@chaser324: Just as I said in that other thread in reply to what Cliffy B said on twitter, you are crazy if you think tacked on multiplayer, microtransactions, preorder bonuses, and shitty DLC were going to go away with that old DRM policy.

a valuable personal insight- nice work.

for what it's worth- i'm going to buy a ps4. not because i was appalled by microsoft's policies (hell- i'm a grown ass man who has steady internet access, doesn't travel with consoles, and doesn't share games...in practice these draconian measures wouldn't have affected me)...but rather because i skipped the ps2 and 3, and now want to dig into that eventual back catalog. and i miss the japanese games that don't seem to get the same traction on microsoft's platforms.

here's a question- who (besides gamestop and potentially consumers) really benefits from physical games- do big publishers like them? because what's to prevent them from just forgoing physical releases entirely if they want to? if the segment of the populace that NEEDS physical media is as small as is purported, why not just cut them loose and go 100% digital?

And all I'd have to do is give up my right to own any content I buy, and watch it all evaporate the moment Microsoft turned off the servers. Beneficial? Pfft.

This. I'm never sure why people assumed that "the old system" was going to bring about cheaper games, freebies or whatever.

@chaser324:

There's a reason that guys like David Jaffe, Cliff Bleszinski, and Mikey Neumann were out there supporting these efforts. They've seen the numbers and are highly aware of the harsh realities of modern game development. A lot of publishers and developers are really struggling out there right now. If we want video games to be a healthy industry, something has to be done.

Perhaps instead of trying to hurt the consumers who consume your products the industry should be more reflective and take a good long look at itself. You don't need a 1000 people to make a game, it's absurd. They need to rethink they way they make games instead of trying to squeeze every last penny out of the people who support the industry and their livelihoods.

Because the segment of the population world wide and even in the US that need physical media isn't as small as it's purported. Most of the folks who claim that it is are media types who live in area's like San Francisco and how of how the rest of the country works when it comes to tech.

maybe. i guess we'll see with these new consoles- when the first major single-player release comes out, it'll be interesting to see what kind of numbers go for digital over physical. i'd say the same of CoD or Battlefield (since those are the big sellers), but since they're largely multiplayer experiences, that would skew the data (internet is presumed).

In terms of throughput disks are still more efficient in terms of money vs bps. For larger games a company can ship a million disks for a million people all over the world faster and cheaper than a million people trying to download it all in the same window of time.

I've said in the past that Microsoft would have been better off going with the disk-less system they hinted at months ago but that had drawbacks in slower delivery but they would have avoided so much heartburn.

What a shill!

Yeah sorry, don't agree. And I don't think its entitlement when I'm paying $60 for a game I don't think its too much to ask to be able to use that content as I see fit as long as I'm not breaking any copyright laws. This includes playing offline or lending a game to a friend to try out. And guys like Blezinski have little to no consumer side perspective anymore on these things. So I really can't take him seriously. Microsoft's approach of force feeding you their vision of the future isn't the way to go about wha they want to accomplish.

I also flat out don't trust microsoft. I'm not foolish enough to think that Sony is some altruistic entity either but they seem way more focused on actually listening to consumers. Like it or not the majority have spoken and its not just "entitled gamers" its the larger picture. I've flat out had multiple friend and co-workers who are gamers but not as plugged in as I am to the scene tell me that Microsoft's DRM policies turned them off to wanting to buy it.

Sorry if I'm selfish but Im more worried about MY rights as a consumer than any developer. You can easily win my heart and mind and more importantly my dollar if you earn it. But thats just it you have to earn it and there is a reason I have exactly 5 days left on my Xbox LIVE Gold account and I have no plans on renewing. I haven't turned my 360 on in months and I don't plan to. I'll keep my 360 but I'm done investing money into their ecosystem.

You do realize there's a reason why NBA 2k is 15$ on PC a month after release and 55$ on consoles right.

What incentive does a publisher has to come in and offer an awesome sale when that consumer has the right to them sell their game back to Gamestop? You're talking about squeezing every penny out of the consumer but the model they were offering was that which exists on the PC through Steam. The cheaper model.

