I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of support the game publishers have here
I'm genuinely baffled by how a community with a large number of Steam sigs in it can be yelling doom and gloom about a DRM heavy distribution model.
We mentioned this earlier. Steam has advantages, like not having to worry about physical media or which PC I am using. Backwards compatibility and future-proofing too. Plus very competitive pricing.
It removes used sales but adds things to the product.
As opposed to purely removing features from a product because some people want more money.
This seems like a distinction without a difference.
Why don't the advantages of Steam apply to what's going to happen on consoles?
Because we are talking about physical copies being gimped to bleed people of their money, not a digital service.
That a digital service could possibly spring up that makes digital console gaming as well-supported as PC digital gaming doesn't change the fact that the people who buy physical get screwed. Whatever advantages the Steam model has are not advantages enjoyed by the console gamers who buy physical products. Better digital service doesn't change the fact the physical products are having things stripped from them with no visible benefit to the consumers who buy them.
PC gaming is not console gaming. The latter is still very much a product percieved to be akin to a DVD or book. You buy a copy, you own that copy, and you have consumer privileges that go along with that. Physical product is still the majority, unlike on the PC. So suddenly pulling the rug out from under the majority of console gamers and saying "hey, all that stuff you've always been able to do with your console games? You can't anymore! Don't like it? Go fuck yourself" is actively harming the consumer.
And while PC gaming is now almost all controlled by digital DRM, the move was gradual. A switch wasn't flipped and suddenly nothing could be sold as used. It was some games here, some games there, until eventually it was everywhere. And that was in a market where used games were an uncommon niche thing to begin with, unlike console gaming where its the established norm and always has been. But if we suddenly go from all games can be played used to none of them, without allowing the vast amount of consumers who have grown up on the perception that a game they buy can be sold or lent to a friend or traded in so they can afford a new one, that is a seriously huge dick move, a massive middle finger to millions of customers that forces them to lose a ton of functionality they have enjoyed for decades in one fell swoop.
Those examples are not at all analogous to being able to play my Steam games on any PC I own or will own, including my desktop, laptop and tablet, and my cheap old shitty PC as well as my new shiny PC.
Those examples are not at all analogous to being able to play my Steam games on any PC I own or will own, including my desktop, laptop and tablet, and my cheap old shitty PC as well as my new shiny PC.
And your examples aren't analogous to the way Steam functions either. I mean jesus, asking if you'd be able to play games from Microsoft's system on the PS4? Or the DS? Again, can you play Mass Effect 3 on Steam? They're different services. Can you play your steam games on your smart TV? On your Android phone? On your toaster? No, because the service isn't available for those platforms. Your argument doesn't hold any water.
If you can play your games you bought on Microsoft's service on any Microsoft system going forward, that is exactly the way steam functions. Steam games only run on platforms that run steam. XBL games only run on platforms that run XBL. PSN games only run on platforms that run PSN. Exactly the same thing.
No I don't.
+2
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
You will never ever see sales akin to the awesome steam sales, or reactive game pricing that you see on steam, so long as there is a glut of retail discs across the country that major retailers paid wholesale pricing on with the assumption that they would sell for 60 bucks a pop.
All the stuff people like about steam and don't trust to happen on consoles cannot happen on consoles until the used game market and the majority of the physical media market is nuked from orbit. Full stop. This is the special sauce that let's Steam get away with selling games for 30 bucks over a holiday weekend and bring the price back up to 50 afterwards, or bundle 30 iD games for 20 bucks, or whatever.
Because the publishers get a slice every. single. time.
And for the most part they love it. And gamers love it. And we can't let that happen on consoles because... reasons?
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
You will never ever see sales akin to the awesome steam sales, or reactive game pricing that you see on steam, so long as there is a glut of retail discs across the country that major retailers paid wholesale pricing on with the assumption that they would sell for 60 bucks a pop.
All the stuff people like about steam and don't trust to happen on consoles cannot happen on consoles until the used game market and the majority of the physical media market is nuked from orbit. Full stop. This is the special sauce that let's Steam get away with selling games for 30 bucks over a holiday weekend and bring the price back up to 50 afterwards, or bundle 30 iD games for 20 bucks, or whatever.
Because the publishers get a slice every. single. time.
And for the most part they love it. And gamers love it. And we can't let that happen on consoles because... reasons?
The things holding this back on consoles:
1. Consumers throwing a fit about losing used games
2. Bandwidth speeds not being high enough (seems to work fine for steam though)
3. Crushing paranoia from gamers ("it's totally not going to be BC next gen", "they're not going to have those sales, they're just greedy")
The major point people don't seem to understand is Every Single Time the publishers get to quickly do sales and set their own prices, they follow the Steam model. No matter what the platform is. The publishers aren't holding up game prices from being more like steam, the damned retailers are.
People didn't abandon physical PC games until it was worth it. It was a slow process over time. Nothing was nuked from orbit, it was worn down over years and years of attrition.
What people are proposing for console gaming is making a sudden change that takes away the things that the majority of console gamers expect from their purchase all at once, forcing them into the situation instead of drawing them into it.
Well, if we see something that's better than the way things work now, for pretty much everyone involved, doesn't it make sense to just move to that system full sail instead of painfully pounding away at the current system till it looks kinda similar to the better system you're driving for?
It's like healthcare. Democrats would love to adopt a single payer universal healthcare system. That's what we wanted during health reform. Instead of getting that, we're slowly hacking away at the current system, hopeful that someday we can get it to look like that. It's painful, and stupid, and we only do this this way to please those who are just too damned scared of change to realize it would be better for them in the long run.
Or in the case of health care, we do it because of republicans.
Can we split this up for a sec and talk about some of the individual components? Put aside the Gamestop profit and look at the other side of the coin: Trading games. Because it takes two to tango. People are trading their games.
Why should this not be allowed? Why is it when I buy a console game, I am to be eternally locked to it, never having another soul ever touch it? Why am I not allowed to just give it away to a friend? Why should this be denied?
Piracy? Well it makes sense with PC games. Single player especially. I install the game, use a simple no-CD crack, and give the disc to my friend, who does the same thing. Or even just burn a copy. It's the very nature of PC games, they're simply far too easy to do this with.
Console games? Not so much. Simply put, you're not doing this. Not with carts, unless you also own the proper dumping equipment. And discs? Unless they mod their system, you cannot just simply copy and burn the disc to give to somebody else. It is functionally impossible for normal users. If you can... then you clearly fall under the Pirate label, and honestly all this no longer applies to you. For the rest of us, if I give away that disc, I can no longer play that game. The only one capable of accessing that data is the person I gave it to, and them alone. At least until they return it, or give it to another.
So again, tell me why I alone am locked to that specific cart/disc, now and forever?
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
They have already been drawn into it and they are fine with it.
iOS App Store.
Google Play
Steam
Xbox live
Even fucking WiiWare and the virtual console works in a way that you buy with credit and you can't trade with friends.
Everyone who has not been under a rock for the past 5 years has encountered some manner of this marketplace. And even the biggest dicks of them all (EA) has 99 cent sales on their 10 dollar iOS apps a few times a year, and adjust pricing accordingly and quickly on iOS.
People's love of and desire to maintain a used game market that generally fucks them over far more than it helps them is the core reason we can't have something as great as steam on our consoles. And that is just dumb.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Also saying people who want to retain ownership privileges are "throwing a fit" is just exactly the kind of attitude I despise.
It is not some crazy irrational concept to want to actually own your shit. I own my movies. I own my books. I have owned my console games since console games existed. I do not want that to change and absolutely none of you have given me a good reason as to why I'm wrong to want to own my games.
If you don't care about being able to swap games with friends or trade in games to help afford the latest new release, fan fucking tastic for you. That doesn't mean it's okay to force everyone who enjoys this part of being a consumer to give up those privileges.
You people are arguing for the gutting of gaming consumer privileges and then expecting people not to fucking care about what they're losing.
Can we split this up for a sec and talk about some of the individual components? Put aside the Gamestop profit and look at the other side of the coin: Trading games. Because it takes two to tango. People are trading their games.
Why should this not be allowed? Why is it when I buy a console game, I am to be eternally locked to it, never having another soul ever touch it? Why am I not allowed to just give it away to a friend? Why should this be denied?
If Player A buys Game-X, plays it, and gives the cartridge to Player B, who plays the game, two people played the game and the developer only sold one copy.
I think it's reasonable to discern that, from the developer's perspective, that's kinda fucked up.
Well, if we see something that's better than the way things work now, for pretty much everyone involved, doesn't it make sense to just move to that system full sail instead of painfully pounding away at the current system till it looks kinda similar to the better system you're driving for?
It's like healthcare. Democrats would love to adopt a single payer universal healthcare system. That's what we wanted during health reform. Instead of getting that, we're slowly hacking away at the current system, hopeful that someday we can get it to look like that. It's painful, and stupid, and we only do this this way to please those who are just too damned scared of change to realize it would be better for them in the long run.
Or in the case of health care, we do it because of republicans.
This is based on the premise that it is better for all.
No one has provided a convincing argument that it would be and we already know definitively that things that are currently important to a whole bunch of console gaming consumers would be stripped away.
There is absolutely no guarantee that this would be better for everyone.
Also saying people who want to retain ownership privileges are "throwing a fit" is just exactly the kind of attitude I despise.
It is not some crazy irrational concept to want to actually own your shit. I own my movies. I own my books. I have owned my console games since console games existed. I do not want that to change and absolutely none of you have given me a good reason as to why I'm wrong to want to own my games.
If you don't care about being able to swap games with friends or trade in games to help afford the latest new release, fan fucking tastic for you. That doesn't mean it's okay to force everyone who enjoys this part of being a consumer to give up those privileges.
You people are arguing for the gutting of gaming consumer privileges and then expecting people not to fucking care about what they're losing.
Actually I'm arguing for DD games with steam style sales. I like being able to spend around $40 at christmas and pick up any games I missed throughout the year. As a side effect, yes, it would do what you describe. However, in my mine the benefit outweighs the cost completely. Arguing against a system where you can routinely get things for 75% off because then you wouldn't be able to buy those things at a big box store for maybe 50% used is "throwing a fit".
