Playstation 4: Rumors and Speculation, complete with fanboy rage!

[quote name='gettinmoney662']I went all digital a couple years ago with my music collection and have saved so much money because of it.



Yep, I'm sure all those cheap new games I get from Amazon and New Egg are due to the used game market.

Furthermore, how would this constitute a trust? Maybe if the retailers of new games were doing this to squeeze out GameStop but Sony isn't competing with GameStop. Microsoft isn't competing with GameStop. Capcom wants you to buy a new copy of Street Fighter X Tekken and not buy a used copy of Street Fighter X Tekken. Does that mean their competition is themselves? Gamers always love to scream for lawsuits, and they never go anywhere cause they have no idea what they are talking about.



Like I previously said, you still have the right to sell your game, just no one will want it.[/QUOTE]

I just don't understand this. It's like you are a Sony "yes man" or something. You really think that used games will have no impact on new game prices? The secondary market prices have no impact on the primary market prices? The console makers clearly think they have an impact on sales. If sales are slow then prices drop faster. Assuming the install bases don't drop (ha) and sales increase due to no secondary market, then prices will remain high longer. Comprende?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If nexbox and PSorbis don't allow used games then Nintendo will have another generation of being top console guaranteed (yes I know their attached ratio is bad, I'm sure Nintendo cries all the way to the bank about it).
 
[quote name='majorscud']If nexbox and PSorbis don't allow used games then Nintendo will have another generation of being top console guaranteed (yes I know their attached ratio is bad, I'm sure Nintendo cries all the way to the bank about it).[/QUOTE]

I for one have no intention of buying a Wii U this holiday season. Next year when the new consoles come out, IF they really have this protection in them (I kind of doubt it), then I will buy a Wii U. I will NOT buy a console with games that I can't resell. I'm sure there are plenty like me. I like playing games but I have a computer and can use it. I don't HAVE to have a game console. If this shit happens (and includes the Wii U) I'm going to move a computer to the living room and connect my Xbox 360 controller to it. I haven't done it because of my small children and because I think it looks like shit but that would be the last straw.
 
I'm not saying it won't work, but I don't think the big gaming companies are adjusting correctly to the digital model. We see other digital forms work.

Music works, thanks to Apple. TV/movies work, just look at not only Netflix, but cable/satellite count too. Books are still in it's infancy, and partially doesn't work because of Apple's price fixing.

Gaming doesn't follow the other examples. Companies like Capcom and EA are expecting people to shell out $60 for digital, vanilla versions, and then more for DLC. This just screws the consumer.

It could work, if they maybe sold disks at $60, and digital versions at $35. Then regularly decrease the price of them. Maybe $40/$25 after six months, $30/$20 after a year, $15/$10 after two years. Then MAYBE I would be on board.

If they sold single-use copies at $60, and never lowered the MSRP, then I'm definitely out. I know they hate the used game model, but say they get back $1 billion from used sales this way. They're not going to see all of that money flow in as new, because less people would also be buying new. They're going to end up hurting only the gaming industry as a whole. Whether they see any benefits or not is a toss-up, but I'd guess no.
 
If tHey charge 5 dollars for an unlock key to allow the use of a used game I'm fine with that cause then the true adjustment for the consumer is that you have to tack on 5 dollars to the price of the used game. Then the companies get 5 dollars for every used game sold. I think that's a good model for everyone. The bottom line is that these companies want a piece of this used game market, so consumers are going to have to make some compromises. If they try to kill the used game markert completely then I think that do more bad than good. You can't force people to pay full price.
 
[quote name='elessar123']I'm not saying it won't work, but I don't think the big gaming companies are adjusting correctly to the digital model. We see other digital forms work.

It could work, if they maybe sold disks at $60, and digital versions at $35. Then regularly decrease the price of them. Maybe $40/$25 after six months, $30/$20 after a year, $15/$10 after two years. Then MAYBE I would be on board..[/QUOTE]

i laugh anytime i see a full retail game pop up on psn and have it be $60. i honestly think there was at least one time where the full retail game on psn WAS MORE than the retail disk version. they need to adjust the price for things like not having to ship product, print product, manufacture product, etc...