I appreciate your point of view but I really wouldn't link my arguments to Cliffy B for credibility.... that guy just sounds like a tool.

Either some people are too gulible, or I'm too jaded, but I don't think "freebies" or "sales" should be used in the same sentence as the word "Microsoft". I never seen them put anything on sale, or give anything they could sell.

Here's my idea; Stop spending tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars making and marketing bloated, tired "cinematic experiences" which apparently people don't want to play or buy and which can't make a profit even when they do manage to sell millions of units. I don't see why it should be up to the consumer to prop-up the grotesque excesses of the industry instead of putting the onus publishers and developers to make fun, appealing, innovative games on responsible budgets.

really? that sounds ludicrous to me...just in terms of logistics- pressing/manufacturing discs + packaging, shipping, all the employees involved in one end of the chain to the other. i mean, i know hosting and serving huge amounts of data akin to a major game release is tremendously resource intensive...but it's gotta be cheaper than physical once the infrastructure's in place. or maybe i'm utterly wrong (it has happened from time to time).

Also like Brad said on the Bombcast there are 3 year old games they are still selling for $50 that you can get for like $15 for a physical copy. I really really don't trust Microsoft with an all digital future.

@granderojo said:

@devilzrule27 said:

@chaser324:

There's a reason that guys like David Jaffe, Cliff Bleszinski, and Mikey Neumann were out there supporting these efforts. They've seen the numbers and are highly aware of the harsh realities of modern game development. A lot of publishers and developers are really struggling out there right now. If we want video games to be a healthy industry, something has to be done.

Perhaps instead of trying to hurt the consumers who consume your products the industry should be more reflective and take a good long look at itself. You don't need a 1000 people to make a game, it's absurd. They need to rethink they way they make games instead of trying to squeeze every last penny out of the people who support the industry and their livelihoods.

You do realize there's a reason why NBA 2k is 15$ on PC a month after release and 55$ on consoles right.

What incentive does a publisher has to come in and offer an awesome sale when that consumer has the right to them sell their game back to Gamestop? You're talking about squeezing every penny out of the consumer but the model they were offering was that which exists on the PC through Steam. The cheaper model.

You can find great sale prices on Amazon all the time. For example NBA 2k13 is $30 bucks on Steam and $25 bucks at amazon for the PC version and $40 bucks for the console version which represents the usual arbitrary $10 price difference between PC and console games.

And Microsoft has ZERO track record of offering decent sale prices with their current slate of digital offerings. Same goes for Sony. The theoretical promise of it isn't enough to justify disc based DRM.

We'll never know because digital sales numbers are never released. Also I'm pretty sure BF3 and CoD have been day 1 digital on the PS3 but it didn't appear to put a major dent in their retail sales figures.

@rebgav: If I wanted games that weren't cinematic, there are far cheaper and more accessible platforms to play them on (Android/iOS). I buy a console to play big, sweeping, cinematic experiences like Skyrim and Fallout and Borderlands and BioShock. The fact that I get fun, quick experiences like Braid or Monaco is a nice bonus, but not why I'm spending $400-500 on a machine.

Yup I agree. I also was kinda in to what MS had planned for this console even despite their monumentally terrible handling of the PR side. Part of me is disappointed they changed but a bigger part of me thinks its good they did at least for right now. Maybe down the road they can bring back some of the better ideas once the boxes are in houses.

I hope you've never bought anything on Steam.

The only game released both digitally and physically that I can recall in recent memory having digital sales numbers released was for the first-month sales of Fire Emblem: Awakening. About a third of the game's total North American sales up to that point were digital, but physical copies of Fire Emblem were notoriously difficult to come by in that first week of release.

STEAM never really releases sales figures because they're not publicly traded...they're not obligated to do so. my guess is when activision or EA disclose their earnings, we'll get a sense. and i'm not sure if the PS3's day one digital figures are really representative of anything, seeing as that service has enjoyed the public perception of being BALLZ this whole generation (until recently, that is).