Hypothetical example:
A game cost $100 new. You can get it for $25 DD. You can get it used for $50. You want to share that game with your friend, so you buy it used. I want to play that game with my friend so I get both of us to buy it for $25. Between the two of us we spend $50. You spent $50. We get to play together. You get to loan your copy to a friend. We gave money to a developer. You gave money to a pawn shop.
Which way is better?
No I don't.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Well, if we see something that's better than the way things work now, for pretty much everyone involved, doesn't it make sense to just move to that system full sail instead of painfully pounding away at the current system till it looks kinda similar to the better system you're driving for?
It's like healthcare. Democrats would love to adopt a single payer universal healthcare system. That's what we wanted during health reform. Instead of getting that, we're slowly hacking away at the current system, hopeful that someday we can get it to look like that. It's painful, and stupid, and we only do this this way to please those who are just too damned scared of change to realize it would be better for them in the long run.
Or in the case of health care, we do it because of republicans.
This is based on the premise that it is better for all.
No one has provided a convincing argument that it would be and we already know definitively that things that are currently important to a whole bunch of console gaming consumers would be stripped away.
There is absolutely no guarantee that this would be better for everyone.
Do you use steam?
How many steam games do you own?
How many did you buy at deep discounts because the publishers ran awesome sales?
Do you have an iPhone or an android device?
How many games do you own for that?
Do you take advantage of the nearly weekly awesome sales that the publishers are able to do?
Do you think GameStop would be upset if the game they spent 40 bucks to put on their shelf for 60 was being sold half off for the weekend online? Don't you think they would lobby against something so consumer friendly in their own best interest?
Every time a system like this is enacted it's pros far outweigh the cons.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Can we split this up for a sec and talk about some of the individual components? Put aside the Gamestop profit and look at the other side of the coin: Trading games. Because it takes two to tango. People are trading their games.
Why should this not be allowed? Why is it when I buy a console game, I am to be eternally locked to it, never having another soul ever touch it? Why am I not allowed to just give it away to a friend? Why should this be denied?
If Player A buys Game-X, plays it, and gives the cartridge to Player B, who plays the game, two people played the game and the developer only sold one copy.
I think it's reasonable to discern that, from the developer's perspective, that's kinda fucked up.
Replace video game with any other form of media and the logic completely falls apart.
Unless you also agree that when I buy a DVD and watch it with my girlfriend, it's the exact same fucked up situation. One copy was sold, two people experienced it.
Why do video games get this exclusive treatment?
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Can we split this up for a sec and talk about some of the individual components? Put aside the Gamestop profit and look at the other side of the coin: Trading games. Because it takes two to tango. People are trading their games.
Why should this not be allowed? Why is it when I buy a console game, I am to be eternally locked to it, never having another soul ever touch it? Why am I not allowed to just give it away to a friend? Why should this be denied?
If Player A buys Game-X, plays it, and gives the cartridge to Player B, who plays the game, two people played the game and the developer only sold one copy.
I think it's reasonable to discern that, from the developer's perspective, that's kinda fucked up.
Replace video game with any other form of media and the logic completely falls apart.
Unless you also agree that when I buy a DVD and watch it with my girlfriend, it's the exact same fucked up situation. One copy was sold, two people experienced it.
Well, if we see something that's better than the way things work now, for pretty much everyone involved, doesn't it make sense to just move to that system full sail instead of painfully pounding away at the current system till it looks kinda similar to the better system you're driving for?
It's like healthcare. Democrats would love to adopt a single payer universal healthcare system. That's what we wanted during health reform. Instead of getting that, we're slowly hacking away at the current system, hopeful that someday we can get it to look like that. It's painful, and stupid, and we only do this this way to please those who are just too damned scared of change to realize it would be better for them in the long run.
Or in the case of health care, we do it because of republicans.
This is based on the premise that it is better for all.
No one has provided a convincing argument that it would be and we already know definitively that things that are currently important to a whole bunch of console gaming consumers would be stripped away.
There is absolutely no guarantee that this would be better for everyone.
Do you use steam?
How many steam games do you own?
How many did you buy at deep discounts because the publishers ran awesome sales?
Do you have an iPhone or an android device?
How many games do you own for that?
Do you take advantage of the nearly weekly awesome sales that the publishers are able to do?
Do you think GameStop would be upset if the game they spent 40 bucks to put on their shelf for 60 was being sold half off for the weekend online? Don't you think they would lobby against something so consumer friendly in their own best interest?
Every time a system like this is enacted it's pros far outweigh the cons.
Have you missed the point where multiple people have said that, given the right price point, they're fully willing to throw away their ability to resell a game?
You keep mentioning Steam, iphone, android, ect. Pick a platform that doesn't routinely have <=$10 games, and you might have a point.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
They have already been drawn into it and they are fine with it.
iOS App Store.
Google Play
Steam
Xbox live
Even fucking WiiWare and the virtual console works in a way that you buy with credit and you can't trade with friends.
Everyone who has not been under a rock for the past 5 years has encountered some manner of this marketplace. And even the biggest dicks of them all (EA) has 99 cent sales on their 10 dollar iOS apps a few times a year, and adjust pricing accordingly and quickly on iOS.
People's love of and desire to maintain a used game market that generally fucks them over far more than it helps them is the core reason we can't have something as great as steam on our consoles. And that is just dumb.
Except actual full console games are still a physical-copy driven market.
Cheap small digital games and PC games are different markets with different expectations and perceptions.
The vast majority of people who buy full console games buy physical copies and have spent decades buying physical copies and expect to have the ability to sell, trade, rent, give, and lend them.
Digital has not become the primary focus of full console games, not even close.
So if you suddenly, right now, tell all of those people out there, many of them who don't even have their freaking console hooked up to the Internet, "fuck you"?
That is some anti-consumer bullshit.
And do you even realize just how much going digital only would fuck people over right now? This isn't PC gaming,me here the majority of the people buying the games are set up for it. This isn't phone gaming or buying music where file sizes are relatively tiny. This is forcing an entire market to change into something it is not prepared for. Lots of people can't even get reliable high speed Internet yet, let alone high speed interned that is both fast enough to download large 10+ GB files quickly and has no restrictive bandwidth caps. We are not even close to ready for digital-only console games. It would literally slice the customer base into pieces. When the next generation comes around, we might be. But to do it right here right now would be absolute lunacy.
Can we split this up for a sec and talk about some of the individual components? Put aside the Gamestop profit and look at the other side of the coin: Trading games. Because it takes two to tango. People are trading their games.
Why should this not be allowed? Why is it when I buy a console game, I am to be eternally locked to it, never having another soul ever touch it? Why am I not allowed to just give it away to a friend? Why should this be denied?
If Player A buys Game-X, plays it, and gives the cartridge to Player B, who plays the game, two people played the game and the developer only sold one copy.
I think it's reasonable to discern that, from the developer's perspective, that's kinda fucked up.
Replace video game with any other form of media and the logic completely falls apart.
Unless you also agree that when I buy a DVD and watch it with my girlfriend, it's the exact same fucked up situation. One copy was sold, two people experienced it.
Why do video games get this exclusive treatment?
Video games don't - digital media does.
It is generally assumed that TV shows, movies, music and video games you purchase digitally are licensed to you and a certain number of devices you own.
In exchange for this, you have access to everything you purchased "in the cloud," and you will need lose it to entropy.
I don't have my original "Use your Illusion" CDs any more, they got scratched to hell a decade after buying them... but my MP3s purchased through iTunes? I can download them whenever to wherever I have my account connected and that convenience kicks ass.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Well, if we see something that's better than the way things work now, for pretty much everyone involved, doesn't it make sense to just move to that system full sail instead of painfully pounding away at the current system till it looks kinda similar to the better system you're driving for?
It's like healthcare. Democrats would love to adopt a single payer universal healthcare system. That's what we wanted during health reform. Instead of getting that, we're slowly hacking away at the current system, hopeful that someday we can get it to look like that. It's painful, and stupid, and we only do this this way to please those who are just too damned scared of change to realize it would be better for them in the long run.
Or in the case of health care, we do it because of republicans.
This is based on the premise that it is better for all.
No one has provided a convincing argument that it would be and we already know definitively that things that are currently important to a whole bunch of console gaming consumers would be stripped away.
There is absolutely no guarantee that this would be better for everyone.
Do you use steam?
How many steam games do you own?
How many did you buy at deep discounts because the publishers ran awesome sales?
Do you have an iPhone or an android device?
How many games do you own for that?
Do you take advantage of the nearly weekly awesome sales that the publishers are able to do?
Do you think GameStop would be upset if the game they spent 40 bucks to put on their shelf for 60 was being sold half off for the weekend online? Don't you think they would lobby against something so consumer friendly in their own best interest?
Every time a system like this is enacted it's pros far outweigh the cons.
Have you missed the point where multiple people have said that, given the right price point, they're fully willing to throw away their ability to resell a game?
You keep mentioning Steam, iphone, android, ect. Pick a platform that doesn't routinely have <=$10 games, and you might have a point.
And this is what the argument is. That given the ability to have those sorts of sales without being beholden to Gamestop or other retailers, you would see those sorts of sales on the consoles. Every piece of evidence supports this theory. The Wii E-shop does it, Origin does it. Amazon does it. Steam does it. It happens on every platform where you can buy a game for the PC.
Can we split this up for a sec and talk about some of the individual components? Put aside the Gamestop profit and look at the other side of the coin: Trading games. Because it takes two to tango. People are trading their games.
Why should this not be allowed? Why is it when I buy a console game, I am to be eternally locked to it, never having another soul ever touch it? Why am I not allowed to just give it away to a friend? Why should this be denied?
If Player A buys Game-X, plays it, and gives the cartridge to Player B, who plays the game, two people played the game and the developer only sold one copy.
I think it's reasonable to discern that, from the developer's perspective, that's kinda fucked up.
Replace video game with any other form of media and the logic completely falls apart.
Unless you also agree that when I buy a DVD and watch it with my girlfriend, it's the exact same fucked up situation. One copy was sold, two people experienced it.
Why do video games get this exclusive treatment?
