Cliffy B on XB1 DRM (Plus a jab at Gamespot....LOL)
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Wtf does back of the hus even refer to? Â CliffyB's all encompassing knowledge of every gaming forum on the net? Â That's uneducated fluff talk. Â There are dozens of people who consistently write thought out responses to questions in this forum alone. Â That was a cheap shot with no merit.Â
TheEroica
...he's not talking about forums.
That would be all fine and dandy if he hadnt shown that cynical video as why used games arent the same as used cars/books/movies. 1st of all, the console market =/= PC market. 2nd of all, devs can find some return in used games due to DLC.
Digital is coming. As a physical format supporter, not even I can get away from that fact. However, I still demand to own what I payed for and do w/e I want with it. Thats why I'll always buy physical while I've the choice. I dont even mind paying 10 euros more for a physical copy.
What a god damn moron. "A 747 can carry a space shuttle but they charge me extra for overages on luggage? HAHAHAHAHA". The airline isnt charging because they cant carry the extra weight, if they couldnt carry the extra weight then they wouldnt let you bring it on at all.
He obviously knows nothing of how an airline works.
When a plane is at the gate they estimate how many passengers will be flying on its next stop, the distance to the next stop, estimate average amount of luggage each passenger will likely have. Then they take distance and weight to figure out how much fuel will be needed to get there and the plane is fueld according to the equation.
I know, I was a airplane fueler at a international airport in highschool. I was the guy who drove the truck up under the planes wing and attached fueling cables. When planes came into the gate we were given the exact amount of fuel that plane required. So you flip open the panel under the wing and it tells you the current amount of fuel, so you have to do the math on how much you need to add to it, or if the plane was over fueld then you had to subtract fuel from the plane using the trucks pump to pull fuel out of the plane.
Going over the average alloted amount of baggage is because the airline has to recalibrate its weight and add more fuel depending on how many people bring how much added weight that wasnt in the average amount.
Plus charging for bringing too much luggage keeps people from trying to take everything but the kitchen sink when they travel. A plane only has so much limited space for storage. If you got a full flight and everyone decides to bring 8 big bags per person it all wont fit and youll have a problem. Plus the airline would lose money having to burn up extra fuel just to carry 5 tons of of extra luggage.
I dont think he cares about used game sales down the road. The problem comes in (as he mentioned in the blog) is that Gamestop actively discourages consumers from buying new, even going as far as saying "trade in your new game by a certain date and get extra credit". Used games themselves dont hurt (i feel they help), but when Gamestop undercuts the very products they carry, it hurts the developer. He isnt saying they should get paid from every used game sale, just they maybe there should be a time frame? Maybe publishers get together and demand a change? Something has to give if we (as consumers) want to keep creativity alive. Devs need to get paid what they are worth. Right now, money is going to gamestopHe's an idiot. Why does anyone expect to make money on the same product that was sold twice? It doesn't and shouldn't happen.
If publishers and developers are finding it hard to make money, reduce the damn budget.
Edit: Didn't read it, I assumed it was his twitter rants. Doesn't change what I said though.
Chutebox
I think they should have bit the bullet on the DRM thing. I get that there are places with shaky internet at best, but that always online thing to me is something with the right resources can be handled. But yeah they couldn't drop retail just yet. Too large of a market console side. This generation would be about training the consumer to want to go digital more or less, but they handled the retail side poorly. Should have never messed too hard with the retail side like that. That was incredibly naive on their end.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Desmonic"] Then either go fully digital or don't present me with physical objects which I can buy but not sell or loan. That was (along DRM) a big part of their own "downfall".
Ly_the_Fairy
Appealing to the fringe consumer is exactly why the console industry has been in decline for the last 5 years.
The problem is Valve had the space to get away with waiting for Steam to become a hit. Reality was they were selling enough copies of Half Life 2 to stay afloat. They had The Orange Box stuff in the works. They were still a software company not a platform(I think it is safe to call Steam a platform these days). Microsoft and Sony cannot justify banking on that. Yes they also make games, yes they also have other divisions, but if they put their console out as strictly a digital device.They can't wait for it to hit its stride it needs to be able to match most of its sales goals. If they get a colossal dud out of it(PSPGo scenario) that is a failure for them. Valve would have survived without steam. They were going to still be a good developer. Microsoft and Sony might not go out of business or anything, but they would lose a substantial amount of money on a major division in their companies. So in that regard they are not allowed to ignore retail just yet. The console market is still largely a retail market.
