Playstation 4: No backwards compatibility, used games locked out.
- Thread starter WarPig
- Start date
I want that NEs and snes :lol
EA's CEO has been talking about charging in game for ammo you pay for with real cash. Not sure if it was for all games or future MMOs but it's not winning him fans.
Solo4114
Master Member
Honestly, people talk about how awful and evil EA is, and yeah, they suck, but I think what'll end up killing them (or what they'll end up coopting) is the "Netflix subscription" model for gaming.
What they really want is guaranteed constant cash flow. The way to do that is to change gaming from a commodity into a service. Actually, I think that's what entertainment in general will eventually become: a service, not a commodity. You pay for access, not for ownership. It's eliminating the ownership mentality that entertainment companies REALLY want because, legally, THEY own the relevant material and there's no arguing about that. You may own the disc/book/whatever, but they own what's ON it. What they want is consumers who don't say "**** you, that's MINE" and who, ideally don't even conceive of entertainment as something they COULD own.
What they really want is guaranteed constant cash flow. The way to do that is to change gaming from a commodity into a service. Actually, I think that's what entertainment in general will eventually become: a service, not a commodity. You pay for access, not for ownership. It's eliminating the ownership mentality that entertainment companies REALLY want because, legally, THEY own the relevant material and there's no arguing about that. You may own the disc/book/whatever, but they own what's ON it. What they want is consumers who don't say "**** you, that's MINE" and who, ideally don't even conceive of entertainment as something they COULD own.
cboath
Master Member
I know it's headed that way, but it bothers me the reason it's headed that way. It's NOT because it's easier on them, nor because they can work til the last second before release.
It's simply a method for squeezing more money out of the consumer.
I'm still waiting for CD's to 'come down' to the price of records and tapes
For those who don't remember, when CD's came out they were 2x the price of records and tapes and the industry's response was 'because it's new' and that once they became commonplace that the price would fall to the same as records and tapes. What happened was they raised the price of records (then killed records) and tapes to what the CD's cost :unsureI don't play as many games as I used to. I have a PS3 for bluray. The reason I don't game on it is games are $60 and short of PS3 exclusive titles I can get the same thing for the computer for the mid to low 30's the day it comes out.
If the PS4/XBox whatever come out next spring, I fully expect the first games to be in the 69.99 range.
Another similar thing is ebooks. New hardback can be had shortly after release for about 16-20 bucks. Meanwhile the ebook is 12ish and there's usually no middleman. Costs a small fraction of the cost of the physical book, yet the charge about 75% of the physical price. Now, if those hardbacks sold for the $30 or so that's the MSRP, that'd be one thing, but they don't.
Solo4114
Master Member
Well, that's another aspect of "streaming services" vs. "per-copy purchases." Again, I think a lot of this has to do with consumer psychology. "Why should I pay $XYZ for this item when I can get it for $ABC over here?"
Well, what if you can't get the item at all, as an item unto itself? What if you can only get ACCESS to the item through a SERVICE? Then it's like comparing cable to Dish, or XM to Sirious (before the merge). Who has the stuff you want and/or the better bargain for the service itself?
You're no longer buying "a book" or "a game," but rather access to different libraries of items. For people who grew up with physical copies, this MAY be workable, simply because they'll rationalize the per-unit cost out to be a fraction of the monthly service.
Take Netflix, for example. I switched to it around 2005 and LOVED it. I'd used video stores for years and was constantly being hit by late fees. Now you're telling me I can rent a video, keep it as long as I want, and have no fees?! AWESOME!! Never mind the fact that there'd be months wehre I'd pay for the service and only watch 3 films, which I could've done at the video store for the same price. But I was paying for a service, not a per-unit rental.
Let's say you could pay, oh, $30 a month for "silver" access to a streaming gaming service. You could play as much as you want of any of the games in the "silver" library during that month. For a lot of gamers, that's actually potentially cheaper than per-unit costs. But for the companies it makes even more sense because they're getting consumers to buy about 6 games a year brand new, with less risk of piracy, whereas the consumer might otherwise just buy, say, 2-3 right around Xmas or so.
Does it wring more money out of consumers hands? You bet. That's the point. But it also CAN be made to offer a better bargain than buying physical discs or even downloads.
Well, what if you can't get the item at all, as an item unto itself? What if you can only get ACCESS to the item through a SERVICE? Then it's like comparing cable to Dish, or XM to Sirious (before the merge). Who has the stuff you want and/or the better bargain for the service itself?
You're no longer buying "a book" or "a game," but rather access to different libraries of items. For people who grew up with physical copies, this MAY be workable, simply because they'll rationalize the per-unit cost out to be a fraction of the monthly service.
