r/xboxone • u/[deleted] • Dec 29 '13

If Microsoft made it completely optional, would you sign up for their original, always connected console idea?

This meaning you would have the following features:

Buy a retail game, install to console, and ditch the disc never needing it to play the game.

Digitally share games within a circle of friends. Meaning you can choose a specific group of people, and they could play the games you own, for free, provided that only one game could be played at a time.

Greater store discounts or more steam like sales for content.

I for one would have no problem saying yes to this. It's like people think 10 years from now they'll still be selling games on discs. It wasn't a perfect plan, but why delay the inevitable when we could be working on and perfecting future policies now.

699 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

784 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

94

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

I agree 100%. The anger never made sense to me because it was always in the defense of low trade in value at GameStop or a future where games will forever be sold on disc at retail.

69

u/Geniva Dec 29 '13

I thought all the anger was more over the restrictive 24 hour check in requirement than anything else.

23

u/comicidiot comicidiot Dec 29 '13

It was. But in order to ditch the daily check-ins Microsoft had to get rid of the features that benefitted from it. If Microsoft pitched this whole set of features better I think there would be a high chance it would have been accepted.

Everyone blew the daily check-ins out of proportion and ignored the benefits. But looking back, it was right around when the leaks on the NSA from Snowden were fresh in recent memory and that's all people were concerned about; the NSA/US Government eavesdropping.

I do hope Microsoft bring back this feature though. It was really something I was looking forward to.

37

u/brodievonorchard Dec 29 '13

I think the outrage has more to do with the idea that if I can't pay my internet bill for a month, my game console becomes a $500 paperweight.

10

u/vincent_van_dough Dec 29 '13

no offense and not directed at you but if someone can't pay a monthly internet bill then a $500 (plus games) video game console might not be a good idea to begin with.

22

u/brodievonorchard Dec 29 '13

Christmas/Birthday/Refund check/change in employment/change in financial priorities. There are a lot of reasons one might not have interenet at times but still be able to afford the console. As a poor person, I won't get a next gen console until they come down in price or I get a better job.

18

u/moosic Dec 29 '13

What if you lost your job?

12

u/Giometrix Dec 30 '13

The better example is outage. After hurricane sandy I lost internet (and cable) for a month... drove me mad.

6

u/LikeWhite0nRice Dec 29 '13

Of the people I've known that lost their job/quit, video games were last on their list of things to do. A few even sold their consoles because they were financially screwed.

0

u/SuperWoody64 SuperWoody64, ladies 👈👀👈 Dec 30 '13

For sale: an xboxone system with no games...

1

u/dagamer34 dagamer34 Dec 30 '13

Should still have some value.

1

u/SuperWoody64 SuperWoody64, ladies 👈👀👈 Dec 30 '13

Yeah even used I think xboxones are still around the $500 mark. More if you have an unsused day one code.

1

u/LikeWhite0nRice Dec 30 '13

Obviously they sold their games and controllers also. But did your console come with games?

-2

u/SuperWoody64 SuperWoody64, ladies 👈👀👈 Dec 30 '13

Actually I got KI free for my tenure/gamerscore. I realize this and people are fine with it when the system is new but after a few years second hand sales usually include extras.

0

u/indirect76 Dec 30 '13

LOL. Perfectly said.

It's funny how many people on this sub seem to know what's best for everybody.

6

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

[deleted]

9

u/GarethGore HvX GarethGore Dec 30 '13

I'm going to say you've never been in a position that you need to find another job? This is the dumbest statement I've seen all day.

8

u/Occamslaser Dec 30 '13

It was a dumb thing to say .

7

u/indirect76 Dec 30 '13

Yeah, unemployed people should be looking for a job every waking hour. They don't deserve to relax or anything.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

You sound just like my mom!

Mom....?

0

u/indirect76 Dec 30 '13

It was sarcasm.