Going all digital sounds all nice on paper, but in execution you still have so many people go "oh I'll never go digital" yada yada yada, and as stated while the seasoned gamers don't carry the same capacity as the "casuals"(ugh I think I might puke) they carry a lot of importance simply for the amount of games they buy. Those software sales are still incredibly important.
Then either go fully digital or don't present me with physical objects which I can buy but not sell or loan. That was (along DRM) a big part of their own "downfall". It wouldn't be possible for then to go full digital right now since its such a drastic change. MS would have to slowly entice people to go digital so they get accustomed to it. When I first got my PC, I started off buying physical copies. Shortly after, the benefits of digital became much more prominent and it's very rare for me to buy physical now. Being able to do things like access my games library and saves on any PC or beig able to buy a game on my phone while I'm out, and then have them install to my PC remotely make me want to buy digital. MS was even addressing sharing games with your friends through the family share thing which would have been great to share games with your online friends whom may love in another country.[QUOTE="BPoole96"]I actually agree with a lot of what CliffyB said. Honestly, I didn't even fully disagree with what MS was trying to do. It was their horrible delivery and conflicting information from their spokesmen that screwed everything up. They made no effort in actually conveying the benefits of their policies. Having an digital focused console similar to Steam is a great idea, and digital is the future whether people like it or not.Desmonic
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] It's a damn blog post it's not like he needs to be politically correct. Besides I don't disagree with the notion that he was being needless with that jab.
Regardless his arguments are solid. Microsoft did a shitty job messaging their shit, but I also think he is ignoring the part where consumers have a negative impression of Microsoft. Like I think they are kind of douchy and willing to nickel and dime me. That is a pretty popular opinion when describing Microsoft, and too many of his counter scenarios sound great. Problem is if Cliffy B was making the console it would be neat, but I'd have a hard time believing even he could pitch to Microsoft or Sony or LOLNINTENDO a digital store that accepts trade ins as well as at a higher price than what gamestop is willing to offer.
I like that a dev is willing to put his opinion out there, because in his case he actually has thick enough skin to let the internet bitch away and not give a f*ck. This is like such a potentially awesome time for games journalists to do some pretty important research on the whole business model of this industry, and I feel like none of them are stepping up to it. It's kind of a joke.jg4xchamp
I agree that the biggest reason X1 was a no go imo is because they wanted to sell me physical media in a console space but restrict me to digital limitations. That's a no go. You can't have both. You either go 100% digital or you leave retail alone. MS willing to screw me over isn't really that big in whether I would buy their product just because every company will try to screw you over. I don't see why if any company got you into a purely digital none trading space, they would just let you have that right back again. I think its a false conclusion. Game media is a joke. But this is a very important point I wanna bring up after reading a post about it at gaf.
Publishers like EA, Activision, Ubi, Take Two etc directly benefit from having their games stocked at gamestop. The customer base who goes to buy games from like walmart or target (2 large game distribution places) are extremely different from someone who knowingly walks into a gaming dedicated store to buy a game. So the idea that the developer should see money for every copy they sell because of their hard work instead of gamestop is false. Gamestop built an entire franchise and shoulders the entire burden of running that franchise and on top of that, they market AAA games better than "anybody". You don't see Bioshock Infinite or The Last of Us poster boards, commercials and pre order pamphlets at Walmart. Gamestop is doing these developers a huge deal of business, and so its bs that they should be treated like burdening all the risks of the industry they made for themselves is stealing. If it was that easy, all the publishers bitching about used sales would have done it themselves already but clearly it isn't.Â
I would say the relationship with Gamestop and the gaming industry is more like a really shitty arranged marriage. A necessary evil, because who the f*ck else are you going to go to?But gamestop by design with their own marketing and retail is just as much about costing devs/pubs money. Regardless even Cliff would argue they have every right to be the business that they are. And an all digital box at this point I don't think is a plausible success just yet. Regardless I do think it's kind of crazy(and I guess kind of cool?) how much weight the internet's bitching actually has.
