I just want them to resume original Xbox additions. 39 titles is a really small number. Apparently 864 titles were published in the US (not including European and Japanese-only releases).
Same, and 360, too. Still eagerly crossing my fingers for Bionic Commando Rearmed (seriously, they did the sequel) and Sonic & SEGA All-Stars Racing (same, and speaking of, fix Transformed's BC as well).
On the OG Xbox, wouldn't mind seeing OutRun 2006 and Jet Set Radio get a new lease on life.
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
I honestly wouldn’t mind $70 digital games if I could loan/share/gift them. That was the part of Mattick’s Xbone I really wish we had gotten.
If digital games remain non transferable, I actually think the prices should be going down instead ( snowball’s chance of that).
Disagree? games aren't getting easier or cheaper to make.
From 1994 (random year), gaming Market is 3x the size, and margins have gone from ~60% to ~100% when comparing cartridges vs digital. I believe the at-home gaming market is much larger than 3x, but can't find the data. This More than makes up for the higher CPI from 1994 to 2019. And I haven't even factored in things like microtransactions, DLC, and merchandizing which is a much larger portion of video game revenue than ever before. Basically, games are making more than 3x what they were back then, which should be enough to not raise pricing.
If it's physical through a retailer, where they are probably only rocking a ~70% margin and also losing sales to 2nd hand market / game sharing / rentals, I think that's a more reasonable point. But Digital? Nah, should be cheaper or let me share.
Edit: And by market, I mean individual games generally sell more than 3x the volume they used to.
The only real difference between physical and digital is not having to physically produce the disk/box/cartridge. All of the major physical retailers, online stores, and consoles take the same 30% of the sales (with exceptions for things like Epic, Itch.io, humble). So yeah, digital games do potentially gross more for the developer than physical, but its not like Sony or Microsoft or Valve is taking any less percentage of the sales than Walmart/Target/Gamestop.
So I don't think its a 40% change for margins, its just moving where the money is getting spent to get you games in the hands of consumers. It's why there's been a big push on the publisher/developer side for all of these stores to lower their cut.
The only real difference between physical and digital is not having to physically produce the disk/box/cartridge.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree Sounds like we can't agree on the underlying premise that physically moving goods all over the world to tens of thousands of retail stores through multiple channel partners (distributors, retailers, etc) has more cost than digital. And we didn't even get to the used game market factor!
That's just factually wrong. When games moved to steam, the largest motivator was more in the pocket for the publisher since middle men were cut out.
Yeah. To be clear: the middlemen here are the manufacturing of the physical goods, the shipping to get them to retailers, and the retailers themselves. Regardless of if the game is physical or digital the console manufacturer gets a cut.
30% is the most these digital platforms usually take from the developer, while with all that is involved in retail it is more like 55%.
I don't think this is the "only reason" PC went digital, because the exact same logic applies to consoles and over a decade later we aren't quite there yet.
The only real difference between physical and digital is not having to physically produce the disk/box/cartridge.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree Sounds like we can't agree on the underlying premise that physically moving goods all over the world to tens of thousands of retail stores through multiple channel partners (distributors, retailers, etc) has more cost than digital. And we didn't even get to the used game market factor!
The overall cost is probably similar, but with digital we are paying for the middle men (ISP, equipment, etc) where as for physical, they are paying for the middle men (physical copy production, distribution, etc). So from the perspective of the game publisher, digital is preferred.
The only real difference between physical and digital is not having to physically produce the disk/box/cartridge.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree Sounds like we can't agree on the underlying premise that physically moving goods all over the world to tens of thousands of retail stores through multiple channel partners (distributors, retailers, etc) has more cost than digital. And we didn't even get to the used game market factor!
So thats $4 dollars out of $60 (~6.7%) for producing and shipping good all over the world to tens of thousands of retail stores.
I agree that there's more going on than my previous post assumed, and for that I admit I was wrong. Going full digital ends up combing the costs of the retailer and platform licensing fees to a lower amount than retail, and you avoid having to buy back unsold stock.
But most of the cost savings isn't coming from not having to shoulder producing, distributing, and shipping physical goods, its from cutting out the number of middlemen in the chain, as Lilnoobs and Opty point out.
Edit:
Basically, assuming that chart is somewhat accurate, I think the cost savings and increase in profit margin to the publishers/devs comes more from online being a different setup in multiple ways, rather than simply boiling it down to "all savings come from the lack of a physically produced and shipped good"
The only real difference between physical and digital is not having to physically produce the disk/box/cartridge.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree Sounds like we can't agree on the underlying premise that physically moving goods all over the world to tens of thousands of retail stores through multiple channel partners (distributors, retailers, etc) has more cost than digital. And we didn't even get to the used game market factor!
