Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The new [Nintendo] Thread: Screens, screens as far as the eye can see.

12346»

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    People who price this stuff for manufacturers put the PS4's current spec at somewhere around $400, give or take $30, plus assembly, OS development, and physical R&D.

    So it really comes down to how much Sony and MS are willing to play with pricing, eating losses, and bundling.

    Even sold at or near cost, a $400 console is putting itself well outside of the casual purchase market, and probably out of the mainstream altogether.

    For these new consoles to be successful, they need to generate sales quickly to create a large enough base to justify the cost for developing exclusive content for them.

    console-prices-relative-2.png

    I guess the vast majority of consoles are outside the mainstream then. Including the mainstream market leaders.

    I like that you look at this graph and apparently don't see a trend across time.

    I see the trend. I also see that besides the Wii and Snes, every leader in the market cost just about $400 in every generation. When trying to make the point that, no, $400 isn't unusually high for a console, the only thing I can base that on is past performance of consoles released at about that price point (adjusted for inflation).

    Except everything else about gaming has been shrinking in cost wrt inflation.

    Yes, everything else has, across the board. However this one thing hasn't. For the same reason that building a computer hasn't. Building a machine that anyone would consider cutting edge doesn't go down over time. It's fairly constant. Because building that machine relies on the parts being cutting edge.

    Except it has shrunk, as you even admitted noticing the trend.

    You keep restricting your analysis to "the top seller of the generation, except those couple of generations where it's not true", which is a set of data that tells us nothing.


    The longer trend visible both in hardware and in everything else is that everything in video gaming is being forced down in price.

    shryke on
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Wow, so even if Sony ends up pricing the PS4 at $300, they're going to be making a $100 profit on it. Looks like they're really going to turn things around this gen. They don't even have to sell a game to turn a profit!

    No I don't.
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    People who price this stuff for manufacturers put the PS4's current spec at somewhere around $400, give or take $30, plus assembly, OS development, and physical R&D.

    So it really comes down to how much Sony and MS are willing to play with pricing, eating losses, and bundling.

    Even sold at or near cost, a $400 console is putting itself well outside of the casual purchase market, and probably out of the mainstream altogether.

    For these new consoles to be successful, they need to generate sales quickly to create a large enough base to justify the cost for developing exclusive content for them.

    console-prices-relative-2.png

    I guess the vast majority of consoles are outside the mainstream then. Including the mainstream market leaders.

    I like that you look at this graph and apparently don't see a trend across time.

    I see the trend. I also see that besides the Wii and Snes, every leader in the market cost just about $400 in every generation. When trying to make the point that, no, $400 isn't unusually high for a console, the only thing I can base that on is past performance of consoles released at about that price point (adjusted for inflation).

    Except everything else about gaming has been shrinking in cost wrt inflation.

    Yes, everything else has, across the board. However this one thing hasn't. For the same reason that building a computer hasn't. Building a machine that anyone would consider cutting edge doesn't go down over time. It's fairly constant. Because building that machine relies on the parts being cutting edge.

    Except it has shrunk, as you even admitted noticing the trend.

    You keep restricting your analysis to "the top seller of the generation, except those couple of generations where it's not true", which is a set of data that tells us nothing.


    The longer trend visible both in hardware and in everything else is that everything in video gaming is being forced down in price.

    My only point with that graph was that $400 isn't unprecedented and isn't a mark against the system. When 3 out of 5 console generations launch in that range, and go on to be the market leader, it's pretty damn clear it's not unprecedented.

    No I don't.
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist Registered User regular
    Sooo... you're saying the cost of the PS4 to Sony is going to be around $200? They're going to sell their console for a profit this time?

    Man, that Wii U tablet must cost Nintendo a mint if they have to sell a game per system to be in the black.

    This has been debunked, btw. Nintendo has said that they don't need to sell a ton of games to make a profit via licensing fees, but it's not just 1.

    Official member of the Grilling Gentry
    "Brevity is the soul of getting your shit read." - Tube
    Rarely-updated Collecting blog
    He/Him
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    If we're being intellectually honest in that regard then we can deduct all of the prices by at least 50% because Sony doesn't pay retail.