[quote name='Thomas96']If tHey charge 5 dollars for an unlock key to allow the use of a used game I'm fine with that cause then the true adjustment for the consumer is that you have to tack on 5 dollars to the price of the used game. Then the companies get 5 dollars for every used game sold. I think that's a good model for everyone. The bottom line is that these companies want a piece of this used game market, so consumers are going to have to make some compromises. If they try to kill the used game markert completely then I think that do more bad than good. You can't force people to pay full price.[/QUOTE]

again, this is still punishing the consumer. why should we have to pay $5 for an unlock key when gamestop, who brings in millions in net profits every quarter, cant pay out that $5. the online pass model is complete bullshit and honestly if they start locking out single player content on used games, there is still going to be a backlash.
 
[quote name='Jodou']More likely there is confusion with their strategy to counter used game sales this next gen, which is generating idiotic rumors. If Sony and M$ were smart, they would crush any momentum Nintendo might have with WiiU by announcing their plans for next gen at E3. Nintendo will continue to dominate the handheld market and it's where their focus should be at this point. They've lost home console gamers for good.[/QUOTE]

If Nintendo is the only console that is backwards compatible( already confirmed) AND plays used games, along with the forth game maker( gearbox, epic, team ninja and someone else) now coming out saying the Wii u is amazing, and a breeze to dev on, with a MINIMUM one year lead, it might just do better than you think. 1080p zelda and metroid, just think of the possibilities. The WiiU won't need 4k res to make boatloads, it could be 4 years before anyone even starts to care about 4k mainstream


And yes, charging $60 for a fully digital game when I can get a full physical copy for $60 is stupid. The sad part is, someone is actually buying it or it wouldn't be done. Rest assursed its no one on this site at least
 
[quote name='6er']If Nintendo is the only console that is backwards compatible( already confirmed) AND plays used games, along with the forth game maker( gearbox, epic, team ninja and someone else) now coming out saying the Wii u is amazing, and a breeze to dev on, with a MINIMUM one year lead, it might just do better than you think. 1080p zelda and metroid, just think of the possibilities. The WiiU won't need 4k res to make boatloads, it could be 4 years before anyone even starts to care about 4k mainstream


And yes, charging $60 for a fully digital game when I can get a full physical copy for $60 is stupid. The sad part is, someone is actually buying it or it wouldn't be done. Rest assursed its no one on this site at least[/QUOTE]

I would not expect 1080p anything from Wii U, most likely everything will be 720p.
 
[quote name='6er']If Nintendo is the only console that is backwards compatible( already confirmed) AND plays used games, along with the forth game maker( gearbox, epic, team ninja and someone else) now coming out saying the Wii u is amazing, and a breeze to dev on, with a MINIMUM one year lead, it might just do better than you think. 1080p zelda and metroid, just think of the possibilities. The WiiU won't need 4k res to make boatloads, it could be 4 years before anyone even starts to care about 4k mainstream[/QUOTE]
Two words: social gaming. Zelda and Metroid are not games you can play with friends (online at least). "All my friends play on PS3 and 360" is what you hear today and that ship has sailed for Nintendo. New games drop $20 after two weeks in the current market so even if people suddenly had to pay for new games only, I don't see the climate changing. Only difference is people would have to wake up and treat gaming as a luxury item again, rather than a need.

I know such a change wouldn't affect me in the slightest (except kill any sort of flipping, but I barely dabble in that anymore regardless).
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']No used market or digital download only for gaming in the next gen=I'm done[/QUOTE]

basically will probably just start anew with NES with my son (was going to anyway kind of) but yea the whole no used horse shit isn't going to fly.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']No used market or digital download only for gaming in the next gen=I'm done[/QUOTE]

Back to the retro games. This generation already took a toll on me and really has driven my interest into the ground.
 
[quote name='dodgeme']Back to the retro games. This generation already took a toll on me and really has driven my interest into the ground.[/QUOTE]

There were some great gems this gen, so I can't say I've lost interest. But likewise, I'd go back to SNES, and buy some more TurboGrafx games. Never had TG as a kid, but as an adult, it amazes me that it didn't do better.

I may go back to NES, but I doubt it. Cept for maybe the rare side-scrollers, mainly Batman, Chip & Dale, Turtles, and Lil Ninja Bros =P
 
[quote name='Jodou']New games drop $20 after two weeks in the current market so even if people suddenly had to pay for new games only, I don't see the climate changing. Only difference is people would have to wake up and treat gaming as a luxury item again, rather than a need.

