Mister Jack Posted May 29, 2013 Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 (edited) I think it was Jon Blow who said that claim was full of shit because it was referring to virtual servers. Edited May 29, 2013 by Mister Jack 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7370-When-The-Starscreams-Kill-Used-Games I know we normally don't care for Jim Sterling but for once I agree with pretty much everything he's saying here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 I agree with most of it. I don't agree with people calling corporations "greedy" generally, since it implies an emotion that does not exist and I feel that people transfer the "greed" of the corporation onto the people who work for it. I am not greedy, I get paid well, I'm satisfied with that. If I could get paid more, I'd be happy with that too. The reason a corporation exists is to make money, you might as well call a bomb "violent". That out of the way. Yes. MS want to control the used game market because there is a lot of money in it (over one third of GameStop's revenue IIRC). If they can have that money instead of GameStop, they would very much like that. I don't think publishers paint retailers as evil. In fact, what MS are likely planning is a way to get a percentage of that 35% used game revenue, rather than take the whole thing. What really sucks is that you can't lend a game to someone any more. Or do a hand-me-down to a sibling or parent. That sort of stuff is not revenue generating so there's nothing for MS to gain by blocking it. It's just been caught in the cross fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 Here's Total Biscuit's rebuttal. The biggest flaw in his argument is the danger that MS or Sony, were they to do away with the used market, would try to retain the monopoly on digital retail of their respective console's games. They would likely not lower prices as quickly or steadily as PC game digital retailers because there's no real competition. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 I agree with most of it. I don't agree with people calling corporations "greedy" generally, since it implies an emotion that does not exist and I feel that people transfer the "greed" of the corporation onto the people who work for it. I am not greedy, I get paid well, I'm satisfied with that. If I could get paid more, I'd be happy with that too. The reason a corporation exists is to make money, you might as well call a bomb "violent". To be fair, when folks complain that corporations are greedy, they usually mean that corporations are sociopathic; they seek profit in the near-term no matter the negative effects on other people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 True enough. A much better word to describe them. A lack of conscience is fair enough given that the company is not a "person" in the emotional sense. Also total biscuit makes a lot of sense. The only thing I disagree with is that if MS get rid of used sales they will not turn into Steam, TB seems to overlook the monopoly issue even though he actually references that the reason PC Digital is cheap is because of all the competition. If Xbox land a monopoly (no used games, all sales digital through their platform), then they have no reason to cut prices. From a business sense, they'd be absolutely insane to drop from the $60 price point unless competition from PS4 or PC mandated it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 There would still be pressure to drop prices as time goes by in order to capture more of the market. I just do not think MS or Sony would be as willing to drop prices to do so because they don't want consumers to expect games to cost under $20, even years after release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 Or do a hand-me-down to a sibling or parent. That sort of stuff is not revenue generating so there's nothing for MS to gain by blocking it. It's just been caught in the cross fire. Yeah, in all the hubbub about used games being blocked I hadn't even realized this aspect until a couple of days ago. A parent won't be able to buy one copy of a game so their three kids can all play it. That's ridiculous. Of course, it's possible the game registration will work the same way downloads currently work on 360: When you download content (game, DLC, whatever) it is registered to the account that bought it, but it's also registered to the specific 360 you downloaded it on. The registered account can play it on any 360, and any account can play it on the registered 360. That would lessen the impact of the sibling situation considerably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 Doesn't help me. I've got a sister and a dad who play games. My sister is and hour north, my dad an hour south. Before that all three of us were in the same house with a PS3 each. Also, I don't really like the idea of logging my account in to my friend's console. One of my sisters gave her PSP to my other sister who ended up accidentally buying a couple of games on the wrong account. Nothing extreme, just a couple of minis here and there. Still, it makes me anxious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 I've logged in with my Live account on friends' 360's, and I'm just always careful to make sure to have it require a password for future logins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 I really feel like used games are made out to be a bigger problem than they really are. I used to work at a gamestop a long time ago, and I can tell you that although we did encourage used, the vast majority of games we sold were new, barring the old games that weren't being made anymore. Have you ever tried to find a used copy of a popular new game in the first week it came out? It can be harder than it sounds. Not everyone plays a new game, especially a multiplayer one, and then immediately brings it back. The only time I would usually see this would be if the game sucked. We got the odd copy here and there, maybe two or three at most, but they wouldn't last