    Umm. No.

    The original claim being made was pretty clearly comparing what a consumer would pay for a PS4 with what a consumer would pay to build a computer. You don't get to play the "Wait, wholesale pricing!" card on Sony and then give yourself more money to build your mythical $200-300 high-end rig.

    But really, almost everyone in this tangent is being a goddamn douchenugget and the argument is asinine anyway, so let's move on to things less likely to give me a fucking aneurysm.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    AtomikaDeath of Ratsshryke
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    People who price this stuff for manufacturers put the PS4's current spec at somewhere around $400, give or take $30, plus assembly, OS development, and physical R&D.

    So it really comes down to how much Sony and MS are willing to play with pricing, eating losses, and bundling.

    Even sold at or near cost, a $400 console is putting itself well outside of the casual purchase market, and probably out of the mainstream altogether.

    For these new consoles to be successful, they need to generate sales quickly to create a large enough base to justify the cost for developing exclusive content for them.

    console-prices-relative-2.png

    I guess the vast majority of consoles are outside the mainstream then. Including the mainstream market leaders.

    I like that you look at this graph and apparently don't see a trend across time.

    I see the trend. I also see that besides the Wii and Snes, every leader in the market cost just about $400 in every generation. When trying to make the point that, no, $400 isn't unusually high for a console, the only thing I can base that on is past performance of consoles released at about that price point (adjusted for inflation).

    Except everything else about gaming has been shrinking in cost wrt inflation.

    Yes, everything else has, across the board. However this one thing hasn't. For the same reason that building a computer hasn't. Building a machine that anyone would consider cutting edge doesn't go down over time. It's fairly constant. Because building that machine relies on the parts being cutting edge.

    Except it has shrunk, as you even admitted noticing the trend.

    You keep restricting your analysis to "the top seller of the generation, except those couple of generations where it's not true", which is a set of data that tells us nothing.


    The longer trend visible both in hardware and in everything else is that everything in video gaming is being forced down in price.

    My only point with that graph was that $400 isn't unprecedented and isn't a mark against the system. When 3 out of 5 console generations launch in that range, and go on to be the market leader, it's pretty damn clear it's not unprecedented.

    It's a mark against the system in the way a high price is a mark against anything. Multiple SKUs being all over the last generation would seem to speak to the problems with overly high prices. Look at the 360. If $399 wasn't an issue, why have a lower priced model?

    They'll launch it under that if they can. Because $399 seems to be generally accepted as "pushing it".

  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Can't we just change this thread to the new consoles thread? Now that we're starting to get concrete info about MS and Sony's consoles, it's going to continue to drift away from Nintendo.

    I'm just going to post some random thought's I've been having since Wednesday so hopefully some of it can be discussed or torn apart or whateverelse.

    Microsoft:

    From what I've been thinking, the new Xbox is going to be in a strange place. Microsoft has been moving away from being developer friendly, and is going to have a really hard time keeping customers if the switch from power pc to x86 (rumored) makes it so there's no BC for digitally downloaded games. More than anyone they've been the leaders as far as the unified account system. They've also had the longest running service for buying games online, and it'd be a damned shame if they don't at least port over some of the more popular live games to the new system. They also might have a slightly easier time getting their DD games running on their system, considering how much they rely on Direct X for game development.

    I think they've purposely place the 360 at $300 at the moment, so that if the New Xbox launches at $399 (which is what I predict), it'll be only a slight perceived increase over the 360 currently. I think their subsidiesed model is going to replace the arcade system from last gen, come with a smaller hard drive, and be at $200 with a 15/mo subscription over 2 years. It'll be comparable to the PS4 power wise, and hopefully they've gone along the same path as far as the game capture capabilities. If they can reach this price point, have limited BC for arcade titles, and meet the PS4 on the vast majority of hardware specs, I think they'll do OK for the generation.

