• 70 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by thetenthdoctor (291 posts) -

With the exception of Bioshock Infinite, I can't remember the last AAA game that wasn't $49.99 on PC day of launch. That's 20% below consoles, and they usually drop another $10 within 30-45 days. For price conscious folks, a 30% savings on every game adds up to being able to afford an entire extra AAA game for every 3 that they buy.

The reason for the price discrepancy is because copies sold can't be shared and passed around, so they're willing to take less per copy.

I'm waiting for Sony or MS to wise up and start pricing their digital downloads at or below Gamestop's used price. If they want to break used sales, that's how to do it.

#52 Posted by Demoskinos (15164 posts) -

They can just simply say that you need to be online for the game to work same as some games this gen wont work if you don't have a hard drive.

#53 Posted by CommanderGermanShepard (303 posts) -

Just have them as online exclusive features, easy. Better than excluding the 40% of non connected consoles.

#54 Posted by thetenthdoctor (291 posts) -

@demoskinos:

Except there aren't any. Halo 4 requires a HDD for online play, but that's the only one (and the core game still works without it).

#55 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@demoskinos:

Except there aren't any. Halo 4 requires a HDD for online play, but that's the only one (and the core game still works without it).

SimCity requires an always online connection and is a busted piece of crap that on close inspection doesn't actually need to be online in order to function.

#56 Edited by CommanderGermanShepard (303 posts) -
@hailinel said:

@thetenthdoctor said:

@hailinel:

I mean Saints Row 3 for $4, Tomb Raider for $15, etc. Publishers offer insane deals on Steam all the time because they're selling a product that can't be loaned or resold. PC people would rather get great deals up front than a physical disc we can pass around or pay $60 for, then get $20 at GameStop a month later. Now that MS decided to stick with the outdated disc and trade model, publishers need to maximize their per copy profit to make up for the people that will borrow from a friend or buy used instead of buying a copy of their own.

That's not a Steam-exclusive. Publishers on consoles can set their digital prices however they wish within the prescribed guidelines of the service providers (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft), and, at least in Sony and Nintendo's case, those guidelines are a lot less restrictive nowadays.

Even so, the examples you cite, like Saints Row: The Third for $4? That sort of sale only occurs long after the game's primary selling window has passed. At that point, the only people that would be willing to buy the game would be those that would only get it at a super-steep discount. And at least in PSN's case, select games are made available for free to PS+ subscribers.

Steam offers a great service, but the Steam model is not the be-all-end-all model of digital distribution.

Steam also is on a platform where pirating is easily accessible, you can download Skyrim and have it running with in hours with a ISO emulator. To do that on a 360 involves firmware hacks and DVD drive hacks. Steam just provides a easy legal alternative to it. People seem to only talk about the sales and forget that games launch on Steam the same price as a boxed copy in the shop.

#57 Posted by Demoskinos (15164 posts) -

@thetenthdoctor:

No, I'm pretty damn sure that Multiplayer on Splinter Cell: Double Agent and I wanna also say that some portion of Burnout Paradise also required a Hard Drive. Halo is hardly the only one that has locked features behind hard drive usage. Its simply up to the developers to have the balls to stick to their vision and require people to be online.

#58 Posted by brownsfantb (401 posts) -

The Respawn guys were very bullish about offloading physics and AI to the cloud to get smoother framerates and less control lag in Titanfall.

Key word "were"- you can be sure they're stripping that out right now, because no console game will ever ship that runs worse on certain people's systems.

Someone's probably already pointed this out but since Titanfall is online-only, they don't have to cater to the offline crowd. They can still offload physics and AI to the cloud.

#59 Posted by thetenthdoctor (291 posts) -

@commandergermanshepard:

No they don't. Remember Me, DmC, Hitman Absolution, Tomb Raider, and every other game I purchased recently for PC was $49.99 on launch day- 20% less than $59.99 for PS and XBOX.

#60 Posted by CommanderGermanShepard (303 posts) -

@commandergermanshepard:

No they don't. Remember Me, DmC, Hitman Absolution, Tomb Raider, and every other game I purchased recently for PC was $49.99 on launch day- 20% less than $59.99 for PS and XBOX.

Wasn't comparing to console prices was comparing to PC games.

#61 Posted by keris (168 posts) -

Now that every console is not guaranteed to be connected, offloading work to cloud computers will not be used by developers, robbing us of potentially huge performance increases. Knowing that part of the user base is offline, no developer in their right mind is going to take advantage of that capability, forcing all the physics and AI to be calculated locally- that eats up clock cycles and results in lower framerates.

The same thing happened on the 360 when MS offered a unit without an HDD. Games like Oblivion and Skyrim suffered from texture streaming issues and pop-in because the developers couldn't count on a hard drive being there for caching, so the code was written assuming it WASN'T there. Any time you split the user base and remove standardization from the hardware, you remove the main advantage of a console- fixed specs and capabilities.

Any other thoughts on things we'll be missing out on now?

Just stop. Microsoft's cloud computing 'vision' for Xbox One remains unchanged.

#62 Posted by daltimond (112 posts) -

I think that people who are making this argument fail to realize that EVEN IF a developer decides to create a game that implements an "always on" system that offloads computations to "the cloud," they would only be losing customers who wouldn't have bought the system under Microsoft's old policies. I don't think its accurate to say that they are spitting their user base because under Microsoft's old policies these people without internet would've never been a "user" in the first place. If a developer was fine with only selling to people who have internet then they can feel free to require it BUT if they are interested in selling more copies and reaching that once unavailable demographic, they will simply develop a game that supports both groups of people.