Now why the f*ck can't I get interesting games from Nintendo : (
And that's just it, as a developer, you directly benefit from gamestop selling your game. Flat out that is something you want. You didn't do all the work and you don't deserve all the money from every sale. Developers and publishers act like GS is pure evil but that's just plain not true at all. Walmart isn't gonna go and order 10 copies of Ni No Kuni per store but somewhere like Gamestop absolutely will because the type of gamer that walks in there is 10x more likely to wanna buy it. If you make AAA blockbuster games, its probably Gamestop that sell the majority of your games. Place like Walmart probably sell more copies of Mario Kart and Wii Sports than Gamestop but that's 100% because of the type of customer on average who goes to walmart to buy games.Â
The fact that GS is in the used business and pushes it makes sense by design because stocking nothing but games "is" risky. Like they can't have it both ways. If your publisher refuses to start a retail chain to sell and accept trade backs of your games then you have no right to talk. You can't just desire someone to shoulder all the risk but you to do nothing but benefit. Like put up or shut up.
I don't understand why people would rather give their money to gamestop instead of to the developers themselves. Mind boggling for me.
He actually wasn't saying that, it was sarcasm. It was his example of how the internet thinks one way, reacts one way, but doesn't know the actual reasoning behind it. He said it has more to do with the fuel and less to do with the weight.What a god damn moron. "A 747 can carry a space shuttle but they charge me extra for overages on luggage? HAHAHAHAHA".
Â
Gargus
Either way he probably should have stuck to an industry he actually knew about.
I don't understand why people would rather give their money to gamestop instead of to the developers themselves. Mind boggling for me.
SexyJazzCat
Thats not whats in line here. What matters are my rights as a consumer to do w/e I please with what I buy. Say, if I buy one game and end up not liking it, must I be obligated to keep it forever? If anything these impositions would just make gamers be more carefull with their buys and not buy as many games as they buy currently. The used market in fact helps pushing units, due to no commitment with the products people buy. I know I would buy way less games if these restrictions were imposed on me
I don't understand why people would rather give their money to gamestop instead of to the developers themselves. Mind boggling for me.
SexyJazzCat
"I don't know why anyone would ever buy a tennis racket from walmart instead of a specialty store that will treat you way better and not cheat you. Mind boggling for me."
Let me make it easy for you, you only give a shit about developers because you are invested in this industry. If you weren't, it wouldn't matter.
[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] I think they should have bit the bullet on the DRM thing. I get that there are places with shaky internet at best, but that always online thing to me is something with the right resources can be handled. But yeah they couldn't drop retail just yet. Too large of a market console side. This generation would be about training the consumer to want to go digital more or less, but they handled the retail side poorly. Should have never messed too hard with the retail side like that. That was incredibly naive on their end. jg4xchamp
Appealing to the fringe consumer is exactly why the console industry has been in decline for the last 5 years.
The problem is Valve had the space to get away with waiting for Steam to become a hit. Reality was they were selling enough copies of Half Life 2 to stay afloat. They had The Orange Box stuff in the works. They were still a software company not a platform(I think it is safe to call Steam a platform these days). Microsoft and Sony cannot justify banking on that. Yes they also make games, yes they also have other divisions, but if they put their console out as strictly a digital device.They can't wait for it to hit its stride it needs to be able to match most of its sales goals. If they get a colossal dud out of it(PSPGo scenario) that is a failure for them. Valve would have survived without steam. They were going to still be a good developer. Microsoft and Sony might not go out of business or anything, but they would lose a substantial amount of money on a major division in their companies. So in that regard they are not allowed to ignore retail just yet. The console market is still largely a retail market.
Going all digital sounds all nice on paper, but in execution you still have so many people go "oh I'll never go digital" yada yada yada, and as stated while the seasoned gamers don't carry the same capacity as the "casuals"(ugh I think I might puke) they carry a lot of importance simply for the amount of games they buy. Those software sales are still incredibly important.
It's not about killing off the retail market. That market still exists on the PC to this day.
It's simply a matter of making a system that's more accessible, and convenient for gamers.
They need to stop catering solely to the half a percent of gamers without a stable enough connection to connect to the internet, or that still use dial-up and cant download games. It's hurting their entire business because they aren't pursuing ventures that could potentially bring in far more consumers, and increasing spending within the market.
