinect sensor, of course it's not comparable to other media center setups. When you justify the $500 cost of the PS3 versus the Xbox 360, you can look at http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20070507PD200.htmlwhich kinda shows a $100 price difference in the optical drive (I'm guessing BluRay?). This seems to confirm my theory (and BR prices were driven up because of market demand/new technology/greed. I would assume the same price breakdown happens this generation except the difference will be the Kinect sensor. I'm actually not sure what you're talking about if this isn't it. It's also cool to note how close the consoles performed all this time (PS3 did better in GQ though I think) even though the price difference on the motherboard/cpu/gpu was like 2x that of the Xbox.
Sony and Philips pioneered Blu-ray, so they had the manufacturing capabilities for themselves which helped keep costs down. Individual players were roughly the cost of a PS3 (the first player was released like 6 months earlier than the PS3 for $1,000) due to whatever reason (sony may have been hoarding most of the blue lasers for the PS3 which drove costs of the players up). The same thing happened with the PS2 and DVD's. Tons of people bought the PS2 as a DVD player, and a lot bought the PS3 as a blu-ray player. They offered radical new high definition video for the same cost as standard players with the added perk of being able to play games.
The difference in performance is due to the radically more difficult to program for PS3. Multithreading was almost non-existent back then, and suddenly you introduce a 7 core processor with a very unique architecture and it was a mess.
http://gizmodo.com/5433090/i-dont-think-you-understand-how-cheap-blu ray-really-is
Bluray player price history
Year 0 = June/july of 2006 (PS3 released november 2006)
|
I know the price history of BR thank you very much. I said the BR player in the PS3 cost about $100 which makes sense on a $500 PS3 device, just as the $100 surplus of the Kinect makes sense on the XB1... and the argument was that just as Sony pushed BR, MS is pushing the Kinect. And that it's still debatable to you guys whether the Kinect will be worth it, just as it was debatable to the public whether the additional BR was worth it. ...
My comment about PS3 graphics quality was about right now, not back during release. Currently the difference is very slightly noticeable, but the 2x difference in price that I linked should've indicated a bigger gap. Just as now how everyone is moaning about the XB1's specs being crap compared to the PS3, well, we can argue that the architecture and time is different (and I agree), but it doesn't make the point any less valid that maybe it really doesn't matter in the long run what the difference is in hardware if the eventual difference is as negligible as it is now (in other words, some people are shitting on the specs a bit too much than would make sense by this logic).
Actually on re-reading that, yeah, the Kinect technology isn't a perfect comparison with the BR simply because BR was beginning to grow before the PS3 came (but no doubt the PS3 forced the growth of the technology tremendously). The difference would be no one has tried something like the Kinect on this level yet. Fair enough, but bringing it back to topic - the Kinect is part of the cost of the system, just as BR is part of the cost of the PS3, and there are many similarities in both how the system is dependent on that part, and how the company is trying to drive the technology of that part forward by pushing it to consumers regardless of the price, and making it mandatory. + Show Spoiler +(Fuck you Microsoft if you make a non-Kinect XB1)
|
|
|
I am just curious. I would have just wanted MS to modify their checkin requirement to wherenever you have a connection. If you had a connection, the state of the system stands as ok/good to go from that. However, point is moot now since they've completely removed it instead of adjusting it.
We've now lost what they are basically introducing as what I believe are benefits that came with a form of check in which were automatically saving a digital copy in your library, no cd requirement and family sharing.
I would have wanted to see that happen and how it would turn out because quite frankly the current state isn't really pushing forward in terms of media distribution. I mean, they did allow reselling back the digital copy before right and now they don't, am I at least correct there?
The what if can't be determined anymore because it has been killed as an option. The XB and PS at E3 were completely different beasts in how they "serve" you. Now, they are basically 2 computers with different operating systems.
Frankly, I find that worse because it becomes a "why bother" scenario.