    Sony:

    I actually really enjoyed the PS4 presentation. I thought it was very well done, that the games looked really nice, and that every single one of them looked doable on the new systems. I've been reading a lot of doubts as far as if any or all of the demos were bullshot, and I really think every single one is on the level.

    It really did feel like a different Sony than at the PS3 announcement. However, without the price being announced, I'm not sure they learned everything they had to last time. I fully expect the PS4 to cost $400+, but I'm hoping they can cap it at $450.

    Nintendo:

    Whooboy. I'm not even sure what to say about them at this point. Looking at the visuals one the PS4, and knowing that the Wii U is at least half a step below that in terms of power... Nintendo isn't going to have third party ports being announced at the E3 after this. Unless the sales really pick up over the next 4 or 5 months, it's not going to be pretty for them. Yes, they will get buy, make a profit, and sell their games. However, as someone who really likes getting all the third party games, I just can't support the system. Now, this isn't me saying the Wii U is doomed, it's me purely saying this is another gamecube generation for Nintendo. Which is pretty fantastic for Nintendo fans. However, the Wii casual crowd is gone now, and there won't be any chance of the Wii U being the market leader.

    PCs/Steam:

    I'm really excited to hear more about the steambox. Most of my gaming anymore is done on my newly upgraded PC, and Valve really seems to be on top of things.

    However, I am worried that with the new consoles coming out, we're going to start seeing the same issues as at the beginning of last generation on the PC. It seems to me that at the beginning of each gen since the PS2/Xbox/GCN generation, PCs start getting screwed. They get less quality ports. You don't get the console master race type visuals you expect over consoles because the consoles are just as powerful (when you consider the differences of writing for the hardware). I'm not worried that steam is going anywhere, and I only see the PC scene getting better and better. More console like as consoles move closer and closer to PCs.

    Used Games:

    Myself, I don't buy used games. Even if I have to wait for the game to be on sale, I'd rather buy it new than used. I don't buy too many games per year. And usually not right at launch either. I wait for the game to be tested by people on here, and buy the ones that seem to live up to their potential. And if the game is good enough to get positive buzz here, the developers deserve to get another copy sold.

    However, I do hope that if they move on used games, that it's something where there is an option to resell, but the person purchasing does have to purchase a cheap key for the game. Or gamestop has to supply one on the receipt. $60 new and $55 used? Around $15 of that $55 should be going towards the publisher to purchase a new key for the game.

    I know this isn't a popular opinion to have, but most of the people who are against moving on used games are the same ones who are lamenting how expensive development is these days. This is the way to fix this. Doing something to make it so game makers get money from used is the way to go.

    In general:

    We're going towards the beginning of an interesting generation. It's a generation of refining and implementing everything that the console makers have learned over the last 6-7 years. Every change in the market, the rise of DD for movies/games/everything. More social and unified account integration. And a move towards more PC like specs, with less specialization. We're nearing the end of the console generation that had the least exclusive third party games released ever. And with that, this is going to be a bloodbath between Sony and Microsoft. Everyone has seen how they can choose either of their consoles and get pretty much any game they want besides a handful of first party exclusives. It's just kinda crazy to think how competitive they're going to have to be. If they can't one up eachother and keep the competition going throughout the gen, one is going to get pushed out by the end of it. There's no need for both of them. And they're no longer competing with Nintendo. So why do both of them need to be in this space? Or could we see some sort of joint venture in the generation after this? Who knows! Anything could happen in the 6-7 years after release!

    No I don't.
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    People who price this stuff for manufacturers put the PS4's current spec at somewhere around $400, give or take $30, plus assembly, OS development, and physical R&D.

    So it really comes down to how much Sony and MS are willing to play with pricing, eating losses, and bundling.

    Even sold at or near cost, a $400 console is putting itself well outside of the casual purchase market, and probably out of the mainstream altogether.

    For these new consoles to be successful, they need to generate sales quickly to create a large enough base to justify the cost for developing exclusive content for them.

    console-prices-relative-2.png

    I guess the vast majority of consoles are outside the mainstream then. Including the mainstream market leaders.