[/QUOTE]

I agree that gaming is not a need, and I can find other ways to spend money.

But as far as price drops happening so fast, don't you think that it is at least in part because of GS selling used right after release? The lower new price is the way to undercut GS's used price, and still get some $ from the sale (lower profit is better than no profit).

New game comes out at $60 -> GS sells said game for $55 used -> price drop to $55 -> GS used price drop to $50 -> and on and on.
 
[quote name='waldo21212']I agree that gaming is not a need, and I can find other ways to spend money.

But as far as price drops happening so fast, don't you think that it is at least in part because of GS selling used right after release? The lower new price is the way to undercut GS's used price, and still get some $ from the sale (lower profit is better than no profit).

New game comes out at $60 -> GS sells said game for $55 used -> price drop to $55 -> GS used price drop to $50 -> and on and on.[/QUOTE]
Nope. Fierce competition at retailers and predatory pricing online are the driving factor.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']No used market or digital download only for gaming in the next gen=I'm done[/QUOTE]

well at least one good thing will come outta next generation possibly.

:lol: i kid i kid...
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']No used market or digital download only for gaming in the next gen=I'm done[/QUOTE]

same here
 
[quote name='8bitArtist']
again, this is still punishing the consumer. why should we have to pay $5 for an unlock key when gamestop, who brings in millions in net profits every quarter, cant pay out that $5. the online pass model is complete bullshit and honestly if they start locking out single player content on used games, there is still going to be a backlash.[/QUOTE]

They don't care because for every one person providing the backlash 3 or 4 more idiots will still buy the console. GameStop starting posting how much profitsvt made from used game sales, and these devs want at least a piece of it.


[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']No used market or digital download only for gaming in the next gen=I'm done[/QUOTE]

Im with you. I'm starting now.....I'm waiting for buy games used from gamefly.... Why pay 60, 40, or 30 when you can pay 15 / 10 dollars? I like to buy new games, but used games are good ways to try new genres without hurting your pocket. These companies are going to do what's best for them, and we as consumers will have to do what's best for us.
 
[quote name='Jodou']Nope. Fierce competition at retailers and predatory pricing online are the driving factor.[/QUOTE]

I disagree and here's why. Lets say 4 million people want Saint's Row 3. 3 million of those people buy it new and 1 million wait a month and buy it used from GS or Ebay. That reduced demand by 1/4th. This reduced demand means that retailers have to reduce prices on the games faster. Used games ARE part of the fierce competition. If there are no used games, prices will stay higher longer. More people buy used than I think you realize. In the example, a console that doesn't allow used games means that all 4 million buy new. This extra demand is what causes price stagnation at the top prices.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']I disagree and here's why. Lets say 4 million people want Saint's Row 3. 3 million of those people buy it new and 1 million wait a month and buy it used from GS or Ebay. That reduced demand by 1/4th. This reduced demand means that retailers have to reduce prices on the games faster. Used games ARE part of the fierce competition. If there are no used games, prices will stay higher longer. More people buy used than I think you realize. In the example, a console that doesn't allow used games means that all 4 million buy new. This extra demand is what causes price stagnation at the top prices.[/QUOTE]

It's a factor, but it is neither the only factor nor the main factor. If you get rid of the used market, that doesn't mean prices will stay at $60 for 3-4 years.
 
[quote name='gettinmoney662']http://kotaku.com/5897180/five-reas...m_source=kotaku_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Article on Kotaku that argues that game prices will actually become cheaper if the used game market disappears.[/QUOTE]

That article is complete garbage that looks at every point in the absolute BEST case scenario. Now I'll provide one with the worst case scenarios.

1. The Vita games being cheaper is only true if you're a complete idiot who doesn't shop around. With B2G1, clearances, sales, % off coupons, etc. physical media for Vita and almost any console game is almost always cheaper.

Ya its cheaper for publishers to release it digital, but the prices stay up even for PC only titles. Music on iTunes is a bad comparison because its such a small amount, $1.29(?), to purchasing a $60 game. TV on Hulu and Movies on Netflix is also stupid because the content is streaming to your machine its not actually on your drive and this is an interactive medium where timing(lag) matters.

2. Or the future could look like Origin. Where if you get banned on their forums you get banned from the games you own, even the single player ones and where the customer service is terrible.

