Nothing will make me accept the always on crap, it's going to water down the games. Sure the games'll be cheaper and you'll get the quality you pay for, they'll end up becoming glorified app like things. I have steam and i have a few games on there but they're all 20 years old and it's the only way to play them. Hopefully someone will come along and make a system for those of us who refuse to bow down to these guys.
Interesting article on new xbox
- Thread starter Wes R
- Start date
Paul Andrew
Master Member
I don't believe I contradicted you on that point sir.
Solo4114
Master Member
I dunno that you'll "get what you pay for." For that matter, I don't think I get what I pay for anymore as it is. Well, that's not strictly true. Call of Duty: Black Ops was a gift. There I'd say I got what I paid for. 
Seriously, though, AAA titles are garbage. They're like Michael Bay movies in video-game form. They're all flash, no substance. I don't give a damn how pretty your graphics are if your gameplay is stupid. Am I getting what I pay for there for my $60? Hardly. Price to the customer doesn't necessarily indicate quality.
there's also other sources of revenue for game developers than just the cost to the consumer. It's really a question of profit margins rather than absolute dollars. When you sell someone a disc, that disc may cost $60. But how much of that $60 does the developer pocket? How much is going to an advertising budget, the factory where the labels are printed, and the discs are pressed? How much for the cases, for the shipping, etc., etc., etc.?
If a developer can sell a physical-copy game for $60 and only pocket 15%, but can sell a $30 digital download game and pocket 40% or more, which one will yield better games for the developer? If you can halve the price to the consumer and double (or better) your profit margin, you can end up pocketing a LOT more money.
Seriously, though, AAA titles are garbage. They're like Michael Bay movies in video-game form. They're all flash, no substance. I don't give a damn how pretty your graphics are if your gameplay is stupid. Am I getting what I pay for there for my $60? Hardly. Price to the customer doesn't necessarily indicate quality.
there's also other sources of revenue for game developers than just the cost to the consumer. It's really a question of profit margins rather than absolute dollars. When you sell someone a disc, that disc may cost $60. But how much of that $60 does the developer pocket? How much is going to an advertising budget, the factory where the labels are printed, and the discs are pressed? How much for the cases, for the shipping, etc., etc., etc.?
If a developer can sell a physical-copy game for $60 and only pocket 15%, but can sell a $30 digital download game and pocket 40% or more, which one will yield better games for the developer? If you can halve the price to the consumer and double (or better) your profit margin, you can end up pocketing a LOT more money.
JoMamma_Smurf
Master Member
:ninja
Perhaps I missed it. Cos I genuinely don't believe ive seen it.
Why does everyone think it would be pretty much guaranteed cheaper games?
I do keep seeing people say oh the dev could pocket more money making it cheaper.
But they don't do it now and they've been selling games on XBL for ages. Always more then my store sells them at.
Online games is nothing new. So why expect different? I've no idea and just wanted someone to give me the reason. Everywhere I look now theres just too many comments to sift through.
Also... Even if you could share with friends..... Wouldn't they have to download the WHOLE GAME to borrow it? I know superfast and all that but surely loads of people have caps? Not that I'd be affected...
I can't help but keep thinking it was almost mainly to combat piracy. And they made a bad job of selling a bad idea. Of course unless someone lectures me on the points above. And I prefer x + y = b. Not x + y could = b in 5 years. But ill take any backed reason.
Ill just add one more point here. And the above id rather get an answer to if anyone can enlighten me but here.
You say make games cheaper if they were all online. But 40$ isn't cheaper. Here:
Say I buy brand new game at 60$. And then trade it in at even 20$(Were talking mainly solo games that id finish quickly, cos you probably wouldn't get rid of your CODs and what not anyway. Also take note that depending if I finish it in a couple of week I could easily get 30+). Then that game Has only cost me 40$/30$. So why take a leap of faith in something that may or may not be as cheap in a couple of years? I can bet my bottom dollar they aren't going to sell them at 20$ brand new.
Or is the main factor that some people don't trade in so just don't care?
J
Why does everyone think it would be pretty much guaranteed cheaper games?
I do keep seeing people say oh the dev could pocket more money making it cheaper.
But they don't do it now and they've been selling games on XBL for ages. Always more then my store sells them at.