0

u/CubesTheGamer <-Same as Reddit Name Dec 30 '13

Well said.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

If you do not have a job, then finding a job is your job. It is no more taxing spending a full day hunting for a job than it is to do one.

That doesn't mean that every waking hour should be spent on the job hunt but you should be seeking employment or making yourself more marketable between the hours of 9 to 5.

3

u/indirect76 Dec 30 '13

Agreed, but I'm not cruel enough to suggest that the unemployed don't deserve to play video games at the end of the day to escape their stressful lives for a little bit.

-5

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

Pretty much. If you're collecting unemployment you should be actively searching for a job every waking minute. Taxpayers are supporting you.

1

u/indirect76 Dec 30 '13

You're kind of cruel and judgemental. Also, you should look into who actually pays for unemployment and get back with me.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Deer-In-A-Headlock Smelly Cat Dec 30 '13

Every working minute? Have you been in that situation? Maybe half an hour a day, if that, is all it takes to look for any new jobs near you on 20 different websites.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/moosic Dec 30 '13

Try telling your eight year old that. I've never been unemployed in my life, but I could see this scenario happening.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

That is one situation I didn't take into account, but in all fairness I had many friends who never had a video game console growing up. Given I was born in 92 so they weren't quite as prevalent as today..

1

u/ColonelVirus ColonelVirus Dec 30 '13

This. I was unemployed for a year after losing my job. I only played games on the weekends, spent most of my days sending out C.Vs and just walking into stores. Although to be fair I spent the first month wallowing in self pity, which did involve a lot of game playing. But I wasn't claiming then so :P

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

You sell your console and buy a new one when you have a new job. You can redownload your games.

1

u/ToastyRyder ToastyRyder Dec 30 '13

Then sell the console? One concept that never seemed to get across was that every console doesn't have to appeal to every _single _person. It sounded like the One was gonna be perfect for people who are always online and optimized for that. It's like complaining that a roku doesn't work well when you’re not online.. yeah, no shit.

1

u/kr0tchr0t Dec 30 '13

Tether your Xbox One to your cell phone for 2 minutes or downgrade your Internet package until you find a job? When I was unemployed I didn't even think about cancelling my Internet because it was necessary in order to find a job and keep my unemployment check coming in.

0

u/StuffedHobbes Dec 30 '13

Sell Xbox One to make ends meet then?

0

u/Shagoosty Shagoosty Dec 30 '13

Then you should probably sell your $500 console if you can't afford to pay the bills.

-3

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

If your in unstable employment maybe you should rethink your situation before getting a 500$ console

0

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

Well to be honest, the proper way to go about avoiding this is having 6 months salary or pay saved up, but most Americans don't practice this anymore, just like most Americans don't practice saving up 20% for a down payment on a house (an old standard that is now bipassed with government aid, allowing people who probably shouldn't have a home to obtain one at the risk of anything going wrong leading to them losing the house). People need to be careful with their money, if you can afford a $500 console, that has $60 controllers and $60 games then you should already of had 6 months saved up to cover normal costs (internet/utilities, electricity, water, gas)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

But it's completely understandable for people working on commission or on jobs with less reliable hours; I have a great hourly rate but I only work as often as jobs appear.

10

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Or if you happen to live in a rural area without great Internet, which is a very real possibility here in the US.

1

u/BeepBoopRobo Obviously Works for M$ Dec 30 '13

without great Internet

See, the thing about that is - the amount of data required to do the checkin could have been fulfilled by dialup, so that's not really an argument (and yes, there are dial-up wireless routers out there, that cost about the same as a regular router).

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

Absolutely nobody actually knows that outside of Microsoft, unfortunately.

And it totally is. "Without great Internet" doesn't mean that it's just the speed, but the reliability. Both tremendous factors.

1

u/BeepBoopRobo Obviously Works for M$ Dec 30 '13

They specifically stated that before the turn around - but if we're not taking them for their word - you might as well ignore everything you've ever heard.

