|
On June 13 2013 10:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 08:19 semantics wrote:
NA and EU is where the money is at anyways for consoles, Nintendo completely dominates the handheld market but guess what there isn't much profit in it. Sony just hemorrhages money on the psp and even if they held more of the market it wouldn't be worth it. No reason to focus on Asia because outside of japan there isn't much money in asia for consoles and japan really is dominated by nintendo and sony. Uh...PSP sales are close to 80 million, which is about equal to the XBox360. Did you mean the Vita?
the PSP lost the handheld war horribly. DS sold 150 millions according to wikipedia. Not to mention all the games.
Considering how badly the 360 did in Asia I can understand the reason that microsoft not wanting to release the Xbone there just yet
|
Planning to get all 3 coming this year...playing games is a universal thing for me XD...
|
On June 13 2013 10:21 DODswe4 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 10:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2013 08:19 semantics wrote:
NA and EU is where the money is at anyways for consoles, Nintendo completely dominates the handheld market but guess what there isn't much profit in it. Sony just hemorrhages money on the psp and even if they held more of the market it wouldn't be worth it. No reason to focus on Asia because outside of japan there isn't much money in asia for consoles and japan really is dominated by nintendo and sony. Uh...PSP sales are close to 80 million, which is about equal to the XBox360. Did you mean the Vita? the PSP lost the handheld war horribly. DS sold 150 millions according to wikipedia. Not to mention all the games. Considering how badly the 360 did in Asia I can understand the reason that microsoft not wanting to release the Xbone there just yet
What does the "handheld war" have to do with anything? The PSP did not "hemorrhage money", and saying it wasn't worth it is a completely joke.
|
On June 13 2013 10:40 JtxRsix wrote:
Planning to get all 3 coming this year...playing games is a universal thing for me XD...
No, you must choose, only one can live.
|
On June 13 2013 03:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 12 2013 03:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On June 12 2013 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:
I agree.
Firstly, I think I'm fairly objective on this Microsoft vs Sony issue, as I don't own or plan to buy any of these consoles.
People should really get over the Xbox One online requirement (which isn't even always online). There are many benefits to requiring always online: So right off the bat you argue that xbone isnt always online, then you proceed to list benefits of always online. So basically, none of the following are relevant to the once/day connection issue. -Having one unified community (compare everyone playing SC2 using B.net with SC1 where some played via pirate servers, some played via LAN, some played via Hamachi, some played single player, some played on B,net, etc.). You cant have private servers on a console, everything is automatically unified for online play. -Achievements. Achievements can be done offline too. You dont need always on for them. -Being easily able to chat with other people, quicker updates. Always on isnt required for this, just having a connection possible allows this. -Access to game library anywhere with internet and automatically with synchronized saves. This is true, but you have to remember that wherever you go, you have to download the game. This could take anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours depending on your internet speed and the size of the game. Sony looks to be working around this by allowing you to play games early on (like Blizzard does with their games) -And in the future, some of the calculations needed for games or to render graphics can be shifted from the computer/console onto a supercomputer on the cloud. VERY few game related calculations are possible with cloud computing. Also, relying on the cloud is not good because the cloud can be overloaded. When you have 100 different games being programmed to use "the power of the cloud" and 20 million people utilizing "the power of the cloud" you WILL overload very quickly. Blizzard had to use 20k servers for WoW, and no rendering was done by them and very very few calculations. It was mostly just location data and character data. Think of it this way. MS claims to be using 300k servers for their cloud. This means 300k calculations can be done at any one time. What if you have 20 million people that need a calculation? If it takes a quarter of a second for a render calculation before it goes on to the next that is some 10 and 2/3 seconds delay before it reaches the 20 millionth person. Obviously I don't know the specifics of their setup, but this is a possibility and why it wont be relied upon for pretty much anything graphical. -More data about play patterns helps developers design games (many changes in WoW are based on data, e.g. when to nerf raid bosses can sometimes depend on success rates). This is true, but it shouldn't be necessary for a console game. Player raids are a different beast than anything I have seen on a console so far. After what happened today, Microsoft is screwed because Sony has jumped on the outraged gamers bandwagon. Indeed, Sony's used game policy seems completely based on the Microsoft backlash. Before this press conference, they said it was up to developers (basically the same as Xbox One). Now they're suddenly fully embracing used games. But the problem is Sony is wrong and Microsoft is right. Like PC or Steam, restricting used games and