Xbox One

[Zeonix]

You're thinking from the perspective of the consumer. I'm thinking from the perspective of the producer. What is my incentive to charge you less for a system that doesn't benefit me?

 

[DaRkOwNs]

Sales. Specifically, non-used and full profit sales. Now that the hard drives will be at 500 gigs to start with, there's no reason consumers wouldn't buy more digital.

The entire point of retail is to satisfy the consumer because you don't have a sale without them. Why would they not want to give the consumer incentive to buy their game?

 

[Zeonix]

If GTA 5 were physical media only, would I say, "**** that! I want digital"? No. If it were digital only, would I say, "**** that! I want a physical copy!" No. So pushing digital sales means absolutely nothing, and there's no reason for them to lower their prices if they're still forced to push the physical copies of the game. Now, if it were digital only, there'd be merit in asking for a discount. You want it to be cheaper for you, and easier, but it has absolutely no bearing on why a digital copy should be cheaper in the eyes of the publisher or why that would take priority if they're going to end up selling both digital and physical copies.

 

[DaRkOwNs]

I honestly don't know what you're arguing here. You're saying that digital should be the same price because physical copies exist? There's no restocking, distribution, or even -time delay- in selling digital copies so why would they be the same? If they were the same price as the physical copies, people would buy used. If they restrict used games, console sales would drop. Microsoft didn't flip because they thought they could get away with it, they realized they were getting in a little too far and needed to double back.

And yeah, people did say **** that we want digital. That's why digital exists, now.

 

[Zeonix]

I'm saying digital will be the same price as physical copies so long as physical copies are a thing, and reselling exists. If they're the same price, and you want the game, you're going to buy it regardless. Then it just becomes an issue of which medium you prefer. Oh, but then people will buy used. That's factored into the $60 dollar price tag, so its a non-issue. You're attempting to rationalize cheaper prices for digital medium by saying it doesn't have any of the drawbacks that putting out a physical product has, and I'm saying that's great if you're thinking like a consumer, but it doesn't make a difference if you're putting out the product. If you can do less, and still charge the same amount, you're making additional profit with the benefit of making it impossible to resell the product. That is, in effect, what is and has been happening. You go to the PSN and check out prices for new games, and holy shit its the same as physical copies. Its the same for Live. The only real discount I've seen is on PC where a physical PC copy costs maybe 10 dollars more than the digital download (At least on amazon).

Microsoft doubled back because Sony chose the safe route. When there are two main consoles, and one of them is sticking to the status quo, and the people who use those consoles are resistant to change, it doesn't make sense to try to push an experiment. Steam essentially did what they did in a vacuum, so they could afford to **** around with the formula for a few years. If Microsoft is to remain competitive, they can't do that. Sony and Microsoft have to essentially be on the same page, pushing the same "innovations" at the same time so that there isn't a huge disparity in console sales.

 

[DaRkOwNs]

It isn't a non-issue. That 54.99 that game stop sells it for doesn't go back to the developer in any form, so it'd be in their best interest to push digital sales. That ten dollars less that the game is being sold for is just more incentive for the consumer to buy it, which is the goal. It's true, if they sell a digital copy for 60 dollars it's all profit but the game isn't -just- making your max profit on an item. It's also guaranteeing that item sell, which is what slightly lower digital sales would do. Physical gaming won't be out any time soon and it takes compromise, not a cold turkey approach to phase it out.

And yeah, that's what I meant. When companies compete, it keeps us consumers from being ****ed over. Thanks to Sony we have a choice, and I believe Raven is correct in Microsoft being little *****es about it. There's no reason, literally no reason, they can't have all those cool features in their console without authenticating every day or restricting used gaming.

 

[Zeonix]

Again, the game is $60 dollars because they expect it to be resold. If reselling games wasn't an issue, the games could be cheaper. Steam is proof enough of that. Everyone is talking about innovation, but Microsoft was the only company actually willing to push the envelope. Sony does what it does best: nothing. Next gen will end up being exactly like this gen. Hooray. But that's what I'm talking about. It's what gamers want. Because change is terrifying.

 

[DaRkOwNs]

Lol, please. The only company I've seen that actually tries to innovate has been Nintendo, and they've been successful. It's not because it's "scary", it's because they're trying to take the choice out of consumer hands. Why have a "check-in" at all? To make sure they're using a real xbox? To combat the 1% of consumers that manage to flash or mod a console to pirate games? As for used games, you may be right on the pricing but there's no reason still not to push digital downloading. Steam has also proven that people will flock en masse to a good deal, to the point where they buy shit they don't even want or will ever play. It'll come down to advertising and market manipulation.

Again, none of this affects their feature of selling your own digital copies.

And, just to remind you, I'm not a Nintendo fanboy. I hate Mario and Donkey Kong. Probably the most over-rated games in the world and I probably wouldn't have even bought it if Wii U pickings weren't slim for the next month or two. Can't wait for Pikmin next month.

