Nolan Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 They can't afford such sales at the moment, the same as Steam couldn't when it launched. Right now used game sales damage the first-hand sales too much for them to be able to afford sales which produce such tiny profit margins. I'm not saying it would've happened, only that it was a possibility - and now it isn't. I find it hard to believe used games are so damaging... If a game only sells 2,000,000 at $60 a copy (and yes that many new copies do get moved) that's $120,000,000. I just don't think that budgets truly run that high on average. Maybe I'm delusional about marketing costs. Games that are raking in near to that amount shouldn't be considered failures, and the publishers shouldn't be trying to push that blame on to us. They should be reevaluating their spending. Big publishers right now remind me a lot of the US government, just keep throwing money around and complain that you're losing money. Seriously ~$480,000,000 between 3 titles splitting 8 million sales...failures RE6, 5 milllion sold ($300,000,000) Failure RE5 has sold 6 million.... Dead Space 3 needs to sell 5 million to be a series worth continuing Used games are just a scapegoat for unrealistic expectations and unchecked spending. Lets not forget that these numbers don't include sales made on steam, last I knew those didn't get released.
Sheikah Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) They can't afford such sales at the moment, the same as Steam couldn't when it launched. Right now used game sales damage the first-hand sales too much for them to be able to afford sales which produce such tiny profit margins. I'm not saying it would've happened, only that it was a possibility - and now it isn't. Digital games have been done for ages on the 360, why can't they have been sold cheap like Steam? They can't be sold on either. That argument doesn't make sense because Steam sell games cheaper than preowned games, so if the 360 did the same it would undercut preowned games (and they would therefore be no threat). The kind of money Steam sells their games for makes them so attractive that people impulse buy them online. 360 could do the same. Edited June 20, 2013 by Sheikah
Ashley Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) I did have a thought (that may not be plausible, but it was a passing thought); Microsoft has been saying for the last few weeks "the 24 hour check in is very small data", so why not offer some kind of 3G attachment that would circumvent the need for an actual internet connection (I know there will still be issues in more remote places)? If it is just a small amount of data going through, they could sell it for cheap and take the burden of any additional costs. But there may be 100s of reasons why that wouldn't work. Or perhaps some kind of 'holiday period'. You could tell Xbox (literally...) that you're going to be internetless for x period of time and download your games temporarily, circumventing the need for an Internet connection. (not sure why I'm all about "circumventing" right now) Edited June 20, 2013 by Ashley
Nolan Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Built in 3G specifically just for authentication would be great. Knowing MS it would not be cheap though, (Anyone remember the Wifi adapter....).
Dcubed Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 I find it hard to believe used games are so damaging... If a game only sells 2,000,000 at $60 a copy (and yes that many new copies do get moved) that's $120,000,000. I just don't think that budgets truly run that high on average. Maybe I'm delusional about marketing costs. Games that are raking in near to that amount shouldn't be considered failures, and the publishers shouldn't be trying to push that blame on to us. They should be reevaluating their spending. Big publishers right now remind me a lot of the US government, just keep throwing money around and complain that you're losing money. Seriously ~$480,000,000 between 3 titles splitting 8 million sales...failures RE6, 5 milllion sold ($300,000,000) Failure RE5 has sold 6 million.... Dead Space 3 needs to sell 5 million to be a series worth continuing Used games are just a scapegoat for unrealistic expectations and unchecked spending. Lets not forget that these numbers don't include sales made on steam, last I knew those didn't get released. The publisher only earns about $37 per copy for a $60 retail game, so you can chop down that revenue figure by about half. But yes, it is a pure scapegoat that is being used to justify these ludicrous game & marketing budgets. Used game sales are a huge force that actually subsidises the cost of new games for a large chunk of the industry's audience. Who the hell would buy Fifa 13, without knowing that they can trade it in for Fifa 14 when it comes about?