People also keep crying about how games are expensive and I do agree. I do feel that there are some games that do not feel they are worth that amount, story wise or gameplay wise. However, we would not be able to see that now because we are too reluctant to explore the possibility of losing 2nd hand sales on 1 console. I repeat, 1 console. Sure, at the start, we could have seen prices be the same but what if prices (once the community and infrastructure of the "cloud" is ironed out) changed as they adapted the cloud distribution method by giving you a price perk via discounts?
I mean seriously, even just the thought of pre-ordering the game should have given you discounts but that doesn't happen. So why even pre-order? Pre-ordering basically means you are part of a group of people who are/have invested in a product that doesn't exist yet in its final form therefore it should be logical to expect discounts (the earlier the bigger the discount)
Anyway, I was just looking forward to 2 different competiting console ecosystems that are different (Nintendo and Sony on one side, MS on the other).
|
What would have happened if they then launched a 2nd gen XBone with no disc drive by 2USB ports to serve as HDD expansion slots?
|
On June 21 2013 12:33 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 10:38 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 21 2013 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On June 21 2013 03:44 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 21 2013 03:40 jinorazi wrote:
why can't they just allow everything? either i'm ignorant or ms is playing a very difficult balancing game of consumer happiness vs profit.
-digital game sharing possible only if logged into the live account (internet required). or have something similar to ps3, where the game can be shared up to 3 other players. if a 4th person wants to play, one of the first 3 must deactivate the game via psn. internet connection is not required except for initial set up, which is completely understandable for a digital game share.
-allow used games (make older digital games cheaper, like steam, to take away used game profit)
-kinect as an option (you can at least turn off camera/mic) They won't back down on the Kinect like they did the used game and online checkin policy. Calling it. They shouldn't back down on the Kinect. It is one of the defining features of the XB1, regardless of whether everyone likes it (I strongly suspect that most do). You like having all the footage/audio it gathers uploaded to their cloud servers? You like having maliciously misinformed utterances gathered and uploaded to this site's servers?
And you really think they won't do that? They've already said it WILL do that, but that you can tweak the privacy settings for it. Load of shit if you ask me. It coincides nicely with the NSA data center too, surely they will want in on it.
|
As someone who bought Kinect I consider it a pathetic gimmick and wouldn't give it the time of day. Definitely wouldn't want to be FORCED to buy the damn thing again.
|
On June 21 2013 16:32 Blisse wrote:I know the price history of BR thank you very much. I said the BR player in the PS3 cost about $100 which makes sense on a $500 PS3 device, just as the $100 surplus of the Kinect makes sense on the XB1... and the argument was that just as Sony pushed BR, MS is pushing the Kinect. And that it's still debatable to you guys whether the Kinect will be worth it, just as it was debatable to the public whether the additional BR was worth it. ... My comment about PS3 graphics quality was about right now, not back during release. Currently the difference is very slightly noticeable, but the 2x difference in price that I linked should've indicated a bigger gap. Just as now how everyone is moaning about the XB1's specs being crap compared to the PS3, well, we can argue that the architecture and time is different (and I agree), but it doesn't make the point any less valid that maybe it really doesn't matter in the long run what the difference is in hardware if the eventual difference is as negligible as it is now (in other words, some people are shitting on the specs a bit too much than would make sense by this logic). Actually on re-reading that, yeah, the Kinect technology isn't a perfect comparison with the BR simply because BR was beginning to grow before the PS3 came (but no doubt the PS3 forced the growth of the technology tremendously). The difference would be no one has tried something like the Kinect on this level yet. Fair enough, but bringing it back to topic - the Kinect is part of the cost of the system, just as BR is part of the cost of the PS3, and there are many similarities in both how the system is dependent on that part, and how the company is trying to drive the technology of that part forward by pushing it to consumers regardless of the price, and making it mandatory. + Show Spoiler +(Fuck you Microsoft if you make a non-Kinect XB1)
You seem to be forgetting that there was public outrage over the price of the PS3 as well. It has since rebounded as a console, but comparing the Kinect with XB1 to the BluRay with PS3 is a bit of a faulty comparison, because it is arguable at best that including the BluRay with PS3 was a good idea. It jacked up the price, was an unproven, new technology, and BluRay movies at the time were ridiculously expensive, barring entry into the market for a lot of average consumers. It was the main reason I went with a 360 at the time, considering I sure as shit wasn't going to buy expensive BluRay movies for an already too expensive console. I'm not really sure how the PS3 furthers your argument. It's an example of exactly how pushing a technology like this through a console can be a bad idea. A lot of the things Sony did around the launch of the PS3 are considered by many to be failures, including the PR, price, and mandated additional technologies. Sound familiar? BluRay has come into it's own over time, but how much of that should you attribute to the PS3?