long and then everyone was right back to buying the new ones. The way the system works is a bit like how new movies work in the theater. The actual theater gets almost nothing out of the ticket sale for the first week or two after the movie comes out. That's why popcorn costs so damn much. This used game "problem" started for the same reason. They simply couldn't survive with the tiny margins they were getting from new sales, and used sales kept them afloat. I'm not saying used games don't take a bite out of a game's total profits, I'm just saying I don't feel like they take enough that their absence would have saved any of those studios who got shut down or any of those poor bastards who got laid off. There are bigger reasons than used games for why studios fail. Bad marketing, wasteful spending, or the game just plain sucks. If you can't sell enough copies of your game in the first couple of weeks to be a success, then it was probably never going to be a success. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 I'd love to know how much shops really get from new game sales as all the articles I read usually say it is a lot more than a pound or two - it's the reason they sell you the games with a console as the hardware has little profit. If you bought a game in the run-up to Christmas and it cost £39.99 to buy, approximately £7 (17.5 per cent) went on VAT (that figure increased to 20 per cent as of 4th January), while £10.50 (27 per cent) went to the shop and £12 (30 per cent) to the publisher. admittedly that is a bit old, and second hand will give more profit but it is also not the tiny amount that is often made out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baconrath Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 I'm not saying used games don't take a bite out of a game's total profits, I'm just saying I don't feel like they take enough that their absence would have saved any of those studios who got shut down or any of those poor bastards who got laid off. There are bigger reasons than used games for why studios fail. Bad marketing, wasteful spending, or the game just plain sucks. If you can't sell enough copies of your game in the first couple of weeks to be a success, then it was probably never going to be a success. I want to live in their world that is free of development risks. It sounds like a very nice place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/15191/article/microsoft-cancels-e3-post-press-conference-roundtable-with-media/ http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=576869 It's like watching a train derail, then catch on fire, then explode. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 It's like watching a train derail, then catch on fire, then explode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Seriously, though, E3 was supposed to be when they cleared all this shit up, and now they're refusing to take questions after their presentation? There is no way that can be a good thing. For me it holds two possible explanations: 1) All this horrible shit really is true and they just don't want to hurt themselves any further by reiterating it. 2) They have no idea what they're going to do anymore. The console comes out THIS YEAR and they still haven't figured out how it will work yet. Considering that Sony has really gotten on the ball over the last year or so with Playstation and how they seem to be making up for all of the PS3's fumbles with the PS4, Microsoft really aren't doing themselves any favors here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 I think it's number 2. All signs point to this launch being extremely rushed so they just don't have it all together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Aye, I was watching a video earlier today on Wired showing off the TV stuff and she mentioned they've being working on the software that runs the thing for only 7 months. Which means when PS4 had been announced it was only like 4 months old. From what I've gathered around the web the Xbone is the least mature of the consoles, not rushed, they're not wanting a repeat of RROD and all that, but not mature. Not fleshed out in exactly what they're wanting it to be, hence the fucked up PR. Sony had a rather clear message with their reveal and I don't think anyone struggled with comprehending what Sony was trying to do. But MS jsut confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Do you count not having your marketing/PR together in regards to it feeling rushed? When you're launching a console you're doing a lot of things at once so I definitely think that marketing is part of it. Also, wasn't there a report of it having to be underclocked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yeah, there are rumors to that effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yeah, to increase yields (part of the reason the PS3 only came with 7 SPUs instead of the 8 the Cell BE had on it). Of course it doesn't matter too much if they've only spent 7 months working on the Xbone OS, they'll replace it in a year or so anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 On the one hand, I am glad that my choice to buy a PS4 is being made so easy. On the other I hope that MS can pull this together as a) I don't want a Sony monopoly and b) EA are betting fairly heavily on Xbone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Is there any information you're at liberty to tell us about how EA is betting on Xbone? I know at the conference they said they have a special partnership, but then they just showed a bunch of games that will be on PS4 too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Stuff like this. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/news/a483467/xbox-one-fifa-14-ultimate-team-exclusive-content-announced.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 All I know is there's a reason EA happily announced no more online passes, and it wasn't a good will move as two golden turds don't lie. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.