I remember one time at Gamestop a mother was with her son was talking about paying full price and said, 'Not Happening!' I almost rolled my eyes hee, hee. There's a definate market for used games out there with really low prices.
Xbox One Discussion
Débuté par
Eternal Napalm
, mai 22 2013 03:48
Retour en haut
#1202
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 07:19
Blind2Society
-
- Members
- 7 576 messages
For me, I usually won't spend anything over $25 on a game. If it looks really good I might up it to $30-35. Established franchises that I'm into I may fork over the $60. Steam sales are where it's at. ; )
#1203
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 08:01
Giga Drill BREAKER
-
- Members
- 7 005 messages
LPPrince wrote...
The Mad Hanar wrote...
I think something people will have to realize is that gaming is really going to become a luxury the next generation. Every game is going to cost 60(+) bucks, and you're going to have to pay a pretty penny to use the online features that the consoles are being built around. It's not going to be too bad to buy crap games if you can afford them, but it's going to be brutal if you don't have the cash.
Gaming has always been a luxury.
People tend to forget that and then rage like the roofs over their heads are going to be removed permanently.
Dear Lord I hate when people use that statement.
Everything bar air, food and water is a luxury.
#1204
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 10:10
billy the squid
-
- Members
- 4 669 messages
Lazengan wrote...
Microsoft actually realizes that the gaming industry is no longer about making games, but about making interactive, user friendly toys.
The past few years has seen very few releases in actual games. It's been interactive movies, and using video games as an outlet to tell stories
At least Microsoft has the audacity to admit and understand this, and make steps to adopt to the change in the consumer market. I'm not going to buy it at all, but Sony will still bull**** about making games, when most of them will be rather poor.
This is stupid.
MS realised it's own enchroaching irrelevancy and challenges to it's software domination of the market as well as it's hardware. The X1 was a desperate cloying attempt to forstall that by pushing it's way into the market, by creating the X1 as an all in one entertainment system, centred round the living room. Yet, it fails to understand the that the market has already shifted and it's pulled a marketing strategyy out the 1990's playbook.
If the market was no longer about games then the Wii U would have taken off spectacularly it hasn't, it sold 3 million in the first month and then tanked, there's no other way to describe it, it flopped. 3.45 milllion sold when they estimated 5.5,even their revised figures of 4.5 were missed.
Using Video games as a story hasn't changed the fact they are games, the expectation of the product is simply higher. People simply won't settle for cheap crap, beyond the likes of CoD. Nor does MS move have anything to do with story telling so your point here is irrelenvant as MS' dreams of a living room centric system in the X1.
The audacity was, that MS has tried to dictate demand, rather than supplying it; and not surprisingly it blew up in their face.
As to games. These are the ones I'm actually interested in, the rest I've not really looked into.
Killzone: Shadow fall
Watchdogs
Destiny
Thief
Witcher 3
Cyberpunk 2077
Blacklight
Assassin's Creed 4
Arkham Origins
In closing, I'm done.
Modifié par billy the squid, 27 mai 2013 - 10:23 .
#1205
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 10:36
ShepnTali
-
- Members
- 4 535 messages
#1206
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 12:39
EpicBoot2daFace
-
- Members
- 3 600 messages
I loved you like a brother, Xbox.
#1207
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 03:29
LPPrince
-
- Members
- 55 000 messages
#1208
Guest_Lathrim_*
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 03:34
Guest_Lathrim_*
Guest_Lathrim_*
-
- Guests
Lazengan wrote...
Microsoft actually realizes that the gaming industry is no longer about making games, but about making interactive, user friendly toys.
The past few years has seen very few releases in actual games. It's been interactive movies, and using video games as an outlet to tell stories
At least Microsoft has the audacity to admit and understand this, and make steps to adopt to the change in the consumer market. I'm not going to buy it at all, but Sony will still bull**** about making games, when most of them will be rather poor.
What world do you live in? Just curious.
#1209
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 03:51
AventuroLegendary
-
- Members
- 7 146 messages
I remember the Microsoft Xbox president calling those who want backwards compatibility "backwards" and in the minority. I can understand if it would be impossible and "inefficient" but they sure as hell shouldn't grow an attitude about it, especially if you're dismissing something people actually want and it looks like you're using your time and resources to add in crap no one was asking for.
#1210
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 03:53
Kaiser Arian XVII
-
- Members
- 17 303 messages
EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
I loved you like a brother, Xbox.
Says PC to Xbox.