The dvd situation is also fucked up.
I disagree with that and think you're crazy. But I infinitely respect you for not taking the hypocrite route and saying it's completely different.
I salute you, fine sir.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I really wish that argument would fucking stop.
80% of American households have some kind of broadband. And I am assuming that the 20% who don't are probably not in the marketplace for a high end next gen console.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If the game marketplace is going to have to shrink and change anyway, with outrageous development costs and all that, wouldn't it make sense to just go "fine, if you don't have an internet connection, this is no longer for you. Find another hobby, goodbye" and have the market shrink on your own terms, and get to the better system now instead of waiting for another 5-7 years for the next console generation, limping along all the while, holding onto the dead weight of people who aren't even willing to buy your game new or recommend it to their friend instead of just giving it to them?
Can we split this up for a sec and talk about some of the individual components? Put aside the Gamestop profit and look at the other side of the coin: Trading games. Because it takes two to tango. People are trading their games.
Why should this not be allowed? Why is it when I buy a console game, I am to be eternally locked to it, never having another soul ever touch it? Why am I not allowed to just give it away to a friend? Why should this be denied?
If Player A buys Game-X, plays it, and gives the cartridge to Player B, who plays the game, two people played the game and the developer only sold one copy.
I think it's reasonable to discern that, from the developer's perspective, that's kinda fucked up.
Replace video game with any other form of media and the logic completely falls apart.
Unless you also agree that when I buy a DVD and watch it with my girlfriend, it's the exact same fucked up situation. One copy was sold, two people experienced it.
Why do video games get this exclusive treatment?
The dvd situation is also fucked up.
I disagree with that and think you're crazy. But I infinitely respect you for not taking the hypocrite route and saying it's completely different.
I salute you, fine sir.
I'm saying "from the producer's / creator's perspective" it's kind of fucked up that one purchased unit can be enjoyed by multiple persons. Imagine you make a video game, or write a book, or produce a movie. In that situation you would want every person who uses your product to have purchased it, right? You wouldn't want 30 people to share one copy of your book. You would want each person to obtain their own copy so that you make more money.
I think it's absurd to demand that other individuals abandon the rational self interest that we would all maintain were we in their position. Since we're consumers, many of us are going with the "but I should be able to do whatever I want with this game / book / movie I bought!" and there's something to that. But there's also something to the other position, where we're the ones trying to make money off the game / book / dvd.
Just trying to represent both perspectives, since they're both relevant to the conversation.
Also saying people who want to retain ownership privileges are "throwing a fit" is just exactly the kind of attitude I despise.
It is not some crazy irrational concept to want to actually own your shit. I own my movies. I own my books. I have owned my console games since console games existed. I do not want that to change and absolutely none of you have given me a good reason as to why I'm wrong to want to own my games.
If you don't care about being able to swap games with friends or trade in games to help afford the latest new release, fan fucking tastic for you. That doesn't mean it's okay to force everyone who enjoys this part of being a consumer to give up those privileges.
You people are arguing for the gutting of gaming consumer privileges and then expecting people not to fucking care about what they're losing.
Actually I'm arguing for DD games with steam style sales. I like being able to spend around $40 at christmas and pick up any games I missed throughout the year. As a side effect, yes, it would do what you describe. However, in my mine the benefit outweighs the cost completely. Arguing against a system where you can routinely get things for 75% off because then you wouldn't be able to buy those things at a big box store for maybe 50% used is "throwing a fit".
Hypothetical example:
A game cost $100 new. You can get it for $25 DD. You can get it used for $50. You want to share that game with your friend, so you buy it used. I want to play that game with my friend so I get both of us to buy it for $25. Between the two of us we spend $50. You spent $50. We get to play together. You get to loan your copy to a friend. We gave money to a developer. You gave money to a pawn shop.
Which way is better?
Which situation is better depends on a bunch of factors, including: Do I care about multiplayer in the first place? Is my friend lending me something in return, giving me the chance to experience another game? How much will I get for this game of I decide to sell it or trade it in? Will that money help me afford a new game that I want?
These are some of many reasons why neither of these situations are objectively better for everyone.
They key is in your own words. "In my mind". In YOUR mind the benefits outweigh the loss. But not everyone has the same priorities as you.
And you are also falling into the trap of acting like the used market is only about buying used games to save money. It's also about being able to sell them to afford other games. If I can get a physical copy of a game for 40 bucks and then later sell it to someone for 20 so I can more easily afford a brand new 60 dollar game, or I can get a digital copy for twenty bucks, what's "better" is completely up to the individual preferences of the gamer.
Your argument here boils down to initial price and that's it, as if that is the only thing any gamer should ever be concerned with. You are pretty much dismissing any desire to actually own a game and all privileges that come with that as some sort of immature position to take. Sorry, that don't fly with me.
Also no one has proved that a good digital model and a good physical model can't exist simultaneously, and I'm seeing arguments that claim physical goods are the only thing keeping PSN and Marketplace prices too high without much to back it up. Steam has something those other stores don't have: competition. Steam gives us good prices because they want to give us a reason to buy games from them over something else. At first it was to buy their games over physical ones, now it's constantly having price battles with the likes of Amazon, GMG, GoG, Origin, and so on. The consoles? One store each. One. Do you honestly think of there is only one single place you can buy a Playstation 4 game, that prices will be as competitive and low as PC games are now? I highly doubt that. PC games are a completely different animal. Anyone can put out a PC game, and have tons of options to get it out there. Many more sweeping changes to the console market would have to happen before the digital landscape is similar enough.
If the game marketplace is going to have to shrink and change anyway, with outrageous development costs and all that, wouldn't it make sense to just go "fine, if you don't have an internet connection, this is no longer for you. Find another hobby, goodbye" and have the market shrink on your own terms, and get to the better system now instead of waiting for another 5-7 years for the next console generation, limping along all the while, holding onto the dead weight of people who aren't even willing to buy your game new or recommend it to their friend instead of just giving it to them?
Haha yeah, abandoning a huge amount of your customers would turn out just fine. I'm sure.
Most of Canada has shitty bandwidth caps. Guess the whole country should be told to go fuck itself then?
Also you seem to be implying that everyone who does not have a good Internet setup for an all-digital gaming world doesn't buy new games and that's just...what?
80% of American households have some kind of broadband. And I am assuming that the 20% who don't are probably not in the marketplace for a high end next gen console.
Just because someone has high speed Internet does not mean they have high speed Internet that is good enough to make massive game downloads a non-factor, and it doesn't mean they don't have caps to worry about.
Get out of your own bubble. There are counties besides America and even within America there's plenty of places where this would be sucky for consumers.
Exactly, it's not about having an internet connection, period. It's about having a quality internet connection. One that can properly handle 20, even 30 gig downloads, and more.
80% of households have a broadband connection? I believe you. Now let's find out what their average speeds are like, any bandwith caps, and so on.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Also saying people who want to retain ownership privileges are "throwing a fit" is just exactly the kind of attitude I despise.
It is not some crazy irrational concept to want to actually own your shit. I own my movies. I own my books. I have owned my console games since console games existed. I do not want that to change and absolutely none of you have given me a good reason as to why I'm wrong to want to own my games.
If you don't care about being able to swap games with friends or trade in games to help afford the latest new release, fan fucking tastic for you. That doesn't mean it's okay to force everyone who enjoys this part of being a consumer to give up those privileges.
You people are arguing for the gutting of gaming consumer privileges and then expecting people not to fucking care about what they're losing.
Actually I'm arguing for DD games with steam style sales. I like being able to spend around $40 at christmas and pick up any games I missed throughout the year. As a side effect, yes, it would do what you describe. However, in my mine the benefit outweighs the cost completely. Arguing against a system where you can routinely get things for 75% off because then you wouldn't be able to buy those things at a big box store for maybe 50% used is "throwing a fit".
Hypothetical example:
A game cost $100 new. You can get it for $25 DD. You can get it used for $50. You want to share that game with your friend, so you buy it used. I want to play that game with my friend so I get both of us to buy it for $25. Between the two of us we spend $50. You spent $50. We get to play together. You get to loan your copy to a friend. We gave money to a developer. You gave money to a pawn shop.
Which way is better?
Which situation is better depends on a bunch of factors, including: Do I care about multiplayer in the first place? Is my friend lending me something in return, giving me the chance to experience another game? How much will I get for this game of I decide to sell it or trade it in? Will that money help me afford a new game that I want?
These are some of many reasons why neither of these situations are objectively better for everyone.
They key is in your own words. "In my mind". In YOUR mind the benefits outweigh the loss. But not everyone has the same priorities as you.
And you are also falling into the trap of acting like the used market is only about buying used games to save money. It's also about being able to sell them to afford other games. If I can get a physical copy of a game for 40 bucks and then later sell it to someone for 20 so I can more easily afford a brand new 60 dollar game, or I can get a digital copy for twenty bucks, what's "better" is completely up to the individual preferences of the gamer.
Your argument here boils down to initial price and that's it, as if that is the only thing any gamer should ever be concerned with. You are pretty much dismissing any desire to actually own a game and all privileges that come with that as some sort of immature position to take. Sorry, that don't fly with me.
Also no one has proved that a good digital model and a good physical model can't exist simultaneously, and I'm seeing arguments that claim physical goods are the only thing keeping PSN and Marketplace prices too high without much to back it up. Steam has something those other stores don't have: competition. Steam gives us good prices because they want to give us a reason to buy games from them over something else. At first it was to buy their games over physical ones, now it's constantly having price battles with the likes of Amazon, GMG, GoG, Origin, and so on. The consoles? One store each. One. Do you honestly think of there is only one single place you can buy a Playstation 4 game, that prices will be as competitive and low as PC games are now? I highly doubt that. PC games are a completely different animal. Anyone can put out a PC game, and have tons of options to get it out there. Many more sweeping changes to the console market would have to happen before the digital landscape is similar enough.
From everything I've been hearing, the bolded has already started to happen on the Wii U E-Shop. Publishers are competing with eachother in the DD landscape. And they can do so quickly, and without hassle. Getting a retailer to do those sort of sales is damn near impossible.
