- 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 Reveals The Price of Xbox One Games: $59.99
Posted on 6/17/13 at 3:36 pm to stout
Posted on 6/17/13 at 3:36 pm to stout
quote:
I will take Cliffy Bs comments with less of a grain of salt. He has been in the industry since he was 14 or 16 and actually develops for the platforms in questions. Not to mention he is one of the most successful devs out there and was very instrumental in building one of the most used game engines in the industry.
He is very successful and he is very good at what he does, but he's also one of MS' biggest devs. His financial well-being is tied to MS. It also isn't the first time he's gone on dumb rants.
quote:
The Nintendo article is delusional for the fact they aren't really competing against other platforms and haven't been since Sega died and even that was a one man race. They have always concentrated on a niche market and it works for them
That niche market that is bigger than the markets of MS and Sony? While Nintendo isn't after the casual Call of Duty, FIFA, and Madden player, they definitely target gamers with their efforts.
quote:
Due to this the development cost is also always going to be cheaper because you aren't playing a Wii or Wii U for bleeding edge graphics. Not that their hardware could support it anyway.
Having worse graphics doesn't equate to lower development costs. PS1 FF games and Shenmue all cost more than 99% of current gen games. With everyone wanting to push the graphical boundaries, it leads to larger dev teams which drives up the cost, but you find that certain companies can allocate cost better and achieve profitability without blaming their customers.
2
Posted on 6/17/13 at 3:37 pm to stout
Let's just PLAY ALONG for a bit and say that I had my heart and mind set on getting a brand new game. Nothing was going to deter me. I get to gamestop and none are on the shelf. BUT they just got 3 copies of the game that I wanted traded in and available to buy used. Do I stick to my guns and pass?
Posted on 6/17/13 at 3:39 pm to oauron
I'll be the dumb answer and say that Nintendo games (mario, zelda, donkey kong...) don't get traded in because what else are you going to play on that platform? I'd keep them to justify even owning it.
Posted on 6/17/13 at 3:42 pm to BTHog
quote:
The people who buy NCAAFB14 in a few weeks are going to do so regardless of cost, they aren't going to go down to GS and see the 13 version for $30 and grab it instead. You know that's true.
Of course you will have people that will buy on release day for any game but there are plenty of people that will wait for a better price or for trade ins of that game to be in stock and buy it then.
There are also people that are buying the '13 version only because it is cheaper. They don't care about the newer version but if the newer version was $30-$40 because there was no such thing as a used version then that person would just buy the new one and the publishers get that sale instead of losing it to the used games market.
Posted on 6/17/13 at 3:44 pm to sicboy
quote:
I'll be the dumb answer and say that Nintendo games (mario, zelda, donkey kong...) don't get traded in because what else are you going to play on that platform? I'd keep them to justify even owning it.
Outside of Zelda, those games have super high replayability and local multiplayer. While I'm sure some exist by just keeping them, but they believe that customers keep their games because they're still playing them. I know Wii Sports has pretty much infinite replayability.
Most FPS titles are the same way actually. Bought and played for months until the new version comes out.
Posted on 6/17/13 at 3:50 pm to stout
quote:
The used games market is a billion dollar industry JUST for Gamestop. You add in the other retailers that handle trade ins and it's even bigger.
You would be asking publishers to not only make less when they do sell a new game but also to continue to have to compete against their own games on the used market that they make zero off of.
How many do you think could bleed for that long? Not very many.
Do you want even more DLC and for some of it to become mandatory or even pay to win? Then go ahead and ask publishers to give you games as cheap as they do on Steam and keep the used game market around.
Still not seeing why they can't coexist. Big title pc releases are still full price at release on steam and at retail. Sometimes you can find cd keys for slightly less, but you can also find console games for slightly less too.
It's not like Steam is the top choice when it comes to new games anyway. It's the sales that people love. And I see no reason why live and ps+ can't have those same amazing sales. Used games shouldn't be an issue on that front because it's a long time before you start to see big price differences between a used game and a new version.
Posted on 6/17/13 at 3:50 pm to oauron
quote:
but he's also one of MS' biggest devs. His financial well-being is tied to MS. It also isn't the first time he's gone on dumb rants.
You do now he is retired now and is financial well being depends on no one. He was a millionaire before Gears actually and the Unreal engine has made him more money than Gears has. It's a multi platform engine.
quote:
That niche market that is bigger than the markets of MS and Sony?
I like how you always point out that the Wii sold more software and hardware than any console in history and now you are going to say their niche market is smaller than Xbox and Sony. LOL
quote:
Having worse graphics doesn't equate to lower development costs. PS1 FF games and Shenmue all cost more than 99% of current gen games
Technology has gotten cheaper. Remember when only the largest budgeted movies could afford CGI? Now you see it on commercials and reality TV.
There are other things than just graphics that games have to deal with. Good voice acting has become a huge command and cost as well. The cost owes a lot of thanks to SAG.
quote:
Having worse graphics doesn't equate to lower development costs. PS1 FF games and Shenmue all cost more than 99% of current gen games. With everyone wanting to push the graphical boundaries, it leads to larger dev teams which drives up the cost,
LOL you've moved on from contradicting me to contradicting your own self.
quote:
but you find that certain companies can allocate cost better and achieve profitability without blaming their customers.
There will always be exceptions to any rule.
Posted on 6/17/13 at 3:52 pm to oauron
quote:
While I'm sure some exist by just keeping them, but they believe that customers keep their games because they're still playing them. I know Wii Sports has pretty much infinite replayability.