And you're wrong about the mp3 player analogy on the last page. You said that people not only didn't know they wanted an mp3 player, they actively didn't want it. That's simply not true. If you had told someone in the 90's, who was into music, that you could sell them a product that could play any track from their extensive, hundreds of CD's collection, at will with a easily navigable menu, they would have jumped on it. No one in their right mind complained about mp3 players because they were newfangled technology, because there were tangible, real benefits to adopting that technology. Where are the tangible, real benefits to the mandatory Kinect? They avoided mentioning the thing at all at E3, when they should have been showing off how cool it was and how advanced the technology is. They tried to sweep it under the rug because it has been the target of bad publicity, but that just puts another arm's length between them and the people skeptical of the device. If it is so revolutionary and next-generation, where are the core games being designed with it in mind? Will Halo, Ryse, Titanfall, CoD, etc. be core Kinect gaming experiences? Probably not. Will it be kind of nifty for navigating your machine between media platforms? Probably. Is that worth $100 to the average consumer, on top of the price of a PS4, with less power and more restrictions? Probably not.
|
The difference between blu-ray and kinect is as follows:
Would you like your games/films to look better? Not right now, maybe when it's more mainstream
Would you like your games/films to look better in future? Sure
Would you like to shout at your tv and use arm motions to play games? No
Would you like to shout at your tv and use arm motions to play games in future? No
For a lot of people this is just it. Anyone who's tried to control something with voice will know how annoying it is anyway, especially with any kind of accent.
|
Are speaking commands mandatory by the way ? Or you can still navigate/turn-on with the pad ?
|
On June 22 2013 06:28 Hey Sean. wrote:
The difference between blu-ray and kinect is as follows:
Would you like your games/films to look better? Not right now, maybe when it's more mainstream
Would you like your games/films to look better in future? Sure
Would you like to shout at your tv and use arm motions to play games? No
Would you like to shout at your tv and use arm motions to play games in future? No
For a lot of people this is just it. Anyone who's tried to control something with voice will know how annoying it is anyway, especially with any kind of accent.
In all fairness, all living room tech that is coming/projected to come out, is motion and voice based (or at least heavily integrated). It simply is a matter of time until remotes are outmoded. I am intrigued to see what the new Kinect can do. Unfortunately, as wonderful a piece of tech that thing is, 3rd party dev's can unlock much better than MS schlubs so the truly groundbreaking stuff will be few and far between Im afraid...