The issue with trying to do both on one platform is simple, steam didn't have to worry about pissing off physical retailers by running sales that retailers couldn't keep up with. They don't have an expensive box that runs the games they're trying to sell. Console manufactures do have to worry about this, so they try to keep the games on their DD services somewhere around where new copies cost retail. Nintendo? Well they gave control of the pricing over to the publishers on the E-Shop. As far as I know, MS and Sony haven't gone that far yet. What I'm hoping for is they do, so the switch to DD can happen over this gen, as people see the benefits on the console side. Because it comes down to publishers having direct control over the pricing of their games. That's what gets the low prices that we see.
However I would be completely fine with it all switching over to DD only at launch. Just as people for used games don't care about money going to developers, I don't give a shit about people who don't have access to good enough internet to play games. I do, this is a hobby, and it's not necessary that they stay in the market. It's the epitome of "fuck you I got mine", but since it's a hobby, I don't feel guilty about it.
Maybe someone else will enter the marketplace to fill that void, but all of the new "exciting" console like things are going to be DD based. Steambox? DD based. Ouya? DD based.
If the game marketplace is going to have to shrink and change anyway, with outrageous development costs and all that, wouldn't it make sense to just go "fine, if you don't have an internet connection, this is no longer for you. Find another hobby, goodbye" and have the market shrink on your own terms, and get to the better system now instead of waiting for another 5-7 years for the next console generation, limping along all the while, holding onto the dead weight of people who aren't even willing to buy your game new or recommend it to their friend instead of just giving it to them?
Haha yeah, abandoning a huge amount of your customers would turn out just fine. I'm sure.
Most of Canada has shitty bandwidth caps. Guess the whole country should be told to go fuck itself then?
Also you seem to be implying that everyone who does not have a good Internet setup for an all-digital gaming world doesn't buy new games and that's just...what?
It seems to work fine for steam. It's not like the vast majority of popular steam games are 120mb or something. They're often times several gigs larger than the console ports.
Can we split this up for a sec and talk about some of the individual components? Put aside the Gamestop profit and look at the other side of the coin: Trading games. Because it takes two to tango. People are trading their games.
Why should this not be allowed? Why is it when I buy a console game, I am to be eternally locked to it, never having another soul ever touch it? Why am I not allowed to just give it away to a friend? Why should this be denied?
If Player A buys Game-X, plays it, and gives the cartridge to Player B, who plays the game, two people played the game and the developer only sold one copy.
I think it's reasonable to discern that, from the developer's perspective, that's kinda fucked up.
Replace video game with any other form of media and the logic completely falls apart.
Unless you also agree that when I buy a DVD and watch it with my girlfriend, it's the exact same fucked up situation. One copy was sold, two people experienced it.
Why do video games get this exclusive treatment?
Video games don't - digital media does.
It is generally assumed that TV shows, movies, music and video games you purchase digitally are licensed to you and a certain number of devices you own.
In exchange for this, you have access to everything you purchased "in the cloud," and you will need lose it to entropy.
I don't have my original "Use your Illusion" CDs any more, they got scratched to hell a decade after buying them... but my MP3s purchased through iTunes? I can download them whenever to wherever I have my account connected and that convenience kicks ass.
And that's great.
But iTunes hasn't made it so if your CD was still in good shape, it couldn't change owners. It doesn't stop you from buying another copy of that album right now and it won't stop you from later giving that CD to someone else so they can listen to it.
This whole argument hasn't been about what you can do with digital copies, it's been about what you can do with physical ones, and a certain industry wanting to treat physical copies like special snowflakes as opposed to almost every other kind of physical good by taking away the things you can do.
I can still buy all the hot latest albums right now from my local HMV or Best Buy, listen to it once, decide I hate it and then tell my friend he can have it. Or whatever. I can also buy it on iTunes and not have these consumer options. I have the choice.
You aren't advocating choice, you are advocating forcing everyone to only ever be able to buy music on iTunes.
If the game marketplace is going to have to shrink and change anyway, with outrageous development costs and all that, wouldn't it make sense to just go "fine, if you don't have an internet connection, this is no longer for you. Find another hobby, goodbye" and have the market shrink on your own terms, and get to the better system now instead of waiting for another 5-7 years for the next console generation, limping along all the while, holding onto the dead weight of people who aren't even willing to buy your game new or recommend it to their friend instead of just giving it to them?
Haha yeah, abandoning a huge amount of your customers would turn out just fine. I'm sure.
Most of Canada has shitty bandwidth caps. Guess the whole country should be told to go fuck itself then?
Also you seem to be implying that everyone who does not have a good Internet setup for an all-digital gaming world doesn't buy new games and that's just...what?
It seems to work fine for steam. It's not like the vast majority of popular steam games are 120mb or something. They're often times several gigs larger than the console ports.
It works fine for Steam because the people who play PC games are much more likely to be able to handle these things.
The PC and console gaming markets, and the overall makeup of the consumers in those markets, are not identical. It is wrong to treat them as identical.
The gap between the two markets is smaller than it used to be, but the gap is still there. "It works for PC gaming" is not anywhere close to the be-all end-all argument some of you think it is.
If the game marketplace is going to have to shrink and change anyway, with outrageous development costs and all that, wouldn't it make sense to just go "fine, if you don't have an internet connection, this is no longer for you. Find another hobby, goodbye" and have the market shrink on your own terms, and get to the better system now instead of waiting for another 5-7 years for the next console generation, limping along all the while, holding onto the dead weight of people who aren't even willing to buy your game new or recommend it to their friend instead of just giving it to them?
Haha yeah, abandoning a huge amount of your customers would turn out just fine. I'm sure.
Most of Canada has shitty bandwidth caps. Guess the whole country should be told to go fuck itself then?
Also you seem to be implying that everyone who does not have a good Internet setup for an all-digital gaming world doesn't buy new games and that's just...what?
It seems to work fine for steam. It's not like the vast majority of popular steam games are 120mb or something. They're often times several gigs larger than the console ports.
It works fine for Steam because the people who play PC games are much more likely to be able to handle these things.
The PC and console gaming markets, and the overall makeup of the consumers in those markets, are not identical. It is wrong to treat them as identical.
The gap between the two markets is smaller than it used to be, but the gap is still there. "It works for PC gaming" is not anywhere close to the be-all end-all argument some of you think it is.
It is if you assume the market would change to be more like the market for steam if the product were made to be more like steam. This change would benefit publishers (the adopt these types of sales whenever they can), and it would benefit the console manufactures (valve makes a huge amount of money off of steam), and it would (I'm going off of how much people love steam here) benefit people who would stick around through the change.
Again, the idea isn't to please everyone. The idea is to make console gaming a viable industry for publishers/developers. Some consumers may get left behind when/if that happens. If you don't like the changes to a market, you don't have to stay in that market.
Also saying people who want to retain ownership privileges are "throwing a fit" is just exactly the kind of attitude I despise.
It is not some crazy irrational concept to want to actually own your shit. I own my movies. I own my books. I have owned my console games since console games existed. I do not want that to change and absolutely none of you have given me a good reason as to why I'm wrong to want to own my games.
If you don't care about being able to swap games with friends or trade in games to help afford the latest new release, fan fucking tastic for you. That doesn't mean it's okay to force everyone who enjoys this part of being a consumer to give up those privileges.
You people are arguing for the gutting of gaming consumer privileges and then expecting people not to fucking care about what they're losing.
Actually I'm arguing for DD games with steam style sales. I like being able to spend around $40 at christmas and pick up any games I missed throughout the year. As a side effect, yes, it would do what you describe. However, in my mine the benefit outweighs the cost completely. Arguing against a system where you can routinely get things for 75% off because then you wouldn't be able to buy those things at a big box store for maybe 50% used is "throwing a fit".
Hypothetical example:
A game cost $100 new. You can get it for $25 DD. You can get it used for $50. You want to share that game with your friend, so you buy it used. I want to play that game with my friend so I get both of us to buy it for $25. Between the two of us we spend $50. You spent $50. We get to play together. You get to loan your copy to a friend. We gave money to a developer. You gave money to a pawn shop.
Which way is better?
Which situation is better depends on a bunch of factors, including: Do I care about multiplayer in the first place? Is my friend lending me something in return, giving me the chance to experience another game? How much will I get for this game of I decide to sell it or trade it in? Will that money help me afford a new game that I want?
These are some of many reasons why neither of these situations are objectively better for everyone.
They key is in your own words. "In my mind". In YOUR mind the benefits outweigh the loss. But not everyone has the same priorities as you.
And you are also falling into the trap of acting like the used market is only about buying used games to save money. It's also about being able to sell them to afford other games. If I can get a physical copy of a game for 40 bucks and then later sell it to someone for 20 so I can more easily afford a brand new 60 dollar game, or I can get a digital copy for twenty bucks, what's "better" is completely up to the individual preferences of the gamer.
Your argument here boils down to initial price and that's it, as if that is the only thing any gamer should ever be concerned with. You are pretty much dismissing any desire to actually own a game and all privileges that come with that as some sort of immature position to take. Sorry, that don't fly with me.
Also no one has proved that a good digital model and a good physical model can't exist simultaneously, and I'm seeing arguments that claim physical goods are the only thing keeping PSN and Marketplace prices too high without much to back it up. Steam has something those other stores don't have: competition. Steam gives us good prices because they want to give us a reason to buy games from them over something else. At first it was to buy their games over physical ones, now it's constantly having price battles with the likes of Amazon, GMG, GoG, Origin, and so on. The consoles? One store each. One. Do you honestly think of there is only one single place you can buy a Playstation 4 game, that prices will be as competitive and low as PC games are now? I highly doubt that. PC games are a completely different animal. Anyone can put out a PC game, and have tons of options to get it out there. Many more sweeping changes to the console market would have to happen before the digital landscape is similar enough.
From everything I've been hearing, the bolded has already started to happen on the Wii U E-Shop. Publishers are competing with eachother in the DD landscape. And they can do so quickly, and without hassle. Getting a retailer to do those sort of sales is damn near impossible.