As for ps4, there's nothing wrong with recognizing that your console is meant for gaming and not for watching south park. Netflix and amazon video is fine, but if I want to watch TV I'll use my Directv box. The digital sharing thing was cool, but it's not worth the restriction on used games to me. Especially when a lot of my gaming occurs with me trading games with my friends in lieu of buying several hundred dollars on all of them.

 

[macdaddymario]

The issue on that is this: When you pay 60$ at Gamestop for a new game.. that full 60$ doesn't go to the developers. That's to make up for the stocking price/shipping and so on for the retailer, as well as the developers/publishing studios cut. Look on the current digital media markets for the PS3 and 360. You see the digital price, for the same brand new game, still at 60$. So now the devs/publishers are charging the same amount, and getting pure profit.

60$ was acceptable because of the reasons listed. stocking/shipping/paying employees.. that 60$, no matter how it was devided, went into paying for all of those things. Moving over to a digital media only, there is 0 reason to keep said price, as there is no shipping, no retailers employees to pay to push the sales of your games and so on. It's money coming straight to the devs/publishers. Yet we haven't seen these people make a single move to make buying it digitally, any more cost efficient. 60$ digital vs 60$ retail.. I'm always going to go retail. Because no game is worth 60$ coming right from the source. As a developer or publisher, I can understand wanting to milk people, but people aren't idiots. There was no guarantee that the price of digital content would drop, and we'd be paying the same price we already do.

The next logical part to that argument would be, the price stays as it is to pay for the bandwidth. That's bs. You're paying Sony/MS for their online service. You're using their servers to download said games, not the developers. You're paying for your PS+ or your LIVE membership, that covers the cost for bandwidth. I get that as a business man, I'm in it for the money.. but I also understand that, as a business man, I need to give the consumer reason to see things my way. Guarantee reduced prices on games (Like EA did with ME2 when it released on PS3.. 40$ digital and 60$ retail), and you'll see people changing their minds.

 

[JTM]

In terms of the talk of the NSA:

You know, I'm highly surprised the talk of the new Microsoft organization and Xbox head hasn't reached here yet.

The Devices and Studios Engineering group -- which contains “all hardware development and supply chain from the smallest to the largest devices we build” and “experiences including all games, music, video and other entertainment” -- will be run by Julie Larson-Green, former head of Windows products.

The rest can be read in this article. Julie Larson-Green has been employed by Microsoft for years, having spanned across the development cycles for Windows programs such as Office and is considered solely responsible for the production of Windows 7. Such a change at this point in the game could serve up some interesting consequences. Now, mind you, the person basically running Xbox is now a woman, boys. This, as far as I know, is a new step in the gaming industry. Microsoft's decisions aren't necessarily making me skeptical of their campaigns, but it does cause a bit of concern considering they're mixing and matching their pieces so close to the launch of a new major product. I will be rolling with Microsoft this next generation without a doubt because I'm really enjoying the American aspect of convenience they're employing with the Xbox One, and I am also utilizing other Microsoft services such as Outlook and SkyDrive. Regardless of the shift in policies and leaders of departments, I'm confident of my purchases and investments.

 

[pumadace2000]

No one reads terms and condition for most things because there is in fact no such thing as an I disagree button.

What I just bought this game and/or software. Now let's install this. Woops don't agree with this...

Now what the **** do I do?

 

[Deathshot]

$350

[video=youtube;HvXZsufIS5U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvXZsufIS5U[/video]

 

[sub]

That can't possibly be true. There's no way they would want to sell the XBone without Kinect, it would fracture their Kinect marketshare.

 

[Nick_Da_Wizard]

What doesn't make sense to me is the digital copy of all call of duties are stupidly high

 

[Deathshot]

What doesn't make sense to me is the digital copy of all call of duties are stupidly high

Digital Copy of most games is high prices compared to the disc counter part.

 

[macdaddymario]

No kinect? Well. Since it was confirmed by MS that it would be required to have a Kinect... connected to play games, we can assume those models will be, what? DVR boxes instead?

 

[IFlip92]

Digital Copy of most games is high prices compared to the disc counter part.

How the **** does that make any sense?

 

[Deathshot]

How the **** does that make any sense?

It's like how smaller convenience store have higher prices than Wal-Mart. You are paying for convenience.

 

[Zeonix]

Actually, Walmart is just nickle and diming their employees, using sweat shops across the world and ensuring everyone gets ****ed. Once all small businesses in the area are sufficiently dead, they up the prices.

 

[FalconFury]

I was reading the article from IGN and they're telling me "Xbox 1 will not require an internet connection to play offline games or need to check in every 24 hours". But instead. The internet will be on when you set it up on your settings.

Xbox Requirements!?

Go and check it out on the XBOX website.

Link: http://www.xbox.com/en-CA/xbox-one/pre-order-xbox-one/disclaimer