requiring online is a good thing, not a bad thing. In fact, restricting resale will lower costs for developers or increase revenues, and this I think should lead to lower prices due to competition. I don't think the monopoly excuse works, because Microsoft doesn't set the price, developers do. And no developer has a monopoly. Developers will have to compete with each other. I thought they said it was up to developers for requiring internet connection to play, not used games. Sony made a big deal of embracing "disc based games". That term was used over and over in their conference. It was epitomized in their hilarious used game demonstration video. But that's the problem. Disc's are last decades technology. I don't think I've physically seen a disc in the last 3 years of my life--that's how obsolete discs are. Xbox One uses a centralized account where all games and saves are on the cloud, discs aren't required. Since Sony haven't announced that all games will be available digitally from release day, unlike Microsoft, Sony is stuck in the past with its use of discs. And it's all just to appeal to the misguided and wrongheaded outrage over Microsoft restricting used games. If you havent seen a disc, you havent played a console. Discs are still nice to have. If your internet is down you can still play games, they are quicker to install, if you have slow internet digital is a nightmare. Then they should announce always online will allow the use of cloud computing to produce better framerates and gameplay. Moreover, using the money they saved from these features, they should announce that games will sell for between $10 to $50 and prices will reduce as games get older, much cheaper than the usual and unchanging $60 which Sony will almost surely charge. Earlier you said that MS doesnt set the prices, but now you are saying that they both set the prices "I don't think the monopoly excuse works, because Microsoft doesn't set the price, developers do." Which is it? In short, Microsoft now has the ability to easily undercut Sony on game prices and the capacity to make better games and better graphics with the use of cloud computing. They should make this clear. They can make the claim, but people WILL demand examples. They can probably provide some when there arent millions of people using the live service, but that has to hold up when millions are using it. Microsoft doesn't set the prices, but Microsoft can set rules about what types of prices can be charged on their shop. Obviously making pricing rules usually introduces market inefficiencies. But they can also help with inertia and menu costs (i.e. developers may feel that there's a cost to changing prices). Given the major backlash against Microsoft, I think Microsoft can easily compete on game prices to win back customers, because the restriction on resale should allow developers to charge lower prices relative to what they would charge without these restrictions, i.e. on the PS4. I'm pretty sure cloud computing will play an important part in the future of games. I don't buy your complaint of overload. WoW doesn't overload. Well, it use to when it launched, but not for several years now. It's obviously critical for MMOs or persistent worlds. It can be used to simulate player actions for AIs. And it can be used to collect data about the game or the people playing the game to enable better game design. Microsoft understands this is important, they're buying 300K servers. Sony isn't. Microsoft's move with Xbox One is quite visionary (although not visionary enough for my liking). Sony, on the other hand, isn't moving forward. The PS4 is basically the PS3 with better graphics (the PS3 is basically PS2 with better graphics). MS doesnt set prices, and neither does Sony. This means developers are pushing for $60/pop. If MS implements a rule for devs and the devs go by it instead of abandoning the console, then why couldnt Sony follow suit? I dont buy any argument on cloud computing. I gave WoW as an example of cloud computing, but that is a single highly optimized game built specifically for their server architecture. And even still with 20k servers it keeps track of VERY little data and does not do calculations that enhance gameplay. With 20k servers it merely allows the game to exist. What 20k WoW servers do: Keeps track of player information (health/armor/damage etc) Does random rolls within a range (for dmg to/from mobs) for all rolls that are hits Tracks the location of a player and a monster and measures the distance between them if an ability is used So basically just a database of player information that is updated, random rolls, (x,y) coordinate and the distance formula. It takes 20k servers to do just that for 12 million people. If you add more complexity, it gets way harder. Adding in volumetric lighting and all the other lighting effects makes it WAAAAAAAAAAAAY more complex. Shadows, lighting and other very small details take an enormous amount of processing in comparison to locations and distances. Having all of that stuff also introduces priority issues and sorting issues. Say one game using the cloud and an MMO on the same cloud. Much of the stuff in the MMO needs to be fairly quick, so do you let the lighting calculations finish or do you interrupt them to let the MMO do its stuff? How do you shift the priority and handle that? What about if you are playing a singleplayer game that uses the cloud and your internet drops out for 15 seconds? Do you get disconnected? Do the graphics end up looking terrible? There are just so many insane variables involved that I dont see how you can boost the actual power of the xbone through cloud computing. It has uses, yes... but not for power or graphics.