Online games is nothing new. So why expect different? I've no idea and just wanted someone to give me the reason. Everywhere I look now theres just too many comments to sift through.
Also... Even if you could share with friends..... Wouldn't they have to download the WHOLE GAME to borrow it? I know superfast and all that but surely loads of people have caps? Not that I'd be affected...
I can't help but keep thinking it was almost mainly to combat piracy. And they made a bad job of selling a bad idea. Of course unless someone lectures me on the points above. And I prefer x + y = b. Not x + y could = b in 5 years. But ill take any backed reason.
Ill just add one more point here. And the above id rather get an answer to if anyone can enlighten me but here.
You say make games cheaper if they were all online. But 40$ isn't cheaper. Here:
Say I buy brand new game at 60$. And then trade it in at even 20$(Were talking mainly solo games that id finish quickly, cos you probably wouldn't get rid of your CODs and what not anyway. Also take note that depending if I finish it in a couple of week I could easily get 30+). Then that game Has only cost me 40$/30$. So why take a leap of faith in something that may or may not be as cheap in a couple of years? I can bet my bottom dollar they aren't going to sell them at 20$ brand new.
Or is the main factor that some people don't trade in so just don't care?
J
Solo4114
Master Member
There's a few ways this could happen.
For one thing, downscaling the amount of physical copies created (the theory being that digital copies make up the shortfall) would mean less overhead. You aren't paying as much for factories to run, for materials to make the games (discs, cases, paper to print on, ink, etc.), you aren't paying for your shipping trucks, warehouse space or whathaveyou, etc. You're paying for server space and...uh....bank transfer fees? It's cheaper overhead, anyway.
For another, theoretically, you can increase your total volume of sales if the prices are cut. So, if you sold 100 units at $60 a piece, and you cut the price, you might sell 150 units at $45 a piece. That's $750 more sales. Just to give very basic estimates. You charge less, but you sell more, and make more money in the process.
Then you start factoring in profit margins, too. Instead of carrying expenses -- like all that overhead from the factory -- you end up pocketing more money. So, when you're selling games at $60 per game, but dealing with the costs of producing a physical copy, you might keep $6 from the sale. Why? Because you're spending the other $54 on other stuff, some of which includes the cost associated with physical copies. When you have a digital copy, you might be able to cut the cost of it to $35, but pocket $10.
Now, the likely question in response to this would be "But why not just leave the price at $60 and pocket $35 instead of $10?" The answer is simple: the market (theoretically) won't bear that price for digital downloads. Oh, sure, some will buy, but you still have to entice others via things like periodic sales. That's basically how Steam operates. They sell games to you (mostly made by other publishers), and normally they ask around $50 for a newly releasing game. (Example: Saints Row 4 is selling for $49.99 -- $45.99 if you already own Saints Row 3.) But then they'll have sales which drop that price to $30, or sometimes less, depending on the sale. Sometimes they have huge full-catalog sales for publishers (e.g. "Buy the entire Bethesda catalog for $100!"), other times it's just a weekend or mid-week sale for this or that game.
The end result, though, is that if you're a patient customer, you can effectively end up NEVER paying more than about $30. So, yeah, Steam can "ask" me to pay $50 for a new game, but I almost never do (once in a blue moon, sure). When they do, they also usually include other freebies like a new gun for Team Fortress 2 or whatever (which may or may not be valuable to someone, but hey, they're offering SOME incentive to buy new at full price). But in the end, if you only ever buy when they put stuff on sale for $30 or less...your price for games is always $30 or less.
MS may not have done this yet, but I think they'd kind of have to if they were that heavily invested in digital downloads. Otherwise, people would just jump ship to some other provider.
Some of it is about piracy, but in all honesty, I find it hard to believe that someone wouldn't eventually figure out how to "download" a streamed game and play it offline or whatever, or create firmware flashes or whathaveyou. I think it's less about piracy, though, and far far more about increasing profit margins, centralizing control, creating a "Microsoft Ecosystem" the way Apple has, etc. So, yeah, it's about money but not in the "Damn you, consumers and your piracy!" sense, and more in the "Let's try to get everyone to buy ALL the MS devices." It's not a stretch to think that what might start with a platform like XboxOne would eventually expand to Win8 phones, Win8 tablets, and so on. If you have a single ecosystem that covers multiple devices, you can sell to those devices from a single portal and make bank.