#63 Posted by mrfluke (5349 posts) -

I think that people who are making this argument fail to realize that EVEN IF a developer decides to create a game that implements an "always on" system that offloads computations to "the cloud," they would only be losing customers who wouldn't have bought the system under Microsoft's old policies. I don't think its accurate to say that they are spitting their user base because under Microsoft's old policies these people without internet would've never been a "user" in the first place. If a developer was fine with only selling to people who have internet then they can feel free to require it BUT if they are interested in selling more copies and reaching that once unavailable demographic, they will simply develop a game that supports both groups of people.

also if the dev has the ambition to make their game always online for the better, nothing will be stopping them from doing so, (look at destiny, titanfall, the crew, the division, im sure they knew the risks, but said fuck it in favor of their ambition)

just dont expect this from the indies on the xbox one (the very likely people to make the next groundbreaking game)

, as they seem to all jumped onto the ps4 due to the self publishing and free dev kits and the fact that patches cost over 10 grand on the xbox system.

Online
#64 Posted by Jeust (10860 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@thetenthdoctor said:

Now that every console is not guaranteed to be connected, offloading work to cloud computers will not be used by developers, robbing us of potentially huge performance increases.

Has this ever been proven to be the case, or just marketing speak for an excuse to make sure everyone is constantly connected to the mothership? SimCity tried the "it needs the power of the cloud" excuse, and it was proven patently false.

Truth be said online games like The Division, Titan Fall and every other online game, can make use of the cloud. They are online games, and as that there is no excuse and it will be most likely impossible to play offline.

#65 Edited by AlmightyBoob (87 posts) -

The cloud stuff was nonsense.

#66 Posted by boj4ngles (287 posts) -

Now that every console is not guaranteed to be connected, offloading work to cloud computers will not be used by developers, robbing us of potentially huge performance increases. Knowing that part of the user base is offline, no developer in their right mind is going to take advantage of that capability, forcing all the physics and AI to be calculated locally- that eats up clock cycles and results in lower framerates.

The same thing happened on the 360 when MS offered a unit without an HDD. Games like Oblivion and Skyrim suffered from texture streaming issues and pop-in because the developers couldn't count on a hard drive being there for caching, so the code was written assuming it WASN'T there. Any time you split the user base and remove standardization from the hardware, you remove the main advantage of a console- fixed specs and capabilities.

Any other thoughts on things we'll be missing out on now?

Right......... Except that both Xbox1 and PS4 are coming with 500gb standard with upgrade options. So no, there will not be issues with limited hard drive cache.

#67 Posted by davidwitten22 (1708 posts) -

@commandergermanshepard:

No they don't. Remember Me, DmC, Hitman Absolution, Tomb Raider, and every other game I purchased recently for PC was $49.99 on launch day- 20% less than $59.99 for PS and XBOX.

But these games are still $60 on consoles to download digitally, even though its essentially the same thing as downloading the game on Steam. Microsoft announced games were going to be $60 already, there is no evidence to make any of us believe that developers were going to drop prices because of a 24-hour online check-in.

#68 Posted by WarlordPayne (706 posts) -

@hailinel:

I mean Saints Row 3 for $4, Tomb Raider for $15, etc. Publishers offer insane deals on Steam all the time because they're selling a product that can't be loaned or resold. PC people would rather get great deals up front than a physical disc we can pass around or pay $60 for, then get $20 at GameStop a month later. Now that MS decided to stick with the outdated disc and trade model, publishers need to maximize their per copy profit to make up for the people that will borrow from a friend or buy used instead of buying a copy of their own.

Sony already has pretty great sales on PSN, especially if you're on PS+. I got Tomb Raider last week for $20, and it came with some DLC and Quantum Conundrum. I just bought Flower for $1.75 and Hell Yeah! for ~$3. A month or two ago they had a bundle of Borderlands 1 and 2 for $20.

Microsoft is the only one that has shitty sales and keeps prices at $50-$60 for digital games for years, and they're the ones that were pushing this all digital future bullshit.

#69 Edited by DarthOrange (3908 posts) -

No more cloud? :(

What will become of these gifs?

http://pictures.picasion.com/pic69/d4d0b4601d1400bbf22b56f0aa3f6b45.gif

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5u7ervZoO1ryf7dio1_500.gif

#70 Posted by YOU_DIED (703 posts) -

@thetenthdoctor said:

@bigjeffrey:

My point stands. The only games to leverage cloud computing will now be MMOs and online shooters. Developers of single player experiences now have to choose between a better game less people can buy or a slightly worse one that everyone can buy, and they'll choose the latter every single time.

Developers also had the "option" for the last 7 years to make a game that required a hard drive- show me one that did.

Arguably, most of the concessions made in game design have been due to the incredibly small amount of memory in the current consoles. The next gen systems both have at least 8 GB (I think?), so I don't think we'll be at a point any time soon where developers are saying 'Oh, if only I had guaranteed access to processing on a remote machine, maybe then I could make a good game'. It has been proven to be possible to make excellent games with next to no resources. Not that I'm saying it's impossible that your hypothetical situation could come up, I'm just saying it's very unlikely.