The issue with trying to do both on one platform is simple, steam didn't have to worry about pissing off physical retailers by running sales that retailers couldn't keep up with. They don't have an expensive box that runs the games they're trying to sell. Console manufactures do have to worry about this, so they try to keep the games on their DD services somewhere around where new copies cost retail. Nintendo? Well they gave control of the pricing over to the publishers on the E-Shop. As far as I know, MS and Sony haven't gone that far yet. What I'm hoping for is they do, so the switch to DD can happen over this gen, as people see the benefits on the console side. Because it comes down to publishers having direct control over the pricing of their games. That's what gets the low prices that we see.
However I would be completely fine with it all switching over to DD only at launch. Just as people for used games don't care about money going to developers, I don't give a shit about people who don't have access to good enough internet to play games. I do, this is a hobby, and it's not necessary that they stay in the market. It's the epitome of "fuck you I got mine", but since it's a hobby, I don't feel guilty about it.
Maybe someone else will enter the marketplace to fill that void, but all of the new "exciting" console like things are going to be DD based. Steambox? DD based. Ouya? DD based.
Your "hobby" is another company's "business". And your line of thinking does not lead to profits.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Also saying people who want to retain ownership privileges are "throwing a fit" is just exactly the kind of attitude I despise.
It is not some crazy irrational concept to want to actually own your shit. I own my movies. I own my books. I have owned my console games since console games existed. I do not want that to change and absolutely none of you have given me a good reason as to why I'm wrong to want to own my games.
If you don't care about being able to swap games with friends or trade in games to help afford the latest new release, fan fucking tastic for you. That doesn't mean it's okay to force everyone who enjoys this part of being a consumer to give up those privileges.
You people are arguing for the gutting of gaming consumer privileges and then expecting people not to fucking care about what they're losing.
Actually I'm arguing for DD games with steam style sales. I like being able to spend around $40 at christmas and pick up any games I missed throughout the year. As a side effect, yes, it would do what you describe. However, in my mine the benefit outweighs the cost completely. Arguing against a system where you can routinely get things for 75% off because then you wouldn't be able to buy those things at a big box store for maybe 50% used is "throwing a fit".
Hypothetical example:
A game cost $100 new. You can get it for $25 DD. You can get it used for $50. You want to share that game with your friend, so you buy it used. I want to play that game with my friend so I get both of us to buy it for $25. Between the two of us we spend $50. You spent $50. We get to play together. You get to loan your copy to a friend. We gave money to a developer. You gave money to a pawn shop.
Which way is better?
Which situation is better depends on a bunch of factors, including: Do I care about multiplayer in the first place? Is my friend lending me something in return, giving me the chance to experience another game? How much will I get for this game of I decide to sell it or trade it in? Will that money help me afford a new game that I want?
These are some of many reasons why neither of these situations are objectively better for everyone.
They key is in your own words. "In my mind". In YOUR mind the benefits outweigh the loss. But not everyone has the same priorities as you.
And you are also falling into the trap of acting like the used market is only about buying used games to save money. It's also about being able to sell them to afford other games. If I can get a physical copy of a game for 40 bucks and then later sell it to someone for 20 so I can more easily afford a brand new 60 dollar game, or I can get a digital copy for twenty bucks, what's "better" is completely up to the individual preferences of the gamer.
Your argument here boils down to initial price and that's it, as if that is the only thing any gamer should ever be concerned with. You are pretty much dismissing any desire to actually own a game and all privileges that come with that as some sort of immature position to take. Sorry, that don't fly with me.
Also no one has proved that a good digital model and a good physical model can't exist simultaneously, and I'm seeing arguments that claim physical goods are the only thing keeping PSN and Marketplace prices too high without much to back it up. Steam has something those other stores don't have: competition. Steam gives us good prices because they want to give us a reason to buy games from them over something else. At first it was to buy their games over physical ones, now it's constantly having price battles with the likes of Amazon, GMG, GoG, Origin, and so on. The consoles? One store each. One. Do you honestly think of there is only one single place you can buy a Playstation 4 game, that prices will be as competitive and low as PC games are now? I highly doubt that. PC games are a completely different animal. Anyone can put out a PC game, and have tons of options to get it out there. Many more sweeping changes to the console market would have to happen before the digital landscape is similar enough.
From everything I've been hearing, the bolded has already started to happen on the Wii U E-Shop. Publishers are competing with eachother in the DD landscape. And they can do so quickly, and without hassle. Getting a retailer to do those sort of sales is damn near impossible.
The issue with trying to do both on one platform is simple, steam didn't have to worry about pissing off physical retailers by running sales that retailers couldn't keep up with. They don't have an expensive box that runs the games they're trying to sell. Console manufactures do have to worry about this, so they try to keep the games on their DD services somewhere around where new copies cost retail. Nintendo? Well they gave control of the pricing over to the publishers on the E-Shop. As far as I know, MS and Sony haven't gone that far yet. What I'm hoping for is they do, so the switch to DD can happen over this gen, as people see the benefits on the console side. Because it comes down to publishers having direct control over the pricing of their games. That's what gets the low prices that we see.
However I would be completely fine with it all switching over to DD only at launch. Just as people for used games don't care about money going to developers, I don't give a shit about people who don't have access to good enough internet to play games. I do, this is a hobby, and it's not necessary that they stay in the market. It's the epitome of "fuck you I got mine", but since it's a hobby, I don't feel guilty about it.
Maybe someone else will enter the marketplace to fill that void, but all of the new "exciting" console like things are going to be DD based. Steambox? DD based. Ouya? DD based.
I have a Wii-U. Have had one since launch. There have been no good sales.
In fact I have already gotten multiple physical Wii-U games for ten to twenty bucks cheaper. NEW copies, not used. I got Scribblenauts, CoD, and Sonic Racing for a total of $70 at Toys R Us the week before Christmas.
I'm wondering if you even pay attention to retail. Physical games to on sale all the time. The stores all compete with each other. It is ridiculously easy to get almost any new game for 20-40 bucks less a few months after release. The state of discounts on relatively new games isn't actually better on Steam vs. retail in a significant way. Games coming out in the first half of the year will go on sale on Steam at Christmas for 20-40 bucks, and the physical console versions of the same games will go on sale in various stores for around the same price, around the same time.
I bought over 75 games that came out in 2012 and only two of them were used. Yet almost all of them I got new physical copies of at reduced prices that were comparable to what Steam wanted for them in December.
The truly ridiculous sales on PC games to to the games that are multiple years old.
Also saying people who want to retain ownership privileges are "throwing a fit" is just exactly the kind of attitude I despise.
It is not some crazy irrational concept to want to actually own your shit. I own my movies. I own my books. I have owned my console games since console games existed. I do not want that to change and absolutely none of you have given me a good reason as to why I'm wrong to want to own my games.
If you don't care about being able to swap games with friends or trade in games to help afford the latest new release, fan fucking tastic for you. That doesn't mean it's okay to force everyone who enjoys this part of being a consumer to give up those privileges.
You people are arguing for the gutting of gaming consumer privileges and then expecting people not to fucking care about what they're losing.
Actually I'm arguing for DD games with steam style sales. I like being able to spend around $40 at christmas and pick up any games I missed throughout the year. As a side effect, yes, it would do what you describe. However, in my mine the benefit outweighs the cost completely. Arguing against a system where you can routinely get things for 75% off because then you wouldn't be able to buy those things at a big box store for maybe 50% used is "throwing a fit".
Hypothetical example:
A game cost $100 new. You can get it for $25 DD. You can get it used for $50. You want to share that game with your friend, so you buy it used. I want to play that game with my friend so I get both of us to buy it for $25. Between the two of us we spend $50. You spent $50. We get to play together. You get to loan your copy to a friend. We gave money to a developer. You gave money to a pawn shop.
Which way is better?
Which situation is better depends on a bunch of factors, including: Do I care about multiplayer in the first place? Is my friend lending me something in return, giving me the chance to experience another game? How much will I get for this game of I decide to sell it or trade it in? Will that money help me afford a new game that I want?
These are some of many reasons why neither of these situations are objectively better for everyone.
They key is in your own words. "In my mind". In YOUR mind the benefits outweigh the loss. But not everyone has the same priorities as you.
And you are also falling into the trap of acting like the used market is only about buying used games to save money. It's also about being able to sell them to afford other games. If I can get a physical copy of a game for 40 bucks and then later sell it to someone for 20 so I can more easily afford a brand new 60 dollar game, or I can get a digital copy for twenty bucks, what's "better" is completely up to the individual preferences of the gamer.
Your argument here boils down to initial price and that's it, as if that is the only thing any gamer should ever be concerned with. You are pretty much dismissing any desire to actually own a game and all privileges that come with that as some sort of immature position to take. Sorry, that don't fly with me.
Also no one has proved that a good digital model and a good physical model can't exist simultaneously, and I'm seeing arguments that claim physical goods are the only thing keeping PSN and Marketplace prices too high without much to back it up. Steam has something those other stores don't have: competition. Steam gives us good prices because they want to give us a reason to buy games from them over something else. At first it was to buy their games over physical ones, now it's constantly having price battles with the likes of Amazon, GMG, GoG, Origin, and so on. The consoles? One store each. One. Do you honestly think of there is only one single place you can buy a Playstation 4 game, that prices will be as competitive and low as PC games are now? I highly doubt that. PC games are a completely different animal. Anyone can put out a PC game, and have tons of options to get it out there. Many more sweeping changes to the console market would have to happen before the digital landscape is similar enough.
From everything I've been hearing, the bolded has already started to happen on the Wii U E-Shop. Publishers are competing with eachother in the DD landscape. And they can do so quickly, and without hassle. Getting a retailer to do those sort of sales is damn near impossible.
The issue with trying to do both on one platform is simple, steam didn't have to worry about pissing off physical retailers by running sales that retailers couldn't keep up with. They don't have an expensive box that runs the games they're trying to sell. Console manufactures do have to worry about this, so they try to keep the games on their DD services somewhere around where new copies cost retail. Nintendo? Well they gave control of the pricing over to the publishers on the E-Shop. As far as I know, MS and Sony haven't gone that far yet. What I'm hoping for is they do, so the switch to DD can happen over this gen, as people see the benefits on the console side. Because it comes down to publishers having direct control over the pricing of their games. That's what gets the low prices that we see.