I, for one, don't trade in hardly ever. Instead, I buy used in the first place, and usually at a much deeper discount than $20. Usually, I'm PAYING $20 at most for a game. Granted, it's usually also at least a year old, but still. Here in the States, I think most people only get around, what, $10 for a trade-in? I honestly don't know. But there's another question to pose back to you. If you trade in the game for $30-40 (and that's $30-40 spread out over time, with there being a period of time where you're out $60), what's the difference between trading in an old game and getting $20 off your next $60 purchase....and just paying $40 for a game up front, no trade-in required? You get to keep your game, AND you get to keep $20 that would otherwise be sitting in someone else's bank account, no? So, where's the objection to a digital copy at a lower starting price?
Lord Boron
Sr Member
I don't trade in my games. If I sell it, I sell it myself on EBay and if its still a new game, I can often get get close what I paid for it, and have sometime got back all my money. Can't do that with a digital copy.
Lord Boron
Sr Member
A nice theory, and it makes sense but it doesn't translate to reality. Just look at e books. Same deal, but at most, the prices are a few bucks less. The companies come up with all sorts of explanation why it's not that much cheaper, but what it comes down to is that they just see an increase in profit for selling it at the same price with less overhead. They aren't about to pass the savings on to the consumer.
Solo4114
Master Member
The e-books analogy is actually a solid one, but you've got to think in terms of scale. So, yeah, the price drop for an e-book may only be $2 off the regular price, but you've got to look at the percent difference rather than the absolute dollars. The mass market paperback version of A Fest for Crows is available on Amazon Prime for $6.74. The Kindle version is $4.62. That's just over a 30% discount on the hard-copy price. So, yeah, we're talking only a few dollars less, but the percentage drop in price is pretty significant.
Translate that into video game terms, and a $60 game drops to about $42. So, right there, that's about $18 back in your pocket, if we assume a similar 30% discount on disc-based vs. digital-download games. And that doesn't factor in sales that could still happen, too, if they want to gin up purchasing. I dunno about you, but $18 is more than "just a few bucks."
The real reason why you don't see dramatically deeper discounts is because there's no need to. The market will bear a $4.62 price for an e-copy of a mass market paperback book. If the market wouldn't bear that amount....they'd lower it to the point where it'd sell sufficiently to let them keep some kind of profit. It's still a business, and they're still trying to make money, after all.
The real question would be what the price point is that the market would bear for such games. I think, again, where MS dropped the ball is in setting expectations with consumers. Nobody seems willing to believe that they'd see a decrease in prices as a result of going digital. I think they probably would, but you're right -- there's no guarantees. And unless and until there are, OR unless and until the Steam pricing model takes hold industry-wide, I think you're unlikely to see a lot of change in consumer attitudes. MS saying "Trust us. It'll be cheaper" won't cut it. And they didn't even go that far this time. I think it'd take a statement like "MSRP for games purchased through Xbox Live Gold will be approximately 30-40% cheaper than buying a boxed version" to convince folks, and even then, it might take them -- GASP -- actually cutting prices on XBL games. Part of the problem, though, is that they're also competing with a secondary market of stores like Gamestop who can sell a used game for $10 -- sometimes less, whereas MS has to drop the price to $20 at the bare minimum to stay profitable. Yet another reason why they want to switch to digital only. But for that to happen, the industry all has to hold hands and jump together.
I see the point. However a couple of things came to mind.
You say theoretically the market wouldnt allow for prices to stay the same. This wouldnt happen. Look at apple. Once physical media overhauls were shut down. How would the general public not allow it? Its too late once accepted. Where else they gunna go? Other companies woild get on this as fast as possible. As if theres no other option people will pay more wether or not they like it. Got you by the knackers.
You say you dont save because you buy late. However this works two ways.
Most people do buy on release. As they all buy new games etc etc for whatever reason. All initial sales are best so the proof is there.
You dont trade in to save the extra money. Most people do. Showing by the value of pre owned markets.
This leads me to another point... you dont trade in.... but you save in the first place.