That's exactly what Valve did with Steam.
You want to use Steam? You must have internet. You want game ownership? Well screw you!
However, if you got over both those requirements, in return you got the most convenient, and accessible form of gaming known to exist. People are buying more games, and spending more money on Steam than they are on any console. It's almost disgusting how many more games are being sold on average to consumers, and how much more money is being thrown around in Steam's market place.
Except the example everyone keeps using is either go 100% digital, that would be killing retail. That is we are no longer retail box.Â
It's not about killing off the retail market.
Ly_the_Fairy
That is what I am arguing. You can not create that system in 2013 and be all that successful from 2013 and for the next few years at least. Microsoft regardless would have had to do a digital and retail device, what they shouldn't have done was mess with the used games market so hard without showing the consumer an alternative that sounded fair to them.
They thought simply taking it away was an option and wouldn't generate bad buzz. They are incredibly f*cking stupid for doing that. That is such a ridiculous PR blunder you almost start wondering how in the f*ck is this a multi-billion dollar company with such busch league PR.
after what happen with all the drm crap m$ tried to pull on gamers..no one in hell they are going all digital in the future..M$ xboner still have drm..all lemmings who buy it need to dowload a patch day one at launch but i doubt that will happen..and ill be laughin at all the stupid people who buying the xboner and trust arrogant m$...He did make one really good point though. Microsoft tried to appeal to a the physical copy audience while pushing their digital agenda. You can't have it both ways and the internet counter attack showed it.
Chances are though, next gen, Microsoft is definitely going all digital. Microsoft's initialy attempts is making this inevitable.
Lionheart08
[QUOTE="TheEroica"]In his mind he thinks the gamespot editorial staff does not do a good job in comparison to other sites. He's probably just refering to Tom McShea's awful reviewsWtf does back of the hus even refer to? Â CliffyB's all encompassing knowledge of every gaming forum on the net? Â That's uneducated fluff talk. Â There are dozens of people who consistently write thought out responses to questions in this forum alone. Â That was a cheap shot with no merit.Â
jg4xchamp
Last time I checked all these big devs were not hurting for cash so f them. I want to own my disc if you want me to buy the digital copy then make it cheaper. I hated steam at first but as soon as the price was right I got over it. The main reason people buy used games is to save money. You give me another option and I most likely will take it and so will most other gamers.
If the disc cost 60 and the digital copy cost 50 then guess what derp most people will go digital.
Except the example everyone keeps using is either go 100% digital, that would be killing retail. That is we are no longer retail box.[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]
Â
It's not about killing off the retail market.
jg4xchamp
That is what I am arguing. You can not create that system in 2013 and be all that successful from 2013 and for the next few years at least. Microsoft regardless would have had to do a digital and retail device, what they shouldn't have done was mess with the used games market so hard without showing the consumer an alternative that sounded fair to them.
They thought simply taking it away was an option and wouldn't generate bad buzz. They are incredibly f*cking stupid for doing that. That is such a ridiculous PR blunder you almost start wondering how in the f*ck is this a multi-billion dollar company with such busch league PR.
Their PR was bad, but it's exactly as Cliffy B said. The gaming community is way to quick to attack something before actually analyzing it.
So instead now Microsoft is reverting back to the current method of games distribution, Nintendo's console is not appealing at all for digital games/media given it's pathetic storage space, and Sony is obviously promoting their console as something that never has to be connected to the internet, sooooooo chya...
As Cliffy B also said, PC and mobile will be the future. Blame the console makers for committing their entire business to the fringe consumer in the year 2013.
CliffyB wants attention.narutosup
Â
Pretty much yeah.
Â
It almost make me cry how he felt about gamestop ""bring the game by November ad"",maybe he should ask him self how many gamers actually traded a game to get Gears3 or the promotions gamestops runs of ""give 2 selected games and get Gears 3 with $10 or $20""..
But he is right Epic was going bankrupt thank to used games and Gears 3 bad sales oh wait..
Gears of war 3 sold almost 6 million copies.