|
On June 22 2013 02:36 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 16:32 Blisse wrote:I know the price history of BR thank you very much. I said the BR player in the PS3 cost about $100 which makes sense on a $500 PS3 device, just as the $100 surplus of the Kinect makes sense on the XB1... and the argument was that just as Sony pushed BR, MS is pushing the Kinect. And that it's still debatable to you guys whether the Kinect will be worth it, just as it was debatable to the public whether the additional BR was worth it. ... My comment about PS3 graphics quality was about right now, not back during release. Currently the difference is very slightly noticeable, but the 2x difference in price that I linked should've indicated a bigger gap. Just as now how everyone is moaning about the XB1's specs being crap compared to the PS3, well, we can argue that the architecture and time is different (and I agree), but it doesn't make the point any less valid that maybe it really doesn't matter in the long run what the difference is in hardware if the eventual difference is as negligible as it is now (in other words, some people are shitting on the specs a bit too much than would make sense by this logic). Actually on re-reading that, yeah, the Kinect technology isn't a perfect comparison with the BR simply because BR was beginning to grow before the PS3 came (but no doubt the PS3 forced the growth of the technology tremendously). The difference would be no one has tried something like the Kinect on this level yet. Fair enough, but bringing it back to topic - the Kinect is part of the cost of the system, just as BR is part of the cost of the PS3, and there are many similarities in both how the system is dependent on that part, and how the company is trying to drive the technology of that part forward by pushing it to consumers regardless of the price, and making it mandatory. + Show Spoiler +(Fuck you Microsoft if you make a non-Kinect XB1) You seem to be forgetting that there was public outrage over the price of the PS3 as well. It has since rebounded as a console, but comparing the Kinect with XB1 to the BluRay with PS3 is a bit of a faulty comparison, because it is arguable at best that including the BluRay with PS3 was a good idea. It jacked up the price, was an unproven, new technology, and BluRay movies at the time were ridiculously expensive, barring entry into the market for a lot of average consumers. It was the main reason I went with a 360 at the time, considering I sure as shit wasn't going to buy expensive BluRay movies for an already too expensive console. I'm not really sure how the PS3 furthers your argument. It's an example of exactly how pushing a technology like this through a console can be a bad idea. A lot of the things Sony did around the launch of the PS3 are considered by many to be failures, including the PR, price, and mandated additional technologies. Sound familiar? BluRay has come into it's own over time, but how much of that should you attribute to the PS3? And you're wrong about the mp3 player analogy on the last page. You said that people not only didn't know they wanted an mp3 player, they actively didn't want it. That's simply not true. If you had told someone in the 90's, who was into music, that you could sell them a product that could play any track from their extensive, hundreds of CD's collection, at will with a easily navigable menu, they would have jumped on it. No one in their right mind complained about mp3 players because they were newfangled technology, because there were tangible, real benefits to adopting that technology. Where are the tangible, real benefits to the mandatory Kinect? They avoided mentioning the thing at all at E3, when they should have been showing off how cool it was and how advanced the technology is. They tried to sweep it under the rug because it has been the target of bad publicity, but that just puts another arm's length between them and the people skeptical of the device. If it is so revolutionary and next-generation, where are the core games being designed with it in mind? Will Halo, Ryse, Titanfall, CoD, etc. be core Kinect gaming experiences? Probably not. Will it be kind of nifty for navigating your machine between media platforms? Probably. Is that worth $100 to the average consumer, on top of the price of a PS4, with less power and more restrictions? Probably not.
My point about the BR was that firstly that it was an unproven technology that the company was pushing for, with really no real examples of how it was better, only that it could be better. And at this point the differences between the 360 and PS3 aren't that significant (though still existent). The second point was a justification of the pricing scheme versus the PS3, and how it's the exact same reaction back then and now about the prices, but I think the PS3 sold pretty well regardless of its initial price. The same cannot be said about the XB1, but it is certainly possible.
Also, I remember writing in one of my posts I'm not sure how the BR stuff is relevant to what I'm talking about before. This discussion just grew from that.
I don't understand why it's a bad idea. Maybe from a marketing standpoint you're kicking out a good portion of gamers who would rather get the cheaper console, but from a technology standpoint, given that you've accumulated a sizable market share beforehand, pushing this not only advances the (Kinect/BR) technology forward, but also tremendously forward due to your large pre-existing userbase. Yes, a little devilish, but it is effective.
I am certain that the $500 price tag on the PS3 due to the BR forced a lot of manufacturers to start cutting prices to remain competitive - I'm pretty sure I read this somewhere as well. And that expedited the process of turning BR into something more inviting to the majority of people.
My hope with the BR/Kinect comparison is just like how we have BR players in both the XB1 and the PS4, the Kinect technology will be the same degree of necessary next generation.
Because honestly, I keep bringing these examples up. If you watch Iron Man, Stark only communicates with his technology with hand gestures and voice. If you watched Gamer, you saw the kid playing with only his body. Yes, it looks silly now, and seems like a gimmick, but pardon me if I'm more excited about having stuff like that within like, 5 years. And Microsoft is the only one of the two consoles that seems like it's trying to head in that direction, and honestly a lot of it seems to be very doable soon.