However I would be completely fine with it all switching over to DD only at launch. Just as people for used games don't care about money going to developers, I don't give a shit about people who don't have access to good enough internet to play games. I do, this is a hobby, and it's not necessary that they stay in the market. It's the epitome of "fuck you I got mine", but since it's a hobby, I don't feel guilty about it.
Maybe someone else will enter the marketplace to fill that void, but all of the new "exciting" console like things are going to be DD based. Steambox? DD based. Ouya? DD based.
Your "hobby" is another company's "business". And your line of thinking does not lead to profits.
Also saying people who want to retain ownership privileges are "throwing a fit" is just exactly the kind of attitude I despise.
It is not some crazy irrational concept to want to actually own your shit. I own my movies. I own my books. I have owned my console games since console games existed. I do not want that to change and absolutely none of you have given me a good reason as to why I'm wrong to want to own my games.
If you don't care about being able to swap games with friends or trade in games to help afford the latest new release, fan fucking tastic for you. That doesn't mean it's okay to force everyone who enjoys this part of being a consumer to give up those privileges.
You people are arguing for the gutting of gaming consumer privileges and then expecting people not to fucking care about what they're losing.
Actually I'm arguing for DD games with steam style sales. I like being able to spend around $40 at christmas and pick up any games I missed throughout the year. As a side effect, yes, it would do what you describe. However, in my mine the benefit outweighs the cost completely. Arguing against a system where you can routinely get things for 75% off because then you wouldn't be able to buy those things at a big box store for maybe 50% used is "throwing a fit".
Hypothetical example:
A game cost $100 new. You can get it for $25 DD. You can get it used for $50. You want to share that game with your friend, so you buy it used. I want to play that game with my friend so I get both of us to buy it for $25. Between the two of us we spend $50. You spent $50. We get to play together. You get to loan your copy to a friend. We gave money to a developer. You gave money to a pawn shop.
Which way is better?
Which situation is better depends on a bunch of factors, including: Do I care about multiplayer in the first place? Is my friend lending me something in return, giving me the chance to experience another game? How much will I get for this game of I decide to sell it or trade it in? Will that money help me afford a new game that I want?
These are some of many reasons why neither of these situations are objectively better for everyone.
They key is in your own words. "In my mind". In YOUR mind the benefits outweigh the loss. But not everyone has the same priorities as you.
And you are also falling into the trap of acting like the used market is only about buying used games to save money. It's also about being able to sell them to afford other games. If I can get a physical copy of a game for 40 bucks and then later sell it to someone for 20 so I can more easily afford a brand new 60 dollar game, or I can get a digital copy for twenty bucks, what's "better" is completely up to the individual preferences of the gamer.
Your argument here boils down to initial price and that's it, as if that is the only thing any gamer should ever be concerned with. You are pretty much dismissing any desire to actually own a game and all privileges that come with that as some sort of immature position to take. Sorry, that don't fly with me.
Also no one has proved that a good digital model and a good physical model can't exist simultaneously, and I'm seeing arguments that claim physical goods are the only thing keeping PSN and Marketplace prices too high without much to back it up. Steam has something those other stores don't have: competition. Steam gives us good prices because they want to give us a reason to buy games from them over something else. At first it was to buy their games over physical ones, now it's constantly having price battles with the likes of Amazon, GMG, GoG, Origin, and so on. The consoles? One store each. One. Do you honestly think of there is only one single place you can buy a Playstation 4 game, that prices will be as competitive and low as PC games are now? I highly doubt that. PC games are a completely different animal. Anyone can put out a PC game, and have tons of options to get it out there. Many more sweeping changes to the console market would have to happen before the digital landscape is similar enough.
From everything I've been hearing, the bolded has already started to happen on the Wii U E-Shop. Publishers are competing with eachother in the DD landscape. And they can do so quickly, and without hassle. Getting a retailer to do those sort of sales is damn near impossible.
The issue with trying to do both on one platform is simple, steam didn't have to worry about pissing off physical retailers by running sales that retailers couldn't keep up with. They don't have an expensive box that runs the games they're trying to sell. Console manufactures do have to worry about this, so they try to keep the games on their DD services somewhere around where new copies cost retail. Nintendo? Well they gave control of the pricing over to the publishers on the E-Shop. As far as I know, MS and Sony haven't gone that far yet. What I'm hoping for is they do, so the switch to DD can happen over this gen, as people see the benefits on the console side. Because it comes down to publishers having direct control over the pricing of their games. That's what gets the low prices that we see.
However I would be completely fine with it all switching over to DD only at launch. Just as people for used games don't care about money going to developers, I don't give a shit about people who don't have access to good enough internet to play games. I do, this is a hobby, and it's not necessary that they stay in the market. It's the epitome of "fuck you I got mine", but since it's a hobby, I don't feel guilty about it.
Maybe someone else will enter the marketplace to fill that void, but all of the new "exciting" console like things are going to be DD based. Steambox? DD based. Ouya? DD based.
Your "hobby" is another company's "business". And your line of thinking does not lead to profits.
If the game marketplace is going to have to shrink and change anyway, with outrageous development costs and all that, wouldn't it make sense to just go "fine, if you don't have an internet connection, this is no longer for you. Find another hobby, goodbye" and have the market shrink on your own terms, and get to the better system now instead of waiting for another 5-7 years for the next console generation, limping along all the while, holding onto the dead weight of people who aren't even willing to buy your game new or recommend it to their friend instead of just giving it to them?
Haha yeah, abandoning a huge amount of your customers would turn out just fine. I'm sure.
Most of Canada has shitty bandwidth caps. Guess the whole country should be told to go fuck itself then?
Also you seem to be implying that everyone who does not have a good Internet setup for an all-digital gaming world doesn't buy new games and that's just...what?
It seems to work fine for steam. It's not like the vast majority of popular steam games are 120mb or something. They're often times several gigs larger than the console ports.
It works fine for Steam because the people who play PC games are much more likely to be able to handle these things.
The PC and console gaming markets, and the overall makeup of the consumers in those markets, are not identical. It is wrong to treat them as identical.
The gap between the two markets is smaller than it used to be, but the gap is still there. "It works for PC gaming" is not anywhere close to the be-all end-all argument some of you think it is.
It is if you assume the market would change to be more like the market for steam if the product were made to be more like steam. This change would benefit publishers (the adopt these types of sales whenever they can), and it would benefit the console manufactures (valve makes a huge amount of money off of steam), and it would (I'm going off of how much people love steam here) benefit people who would stick around through the change.
Again, the idea isn't to please everyone. The idea is to make console gaming a viable industry for publishers/developers. Some consumers may get left behind when/if that happens. If you don't like the changes to a market, you don't have to stay in that market.
So, in other words. Fuck most of Canada, and fuck me.
I have a bandwidth cap and have no options to get an internet connection without a bandwidth cap. I have trouble fitting in one major game release without going over. And if I go over I get hit with fees and get my connection throttled.
What you want will literally push me and a lot of people like me out of the market. I wouldn't even get a choice. Destroying my hobby and my passion in one simple move.
So forgive me if your "I got mine!" attitude makes me more than a little upset.
The Game Maker signs a contract with a Publisher to make a game
The Publisher hires a Duplicator to make copies of the game
The Publisher sells those copies to a Distributor
The Distributor sells those copies to Shops
The Shops sell those copies to Members of the Public
The Members of the Public then sell those copies to other Members of the Public or Shops.
I don't understand why the final step require the Publisher to be paid more money. Does the Duplicator get paid again? After all if the Members of the Public had bought new then they'd have had to duplicate another copy. What about the Distributor? If it had been a new sale then they'd have had to transport another new copy.
Also saying people who want to retain ownership privileges are "throwing a fit" is just exactly the kind of attitude I despise.
It is not some crazy irrational concept to want to actually own your shit. I own my movies. I own my books. I have owned my console games since console games existed. I do not want that to change and absolutely none of you have given me a good reason as to why I'm wrong to want to own my games.
If you don't care about being able to swap games with friends or trade in games to help afford the latest new release, fan fucking tastic for you. That doesn't mean it's okay to force everyone who enjoys this part of being a consumer to give up those privileges.
You people are arguing for the gutting of gaming consumer privileges and then expecting people not to fucking care about what they're losing.
Actually I'm arguing for DD games with steam style sales. I like being able to spend around $40 at christmas and pick up any games I missed throughout the year. As a side effect, yes, it would do what you describe. However, in my mine the benefit outweighs the cost completely. Arguing against a system where you can routinely get things for 75% off because then you wouldn't be able to buy those things at a big box store for maybe 50% used is "throwing a fit".
Hypothetical example:
A game cost $100 new. You can get it for $25 DD. You can get it used for $50. You want to share that game with your friend, so you buy it used. I want to play that game with my friend so I get both of us to buy it for $25. Between the two of us we spend $50. You spent $50. We get to play together. You get to loan your copy to a friend. We gave money to a developer. You gave money to a pawn shop.
Which way is better?
Which situation is better depends on a bunch of factors, including: Do I care about multiplayer in the first place? Is my friend lending me something in return, giving me the chance to experience another game? How much will I get for this game of I decide to sell it or trade it in? Will that money help me afford a new game that I want?
These are some of many reasons why neither of these situations are objectively better for everyone.
They key is in your own words. "In my mind". In YOUR mind the benefits outweigh the loss. But not everyone has the same priorities as you.
And you are also falling into the trap of acting like the used market is only about buying used games to save money. It's also about being able to sell them to afford other games. If I can get a physical copy of a game for 40 bucks and then later sell it to someone for 20 so I can more easily afford a brand new 60 dollar game, or I can get a digital copy for twenty bucks, what's "better" is completely up to the individual preferences of the gamer.
Your argument here boils down to initial price and that's it, as if that is the only thing any gamer should ever be concerned with. You are pretty much dismissing any desire to actually own a game and all privileges that come with that as some sort of immature position to take. Sorry, that don't fly with me.