The reason why Sony's game store would not be able to follow Microsoft's game store in reducing prices is because Sony doesn't restrict resale. As I previously said: "Like PC or Steam, restricting used games and requiring online is a good thing, not a bad thing. In fact, restricting resale will lower costs for developers or increase revenues, and this I think should lead to lower prices due to competition." So if you're a developer, then you might charge $60 on the PS4 because the game can be resold, but you may charge only $50 on the Xbox One for the same game, because it can't be resold. Like I said, Microsoft's "DRM" gives them the scope to have lower priced games compared to Sony.
As for rendering graphics on the cloud, that's one possibility. It wasn't my idea, the idea came from a guy at Microsoft in an interview. But I don't think it's the main benefit of cloud computing--that would be persistent worlds like a MMO and gathering data about players and their playstyles to improve game design. Cloud computing has a lot of potential in the future and Sony is behind the times.
|
On June 13 2013 10:59 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 03:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:On June 12 2013 21:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 12 2013 03:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:On June 12 2013 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:
I agree.
Firstly, I think I'm fairly objective on this Microsoft vs Sony issue, as I don't own or plan to buy any of these consoles.
People should really get over the Xbox One online requirement (which isn't even always online). There are many benefits to requiring always online: So right off the bat you argue that xbone isnt always online, then you proceed to list benefits of always online. So basically, none of the following are relevant to the once/day connection issue. -Having one unified community (compare everyone playing SC2 using B.net with SC1 where some played via pirate servers, some played via LAN, some played via Hamachi, some played single player, some played on B,net, etc.). You cant have private servers on a console, everything is automatically unified for online play. -Achievements. Achievements can be done offline too. You dont need always on for them. -Being easily able to chat with other people, quicker updates. Always on isnt required for this, just having a connection possible allows this. -Access to game library anywhere with internet and automatically with synchronized saves. This is true, but you have to remember that wherever you go, you have to download the game. This could take anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours depending on your internet speed and the size of the game. Sony looks to be working around this by allowing you to play games early on (like Blizzard does with their games) -And in the future, some of the calculations needed for games or to render graphics can be shifted from the computer/console onto a supercomputer on the cloud. VERY few game related calculations are possible with cloud computing. Also, relying on the cloud is not good because the cloud can be overloaded. When you have 100 different games being programmed to use "the power of the cloud" and 20 million people utilizing "the power of the cloud" you WILL overload very quickly. Blizzard had to use 20k servers for WoW, and no rendering was done by them and very very few calculations. It was mostly just location data and character data. Think of it this way. MS claims to be using 300k servers for their cloud. This means 300k calculations can be done at any one time. What if you have 20 million people that need a calculation? If it takes a quarter of a second for a render calculation before it goes on to the next that is some 10 and 2/3 seconds delay before it reaches the 20 millionth person. Obviously I don't know the specifics of their setup, but this is a possibility and why it wont be relied upon for pretty much anything graphical. -More data about play patterns helps developers design games (many changes in WoW are based on data, e.g. when to nerf raid bosses can sometimes depend on success rates). This is true, but it shouldn't be necessary for a console game. Player raids are a different beast than anything I have seen on a console so far. After what happened today, Microsoft is screwed because Sony has jumped on the outraged gamers bandwagon. Indeed, Sony's used game policy seems completely based on the Microsoft backlash. Before this press conference, they said it was up to developers (basically the same as Xbox One). Now they're suddenly fully embracing used