This relates to what I ran into when I bought a Kindle. I didn't realize until after I bought one that old ass books that you can buy for a few bucks in paper back will still cost you ten to download. When you consider the costs of printing a book, shipping it, and storing it somewhere versus virtually zero cost for that download, that price is completely ridiculous.

I have a Steam account, and I've barely ever touched it because I haven't seriously played games on a PC in over ten years. My library consists of one game; Poker Night at the Inventory.

Not to mention when it comes to a handheld console I think people tend to gravitate to digital games simple because it's more convenient and it makes more sense. No one wants to carry around 10 game cards when they're out and about. Except me of course, physical vita games for life!

Except Valve has talked about their plan to wipe the DRM if their service were to shut down.

I agree with Dr. K-Pop:

@devilzrule27:

With respect to expanding budgets, I personally think that they're just doing what's necessary to deliver the sort of experience that can get the attention of the biggest possible market. I don't think it's reasonable to say that it's as simple as just deciding to stop doing that. Freight trains are pretty damn difficult to turn around.

Also, as I said in the OP, I think accommodating those people that lack proper internet access is one of the areas that Microsoft needed to improve and probably could have done some things pretty easily, but I there are ways of doing that while still primarily pushing digital and protecting the integrity of that system.

@hailinel: I think the idea of consumer rights as it relates to video games and other software isn't that simple. The nature of "digital goods" makes it difficult to define ownership, and it's something that companies have been struggling with for decades. As it relates to video games though, I think it's increasingly a philosophical difference. Games are to a large degree increasingly becoming more service than property.

I won't deny that it's a complex issue, and I certainly can respect your perspective, which seems to be shared by most people. However, over the course of this generation of hardware, I think perception might begin to shift a little. We'll have to wait and see.

@mcghee@extomar: I suspect you're probably right that a lot of those probably would've stuck around, but now it's not even a question. We'll definitely continue to see those sorts of efforts to prevent used sales and expand potential revenue, and I won't be surprised to see them applied in far bigger and broader ways. Unlike big budget TV and films or musical acts, the avenues for making money on a game are far more limited, especially in the face of healthy used and rental markets that make a significant dent in that potential revenue. That's why some of these practices that gamers don't like were put in place, and since they've been shown to work pretty well in some cases, that's why they are here to stay.

I get that a lot of companies are struggling and people are losing their jobs and that really is awful. But here's the harsh reality. As a consumer, that's not my problem. I may personally feel bad when a studio closes down or there are big layoffs at company X but I don't have any obligation to these people. There are major issues in the video game industry. Major issues that will need to change soon if this industry is going to survive. But pointing the finger at consumers and saying "okay, YOU change" isn't going to work. Figure it the fuck out on your own, video games. I'm not going to do your job for you.

So? If publishers can't make a Tomb Raider or a Dead Space work out for them after selling three or four million units then those games (or the attitudes which lead to them being made in the first place) will and should go away.

That difference in price isn't arbitrary. It's a well calculated decision that exists because of how the platform operates.

But again that's not the consumers problem. Shifting the burden to them is just poor business. They need to develop new ways to make their blockbuster games with smaller budgets and smaller teams. Closing down the used game market gives them a temporary reprieve. These companies don't know how to control themselves, teams will keep getting bigger and budgets will keep growing without them making changes to the process. They have two options, anger a portion of their customers(just because someone buys one used game doesn't mean all the games they buy are used) or trim the freaking fat. To me at least one makes more sense then the other.

@chaser324: I really don't need to wait to see. I remember when PSN went down for a month and, oh wait, now I have these games installed on my PS3 that I can't play because the publishers inserted DRM that makes them unplayable if I'm not connected to PSN.

Fantastic!

Now imagine that happening to the entirety of an Xbox One game collection compiled over five to seven years. Only when the servers are shut off, they never turn back on.

DOUBLE Fantastic! Super Combo!