5 millions X $60 =$300 millions for a game that did not cost $30 millions to make,and they complain about used games,oh and that doesn't include the key locked DLC inside the game,so you pay twice for the same content,Gears of war 3 was one of those games who had DLC inside the same disc key locked and you had to pay again to unlock it WTF you dirty money grobbing thief,i remember how on PC Epic use to give tons of content free of charge,now they key lock content on disc to make you pay twice for the same content.
Is sad.
Â
That's not entirely possible. The only way keep a game sustainable is by adding new content, which costs money. You either offer it free and then you're just running a charity, or you charge for it and the people eventually stop paying for DLC and sell it back anyway.Make a game so good that people don't want to trade-in.
Zophar87
As Cliffy B also said, PC and mobile will be the future. Blame the console makers for committing their entire business to the fringe consumer in the year 2013.
Ly_the_Fairy
Then that is the way the market will sway and we will all have to deal. But the idea that the customers should not speak on something that they don't want and refuse to buy is silly. If the market crashes, then the console market failed to find an alternative way of adaption that the consumer still wanted. It is what it is. But from me looking at what a DRM system means to a closed platform system, what I envisioned wasn't appealing. Sorry.
His entire argument is gamestop undercutting 1st hand sales by $5 to make $40 off of a used game purchase. Does he really think taking out gamestop justifies taking away our rights?
why should we feel the pain for what a scummy company does?
Just reintroduce CD-keys and/or singleplayer passes or put some actual effort in day 1 digital and offer -20% discounts
Half-measures aren't going to bring gamestop down.
And not a single f*ck will be given on my end.[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]
Â
As Cliffy B also said, PC and mobile will be the future. .
jg4xchamp
Nor mine, but it'll still be a shame to see the console market go.
Â
It's not about killing off the retail market. That market still exists on the PC to this day.
It's simply a matter of making a system that's more accessible, and convenient for gamers.
They need to stop catering solely to the half a percent of gamers without a stable enough connection to connect to the internet, or that still use dial-up and cant download games. It's hurting their entire business because they aren't pursuing ventures that could potentially bring in far more consumers, and increasing spending within the market.
That's exactly what Valve did with Steam.
You want to use Steam? You must have internet. You want game ownership? Well screw you!
However, if you got over both those requirements, in return you got the most convenient, and accessible form of gaming known to exist. People are buying more games, and spending more money on Steam than they are on any console. It's almost disgusting how many more games are being sold on average to consumers, and how much more money is being thrown around in Steam's market place.
Ly_the_Fairy
Â
On PC games are not cheap because of steam or been download only,they are cheap because piracy is of the damn roof period,it has been like that for ages and still is like that,you can pirate any PC out there basically and you don't need to modify the hardware like you would have on consoles.
Â
Sales of call of duty on PC are not a quart of what they are on consoles it happen with many other games to.
Â
Oh by the way your second line basically make no sense what so ever.
How do you make something more accessible to people by cutting a huge segment of your user base.?
Offering the game online and offline is the best of both worlds,offering the games just online basically kill a segment of your sales,and limit your user base.
[QUOTE="Zophar87"]That's not entirely possible. The only way keep a game sustainable is by adding new content, which costs money. You either offer it free and then you're just running a charity, or you charge for it and the people eventually stop paying for DLC and sell it back anyway.Make a game so good that people don't want to trade-in.
BPoole96
That's odd. I'm looking at a shelf full of great games I'd never trade in.
Â
...because...you know...they're great...
And not a single f*ck will be given on my end.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]
[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]
Â
As Cliffy B also said, PC and mobile will be the future. .
Ly_the_Fairy
Nor mine, but it'll still be a shame to see the console market go.
The console market isn't going anywhere for at least another gen. PC isn't the end all be all people say it is because the majority of people don't have gaming PCs and those who are upgrading from their current low level PCs are replacing them with tablets. Tablets are the main competitor to gaming because of the ease of use/mobility and they appeal to the casual/Wii audience. After that, it's on consoles and PC to fight for the core market and that's what this gen will decide.
This is what we call Damage Control.
Gamers didn't turn on MS because they misunderstood the message MS was sending. Everybody knew damn well what they intended.Â
At the end of the day, the suits at MS took a look at some metrics and realized word-of-mouth had killed their system months before it released. So now they've retracted some of those policies. Proof of perdition.