Nolan Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 The publisher only earns about $37 per copy for a $60 retail game, so you can chop down that revenue figure by about half. But yes, it is a pure scapegoat that is being used to justify these ludicrous game & marketing budgets. Used game sales are a huge force that actually subsidises the cost of new games for a large chunk of the industry's audience. Who the hell would buy Fifa 13, without knowing that they can trade it in for Fifa 14 when it comes about? So closer to 2/3rds. I'm curious where you get the $37 figure. I've never seen anything concrete and have been led to believe it was a higher figure (though still obviously not the full 60). Honestly that's another reason stores like having Used games, the stores don't make much profit off of initial sales.
Debug Mode Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 So it would seem that after yesterday's announcement, the Xbox One has soared to the top of Amazon US's video game sellers chart and second place on the UK site after The Last of Us. Shit. Gamers are such a fickle bunch of clowns.
Nolan Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Gamers aren't terribly bright is what I'd go with...but at least they did speak with their wallets successfully for once.
Dcubed Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Gamers aren't terribly bright is what I'd go with...but at least they did speak with their wallets successfully for once. Sadly so. It's disgusting just how many of them are only too happy to jump right back in bed with the company that tried to rape them just a scant week ago. The core "gamer" audience are largely pretty stupid, so it isn't that surprising to see. I still reckon that PS4 will win the generation by a good margin, but it seems that Xbone will not be the typical failure that a 3rd console usually turns out to be any more now (and in a few years time, when everyone has forgotten what they did last week... that DRM will be back and there will be nothing that they can do about it...)
Shorty Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 If a game only sells 2,000,000 at $60 a copy (and yes that many new copies do get moved) that's $120,000,000. I just don't think that budgets truly run that high on average. Maybe I'm delusional about marketing costs. Publishers are not going to get all that back... what about sales and distribution And I think you underestimate how much it costs to pay all your team, CEOs, overheads and contractors not only bonuses and contracts for the game they just launched but also wages for the next title for however many years that takes. Credits at the end of games these days are hundreds of names long, and they're not minimum wage positions. So it would seem that after yesterday's announcement, the Xbox One has soared to the top of Amazon US's video game sellers chart and second place on the UK site after The Last of Us. Shit. Gamers are such a fickle bunch of clowns. This is so confusing to me... surely what has happened is exactly what should have happened? People didn't like the DRM, so they didn't pre-order. Microsoft gets the message and reverses their policy, now gamers do pre-order. How is this fickle? What would you have expected/how would it have worked out better?
Sheikah Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Microsoft can re-implement the DRM measures though. We know what MS want to do now, I think it'd be pretty unwise to invest in a more expensive console where they consider these policies to be acceptable, only backing down if the public has a backlash. It shouldn't be like that; they should listen to the public in the first place.
S.C.G Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 I'm still not buying one at launch on principle... In fact, I'm pretty much convinced that I won't need one once I have a PS4 as Microsoft will have to pull some pretty damn good exclusives out of the bag for me to even consider it and that would only be when the stupidly high price of the console drops to match that of the PS4. 'Kinect two-point-oh!' should not justify an extra £100 not when they are practically giving away the current model.
Serebii Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 I'm still not buying one at launch on principle... In fact, I'm pretty much convinced that I won't need one once I have a PS4 as Microsoft will have to pull some pretty damn good exclusives out of the bag for me to even consider it and that would only be when the stupidly high price of the console drops to match that of the PS4. 'Kinect two-point-oh!' should not justify an extra £100 not when they are practically giving away the current model. I'm pretty much the same. While I'll miss the Halo series, even though it has got worse since 343 took over, it'll take a lot to convince me to get the Xbox One. It's more expensive, less powerful, and almost all the games I'd likely get for it will be on the PS4 anyway. That and the fact Microsoft wants to screw people who buy it, and that their last console had a 60% failure rate for a long time before they even accepted there was a fault, makes me hesitant to buy one.
