We're already halfway there on PC games. Have a bunch of Steam games I can't legally resell, nor could i try before I buy as people rarely do demos any more. This BS is just going to cause more piracy as pirates once again get the better service.
We're already halfway there on PC games. Have a bunch of Steam games I can't legally resell, nor could i try before I buy as people rarely do demos any more. This BS is just going to cause more piracy as pirates once again get the better service.
Its less a problem of if Microsoft follows suite but rather games publishers ignoring other platforms and making games exclusively for the ps4. The sales affects publishers and devs the most
Perhaps, but I have shared my steam account with others to try out games I own without issue, Sonys DRM will mean I will have to lend them the entire console so it is not even in the same level
I hope everyone realises that once it all becomes download only games then Sony (Microsoft for the Xbox) will be the monopoly in that situation and they'll be able to set the prices to whatever they feel like as there will be no competition.
I picked up Battlefield 3, Batman Arkham City and a few others for £4.91 each at PC World in the christmas sale. If it were online download only the retailer would never have such an incentive to reduce games to such a low level.
I for one hope that the trusty disc remains around for the forseeable future.
Well IF both camps kill second hand sales they can BOTH shove it. It's really quite simple Also like many have said, this will give people MORE reason to pirate!! I once thought these companies actually gave a (small)damn about us consumers but it's all about the dollar dollar bills yo! None of us matter at all to these folks, our opinions mean jack to them.
Last edited by Harkin; 04-01-2013 at 03:38 PM.
Well, true, to a point, but there's also price-elasticity of demand.
If price is too high, there won't be any demand.
Also, other than those that have to have the latest game when it comes out, and will pay accordingly, there's a large pool of demand that, eithercby conscious choice or budgetary restrictions, will buy if it's (for example) £10, but not if it's £40.
So, any sensible marketing strategy always has an early-adopter phase, then a mass-market phase, then a 'sale to mop up the rest' stage.
So, there'll always be sales and price pressures, over time, even if they lock out second-hand sales. Maybe not as much, but it'll be there.
I am more likely to buy games on steam as I usually wait until they are on sale until I buy them. Also saves me having to store the discs somewhere and I am always able to get access to them. No more scratched DVD's for me.
I suppose you accept the fact that you cannot sell them on when you buy them.
From memory the they're planning to ditch the rom drive on the new xbox, which cuts an arm off when trying to be a home media centre, the main role of my ps3 is for bluray / dvd playback.
It's funny really how second hand actually help them the makers in so many ways!
1) People buy an older game they wouldn't normally have purchased, like it and buy newer games from that maker
2) 1st time buyers purchase more new games sooner because they know they can move it on at later date, particularly if they finish it quickly. This gives them more spending power
3) 2nd hand buyers may purchase dlc.
The value for money of games will drop significantly if you cant resell them,
if i buy a game for £40 and sell it a month later for £20 it only costs me £20, or i buy it a second hand a few months later for £20 it still only costs me £20, but if i buy it new and cant sell it on I pay twice as much for the same amount of gaming (a lot of games are play through once and forget)
With regards to 'not for resale' copies i've only seen this on new console bundle boxes, not off the shelf games
They'll have to cut prices to PC levels to convince me. As it is, I have an xbox 360 that I have only 2 brand new bought games for, the rest are second hand. It's not my primary games machine.
I have over 400 games on steam, there's only one I wish I never bought (call of Juarez: The Cartel) a lot of them were bought in Steam sales. I don't mind that I can't sell them as I got nearly all of them very cheap often better then <50% retail/steam price.
Never really liked consoles but this means I won't even consider getting one as a media centre device that also plays games... I can at least get myself DRM free games on the PC and I make do with Steam DRM because I can get 3-5 games for £20 in the sales, at that price I'm not interested in selling them on anyway.
With tablet computers increasing in popularity and the drive to produce games for Android thanks to Ouya and the powerful Nexus tablets I can see consoles becoming unnecessary for users gaming needs. The best gaming experience has always been on the PC and this increase in cost and hassle for console gaming will make the PC that much more desirable as a gaming platform, especially when laptops are quickly becoming powerful enough gaming machines. The launch of Steam for Linux also gives gamers more choice for what type of PC they use and how much it costs to keep up to date.
Of course it could never happen and even if it does happen gamers might put up with it which is perhaps a more frightening prospect for current console gamers.
