- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Microsoft defends the Xbox One's Licensing, Used Game Policies - Great Interview
Posted on 6/12/13 at 2:48 pm to The Sad Banana
Posted on 6/12/13 at 2:48 pm to The Sad Banana
quote:This was my point earlier.
Sony has it too, they're just not making a big deal out of it. And while hard copies are still around, they're saying unlike our competitor, we will not restrict you.
0
Posted on 6/12/13 at 2:49 pm to The Sad Banana
quote:
And while hard copies are still around, they're saying unlike our competitor, we will not restrict you.
Which continues to hurt you as a consumer but whatever at least you can trade in games for $5 instead of just getting them cheaper up front. Pick your poison.
Posted on 6/12/13 at 2:50 pm to stout
quote:
Which continues to hurt you as a consumer but whatever at least you can trade in games for $5 instead of just getting them cheaper up front. Pick your poison.
Thank you!
Posted on 6/12/13 at 2:51 pm to stout
quote:This hasn't been shown to be true as of yet since no one has stated that digital copies will be cheaper than physical copies.
just getting them cheaper up front.
Posted on 6/12/13 at 2:52 pm to oauron
quote:
don't know why y'all are acting as if Sony isn't offering digital downloads.
This is surprising to me as well. Sony has been doing day one digital versions for years now.
I said this back on like page 3.., Haven't been here in awhile but I think the argument is they should force us to download digitally because it is better for us in the long run.
Posted on 6/12/13 at 2:52 pm to Scruffy
I have said 100 times that as long as the trade in market takes sales away from the new games market there is no way they can lower their price on any distribution front.
Not sure what's hard to understand about that. Trade ins are almost a billion dollar industry by themselves of which the publisher get nothing off of.
Not sure what's hard to understand about that. Trade ins are almost a billion dollar industry by themselves of which the publisher get nothing off of.
Posted on 6/12/13 at 2:54 pm to stout
quote:Counterpoint: what if I don't buy a game full price and want to get it at a discounted rate, say for $35 a few months after release? While that game will sit on a shelf in its plastic wrapper for $59.99, I can get it with a yellow sticker from GameStop or Amazon or wherever for $25 cheaper.
Which continues to hurt you as a consumer but whatever at least you can trade in games for $5 instead of just getting them cheaper up front. Pick your poison.
You are assuming that development costs of a game will decrease. That is a fair assumption, but by how much and at what magnitude? Are digital games going to be $30 instead of $60? Are development costs in the IP going to be cut down that much because they don't have to manufacture stickers, boxes, art, manuals (lol), etc.? I don't think so. It's still going to take DICE 2+ years to develop a quality Battlefield product regardless of if they have to print it or not.
Not to mention that lower prices on video games are not going to come from or be catalyzed by developers. I don't see that happening.
This post was edited on 6/12/13 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 6/12/13 at 2:56 pm to The Sad Banana
quote:
You are assuming that development costs of a game will decrease. That is a fair assumption, but by how much and at what magnitude? Or digital games going to be $30 instead of $60?
Well there are many things that can and probably would be taking into account here. especially if you go to just download you are taking out cost of disc cost to hold inventory cost to ship inventory middle men holding inventory to see. the list can go on. now the companies would then begin to pocket some of those costs but some would also be relayed to the consumer
Posted on 6/12/13 at 2:58 pm to stout
quote:And as I have said 100 times, if they would incentivize the purchasing of digital copies by selling them at a reduced price compared to physical copies, the used game market would dry up due to the inability to resell digital copies, thus resulting in more money being allocated to the developers.
I have said 100 times that as long as the trade in market takes sales away from the new games market there is no way they can lower their price on any distribution front.
Not sure what's hard to understand about that. Trade ins are almost a billion dollar industry by themselves of which the publisher get nothing off of.
This post was edited on 6/12/13 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 6/12/13 at 3:02 pm to Scruffy
quote:
And as I have said 100 times, if they would incentivize the purchasing of digital copies by selling them at a reduced price compared to physical copies, the used game market would dry up due to the inability to resell digital copies, thus resulting in more money being allocated to the developers.
Good point. Why can't they start the movement and be pro-consumer?
Posted on 6/12/13 at 3:04 pm to The Sad Banana
The very large Triple AAA titles like BF4 will continue to have skyrocketing budgets and in turn will make them continue to seek other revenue streams like more DLC. They will also sell millions of copies.
They could maybe make money off of that game quicker if they weren't competing with their own game that they make no money off of AKA trade ins.
I think it's an unfair argument to use that large of a game to justify physical copies of other games not adjusting with the market though. As I have said over and over Gamestop, WalMart, Amazon, etc all have a vested interest in keeping prices high on new games so they make more off of the trade ins they purchase. It's bordering onto a form of collusion IMO.