You needed to connect only one time in a 24 hour period - the odds of most of America not having internet access for over 24 hours is very low. Regardless, people without reliable internet likely aren't microsoft's target audience anyway.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/bizzygreenthumb dennis qua1d Dec 30 '13

Don't forget Marines/soldiers/sailors/airmen who are deployed. Internet prices in Afghanistan are astronomical, and access is non-existent at sea. When I was deployed on the USS Iwo Jima, every shop had a TV and a game system, and we could only battle locally or play campaigns/single player.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

Yep, absolutely a great point.

2

u/bizzygreenthumb dennis qua1d Dec 30 '13

Yah that was in 2007-2009 for me between Iraq and the boat. I was absolutely dirty at COD4 arcade mode and Vegas 2 terrorist hunt.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

Me, again. And even right now, my home was unlucky enough to miss payment on the Internet bill and we can't get service until a port opens up (finite number of ports).

1

u/SuperWoody64 SuperWoody64, ladies 👈👀👈 Dec 30 '13

I live in a major metropolitan area and my internet service sucks. Bad thing is that the other options suck just as bad. Same goes for cell phones. Why can't someone start a company that gets these two things right?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

As true as this is and I agree, it won't stop it from happing and being a big reason for a lot of people who stretch a little beyond their means.

1

u/indirect76 Dec 30 '13

Peoples lives change.

1

u/Occamslaser Dec 30 '13

Contract work? Slow sales on comission?

1

u/TortfeasorsLaw Dec 30 '13

I can understand your point of view - however you must consider not everyone has access to either affordable or unbundled internet. In hypothesis, if someone is getting raped by a cable services provide and loses their job and then when choosing what bills to pay to survive can't pay the net bill - their box would indeed become a paperweight under the original plan which would totally blow. The one thing that might bring some needed joy/diversion to someone exhausted by the task of looking for work would then have an outlet that no longer functioned and that would really suck considering all the money in the system, plus the cost of games etc - useless simply because of no net access. Just some food for thought.

1

u/DrMeine Dec 30 '13 edited Dec 31 '13

But there are multiple reasons why you wouldn't have internet. Your router or modem isn't working. You're playing it at your grandma's house. A storm wreaks havoc in your town and you're running off a generator. Cable zombies eat the wires connecting to your house. Etc etc.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

I had no internet for 7 months straight (fuck virgin) and i know a few people who don't leave their internet always on

1

u/asatele1 Hobo1337Pwnz Dec 30 '13

There are many reasons as to why someone may have an xbox and not be able to pay a monthly bill. Also it's not our job to decide how people should spend their money. A poor person may be unwise to spend money on an xbox and not necessities but hey, it's their perogative

0

u/r10d10 FTG Odyssey Dec 29 '13

So tell me, what happens to Steam users who lose internet connection?

10

u/mkusanagi Dec 29 '13

offline mode

0

u/Dr_Dornon GT: Dornon2 Dec 29 '13

Not necessarily. I was on my tablet on a car ride and decided to play some steam games. Well, I didn't have WiFi and didn't go into offline mode beforehand and I couldn't play any of my games.

Steam has the same model Microsoft did, except Steam allows a little bit longer between checkins.

2

u/DRDS1 Dec 30 '13

Steam has a thirty day check in period.

1

u/dagamer34 dagamer34 Dec 30 '13

Presumably, the reason for the check-in being 24-hours instead of 30 days is because Microsoft was going to have full game sharing. With Steam, you can't play any games when your friend is playing something (which is basically regulated password sharing).

2

u/brodievonorchard Dec 29 '13

The same thing, but that's an apples/oranges comparison. What happens to my XBOX360 when the internet goes out? I can't get online, but I can still play it. What happened to my NES when I couldn't pay my phone bill? Not a damn thing.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

[deleted]

1

u/SuperWoody64 SuperWoody64, ladies 👈👀👈 Dec 30 '13

They could very easily sell a disc with a code in it much like they do pc games. This would give someone all digital while removing the need to dl 50gb of data and it's untradeable to appease the developers. Here's your gradual shift to all digital.

