re: Used games dying and adapting to change

quote:

---

Again, they don't NEED this product. They could survive without it.

---

It's called disposable income. It's going to be an enthusiast that fit this mostly but again I think if those people thought about and took a step back to realize the potential of losing more devs and publishers going forward they would support the shift and bear through the inital cost of doing so.

I can't speak for everyone but I would be OK with it if in the end it meant a true open market unlike we have now.

quote:

---

They are going to dictate the market

---

I will tell you why I disagree with this to an extent. Xbox will not exist without mutli plat titles. No way it makes it on arcade and exclusives alone obviously. A publisher controls who they allow to retail their games both physical and digital so in thoery they could distribute game keys to anyone they want and that retailer could decide what profit point it is comfortable with. You could very well have the same competitive market PC has.

The only reason I say in theory is because they would still need MS to allow that key to be redeemable on Live but at the same point a publisher large enough like Activision, Ubisfot, and EA could force their hand into allowing this. This is also going by the fact that MS still makes it's money off of game licensing and more games sold no matter the means = more money for them as well.

Xbox has done a good job recently with having sales on old games on demand.

quote:

---

It's called disposable income. It's going to be an enthusiast that fit this mostly

---

The thing is, video games are no longer just for the "enthusiast". The market has expanded greatly.

quote:

---

I think if those people thought about and took a step back to realize the potential of losing more devs and publishers going forward they would support the shift and bear through the inital cost of doing so.

---

I don't disagree with the idea. I actually support it, but you are asking people to look beyond their wallets and accept higher prices so that these companies, which often make millions of dollars, can continue making millions of dollars.

Is it in the consumer's best interest? Probably, but it is also in the producer's best interest for them to see that it is in their best interest, and they have done a very poor job of that up to this point. They always state the reason from their point of view, but why should a normal individual care that a multi-million dollar corporation makes less money? They are still making more than them.

I am telling you, if the developers released digital copies for only $10 less, the response would be enormous. They need to appease to the consumer and there is no better way to do that than to sell them your product for less than the competitor.

The first game they do this with may lose some money, but the reduction in physical copy production would offset that once it is priced out of the market.

quote:

---

Same thing with cars, movies, CDs, instruments...

---

Movies have theater to make the majority of their money, the recording industry is too stupid for their own good but they sill have concerts and merchandise sales to profit from, etc.

A dev really only has the hope you buy the DLC once you buy their used game. Without that all you have done is put more money into the pockets of Gamestop and in the end maybe even killed a sequel to a game you liked.

quote:

---

I think the major problem here is market structure. The console market is a duopoly

---

But it's not. Nintendo is still a major player. Not for the gaming board's dollars, but still were the biggest seller of hardware and software last generation.

quote:

---

but you are asking people to look beyond their wallets and accept higher prices so that these companies, which often make millions of dollars, can continue making millions of dollars.

---

I think that's the short sighted way to look at it actually. In the end you as a consumer would be better off but you are corrcet that it would be hard to get everyone to see it that way. All people care about is the here and now.

quote:

---

I am telling you, if the developers released digital copies for only $10 less, the response would be enormous

---

I agree and I hope it happens but if nothing gives the consumer will continue to be screwed by all parties. Sometimes if you want something to change you have to make it happen. Sadly this won't be the case though.

quote:

---

Xbox has done a good job recently with having sales on old games on demand

---

yep. I've actually been downloading most of my games recently.

I downloaded Hitman, State of Decay, The Walking Dead, and got a digital download card for Skyrim for $15.

Only time I buy a physcial copy any more is when XBL wants $10 more for a game than I can get it on ebay for

quote:

---

t would take the biggest pubs as a whole to stand up to MS but you don't think MS wouldn't back down if the devs pulled games from them or gave PS4 better exclusives or even timed exclusives?

---

I don't think they can afford to pull games. I think MS is too big and the developers need them to be profitable.

quote:

---

I think that's the short sighted way to look at it actually. In the end you as a consumer would be better off but you are corrcet that it would be hard to get everyone to see it that way. All people care about is the here and now.

---

It is short sighted, but it is the reason your stance ultimately creates anger and resentment in the base of consumers that support you. The only way it works is through force.

Which is easier to change:

1. The worldview of 100s of millions of gamers worldwide, or

2. The practices of a handful of companies?