games. But the problem is Sony is wrong and Microsoft is right. Like PC or Steam, restricting used games and requiring online is a good thing, not a bad thing. In fact, restricting resale will lower costs for developers or increase revenues, and this I think should lead to lower prices due to competition. I don't think the monopoly excuse works, because Microsoft doesn't set the price, developers do. And no developer has a monopoly. Developers will have to compete with each other. I thought they said it was up to developers for requiring internet connection to play, not used games. Sony made a big deal of embracing "disc based games". That term was used over and over in their conference. It was epitomized in their hilarious used game demonstration video. But that's the problem. Disc's are last decades technology. I don't think I've physically seen a disc in the last 3 years of my life--that's how obsolete discs are. Xbox One uses a centralized account where all games and saves are on the cloud, discs aren't required. Since Sony haven't announced that all games will be available digitally from release day, unlike Microsoft, Sony is stuck in the past with its use of discs. And it's all just to appeal to the misguided and wrongheaded outrage over Microsoft restricting used games. If you havent seen a disc, you havent played a console. Discs are still nice to have. If your internet is down you can still play games, they are quicker to install, if you have slow internet digital is a nightmare. Then they should announce always online will allow the use of cloud computing to produce better framerates and gameplay. Moreover, using the money they saved from these features, they should announce that games will sell for between $10 to $50 and prices will reduce as games get older, much cheaper than the usual and unchanging $60 which Sony will almost surely charge. Earlier you said that MS doesnt set the prices, but now you are saying that they both set the prices "I don't think the monopoly excuse works, because Microsoft doesn't set the price, developers do." Which is it? In short, Microsoft now has the ability to easily undercut Sony on game prices and the capacity to make better games and better graphics with the use of cloud computing. They should make this clear. They can make the claim, but people WILL demand examples. They can probably provide some when there arent millions of people using the live service, but that has to hold up when millions are using it. Microsoft doesn't set the prices, but Microsoft can set rules about what types of prices can be charged on their shop. Obviously making pricing rules usually introduces market inefficiencies. But they can also help with inertia and menu costs (i.e. developers may feel that there's a cost to changing prices). Given the major backlash against Microsoft, I think Microsoft can easily compete on game prices to win back customers, because the restriction on resale should allow developers to charge lower prices relative to what they would charge without these restrictions, i.e. on the PS4. I'm pretty sure cloud computing will play an important part in the future of games. I don't buy your complaint of overload. WoW doesn't overload. Well, it use to when it launched, but not for several years now. It's obviously critical for MMOs or persistent worlds. It can be used to simulate player actions for AIs. And it can be used to collect data about the game or the people playing the game to enable better game design. Microsoft understands this is important, they're buying 300K servers. Sony isn't. Microsoft's move with Xbox One is quite visionary (although not visionary enough for my liking). Sony, on the other hand, isn't moving forward. The PS4 is basically the PS3 with better graphics (the PS3 is basically PS2 with better graphics). MS doesnt set prices, and neither does Sony. This means developers are pushing for $60/pop. If MS implements a rule for devs and the devs go by it instead of abandoning the console, then why couldnt Sony follow suit? I dont buy any argument on cloud computing. I gave WoW as an example of cloud computing, but that is a single highly optimized game built specifically for their server architecture. And even still with 20k servers it keeps track of VERY little data and does not do calculations that enhance gameplay. With 20k servers it merely allows the game to exist. What 20k WoW servers do: Keeps track of player information (health/armor/damage etc) Does random rolls within a range (for dmg to/from mobs) for all rolls that are hits Tracks the location of a player and a monster and measures the distance between them if an ability is used