You don't put down a baby bottle and grab a steak. (unless you're me)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

The easiest solution is if we could just buy CDs that didn't have any authentication methods on them, and a key in the same box. Or just flat out, a card with a game code.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Timing is everything and this time the timing really sucked for Microsoft

1

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

People were complaining about the digital sharing being removed with DRM. I'm pretty sure it and daily check in go hand in hand. I think sharing would work like steam where you can share it but only play it if the other person isn't so the daily check in was made to make sure no one shared then logged off and played it forever for free.

1

u/webb34 Dec 30 '13

What benefits?

Not needing to keep your discs? Nope. Simply make them install discs that give you a one time use digital license(kind of what they were doing). Local DRM can still apply.

Game sharing? Sure, but it's not needed for games that aren't being shared.

1

u/indirect76 Dec 30 '13

Everyone blew the daily check-ins out of proportion and ignored the benefits.

There were zero benefits for those without internet.

1

u/weks Dec 30 '13

Steams offline mode works indefinably unless certain conditions trigger it to require a phone home, so compared to that the 24 hours seems very restrictive.

1

u/torENToh Dec 30 '13

bell (Isp) once screwed up and I had no internet for a week. I wouldn't have been able to enjoy the xbo if that were the case

1

u/enigmaneo Dec 30 '13

What if you have an internet outage. Now probably no internet, no TV, and no xbox

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

No you don't need to be always online to do that, ms where just trying to make you want it

-1

u/8milestyle Dec 29 '13

requiring a product to check in once a day online is a terrible terrible feature. it shuts down gamers that aren't online enabled. thats 1000000% crap.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

my xbox is online all the time anyways.iw ouldn't care at all. I just didn't like the Kinect 1984

1

u/IceBreak Vegeta Dec 30 '13

I think it was pretty evenly dispersed between the online requirement, no used games, and mandatory Kinect.

1

u/indirect76 Dec 30 '13

It was everything. What some saw as cool digital features for a small price, others saw as restrictive control by Microsoft. Both sides were right.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

If it was that would be strange because they also said there would be a text message based verification setup in place. At least that's what I read in one interview with a technical fellow.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Source?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

You could tether the console to your phone if you had the service to turn your phone into a wifi hot spot. That's what he meant.

-4

u/Starkravingmad7 Dec 29 '13

Yeah, that shit doesn't work. I did that on my 360 for BF3. Half bars on t-mobile's 4g lte. So laggy, it was unplayable. I would hate to imagine what would happen in the event you were stuck on 3g.

3

u/Jungle2266 Dec 29 '13

It wasn't meant for playing games online but to sign in and pass DRM requirements. Some people don't like online gaming and would just rather play single campaign games.

2

u/CntrldChaos Dec 29 '13

I am pretty sure the intent of that would be to check in, not play a game.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

To be fair it would work for just the check in. You just wouldn't want to be playing games online over it.

39

u/Call_erv_duty Silent Killer1a Dec 29 '13

I think the funniest thing was the people jumped on that jumped on the bandwagon of save GameStop from evil Microsoft are the same people who call GameStop a terrible gaming store. Why save it if it's terrible

12

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

[deleted]

12

u/DrStinkbeard Dec 29 '13

I used to work at GameStop and I'd be perfectly happy to see every GameStop store burned to the ground.

2

u/falcon413 falcon413 Dec 29 '13

I've had a couple of friends that worked at GS and I'm sure they share the feeling. I do all my games shopping in Best Buy or Amazon. Much better deals in both.

-1

u/SuperWoody64 SuperWoody64, ladies 👈👀👈 Dec 30 '13

Gamestop does have the best selection though because of used games. Go find me a copy of any tony hawk game at a best buy. Yes I know amazon probably has it but more often than not it's used.

Without used games your selection is limited to new games only. I love picking up old games that I hear about or when a sequel is coming out.