Cube Posted June 21, 2013 Author Posted June 21, 2013 'Kinect two-point-oh!' should not justify an extra £100 not when they are practically giving away the current model. This is another reason for me to hold back on the console. I'll have too see how many proper games had non-optional Kinect gameplay features.
Serebii Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) This is another reason for me to hold back on the console. I'll have too see how many proper games had non-optional Kinect gameplay features. I have Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary Edition on my Xbox 360. I was playing it, Kinect was plugged in as usual. I coughed (I'm severely asthmatic so this isn't that uncommon). Kinect took the cough to be me saying grenade. The grenade was thrown and killed me. Reasons such as this are why I dislike Kinect Edited June 21, 2013 by Serebii
Daft Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 I actually like Kinect being integrated into a normal game. Why bang on about the industry not innovating and then readily dismiss a plethora of possibilities from something new because the tech - which has now been greatly improved upon - has teething issues? It took years for anyone to start implementing the DS's dual touchscreens properly, I think Kinect deserves a little more than unflinching dismissal.
S.C.G Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 I actually like Kinect being integrated into a normal game. Why bang on about the industry not innovating and then readily dismiss a plethora of possibilities from something new because the tech - which has now been greatly improved upon - has teething issues? It took years for anyone to start implementing the DS's dual touchscreens properly, I think Kinect deserves a little more than unflinching dismissal. My main problem is that the new Kinect is inflating the price of the console by probably up to £100... when you consider how little many gamers will probably be using it, aside from the odd gesture or voice command, it doesn't seem like value for money. It might prove its worth in the future, that's not entirely in dispute but for now, PS4/Wii U seems the way to go this generation with Xbone being bought as a third console only if/when it becomes worth for the games and Kinect.
Magnus Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 My cousin (who thinks she's a gamer) has a friend (who thinks she's a gamer) and sometimes her Facebook posts show up on my wall when my cousin comments on them. So yesterday she posted a link to the the Xbone news (from a tabloid, because that's where all the gamers get their gaming news these days) and said, "woohoo, guess now I won't have to consider a PS4 if my 360 dies on me." Which begs two questions: a) Thank God she doesn't have to consider getting a PS4 (this isn't really question), and b) Is she just going to keep using her 360 indefinitely instead of getting a new console if it doesn't die on her? I think the thought of only upgrading to a new console when your old one dies is the most offensive thing about her post. My old NES still works! :p I think I'll just get both consoles What are you, Switzerland?
Dcubed Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 My cousin (who thinks she's a gamer) has a friend (who thinks she's a gamer) and sometimes her Facebook posts show up on my wall when my cousin comments on them. So yesterday she posted a link to the the Xbone news (from a tabloid, because that's where all the gamers get their gaming news these days) and said, "woohoo, guess now I won't have to consider a PS4 if my 360 dies on me." Which begs two questions: a) Thank God she doesn't have to consider getting a PS4 (this isn't really question), and b) Is she just going to keep using her 360 indefinitely instead of getting a new console if it doesn't die on her? I think the thought of only upgrading to a new console when your old one dies is the most offensive thing about her post. My old NES still works! :p What are you, Switzerland? She probably thinks that Xbone will play her 360 games... You may want to let her know that it's not backward's compatible...
Shorty Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 What are you, Switzerland? Ha, no I won't really be buying both, not anywhere near the launch anyway. I just don't know which console I want at the moment. That said, I do earn my keep and spend a good chunk of my non-savings income on gaming, as it's my main interest and I don't get out much... :p I just hate this PS4 vs Xbox shit, personally I'm just really excited for the next generation of gaming. All anybody else wants to do is rag on the console they don't even want! In an ideal world, I would be able to justify getting both, or they would both be half the price.