Also no one has proved that a good digital model and a good physical model can't exist simultaneously, and I'm seeing arguments that claim physical goods are the only thing keeping PSN and Marketplace prices too high without much to back it up. Steam has something those other stores don't have: competition. Steam gives us good prices because they want to give us a reason to buy games from them over something else. At first it was to buy their games over physical ones, now it's constantly having price battles with the likes of Amazon, GMG, GoG, Origin, and so on. The consoles? One store each. One. Do you honestly think of there is only one single place you can buy a Playstation 4 game, that prices will be as competitive and low as PC games are now? I highly doubt that. PC games are a completely different animal. Anyone can put out a PC game, and have tons of options to get it out there. Many more sweeping changes to the console market would have to happen before the digital landscape is similar enough.
From everything I've been hearing, the bolded has already started to happen on the Wii U E-Shop. Publishers are competing with eachother in the DD landscape. And they can do so quickly, and without hassle. Getting a retailer to do those sort of sales is damn near impossible.
The issue with trying to do both on one platform is simple, steam didn't have to worry about pissing off physical retailers by running sales that retailers couldn't keep up with. They don't have an expensive box that runs the games they're trying to sell. Console manufactures do have to worry about this, so they try to keep the games on their DD services somewhere around where new copies cost retail. Nintendo? Well they gave control of the pricing over to the publishers on the E-Shop. As far as I know, MS and Sony haven't gone that far yet. What I'm hoping for is they do, so the switch to DD can happen over this gen, as people see the benefits on the console side. Because it comes down to publishers having direct control over the pricing of their games. That's what gets the low prices that we see.
However I would be completely fine with it all switching over to DD only at launch. Just as people for used games don't care about money going to developers, I don't give a shit about people who don't have access to good enough internet to play games. I do, this is a hobby, and it's not necessary that they stay in the market. It's the epitome of "fuck you I got mine", but since it's a hobby, I don't feel guilty about it.
Maybe someone else will enter the marketplace to fill that void, but all of the new "exciting" console like things are going to be DD based. Steambox? DD based. Ouya? DD based.
Your "hobby" is another company's "business". And your line of thinking does not lead to profits.
Valve doesn't run their business on "Fuck you, got mine".
Zing? I never said that MS or Sony would do it because "fuck you, got mine". I said that's the way I feel about it. Plus, you're arguing on a "Fuck you, got mine" attitude as well. Only yours is based around telling developers fuck you, and your got mine is used games.
Posts
Because we are talking about physical copies being gimped to bleed people of their money, not a digital service.
That a digital service could possibly spring up that makes digital console gaming as well-supported as PC digital gaming doesn't change the fact that the people who buy physical get screwed. Whatever advantages the Steam model has are not advantages enjoyed by the console gamers who buy physical products. Better digital service doesn't change the fact the physical products are having things stripped from them with no visible benefit to the consumers who buy them.
PC gaming is not console gaming. The latter is still very much a product percieved to be akin to a DVD or book. You buy a copy, you own that copy, and you have consumer privileges that go along with that. Physical product is still the majority, unlike on the PC. So suddenly pulling the rug out from under the majority of console gamers and saying "hey, all that stuff you've always been able to do with your console games? You can't anymore! Don't like it? Go fuck yourself" is actively harming the consumer.
And while PC gaming is now almost all controlled by digital DRM, the move was gradual. A switch wasn't flipped and suddenly nothing could be sold as used. It was some games here, some games there, until eventually it was everywhere. And that was in a market where used games were an uncommon niche thing to begin with, unlike console gaming where its the established norm and always has been. But if we suddenly go from all games can be played used to none of them, without allowing the vast amount of consumers who have grown up on the perception that a game they buy can be sold or lent to a friend or traded in so they can afford a new one, that is a seriously huge dick move, a massive middle finger to millions of customers that forces them to lose a ton of functionality they have enjoyed for decades in one fell swoop.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
And your examples aren't analogous to the way Steam functions either. I mean jesus, asking if you'd be able to play games from Microsoft's system on the PS4? Or the DS? Again, can you play Mass Effect 3 on Steam? They're different services. Can you play your steam games on your smart TV? On your Android phone? On your toaster? No, because the service isn't available for those platforms. Your argument doesn't hold any water.
If you can play your games you bought on Microsoft's service on any Microsoft system going forward, that is exactly the way steam functions. Steam games only run on platforms that run steam. XBL games only run on platforms that run XBL. PSN games only run on platforms that run PSN. Exactly the same thing.
All the stuff people like about steam and don't trust to happen on consoles cannot happen on consoles until the used game market and the majority of the physical media market is nuked from orbit. Full stop. This is the special sauce that let's Steam get away with selling games for 30 bucks over a holiday weekend and bring the price back up to 50 afterwards, or bundle 30 iD games for 20 bucks, or whatever.
Because the publishers get a slice every. single. time.
And for the most part they love it. And gamers love it. And we can't let that happen on consoles because... reasons?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The things holding this back on consoles:
1. Consumers throwing a fit about losing used games
2. Bandwidth speeds not being high enough (seems to work fine for steam though)
3. Crushing paranoia from gamers ("it's totally not going to be BC next gen", "they're not going to have those sales, they're just greedy")
The major point people don't seem to understand is Every Single Time the publishers get to quickly do sales and set their own prices, they follow the Steam model. No matter what the platform is. The publishers aren't holding up game prices from being more like steam, the damned retailers are.
What people are proposing for console gaming is making a sudden change that takes away the things that the majority of console gamers expect from their purchase all at once, forcing them into the situation instead of drawing them into it.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
It's like healthcare. Democrats would love to adopt a single payer universal healthcare system. That's what we wanted during health reform. Instead of getting that, we're slowly hacking away at the current system, hopeful that someday we can get it to look like that. It's painful, and stupid, and we only do this this way to please those who are just too damned scared of change to realize it would be better for them in the long run.
Or in the case of health care, we do it because of republicans.
Why should this not be allowed? Why is it when I buy a console game, I am to be eternally locked to it, never having another soul ever touch it? Why am I not allowed to just give it away to a friend? Why should this be denied?
Piracy? Well it makes sense with PC games. Single player especially. I install the game, use a simple no-CD crack, and give the disc to my friend, who does the same thing. Or even just burn a copy. It's the very nature of PC games, they're simply far too easy to do this with.
Console games? Not so much. Simply put, you're not doing this. Not with carts, unless you also own the proper dumping equipment. And discs? Unless they mod their system, you cannot just simply copy and burn the disc to give to somebody else. It is functionally impossible for normal users. If you can... then you clearly fall under the Pirate label, and honestly all this no longer applies to you. For the rest of us, if I give away that disc, I can no longer play that game. The only one capable of accessing that data is the person I gave it to, and them alone. At least until they return it, or give it to another.
So again, tell me why I alone am locked to that specific cart/disc, now and forever?
iOS App Store.
Google Play
Steam
Xbox live
Even fucking WiiWare and the virtual console works in a way that you buy with credit and you can't trade with friends.
Everyone who has not been under a rock for the past 5 years has encountered some manner of this marketplace. And even the biggest dicks of them all (EA) has 99 cent sales on their 10 dollar iOS apps a few times a year, and adjust pricing accordingly and quickly on iOS.
People's love of and desire to maintain a used game market that generally fucks them over far more than it helps them is the core reason we can't have something as great as steam on our consoles. And that is just dumb.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It is not some crazy irrational concept to want to actually own your shit. I own my movies. I own my books. I have owned my console games since console games existed. I do not want that to change and absolutely none of you have given me a good reason as to why I'm wrong to want to own my games.
If you don't care about being able to swap games with friends or trade in games to help afford the latest new release, fan fucking tastic for you. That doesn't mean it's okay to force everyone who enjoys this part of being a consumer to give up those privileges.
You people are arguing for the gutting of gaming consumer privileges and then expecting people not to fucking care about what they're losing.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
If Player A buys Game-X, plays it, and gives the cartridge to Player B, who plays the game, two people played the game and the developer only sold one copy.
I think it's reasonable to discern that, from the developer's perspective, that's kinda fucked up.
This is based on the premise that it is better for all.
No one has provided a convincing argument that it would be and we already know definitively that things that are currently important to a whole bunch of console gaming consumers would be stripped away.
There is absolutely no guarantee that this would be better for everyone.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Actually I'm arguing for DD games with steam style sales. I like being able to spend around $40 at christmas and pick up any games I missed throughout the year. As a side effect, yes, it would do what you describe. However, in my mine the benefit outweighs the cost completely. Arguing against a system where you can routinely get things for 75% off because then you wouldn't be able to buy those things at a big box store for maybe 50% used is "throwing a fit".
Hypothetical example:
A game cost $100 new. You can get it for $25 DD. You can get it used for $50. You want to share that game with your friend, so you buy it used. I want to play that game with my friend so I get both of us to buy it for $25. Between the two of us we spend $50. You spent $50. We get to play together. You get to loan your copy to a friend. We gave money to a developer. You gave money to a pawn shop.
Which way is better?
Do you use steam?
How many steam games do you own?
How many did you buy at deep discounts because the publishers ran awesome sales?
Do you have an iPhone or an android device?
How many games do you own for that?
Do you take advantage of the nearly weekly awesome sales that the publishers are able to do?
Do you think GameStop would be upset if the game they spent 40 bucks to put on their shelf for 60 was being sold half off for the weekend online? Don't you think they would lobby against something so consumer friendly in their own best interest?
Every time a system like this is enacted it's pros far outweigh the cons.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Replace video game with any other form of media and the logic completely falls apart.
Unless you also agree that when I buy a DVD and watch it with my girlfriend, it's the exact same fucked up situation. One copy was sold, two people experienced it.
Why do video games get this exclusive treatment?
The dvd situation is also fucked up.
Have you missed the point where multiple people have said that, given the right price point, they're fully willing to throw away their ability to resell a game?
You keep mentioning Steam, iphone, android, ect. Pick a platform that doesn't routinely have <=$10 games, and you might have a point.
Except actual full console games are still a physical-copy driven market.
Cheap small digital games and PC games are different markets with different expectations and perceptions.
The vast majority of people who buy full console games buy physical copies and have spent decades buying physical copies and expect to have the ability to sell, trade, rent, give, and lend them.