The points about the lack of demoes are still valid - but I pointed out a Youtube video from the Ryse dev showing how they were using Smartglass and Kinect. It's one video, and it's a shame Microsoft failed to highlight more how games will benefit or use it. I can't explain that, except that even though it's not that prevalent now, it mostly will be after several years of development and learning what works and what doesn't.
About the mp3 player thing, my idea wasn't that the active population was shunning it. It was that people actually didn't care about it. As in, it wasn't a thing they were fighting against or for, except the major enthusiasts. It's getting a bit crazy, but you're talking about idk let's say 32mb mp3 players in 1998 with what, Windows 98? Where would they have gotten the CD ripping technology. Most people then would've honestly had no idea how to get their CDs into their mp3 players (hence Napster). There were tangible real benefits, but we're looking at it from the lens of 2013 when it's crystal clear who won. On the other hand back then, you just had CD players and they just worked. Just pop the CD in, no downloading.
If you want me to list tangible benefits of the Kinect, i'll try. Contextual menu navigation doesn't involve you having to work a sequence of commands on a controller to press menu buttons, Context specific commands can add more buttons to your controller - suppose leaning in shooters could actually be done a context sensitive lean of your body, and the game button remapped to another ability. As in the demo, this can also apply to multimanagement scenarios, if your controller does one thing, but you yell at the computer to do something else at the same time. So rather than you having to be 2x as fast to get the two things done, they can be done simultaneously. Let's see, supposing we're to get rid of controllers in the near future anyways (think Gamer movie), you're looking at infinitely more sensitive, accurate and realistic tracking than even a mouse and keyboard, let alone a controller. Like Wii except without the controller as well. And the plus side is arm gestures are much more intuitive than controller keys. What makes it necessary to be mandatory? No clue besides it just being important to their vision for the device.
@rezoacken, nope. I can't recall the exact stuff but I remember it being distinctly, yeah you dont need to use the stuff if you don't want to.
|
|
|
I don't.
There is no reason why their online systems had to be destroyed along the way. If it was doable, it still is. Obviously not the part about disc games being bound to your account of course (otherwise you'd get a game, install it and resell it) but everything that is digitally bought... no reason. If it was supposed to be great, prove it.
As for the cheaper games argument, its only fanboyism with absolutely no hints from microsoft nor publishers. Saying the lower price would take time to come I can't help but really wonder what people are talking about. "Steam had a high price before", yeah and it learned from it. The current steam way of business isn't some sort of second phase, they just learned it's better business. For what reason would we have to hope for Microsoft making some sale when they announced already it will be at 60$ when Steam already has paved the way for that kind of business ? And steam has competition.
I even read someone saying "you gotta feel some pain before it gets cheaper". How much can people justify and support their own screwing really ?
Yeah, so how are people supposed to feel guilty of making that thing disappeared again ? /facepalm.
|
not our fault.
the reporters who are trying to spin the argument to microsoft's side and now point the finger at the consumers are just doing it for views/shock factor hipsterswagyoloiknewitwouldbe bs.
|
On June 22 2013 18:43 rezoacken wrote:
I don't.
There is no reason why their online systems had to be destroyed along the way. If it was doable, it still is. Obviously not the part about disc games being bound to your account of course (otherwise you'd get a game, install it and resell it) but everything that is digitally bought... no reason. If it was supposed to be great, prove it.
As for the cheaper games argument, its only fanboyism with absolutely no hints from microsoft nor publishers. Saying the lower price would take time to come I can't help but really wonder what people are talking about. "Steam had a high price before", yeah and it learned from it. The current steam way of business isn't some sort of second phase, they just learned it's better business. For what reason would we have to hope for Microsoft making some sale when they announced already it will be at 60$ when Steam already has paved the way for that kind of business ? And steam has competition.
I even read someone saying "you gotta feel some pain before it gets cheaper". How much can people justify and support their own screwing really ?