Agent Gibbs Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 There will have to be some shit hot exclusives to get me buying a xb180, not to mention a good period of time with MS regaining consumer trust, but as it stands having a WiiU and PS4 will suffice my console needs and other things such as Titanfall are on PC too so they are covered! as it stands the only thing i'm loosing is Halo, and i've not played one since 3, the spin offs never interested me, and by the time 4 was launched i just didn't buy 360 games anymore If halo ever gets released on PC again, well i'd never ever need an xb180
Debug Mode Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) How is this fickle? What would you have expected/how would it have worked out better? Sure, might be slightly strong on the use of the word "fickle". But shit, customer loyalty is a very strong thing and for a lot of people who identified with the Xbox brand and paid through the roof for console replacements, unfairly priced proprietary storage and basic online services, surely the fact they even tried to implement this shit is the most offensive part of it all? Heck, now that I think about it, I was adequately strong on the use of the word fickle. They tried fucking their fanbase, the fanbase said "Get your cock out of our assholes" and Microsoft steps back and says "Ah lets just forget that ever happened. These gamers are fickle as fuck, good to see there's still a lot of different PS4 bundles in the Top 10 sellers. I don't really give too much of a shit about these new consoles as I know none of them will be attractive to me for at least a couple of years. I'm glad Microsoft scrapped the idea, I really am, but the fact they even bothered to try will always remain strong in my head, especially considering my pure hatred for anti-consumerist practices. It's the prime reason why I'm finding myself less of a Nintendo fan these days. Edited June 21, 2013 by Debug Mode
Cube Posted June 21, 2013 Author Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) I think they used this as an excuse to ditch the Family Sharing, rather than a reason. Rumours from a reliable source (the one that leaked the Pre-E3 stuff and has been known to be reliable for many years) suggest that the sharing was actually very limited, such as the game not saving after a certain number of minutes, as well as online features not being shared. And if you look back to the wording of the interviews, they do repeatedly say stuff like "your son, who is off at university, can try your new game", which suggests that you didn't get the full game in the share. If you think about it, this "Share with 10 people" thing, if it was as good as it was hyped to be, could have been much, much worse for publishers than the current system and would have completely undermined all the anti-used-games-because-it-hurts-publishers rubbish. So I think it was completely dropped because they realised that, due to their terrible PR, it was massively overhyped. Dropping it while pleasing many people is probably better than people discovering what they were really offering - a glorified demo system. But, as it has been dropped, we'll probably never find out what the service was going to be. Which is why it's strange for people to be annoyed over the loss of it - we had no idea what it was anyway. Edit: 60 minutes was the maximum, according to that crazy buttocks on a train guy on NeoGaf. Edited June 21, 2013 by Cube
Deathjam Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 I think they used this as an excuse to ditch the Family Sharing, rather than a reason. Rumours from a reliable source (the one that leaked the Pre-E3 stuff and has been known to be reliable for many years) suggest that the sharing was actually very limited, such as the game not saving after a certain number of minutes, as well as online features not being shared. And if you look back to the wording of the interviews, they do repeatedly say stuff like "your son, who is off at university, can try your new game", which suggests that you didn't get the full game in the share. If you think about it, this "Share with 10 people" thing, if it was as good as it was hyped to be, could have been much, much worse for publishers than the current system and would have completely undermined all the anti-used-games-because-it-hurts-publishers rubbish. So I think it was completely dropped because they realised that, due to their terrible PR, it was massively overhyped. Dropping it while pleasing many people is probably better than people discovering what they were really offering - a glorified demo system. But, as it has been dropped, we'll probably never find out what the service was going to be. Which is why it's strange for people to be annoyed over the loss of it - we had no idea what it was anyway. Edit: 60 minutes was the maximum, according to that crazy buttocks on a train guy on NeoGaf. One thing I really don't get, is that with the PS3 and some trusted friends and family, you can share games and content already. Why was this being touted as a massive feature for the Xbone when, from the initial sounds of it, you couldn't even play games concurrently with each other.
Recommended Posts