3. Or they could keep prices at $60 'till not enough people are buying it per week, then just discount it to $40. Without used games to undercut them and force them to lower the new prices, what competition do they have without the used market?

4. Or they could stay the same price. They could test the waters by releasing the first few games for the same price it is now and see how comfortable most consumers are with and then BAM $60 is still the norm. I mean most consumers would pay for it anyway, so why change? Or they could raise it to $70 due to production cost.

5. Or they could take same amount of risk. Why risk a new IP when they can just rehash the same game? Sure they have more money, but they're not doing it to make funner games they're doing it to make profit. Why not give themselves some bonuses like all other industries CEOs?

I wonder how much Publishers like EA and Ubi payed him to write this article about the positives of no used games...
 
[quote name='gettinmoney662']It's a factor, but it is neither the only factor nor the main factor. If you get rid of the used market, that doesn't mean prices will stay at $60 for 3-4 years.[/QUOTE]

I agree prices won't stay $60 for 3-4 years, but I doubt you will see price drops to the $45 range 3-4 months after release like we see right now.
 
From the article:
THE NEXT PLAYSTATION, AT A GLANCE

IS CALLED, OR AT LEAST CARRIES THE WORKING CODENAME, "ORBIS".

IS SCHEDULED FOR A HOLIDAY 2013 RELEASE.

WON'T BE BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE WITH PS3 GAMES.

WILL LOCK NEW GAMES TO A PSN ACCOUNT AS AN ANTI-USED GAMES MEASURE.

NEW GAMES CAN BE BOUGHT EITHER ON BLU-RAY OR DOWNLOADED.

CURRENT SPECS ARE AN AMD X64 CPU AND AMD SOUTHERN ISLANDS GPU




I thin its confirmed sony said they want to do away with all used games anyways... really real games..i wouldnt be shocked if they went pure digital games only

I would be all for ALL DIGITAL GAMES ONLY if the 40 buck game now cost 20 .. there is no way i would pay 40 for a download
 
[quote name='Blaster man']I disagree and here's why. Lets say 4 million people want Saint's Row 3. 3 million of those people buy it new and 1 million wait a month and buy it used from GS or Ebay. That reduced demand by 1/4th.[/QUOTE]

You've missing something. Using your example, if there were no used games, you can't count on the 1 million who bought it new to still buy new.

We'll now only be able to sell 2 million at launch, while 2 million wait for a price drop.

More realistically, more than 1 million traded in their games, because otherwise you'd see 0 copies of the game used.

Hypothetically, say only 1 million people buy it at $60, because they want the game that bad. Then another million buy when it drops to $50, then $40, then $30. That actually end up the exact same as selling 3 million new copies.
 
Something else I just thought of - I bet the pre-order bonuses/discounts go away if used games are blocked.

Right now most $ is made off games in the first couple months, but if used games go away, I bet there is no reason to want to give people an incentive to buy on day 1.
 
[quote name='waldo21212']Something else I just thought of - I bet the pre-order bonuses/discounts go away if used games are blocked.

Right now most $ is made off games in the first couple months, but if used games go away, I bet there is no reason to want to give people an incentive to buy on day 1.[/QUOTE]

Why would that be a bad thing? Most people can't stand retailer specific pre-order DLC.

For what it's worth, the B2G1 Vita games on launch and the fact that you can pre-order many games for $44.99 on NewEgg is good evidence that a lack of used games does not mean there won't be deals on new games. MSRP might take longer to drop but that doesn't prevent competition between retailers.

Furthermore, I like how people completely dismiss the best case scenario but automatically assume the worst case scenario is going to happen. I guess we'll find out, but I can guarantee that once the new Halo or God of War comes out, the next gen consoles will sell quickly.
 
The only reason people buy used games is because new games most of the time are not worth the asking price. If Sony and Microsoft can offer games with the same pricing structure/good sales as steam, I could care less about used games.

Moving to the PC because all next gen consoles can't play used games is a stupid reason cause the PC can't play used games either. In the end all we want is better value for our money which steam on the PC side has done.

But knowing Microsoft and Sony they don't seem to be adopting Steam's pricing model as proof right now with games sold digitally on xbox live and PSN most of the time priced higher than games sold new in store. I don't think we as gamers should argue for used games but better pricing for new games.
 
[quote name='htz']The only reason people buy used games is because new games most of the time are not worth the asking price. If Sony and Microsoft can offer games with the same pricing structure/good sales as steam, I could care less about used games.