The thing that fights and kills "instant digital delivery" is "capacity paradox" where the faster/bigger/better something is the content just fills it instead of leveraging the feature. It hurts disks too but not at the same magnitude. Someone creating a 8GB game can fit it on a Blu-ray disk as well as a 11GB game at the same "cost" but downloading 8GB game takes several hours and 11GB takes even more with very different "costs". ISPs charge at bandwidth rates so surges in traffic like this can be very costly and certainly not free/baseline service.

Streaming installers and tech like Gaikai/Onlive are alternatives that are designed to work within consumer home bandwidth but no one has pushed them up to scale yet either.

Finally keep in mind this isn't true for all situations. For instance the situation is completely reversed in the case of a game that is only 500MB.

Have you used Onlive, pretty fucking terrible, low latency.

I've got good internet and stuff.

@devilzrule27: But again that's not the consumers problem. Shifting the burden to them is just poor business. They need to develop new ways to make their blockbuster games with smaller budgets and smaller teams. Closing down the used game market gives them a temporary reprieve. These companies don't know how to control themselves, teams will keep getting bigger and budgets will keep growing without them making changes to the process. They have two options, anger a portion of their customers(just because someone buys one used game doesn't mean all the games they buy are used) or trim the freaking fat. To me at least one makes more sense then the othe

oh boy how do u even argue with a mod? :P, ill just copy paste what this guy said above as i agree with him

The 10 bucks is arbitrary. People rarely choose the PC version over a console version because of the $10 difference and games that have a strong presence on PC sell for $60. Sales on PC a fewer then on console so publishers think by charging $10 less it will increase the number of purchases. I have my doubts as to how effective that practice really is. Sure you could say the $10 is because of the publishing fee on consoles but a chunk of sales money goes to valve on Steam and the price of games didn't magically jump up $10.

@rebgav: I believe the argument that has been put forward is that if we reduced/eliminated used game sales, we could still get our cinematic experiences and companies could turn a profit. Games don't have 'theatrical releases" or "live tours" like movies or music...games have the end-user experience available to everyone at the same time on any given platform for a one-time fee. In terms of media, only books really see similar distribution/sales channels and the production costs of a book are, quite obviously, significantly less than 99% of games. If the used game market stays intact in its current state, or worse, grows, we're going to see that cost reflected in the cost of new games.

I feel like the "consumerists" think they won something today by maintaining the status quo, when in fact, as the OP stated, we may just end up paying more and seeing fewer and fewer immersive, quality gaming experiences produced because of it.

@granderojo said:

@devilzrule27 said:

@chaser324:

There's a reason that guys like David Jaffe, Cliff Bleszinski, and Mikey Neumann were out there supporting these efforts. They've seen the numbers and are highly aware of the harsh realities of modern game development. A lot of publishers and developers are really struggling out there right now. If we want video games to be a healthy industry, something has to be done.

Perhaps instead of trying to hurt the consumers who consume your products the industry should be more reflective and take a good long look at itself. You don't need a 1000 people to make a game, it's absurd. They need to rethink they way they make games instead of trying to squeeze every last penny out of the people who support the industry and their livelihoods.

You do realize there's a reason why NBA 2k is 15$ on PC a month after release and 55$ on consoles right.

What incentive does a publisher has to come in and offer an awesome sale when that consumer has the right to them sell their game back to Gamestop? You're talking about squeezing every penny out of the consumer but the model they were offering was that which exists on the PC through Steam. The cheaper model.

There's also a reason Bioshock Infinite is 40$ on Console and 60$ on Steam. There is plenty of compition in the retail space that drives console game prices down, If you wait a couple of months.

Steam takes a big cut but that's the only loss that the publisher is taking on that sale. 70% of $50 is more than 15% of $60, so it behoves a publisher to shift as many copies of the PC version as possible.

Great pr moves for microsoft the biggest bullshit still lingers tho. Get rid of that shit kinext requirement and we can talk.