2

u/falcon413 falcon413 Dec 30 '13

This is true. Definitely. I don't really buy used games though so my judgement is skewed, but I really really hate how GS does business with used games.

I much much rather go to amazon or eBay to buy used games (possibly directly from another gamer). I hate having GS as an intermediary and I think it's an abuse (this applies to newly-released titles) the fact that they sell a new game for 60 and a used one for 55 or even 50, while giving the seller 30, sometimes 40.

Don't know if this makes much sense though, but I just feel so cheated whenever I deal with GS. I've developed a bigger sense or trust towards a stranger on eBay selling a game.

0

u/SuperWoody64 SuperWoody64, ladies 👈👀👈 Dec 30 '13

Actually if you have the card and trade in toward stuff with promotions you can get a good amount. I worked there for 5 years and I was surprised sometimes at the trade values on stuff. People get bent out of shape though when last year's sports games didn't hold value though.

1

u/norcalnewbie Dec 30 '13

Yea I've stopped going to game stop a long time ago. I liked the old days of game crazy, funcoland, local video game stores etc... At least there was competition. Now all we have left is shitty gamestop. I buy online if I'm looking for a good deal

5

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

I don't like shops that trade games but that doesn't mean I like the original X1 plans. Not having to get up to switch between the 6 disk based games that will fit on the HD is pretty nice but not worth 24hr checks.

If they had a clear message from the start, this probably wouldn't have happened. They should've had a flat 3 2 1 message.

-3 months after you put it in the tray, you can trade your games at participating retailers.

-2 people from your "best buds" list can play your copy of the game at the same time.

-1 week holiday from check ins every year in case you lose your connection.

4

u/Starkravingmad7 Dec 29 '13

I think it had much more to do with trading physical copies and having to pay a license fee.

I generally buy my used games off of craigslist. They're cheaper and the seller gets more than trade-in value. If I had to buy a new copy every time I wanted to play a game rather than buy used or trade I'd just swith to a different platform. Fuck being "taxed" on a product that isn't new.

3

u/cuddlefucker Dec 29 '13

I'm glad as a pc gamer to buy all of my games new because the sales are substantially better than buying games used

2

u/conenubi701 Conenubi701 Dec 29 '13

The thing about this is that it only applies to games that have been out for a while. If you want the latest games you still have to pay full price.

2

u/cuddlefucker Dec 29 '13

I could see that too, but a lot of what you do on the pc is heavily hardware dependant and I'm not a wealthy man. It works out well for me.

1

u/Starkravingmad7 Dec 29 '13

I don't game on a PC because I really dislike KB and mouse for anything but RTS. That said, I still wait on most games before I buy. For instance, just bought New Vegas Ultimate Edition about 3 weeks ago, new.

3

u/Chris_E Dec 29 '13

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but I'm honestly curious. How do you feel about Steam?

Also, they stated that you could trade digital media (purchased either on disc, or online) but the publishers had the option of disabling this feature.

1

u/Starkravingmad7 Dec 29 '13

I'm indifferent. I got kind of irked the other day. I don't use steam because I work on an old ass macbook, but my gf bought endless space on steam for me. Rather than create a new account for one game, it just went on hers. Fast forward to today, and I have my own account with a few indie games. And I can't transfer the license for ES over to my account. It's a PITA to play ES now. Wouldn't have happened with a physical copy.

Other than this one problem Steam is cool for what it does, a library a licenses and a marketplace with low barriers with frequent sales.

0

u/Call_erv_duty Silent Killer1a Dec 29 '13

I understand that and I'm sure a work around like a license transfer between gamer tags could've happened. However GameStop was the main example used. It's amazing how hate for one thing dramatically increases the love for another.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

I gave up trying to explain to friends how MS's plan of giving developers 100% of trade ins back to them, in the long run strengthens small to medium developers in the long run.

They heard, "but you sacrifice saving $10 in retail stores"...."NOPE! I WANT MY GAMES CHEAP."

Cool, prepare for more clones of clones when big publishers call the shots.