Yeah, so how are people supposed to feel guilty of making that thing disappeared again ? /facepalm.
No, it's not doable, even if it's digitally bought. For example, if the sharing wasn't removed for digital games, you could download a single player game from the shared library, go offline and play it forever.
I don't see how your Steam-Microsoft-cheaper-games argument makes any sense. Neither company is involved in pricing, so I do not see why you're discussing them in relation to pricing. Publishers set prices, they set the price on Steam and on Xbox Live. AAA new releases on Xbox One are $60. AAA new releases on Steam are $60. People don't go to Steam for cheaper AAA new releases, it's everything else that's cheaper. According to this study, killing resale could lower video game prices by 33% and increase game maker's profit by 18%. Unfortunately, even before this flip-flop Microsoft didn't have the courage to kill used games. But Steam did.
Do you have a better suggestion on how we can move toward Steam-for-consoles? Apart from better PR (Microsoft was abysmal here, leaving only a few people, like me, to defend this), how should this transition have been implemented?
|
Here my thing with people saying xbone's ecosystem (in its original concept) wouldnt allow for more competitive pricing via online distribution.
You cant expect microsoft to say they will be lower at launch because you will hold it against them. People dont seem to have patience.
If people coule have waited, then you could maybe have a possible future 2 years after launch of the consoles could be lower. But we wont know now as of yet if this can be opened up again.
My argument for consoles going discless for the xbone is simple. You want to argue being unable to download 20 to 50gb on the console, I would think the expansion of that download ecosystem will extend to win8. I think that wouldnt be unbelievable in terms of what we can expect or could have expected.
But thats for later I guess.
Well, for american consumers complaining why digital sales are still priced the same with physical copies even at launch, cant you file a case for that similar to the ebook case? If the argument is against price fixing.
|
On June 22 2013 19:16 paralleluniverse wrote:According to this study, killing resale could lower video game prices by 33% and increase game maker's profit by 18%.
I'm assuming you actually read the paper, right? That's one hell of a distortion of the conclusion that killing resale would hurt everyone involved unless publishers dropped prices by 1/3.
|
On June 22 2013 20:04 Lemstar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 19:16 paralleluniverse wrote:According to this study, killing resale could lower video game prices by 33% and increase game maker's profit by 18%. I'm assuming you actually read the paper, right? That's one hell of a distortion of the conclusion that killing resale would hurt everyone involved unless publishers dropped prices by 1/3.
Where have I distorted anything?
I did read it, and it agrees with what I've been arguing: that customers are currently willing to pay higher prices because they know they can recover part of that cost later by resale, and that killing resale would mean they are not willing to pay as high of a price. The conclusion of the study is that killing resale but leaving prices unchanged will reduce profits by 10%. Killing resale but lowering prices by 33% will increase profits by 18%, and this is the profit-maximizing price.
|
On June 22 2013 20:25 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 20:04 Lemstar wrote:On June 22 2013 19:16 paralverse wrote:According to this study, killing resale could lower video game prices by 33% and increase game maker's profit by 18%. I'm assuming you actually read the paper, right? That's one hell of a distortion of the conclusion that killing resale would hurt everyone involved unless publishers dropped prices by 1/3. Where have I distorted anything? I did read it, and it agrees with what I've been arguing: that customers are currently willing to pay higher prices because they know they can recover part of that cost later by resale, and that killing resale would mean they are not willing to pay as high of a price. The conclusion of the study is that killing resale but leaving prices unchanged will reduce profits by 10%. Killing resale but lowering prices by 33% will increase profits by 18%, and this is the profit-maximizing price.
It isn't a guarantee and companies would not want to take the risk of lowering initial pricing to $40 because of how hard they have worked to make $60 the norm. People can continue to fantisize all they want that this was the future MS was working towards, it wasn't. Even Steam generally starts with games at $60 but they add value to it by throwing in other games. BioShock Infinite being the best example lately.
If you or I are going to give up ownership I need some upfront guarantees about pricing. Not some hope and pray that it might happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