I reckon this might be a finger in the air to see what the reaction is. If people aren't in uproar, they'll go ahead with it. Judging by the reaction just on here, I think they'd be mad to do it. With Blu-Ray players doing more and more these days people buying a console as a media player and occasional games machine will go and buy one of those instead.
Edit: By 'one of those', I meant a Blu-Ray player with knobs on.
Surely pre-owned games is only the same as pre-owned DVDs, CDs or any other entertainment format? You in effect buy a licence to use the contents and you can then sell on this licence and stop using the content...
However I can quite understand games publishers wanting to make money from 2nd+ users, it is rather unfair for people to enjoy a game without money making it directly back to those who funded it's creation. I'm aware that many people argue that some people buy a game at ~£40 (thus funding the publisher) only because they know that they will get ~£25 back later (numbers for illustration only) but that isn't everyone. Therefore some purchases of £40 is 1 user of game but many purchases at the same £40 turns into 2 or more users of game but only the same £40 has been paid to the original publisher meanwhile other companies are profiting off the pre-owned sales.
Given that courts now seem to apply the same "you bought a transferable licence" opinion to downloaded content as the above physical media I predict an increase in subscription - free or low cost to get the basic game/media and then pay a subscription for updates, access to certain areas, multiplayer etc. Probably sucks for those with crappy internet but I think you guys are going to end up like those with crappy TV reception once were - left out in the cold, the price you pay for countryside living until such time as technology improves (TV in remote locations eventually solved by satellites).
It'd have the handy effect of knobbling some scummy pirates as well hopefully and incentivise publishers to make games with lasting appeal. Many people will spend more over time on something than they would as a 1 time purchase.
EDIT: I call it the Mostly Single Player Online Game.... the M-SPOG.
Last edited by kingpotnoodle; 04-01-2013 at 05:20 PM.
It's no different from car makers not getting anything back when their cars get sold on. Dealers make a lot of profit off 2nd hand car sales, but why should the manufacturer have any further interest. They made the car, charged what it cost them, plus an amount for profit, should they then have the right to say it's not fair that buyers, dealers etc get money for selling on? No, they pride themselves on high resale values, using it as an incentive to get people to buy in the first place.it is rather unfair for people to enjoy a game without money making it directly back to those who funded it's creation.
It is different from cars because repairing and maintaining cars creates an ongoing revenue stream from things like parts, accessories and franchise payments that garages make to be authorised dealers and repairers. Games are also not similar to other mechanical products like washing machines either which have similar mechanisms and are more rarely sold on, most people have them until they break.
Neither are games that much like movie and music which have a far lower sale price anyway and drive an ecosystem of gigs, eagerly anticipated cinema visits for sequels and merchandise etc. There is also not such a huge market for 2nd hand music/DVD in the same way partly I suspect because of the lower acquisition cost and because people tend to keep it for years in a collection, it doesn't "get old".
Many other used 2nd hand goods such as clothes have next to no second hand value even if sold a month after purchase.
If anything games are similar to things like laptops, computer components, tablets and mobile phones - things which people have for a short-ish time, do not pay for parts after a warranty period (instead they replace object) but can retain some resale value if kept in good condition and there isn't really a revenue stream then back to the origin from 2nd+ users. Look at the margin some of them are sold with...
I see the games publishers POV, especially if they have costs associated such as running multiplayer servers for several years, I'm not saying I like the idea just that I predict a greater usage of the subscription model. Making all profit on the initial sale as you suggest is what is driving up the sale price too high and encouraging piracy.
I'm not sure I get your point here. I think the software houses would factor into the price the costs of running all the multiplayer servers. They then make money over the lifetime of the product with DLC, merchandising etc, and now they want to stop you selling on if you don't want the product any more? Are you telling me that Activision or whoever are scraping by in order to keep CoD servers going? No, they make huge profits on the original sales, huge profits on the DLC, and they probably get a cut off MS for the cost of online gaming on their consoles.
The problem is, it doesnt just restrict you from selling the game on, it stops you from bringing the game round to a mates house to play. If you or a family own multiple consoles for whatever reason, you can not longer share the game. If your console breaks and you have to get another one, suddenly all your games have to be rebought as well as they were associated with the broken console!
the last one is the killer and the reason why it would be impossible to have a game lock to one console.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)