So basically just a database of player information that is updated, random rolls, (x,y) coordinate and the distance formula. It takes 20k servers to do just that for 12 million people. If you add more complexity, it gets way harder. Adding in volumetric lighting and all the other lighting effects makes it WAAAAAAAAAAAAY more complex. Shadows, lighting and other very small details take an enormous amount of processing in comparison to locations and distances. Having all of that stuff also introduces priority issues and sorting issues. Say one game using the cloud and an MMO on the same cloud. Much of the stuff in the MMO needs to be fairly quick, so do you let the lighting calculations finish or do you interrupt them to let the MMO do its stuff? How do you shift the priority and handle that? What about if you are playing a singleplayer game that uses the cloud and your internet drops out for 15 seconds? Do you get disconnected? Do the graphics end up looking terrible? There are just so many insane variables involved that I dont see how you can boost the actual power of the xbone through cloud computing. It has uses, yes... but not for power or graphics. The reason why Sony's game store would not be able to follow Microsoft's game store in reducing prices is because Sony doesn't restrict resale. As I previously said: "Like PC or Steam, restricting used games and requiring online is a good thing, not a bad thing. In fact, restricting resale will lower costs for developers or increase revenues, and this I think should lead to lower prices due to competition." So if you're a developer, then you might charge $60 on the PS4 because the game can be resold, but you may charge only $50 on the Xbox One for the same game, because it can't be resold. Like I said, Microsoft's "DRM" gives them the scope to have lower priced games compared to Sony.As for rendering graphics on the cloud, that's one possibility. It wasn't my idea, the idea came from a guy at Microsoft in an . But I don't think it's the main benefit of cloud computing--that would be persistent worlds like a MMO and gathering data about players and their playstyles to improve game design. Cloud computing has a lot of potential in the future and Sony is behind the times.
If you truely think not beeing able to resell is the main reason why PC games are cheaper you're kidding yourself. Not to mention pricer NEVER get lowered with less competetion they only get higher . Thats just how capitalism works.
And for your information Day 1 digital purchase in already possible on PS3 for pretty much every game and you can't sell those games like on Steam . This will most likely continue.
And that cloud computing stuff will likely be irrelevant for a number of years until global internet connection is fast enough that cloud computing doesn't mean lagging like crazy for the average costumer. Until then the Sony will probably go to that step as well with a system on their own.
Sony can do pretty much the same things MS but makes them optional and don't push them that hard because thats not what people are interested in currently . Most of the games don't need every one of the features anyway so why make them mandatory for everyone even if they likely won't really use those features ? That has nothing to do with pushing the future it's pushing stuff down their throat if they want it , need it , will use it or not.
|
Everyone knows why steam can sell games cheaper or at huge discounts... It's fucking digital copies; if you don't understand how not creating millions of plastic boxes at a manufacturing plant and as well as discs might give the possibility of lowering prices then I feel painfully sorry for how ignorant you are.
Used games do not factor into that and if they do it is negligible in comparison. This is why Civilization 5 just went on for 75% off; imagine if they tried selling the game in stores at that value? They'd make no profit due to the cost of shipping and making the fucking things.
People irritate me, I apologize I was so abrasive.
|
On June 13 2013 11:26 Hitch-22 wrote:
Everyone knows why steam can sell games cheaper or at huge discounts... It's fucking digital copies; if you don't understand how not creating millions of plastic boxes at a manufacturing plant and as well as discs might give the possibility of lowering prices then I feel painfully sorry for how ignorant you are.
Used games do not factor into that and if they do it is negligible in comparison. This is why Civilization 5 just went on for 75% off; imagine if they tried selling the game in stores at that value? They'd make no profit due to the cost of shipping and making the fucking things.