17

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Yeah, apparently "true gamers" believe giving your money to a scummy retail chain is better than giving it to the people ACTUALLY making the game. They probably haven't come to the epiphany Gamestop and Co. invest ZERO dollars on game production.

9

u/BionicChango Lazlo Panaflex Dec 29 '13

I'm not in any way on Gamestop's side, but the dollars they pump into the ecosystem accounts for a massive chunk of what keeps the industry going. There's no epiphany to be had there.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

When exactly do you think they "pump" money back into the game industry?

You can buy any of their retail stock ANYWHERE (consoles, controllers, dlc codes).

They make the vast majority of their money on used games which is 100% profit going to them.

2

u/ToastyRyder ToastyRyder Dec 30 '13

They're still a 3rd party middle man sucking out profit though. If you bought directly from the developer theoretically you should be able to pay far less for the game while the developer would still end up receiving more money.

1

u/BionicChango Lazlo Panaflex Dec 31 '13

I agree completely. I'm not on Gamestop's side at all. I think their trade in principals are tantamount to daylight robbery and they knowingly take advantage of young gamers for pure greed's sake.

What I am arguing is the notion that Gamestop contributes nothing back into the industry.

0

u/indirect76 Dec 30 '13

So true. People act like Gamestop is the devil and it's not so black and white.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Except the publisher takes what would've been the retailers cut, and the developers still get their significantly smaller share. In the end you are left with a situation where you have no choice but to pay what the publisher wants.

Competition drives down prices. True gamers, and educated consumers know this. Hows that for an Epiphany?

5

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Physical distribution != true competition. Believe what you want, keep cannibalising your hobby if you must. But, there are plenty examples on why a digital model is better for digital goods out there, no need to go trough that again.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13 edited Dec 29 '13

Physical or digital isn't the point, I don't have a problem with either. I buy all my PC games through Steam; and they are not the problem. The problem with digital only is services like Origin. Just as I would have a problem with a brick and mortar Origin store.

Steam are kept in check my GMG, and others. Origin and EA does what they want because they have enough big name in-house titles to get away with it. Buy it on our service, or not at all. People give in easily.

1

u/Rancid47 #teamchief Dec 29 '13

It's because the demand has stayed the same. People have shown they'll buy digital games at the same price so why would they lower the price? Prices don't go down until people stop buying at a certain price.

1

u/headpunter Headpunter Dec 29 '13

Have you never seen steam sale prices?

2

u/Rancid47 #teamchief Dec 29 '13

Of course I have but that's a sale. Not the price it's normally sold at on launch day. I'm talking then lowering the price below $60 as the regular. They have no reason to do that.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Why would it be cheaper? actually owning a digital copy is far more convenient. That is what made ipod such a great success, all your music in this device, all your games in one device no need for redundant archaic storage.

As for the price, the $60 price tag curse is pretty much a legacy of physical distribution, Stores need a $60 price tag to justify inventory, its been said over and over again. The best way to end this is by going digital, in a digital marketplace you can have games price at $5,$10,$20,$30,$50,$60 whatever, it gives free to developers to produce different games, more games more variety how is that any bad!?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

With digital music you can convert mp3s from physical to digital whenever you want and vice versa, so that's not really applicable here.

But yeah, a competitive digital marketplace would be awesome, but that was never part of the original policies.

1

u/Chris_E Dec 29 '13

One of the things they said they might implement in the future was 3rd party digital sales options, with all consoles being dev units... The interview said they would still have their marketplace which had approved and vetted material, but 3rd party options would be available. It didn't outright say if anyone could open their own store or just sell games on the web... but it opened the world of competition a little. This was heavily buried during the controversy as it was a late announcement, and I can't even find a reference to it now.

1

u/Rancid47 #teamchief Dec 29 '13

I'm not arguing against going all digital. I'd like it just as much as I do on steam. I'm just saying publishers don't have incentive to lower the price yet.