Moving to the PC because all next gen consoles can't play used games is a stupid reason cause the PC can't play used games either. In the end all we want is better value for our money which steam on the PC side has done.

But knowing Microsoft and Sony they don't seem to be adopting Steam's pricing model as proof right now with games sold digitally on xbox live and PSN most of the time priced higher than games sold new in store. I don't think we as gamers should argue for used games but better pricing for new games.[/QUOTE]
Actually with some of the largely broken and unplayable games that developers release nowadays and then patch till Doomsday I'd prefer to buy used and NOT support such lazy programming.

If it takes 6 months from when you release a game to actually get it running good enough that it won't cause peoples' consoles to freeze or have some game ruining bug that corrupts saves after you're 60% of the way through the game, then fuck you, you don't deserve a nickel of my money.

As for the pricing of digital copies of games being as high as if not higher than the in-store MSRP, I have to say that if given a choice I'd rather buy a physical copy if it's available, since at least this gen if I get bored with it I can resell the used game to make back some of my money I spent on it.

But them pricing the games as high as retail if not higher really needs to stop if they expect more people to be willing to want to buy the download versions of games.
 
There are a few misconceptions at work here.

First of all, there is only one incentive needed for a company to lower the price of a game, even one this is sold only as a download. That incentive is the existence of a vast audience who only buy below a certain price point. That audience understands they won't get to play the latest titles until they've been out for several months or longer but with the vast array of choices out there it isn't a problem.

This is quite similar to people who rarely or never see movies in theaters. They find the video rental or purchase a better proposition in exchange for not being able to chat up the latest thing at the water cooler.

Like film studios, game publishers want to cover costs and enter profit as soon as possible. If a new release isn't profitable int he same quarter it is released it tends to make those in charge of that production look bad. By the time the annual numbers come out and show it was all good in the long term that person is already out of a job. It is an oft repeated incident in Hollywood for a studio chief to get canned after a string of turkeys and then have a bunch of movies he greenlighted become big hits. There is rarely any justice in the universe, Plan accordingly.

Thus, pre-order incentives will not go away. It is a very effective way to lock in big numbers for Day 1 sales.

Once past the need for rapid profitability, other incentives kick in. The larger audience wants a lower price and once a game's development is paid off that is easily done. Consider the popularity of Greatest Hits packaging under the various names used by the different console makers. Consumers are assured of two things in combination: a low price for a product of significant popularity, offering some hope it is worth the money. Game Of The Year packages take this even further by increasing the value of the product with added content and patches pre-installed (usually) while carrying a much lower price than at release for the base game with no DLC.

For the patient consumer GOTY packages are a big win.

Once a game's development costs are met and the audience willing to pay the release MSRP is satisfied it makes extremely good sense, entirely independently of the existence of used product sales, to reduce the price and reach a wider audience.

In threads like this there is always someone who chimes in "I won't buy a console that doesn't let me play used games." My reply to this is, do you own a smartphone? If so, how many games have you purchased for that? And how many have you been able to resell when you lost interest?

It all hinges on price. Getting that right is the key to everything. People will buy when they are offered a price they find acceptable for the product. The more affluent will get in early and derive an emotional benefit for their higher expenditure.
 
[quote name='htz']Moving to the PC because all next gen consoles can't play used games is a stupid reason cause the PC can't play used games either.[/QUOTE]

Steam hadn't always been around. There are still games that can be resold, though a lot less than a decade ago.
 
[quote name='epobirs']In threads like this there is always someone who chimes in "I won't buy a console that doesn't let me play used games." My reply to this is, do you own a smartphone? If so, how many games have you purchased for that? And how many have you been able to resell when you lost interest?[/QUOTE]

Zero. Amazon gave me free ones.
 
[quote name='elessar123']Zero. Amazon gave me free ones.[/QUOTE]

Most of those are not full versions or have really annoying battery draining ads. (A recently published study found those are a serious cause of poor battery life on Android phones.) I've installed plenty myself but for a typical 99 cents I've found plenty worth buying.

Most people are not content to live on what is given away for promotional purposes. There is a difference between a frugal consumer and a parasite.
 
[quote name='elessar123']You've missing something. Using your example, if there were no used games, you can't count on the 1 million who bought it new to still buy new.

