Jump to content



Photo

  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#46 Jason Stillion

Jason Stillion

    Neowinian

  • 1,411 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 12
  • Location: United States

Posted 26 June 2013 - 20:19

Was having an interesting debate with a friend about xboxone and pc license market.

 

If gamers had the same faith / trust they do with valve / steam, as they do with EA/Activision this might of gone done differently.

EA SimCity fiasco, not believing game price will go down or have good sales (when you look at past history Sony's / Microsoft's console current online store).

Microsoft not having a clear / confident message about the new business model on console's.

Age/Generation about owning (I'm in this group) vs virtual license that can be yanked. 

 

I think these were all big factor in the backlash. 

 

(Edit) If Microsoft marketed a pre-built computer called Xbox, (think like apple controlling the hardware and the software) meant to hook up to the tv and / or monitor, with games formatted / optimized to the specific specs, and can run windows software. That could've been convergence device people might of gotten behind.




#47 compl3x

compl3x

    Feels good, dunnit?

  • 8,226 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 27 June 2013 - 04:39

Who cares? According to most "gamers" here you should only be playing the most recent bleeding-edge "AAA" Call of DLC release anyway.

 

 

Um, no.



#48 Bizkit

Bizkit

    Neowinian Senior

  • 5,864 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 02

Posted 27 June 2013 - 04:50

Minecraft did it on Xbox just fine. And on PC. Seems it sold pretty well digitally.



#49 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • 21,351 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 27 June 2013 - 12:07

Again, we're talking about two different things. If you're buying DRM free PC games from gog and copying them to disc, then it's a moot point. If you comparing console games on disc (which can't be copied / stored on a hard drive) to console games delivered digitally (which can be backed up / redownloaded), a hard drive seems like the more reliable option. But again, that's probably a moot point, as either are tied to the longevity of the console, which may or may not be tied to an online service itself.

 

So discs have the advantage of being shared, and the disadvantage of being relatively fragile (they are, look at how many stories there are out there of 360s / PS3s eating up discs). I think in this next generation, discs will lose the hard drive space advantage, as they'll probably require installation.

 

As I said earlier, a lot of games today focus on multiplayer, or have some online component making their long-term viability questionable, not to mention every console maker has made it clear that backwards compatibility is gone. My point is that you're going to be forced into what is essentially a digital download world without any of the conveniences of digital download.

I don't know if Microsoft changed their policy of mandatory game installations for the Xbox One but with the PS4, you can always play from the disc. If Microsoft still requires installations, then they're the only company to take the first step towards a PC-like model without any real benefits (because the disc will still need to be in the drive every time you play).

 

I think we're going to see a gradual increase in the number of digital downloads next generation. If Microsoft and Sony advertise it more, then people with fast Internet  connections and enough bandwidth may choose to download their games instead of buying it the store. Personally, I'd only do that if the game wasn't available in my area because downloading it would be faster than ordering it online and waiting for it to come in the mail.



#50 OP Zedox

Zedox

    Neowinian

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: 12-August 09

Posted 27 June 2013 - 13:55

The Xbox One does require you to install the game. Yes, installing a game is better than reading from a disc. Information can be read faster from a hard drive than a disc.



#51 xWhiplash

xWhiplash

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,615 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 27 June 2013 - 15:30

Minecraft did it on Xbox just fine. And on PC. Seems it sold pretty well digitally.

 

Minecraft is not the same size as AAA games.  Some AAA games need the size of the Blu-Ray disc.



#52 GotBored

GotBored

    Brain Trust

  • 1,223 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 13
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 30 June 2013 - 15:41

Whats the point of digital only? I'd rather have the option to be able to buy a physical disc.

 

1). You can have as many discs as you want, but your limited to your storage limit for digital downloads.

(I dont want to delete and re-download games all the time, look at games now the bigger ones are around 50GB and getting bigger, that's only 10 games max for the next-gen consoles with 500GB storage)

 

2). I can lend a game to a friend or borrow a game off a friend if it was a disc.

(If it were online sharing then I'd be happy with that too, but I know that once it goes digital only the console makers/publishers will make that impossible)

-They may allow it for a short period of time to make people go 'digital' only, but as soon as it happens they will call it piracy and not allow ir.

 

3). I can freely sell off or trade-in my discs, even swap them for another game.

(Digital doesn't allow this yet but when it does the publishers will get a percentage of re-sale)

- Microsoft even figured out loopholes like you selling a game to a friend and then just gifting it to them online to avoid these fees, so Microsoft made it that you had to have them in your family account and be friends on Xbox live for atleast 30 days before you could gift and then after you gift a game it becomes locked into their account, they cannot re-gift it. This means whoever you sell it to will have to wait atleast 30 days before they can get the game.. I dont think many people are willing to wait so long or even if they were after a few times they'd get over it and only buy new cause its too much hassle.

 

4). International Pricing, In the US they sell games for $60 but in Australia they sell for almost $120.

If it was digital only I would be locked to the AUS store cause of my i.p, or maybe my first selection when I setup the console or automatically by the console cause it would be a AUS version. I would have to pay almost double what they pay overseas even though our dollar is almost the same value. But now I can import a game from the US and pay almost half the price after postage and currency conversion.

- I could set my region as US and go through a proxy to mask my I.P but then I would be locked on US servers for multiplayer and would have serious lag on all my games and I'm pretty sure they would make a new drm feature which would make this impossible anyway. (Like region locking my console)

 

5). Price, I find it funny that people think that the price of digital downloads would drop if it went digital only when digital downloads today are the same price as a physical disc when they don't have to pay for production, transport and outlet costs of selling a disc. When a product is monopolized into one outlet (e.g xbox online store) I've never seen that equate to cheaper product, always the opposite (more expensive product).