Take Netflix, for example. I switched to it around 2005 and LOVED it. I'd used video stores for years and was constantly being hit by late fees. Now you're telling me I can rent a video, keep it as long as I want, and have no fees?! AWESOME!! Never mind the fact that there'd be months wehre I'd pay for the service and only watch 3 films, which I could've done at the video store for the same price. But I was paying for a service, not a per-unit rental.
Let's say you could pay, oh, $30 a month for "silver" access to a streaming gaming service. You could play as much as you want of any of the games in the "silver" library during that month. For a lot of gamers, that's actually potentially cheaper than per-unit costs. But for the companies it makes even more sense because they're getting consumers to buy about 6 games a year brand new, with less risk of piracy, whereas the consumer might otherwise just buy, say, 2-3 right around Xmas or so.
Does it wring more money out of consumers hands? You bet. That's the point. But it also CAN be made to offer a better bargain than buying physical discs or even downloads.
cboath
Master Member
Hopefully this is the first successful battle against this stuff. Apple and the top 5 book publishers have been sued for price fixing e-books.
I don't mind a service instead of a single copy and I don't mind virtual instead of physical either. What I mind is screwing over the customer.
But, something that has been echo'd numerous times above - you can't go completely that way at the moment. Broadband connections are not ubiquitous yet. There are plenty of places you cannot get them and there are places where the price is a bit too much. Hell, I just found out yesterday my internet rate jumped 25% without a heads up. Just showed up in the bill. Checking online, i found the price to be correct and that there's now 4 tiers instead of 3. I'm now tier 2 of 4 (next to the slowest) which is 15mbs. Nothing wrong with that speed at all. The next one down, though, is like 3mbs. Not enough for streaming or a lot of other things. Point being, it's much harder to afford the internet portion of things when for a game service the minimum service you could get to allow streaming is $50 a month. Then toss in your subscription price and it gets up their pretty quick. Then you've got your rural or outlying areas where your only shot is Hughes satellite at $70/mo (at least last I heard).
That requiring an internet connection (and i'm sure dial up won't work at all) provision they're considering can very well add upwards of $840/yr to the price of the new system.
I don't mind a service instead of a single copy and I don't mind virtual instead of physical either. What I mind is screwing over the customer.
But, something that has been echo'd numerous times above - you can't go completely that way at the moment. Broadband connections are not ubiquitous yet. There are plenty of places you cannot get them and there are places where the price is a bit too much. Hell, I just found out yesterday my internet rate jumped 25% without a heads up. Just showed up in the bill. Checking online, i found the price to be correct and that there's now 4 tiers instead of 3. I'm now tier 2 of 4 (next to the slowest) which is 15mbs. Nothing wrong with that speed at all. The next one down, though, is like 3mbs. Not enough for streaming or a lot of other things. Point being, it's much harder to afford the internet portion of things when for a game service the minimum service you could get to allow streaming is $50 a month. Then toss in your subscription price and it gets up their pretty quick. Then you've got your rural or outlying areas where your only shot is Hughes satellite at $70/mo (at least last I heard).
That requiring an internet connection (and i'm sure dial up won't work at all) provision they're considering can very well add upwards of $840/yr to the price of the new system.
Timmythekid
Sr Member
Broadband still isn't enough to stream HD gaming to a console, particularly if, like me anyways, you do it WiFi as your wife won't let you bash holes in the walls to lay cable runs.
Access to a service is problematic at best - it's why we dumped cable altogether. You may want one channel out of the entire lineup, but still have to pay for access to all the other garbage.
And if you move to a library system, what's to prevent whoever owns the library and the hardware it resides on from not carrying smaller titles? They can make more money hosting a couple dozen CoD servers than hosting a title with less following. Subscription services are inherrantly restrictive in what content you will have access to, because it finacially makes more sense to put resources into the stuff that's already enormously popular.
Access to a service is problematic at best - it's why we dumped cable altogether. You may want one channel out of the entire lineup, but still have to pay for access to all the other garbage.
And if you move to a library system, what's to prevent whoever owns the library and the hardware it resides on from not carrying smaller titles? They can make more money hosting a couple dozen CoD servers than hosting a title with less following. Subscription services are inherrantly restrictive in what content you will have access to, because it finacially makes more sense to put resources into the stuff that's already enormously popular.
We're thinking of cutting the digital cable back to basic cable as it isn't worth the cash. Another thing i hate about these new systems is the updates that are mandatory to download for games and the system. The new Mass Effect 3 update has caused the games to become unplayable and i heard about a PS3 one that bricked some of the systems. I know it happened with PSPs too. I swear my 360 runs like crap every time i get a new update.
Similar threads