This keeps games prices high well past their demand. Plenty of 1 and 2 year old games are still full price in WalMart and Gamestop.
Just saying that as it stands now consoles do not have a truly free market that adjust to demand because new sales have almost become secondary profit points for the Gamestops of the world.
They could maybe make money off of that game quicker if they weren't competing with their own game that they make no money off of AKA trade ins.
I think it's an unfair argument to use that large of a game to justify physical copies of other games not adjusting with the market though. As I have said over and over Gamestop, WalMart, Amazon, etc all have a vested interest in keeping prices high on new games so they make more off of the trade ins they purchase. It's bordering onto a form of collusion IMO.
This keeps games prices high well past their demand. Plenty of 1 and 2 year old games are still full price in WalMart and Gamestop.
Just saying that as it stands now consoles do not have a truly free market that adjust to demand because new sales have almost become secondary profit points for the Gamestops of the world.
This post was edited on 6/12/13 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 6/12/13 at 3:06 pm to Scruffy
quote:
And as I have said 100 times, if they would incentivize the purchasing of digital copies by selling them at a reduced price compared to physical copies, the used game market would dry up due to the inability to resell digital copies, thus resulting in more money being allocated to the developers.
And I have said that it's obvious publishers won't budge and neither will consumers. MS sees this and is hoping to be the ones to force the market shift. Sony not joining in is a little dissapointing to me as it will allow the used game market to hang around longer and continue to keep game prices inflated well past their demand.
Posted on 6/12/13 at 3:09 pm to stout
quote:
Which continues to hurt you as a consumer but whatever at least you can trade in games for $5 instead of just getting them cheaper up front. Pick your poison.
I get anywhere from $20-$30 on newer games that I trade in and sometimes more with bonuses through gamestop if I pre-order.
IMO there is no way we see that equivalent drop in price up front, especially with the one single outlet (marketplace or PSN) to purchase the games.
Posted on 6/12/13 at 3:10 pm to stout
quote:But the used copies of those games are not full price. In fact, many times the used copies are slashed to less than half the original retail price.
This keeps games prices high well past their demand. Plenty of 1 and 2 year old games are still full price in WalMart and Gamestop.
Pit that against digital downloads, which we do not know how pricing and costs will work out. I'll give you that, it's a two-sided coin. It could be positive for consumers or negative for consumers.
I don't have to buy a game at Walmart or Gamestop at full price if I don't want to. In fact, if I really want to avoid paying full price or even Gamestop prices, I can go on Craigslist or ebay or half.com and pay even less. All of that goes away.
I'm not anti progression in this. I'm really just trying to go point/counterpoint and think it out here.
Posted on 6/12/13 at 3:10 pm to stout
quote:Consumers have no incentive to budge, at least a large majority don't understand the issue enough to see a reason.
And I have said that it's obvious publishers won't budge and neither will consumers.
Wouldn't it be in the publisher's best interest to do exactly as I stated in the previous post? Hell, I'm sure they've thought about it.
Posted on 6/12/13 at 3:11 pm to The Sad Banana
quote:
But the used copies of those games are not full price. In fact, many times the used copies are slashed to less than half the original retail price.
You are making my point here. It makes the used copy look more appealing to someone if the new copies are still full price a year later.
Posted on 6/12/13 at 3:12 pm to stout
Devs should just go for it. They hold the power.
Posted on 6/12/13 at 3:14 pm to Blitzed
quote:Exactly.
Devs should just go for it. They hold the power.
People keep saying that the consumers are expected to change, but the shift to digital is in the developers' best interest. Consider the fact that BF4 will sell millions of copies, physical and digital. If they sold the game for $5-10 less digitally, how many copies do you think would vanish from the used market?
They need to reach out to the consumers. Make it worth their while.
This post was edited on 6/12/13 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 6/12/13 at 3:14 pm to Scruffy
I just don't understand the trust in Microsoft. Even if they were to succeed in removing the used game market... Why do you assume they will slash prices? Why wouldn't they just take in more money for them and the publishers/developers. Did I miss this reasoning? Because it is nothing like Steam.
This post was edited on 6/12/13 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 6/12/13 at 3:15 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Wouldn't it be in the publisher's best interest to do exactly as I stated in the previous post? Hell, I'm sure they've thought about it.
I am sure they have as well but as it stands now they would be in a lose lose situation IMO.
They would lose money slashing prices with no promise that it would effectively kill the used game market so they lose money coming and going.
Not many publishers could afford that sort of bleeding for very long when you consider that as stated earlier the used game market is approaching being in the billions.
Page 12 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News