- I see Steam being used as an example of this, but Steam has competition in physical media and various other online stores so its prices need to be competitive. If Steam was the only outlet for PC games you would be paying the max amount they could charge you as long as they believed the selling point wouldn't drop the demand so much that it would effect their overall income.

 

To better explain my last point say Steam think if they priced a game at $100 it would sell about 4,000,000 units. So $400,000,000 profit.

(Say $10 per game was publisher costs, so - $40,000,000) = $360,000,000 Clear profit.

But if they sold a game at $40 it would sell 6,500,000 Units. So $260,000,000 Profit.

(Same $10 per game publisher costs, - $65,000,000) = $195,000,000 Clear Profit.

 

Which do you think they would choose?

 

With competition if they priced a game at such high prices they would get 0 sales, or maybe a few and would need to drop prices to remain competitive.. In a monopolized market they do not.

 

In business it doesn't matter how much production costs were as long as your selling price is higher, if they could make a product for $1 and sell it for $100,000 they would. Its all about supply and demand, if the demand is high and your the only supplier you've hit the jackpot.



#53 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

  • 5,239 posts
  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Everywhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 01 July 2013 - 00:23

I've never said tldr before heh

1). You can have as many discs as you want, but your limited to your storage limit for digital downloads.

(I dont want to delete and re-download games all the time, look at games now the bigger ones are around 50GB and getting bigger, that's only 10 games max for the next-gen consoles with 500GB storage)

That's assuming every game will use the entire disc, which is silly.



#54 GotBored

GotBored

    Brain Trust

  • 1,223 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 13
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 01 July 2013 - 09:27

I've never said tldr before heh

That's assuming every game will use the entire disc, which is silly.

 

50GB is what new games like Watch Dogs and GTA V require. Even PS3 games Final Fantasy XIII and Gods of War 3 are over 40GB. (Digital Downloads)

 

They have made Blu-ray discs with max capacity at 1TB but I don't think the PS4 or Xbox One will come with readers for these..

 

But both consoles have said they will support 4K video which needs a lot more storage than 1080p, So i'd say the blu-ray drives on each console would need to at-least  read quad-layer discs which are 128GB.

So I wouldn't assume that 50GB is the entire disc.

 

I think it would be quite silly to assume that games wont be getting bigger as they have been doing since the start of console gaming.



#55 OP Zedox

Zedox

    Neowinian

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: 12-August 09

Posted 01 July 2013 - 12:43

So apparently there are two digital only games for Xbox One, I haven't seen any for Sony yet. Killer Instinct (I've been waiting a while for this game, and my game of choice, along with Watch Dogs) and D4 (I don't believe this is a launch title). Killer Instinct will probably be bought a lot because of the fighting game community (and how well Double Helix, the developers, are communicating with the community), I don't know about D4 though. Interesting times.



#56 GotBored

GotBored

    Brain Trust

  • 1,223 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 13
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 01 July 2013 - 14:07

So apparently there are two digital only games for Xbox One, I haven't seen any for Sony yet. Killer Instinct (I've been waiting a while for this game, and my game of choice, along with Watch Dogs) and D4 (I don't believe this is a launch title). Killer Instinct will probably be bought a lot because of the fighting game community (and how well Double Helix, the developers, are communicating with the community), I don't know about D4 though. Interesting times.

 

PlayStation has Warframe, Blacklight and PlanetSide 2 which will be digital download only games like Killer Instinct. (All free-to-play also)

But like all free-to-play games they will offer in-game purchases, Upgrades and Unlocks will cost real money, for Killer Instinct you will only have one character to play and it will cost you to unlock others.

It is also possible that you will need to pay to unlock levels, costumes, combos, finishing moves and from what I've read they will offer a subscription-based seasonal pass so you can have all characters because they are going to continually add new characters like League of Legends.. Or you could just buy new characters individually 

 

Double Helix has only made a handful of games; Silent Hill: Homecoming, Green Lantern, GI Joes: The Rise of Cobra, Battleship and 3 other games I've never heard of.

I don't really see how this will make the fighting game community more likely to purchase the game.

 

I personally don't think the fighting game community will respond well to this release, I like to play fighting games and can say that majority of the time I play these types of games with friends in local multiplayer. We like to mix characters and being limited to only one character or having to pay a subscription to unlock them all isn't very appealing to me. 

 

D4 is an episodic game, so I'm guessing the first episode would be free-to-play but then continuing chapters would cost you.



#57 OP Zedox

Zedox

    Neowinian

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: 12-August 09

Posted 01 July 2013 - 18:58

Killer Instinct is not really "free to play" in the traditional sense. There's a demo in which you play as Jago and you are free to play (pun not intended) online, story mode, and training. You have the option of buying the entire game or this demo mode (where you can buy other characters). They cleared that up a while ago. There will be a "seasons" for releasing new characters, but they never stated combos or finishing moves (I doubt those, but possible). There's probably a possibility of having a season pass for such things a la Halo, COD, etc...

 

I'm basing what the game is showing and feedback from fighting game players in the community who played the game. There's positive feedback so far. I personally believe that the FGC will respond well to the game and will be paying attention closely during EVO, which is like 2 weeks away where they'll be letting the FGC play it and a new character reveal.

 

D4 is an episodic game, but I doubt the first episode is free to play...prolly just gotta buy everything. No problem with that as long as the content is good. I don't see myself buying it though. Killer Instinct is a must for me though.