So thats $4 dollars out of $60 (~6.7%) for producing and shipping good all over the world to tens of thousands of retail stores.
I agree that there's more going on than my previous post assumed, and for that I admit I was wrong. Going full digital ends up combing the costs of the retailer and platform licensing fees to a lower amount than retail, and you avoid having to buy back unsold stock.
But most of the cost savings isn't coming from not having to shoulder producing, distributing, and shipping physical goods, its from cutting out the number of middlemen in the chain, as Lilnoobs and Opty point out.
Edit:
Basically, assuming that chart is somewhat accurate, I think the cost savings and increase in profit margin to the publishers/devs comes more from online being a different setup in multiple ways, rather than simply boiling it down to "all savings come from the lack of a physically produced and shipped good"
I think the most surprising thing is the returns allowance. It's amazing how much retailers have to eat on that.
Edit: and thanks for finding this, I was using my own estimates from doing supply chain for a different electronics product to Target/Walmart/Best buy. Video games are different, so I'd rather trust the numbers you found.
What am I missing, what am I supposed to like here?
It's a satirical comment about Blinx the Time Sweeper, from the Japanese small studio Artoon. There was still an assumption back then that a video game publisher needed a cute animal mascot (or Mario, who is basically an animal with an "Italian" accent and working class attire, if Pikachu didn't count), and Blinx was Xbox's entry (the game came out in the first year of Xbox's lifetime, and had a lot of impressive graphical effects, particularly the water).
Of course, early Xbox's "mascots" became, more or less, the Master Chief and Kasumi and Ayane from Dead or Alive (which would be an Xbox exclusive for the next decade). Maybe Ryu Hayabusa too after Ninja Gaiden surprised everyone as one of the greatest action "hack-and-slash" games ever made.
What am I missing, what am I supposed to like here?
time to explain a joke
blinx is a kinda bad original xbox game, part of a push to give Xbox their own "mascot." it's funny to see that mediocre mostly forgotten mascot platformer in 4k with all the Series X enhancements
It's funny because nobody played it first time around, so there's little legitimate nostalgia. It's mostly ironic. Unlike Crimson Skies or Phantom Dust, nobody was missing Blinx.
What am I missing, what am I supposed to like here?
time to explain a joke
blinx is a kinda bad original xbox game, part of a push to give Xbox their own "mascot." it's funny to see that mediocre mostly forgotten mascot platformer in 4k with all the Series X enhancements
One of these days, I need to give a Blinx gameca try. Think I heard one of them -- the sequel? -- was okay?
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
It's funny because nobody played it first time around, so there's little legitimate nostalgia. It's mostly ironic. Unlike Crimson Skies or Phantom Dust, nobody was missing Blinx.
My early conclusion is Obsidian is extremely good at conversation trees ,terrible at gunplay and criminally terrible at UI.
Microsoft needs to team them up with id or the Halo guys or something
On my 2nd runthrough of OW and went full Melee and the game is laughably easy. I had a rough time with my gunner but I haven't even died a single time. And I'm at the point of no return.
My early conclusion is Obsidian is extremely good at conversation trees ,terrible at gunplay and criminally terrible at UI.
Microsoft needs to team them up with id or the Halo guys or something
On my 2nd runthrough of OW and went full Melee and the game is laughably easy. I had a rough time with my gunner but I haven't even died a single time. And I'm at the point of no return.
Yeah its not hard at all just annoying
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
My early conclusion is Obsidian is extremely good at conversation trees ,terrible at gunplay and criminally terrible at UI.
Microsoft needs to team them up with id or the Halo guys or something
On my 2nd runthrough of OW and went full Melee and the game is laughably easy. I had a rough time with my gunner but I haven't even died a single time. And I'm at the point of no return.
Yeah its not hard at all just annoying
Oh I agree. The gunplay is pretty weak. I'm having a lot more fun using Melee because it feels better. With guns I had to rely hard on the slow time ability. People moved too much during combat.
Digital Foundry have their look at Dirt 5 up and they seem impressed with what they claim is an un-optimised build. so perhaps more improvements to come, if not by launch then by years end?
That Dirt5 stuff looks impressive on paper, hard to tell on 1080p/60 youtube's tho. I have to imagine 120fps is huge in racing/fighting games. Makes me wanna upgrade to a 2.1 tv.
Runs well though not the best example of next gen horsepower. Character models look great but some of the other textures aren't as sharp as you'd like. Consistent fps throughout the city. The game knows that it's pretty crazy and leans into it but has real solid gameplay.
Will the Xbox Series support like... an Alexa or other friendly corporate-listening-device, so should we just expect there to be no voice commands at all?