    I like that you look at this graph and apparently don't see a trend across time.

    I see the trend. I also see that besides the Wii and Snes, every leader in the market cost just about $400 in every generation. When trying to make the point that, no, $400 isn't unusually high for a console, the only thing I can base that on is past performance of consoles released at about that price point (adjusted for inflation).

    Except everything else about gaming has been shrinking in cost wrt inflation.

    Yes, everything else has, across the board. However this one thing hasn't. For the same reason that building a computer hasn't. Building a machine that anyone would consider cutting edge doesn't go down over time. It's fairly constant. Because building that machine relies on the parts being cutting edge.

    Except it has shrunk, as you even admitted noticing the trend.

    You keep restricting your analysis to "the top seller of the generation, except those couple of generations where it's not true", which is a set of data that tells us nothing.


    The longer trend visible both in hardware and in everything else is that everything in video gaming is being forced down in price.

    My only point with that graph was that $400 isn't unprecedented and isn't a mark against the system. When 3 out of 5 console generations launch in that range, and go on to be the market leader, it's pretty damn clear it's not unprecedented.

    It's a mark against the system in the way a high price is a mark against anything. Multiple SKUs being all over the last generation would seem to speak to the problems with overly high prices. Look at the 360. If $399 wasn't an issue, why have a lower priced model?

    They'll launch it under that if they can. Because $399 seems to be generally accepted as "pushing it".

    I agree completely. I think $399 is the upward limit of what's considered viable. The downward limit is $200. Anything above or below that range is either too fucking much, or a god damned joke.

    No I don't.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Why not make the liscense for a used game exactly equal to the publisher's profit margin on the game originally? If $10 of the $60 goes to MS/Sony, $10 goes to the store, and $10 goes to marketing/manufacturing/distribution (all made up numbers) then price that liscense for used games at $30 and suddenly you are indifferent among them.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    So now (in this hypothetical) it costs double for a used game? People would throw a shit fit.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    So now (in this hypothetical) it costs double for a used game? People would throw a shit fit.

    In this hypothetical used games cost $25 less, since Gamestop charges $55 for anything that they aren't desperately trying to clear off the shelves

    I don't know what you're talking about

    sig.png
    spacekungfumanmcdermott
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    So the consumer buys a game from GameStop for $55, and then when they go home they are told they need to pay an additional $30 to activate it?

    How is that $25 less? That's $25 MORE.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    So the consumer buys a game from GameStop for $55, and then when they go home they are told they need to pay an additional $30 to activate it?

    How is that $25 less? That's $25 MORE.

    I'm fairly certain that SKFM meant that used games should be priced at a floor of $30, total, splitting the proceeds in the same manner as if they were new games

    Personally I think if you did that Gamestop would just stop selling used games, but fuck Gamestop, so

    sig.png
    spacekungfuman
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    So the consumer buys a game from GameStop for $55, and then when they go home they are told they need to pay an additional $30 to activate it?

    How is that $25 less? That's $25 MORE.

    I'm fairly certain that SKFM meant that used games should be priced at a floor of $30, total, splitting the proceeds in the same manner as if they were new games

    Personally I think if you did that Gamestop would just stop selling used games, but fuck Gamestop, so

    Well, they'd lose money on every trade-in, so...

    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • iamJLNiamJLN Penny Arcade Stallion Boston Registered User regular
    Wii U and the Microsoft / Sony will typically have different audiences.

    Nintendo have had a core audience since the NES - they bring family entertainment. They are kind of like the Pixar of the gaming world. Who doesn't like a bit of Mario kart?

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    iamJLN wrote: »
    Wii U and the Microsoft / Sony will typically have different audiences.

    Nintendo have had a core audience since the NES - they bring family entertainment. They are kind of like the Pixar of the gaming world. Who doesn't like a bit of Mario kart?

    The NES was the "hardcore" system of its day. It was the most powerful, and had the best 3rd party support. Same with snes. It didn't really change until the GC couldn't attract 3rd parties.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    iamJLN wrote: »
    Wii U and the Microsoft / Sony will typically have different audiences.