#1211
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 03:53
LPPrince
-
- Members
- 55 000 messages
My stepbrother told me he saw a report that said only 5% of gamers actually play old games from previous generations on a newer console, which made him laugh since a ton of people complain about it when so few will actually use it. Kinda like why Sony removed backwards compatibility from the PS3 after they saw how many people were trading in their PS2 games anyway.
Still, I haven't seen numbers, so its just an assumption from here.
Still, I haven't seen numbers, so its just an assumption from here.
#1212
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 04:14
AventuroLegendary
-
- Members
- 7 146 messages
People who have accumulated quite a library over the years would probably hate to lay it to waste or sell it for a cheap buck. While you can most certainly keep your PS3 or 360, support for the platforms will be gone and they are more fragile than previous generations.
Not to mention that people take the added convenience of being able to play more games via backwards compatibility as a factor for actually buying the console. I probably would have been sold on the PS4 if BC was present. Being able to play the games that I missed out on in the previous gen would be pretty neat.
If more people complain about the lack of BC than praise the new "TV" feature, then that should say something. Then again, I can't say what people actually want or what they actually will do with their games so I could just be a bit short-sighted on this matter. Just my input.
Not to mention that people take the added convenience of being able to play more games via backwards compatibility as a factor for actually buying the console. I probably would have been sold on the PS4 if BC was present. Being able to play the games that I missed out on in the previous gen would be pretty neat.
If more people complain about the lack of BC than praise the new "TV" feature, then that should say something. Then again, I can't say what people actually want or what they actually will do with their games so I could just be a bit short-sighted on this matter. Just my input.
Modifié par LegendaryAvenger, 27 mai 2013 - 04:19 .
#1213
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 04:18
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Why would you remove support for something that's already in the architecture? I can't see any non-greedy reason for it. That makes the exclusion for a new console that much more understandable, but I can't think of a reason to actually remove a feature for the PS3.
#1214
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 04:24
billy the squid
-
- Members
- 4 669 messages
Back compatibility with the PS4 was removed as they effectively redesigned the entire system's architecture from the cell system of the PS3 which made it a monumental pain in the arse to develop for to the Jaguar, which is essentially an eight core PC system. Sooooo much easier to develop for with the greater similarities to a standard PC.
The PS4 will allow you to play PS3 games via live stream on it, it's not ideal, but at least it's something. The X1, nope, zip, not happening.
The PS4 will allow you to play PS3 games via live stream on it, it's not ideal, but at least it's something. The X1, nope, zip, not happening.
#1215
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 04:30
ShepnTali
-
- Members
- 4 535 messages
I like my PS3, but I'm certain I logged in more hours on my PS2 than PS3 since I bought it a few years ago. Just a more robust games library.
#1216
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 04:33
LPPrince
-
- Members
- 55 000 messages
LPPrince wrote...
Address the Sess- Xbox One's Used Games, DRM, Always Online, and More
Gonna be paraphrasing but I'm towards the tail end of this, and Adam Sessler just said that yeah, Microsoft had a VERY bad day, and now there's this sense that Sony is wonderful because they've said some great things BUT-
"There's no reason to put anymore stock there than with Microsoft. I think both can be great consoles, I think both are gonna have some pretty significant deficits, but you're absolutely right, we don't have clear answers from either one. I hope that after yesterday's events, that there might be more pressure on Sony AND Microsoft to deliver some clarity."
#1217
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 04:38
LPPrince
-
- Members
- 55 000 messages
Though personally I'm for backwards compatibility in consoles. There's the idea that they're gonna try to find a way to make it happen, and I hope somewhere down the line it does, because I imagine everyone right now is looking at their extensive game libraries and going, "Why exactly do I have to let y'all go?"
Going forward, it'd be nice to have the ability to take a trip down memory lane.
Going forward, it'd be nice to have the ability to take a trip down memory lane.
#1218
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 04:42
Saints
-
- Members
- 4 818 messages
#1219
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 04:44
LPPrince
-
- Members
- 55 000 messages
Well, they do a MUCH better job at PR.
Hopefully the answers we get from them are good ones.
Hopefully the answers we get from them are good ones.
#1220
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 04:46
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Saints944 wrote...
Sony employees respond to no DRM campain
Am I the only one who sees in those tweets that Sony isn't changing a thing? They're just talking.
"I love the passion!" Lol.
#1221
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 04:48
AventuroLegendary
-
- Members
- 7 146 messages
I pretty much agree. The point was that back compatibility isn't something to dismiss so quickly as "pointless" or to ridicule people who actually want it for, more so in MS's case. At least Sony is looking for options.
#1222
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 04:48
billy the squid
-
- Members
- 4 669 messages
^ Well we know with Sony that they....