Digital has not become the primary focus of full console games, not even close.
So if you suddenly, right now, tell all of those people out there, many of them who don't even have their freaking console hooked up to the Internet, "fuck you"?
That is some anti-consumer bullshit.
And do you even realize just how much going digital only would fuck people over right now? This isn't PC gaming,me here the majority of the people buying the games are set up for it. This isn't phone gaming or buying music where file sizes are relatively tiny. This is forcing an entire market to change into something it is not prepared for. Lots of people can't even get reliable high speed Internet yet, let alone high speed interned that is both fast enough to download large 10+ GB files quickly and has no restrictive bandwidth caps. We are not even close to ready for digital-only console games. It would literally slice the customer base into pieces. When the next generation comes around, we might be. But to do it right here right now would be absolute lunacy.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Video games don't - digital media does.
It is generally assumed that TV shows, movies, music and video games you purchase digitally are licensed to you and a certain number of devices you own.
In exchange for this, you have access to everything you purchased "in the cloud," and you will need lose it to entropy.
I don't have my original "Use your Illusion" CDs any more, they got scratched to hell a decade after buying them... but my MP3s purchased through iTunes? I can download them whenever to wherever I have my account connected and that convenience kicks ass.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
And this is what the argument is. That given the ability to have those sorts of sales without being beholden to Gamestop or other retailers, you would see those sorts of sales on the consoles. Every piece of evidence supports this theory. The Wii E-shop does it, Origin does it. Amazon does it. Steam does it. It happens on every platform where you can buy a game for the PC.
That's the point.
I disagree with that and think you're crazy. But I infinitely respect you for not taking the hypocrite route and saying it's completely different.
I salute you, fine sir.
80% of American households have some kind of broadband. And I am assuming that the 20% who don't are probably not in the marketplace for a high end next gen console.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'm saying "from the producer's / creator's perspective" it's kind of fucked up that one purchased unit can be enjoyed by multiple persons. Imagine you make a video game, or write a book, or produce a movie. In that situation you would want every person who uses your product to have purchased it, right? You wouldn't want 30 people to share one copy of your book. You would want each person to obtain their own copy so that you make more money.
I think it's absurd to demand that other individuals abandon the rational self interest that we would all maintain were we in their position. Since we're consumers, many of us are going with the "but I should be able to do whatever I want with this game / book / movie I bought!" and there's something to that. But there's also something to the other position, where we're the ones trying to make money off the game / book / dvd.
Just trying to represent both perspectives, since they're both relevant to the conversation.
Which situation is better depends on a bunch of factors, including: Do I care about multiplayer in the first place? Is my friend lending me something in return, giving me the chance to experience another game? How much will I get for this game of I decide to sell it or trade it in? Will that money help me afford a new game that I want?
These are some of many reasons why neither of these situations are objectively better for everyone.
They key is in your own words. "In my mind". In YOUR mind the benefits outweigh the loss. But not everyone has the same priorities as you.
And you are also falling into the trap of acting like the used market is only about buying used games to save money. It's also about being able to sell them to afford other games. If I can get a physical copy of a game for 40 bucks and then later sell it to someone for 20 so I can more easily afford a brand new 60 dollar game, or I can get a digital copy for twenty bucks, what's "better" is completely up to the individual preferences of the gamer.
Your argument here boils down to initial price and that's it, as if that is the only thing any gamer should ever be concerned with. You are pretty much dismissing any desire to actually own a game and all privileges that come with that as some sort of immature position to take. Sorry, that don't fly with me.
Also no one has proved that a good digital model and a good physical model can't exist simultaneously, and I'm seeing arguments that claim physical goods are the only thing keeping PSN and Marketplace prices too high without much to back it up. Steam has something those other stores don't have: competition. Steam gives us good prices because they want to give us a reason to buy games from them over something else. At first it was to buy their games over physical ones, now it's constantly having price battles with the likes of Amazon, GMG, GoG, Origin, and so on. The consoles? One store each. One. Do you honestly think of there is only one single place you can buy a Playstation 4 game, that prices will be as competitive and low as PC games are now? I highly doubt that. PC games are a completely different animal. Anyone can put out a PC game, and have tons of options to get it out there. Many more sweeping changes to the console market would have to happen before the digital landscape is similar enough.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Haha yeah, abandoning a huge amount of your customers would turn out just fine. I'm sure.
Most of Canada has shitty bandwidth caps. Guess the whole country should be told to go fuck itself then?
Also you seem to be implying that everyone who does not have a good Internet setup for an all-digital gaming world doesn't buy new games and that's just...what?
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Just because someone has high speed Internet does not mean they have high speed Internet that is good enough to make massive game downloads a non-factor, and it doesn't mean they don't have caps to worry about.
Get out of your own bubble. There are counties besides America and even within America there's plenty of places where this would be sucky for consumers.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
80% of households have a broadband connection? I believe you. Now let's find out what their average speeds are like, any bandwith caps, and so on.
From everything I've been hearing, the bolded has already started to happen on the Wii U E-Shop. Publishers are competing with eachother in the DD landscape. And they can do so quickly, and without hassle. Getting a retailer to do those sort of sales is damn near impossible.
The issue with trying to do both on one platform is simple, steam didn't have to worry about pissing off physical retailers by running sales that retailers couldn't keep up with. They don't have an expensive box that runs the games they're trying to sell. Console manufactures do have to worry about this, so they try to keep the games on their DD services somewhere around where new copies cost retail. Nintendo? Well they gave control of the pricing over to the publishers on the E-Shop. As far as I know, MS and Sony haven't gone that far yet. What I'm hoping for is they do, so the switch to DD can happen over this gen, as people see the benefits on the console side. Because it comes down to publishers having direct control over the pricing of their games. That's what gets the low prices that we see.
However I would be completely fine with it all switching over to DD only at launch. Just as people for used games don't care about money going to developers, I don't give a shit about people who don't have access to good enough internet to play games. I do, this is a hobby, and it's not necessary that they stay in the market. It's the epitome of "fuck you I got mine", but since it's a hobby, I don't feel guilty about it.
Maybe someone else will enter the marketplace to fill that void, but all of the new "exciting" console like things are going to be DD based. Steambox? DD based. Ouya? DD based.
It seems to work fine for steam. It's not like the vast majority of popular steam games are 120mb or something. They're often times several gigs larger than the console ports.
And that's great.
But iTunes hasn't made it so if your CD was still in good shape, it couldn't change owners. It doesn't stop you from buying another copy of that album right now and it won't stop you from later giving that CD to someone else so they can listen to it.
This whole argument hasn't been about what you can do with digital copies, it's been about what you can do with physical ones, and a certain industry wanting to treat physical copies like special snowflakes as opposed to almost every other kind of physical good by taking away the things you can do.
I can still buy all the hot latest albums right now from my local HMV or Best Buy, listen to it once, decide I hate it and then tell my friend he can have it. Or whatever. I can also buy it on iTunes and not have these consumer options. I have the choice.
You aren't advocating choice, you are advocating forcing everyone to only ever be able to buy music on iTunes.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
It works fine for Steam because the people who play PC games are much more likely to be able to handle these things.
The PC and console gaming markets, and the overall makeup of the consumers in those markets, are not identical. It is wrong to treat them as identical.
The gap between the two markets is smaller than it used to be, but the gap is still there. "It works for PC gaming" is not anywhere close to the be-all end-all argument some of you think it is.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
It is if you assume the market would change to be more like the market for steam if the product were made to be more like steam. This change would benefit publishers (the adopt these types of sales whenever they can), and it would benefit the console manufactures (valve makes a huge amount of money off of steam), and it would (I'm going off of how much people love steam here) benefit people who would stick around through the change.
Again, the idea isn't to please everyone. The idea is to make console gaming a viable industry for publishers/developers. Some consumers may get left behind when/if that happens. If you don't like the changes to a market, you don't have to stay in that market.
Your "hobby" is another company's "business". And your line of thinking does not lead to profits.
I have a Wii-U. Have had one since launch. There have been no good sales.
In fact I have already gotten multiple physical Wii-U games for ten to twenty bucks cheaper. NEW copies, not used. I got Scribblenauts, CoD, and Sonic Racing for a total of $70 at Toys R Us the week before Christmas.
I'm wondering if you even pay attention to retail. Physical games to on sale all the time. The stores all compete with each other. It is ridiculously easy to get almost any new game for 20-40 bucks less a few months after release. The state of discounts on relatively new games isn't actually better on Steam vs. retail in a significant way. Games coming out in the first half of the year will go on sale on Steam at Christmas for 20-40 bucks, and the physical console versions of the same games will go on sale in various stores for around the same price, around the same time.
I bought over 75 games that came out in 2012 and only two of them were used. Yet almost all of them I got new physical copies of at reduced prices that were comparable to what Steam wanted for them in December.
The truly ridiculous sales on PC games to to the games that are multiple years old.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Valve worth $3 Billion
Valve doesn't run their business on "Fuck you, got mine".
So, in other words. Fuck most of Canada, and fuck me.
I have a bandwidth cap and have no options to get an internet connection without a bandwidth cap. I have trouble fitting in one major game release without going over. And if I go over I get hit with fees and get my connection throttled.
What you want will literally push me and a lot of people like me out of the market. I wouldn't even get a choice. Destroying my hobby and my passion in one simple move.
So forgive me if your "I got mine!" attitude makes me more than a little upset.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
The Publisher hires a Duplicator to make copies of the game
The Publisher sells those copies to a Distributor
The Distributor sells those copies to Shops
The Shops sell those copies to Members of the Public
The Members of the Public then sell those copies to other Members of the Public or Shops.
I don't understand why the final step require the Publisher to be paid more money. Does the Duplicator get paid again? After all if the Members of the Public had bought new then they'd have had to duplicate another copy. What about the Distributor? If it had been a new sale then they'd have had to transport another new copy.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Zing? I never said that MS or Sony would do it because "fuck you, got mine". I said that's the way I feel about it. Plus, you're arguing on a "Fuck you, got mine" attitude as well. Only yours is based around telling developers fuck you, and your got mine is used games.