    Nintendo have had a core audience since the NES - they bring family entertainment. They are kind of like the Pixar of the gaming world. Who doesn't like a bit of Mario kart?

    The NES was the "hardcore" system of its day. It was the most powerful, and had the best 3rd party support. Same with snes. It didn't really change until the GC couldn't attract 3rd parties.

    Who else was there to compete with the NES? Now as for the Super Nintendo, matter of fact SEGA systems were more "hardcore". At least among the people that care about those terms (teenagers). The SEGA Genesis also outsold the SNES.

    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • iamJLNiamJLN Penny Arcade Stallion Boston Registered User regular
    iamJLN wrote: »
    Wii U and the Microsoft / Sony will typically have different audiences.

    Nintendo have had a core audience since the NES - they bring family entertainment. They are kind of like the Pixar of the gaming world. Who doesn't like a bit of Mario kart?

    The NES was the "hardcore" system of its day. It was the most powerful, and had the best 3rd party support. Same with snes. It didn't really change until the GC couldn't attract 3rd parties.

    Nobody is talking about the power of the console, I was talking about its audience. Nintendo hasn't attracted people based on their system power (as Mblackwell has just said, who was there to compete with) they just attracted families based on a gaming experience. They have never changed their stance on this.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    You guys weren't around then, were you? The graphics on the NES were MINDBLOWING in comparison to Atari. I remember the first time I played SMB at a friend's house, I was blown away.

    And I disagree that Sega was the "hardcore" company. It was just the less popular one. The master system was ok, but lacked the breadth of games that the NES had. And the SNES most definitely outsold the Genesis. The Genesis just had an early lead because it launched first.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    So the consumer buys a game from GameStop for $55, and then when they go home they are told they need to pay an additional $30 to activate it?

    How is that $25 less? That's $25 MORE.

    I'm fairly certain that SKFM meant that used games should be priced at a floor of $30, total, splitting the proceeds in the same manner as if they were new games

    Personally I think if you did that Gamestop would just stop selling used games, but fuck Gamestop, so

    Well, they'd lose money on every trade-in, so...

    They wouldn't pay you $40 for a game anymore. They'd buy everything for $15, resell it for $25, and then the buyer would go home and be hit with a $30 license fee.

    It's a stupid plan to begin with, but it's pretty staggering that you're unable to follow the causality chain that would come from it.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    Sorry, I've built more than one PC in my life.

    No, give me links. Build the PS4 for less than $300, including case and controller. Make your point.

    You can't, because the components are more expensive due to the fact that they are 2 years old and rarer. But that's okay. I'll conceded the point that if you use customized two year old tech it's probably more expensive.

    You know, I just highly doubt that. They don't raise prices on cards because they're rarer. This isn't collecting pokemon cards here, older graphics cards lower in price until they just stop, they don't arbitrarily raise in price.

    Parts are indeed like pokemon cards sometimes. Once a part is no longer being made and only leftovers are being stocked anywhere they get expensive. I know this for a fact because my computer blew up last summer and I ended up not replacing it because getting the parts to fix a 4 year old computer borders on impossible. I would have ended up paying more for a new motherboard than a i7 motherboard would've cost. And replacing a CPU was virtually impossible.

  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    So the consumer buys a game from GameStop for $55, and then when they go home they are told they need to pay an additional $30 to activate it?

    How is that $25 less? That's $25 MORE.

    I'm fairly certain that SKFM meant that used games should be priced at a floor of $30, total, splitting the proceeds in the same manner as if they were new games

    Personally I think if you did that Gamestop would just stop selling used games, but fuck Gamestop, so

    Well, they'd lose money on every trade-in, so...

    They wouldn't pay you $40 for a game anymore. They'd buy everything for $15, resell it for $25, and then the buyer would go home and be hit with a $30 license fee.

    It's a stupid plan to begin with, but it's pretty staggering that you're unable to follow the causality chain that would come from it.