We'll now only be able to sell 2 million at launch, while 2 million wait for a price drop.

More realistically, more than 1 million traded in their games, because otherwise you'd see 0 copies of the game used.

Hypothetically, say only 1 million people buy it at $60, because they want the game that bad. Then another million buy when it drops to $50, then $40, then $30. That actually end up the exact same as selling 3 million new copies.[/QUOTE]

Eliminating used sales changes the calculation. Publishers can be more responsive to the market when they don't have mystery numbers to deal with. How many bought used vs. how many are waiting for a lower price.

The publishers know what their sunk costs are and thus how many need to sell through in the Quarter of release to show profit within the same quarter. Depending on the sunk costs that number can vary greatly. Could be 500K, could be 750K, or could be 2 million for a very high-end production. But the price isn't going to drop too soon after the line is crossed because that makes the early purchasers feel burned.

This leads to another consideration publishers have to weigh is whether a lower MSRP at launch is a better policy. You give up a bit on those willing to spend more but you can hit those big numbers much faster at the lower price, especially when used product is no longer a factor.

The other factors there are what is the installed based of the platform and what portion of that will want this game at any price. If you want to go for a low price and find that you'd need to reach 70% of all the machines sold to date, that isn't likely to be a money maker. Only a very small list of titles have ever made those kind of attach rates.

I could see new high-end titles launching at $40 for a newish platform with fewer than ten million installed base but not $20. But when that platform grows to five or ten times that number of units in the field, the lower price points become more accessible.

This means not only should a CAG avoid new releases, they should also avoid new platforms until they've reached a certain level of maturity. Myself, I just got a 3DS this week. My launch phat DS is still working perfectly. I doubt I'll consider buying a Vita until sometime next year at the soonest. There are plenty of much wealthier people for Sony to reach before me.
 
[quote name='gettinmoney662']Furthermore, I like how people completely dismiss the best case scenario but automatically assume the worst case scenario is going to happen. I guess we'll find out, but I can guarantee that once the new Halo or God of War comes out, the next gen consoles will sell quickly.[/QUOTE]

this gen has proved that publishers/devs are greedy with their on disk dlc, over priced dlc, online passes, etc...

instead of killing the used market, i always thought it would be a good idea to get a dlc passcode that would entitle you to all future dlc for free if you bought new. i know for sure id have a hell of a lot more games in my collection if they did this.

when has a best case scenario ever happened when it comes to a big corporation? they want to make as much money as possible in the quickest amount of time with the least amount of work. i will never ever rely on the likes of EA, activision, sony or MS to come out and do something that isnt in their best interest, no matter how much it screws over its costumers. granted i dont think the worst case scenario is going to happen either, but its def going to side more on the bad side than the good side.
 
if it does happen theyre banking on the fact that most gamers talk more shit than they will back up. out of 100 console gamers how many would really not get the net gen console if it didnt allow used games to be used on it?

btw is that even legal to do ?making it where you cant use used games on a console? i wonder if theres anything about used games in any of those updates sony kept doing on the terms of service?
 
[quote name='lokizz']if it does happen theyre banking on the fact that most gamers talk more shit than they will back up. out of 100 console gamers how many would really not get the net gen console if it didnt allow used games to be used on it?

btw is that even legal to do ?making it where you cant use used games on a console? i wonder if theres anything about used games in any of those updates sony kept doing on the terms of service?[/QUOTE]

If it's a new platform there would be no legal issue at all. It's been done before. Remember DiVX? Not the video format. The limited use DVD format pushed by Circuit City and some other investors. This was a flawed idea but legality was not part of the problem.

So long as the terms of the software license are clearly defined there is no problem at all tying it to a specific machine. Windows and many other software products have done this for a very long time.

I'm not expecting the sale to be heavily tied to a particular console except in that that will be the main location for your account in relation to that platform. Having that account be portable solves a lot of issues, such as what happens if your console dies or is stolen? This is also a good reason for cloud saves.

Microsoft is moving towards this in Windows as well. Windows 8 wants you to use a Live account (it doesn't need to be a Live or Hotmail email address) as you login. This brings up all of your online services, even on a machine you've never been on before. Login and your mail and Skydrive is right there with all of your files. Items you've bought through the Windows Store can be installed and used only by your login and automatically removed when you logout if the drive space needs to be recovered.