Â
The console market isn't going anywhere for at least another gen. PC isn't the end all be all people say it is because the majority of people don't have gaming PCs and those who are upgrading from their current low level PCs are replacing them with tablets. Tablets are the main competitor to gaming because of the ease of use/mobility and they appeal to the casual/Wii audience. After that, it's on consoles and PC to fight for the core market and that's what this gen will decide.DontGetBigIdeas
Â
Â
The are huge and popular games on PC far far more than any console,sadly for hermit those games don't represent them in any way,more people play Candy Crush on facebook on PC than those who play any hardcore PC game,hell i would dare say more than several hardcore games combined..
PC gaming suffer allot from piracy,is the sole reason the prices go down way fast.
If game developers want to really put preasure on gamestop offer day one download like the PS3 did with several games,but do so at $10 or $15 under gamestop $60 price motivate the consumer to move and buy those games,but why would i download a damn 12GB game that will take me hours to download,and that i have to re download it if something bad happen and that i have no power to re self.?
I buy the retail one for $60 and play in just 10 minutes,gamestop is right around the courner of my house.
[QUOTE="DontGetBigIdeas"]The console market isn't going anywhere for at least another gen. PC isn't the end all be all people say it is because the majority of people don't have gaming PCs and those who are upgrading from their current low level PCs are replacing them with tablets. Tablets are the main competitor to gaming because of the ease of use/mobility and they appeal to the casual/Wii audience. After that, it's on consoles and PC to fight for the core market and that's what this gen will decide.tormentos
Â
Â
The are huge and popular games on PC far far more than any console,sadly for hermit those games don't represent them in any way,more people play Candy Crush on facebook on PC than those who play any hardcore PC game,hell i would dare say more than several hardcore games combined..
PC gaming suffer allot from piracy,is the sole reason the prices go down way fast.
If game developers want to really put preasure on gamestop offer day one download like the PS3 did with several games,but do so at $10 or $15 under gamestop $60 price motivate the consumer to move and buy those games,but why would i download a damn 12GB game that will take me hours to download,and that i have to re download it if something bad happen and that i have no power to re self.?
I buy the retail one for $60 and play in just 10 minutes,gamestop is right around the courner of my house.
Piracy is no why PC prices go down fast when speaking of the last 5 or so years. PC game prices go down because its an open platform open to competition from whom ever has the ability to join, is open to several different pricing structures and markets and the lack of publishing fees and physical distribution makes it several times easier to lower your price. Anyone who was gonna pirate your game isn't gonna give a shit if its 5 bucks when they were always gonna get it for 5 bucks cheaper.
[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] And not a single f*ck will be given on my end.
DontGetBigIdeas
Nor mine, but it'll still be a shame to see the console market go.
The console market isn't going anywhere for at least another gen. PC isn't the end all be all people say it is because the majority of people don't have gaming PCs and those who are upgrading from their current low level PCs are replacing them with tablets. Tablets are the main competitor to gaming because of the ease of use/mobility and they appeal to the casual/Wii audience. After that, it's on consoles and PC to fight for the core market and that's what this gen will decide.The console industry has been declining for years, and dozens of studios have closed their doors this gen as a result. Just look at the ratio of games released on consoles and PCs, or consoles and tablets. It's like 100:1 in favor of PC/Tablets.
Also, "Gaming PCs" don't matter. You can play the vast majority of PC games with a store-bought laptop these days. Someone not being able to play Crysis 3, or BF4 is not going to cripple the PC market. The PC market brings in more money than every other gaming market. It has worldwide appeal, and every single gamer can not only find something interesting on the PC, but something they can actually afford as well, and actually access at their leisure.
This is what we call Damage Control.
Gamers didn't turn on MS because they misunderstood the message MS was sending. Everybody knew damn well what they intended.Â
At the end of the day, the suits at MS took a look at some metrics and realized word-of-mouth had killed their system months before it released. So now they've retracted some of those policies. Proof of perdition.
Â
gamecubepad
Â
Yep..
Â
And even that they change the policy what happen.?
Â
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2013/videogames
Nothing the PS4 still selling faster i think is to late for them.