    Or it could all happen behind the scenes. Gamestop buys it for $15, sells it for $55, but pays $30 or $15 for a new key, and then prints it on the receipt. Wouldn't have to affect the customer in any way.

    No I don't.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Gamestop would lose money that way. Much as we hate them their margin on used games is certainly not that good that they could eat the fees. They buy for 15 sell for 55 and pay fees math might work in your head but they still have to deal with the overhead of stocking the games, hiring employees and accepting the fact that not every used game they buy will be resold.

  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    I think if most people were looking at buying a used game for any amount over $40, the new copy for only a pittance above that would push people to buy the new copy. If the used copies have to also buy an activation code of $5-10 (which can very much be at each developers' discretion), GameStop will either go bust or have to start selling their used games for a reasonable price.

    The only people getting screwed in that scenario are people selling their games to places like GameStop, which I'm not terribly concerned about.

  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    So the consumer buys a game from GameStop for $55, and then when they go home they are told they need to pay an additional $30 to activate it?

    How is that $25 less? That's $25 MORE.

    I'm fairly certain that SKFM meant that used games should be priced at a floor of $30, total, splitting the proceeds in the same manner as if they were new games

    Personally I think if you did that Gamestop would just stop selling used games, but fuck Gamestop, so

    Well, they'd lose money on every trade-in, so...

    They wouldn't pay you $40 for a game anymore. They'd buy everything for $15, resell it for $25, and then the buyer would go home and be hit with a $30 license fee.

    It's a stupid plan to begin with, but it's pretty staggering that you're unable to follow the causality chain that would come from it.

    How is paying 25 at Gamestop and 30 at home different from paying 55 at Gamestop and nothing at home?

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Gamestop would lose money that way. Much as we hate them their margin on used games is certainly not that good that they could eat the fees. They buy for 15 sell for 55 and pay fees math might work in your head but they still have to deal with the overhead of stocking the games, hiring employees and accepting the fact that not every used game they buy will be resold.

    Who said they have to pay the fee on games they don't resell? SKFM said something about a $30 fee. I think more along the lines of $10 would work. Or hell, make it a percentage of what the game sells for. Lets say 20% instead of $15. And lets say it's Gamestop's sell price - Gamestop's buy price. So lets use realistic numbers here. Recently I sold Mass Effect 2 to gamestop for $2. They sell it for $10 used. So EA would get around $1.60 for the sale, and Gamestop would make a profit of $6.40. Still not a bad deal for Gamestop.

    And Gamestop would go for it, if the alternative was blocking used games outright. Gamestop makes a huge amount of money off of used games, but that's not the only business they do.

    No I don't.
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    You guys weren't around then, were you? The graphics on the NES were MINDBLOWING in comparison to Atari. I remember the first time I played SMB at a friend's house, I was blown away.

    And I disagree that Sega was the "hardcore" company. It was just the less popular one. The master system was ok, but lacked the breadth of games that the NES had. And the SNES most definitely outsold the Genesis. The Genesis just had an early lead because it launched first.
    Wikipedia wrote:
    According to a 2004 study of NPD sales data, the Sega Genesis was able to maintain its lead over the Super NES in the American 16-bit console market.

    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

    Geth
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Gamestop would lose money that way. Much as we hate them their margin on used games is certainly not that good that they could eat the fees. They buy for 15 sell for 55 and pay fees math might work in your head but they still have to deal with the overhead of stocking the games, hiring employees and accepting the fact that not every used game they buy will be resold.

    Who said they have to pay the fee on games they don't resell? SKFM said something about a $30 fee. I think more along the lines of $10 would work. Or hell, make it a percentage of what the game sells for. Lets say 20% instead of $15. And lets say it's Gamestop's sell price - Gamestop's buy price. So lets use realistic numbers here. Recently I sold Mass Effect 2 to gamestop for $2. They sell it for $10 used. So EA would get around $1.60 for the sale, and Gamestop would make a profit of $6.40. Still not a bad deal for Gamestop.

    And Gamestop would go for it, if the alternative was blocking used games outright. Gamestop makes a huge amount of money off of used games, but that's not the only business they do.