By no small coincidence, if your Xbox Live account is the same as your Windows Live credentials, logging into Windows 8 gives you all of your Xbox Live stuff, too.

The disappearance of used games is only one threat to the likes of Gamestop. Software sales at B&M outlets is likely to be history within a decade. A kid in 2025 will only know that there were once game stores from seeing them on old movies and TV shows, just as a kid today might never have seen a video rental store.
 
[quote name='8bitArtist']this gen has proved that publishers/devs are greedy with their on disk dlc, over priced dlc, online passes, etc...

instead of killing the used market, i always thought it would be a good idea to get a dlc passcode that would entitle you to all future dlc for free if you bought new. i know for sure id have a hell of a lot more games in my collection if they did this.

when has a best case scenario ever happened when it comes to a big corporation? they want to make as much money as possible in the quickest amount of time with the least amount of work. i will never ever rely on the likes of EA, activision, sony or MS to come out and do something that isnt in their best interest, no matter how much it screws over its costumers. granted i dont think the worst case scenario is going to happen either, but its def going to side more on the bad side than the good side.[/QUOTE]

We pretty much have that now. It's called waiting for the GOTY edition.

Self-interest is a matter of perspective. Happy customers are in the best interest of a company if they are also profitable customers. The fact is, you can go out and for a few days pay from a decent job, buy and bring home an entertainment experience that didn't exist for the richest person on the planet just a generation ago. People who take such things for granted tend to make earth-shaking scandals out of the most petty of complaints.
 
[quote name='elessar123']That's assuming they can convert the $1.81 billion on lost sales to new sales, which isn't going to happen. It's the argument for piracy; studios think every download is a monetary loss. It's not.

Also, how many games did the typical Wii owner buy? Something like 3. Relying on the casuals buying 5 games a system is not going to work.[/QUOTE]

Even if they convert ten percent of the used game market, that's a lot of money.
 
[quote name='epobirs']We pretty much have that now. It's called waiting for the GOTY edition.[/QUOTE]

GOTY editions essentially punish those who bought and supported the game early though. im not a fan of GOTY editions at all. if anyone should get the complete package, its the people who bought your game early on and supported you.

lets take borderlands for example, i buy the game day 1 at $60, then since i like the game, i actually kept it and i buy all 4 dlcs. thats $100 total. what did borderlands GOTY launch at? $40? $30? to me, thats a big FU to the people who bought the game early and proceeded to buy all the DLC after that.
 
[quote name='epobirs']If it's a new platform there would be no legal issue at all. It's been done before. Remember DiVX? Not the video format. The limited use DVD format pushed by Circuit City and some other investors. This was a flawed idea but legality was not part of the problem.

So long as the terms of the software license are clearly defined there is no problem at all tying it to a specific machine. Windows and many other software products have done this for a very long time.

I'm not expecting the sale to be heavily tied to a particular console except in that that will be the main location for your account in relation to that platform. Having that account be portable solves a lot of issues, such as what happens if your console dies or is stolen? This is also a good reason for cloud saves.

Microsoft is moving towards this in Windows as well. Windows 8 wants you to use a Live account (it doesn't need to be a Live or Hotmail email address) as you login. This brings up all of your online services, even on a machine you've never been on before. Login and your mail and Skydrive is right there with all of your files. Items you've bought through the Windows Store can be installed and used only by your login and automatically removed when you logout if the drive space needs to be recovered.

By no small coincidence, if your Xbox Live account is the same as your Windows Live credentials, logging into Windows 8 gives you all of your Xbox Live stuff, too.

The disappearance of used games is only one threat to the likes of Gamestop. Software sales at B&M outlets is likely to be history within a decade. A kid in 2025 will only know that there were once game stores from seeing them on old movies and TV shows, just as a kid today might never have seen a video rental store.[/QUOTE]

There is a difference between one retailer pushing a product and an entire industry huddling up and all doing the same thing (which hurts consumers) all at once. You can be damn sure the justice dept would be looking at this for anti trust issues. GameStop, Amazon, eBay, and a ton of other large companies that sell used games would be pushing for this hard. It wouldn't be them vs us. It would be them vs many more of them and us. I doubt any gamer would even have to file a complaint.
 
[quote name='Golden Idol']Even if they convert ten percent of the used game market, that's a lot of money.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. I hate when people say that not every pirated game or used game purchase would have been a new purchase and then automatically assume that none of them would have been. There's a middle ground, and any percentage over 0 that would have bought new is lost revenue to the publisher.