@granderojo said:

@devilzrule27 said:

@chaser324:

There's a reason that guys like David Jaffe, Cliff Bleszinski, and Mikey Neumann were out there supporting these efforts. They've seen the numbers and are highly aware of the harsh realities of modern game development. A lot of publishers and developers are really struggling out there right now. If we want video games to be a healthy industry, something has to be done.

Perhaps instead of trying to hurt the consumers who consume your products the industry should be more reflective and take a good long look at itself. You don't need a 1000 people to make a game, it's absurd. They need to rethink they way they make games instead of trying to squeeze every last penny out of the people who support the industry and their livelihoods.

You do realize there's a reason why NBA 2k is 15$ on PC a month after release and 55$ on consoles right.

What incentive does a publisher has to come in and offer an awesome sale when that consumer has the right to them sell their game back to Gamestop? You're talking about squeezing every penny out of the consumer but the model they were offering was that which exists on the PC through Steam. The cheaper model.

So why not offer sales on PSN and XBLA, Steam-like models that already exist?

@chibithor: Used Games.

@milkman said:

I agree with you that budgets and staffs should be reduced, but it's a hell of a paradox to solve when those big budget games seem to have the broadest appeal and largest potential upside. Smarter people than you and I have failed and are continuing to fail to figure it out, and it's going to be interesting to see how things continue to shake out.

However, I will say that such a violent reaction to potential changes in the way things work definitely doesn't make it easier on publishers and developers.

The shutting down of these servers is something that I don't think we really understand the full repercussions of at this point, and I think we're a pretty long way off from seeing anything on the scale that you're describing. I anticipate that a permanent shutdown of download and authentication servers would probably be accompanied by OS level updates that dispatch with authentication requirements, but it's hard to say. It's definitely possible that you could be right.

Personally, I think it's a bit unfair to judge the potential of an all digital MS/Sony storefront based on the PS3 and 360. Those platforms both had fairly limited game availability, rarely had day one releases, and most importantly, as I stated in the OP, were still extremely overshadowed by disc releases. A reliance on physical disc releases and retailers makes it difficult to grant any flexibility to digital pricing. Brick and mortar retailers with limited shelf space don't take kindly to being undercut by digital prices.

Not to mention the money the "right" to sell back a used game costs the consumer. I hardly see the benefit of being allowed to sell something to GameStop for way less than what it's worth, only to have them mark up the price when they put it back on the shelf.

when you're young or have a tight gaming budget, the currency you get with used games matters

(not to mention gamestop is not the only place thats big on trade ins, amazon also does them and a lot other places.) (its not just 5 bucks you get back)

and rentals matter just as much, im sorry there are people on this site that cant see that.and im sorry as consumers, there's only so far you can sympathize with a developer.

@chaser324:

I disagree considering the biggest games in the world are LoL and small iphone games like angry bird. The gaming industry is obsess with Hollywood action main while LoL with a quarter, if not less, budget is making them look like children selling lemonade. I am not saying Moba are the future I am saying strong graphic direction and solid game-play mechanics are game sellers not graphical fidelity.

Which is a dumb argument. The people who cannot afford the new game at $60 still can't afford it if you remove the option of buying used. If some percentage of the people buying new copies are funding that purchase by trading games for credit then removing that option means that they can't afford to buy new either. Reducing the size of the potential audience by pricing them out of the market isn't going to increase sales, is it? If triple-A games have broad mainstream appeal, why are publishers so concerned about corralling the existing audience rather than getting their product in the hands of new customers? If a big-budget game can't compete for attention or sales with cheap mobile apps, why do publishers keep dumping money into these tentpole titles and then complaining about their sales being disappointing? And why wouldn't a customer, priced out of the console market, just go play free or cheap games on mobile or PC platforms rather than dropping $60 on some "AAA" game that they can't even read a review of or see video of until the day of release? What part of "if we push people out of console gaming we can make more money" makes any sense whatsoever?

While it's fair not to judge it is asking a lot of the consumer to trust that a company will "do the right thing" in terms of sales and pricing whilst they strip you of your rights on the alternative distribution method.