    And here I didn't think we could get an argument stupider than the one about building a high-end PC for $200.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    You guys weren't around then, were you? The graphics on the NES were MINDBLOWING in comparison to Atari. I remember the first time I played SMB at a friend's house, I was blown away.

    And I disagree that Sega was the "hardcore" company. It was just the less popular one. The master system was ok, but lacked the breadth of games that the NES had. And the SNES most definitely outsold the Genesis. The Genesis just had an early lead because it launched first.

    The SNES and the Genesis were running neck and neck for quite awhile. The SNES didn't pull clearly ahead until Sega abandoned the Genesis for their 32X fiasco and then for the Saturn, while Nintendo kept selling SNESs to the masses.

    Also, the GCN wasn't the first time Nintendo faltered in hardware dominance. They got spanked with the N64 too, I believe. Sony had something like 85-90% market share with the PSX. I'm pretty sure the GCN was actually more successful than the N64.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    I remember liking the genesis more becasue the SNES controller had too many damn buttons

  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Gamestop would lose money that way. Much as we hate them their margin on used games is certainly not that good that they could eat the fees. They buy for 15 sell for 55 and pay fees math might work in your head but they still have to deal with the overhead of stocking the games, hiring employees and accepting the fact that not every used game they buy will be resold.

    Who said they have to pay the fee on games they don't resell? SKFM said something about a $30 fee. I think more along the lines of $10 would work. Or hell, make it a percentage of what the game sells for. Lets say 20% instead of $15. And lets say it's Gamestop's sell price - Gamestop's buy price. So lets use realistic numbers here. Recently I sold Mass Effect 2 to gamestop for $2. They sell it for $10 used. So EA would get around $1.60 for the sale, and Gamestop would make a profit of $6.40. Still not a bad deal for Gamestop.

    And Gamestop would go for it, if the alternative was blocking used games outright. Gamestop makes a huge amount of money off of used games, but that's not the only business they do.

    And here I didn't think we could get an argument stupider than the one about building a high-end PC for $200.

    Would you care to tell me how my argument is stupid, or are you perfectly fine with just calling me stupid?

    If publishers are putting pressure on console makers to do something about used games, and console makers don't want to completely screw over gamestop for fear of losing retail space, something that makes sure everyone gets a piece of the used game pie would be the best solution, no?

    Edit: I'm just going to do this over PM, I don't want to drag this thread into another yelling match.

    Death of Rats on
    No I don't.
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    I think if most people were looking at buying a used game for any amount over $40, the new copy for only a pittance above that would push people to buy the new copy. If the used copies have to also buy an activation code of $5-10 (which can very much be at each developers' discretion), GameStop will either go bust or have to start selling their used games for a reasonable price.

    The only people getting screwed in that scenario are people selling their games to places like GameStop, which I'm not terribly concerned about.

    You'd be surprised. The reason Gamestop sells new games for $5 less is because they sell.

    Though with a used margin that high, even a $5 activation fee would seriously fuck the company's bottom line.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
    a5ehren
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Okay, I think we need to set up some parameters for what this thread is. It can't be "anything that has something to do with any video game system or retailer at any point in the history of forever" because that is a shitty basis for structured conversation. Having a thread just about Nintendo is going to be difficult if we want to discuss their hardware, because a discussion of their hardware that doesn't take other hardware into account is arbitrarily limiting.

    So what do we want this thread to be? Something about Nintendo and their games? Something about the WiiU/PS4/720 hardware generation? Something about the future of retail versus DD and how this relates to the used game market?

    We can have multiple threads, but right now we're trying to recreate the entirety of G&T in one thread and that's not going to work.

    ...

    Actually, fuck it. I'm locking this thread and making some new ones with better defined parameters.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Geth, lock the thread.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative ElJeffe. Closing thread...

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Okay, y'all have three shiny new threads to play in. One for the console war, one for Nintendo specifically, and one for the used game discussion.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    Death of Rats
This discussion has been closed.