[quote name='8bitArtist']GOTY editions essentially punish those who bought and supported the game early though. im not a fan of GOTY editions at all. if anyone should get the complete package, its the people who bought your game early on and supported you.

lets take borderlands for example, i buy the game day 1 at $60, then since i like the game, i actually kept it and i buy all 4 dlcs. thats $100 total. what did borderlands GOTY launch at? $40? $30? to me, thats a big FU to the people who bought the game early and proceeded to buy all the DLC after that.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but this is why I can't take your complaints seriously. Things get cheaper over time. You spend more to get things sooner. You're in here whining about how you think games will not fall down in price if there's no used market and now you're whining that GOTY editions are cheaper than when you bought the vanilla version plus all the DLC.

[quote name='Blaster man']There is a difference between one retailer pushing a product and an entire industry huddling up and all doing the same thing (which hurts consumers) all at once. You can be damn sure the justice dept would be looking at this for anti trust issues. GameStop, Amazon, eBay, and a ton of other large companies that sell used games would be pushing for this hard. It wouldn't be them vs us. It would be them vs many more of them and us. I doubt any gamer would even have to file a complaint.[/QUOTE]

I find it highly unlikely that Sony or Microsoft have a legal obligation to allow you to play used games on their consoles.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']There is a difference between one retailer pushing a product and an entire industry huddling up and all doing the same thing (which hurts consumers) all at once. You can be damn sure the justice dept would be looking at this for anti trust issues. GameStop, Amazon, eBay, and a ton of other large companies that sell used games would be pushing for this hard. It wouldn't be them vs us. It would be them vs many more of them and us. I doubt any gamer would even have to file a complaint.[/QUOTE]

The only one affect is gamestop. The other B&M only sell new games and would love for used game to be gone. Others like Best Buy just started so it is not a huge change for them. Amazon itself doesn't sell any used game, and ebay. Gamestop is really just going to go the way of Tower Record or other CD store.
 
[quote name='gettinmoney662']I find it highly unlikely that Sony or Microsoft have a legal obligation to allow you to play used games on their consoles.[/QUOTE]

United States antitrust

Main article: United States antitrust law
The Sherman Act of 1890 attempted to outlaw the restriction of competition by large companies, who co-operated with rivals to fix outputs, prices and market shares, initially through pools and later through trusts. Trusts first appeared in the US railroads, where the capital requirement of railroad construction precluded competitive services in then scarcely settled territories. This trust allowed railroads to discriminate on rates imposed and services provided to consumers and businesses and to destroy potential competitors. Different trusts could be dominant in different industries. The Standard Oil Company trust in the 1880s controlled a number of markets, including the market in fuel oil, lead and whiskey.[26] Vast numbers of citizens became sufficiently aware and publicly concerned about how the trusts negatively impacted them that the Act became a priority for both major parties. A primary concern of this act is that competitive markets themselves should provide the primary regulation of prices, outputs, interests and profits. Instead, the Act outlawed anticompetitive practices, codifying the common law restraint of trade doctrine.[27] Prof Rudolph Peritz has argued that competition law in the United States has evolved around two sometimes conflicting concepts of competition: first that of individual liberty, free of government intervention, and second a fair competitive environment free of excessive economic power. Since the enactment of the Sherman Act enforcement of competition law has been based on various economic theories adopted by Government.[28]
Section 1 of the Sherman Act declared illegal "every contract, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations". Section 2 prohibits monopolies, or attempts and conspiracies to monopolize. Following the enactment in 1890 US court applies these principles to business and markets. Courts applied the Act without consistent economic analysis until 1914, when it was complemented the Clayton Act which specifically prohibiting exclusive dealing agreements, particularly tying agreements and interlocking directorates, and mergers achieved by purchasing stock. From 1915 onwards the rule of reason analysis was frequently applied by courts to competition cases. However, the period was characterized by the lack of competition law enforcement. From 1936 to 1972 courts' application of anti-trust law was dominated by the structure-conduct-performance paradigm of the Harvard School. From 1973 to 1991, the enforcement of anti-trust law was based on efficiency explanations as the Chicago School became dominant. Since 1992 game theory has frequently been used in anti-trust cases.[29
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top