So the only benefit someone who buys in your instance would be same price... but earlier purchase...
And for me would be nothing. Except not having to trade in. As I may save in the first place. However this would depend on how much saved in the first place vs difference in trade in. To be debated.
Lets not forget after all this. You said STEAM initially still sell at top doller. So would it actually benefit you or would you still wait to save the money? Seems to work just like the market does now.
I doubt theyd start knocking 50 percent of anyway.
Sorry if ive missed something im on the dog and bone.
Edit...
Also. Everyone keeps goin on about STEAM prices. Pc games are cheaper. So how much cheaper are steam? Cos I see new pc games retailing at 30 gbp and concoles at 45....
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
Last edited:
What i love is MS and other hating on Gamestop. They're not the only game in town folks, there are ton of smaller and locally owned chains that will buy/sell/trade games to you and be a good bit more fair. Sadly the one i dealt with got out of jail for burning his store down and the new one looks like a low budget pawn shop and he gouges price wise. It used to be he'd offer say 15 for a game in cash or 25 in credit. Which is still better either way than gamestop. I stopped shopping with them when i walked in last year and they had PS2 games for 30.00 each in little paper holders with no box or manuals. Those are worth 5.00 each on ebay if that. They just like pointing out gamestop because it's the only place kids seem to want to go.
Interesting...
Forsaken
Well-Known Member
Microsoft Is Behind Mystery Data Center in Iowa
Microsoft Is Behind Mystery Data Center in Iowa | Wired Enterprise | Wired.com
“Project Mountain” is an expansion of Microsoft’s existing data center in West Des Moines, pushing the company’s investment in the region to the $1 billion range, says Debi Durham, director of the state agency in charge of economic development. The Iowa Economic Development Authority board approved $20 million in tax credits for the project.
Kinect all your data belongs to us!
Al
Microsoft Is Behind Mystery Data Center in Iowa | Wired Enterprise | Wired.com
“Project Mountain” is an expansion of Microsoft’s existing data center in West Des Moines, pushing the company’s investment in the region to the $1 billion range, says Debi Durham, director of the state agency in charge of economic development. The Iowa Economic Development Authority board approved $20 million in tax credits for the project.
Kinect all your data belongs to us!
Al
Contec
Master Member
I use Steam and put games that i like to by in a list that is called Wishlist... Then i get updates when that game gets in cheaper.
Pretty easy ,And i don't by games "new" anymore.
that's the point. So you save by waiting for prices to lower?
That happens in modern games now. That's what I was getting at. People were using steam as an example as to why games would get cheaper. But it appears Steam doesn't work that differently from physical media...?
Edit:
Or were you saying it because there's a wishlist feature? As other than the wish list I don't see anything different...
Contec
Master Member
There is a wishlist feature... and i do really save money by buying the game online. Its far cheaper to buy a steam game then buy a game from the stores here in sweden. Some stores here even have full price for a few years older games. Its nuts.
That's very unfortunate that you get screwed on games prices. Know why its so expensive?
Just wondering what the difference would be.
But other then that you've said your games don't drop in price for a while (we will get here in a minute), is it just the wishlist that's a benefit to you to save you actually looking on the net or wherever to find out prices? Im just trying to get the scope of the actual benefits that all the changes would make. And if all the hoo har would only benefit you if they gave you a wishlist. Whilst stopping hundreds of thousands from being able to play at all.
Like other countries where all the changes would mean no games what so ever.
Wouldn't you prefer the new physical media reverse?
As the new changes mean region free. Meaning you can purchase games online as cheap as anyone else now. Rather then waiting for a sale.... Ebay etc.
(This would be quite a benefit to you I would think)
Not only that. You can get them as early as everyone else.
I can't see why your stores wouldn't drop price if they weren't selling. So unless so many people keep paying top whack. But heres the combat via region free like above.....
J
I've learned to be patient and buy new games at walmart on the 20.00 rack or when they're on markdown special. Only very rarely do i buy anything new for above 40.00. i used to go gamestop and get pc games super cheap when they were marked down but our gamestop is a giant pile of crap and in a terrible location. The fact that they moved it out of a nice big store in the mall and shoved it into a tiny corner of a building in the walmart parking lot shows their business sense.
Similar threads