I know people still play Wii Sports, but it's a game that you pull out when you have the family over or you need the kids to shut up. The word has been beaten in to the ground, I know, but it's niche. And besides, I hope Reggie isn't delusional enough to believe that a Mario game is a better product than Last of Us or any Halo game because it's trade in rate is lower.
Posted on 6/17/13 at 3:54 pm to sicboy
quote:
I hope Reggie isn't delusional enough to believe that a Mario game is a better product than Last of Us or any Halo game because it's trade in rate is lower.
Posted on 6/17/13 at 3:54 pm to ZTiger87
quote:
Big title pc releases are still full price at release on steam and at retail.
No they aren't. I have yet to pay full price for a release day game on Steam. The only games that are the same are things like CoD of BF3/4 that have huge demands and fanbases.
quote:
Sometimes you can find cd keys for slightly less, but you can also find console games for slightly less too.
The chances of finding the PC version for less is much greater. No one can argue this.
That's not to mention the ease of doing so.
quote:
Used games shouldn't be an issue on that front because it's a long time before you start to see big price differences between a used game and a new version.
I have expounded on the reasons why multiple times now. I don't feel like going over it for the 15th time. I will just say the used games market does a good job of keeping the new games market artificially inflated.
This post was edited on 6/17/13 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 6/17/13 at 3:58 pm to stout
quote:
I like how you always point out that the Wii sold more software and hardware than any console in history and now you are going to say their niche market is smaller than Xbox and Sony. LOL
I said the opposite. I don't think Nintendo has a niche market. They're mainstream. I also said that their market is bigger than MS and Sony. Not sure where that got misread.
quote:
LOL you've moved on from contradicting me to contradicting your own self.
I did not. I'm just saying that better graphics don't always equate super high cost. High budgets for big titles existed before this generation. Those projects had major advertising and very large teams. Only point I was making that I think that publishers need to look internally to manage costs and set reasonable expectations so that they can control their budgets.
I really hope you don't think that companies who keep costs low while still putting out great projects should be looked at as exceptions to the rule. I look at them as efficient developers that other devs should try and mirror.
Posted on 6/17/13 at 3:59 pm to sicboy
quote:
And besides, I hope Reggie isn't delusional enough to believe that a Mario game is a better product than Last of Us or any Halo game because it's trade in rate is lower.
I would think that there are several would take issue with your statement. Especially considering Super Mario Galaxy reviewed better than every Halo games and Last of Us. So yes, I bet he does believe some Mario titles can stack up against MS and Sony's big hitters.
This post was edited on 6/17/13 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 6/17/13 at 4:03 pm to oauron
I don't care what you say about reviews, those games are just not comparable. It's like comparing Monster's Inc. and Memento, two of my all time favorite movies. I bet a lot more people saw Monster's Inc., but that doesn't say anything about the quality of Memento.
Posted on 6/17/13 at 4:08 pm to oauron
quote:
They're mainstream.
LOL...no. No matter how much you want them to be they aren't mainstream. A large majority of people bought the Wii solely for the niche factor of it. People that don't normally buy a console bought it just for the niche.
quote:
I really hope you don't think that companies who keep costs low while still putting out great projects should be looked at as exceptions to the rule. I look at them as efficient developers that other devs should try and mirror.
You can make a great game without a huge budget. Not doubting that but there are some games that are just going to require larger budgets unless you want certain innovations in the industry and large scale games to stop growing.
This post was edited on 6/17/13 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 6/17/13 at 4:12 pm to sicboy
quote:
I don't care what you say about reviews, those games are just not comparable. It's like comparing Monster's Inc. and Memento, two of my all time favorite movies. I bet a lot more people saw Monster's Inc., but that doesn't say anything about the quality of Memento.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think a game has be gritty and rated 'M' to be truly great. Just because it's has a E rating on it doesn't mean that it's a childish game (I'd be surprised that any kid could beat the game. It's pretty tough
). I wouldn't really compare the games, not because of a gap in quality or experience, but because they're entirely different games. Last of Us is super story driven, Halo is about competitive multiplayer with a good campaign, and Galaxy is a near perfect 3d platformer.
Posted on 6/17/13 at 4:14 pm to sicboy
I agree with sic on this one.
Posted on 6/17/13 at 4:22 pm to stout
quote:
LOL...no. No matter how much you want them to be they aren't mainstream. A large majority of people bought the Wii solely for the niche factor of it. People that don't normally buy a console bought it just for the niche.
I think we're using different words and that's where the mixup is. When you say niche, I think this or this. I would call what I think you're saying as gimmicks (because I always equate niche as small, dedicated audience).
I do think that many bought the Wii because of gimmicks. Gimmicks typically don't appeal to niche audiences but to mainstream consumers. Nintendo did spefically call the Wii a part of their Blue Ocean strategy which targets non-traditional gamers and larger audiences. LINK
Posted on 6/17/13 at 4:32 pm to oauron
Also, Nintendo banks on it's old school fan base. People who didn't grow up with Zelda aren't going to get a Wii U for Zelda. People who buy it are going to keep it just because.
Posted on 6/17/13 at 4:51 pm to sicboy
quote:
Also, Nintendo banks on it's old school fan base.
Most definitely. That's their base and their foundation. I think my view is a bit different from others because nearly all of my peers grew up in SNES/N64, and they dont' consider Nintendo franchises childish.
This post was edited on 6/17/13 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 6/17/13 at 4:57 pm to oauron
quote:
I think my view is a bit different from others because nearly all of my peers grew up in SNES/N64, and they still play those games today.
I know how old you are. Really?
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News