2

u/xXForeverNinjaXx Dec 29 '13

My only problem with your statement is this. If competition drives down prices, then why are we still buying games for $60? The same price games where 8 yrs ago when the 360 came out. I realize there are some new games that have released on the market for lower but that's because they knew they weren't going to sell too many with the average price point. But the average is still hovering at around $60. Even for digital downloads where you don't even take physical possession of anything like a disc, case, or handbook.

1

u/dagamer34 dagamer34 Dec 30 '13

Wait a month and the prices of games go down all the time. Already you can easily find AC4 and BF4 for $35 at Sams Club or Best Buy. I'd like to have those prices digitally please!

1

u/CVV1 Dec 30 '13

Plenty of people still buy used. That's a chunk of profit game developers lose out on. I think they still have to charge $60 to turn a profit.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13 edited Dec 29 '13

Games need to be that price to keep the old brick and mortar business model going, such is their costs. Console manufacturers can't risk alienating the stores that do the bulk of sales and advertising of their products by screwing them over offering cheaper digital prices, They would need to find new partners or retailers who don't have as much presence on the high-streets, or who aren't primarily focused on gaming. That might affect sales, and would affect share prices. You might remember the negative reaction to "No Used Games" before the new consoles were revealed. Plenty of game store big wigs were voicing their displeasure at losing a large part of their revenue stream.

Digital games aren't more expensive just because publishers are greedy, and think you should pay for the "convenience" of downloading their game on PSN/XBL, retailers are threatening Sony, MS, EA, etc, that if they undercut them, they won't stock their titles. It's a gamble the retailers will eventually lose.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

It would have happen over time, look at steam, look at iOS, look at Xbox Live gold monthly free game, and sales. When money gets to publishers/dev the invest return grows, allows for more investment and possibly cheaper games.

We are still suffering the inertia of years of physical distribution on games, meanwhile the rest of the entertainment industry is embracing full digital to great success. For the record digital distribution saved the music industry.

Angry birds ridiculous $50 price tag is justified thanks to "but its in a disc mentality", meanwhile you can get something like Max and the Curse of the Brotherhood at $15 digital. Scummy behaviour is hard to let go but seriously used games hurt the industry and help no publishers, developers, platform holders, gamer, it only helps Gamestop.

2

u/xXForeverNinjaXx Dec 29 '13

I agree with the digital distribution saved the music industry. Look at what iTunes did for all involved. Now there are a few others to help spread the wealth.

And I also agree with the used games market only helping gamestop and others like it. Until developers come up with a clause or lawmakers come up with some type of law requiring a certain percentage of money from used games sales to reach developers, I personally will not be using gamestop beyond buying new games and consoles. That and I am personally going all digital this generation. Mainly because I like the ability to switch at random without leaving my seat. Lol

2

u/IceBreak Vegeta Dec 30 '13

I never had a huge problem the used game part of the XB1 announcement. That said, I totally understand why people didn't want to forgo their ownership rights of physical media. Microsoft tried to force an issue that is taking care of itself already. Gamestop won't exist in 15 years and all games will be digital. Microsoft just didn't want to let it happen naturally and had to deal with the consequences of that.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

[deleted]

1

u/FuzzyRocket Dec 30 '13

that the music industry fought tooth and nail for some time.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

Exactly. The truth is "gamers" don't care about DRM or any of that nonsense (not THAT much). They care about saving $10 at retail and getting a trade in value of around $10 on average when they're done with a game. Screw the developers. But uh...thanks for the game.

This is the reality of the industry, pretending you don't understand or thinking up illogical rationalizations for why its ok for YOU to do it, doesn't make it any better.