Will allow used games waaay back in Febuary, although they've been silent on the online charges, I have the suspicion that they will leave that up to publishers to implement, ducking the bullet, so they don't cop the same flak as MS and keep their relationship with the physical game retailers.
Will have, or at least are moving towards day 1 downloads via their online service like steam, it would make sense then to keep the retailers sweet, by not blocking the second hand market if you are intending to push the digital download systems.
Is also more powerful than the X1, by a significant margin, no always online due to the spotty internet connections, again something they said way back in February.
Will allow the self publishing for indie games. Will allow backwards compatibility, via their live stream service.
At the moment PS4 seems to have the deck stacked in it's favour. I don't buy the "wait for E3" excuses, as MS believed that, that circus, was something the world should see. The overarching sentiment seems to be that unless MS releases the greatest exclusives in it's entire history, it's going to be torn a new one by the PS4 and PC markets.
Will allow used games waaay back in Febuary, although they've been silent on the online charges, I have the suspicion that they will leave that up to publishers to implement, ducking the bullet, so they don't cop the same flak as MS and keep their relationship with the physical game retailers.
Will have, or at least are moving towards day 1 downloads via their online service like steam, it would make sense then to keep the retailers sweet, by not blocking the second hand market if you are intending to push the digital download systems.
Is also more powerful than the X1, by a significant margin, no always online due to the spotty internet connections, again something they said way back in February.
Will allow the self publishing for indie games. Will allow backwards compatibility, via their live stream service.
At the moment PS4 seems to have the deck stacked in it's favour. I don't buy the "wait for E3" excuses, as MS believed that, that circus, was something the world should see. The overarching sentiment seems to be that unless MS releases the greatest exclusives in it's entire history, it's going to be torn a new one by the PS4 and PC markets.
#1223
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 04:59
Chewin
-
- Members
- 8 478 messages
Strange that Microsoft is debunking certain rumors about the Xbox One, yet are not bothering to explain what is right and wrong to stop the confusion, and are simply stating that everything will be explained in due time.
What due time? E3? At least bother to explain now what you have announced / stated, both directly and indirectly, and then further show us what more there is in store for us at future events (if there are even any).
What due time? E3? At least bother to explain now what you have announced / stated, both directly and indirectly, and then further show us what more there is in store for us at future events (if there are even any).
#1224
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 04:59
Chromie
-
- Members
- 9 881 messages
Looks like Jonathan Blow doesn't believe in THE CLOUD!
He's the dude developing The Witness for PS4 and PC for the people who don't know.
He's the dude developing The Witness for PS4 and PC for the people who don't know.
Modifié par Skelter192, 27 mai 2013 - 05:00 .
#1225
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Posté 27 mai 2013 - 05:00
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
-
- Guests
So awesomely relevant:
"Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view
because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the
industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights
and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade
should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not
because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think
it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially
arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to
exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that
free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry,
then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.
I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display
of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a
die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because
even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and
that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no
inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here;
there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy
of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a
special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK
when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just
because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt
does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means
and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on,
lend, and share its products.
The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for
an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable
secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world.
Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve
it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to
adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath.
If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market
-- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and
map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the
audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may
be so blunt, f*ck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place.
If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on
short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid
blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of
hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away
our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a
sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.
I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the
industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on
shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose
to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only
good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended
design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military
porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly
the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly
were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they
chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they
knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the
store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of
spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most
susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to
do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely
expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not
the most sustainable business model ever.
So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry
complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of
Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and
that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform.
No, the problem isn't at this end."
Originally Posted by Open Source
If the secondhand market is not having a major detrimental effect on the primary market, then why would it need to be addressed?
If it were the case for movies and games, then yes, I'd favor similar
measures by music/movie industries to protect themselves against it.
"Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view
because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the
industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights
and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade
should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not
because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think
it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially
arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to
exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that
free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry,
then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.
I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display
of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a
die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because
even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and
that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no
inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here;
there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy
of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a
special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK
when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just
because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt
does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means
and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on,
lend, and share its products.
The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for
an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable
secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world.
Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve
it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to
adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath.
If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market
-- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and
map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the
audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may
be so blunt, f*ck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place.
If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on
short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid
blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of
hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away
our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a
sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.
I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the
industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on
shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose
to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only
good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended
design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military
porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly
the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly
were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they
chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they
knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the
store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of
spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most
susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to
do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely
expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not
the most sustainable business model ever.
So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry
complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of
Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and
that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform.
No, the problem isn't at this end."
Modifié par J. Reezy, 27 mai 2013 - 05:03 .