People irritate me, I apologize I was so abrasive.
No it's because there's a giant competition even if you need to activate the games on Steam after your purchase as well as digital copies . Without the competition there's no freaking way in hell Steam would discount the stuff THIS low this fast .
Hell like it or not even piracy is competition to Steam . Because most people that pirate are willing to pay for stuff just not the price thats charged at release.
Also even the old fashioned non-digital stuff gets dirt cheap super quickly . At the big retail stores ? But there's plenty of alternatives if you know where to look .
I can get a Brand new Civ 5 on Ebay ( not just Key ) for a very similar amount of money Steam just had it on sale for without any shipping cost.
|
no resell on games.... would people rather take lower prices or take the ability to resell games and get that money back that way. subtract the gas money to get to a store to resell it. are they in fact coming out even either way? too early to say..... back to you nevake.
|
On June 13 2013 11:31 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 11:26 Hitch-22 wrote:
Everyone knows why steam can sell games cheaper or at huge discounts... It's fucking digital copies; if you don't understand how not creating millions of plastic boxes at a manufacturing plant and as well as discs might give the possibility of lowering prices then I feel painfully sorry for how ignorant you are.
Used games do not factor into that and if they do it is negligible in comparison. This is why Civilization 5 just went on for 75% off; imagine if they tried selling the game in stores at that value? They'd make no profit due to the cost of shipping and making the fucking things.
People irritate me, I apologize I was so abrasive. No it's because there's a giant competition even if you need to activate the games on Steam after your purchase as well as digital copies . Without the competition there's no freaking way in hell Steam would discount the stuff THIS low this fast . Hell like it or not even piracy is competition to Steam . Because most people that pirate are willing to pay for stuff just not the price thats charged at release. Also even the old fashioned non-digital stuff gets dirt cheap super quickly . At the big retail stores ? But there's plenty of alternatives if you know where to look . I can get a Brand new Civ 5 on Ebay ( not just Key ) for a very similar amount of money Steam just had it on sale for without any shipping cost.
Other then the clusterfuck known as Origin (which doesn't even come close to cutting prices nor having the market steam has such that steam could raise prices quite a lot and still lead it's competitor) can you name this massive competition steam has?
Also you're telling me you can buy Civ 5, with a massive amount of bonus content found in early expansions without Brave New World, for 12$?
Link me.
|
On June 13 2013 11:54 Hitch-22 wrote:
Other then the clusterfuck known as Origin (which doesn't even come close to cutting prices nor having the market steam has such that steam could raise prices quite a lot and still lead it's competitor) can you name this massive competition steam has?
Amazon, GMG, GamersGate, GameFly, GetGamesGo, and GOG all regularly offer sale prices (often on Steam-activated games) that have been trumping Steam's for more than a year now.
|
On June 13 2013 10:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 10:21 DODswe4 wrote:On June 13 2013 10:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 13 2013 08:19 semantics wrote:
NA and EU is where the money is at anyways for consoles, Nintendo completely dominates the handheld market but guess what there isn't much profit in it. Sony just hemorrhages money on the psp and even if they held more of the market it wouldn't be worth it. No reason to focus on Asia because outside of japan there isn't much money in asia for consoles and japan really is dominated by nintendo and sony. Uh...PSP sales are close to 80 million, which is about equal to the XBox360. Did you mean the Vita? the PSP lost the handheld war horribly. DS sold 150 millions according to wikipedia. Not to mention all the games. Considering how badly the 360 did in Asia I can understand the reason that microsoft not wanting to release the Xbone there just yet What does the "handheld war" have to do with anything? The PSP did not "hemorrhage money", and saying it wasn't worth it is a completely joke.