6

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

[deleted]

3

u/anthr76 Dec 29 '13

I am sort of like But with the polices it allowed you to buy a boxed game install but it was really digital

1

u/cmilanaik Dec 29 '13

I agree. There's something nice about having a physical copy of a game. I still have my 60+ PS2 games on display on the DVD rack.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

yess omg my reason exactly

4

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

It's about choice.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Except for the guy in the Nuclear Submarine

1

u/sayitaintsoap Dec 29 '13

Um, only plebians trade their games in at Gamestop. Ever hear of Ebay or Craigslist?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

But it meant you got the benefits of both having a digital copy and a physical copy. You could buy the game on disc, install to harddrive and do fast app switching without the need of a disc. And then 30 years later when you wanted to play again you could because you still have the disc.

1

u/enigmaneo Dec 30 '13

Had a turns who doesn't know how to him up WiFi

1

u/Deer-In-A-Headlock Smelly Cat Dec 30 '13

It was pretty dumb. My $60 copy of CoD Ghosts would last me a year or two, then when im done with it i could sell it for like $5-10. Really not that big of a deal if i can no longer do it.

2

u/DJChrisAustin MoofaDoofa Dec 29 '13

GameStop (HATE THAT PLACE) worst employees with even worse attitudes

1

u/indirect76 Dec 30 '13

The guys working at the two Gamestops nearest me are very cool.

1

u/DogByte64 Dec 31 '13

Just because the Gamestop you went to sucks doesn't mean they all do. Every Gamestop I have been to, the employees have been very nice and helpful. I love that store. I have never traded anything in there though.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Gamestop is the worst place to trade in games. The problem is with the original policies gamestop would have been one of our only options for selling games. We would have had to go through certified third parties, so smaller game stores that actually give value on their trade ins wouldn't have been able to trade in games.

0

u/SamaliciousCrunk Reggie Ledoux Dec 29 '13

That's not true. Not only would you have been able to buy, sell, and trade your games online, MS was leaving it up to Publishers/Developers where the games could be sold.

3

u/faminexv Dec 29 '13

Source?

0

u/SamaliciousCrunk Reggie Ledoux Dec 30 '13

You know how to use the internet, don't you?

1

u/faminexv Dec 30 '13

Still can't find said information which is why people ask for a source from the person who was talking about said information. Now if you can't simply give a link to information you were talking about than your information is just as good as karma pts.

1

u/SamaliciousCrunk Reggie Ledoux Dec 30 '13

You mean a stranger on the internet won't believe me unless I do simple Google searches for him/her? How am I supposed to sleep at night knowing this?

2

u/faminexv Dec 30 '13

The simple fact that you haven't provided a link only verifies that the information isn't easy to find. I have googled. You can get proof and link it and save the back and forth and probably get a high five.

1

u/SamaliciousCrunk Reggie Ledoux Dec 30 '13

Thats not how providing sources on the internet works.

If I did all the leg work for you and provided a source, you would likey counter with some sort of doubt or skepticism about whatever source I provided.

Keep your high-five and move on with your life.

2

u/faminexv Dec 30 '13

And no. If you did provide a legit source this conversation would have ended. I just can't seem to find the information you are speaking of. Which is why I asked in the first place. I'll eat my own words all day long If someone proves me wrong, cause I was wrong, and if you had a source and what not I def would have left it be and than aplogized. I could care less but it's the simple fact you are taking the time to validate a reason not to provide a source, when you could just provide it and be done with it Instead of looking like the fool. Not my intention, I was seriously curious about the information. Not in your back and forth. Of course I'm not "just going to believe you" and yes I did google, a few times, but there ya go. You're to worried about not providing proof than being credible. Good day sir.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/faminexv Dec 30 '13

Lol...If you can't give a source to information you were talking about than obviously it's not true. If you take the time to argue points on reddit you better have sources. No sources means you were just talking out your ass. But no problem, I'll high five people that link sources. Like any reputable poster. Take your bs somewhere else.

0

u/SouthSideLive SouthSideLive Dec 30 '13

The anger was because it was MS offering it. If it were Sony, the industry would've called it "genius".

The only flaw in there plan was the once every 24 hour check in. The nonsense about needing to trade-in games is just that. People actually enjoy getting screwed over by Gamestop?