Â
Â
Â
[QUOTE="tormentos"]
[QUOTE="DontGetBigIdeas"]The console market isn't going anywhere for at least another gen. PC isn't the end all be all people say it is because the majority of people don't have gaming PCs and those who are upgrading from their current low level PCs are replacing them with tablets. Tablets are the main competitor to gaming because of the ease of use/mobility and they appeal to the casual/Wii audience. After that, it's on consoles and PC to fight for the core market and that's what this gen will decide.ActicEdge
Â
Â
The are huge and popular games on PC far far more than any console,sadly for hermit those games don't represent them in any way,more people play Candy Crush on facebook on PC than those who play any hardcore PC game,hell i would dare say more than several hardcore games combined..
PC gaming suffer allot from piracy,is the sole reason the prices go down way fast.
If game developers want to really put preasure on gamestop offer day one download like the PS3 did with several games,but do so at $10 or $15 under gamestop $60 price motivate the consumer to move and buy those games,but why would i download a damn 12GB game that will take me hours to download,and that i have to re download it if something bad happen and that i have no power to re self.?
I buy the retail one for $60 and play in just 10 minutes,gamestop is right around the courner of my house.
Piracy is no why PC prices go down fast when speaking of the last 5 or so years. PC game prices go down because its an open platform open to competition from whom ever has the ability to join, is open to several different pricing structures and markets and the lack of publishing fees and physical distribution makes it several times easier to lower your price. Anyone who was gonna pirate your game isn't gonna give a shit if its 5 bucks when they were always gonna get it for 5 bucks cheaper.
PC Games also don't have to do major in-store marketing campaigns like console games do, as well as digital distribution is cheaper and thus cutting the price 30% twice a year still makes the game profitable. Also, dropping the price on your game and getting more people familiar with your franchise (and potential DLC) can lead to more future sales. The reason consoles can't do this is the used market.If the used market were eliminated, the thought process is that pricing formats would change drastically, but considering EA and others mentioned they need to make cheaper, smaller games and then DIDNT, I can't say I trust anyone to really do it. that's why fans want the used market to stay alive. The truth about Steam sales is that the games that do go on sale are either very old, but beloved, indie or old AAA games with new version coming out soon. For example ACIII didn't go on sale during the Steam Winter sale, but AC1 and 2 did. It made sense and it paid off.
My hope is that with PS4/Xbox One, they see the value in this. Digital only isn't bad. You just need to give us a reason to go digital only. Microsoft's reason was "because we said so" and that's not good enough. What they should really do is put all their pre-order bonuses and beta access on the digital only copies. Make retail buyers have to purchase it seperately. Boom, there's your digital incentive right there and I'd be all for it on PS4 and Xbox One.
Â
The console industry has been declining for years, and dozens of studios have closed their doors this gen as a result. Just look at the ratio of games released on consoles and PCs, or consoles and tablets. It's like 100:1 in favor of PC/Tablets.
Also, "Gaming PCs" don't matter. You can play the vast majority of PC games with a store-bought laptop these days. Someone not being able to play Crysis 3, or BF4 is not going to cripple the PC market. The PC market brings in more money than every other gaming market. It has worldwide appeal, and every single gamer can not only find something interesting on the PC, but something they can actually afford as well, and actually access at their leisure.
Ly_the_Fairy
Â
Really.?
Â
Last gen sales.
152 million PS2
25 million xbox
23 million GC
10 million Dreamcast.
Total = 210 million consoles in 12 years because the PS2 died last year.
Â
This gen.
77 million PS3
77 million xbox 360
99 million wii.
Total = 253 million units in 8 years and counting.
Â
No the console market has sold 43 more million units than last gen while been having 4 years less in life cycle,in the very end this console gen could end close to 300 million units sold.
Â
He cites a totalbiscuit video in his blog :lol:Â
senses_fail_06
That's so people could learn about revenue streams.
[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]
Â
The console industry has been declining for years, and dozens of studios have closed their doors this gen as a result. Just look at the ratio of games released on consoles and PCs, or consoles and tablets. It's like 100:1 in favor of PC/Tablets.
Also, "Gaming PCs" don't matter. You can play the vast majority of PC games with a store-bought laptop these days. Someone not being able to play Crysis 3, or BF4 is not going to cripple the PC market. The PC market brings in more money than every other gaming market. It has worldwide appeal, and every single gamer can not only find something interesting on the PC, but something they can actually afford as well, and actually access at their leisure.
tormentos
Â
Really.?