Yeah, PSP was still a great device, with great games.
|
On June 13 2013 12:03 Lemstar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 11:54 Hitch-22 wrote:
Other then the clusterfuck known as Origin (which doesn't even come close to cutting prices nor having the market steam has such that steam could raise prices quite a lot and still lead it's competitor) can you name this massive competition steam has? Amazon, GMG, GamersGate, GameFly, GetGamesGo, and GOG all regularly offer sale prices (often on Steam-activated games) that have been trumping Steam's for more than a year now.
Yeah, most games I have activated on steam the last couple years I didn't actually BUY from steam.
|
On June 13 2013 12:03 Lemstar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 11:54 Hitch-22 wrote:
Other then the clusterfuck known as Origin (which doesn't even come close to cutting prices nor having the market steam has such that steam could raise prices quite a lot and still lead it's competitor) can you name this massive competition steam has? Amazon, GMG, GamersGate, GameFly, GetGamesGo, and GOG all regularly offer sale prices (often on Steam-activated games) that have been trumping Steam's for more than a year now.
You said it youself. "Often on STEAM ACTIVATED GAMES" which means what? Steam is still getting that money. Amazon and every other website you named has to buy the activation code from steam first. They're still getting the money. Doesn't matter where you buy it from, if you activate it on steam then steam is getting the money.
Amazon and things like that are pretty much online EB games for steam. Microsoft sends their games to EB games to sell to you. Steam is like a warehouse, you can buy direct or go to EB games (amazon for instance.)
|
You're all missing the point. The competition is not between distribution platforms, (e.g. Steam vs Amazon vs Sony store vs Microsoft store). The competition is between developers. Because developers set the prices. They set the price on Steam, on Amazon, on the Sony store, on the Microsoft store, they choose if and when games go on sale and by how much. The amount of distribution platforms should have virtually no effect, because the distributor doesn't set the price. Therefore, if every video game in the world is sold on Steam and nowhere else, that would not mean Steam would have a monopoly because Steam doesn't set prices and there would still be competition between developers. This is similar to how the NYSE doesn't have a monopoly on American shares, even though virtually all American shares are traded on the NYSE.
Used games absolutely do have an effect. If games can be resold then people will take into account that they can recoup costs by resale, so that they are willing to pay a higher price for the game than if resale isn't possible. Therefore, restricting resale means that people are less willing to pay that price, so that demand falls unless prices are reduced.
Also, when did Sony say that all games will be available digitally on release day (Microsoft have said this) and that digital games can't be resold?
|
On June 13 2013 12:15 Infernal_dream wrote:
You said it youself. "Often on STEAM ACTIVATED GAMES" which means what? Steam is still getting that money. Amazon and every other website you named has to buy the activation code from steam first. They're still getting the money. Doesn't matter where you buy it from, if you activate it on steam then steam is getting the money.
The point is that Steam still has price competition elsewhere - Hitch-22 seems convinced that the only reason Steam games are cheap is because they're digital-only.
|
I thought that console games are more expensive because consoles sell at a loss while PCs are full price.
|
On June 13 2013 12:35 Antisocialmunky wrote:
I thought that console games are more expensive because consoles sell at a loss while PCs are full price.
Could be a contributing factor.
|
I don't know if I've seen it but what about video game rentals? I know for grown adults it really doesn't matter as we don't rent games often but as a kid I remember loving when my parents let me rent a game. Will you not be able to rent games for the xbone? Many games that are single player focused honestly don't need to be bought. There's more than enough time in a week to beat the campaign.
|
On June 13 2013 12:23 Lemstar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 12:15 Infernal_dream wrote:
You said it youself. "Often on STEAM ACTIVATED GAMES" which means what? Steam is still getting that money. Amazon and every other website you named has to buy the activation code from steam first. They're still getting the money. Doesn't matter where you buy it from, if you activate it on steam then steam is getting the money. The point is that Steam still has price competition elsewhere - Hitch-22 seems convinced that the only reason Steam games are cheap is because they're digital-only.
Like paralleluniverse said just above, the point is that it doesn't really matter if they have price competition elsewhere, they're not the ones to set the prices on new games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
720
713
101
178
EPT