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Posts
Same, and 360, too. Still eagerly crossing my fingers for Bionic Commando Rearmed (seriously, they did the sequel) and Sonic & SEGA All-Stars Racing (same, and speaking of, fix Transformed's BC as well).
On the OG Xbox, wouldn't mind seeing OutRun 2006 and Jet Set Radio get a new lease on life.
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
The only real difference between physical and digital is not having to physically produce the disk/box/cartridge. All of the major physical retailers, online stores, and consoles take the same 30% of the sales (with exceptions for things like Epic, Itch.io, humble). So yeah, digital games do potentially gross more for the developer than physical, but its not like Sony or Microsoft or Valve is taking any less percentage of the sales than Walmart/Target/Gamestop.
So I don't think its a 40% change for margins, its just moving where the money is getting spent to get you games in the hands of consumers. It's why there's been a big push on the publisher/developer side for all of these stores to lower their cut.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree
Yeah. To be clear: the middlemen here are the manufacturing of the physical goods, the shipping to get them to retailers, and the retailers themselves. Regardless of if the game is physical or digital the console manufacturer gets a cut.
I don't think this is the "only reason" PC went digital, because the exact same logic applies to consoles and over a decade later we aren't quite there yet.
The overall cost is probably similar, but with digital we are paying for the middle men (ISP, equipment, etc) where as for physical, they are paying for the middle men (physical copy production, distribution, etc). So from the perspective of the game publisher, digital is preferred.
Here's an article about the breakdown of game pricing, though granted it is from 2010.
So thats $4 dollars out of $60 (~6.7%) for producing and shipping good all over the world to tens of thousands of retail stores.
I agree that there's more going on than my previous post assumed, and for that I admit I was wrong. Going full digital ends up combing the costs of the retailer and platform licensing fees to a lower amount than retail, and you avoid having to buy back unsold stock.
But most of the cost savings isn't coming from not having to shoulder producing, distributing, and shipping physical goods, its from cutting out the number of middlemen in the chain, as Lilnoobs and Opty point out.
Edit:
Basically, assuming that chart is somewhat accurate, I think the cost savings and increase in profit margin to the publishers/devs comes more from online being a different setup in multiple ways, rather than simply boiling it down to "all savings come from the lack of a physically produced and shipped good"
I think the most surprising thing is the returns allowance. It's amazing how much retailers have to eat on that.
Edit: and thanks for finding this, I was using my own estimates from doing supply chain for a different electronics product to Target/Walmart/Best buy. Video games are different, so I'd rather trust the numbers you found.
What am I missing, what am I supposed to like here?
It's a satirical comment about Blinx the Time Sweeper, from the Japanese small studio Artoon. There was still an assumption back then that a video game publisher needed a cute animal mascot (or Mario, who is basically an animal with an "Italian" accent and working class attire, if Pikachu didn't count), and Blinx was Xbox's entry (the game came out in the first year of Xbox's lifetime, and had a lot of impressive graphical effects, particularly the water).
Of course, early Xbox's "mascots" became, more or less, the Master Chief and Kasumi and Ayane from Dead or Alive (which would be an Xbox exclusive for the next decade). Maybe Ryu Hayabusa too after Ninja Gaiden surprised everyone as one of the greatest action "hack-and-slash" games ever made.
time to explain a joke
blinx is a kinda bad original xbox game, part of a push to give Xbox their own "mascot." it's funny to see that mediocre mostly forgotten mascot platformer in 4k with all the Series X enhancements
EDIT: Here's more from IGN
The game has 3 modes, Image Quality prioritizes resolution and visuals, Framerate prioritizes...framerate, and 120Hz mode...goes up to 120 FPS
Here is some 120hz gameplay, not that you can see it but hes got the FPS graph up
One of these days, I need to give a Blinx gameca try. Think I heard one of them -- the sequel? -- was okay?
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
My early conclusion is Obsidian is extremely good at conversation trees ,terrible at gunplay and criminally terrible at UI.
Microsoft needs to team them up with id or the Halo guys or something
Mediocre games coming back is not without precedent.
On my 2nd runthrough of OW and went full Melee and the game is laughably easy. I had a rough time with my gunner but I haven't even died a single time. And I'm at the point of no return.
Yeah its not hard at all just annoying
Oh I agree. The gunplay is pretty weak. I'm having a lot more fun using Melee because it feels better. With guns I had to rely hard on the slow time ability. People moved too much during combat.
Just gonna leave this here.
Steam | XBL
Edit: Ninja'd
Yeah, how a dude with 52 subscribers got hold of that is definitely a question.
Steam | XBL
Could be a dummy account so they don't get banned on their main. It does scream 'fell off a truck's though
It's a Good Game, Actually