Â
Last gen sales.
152 million PS2
25 million xbox
23 million GC
10 million Dreamcast.
Total = 210 million consoles in 12 years because the PS2 died last year.
Â
This gen.
77 million PS3
77 million xbox 360
99 million wii.
Total = 253 million units in 8 years and counting.
Â
No the console market has sold 43 more million units than last gen while been having 4 years less in life cycle,in the very end this console gen could end close to 300 million units sold.
Â
NPD 2012
"Both December and the year as a whole were down 22 percent from their respective 2011"
NPD 2011
"All metrics -- videogame hardware, software, and accessories -- were down in December as compared with December 2010, and ditto for 2011 as compared with 2010"
NPD 2010
"Tracking results from the NPD Group for new U.S. retail video game sales in December showed industry revenues for the important December sales period shrinking 9 percent compared to the same month last year, leaving the industry down 5 percent for the entire year"
NPD 2009
"U.S. retail sales of video games, which includes portable and console hardware, software and accessories, generated revenues of close to $19.66 billion, an 8 percent decline over the $21.4 billion generated in 2008. "
The console market isn't going anywhere for at least another gen. PC isn't the end all be all people say it is because the majority of people don't have gaming PCs and those who are upgrading from their current low level PCs are replacing them with tablets. Tablets are the main competitor to gaming because of the ease of use/mobility and they appeal to the casual/Wii audience. After that, it's on consoles and PC to fight for the core market and that's what this gen will decide.[QUOTE="DontGetBigIdeas"][QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]
Nor mine, but it'll still be a shame to see the console market go.
Ly_the_Fairy
The console industry has been declining for years, and dozens of studios have closed their doors this gen as a result. Just look at the ratio of games released on consoles and PCs, or consoles and tablets. It's like 100:1 in favor of PC/Tablets.
Also, "Gaming PCs" don't matter. You can play the vast majority of PC games with a store-bought laptop these days. Someone not being able to play Crysis 3, or BF4 is not going to cripple the PC market. The PC market brings in more money than every other gaming market. It has worldwide appeal, and every single gamer can not only find something interesting on the PC, but something they can actually afford as well, and actually access at their leisure.
The console industry hasn't been in decline though. Console game sales have been. That's the big difference. You're right that PC isn't going to disappear because people don't want to build mega-gaming PCs, but if tablets continue to be the trend for gaming, that's where developers will go. They follow the money. Also, stating the PC market makes more money than any segment of gaming is just false. Consoles still make up the majority of gaming's 60 billion dollar industry and will continue to do so. PCs are steadily growing though, and because of what you mentioned -- mid range PCs can still play games so Steam can apply to those people. Because gaming PC sales are not tracked, we can't tell if PCs are seeing a surge for gaming alone, but Steam has shown that PC software sales are rising and it's what you attributed it too -- ease of use and variety. Studios aren't closing their doors because consoles don't sell. They're still selling quite well, surpassing last gen with the mighty PS2. It's that budgets are so inflated and marketing spends are so high that they couldn't possibly recoup on what they spent to make the game. For example, Tomb Raider made some 3 million bucks and didn't break even. Who asked for Tomb Raider to be a AAA game with a 1 million dollar plus marketing budget? I can't think of anyone, yet Square Enix decided it had to be like that. Publishers need to focus their money on smaller projects in between games, rather than making huge game after huge game and expecting every single one to make their money back.Yep..
And even that they change the policy what happen.?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2013/videogames
Nothing the PS4 still selling faster i think is to late for them.
tormentos
I agree that irreparable harm has been done to the brand name.Â
---
The people who threw this big sh!tstorm are the lifeblood of a new system. The devs, enthusiasts, and early adopters. You need positive word-of-mouth to push a system launch and MS showed repeatedly that they didn't give a f*ck about core gamers.
They assumed Xbots would stay loyal and sacrifice themselves as the foundation of the big push to being a mainstream all-in-one electronics device. Without that foundation they have jack sh!t.Â
Man the lifeboats, Project CableBox is sinking like an iron turd.
*sees Kotaku included in a "fully thought out articles" list*
:lol:
I respect the time he put into his response though. Much less troll-ish than his twitter replies. I still think this is a great article on the matter.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment