Dysfunctional Console Industry Struggles For New Profit Centers

MojoKid writes "The rumor mill is still churning out quite a bit of information on new consoles this week, including new data on Nintendo's upcoming Wii U. According to unnamed developers, the Wii U actually isn't as powerful as the Xbox 360 or PS3, despite boasting HD graphics and significantly improved hardware. Meanwhile, the Xbox 720, codenamed Durango, is reportedly targeting the holiday season of 2013 as a launch window. Rumors are floating about of a required always-on internet connection and of locking out the used game market. What this discussion truly highlights is just how dysfunctional the entire console industry is and how skewed its profits are. Profits on hardware sales are so small, game shops can't survive on console sales alone. $60 MSRPs are subsidized by exchange and trade-in programs. Kicking Gamestop in the teeth may occasionally sound like fun, but the idea of killing the used games market doesn't make much sense. If used title values collapse and MSRPs stay the same or rise, the entire industry could hamstring itself in the name of higher profits."

Comments

Stores

[Enderandrew]

All three consoles have an online store for downloadable games, apps, etc.

Microsoft charges for XBox Live Gold. They've had other avenues for profit during this entire generation.

Re:Stores

[gl4ss]

yep - they as in the console companies.

but this industry refers to other players in the industry, namely game stores. which are as fucked as they're always been. of course if it was a goldmine.. everyone would be doing it and it wouldn't be a goldmine anymore.

Re:Stores

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no evil profits again.

Re:Stores

[jandrese]

Yeah, I have a tough time crying over the lost profits of the middlemen. Especially the likes of Gamestop, which have been fairly customer hostile for as long as I can remember. "Oh, you only order enough copies of a game to cover exactly what was preordered and no more? You do realize I could have just ordered it from Amazon instead and saved myself a trip out here and $10 right?"

The tug of war between the developers and the consumers is a constant struggle. Theoretically with no possibility of Gamefly or used sales eating into your profits and with online stores needing much lower profit margins (what they ask for may be different though) to stay afloat, new game prices for the next generation consoles could be considerably cheaper. If Microsoft or Sony were really bold, they would lower the cost of entry on their consoles and attract a large number of independent developers well beyond what services like the XBLA currently do, and allow them to grow and build AAA (or maybe just AA) sized games. Remove as many unnecessary expenses and restrictions as possible and you could have a major win.

It's a risky move however. Major publishers (EA) don't like lowering the barriers to entry, and they have major leverage with console manufacturers. "Oh, you want to let indie studios make full size games? Hmm, how much do you like having Madden on your console?" Basically, you would have to convince Sony and Microsoft to both do it at the same time so the big name studios don't have any leverage over them with this issue, and good luck convincing Sony to open up even a little bit. They've shown themselves to be willing to choke themselves to death for years now as long as it allows them to maintain an iron grip on all parts of their console.

Re:Stores

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight :

-pay the isp for online access
-pay microsoft for online access (and 2)
-pay EA/Other shit publishers for online access (and 3) and pay again for online access for used games (and 4)
-pay for other internet services.

Who the fuck would pay n times the same thing ? Oh yeah, clueless gamers that is who. The biggest bunch of whores in the entire universe. With consumers like these, its no wonder consoles companies continue to fuck-em dry and high without lube.

Isn't it better to just pay one time the isp for internet access, and bypass completely those stupid console manufacturers ? You get to access Hulu. Steam, etc... any other kind of online access you can think of without paying mafia racket style to Microsoft/ Sony and maybe Nintendo next gen.

Re:Stores

[DuckDodgers]

Profits aren't evil. But you have to weigh the value of money gained by implementing a policy against money lost by pissing a potential customer off.

So for example, I buy most of my games used. If I can't buy used games for a PSNext or XboxNext, I won't buy one at all. They don't sell the hardware to me. They don't get the sales that might come from me recommending the console to friends. They don't get to count my purchase among the total number of consoles sold when trying to convince a software company to make a port of the game for their console. And they don't get the profits from the 5-10 new games I would buy over the life of the console. Maybe they figure the loss of my purchase and the loss of purchases from others like me is acceptable for the gain of cutting out used game sales... and maybe not.

Also consider the requirement that my internet access always work to play games. So if I lose my internet access, I can't play on the console until it's restored. If the console vendor has a server outage, like for example if the Sony Playstation Network services might be hacked and offline for a few weeks, then I can't play on my console either. I'm the type of person who considers that restriction onerous and won't purchase the console because of it. So again, the vendors can try to guess how many other people will be similarly alienated and decide whether the lost sales is worth the lockdown it gets them.

They have every right to defend their digital property. And I have every right to tell them to go fuck themselves and not use their products if they decide to enforce those rights by making their product more trouble than it is worth to own.

Re:Stores

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

As a computer gamer, I find this turn of events amusing. The console makers and the game makers have played favorites with the consoles for a long time and completely jacked the computer gamers. What, you have to be online to play your game? You can't sell your game because it's tied to an account? You can't buy any used games? You can't rent games? Oh Noes!

Now they just need to buy and play a game in their console that includes some malware that prevents them from playing BluRay movies or something.

Re:Stores

[Daniel Phillips]

The console makers and the game makers have played favorites with the consoles for a long time and completely jacked the computer gamers.

It is because they are mesmerized by the possibilities of DRM and the control it may give them over customer's wallets. And they lost sight of the fact that the PC market is an order of magnitude bigger than all the consoles put together, and the mobile market is yet bigger. Not that I shed too many tears mind you. I would far rather that the likes of EA and Activision just whither away and not interfere with the rising indie industry.

Re:Stores

[Anonymous Coward]

fortunately for the console producer, the console is hacked and thus some of the limitations go away, thus more customers bite the bullet and buy new hardware.

Re:Stores

[mjwx]

All three consoles have an online store for downloadable games, apps, etc.

Microsoft charges for XBox Live Gold. They've had other avenues for profit during this entire generation.

Amongst all of this, it took MS years to get back into the black where as Nintendo started making money from the word go.

Console hardware as a loss leader is a failed business model. People who buy consoles are casual gamers, even PS3 fanboys love to point out that a lot of people bought PS3's simply because they were (at the time) cheap Blu-Ray players and not to play games on. Producing another generation of overpowered and overpriced loss leaders will only result in Sony and/or MS departing the console market.

There aren't enough "hardcore" console players to keep a "hardcore" market afloat, let alone competitive. Nintendo saw this when they made the Wii, justified when the Wii made money hand over fist whilst Microsoft and Sony struggled to stop haemorrhaging money on hardware. Hardcore is going back to the PC, even console rock star dev Cliff Bleszinski sees this. Meanwhile, Nintendo is releasing another casual console, whilst I think the Wii U will perform poorly against the meteoric performance of the Wii, the Wii U will still make a lot of money for Nintendo. I think the disparity is due mostly to the fact that the worlds economies are not as good as they were in 2008 and the Wii U is more evolutionary then revolutionary like the Wii was.

Re:Stores

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok let's get this straight. I currently:
- pay my ISP for online access.
- ?!?!?

er, that is it!

This so called repaying for used games will not happen. It is speculation on both the XBox and PlayStation consoles. What WILL happen is that if you want online access on a used game you will have to buy a network pass. This has already been implemented on the PS Vita and is fair.

If by chance you are forced to repay for used games the studios had better drastically reduce their prices for new games. If they don't then they will destroy their own market because used games fuel sales of new games. But hey, so far this is all speculation. Nothing official has been announced.

Re:Stores

[DuckDodgers]

With each new console generation, the vendors put more investment into locking the console down against letting users run their own firmware. It took years for the free60 project to crack the Xbox360 - by the time they got it, someone looking for a cheap computer would have gotten better performance from spending the $300 purchase price on newegg. Sony launched the PS3 with the ability to put Linux on it (but not to run Linux on the bare metal, it was blocked from accessing some features on the console) but a later firmware update removed that ability and Sony attempted to sue Geohotz and others who tried to restore the ability to run Linux.

I suspect some people far smarter than me will also crack the XboxNext and PSNext, but I also suspect that it will again take so long that by the time it works you can build a better system by spending $300 on regular PC components. I wouldn't buy a gaming console today in the hope that I can root it in four years.

Re:Stores

[Anonymous Coward]

All the while Bill Gates is laughing his ass off playing Xbox 1440

Re:Stores

[Elrond, Duke of URL]

Yeah, I have a tough time crying over the lost profits of the middlemen. Especially the likes of Gamestop, which have been fairly customer hostile for as long as I can remember. "Oh, you only order enough copies of a game to cover exactly what was preordered and no more? You do realize I could have just ordered it from Amazon instead and saved myself a trip out here and $10 right?"

Actually, this has a lot more to do with market size than trying to be hostile to customers and "teach them a lesson" as it were. I've talked to a number of Gamestop employees in a few different stores and (aside from generally being pretty friendly) they say essentially the same thing.

Gamestop, while being a common shop for gamers, is also by and large frequented only by gamers. That is to say, the volume of games Gamestop might sell is far less than what Best Buy, Target, or WalMart might sell for a game during the first week. Because they cannot sell nearly as many copies, the publishers consequently send them far less than they do to the big box stores. And, since Gamestop has fewer copies to sell, they preferentially sell them to people who have pre-ordered the games. They're in the business of selling games. It makes no sense for them to punish a customer for not pre-ordering by not selling them a game *if* they had the excess to sell. However, they don't have extras. They're not sitting on them, they're just not there to begin with.

Even understanding how it works, I still never* pre-order games, and I very rarely buy a game when it is first released. If I do, I'll usually stop by Gamestop (or similar) to see if they have a copy, and if not I'll just go a few doors down to the big box store and get it. Not a big deal. Yes, they still ask all the time if I'd like to pre-order something, and I still tell them no every time, but it has been years since I've come across a pushy Gamestop clerk who just won't shut up about the virtues of pre-ordering. Maybe I've just been lucky, I don't know.

As an aside: Ordering online for games generally makes little sense. Because of the (somehow) legal price fixing that publishers engage in, the cost of a game in the store versus the cost online are virtually identical. I recently looked at some 3DS games online and the prices were literally one or two dollars cheaper than the store price. Add in shipping and it's basically a wash. It's true you might save 2-3 dollars by not paying tax, but that's negligible. Unless I'm already buying some other stuff from the same online vendor, I'll just take my business to a local store.

* I have pre-ordered exactly one game during the many years I have been playing games. That game was Civilization V and I pre-ordered it on Steam. I was a huge fan of Civ 1, 2, and 4 so I figured it was a safe purchase and I was going to buy it when it came out anyway. Bad idea... :( It's not a horrible game, but having spent many hours playing the other Civ games I was fairly disappointed with the design changes they made in Civ V. I would have been *far* better off not pre-ordering, reading some reviews, and then maybe buying it a few months later when it would inevitably be on sale for far less than the original price.

Re:Stores

[Elrond, Duke of URL]

So for example, I buy most of my games used. If I can't buy used games for a PSNext or XboxNext, I won't buy one at all. They don't sell the hardware to me. They don't get the sales that might come from me recommending the console to friends.

Precisely. I bought a PSP model 3000 about a 1 or 1.5 years ago and nearly every single game I own for it was bought used. Some from the big names like Gamestop, others from a local used book/game/media store called Bookmans, and all for considerably lower prices than new games.

When I was making my purchase, the new disc-less PSP model had just been released, but as there was no way to play used games and everything had to come off the Playstation Network, I quickly passed on that. The same reasoning mostly applies to the new PS Vita. I don't know if it's entirely digital distribution, too, but since it has no UMD drive it clearly won't be playing used PSP games. Pass on that...

On the other hand, I've been a big fan of the Nintendo DS since it was first released. I bought one of the first generation units. A few years later I replaced it with a nice DSi. And now, back around Christmas, I replaced the DSi with a new 3DS unit. Unlike the first upgrade, my DSi wasn't very old, but that also meant I was able to sell it for a decent sum, so the cost of the 3DS was greatly reduced. And all through those three devices, my cartridges continue to work. Again, most are bought used, but I have bought my share of new DS games mostly because they typically cost a lot less. Much less than console games and a little less than new PSP games.

<rant>
My only big complaint with the DS is the insane way in which they hacked on wireless support code during the first generation. The devices have always had wireless, so I don't know why they didn't plan/implement it better, but the original wireless code exists in a very specific place in ROM and must be used in a very specific way. This means that there was no way to ever improve it. So, even though the DSi and 3DS have much better wireless that supports things like WPA2, any cartridge which uses the original wireless code is still stuck with its limitations and still stuck with WEP security at best. And, since developers want to target as many devices as possible, most new games are still compatible with the original DS and still hobbled by that old wireless code. I recently bought the latest Professor Layton game, but as it is a "regular" DS cartridge, it still uses the old wireless code, and that means that I can't use any of its wireless features (like downloading new puzzles) because my home wifi uses WPA2. You'd think that there would be a way for a game to use *both* wireless options, trying the DSi+ code and falling back to the original if it's not found or not configured, but I haven't seen any that do this.
</rant>

If they kill the used game market,

[Anonymous Coward]

They damn well better lower the prices on new games. Or my new gaming platform just may be an iPad buying games off the the app store.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Eponymous Coward]

You're not the only one. It's interesting to note that there's no market for used iPad games either. I suppose when the game is a few dollars, nobody cares.

Mobile device games are a lot like the games we used to play in video arcades. Frankly, I welcome the return of these smaller games.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[crazyjj]

With downloadable content, the console makers will probably develop into a more Steam-like service, with discounts for older games taking the place of used sales.

Well, one HOPES anyway.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[tripleevenfall]

Console makers realize people aren't going to go for required always-on internet, lockout of online play beyond the original owner, or the various other schemes they have tried to keep people other than the original purchaser from using physical media.

It won't be long before they make games download-only, and linked to your user account only. I'm sure they would sacrifice their firstborn to implement this today, but internet connection speeds simply aren't there yet. Sure, it'll be marketed as being done out of 'convenience' to the user, but it's out of convenience to their profit margins.

On behalf of the rest of the world I say to them - if you want to make more money just raise game prices. Don't require internet connections. Don't continue to try to destroy the secondard market. We aren't going to buy all the games new that we are currently buying used, we'll just play less games. If $60 isn't enough then try $75. If your product is good, the market will bear it.

No sense being a dog in the manger about it. (not that they are listening)

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[tripleevenfall]

Only one thing you can be sure of, when they are done you'll be transferring more money to them than you were before for the same thing.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[AngryDeuce]

Hence why they're rumored to be developing an ARM-based Xbox Lite console.

While unappealing to me, I think it would be a smart move for Microsoft. There's a ton of money to be made on cheap apps, as the rise of the smartphone/tablet as a gaming platform illustrates easily...

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[localman57]

Perhaps, but you may be getting more product in return. In the end, most companies don't really care how much money they make per customer, as much as they care about how much of a return they get on the money they invested. If they can make more money from their development expense by selling more copies at a lower price, they will. If they can make more money by selling less copies at a higher price, they'll do that. That's why companies sink money into marketing. If a marketing dollar spent results in $1.10 worth of additional profit, then they'll spend it. Generally speaking, they'd love it if you buy older games for not much money, as that's icing on the cake for them.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[crazyjj]

You can bet that's what they're expecting. Whether they'll get it will depend on exactly how far the consumer will go on the console side before piracy will start to look more attractive than putting up with the hassle of trying to be honest.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[AngryDeuce]

Oh yeah, also, historically speaking, we're paying much less for a new game than we used to be. Ditto consoles.

According to The Inflation Calculator:

Atari 2600 - $199 in 1977 - $707 today (in 2010 dollars, anyway)
Intellivision - $299 in 1979 - $886 today
NES - $199 in 1985 (US release) - $398 today
PC Engine/TG-16 - $249 in 1989 - $432 today

Games were also pretty expensive. I didn't actually buy my own games until the NES-era (and I'm having a hard time finding historical retail prices on video game cartridges), but even then, a new game was somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 back then, which would translate to $100 today. And look at how little you got for it in the case of a lot of games! I paid the equivalent of $100 for Mario Bros. 2 and beat it in a day. Ditto Mega Man 2 and 3. Ditto a lot of games.

I think many of us are more cognizant of how much were paying for games today because we're not using birthday money and allowance to buy them anymore, coupled with the fact that it's harder and harder to justify the expense with the economy being rough like it is. But in truth, we used to get charged a hell of a lot more.

That's not to say that I don't have my own misgivings, particularly related to the abuse of DLC as a concept. It seems like more and more games are coming out with 2/3 of the content they used to, with the intention of selling the remaining 1/3 in a few $10 increments down the road. The DLC on disc bullshit is even more ridiculous and unforgivable in my opinion.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Anonymous Coward]

if you want to make more money just raise game prices.

We aren't going to buy all the games new that we are currently buying used, we'll just play less games

It isn't about making more money. If they want to make money they can follow Steam and LOWER prices and get more sales. Making money is not the issue (don't let any of the copyright math about "lost sales" fool you)

What this is really about about is control. That (the bold) is exactly what they want you to do - just don't play their games at all. Ditto for pirates

They see themselves as owners of a theater, with the full price of a new game being the admission/ticket fee. They don't want anybody who paid nothing (from their perspective) to get to watch the show

I'm not saying their perspective is right or wrong. Just pointing out that it's not about money. It's about control

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Megane]

Great. So how are they going to convince retailers to sell the console hardware at nearly zero profit (as is the case today) when they aren't going to be the ones selling the games? PCs and tablets aren't sold using the razor blade model, ya know.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Applekid]

On behalf of the rest of the world I say to them - if you want to make more money just raise game prices. Don't require internet connections. Don't continue to try to destroy the secondard market. We aren't going to buy all the games new that we are currently buying used, we'll just play less games. If $60 isn't enough then try $75. If your product is good, the market will bear it.

Here's the thing, though, games are expensive to make, and getting more and more so every day. But are we getting better games for that bigger investment? Prettier games? Sure. Better sound? Yup. Good voice acting and mo-cap? Indeed. But are the GAMES getting better?

There really isn't anything that console makers are doing to help make better games beyond providing decent APIs, although there are lots they are doing to make them more of an audio/video spectacle. After all, you could provide a great API that only a small percentage gets used due to cross-platform concerns, or that doesn't matter because they're using exclusively using middleware, that end customers aren't going to care about. But awesome video for a prime time commercial? That's demonstrable.

Current console makers don't want the tide to turn because they like the $60 game, and would also like the $75 game, and a $90 even more. They're running a percentages game after all, so licensing fees are kept intentionally high to prevent smaller developers from getting a foothold. Smaller developers spend a much greater percentage of their development costs in tuning the game and not just herding content farms overseas to generate a bunch of graphics, animation, and audio assets.

I don't know if there's an answer to all this that doesn't wind up in an eventual video game market implosion.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Sique]

But in 1977, a regular PC (e.g. an Apple ][) was $1298, about six times the cost of an Atari 2600. Today's enthusiast gamer PC setup will come in at around the same price (~$1300), and thus a console for $199 has about the same pricing distance as it was 35 years ago.

If you look at prices, don't just adjust for inflation, you have also to check for the alternatives then and today.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Anonymous Coward]

if you want to make more money just raise game prices. .... If $60 isn't enough then try $75. (not that they are listening)

Actually, if they wanted to make more money they would REDUCE the price of their games. RevStu over at Wosland has written about this several times - here's one of the more recent: http://wosland.podgamer.com/anyone-still-not-convinced/

I'm sure if you dig through steam sales records, they increase GROSS every time they have a fire sale.

I'm sure the studios have marketeers that can crunch the numbers as well as appshopper, but they have a PERCIEVED value they have to upkeep. Even though they would probably make 10x as much money selling Call of Duty X for, oh, I don't know, $10, they won't, because the marketeers are afraid that will "devalue" their IP.

Newsflash - nobody cares about your percieved IP value, but a whole lot more people will impulse-buy a $10 game than a $60 game.

But you're right about one thing: They're not listening.

-GG

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[causality]

if you want to make more money just raise game prices.

We aren't going to buy all the games new that we are currently buying used, we'll just play less games

It isn't about making more money. If they want to make money they can follow Steam and LOWER prices and get more sales. Making money is not the issue (don't let any of the copyright math about "lost sales" fool you)

What this is really about about is control. That (the bold) is exactly what they want you to do - just don't play their games at all. Ditto for pirates

They see themselves as owners of a theater, with the full price of a new game being the admission/ticket fee. They don't want anybody who paid nothing (from their perspective) to get to watch the show

I'm not saying their perspective is right or wrong. Just pointing out that it's not about money. It's about control

I believe you have this right but it still makes no sense when you consider it.

A corporation exists for the sole purpose of making money. There is no point in attaining control if it does not result in higher profits. There is really no point if it actually results in lower profits.

Seems to me like the way to change this is to point this out to the shareholders. If they divested in companies conducting such petty and counterproductive business practices, this situation would change in a hurry.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[AngryDeuce]

Well, that's the price of those consoles now. I bought an Xbox 360 when the Elites launched, so I paid $549 for it. My PS3 was $300 (I waited a while on that), but I believe launch was between $499 and $599 for that, also. The Wii at launch was like $249, I believe, but based on it's hardware that was the price point it really belonged at (and greatly contributed to it's rousing success, I'm sure).

But still, I get your point, a console is definitely a cheaper alternative to a PC, but I don't think it's as cheap an alternative as it used to be. The "enthusiast gamer" descriptor is obviously very subjective, but I know people that "game" on $300 laptops. I don't think the appeal in consoles these days is there cheaper cost so much as their plug-and-play functionality. Unfortunately (for those of us that still build our own gaming rigs), that mentality is spilling over into the PC game market, which is why so many PC games are console ports, although I suppose I shouldn't really complain, as I'm still viably using a computer I built 4 years ago to play new games to this day at what I would consider console-equivalent (if not a little better) graphics settings. I admit I may be just as hazy in my own reckoning here as people are on console/game pricing, but I remember having to upgrade a hell of a lot more often than I do these days, especially graphics cards, which was a yearly expense for me between the late 90's to about the mid 2000's.

Then again, maybe it's more that I just "don't care" enough to buy the latest and greatest anymore. Either way, I really don't think we have it any worse these days than we used to, I think we're just hazy on how bad things used to be back in the day.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[tbannist]

I'm pretty sure that most of the big players in the content industries think control precedes profits. They're predisposed to think so by corporate environments. There's an old saying among business people that businesses are not a democracy. That always struck me as one of the stupidest things you could say to any employee. Essentially, it's "your [expert] opinions don't matter because you work for me". I've met some people who think like these media conglomerates, and I'd be willing to bet that many of these guys are absolutely enraged by the second hand market in addition to unauthorised sharing. They view used [game, CD, record, DVD] sales as theft just like "piracy". They think the people selling these used products are profiting from their work without paying them which is their new definition of theft.

Because many of these executives got to their positions by being petty, controlling and possessive jerks, they are now unable to see the benefit in any other sort of behaviour. So they expect once they have eliminated the used game sales, people will have no choice but to give them tons of money. When they don't get it, they will blame piracy, because it's safe for them to blame every strategic failure on piracy.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Moheeheeko]

In the long run PC gaming is cheaper than console. While console gamers are gearing up for their next $600 console, PC gamers can just keep using current hardware to play new games. Also right out of the gate PC games are $10 cheaper, not taking into account that some games were purchased in online sales for $10-$15.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Anonymous Coward]

A corporation exists for the sole purpose of making money. There is no point in attaining control if it does not result in higher profits. There is really no point if it actually results in lower profits.

Well, it is perfectly possible that obtain control leads to higher profits, as indicated by http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2765669&cid=39571371

If the game makers control the used market, they effectively get all of GameStop's profits, which currently they see none of.

Even in the event they don't go to used games themselves, their actions actually won't lower profits, as again, they aren't seeing any profits today anyway from used sales.

The more used games you buy (compared to new), the less impact you actually have on their bottom line. So even if there are a lot of people buying used, their affect on the bottom line is small. Whereas you only need a small number of people to buy new to see an impact. One reason why first day sales are so important (ditto for opening weekends on movies, first week sales of music albums, etc.)

So from a shareholder perspective, actions that focus on that gold 20% (in the 80/20 rule) over the majority are not petty or counterproductive, so they have little reason to object.

Again, I'm not saying I like it. It's just the reality business.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[amicusNYCL]

Console makers realize people aren't going to go for required always-on internet, lockout of online play beyond the original owner, or the various other schemes they have tried to keep people other than the original purchaser from using physical media.

Wait, if console makers realize that, then why are they moving towards required always-on internet, lockout of online play beyond the original owner, and the various other schemes they have tried to keep people other than the original purchaser from using physical media?

I mean, if consumers don't want those things, and console makers realize that consumers don't want those things, then why are they going out of their way to implement them?

If they want to move to an online distribution model then they need to make it easy to use and access, have low restrictions, and make the prices slightly cheaper. That's all they need to do, they don't need to require an internet connection or associate physical media with specific consoles.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Clovis42]

Oh yeah, also, historically speaking, we're paying much less for a new game than we used to be. Ditto consoles.

That's nice, but it really doesn't have anything to do with it. Why do I care what I paid for games in the past? What I care about now is how much money I have to spare on entertainment now, and comparing how much a gaming costs versus some other entertainment.

For me, gaming is fantastic because, at least on PC, it's so extremely cheap. They definitely aren't going to pull in any PC gamers if they find a way to keep the prices in the $60 range for longer.

It doesn't matter how much it cost in the past or how much it cost to make. The only thing that matters is what people are willing to pay for it now.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Marc_Hawke]

This is absolutely the truth. I've never been able to afford to own a 'real' console. The initial investment is more like a 'trap.' After you buy the console itself, it's a never-ending chain of more purchases. You need to buy more controllers and memory cards. You have to purchase each and every game you ever want to play. And in the past there was nothing else to do with the console if you weren't playing the games.

With a PC, the initial investment is larger, but then it's done and I never have to drop another cent on it if I don't want to. I have a large back-library of games that still work. I have free-games on the internet. I have game demo's galore. I can also use it for about a bazillion 'value-added' things that have nothing to do with gaming.

Having it be twice the initial investment is overcome in a matter of months, and I'll actively use my PC much longer than I'll actively use the console. (keyword 'actively').

Now, with the newer generations and the online capabilities, they are introducing things like Virtual Console, Indie games, game demos, other uses (ie Netflix), so they are getting to have at least a 'little' more value than they had before, but it still doesn't hold a candle to a simple PC.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Anonymous Coward]

In the long run PC gaming is cheaper than console. While console gamers are gearing up for their next $600 console, PC gamers can just keep using current hardware to play new games. Also right out of the gate PC games are $10 cheaper, not taking into account that some games were purchased in online sales for $10-$15.

That is assuming you have purchased a new rig, or upgraded. My gaming laptop that was awesome a couple years ago does not play the newer stuff anything near good quality. I purchased my 360 a couple years ago because it was cheaper, overall, to game on that over the long term than to upgrade my PC so I could play a new release AAA title at least once a year.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Nethemas the Great]

If they want control, then they need to price used games out of the market. The only reason the secondary market exists is due to the fact that they've priced new games out of reach of their target market--kids, especially teens. If they'd make their games affordable by the kids that play them they'd more than make up the difference in volume. $60+ for the typical 20 hours worth of content is not a good value even to adults with a reasonable income. People will bleed only as much money as they have and it's human nature to get good value for that money. If that means buying used, lending, or some other less legal means people will always find a way to avoid being gouged by what they consider unreasonable prices.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[tbannist]

Once you accept that piracy is theft, then it becomes clear that lowering prices is also theft. After all, look at all the imaginary money that won't be collected on each sale at the lower price. No clearly, it's a much better and profitable idea to increase the price and use that money to pay for anti-theft (used games) measures. You can't trust people, after all, we already know they're thieves (piracy).

Or at least, that's what I figure the pointy-haired managers would say to that. Simply put they don't want to lower prices or have people buying used games. When you consider that the objective is to keep prices high and eliminate used games, what they're doing makes perfect sense. Although I agree that it is foolhardy and likely to bankrupt at least one of the consoles if they go through with the plan.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Scarletdown]

They damn well better lower the prices on new games. Or my new gaming platform just may be an iPad buying games off the the app store.

Meh. I'm just going to stick with what I currently have (Original XB, PS2, Wii, and many of the even older consoles, plus an older machine with MAME set up to output to the TV). I have way too many games for all these systems to catch up on to even bother with getting any new consoles. Still, if I can score a used one cheap, I would get a 360 at some point within the next year or two when the whim strikes (or if Rumble Roses for the 360 turns up cheap at Pawn-X-Change, Gamestop, or Goodwill).

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Anonymous Coward]

We also used to get much more money per unit of time spent at work than we do these days. :)

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Anonymous Coward]

Console games in the early days came on custom ROMs and the cost of producing the chip was fairly high - certainly a lot higher than duplicating a DVD. This is why games took off on the 8 bit computers - you could buy a game on tape (in the Uk certainly) for £5-£10 and it was as good as or better than the console equivalent. It probably cost that much just to burn the ROM chip for a Ninendo cart. I think the most expensive tape game I bought was Elite (1984), that cost around £15 but did include loads of stuff in the box - manual, novella etc.

Also realistically in the early 80s there wasn't much competing for the gaming dollars - you could get a console & a cheap computer and maybe a VCR or CD player. Nowadays there's a ton of electronics people own which all eats into their budget - be it cell phones, tablets, ereaders, 3D TVs or whatever.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Anonymous Coward]

But the point that someone else here made, and that the games executives and you miss, is that the full-price game market is subsidized by the used game market. If the people who buy new/full-price games use the money they get back from selling their game used as part of their new game budget, then by killing the used game market, there will be less money available for the full price market and less sales and profits from new games. By shrinking the market, they will make their platforms less interesting for game developers.

I had a similar discussion a decade ago with somebody who used to produce videos for swing dance conventions who was incensed at the lost sales from illegal copying of his videos. I explained that, given the price of his videos, a group of us were willing to pool our money, buy one copy, and share or or pass copies between us. However if it wasn't possible to do that, we wouldn't all buy his videos full price. Instead we would all go to more dance conventions to dance and he wouldn't see any sales from people like us instead of the one sale he did make. His sales and profits would go down.

These days, I don't go to as many dance conventions and when I do I'll buy my own copy if I felt the performances are worth it. The videos now are also substantially cheaper (even more so if you consider economic inflation) because there is more competition due to lower barriers of entry in terms of equipment cost.

A similar thing is happening with the used video game market, except that game reselling doesn't infringe copyright law and is therefore legal.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[CronoCloud]

Games are more affordable than they've ever been, don't you remember the Atari and NES days and what game prices were then? Now take inflation in account.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[CronoCloud]

If the people who buy new/full-price games use the money they get back from selling their game used as part of their new game budget,

The people who do that aren't "general video gamers", they're Madden-ites (or ESPN-ites) or Call of the Medal of the Battlefield-ites.

Real Gamers don't trade in games.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[CronoCloud]

you can't compare the console industry with Steam for one reason:

PC gamers are notoriously cheap-ass people who will pirate at the drop of the hat, or whenever they feel butthurt about anything. Have you seen the Diablo 3 thread?

It's even worse in the second world like the pirate havesn in Eastern Europe or Brazil.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Nyder]

Once you accept that piracy is theft, then it becomes clear that lowering prices is also theft. After all, look at all the imaginary money that won't be collected on each sale at the lower price. No clearly, it's a much better and profitable idea to increase the price and use that money to pay for anti-theft (used games) measures. You can't trust people, after all, we already know they're thieves (piracy).

Or at least, that's what I figure the pointy-haired managers would say to that. Simply put they don't want to lower prices or have people buying used games. When you consider that the objective is to keep prices high and eliminate used games, what they're doing makes perfect sense. Although I agree that it is foolhardy and likely to bankrupt at least one of the consoles if they go through with the plan.

I'm pretty sure they consider "theft" to be anything that doesn't put money in their pockets.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[tbannist]

I'm pretty sure they consider "theft" to be anything that doesn't put money in their pockets.

I can't disagree.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Hatta]

If you charge more, you move fewer units. Charge less and you move more units. Depending on exactly where you are in the supply/demand curve, you can actually increase revenues by dropping prices.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Tassach]

People will bleed only as much money as they have and it's human nature to get good value for that money.

Bullshit. The entire fashion industry exists solely because people will buy status symbols at insanely inflated prices. People will line up around the block to spend money they don't have (borrowed at usurious rates) so they can latest greatest status symbol.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Daniel Phillips]

Here's the thing, though, games are expensive to make, and getting more and more so every day. But are we getting better games for that bigger investment? Prettier games? Sure. Better sound? Yup. Good voice acting and mo-cap? Indeed. But are the GAMES getting better?

Well here's my data point: I just can't get into Skyrim. Everything about the engine is upgraded but the world is just not compelling enough to get involved in. Frankly, I don't care what my stats are any more, I can hardly even see them. The map doesn't look anything like a map. The inventory doesn't look like inventory, it looks like menues. You can't see your character as you change equipment. Dragon fights are all wait-for-it-to-sit-down and no strategy. Meh. I used to always use Oblivion to demo to people how immersive gaming has become and now that Skyrim is out, I still demo Oblivion and not Skyrim. I don't really care what Bethesda comes out with next.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[captjc]

One, a laptop for gaming is a terrible idea anyway. You want something with a discrete graphics card (preferably upgradable).

The most important thing to remember is, that as newer games come out, you eventually have to turn down the graphics settings. You can't expect all games to run on max settings. Plus, to be fair, most console games usually run at a lower resolution at the equivalent of "Medium" or "Low Quality" anyway (maybe with a few console specific tweaks).

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Nethemas the Great]

I will agree that "status symbols" short-circuit rational thinking in many individuals. However, I am not aware of any cultural trends wherein video games, nor things like toothpaste, groceries, books, prescription medicine, etc. are being treated as "status symbols". They just aren't things that you go around publicly displaying to demonstrate superiority and achievement. Accordingly people don't go around indiscriminately blowing large amounts of cash on these things just to show off. They try to get as much as they can for as little as possible.

Re:If they kill the used game market,

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting that inflation is based on the cost of certain necessities not income. Games, not being a necessities, tend to follow income rather than inflation. Logically a person must buy necessities so there will always be a sale, but non essential items like games can lose sales if they hit a price which people don't like paying.

Higher profits

[Enderandrew]

Killing used sales doesn't mean higher profits for console makers. Those who are only willing to spend $20 on a used title aren't suddenly going to drop $400+ for a new console and then start paying $60 for new games. They'll likely just spend $20 on used games for current gen titles like they do. Console makers will hurt the adoption of their consoles and lower profits. And some gamers will be less likely to spend $60 on games that already currently do so, if there is no longer an option to sell the game back and make back some of their money.

I don't understand how Microsoft and Sony think this will lead to higher profits. And frankly if Microsoft or Sony does this, but the other does not, then it will just drive business to that console.

Re:Higher profits

[Eponymous Coward]

I don't understand how Microsoft and Sony think this will lead to higher profits.

I sometimes think that high prices aren't all about profit. It almost seems like Microsoft / Sony / Nintendo think it would be an insult to offer their best titles for $15 even if that meant they would make much more money. Prestige matters to them.

Re:Higher profits

[firex726]

I was rather late to the console party. I got a PS3 for it's media capabilities, but picked up a few used/sale games due to how cheap they were; I mostly play them when I have a parry, let them out and let people manage playing them for themselves. I have not and will not drop $60 for a new game, I don't even do that with my PC which is my primary gaming platform.

Re:Higher profits

[vlm]

Might be granny and auntie christmas purchase marketing. "the $60 game must be better than the $30 game... I'll buy junior the $30 game"

Re:Higher profits

[vlm]

Thanks /. for the post editing button.... not

Re:Higher profits

[localman57]

They aren't going to be married to a $60 price point. If they cut out the used game market, then it becomes a curve over time. Right now, we have a situation where a small number of die hards pay $100 + for a pre-release version with some extra trinkets, the first-day adopters pay $60 for a new game, a large number of people buy it at retail for $40 a year later, then it goes in the bargin bin for $20 or $30 a few years later. That's the curve. The problem for publishers is that they have to compete with their own used games at the end of this curve.

The new model will look different, and will vary a lot from game to game. Basically, the game publishers will try to maximize revenue by getting each customer to pay the highest price they are willing to pay, with the reward of getting the game sooner than you would have for a lower price. When your distribution costs approach zero as they do with digitial distribution (remember that Wal-Mart probably gets somewhere between $10 and $20 out of that $60), you can sell a game for $7 and still make a profit. And that beats not making a profit. So expect used games on consoles to follow the same thing that's happened on Steam. Eventually some pretty good but old games will show up for a few dollars on the consoles; this is a price point that isn't worth GameStop's trouble. There's already some flavor of this with the fact that you can buy MarioCart for N64 on the Wii market for $5.

Re:Higher profits

[MikePo]

They both have to do it or it will not work, but if they get together, the masses will unfortunately follow

Re:Higher profits

[nitehawk214]

Might be granny and auntie christmas purchase marketing. "the $60 game must be better than the $30 game... I'll buy junior the $30 game"

Thanks /. for the post editing button.... not

Or your Auntie or Granny just doesn't like you much.

Re:Higher profits

[Enderandrew]

Technically, it is the game publisher who sets the price. For instance, at one point someone decided to challenge the Madden franchise by offering a $20 alternative.

Developers and publishers have both been going belly up. Budgets on games are going through the roof. You need $20 million to put together a AAA title these days, with some games costing $100 million to make.

NES games in 1985 were $35, which is over $70 in today's dollars. But the cost of making a game is considerably higher today than it was in 1985. Some people claim that there are more consumers today, so you can sell more copies.

But there were 62 million NES consoles sold. There have been 62 million PS3 consoles sold and 65 million XBox 360 consoles sold. Given that many people have replaced 360's due to defective hardware, I'm not sure you can honestly say you can expect more sales from a console game today than during the height of the NES.

$60 isn't ridiculous when you look at it. I don't know why people felt $35 was fine in 1985, but assume better games today should sell for $15 as you suggest.

Re:Higher profits

[Rifter13]

Console games used to be $50. They bumped them to $60, and the secondary market took off, after that. They took the market past what it could handle. I do believe that this will hurt consoles more than anything. Most "kids" I know, buy used. That is a fairly large demographic to cut out.

Re:Higher profits

[Enderandrew]

As a kid I remember saving up money to buy Super Mario 3 for $35. If you account for inflation, that's over $70 in today's dollars.

Console game prices do go up in time, but that's because all prices go up over time.

Re:Higher profits

[drinkypoo]

Technically, it is the game publisher who sets the price.

While that's true, Microsoft and Sony both pressure the publisher towards higher-priced games in a variety of ways. Examine for example Halo. All the IP is controlled by a holding company controlled by Microsoft so it's not like there's any separation there. Halo games have all the fancy crap, the themes and the videos and the DLC. If you want to have that stuff for your game you have to shell out a bunch of bucks to Microsoft for them to handle the downloads and such for you on a service which is then paid for again by the players who subscribe to it. Consequently if you want your game to not look like it has a crappy feature set compared to Halo you're going to need to spend some money, and that money has to come from somewhere, so you're going to have to charge more if you want to look like you care about providing the features that Xbox 360 players have been convinced they should expect, when most of those features basically amount to providing free advertising for games — worse than free, in fact, you're paying them for the privilege of advertising their game when you pay for some avatar DLC or a system theme.

$60 isn't ridiculous when you look at it. I don't know why people felt $35 was fine in 1985, but assume better games today should sell for $15 as you suggest.

Used games ought to be available, though, at which point they're $15. The players who want to have lots of people to play multiplayer with bear the burden of development by paying full price. No multiplayer, no incentive to pay a lot, IMO.

Re:Higher profits

[Tharsman]

Those who are only willing to spend $20 on a used title aren't suddenly going to drop $400+ for a new console and then start paying $60 for new games.

Here is the biggest issue with your observation. The problem is not people buying old used games for $20 bucks. The problem is people that just pay $57 bucks at a GameStop for a used game instead of paying the $60 for the new copy.

At every level, the only one winning here is GameStop. The used copies are rarely in a condition where they are only worth 3 bucks less, yet that’s the undercut range they go for with used games is only between $2 to $5. Given the conditions they sell them at, these used games should be worth about 50% of the new copy price.

Given no choice, most these people will just buy new, heck, if GameStop was not pushing the used copy down their throats with "incentives" like free magazine subscriptions and discounts for a yearly fee, they would never had looked at the used copy anyways.

I am not in favor of used copy banning, but it's this predatory actions from chains like GameStop that are actually hurting many studios that barely can make a profit due to not having the marketing backing that you see behind titles like Modern Warfare.

Re:Higher profits

[Rifter13]

One of the MAJOR problems, though, is that inflation has gone up, while general salaries have remained stagnant. So, people don't make a LOT more than they did 10-20 years ago, but things cost more. It's getting to the point right now, that charging $60 for game is going to slow sales for many, MANY titles. I think the REAL gaming success story, over all, is Steam. They are very aggressive on pricing, and they just send you games, when you want them, day or night.

Re:Higher profits

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't going to be married to a $60 price point,

Of course not, $70 is a much better price point.

Re:Higher profits

[Anonymous Coward]

The cartridges contained additional physical hardware, today you're just buying a disk with raw data.

Re:Higher profits

[tecnico.hitos]

It doesn't matter to the publishers whether the gamers that spend $20 a month on used games will only buy a new game every 3 months. For them, that is profit already. Not a cent spent on used games goes to the publishers and studios. It all goes to Gamestop and other retailers.

Even if people buy 1 new game every six months rather than 10 used games a month, it's more beneficial for the publishers that way.

Re:Higher profits

[localman57]

If that's what the market will bear, then that's what the price will be. If people are willing to pay it, then it's a fair price. This sucks for poor people who happen to be video game enthusiasts, but such is the way with a free market.

The other thing to remember is that we're not talking about bread, or water, or heating oil, or any of a variety of fundamental needs. It really is pretty viable for you to decide to go down to the library and read a book for free instead of playing the latest video game. Then buy it when it drops to $40 or whatever your purchase point is.

Re:Higher profits

[Enderandrew]

Those people are idiots. And that behavior will stop pretty quick given that many games now include a one-time code for some of the content. The used copy is often devalued by $10 by these online codes, making it really hard to sell a used game for anything more than $50.

If someone purchases a new game for $60, they consume that code, and then someone later buys that game used with less content for $50, then the publisher was never going to get that sale. That consumer has determined they aren't willing to spend more than $50. And the publisher likely can't afford to sell that game for $50 brand new.

Re:Higher profits

[localman57]

It's getting to the point right now, that charging $60 for game is going to slow sales for many, MANY titles.

I don't believe this to be true. We're at a point where at debut, premire titles sell in the hundreds of thousands of copies within the first 24 hours of release. There are release parties, where people rejoice in their freedom to drop three Jacksons plus tax for the right to get a game within minutes of its availability. There was nothing of this magnitude in the NES era.

Re:Higher profits

[Guppy06]

Prestige matters to their investors.

FTFY

Re:Higher profits

[Anonymous Coward]

... The used copies are rarely in a condition where they are only worth 3 bucks less, yet that’s the undercut range they go for with used games is only between $2 to $5.

Heck, you could say the same about their "new" games. I've never understood how they could get away with calling a game new when it's been taken out of it's sealed packaging, put in a sleeve in a drawer and employees are allowed to take those copies home to play. Well, for that matter, I've never understood why anyone would buy anything there, but I guess that's just me...

Re:Higher profits

[Tharsman]

That's the curve. The problem for publishers is that they have to compete with their own used games at the end of this curve.

Excellent statement but this bit is a bit off. The problem for publishers is not at the end of the curve, but at the start. Game chains like GameStop will carefully calculate demand and order as few copies as they need to seed a local market of used copies. They will do their best to brainwash children into beating games and return them for "amazing credit value" (rip-off values) and then push a full wall of these new titles for a $2 dollar discount.

Heck, look at Modern Warfare right now at GameStop's website. Amazing savings, eh? $2 whole bucks saved in exchange of a box filled with store stickers and thorn box!

You will find even great games back in the used bins in large numbers and an artificially created scarcity for new copies of the "hot" title. See, kids eventually are "educated" that should they return the game as soon as they can from release date, they will get more money back (still a rip-off value but a lesser rip-off.) This is not a new practice, but as games get more expensive to produce, and the market becomes more competitive, it becomes a larger issue, especially for smaller game titles (not so much for the Modern Warfare’s of the world.)

I actually perceive the end of the curve used copies to be extremely undesirable for most people. At that point they are so thorn and destroyed that you may as well just get the new copy for $20.

This is one of the reasons online play has become so big in the last few years: online components tend to encourage people to keep their games for longer instead of just beating a campaign and returning the thing.

Re:Higher profits

[Enderandrew]

The median household income has risen 30% since 1990. Prices have gone up about 65%. So there is definitely a disparity, but people didn't make MORE money 20 years ago. They made 30% less.

It should be noted that we're in a recession. If the economy hadn't tanked, there probably wouldn't be as much of a disparity in income growth rate and inflation.

Re:Higher profits

[Enderandrew]

Option A). 3 used games on current gen consoles they already one

Option B). Spend $400 on a new console, and then purchase 1 new game for the same price as 3 used games

You honestly think the budget gamers are all going with option b?

Re:Higher profits

[Tharsman]

Those people are idiots.

Those people are usually children or parents that don't care. Neither makes them idiots, just uninformed. GameStop (flagship chain doing it, not the only one) preys on these people. Unfortunately, most games are actually purchased by either uninformed parents or children.

There ARE some idiots out there, too, helping the process (I do know a few) but for the most part it's the children and parents.

Re:Higher profits

[Guppy06]

That's only true for the NES and its infamous mappers and select titles on other systems (e. g. SuperFX chip in Star Fox and Yoshi's Island), unless you're counting lithium batteries used for NV storage. Other than that, a cartridge is just a ROM chip with pin-out leads.

The cartridge was the medium of choice because of its solid-state durability and its ridiculously fast read times. Nobody planned on using the format to extend the Famicom's 1970's technology into the 1990's.

Re:Higher profits

[Rifter13]

You are talking about PREMIER titles. There are a handful of those launched a year. I am talking about the 20 titles coming out this month, during the spring doldrums. There will always be those VERY top-shelf franchises. But, you are starting to really see some push-back on these titles that are released yearly, with very minimal updates. Studios are looking to maximize profits. Core gamers are caught on the fringes of main stream gaming, and few games cater to them. The main-stream gamers are good for big purchases on these big titles, but the smaller titles suffer. We won't see another Steel Battalion type game that requires a specialized controller, even though it totally sold out (not enough profit margin). We don't see nearly as many innovative games, outside of the indie market...

Re:Higher profits

[Xeranar]

You really hit the biggest point. The average price of a game at $50 remained so steady that inflation surpassed it. Now even at $60 it's still cheaper than NES/Atari games. On top of that of the $60 the game developers see about half that price or a touch over. Game Stop/Wal-Mart/Best Buy are taking at least $10-20 of that for simply stocking it. Another $10 goes to the manufacturer/shipping. There are a great deal of hands out there getting their share.

As for the actual article: it's crap. the Xbox 360's GPU is in line with the X1800 while the Wii U will be minimum a 4000-series radeon. The PS3 is no better with a 7800 Geforce architecture. Both are seriously 6+ years old. Even with a modest upgrade and a shorter life cycle the Wii U will be able to compete directly with the other two and will more often than not. The only problem I ever saw with the Wii was the limitation of the hardware that crippled the software side for AAA games. Now with that resolved if the price is kept down I see no reason not for it to succeed.

Re:Higher profits

[Rifter13]

I said salaries remained stagnant... so 30% increase vs 65% price increase = 35% less buying power. That was my point. We don't have the buying power we did 20 years ago. The recession is a small blip, and hasn't dropped wages 35%. No matter HOW you look at it, our income has gone down, vs what things cost. Games are very much luxury good. People Will A) not buy consoles and keep with the old hardware, and game mfg will have to deal with that. B) buy new consoles and buy used games (which console makers and game studios are trying to stop, or C) people will pirate. That is pretty much the long and short of it.

If game companies go down this route, I think it will ultimately hurt them more, than help them. They need to look at the long term health of the industry instead of short-term profit increases.

Re:Higher profits

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]
I don't understand how Microsoft and Sony think this will lead to higher profits. And frankly if Microsoft or Sony does this, but the other does not, then it will just drive business to that console.
[/quote]

It's not the console makers that want this it's the game publishers who want this, used games only fund the retail outlet not the developer or console maker. So the markup price(2nd hand price - rebuy price) Gamestop/retailer puts on the 2nd hand games is pure profit for gamestop, publishers don't like this, hence the $10 EA online passes.

Microsoft and Sony make money on the peripherals for the console, like harddrives and controllers, thats why the simple WIFI dongle was $60 and why the harddrives for 360 are so expensive.

This curbe the second hand market is purely MS and Sony's attempt to keep the game publishing companies happy.

Re:Higher profits

[autocannon]

You wonder why there was nothing like that with NES? NES, and all other systems of that age were driven towards teens and children. Adults in general did not play video games. The NES had a very core audience of teens and younger. Modern consoles today have much broader audiences.

Today, we have adults who grew up playing video games and still enjoy them. We have games geared towards adults tastes. It's a whole different marketing strategy when you're trying to get people in their 20s and 30s and up to part with money they earned than teens and younger who have allowances to save and mommies to bug.

Re:Higher profits

[lordbeejee]

His point is that the hardware on which a game came was a considerable percentage of the price to the manufacturer. Even the NV storage was costly, I remember nintendo raising the price on some snes games blaming the cost of flashmem. Now that cost is simply the cost of pressing a disc.

Re:Higher profits

[ifrag]

GameStop (flagship chain doing it, not the only one) preys on these people.

GameStop employees seem to also have a mandate to try to pressure you into buying used if they have any. Rather annoying when I have to tell them 3 times that I would like a NEW copy of the game, complete with the stupid DLC codes and everything. I've pretty much stopped shopping there, I'd rather just get it through Amazon these days.

Re:Higher profits

[Anonymous Coward]

The real part of the used game market they want to cut is when Gamestop sells a used copy of a new game for $55 alongside the new $60 version. People aren't going to not buy a game over $5, but the difference in profit to the developer, publisher, and console maker on the $60 version is massive compared to the $55 version... in that it's not $0. The only company making anything on the $55 version is Gamestop.

Doing something about $20 used games at the flea market isn't their primary concern.

What they really need to do is move towards digital distribution much more strongly then they have. The margins there are far better because it cuts out a middleman and distribution costs are lower. If they stay married to retail then prices will only go up and they'll get destroyed by mobile.

Re:Higher profits

[tecnico.hitos]

No. I never said that. That also doesn't change a thing about what I said.

If they aren't aren't buying new consoles, nor new games, the money of the budget gamers never reaches the industry. They might as well not exist to the industry. Only the retailers make any profit from them and they aren't responsible for the development of new games.

Re:Higher profits

[Tharsman]

They do are forced to tell you. The employees themselves tend to hate it, but managers are always with their eyes wide open and will reprimand them if they don’t try to sell you used games, DLCs and/or their stupid membership card program (that in turn is designed to sell you more overpriced used games.)

I happen to be good at saying "No", and it's not as easy as you may think. It took me years to perfect a solid and confident NO that transmits 100% certainty that going further is a total waste of time.

But still I do avoid GameStop like crazy. I rarely buy of Amazon and tend to go for it only if I'm looking for bargains in used titles (buy directly from the users, sell directly to the consumers! Go sell via amazon or eBay!) If I want a new game, I go to Best Buy. All I have to do there is tell the guy "no thank you" when he asks if I need any help and the experience suddenly becomes extremely pleasant. Best Buy also happens to always carry generous number of copies for new releases so, to this day, only once have I walked out empty handed off their store when I wanted a new copy (and that was launch day for Assassin's Creed 2 for Xbox.)

Re:Higher profits

[tlhIngan]

Those people are usually children or parents that don't care. Neither makes them idiots, just uninformed. GameStop (flagship chain doing it, not the only one) preys on these people. Unfortunately, most games are actually purchased by either uninformed parents or children.

There ARE some idiots out there, too, helping the process (I do know a few) but for the most part it's the children and parents.

Most people I know look at the difference between "used" and "new" to figure out if "new" is better. After all, at $2, I'd just ante up the $2+tax extra for a new copy - used/pre-owned already carries a certain stigma of "you don't know what you're gonna get".

Not that I don't buy used games - but it has to be a significant difference - $5 savings isn't much in the grand scheme of things. If it's something like a present for someone, the difference has to be even greater. In fact, most of my used game purchases tend to be older games...

Re:Higher profits

[jandrese]

ROM chips just made the most sense because the removable media of the era was so terrible. Consider that a lot of NES games came on 2 Megabit cartridges, that's 256kB. A contemporary disk drive might be something like the Commodore 1541, where each disk held 164kB of data. Worse, it took on the order of minutes to read that much data off of one of those disks, even before you account for the braindead bus the C64 was saddled with. Later on, there were 8mb carts (1mB!). High density floppies didn't start to arrive until halfway through the NES's life cycle.

Add in the fact that you can put memory in each cart if you're blowing out the base system's RAM space, or even other processors, and the carts are really a no-brainer. It's not even hard to see why Nintendo held on to Carts after everybody else moved to optical disks, especially since those early optical disks were still quite slow, even though the total capacity completely blew away anything you could get with a cart. It's a fine tradeoff for anybody who is willing to lovingly craft the world to look good with mostly flat or gouraud shaded polys. It just sucked for all of the third party developers who were making a lot of use of textures to hide the low poly counts of those systems, and who didn't want a cartoony aesthetic to their game.

Re:Higher profits

[amicusNYCL]

Budgets on games are going through the roof. You need $20 million to put together a AAA title these days, with some games costing $100 million to make. ...
$60 isn't ridiculous when you look at it.

First, I'd like to see some citations on that first claim on how much it takes to produce a major title, or whatever your definition of "AAA" is. Second, let's look at the some real numbers. Skyrim shipped 7 million units in the first week of its release (yeah, an average of a million units a day). At $60 a pop, that works out to $420 million in one week (actual figures claim $450 million). By Dec. 16, a little over a month after release, that had grown to 10 million copies shipped and about $620 million in sales. It sounds to me like they could have put the price at $20 or $30 and still made a killing, and possibly would have even doubled their units sold.

It can be hard to find specific numbers for arbitrary games, but it looks like Fallout New Vegas sold about 5 million copies for $300 million about 3 weeks after it was released. 1997's Age of Empires has sold over 3 million copies. The original Halo has sold over 5 million copies. By the end of 2008 the original Half-Life had sold over 9 million copies, how much do you think it took to develop that?

Re:Higher profits

[Enderandrew]

The carts still weren't that expensive to produce. And I was mistaken. NES games were $50 at launch, which is akin to over $100 today. And the best estimate I can find online for the development cost for Super Mario Bros. is $1.4 million. Even that sounds high given that it was a fairly small development team, and cheap art assets.

Compare that to $100+ million to make Max Payne 3 today, but selling the game for $60, which is cheaper comparatively than NES games that are inflation adjusted.

The main point remains that people who insist AAA games should be $20 or less aren't being reasonable.

Re:Higher profits

[badpool]

Data doesn't change on account of being used, but hardware does. This is why a second hand market made some sense back in the cartridge days (though in principle you were still paying for an "experience" - I digress), but makes no sense to me today.

If they go full-bore with digital distribution, MS should aim for a tiered sales plan where the price of the game drops over time, but is tied to the owner (ala Steam). I'd love to see gradual price decline, on a day-to-day basis, instead of sudden dramatic drops. This could work on a digital download service operating in parallel to the current physical distribution model. If you want the disc and the ability to sell it "used", fine, you pay $60. But if you buy online, you pay $50 today, $49.95 tomorrow, etc...

Re:Higher profits

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "torn".

Re:Higher profits

[Enderandrew]

http://www.destructoid.com/max-payne-3-potentially-cost-105-million-to-develop-211058.phtml

I interviewed Brian Fargo recently, and he cited $20 million dollars as the price point to get in the AAA market.

There are only 25 PS3 titles to ever reach 1 million sales. Most games will not sell 1 million copies. When I look at a practical business model, I'm assuming a relatively low budget ($20 million as opposed to $100 million for titles like Max Payne 3) but also assuming I'm not selling 1 million copies.

And funny that you cite Fallout: New Vegas, but Obsidian just ended up laying off 30 people. The owner of the company hasn't taken any salary in over six months and they're fighting bankruptcy. But surely, they're making too much money and should lay off the rest of their staff.

Re:Higher profits

[Enderandrew]

"gamers that spend $20 a month on used games will only buy a new game every 3 months"

You miss that people who only buy $20 used games aren't suddenly going to be 1 new game instead. This move doesn't generate new revenue because it doesn't make any new customers. They'll just keep buying $20 used games for the current gen of consoles rather than moving to the next gen.

Publishers don't make money off used games currently, but this approach will not increase profits. It will decrease them.

Re:Higher profits

[Anonymous Coward]

option D) buy PC, upgrade it at your own pace

I am working adult. I have money (average in US measure, very good in my country). Time is bigger problem for me. you know ... that Real Life thing ;-)
I am purchasing games when they "mature" like in "Game of the Year Edition", "Gold Edition" etc.
Games are patched then, tested by others (Is it worth to spend money and time on THAT tile?).

Ok, I am not playing in multiplayer games. So year or 2 year delay will not be a problem. (one exception Stars! from time to time)

My profit? I seldom pay more that $15-25 for a game and one or more extensions/DLC. Bugs are fixed after 2 years (esp. for "strategic games").
I can also have cheap hardware - I can buy used parts from hardcore gamers who just upgraded. Or nice used server parts.

For example I am in the middle of my 3rd campaign in "Empire Total War" I did not touched yet "Napoleon Total War" which I have bought as GotY
Before I will be done with that there will be next game from Total War series and there will be "Gold" edition for "Shogun 2 Total War" with all expansions and DLC
for no more that $29.99 but I will wait for promotion when it will go to $19.99

My gaming hardware is 3 year old - Dell PowerEdge 2950 with 2*Xeon L5420 and 8GB RAM. 2*73GB SAS and 2*750GB SATA. and one old GeForce 9800GT.
there is plenty space for grow in this hardware. total cost around $750. And it can be used as another home lab machine for ad hoc testing.

If Your_Age > 15 Then "You do not have to have it NOW" Else "Grow Up"

Re:Higher profits

[Araes]

The average price of a game at $50 remained so steady that inflation surpassed it. Now even at $60 it's still cheaper than NES/Atari games.

On the sale price side, the problem (and part of he reason that game prices stayed at $60) is that real purchasing power eroded over the same time period. Inflation occurred, the value of money decreased, yet pay has not risen for the vast majority of American's commensurate with inflation. The slice of money then available for luxury goods has shrunk as a percentage of income.

Naturally, this is also coupled with the psychological pressures against game cost increases, although many large ticket industries have not fallen prey to this problem.

Re:Higher profits

[Luyseyal]

Maybe it's a reference to his handle, Tharsman?

-l

Re:Higher profits

[barc0001]

Also, they're not factoring in that a lot of people who are buying those new games at $60 a pop have factored in that they're going to get a few weeks of fun out of it and then trade it in for $30-$35 of store credit for the next shiny thing. If they can't get that store credit to apply to that next $60 purchase they're obviously not going to make the next purchase so soon. Plus the fact that they were getting rid of older games and didn't have them around any more might have driven the cycle as well.

Wonder what the publishers will do when they find out that people who were buying 10-12 titles a year like this suddenly change to buying 4-5 per year, or horror of horrors, discover that $30 goes a lot further on Steam than it does on a console without trade-in capability.

Re:Higher profits

[Anonymous Coward]

(remember that Wal-Mart probably gets somewhere between $10 and $20 out of that $60)

I used to run a game shop, and this is almost entirely untrue. Even buying in bulk (1000+ copies) from a mid-tier distributor, you are extremely unlikely to get any more than $2 of that $60. Even assuming Wal-Mart deals in quantities astronomically higher than it's next largest competitor, they will not make anything approaching $10 per copy sold.

Re:Higher profits

[Algae_94]

It's just an indication of the market changing with time. It could be due to a demographic shift with more adults playing games now. Kids have no problem throwing all of their money at video games if they want one. They don't have a lot of other bills to pay. Adult gamers, on the other hand, have a lot of other expenses and bills to pay so they aren't as willing to put out as much money for a new game. That's just a theory. I have no data to back it up.

Re:Higher profits

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of Wal-mart's profit margins are not above 15%. Few things are actually that profitable; most electronics are not seriously profitable for Wal-Mart. They tend to make do with 5% or less profit margins on new games; keep in mind they buy cheaper than other venues due to the size of their orders, so despite having the same price as everyone else they may have more profit on new games in many cases. Places like Gamestop make basically nothing on $60 games; they make nearly their entire profit on the used games.

Re:Higher profits

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit spreading FUD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BeforetaxfamilyincomemedianUS1989-2004.svg

Looks stagnant to me dontcha think.

Re:Higher profits

[Registered Coward v2]

They aren't going to be married to a $60 price point. If they cut out the used game market, then it becomes a curve over time. Right now, we have a situation where a small number of die hards pay $100 + for a pre-release version with some extra trinkets, the first-day adopters pay $60 for a new game, a large number of people buy it at retail for $40 a year later, then it goes in the bargin bin for $20 or $30 a few years later. That's the curve. The problem for publishers is that they have to compete with their own used games at the end of this curve.

Actually, they don't have to compete with used game prices; they could effectively destroy the used game market if they wanted to by aggressive pricing. The margin on used games is huge; primarily for two reasons:

Initial prices are sticky remain high so there is a market for $40 games for long enough to justify taking a risk on buying them in enough quantity to have a reasonable used game selection to meet demand for $40 games

The prices paid for a used game are low enough that the company can survive a price drop on a new game and still make a profit on remaining inventory,/P. If publishers aggressively dropped prices so that there was less certainty about being able to make money off fused games, because new game prices drip quickly and unpredictably, companies would pull back from the used game market and buy games at the price needed to make money after a few price drops; lowering the price a seller of a used game would get when they go to sell it to a GameStop. That would lessen the supply of used games further making a new game purchase likely.

The only question is the net present value of the profit on the total sales a publisher makes using an aggressive pricing policy more than what they currently make? If the answer is yes than they should adopt that strategy.

Re:Higher profits

[CronoCloud]

Don't forget the sound/music! N64 sound sucks ass compared to PSone sound. Not only can the PSone throw redbook audio, it has the space to store LOTS of sound. Multiple languages for voice overs even.

Re:Higher profits

[Nyder]

...You need $20 million to put together a AAA title these days, with some games costing $100 million to make.

...

No you don't. This is the bullshit that Hollywood has done to the gaming market. If that was the case, why the fuck is Angry Birds so god damn popular (don't care for the game myself). Or is it only AAA titles that sell?

Games have been programmed for way less money and sold well during the pre Hollywoodifcation of the gaming industry.

In fact, they're is a ton of Indie games coming out, because a lot of people understand that it doesn't take $20+ Millions of dollars to make a good game.

While I don't have any facts to back me up, from my experience i got more gameplay from the games back in the 80's then I do from the games today, with few exceptions.

Re:Higher profits

[JustSomeProgrammer]

To give an equally relevant data point, I have lots of bills now but I but 10x the games now than I did when I was a kid. Having disposable income is awesome.

Re:Higher profits

[Enderandrew]

I didn't say that you need $20 million for an iOS game, or an indie game. I said you'd need $20 million for a AAA title, and that statement is still true. Not all games are AAA titles, which is why I stipulated that.

Re:Higher profits

[Hatta]

The other other thing to remember is that we're not talking about a scarce good here. It really is pretty viable to log onto the internet and get any of these games at next to no cost. If you're priced out of the market anyway, what reason is there not to pirate?

Re:Higher profits

[Anonymous Coward]

There's already some flavor of this with the fact that you can buy MarioCart for N64 on the Wii market for $5.

Yeah, but that version was fucking awful, so that is about $5 too much.

Re:Higher profits

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

I have two groups of friends that I play games with online. One group are people from my wife's extended family who put on several LAN parties a year and have gradually moved to playing Call of Duty mostly. If I want to play at their LAN party, I should get the game they are currently playing. It's fun, but I'd rather not spend $60/year on a game that I might not play much. Luckily I played World At War and Modern Warfare 2 quite a bit apart from the LAN parties. However I haven't bought the next one yet and I may need to buy two copies of it before next LAN party. The wife plays too so I probably can't just stop attending these.

I also play Age of Empires with another group of friends, my first gaming buddies basically. We've played off and on since Age of Empires 1 (1997) and love it. Now there is Age of Empires Online and we've started playing that, really enjoy it. Actually I haven't played lately as often as they have so they give a little bit of pressure to play more. Grownups do have less time and shoot, I just turned 32.

Basically what I'm saying is that your conditional at the end of your comment doesn't work if you play games with friends. You will need to get the games that they have if you want to play with them.

BTW I game on computer and upgrade at my own pace. My previous computer lasted me about 8 years with a couple upgrades (video card, hard drive). My current computer should also last me a long time.

Re:Higher profits

[amicusNYCL]

And funny that you cite Fallout: New Vegas, but Obsidian just ended up laying off 30 people. The owner of the company hasn't taken any salary in over six months and they're fighting bankruptcy. But surely, they're making too much money and should lay off the rest of their staff.

I can't comment on the organization or management of the company, but if they're having problems making $300 million last for 2 years then maybe there are other issues going on other than the cost of development. Or, to put that another way, I have a hard time believing that New Vegas is the reason for Obsidian's troubles.

When I look at a practical business model, I'm assuming a relatively low budget ($20 million as opposed to $100 million for titles like Max Payne 3) but also assuming I'm not selling 1 million copies.

Citing $20 million as a relatively low budget is sort of stretching the meaning of "low". Speaking of Brian Fargo, I'm sure you're aware of Wasteland 2. He said he could develop that game for $900k, and with the $2 million he has now he's saying he can also port it to 3 platforms. So why does a company need to spend $20 million? What are they spending it on? And $100 million for a game? How many developers does it take to make a game? I'm not arguing the fact that companies actually spend that much money, I'm trying to suggest that they could do it for much less. It's like the stories we occasionally see where the government paid out several million dollars for someone to develop what is essentially a database-driven web site and every developer here wondering where that money goes. Just because they budget and spend that much doesn't mean that they need to in order to get what they want.

You want another example? How about Minecraft? It's sold over 5 million copies. What do you think the 1 developer budgeted for that, do you think he spent $20 million building that game? There's a mindset, not only in game development, that huge big-budget productions are the only way to make large amounts of money, and that's not really the case. Look at Portal, for example.

Re:Higher profits

[slackersurreal]

I do like your day to day price drops, could be done very transparently and give companies like MS huge amounts of data to mine and figure out the best price point for certain titles.

What I don't understand is that if they have this huge market for "used" titles, there is obviously an issue with pricing, people will pay $20-30 for a console title, and will pay this over and over. The price point of $60 and up is just too high, the amount of free games out there these days adopting a free to play models are creaming it in. And with the advent of things like facebook games ala farmville people are realising that their PC's are plausible time wasters just as much as a playstation was.

I guess I'm sort of going off on a tangent there, what I really wanted to say was if they want to destroy the used game market all they have to do is price it out of the picture, they already can and should have. Their "slim" profit margins argument is weak and a joke at best, steam has proven this time and time again with sub $20 game titles, and so has newer players like Humble Bundle (no I don't work for them, just love their work.) Make games seem cheap as chips and everyone will buy them. Right now they are missing out on people like me who have had enough of their shit and simply won't come to the table any more.

The thing that amazes me most about all of this is that MS is a leader in tiered sales plans, they have done this from the get go in everything they do. Well, except the games console market heh.

Re:Higher profits

[Enderandrew]

Because Wasteland 2 is going to be developed with a skeleton staff, largely like a indie game. Wasteland 2 isn't a AAA game from a big publisher.

You can doubt the $20 million figure all you want, but that is the norm for a AAA title. Really big games cost even more.

Obsidian didn't get $300 million in revenue. They got paid a flat fee for developing the game. They were only slated to get a percentage of sales revenue if the game received a Metacritic score of 85, and it got an 84. Oddly enough, all the negative reviews were based on how buggy the engine was that the publisher forced on them. So the publisher got to keep that much more money, and the developer had to lay off 30 people.

Even then, $300 in retail revenue doesn't mean the publisher received $300 million either.

Bethesda payed Obsidian to develop the game. Let's say they paid $20 million. But Bethesda also paid for physically boxing and producing the copies. Those copies need to be shipped to retailers. And on console versions, you have to pay licensing costs to Microsoft and Sony. Let's say Bethesda got $45 out of each $60, and that may be generous. Even then, that would make that particular title very profitable. But New Vegas certainly wasn't the only game produced. You cited 5 million sales, and yet New Vegas isn't listed as reaching 1 million PS3 or 360 sales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

Are you sure it sold 5 million copies?

And what about all the other titles that cost $20+ million to produce but never sell 500k copies?

Re:Higher profits

[Eponymous Coward]

I've seen a bunch of comments here about the costs of putting out a AAA title and I'm not sure how that's relevant. From my experience, budget size isn't a very good indicator for how much fun a game will be and I think you can make a pretty good comparison with movies. The AAA game would be equivalent to the big summer blockbusters. They cost a lot to make but are rarely among the best movie or game of the year. If the market disappeared for $20 million games, I'm not sure anything of value would be lost.

People working at advertising agencies that get a chunk of the $100 million that is spent on marketing COD (for example) might be sad I guess.

Re:Higher profits

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a lot of loaded language about "brainwashing" people into reselling their games when they're finished with them. Don't you think that there's actually a real argument there? If I can buy a game used for 90% of the list price, and sell it back for 10%, I've effectively paid 80% of the usual price for it. That's great for the consumer! If I could pay 80% of list price for my car, I'd be stoked!

You might as well also say that games companies are attempting to brainwash and browbeat players into online play, just to make it less attractive to resell the game and to save themselves development costs for good single-player campaigns. And yet the prices of the games stay the same. Now there is a rip-off.

Re:Higher profits

[mykos]

at one point someone decided to challenge the Madden franchise by offering a $20 alternative

And they paid for it dearly. I was looking forward to NFL 2K on the PC, too.

Fuck EA

Re:Higher profits

[Omestes]

And funny that you cite Fallout: New Vegas, but Obsidian just ended up laying off 30 people. The owner of the company hasn't taken any salary in over six months and they're fighting bankruptcy. But surely, they're making too much money and should lay off the rest of their staff.

From what I've read, they are in money trouble because of some bad licensing with Bethesda, instead of getting straight royalties they went for a multi-million dollar bonus based off of good Metacritic scores. They then had some nasty bugs on release which lead to bad reviews, which lead to no bonus, even if most of those bugs were finally fixed. I'm not 100% sure of this, but I've heard that they little more than broke even on Fallout NV because of this.

Which says: they made a dumb decision, suffer from hubris, and Bethesda is a bit of a dick (see also the Mojang problem).

Re:Higher profits

[amicusNYCL]

I got the sales figures from the articles from each individual game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_New_Vegas#Reception

It sounds to me like the games industry is starting to follow all of the practices that are making the RIAA so successful today. There is an unnecessary amount of politics and overhead involved, I never understood the role of a video game publisher and still don't think they're necessary. I don't see a reason why the developer would not also publish the game that they developed. I just have a hard time imagining why a game should need $100 million to be made (although from what I can find, only GTA4 reached the $100 million mark, and sold 22+ million copies; at $50 each that's $1.1 billion). Doom cost $200,000 to be made and at the time was very expensive (roughly $300k today), and Doom was revolutionary.

Re:Higher profits

[Enderandrew]

Shipping 5 million copies to retailers and selling 5 million copies are another story.

Again, the game is not listed as reaching the 1 million sales mark on the PS3 or 360.

Re:Higher profits

[amicusNYCL]

Well I don't know how many copies they actually sold to get to $300 million revenue, maybe they only sold 1 million copies at $300 each (although the one I bought for my PC was cheaper). I imagine that the majority of their sales occurred through Steam. Regardless, apparently they managed $300 million in revenue and 5 million units shipped without selling even 2 million console copies. And people claim PC gaming is dying...

Re:Higher profits

[RamenJunkie]

It's the same logic the music industry uses to conclude that every single pirated song = a lost sale.

Re:Higher profits

[Xeranar]

Oh I completely agree with you that our real wages have fallen (or as some call the inverse "purchasing power" which is a little more flexible as a concept). If anything I think your comment on psychological pressures is far more interesting. I wonder about the age of gaming increasing to the low-30s being part of that. Many more parents were established and giving their children games in the 80s/90s that went to college and became adults in the 2000s and have to pay for their own gaming habits. The dramatic increase in the number of AAA game releases each year has probably had a negative impact on them as well.

Course this is all subjective theory. It would be interesting research to do though.

Re:Higher profits

[drsquare]

Interestingly, this is the business model which did for 'Game' in the UK. Eventually they alienated the publishers and couldn't get stock.

Re:Higher profits

[Tharsman]

Interesting. If you believe the press I seen, everyone seemed to blame the fall of UK's Game chain to bad game economy, and the supply cutoff was slightly touched as a sign of the chain's death. The cause was not, that I can recall, covered and I at least was left to assume it was a matter of not being able to get afford buying in bulk.

Is there any alternative to the Game chain in the UK? In the US back in the 90s it used to be Babbage’s, Electronic Boutique and Game Stop. Game Stop ended up buying the other two and now they have a "monopoly" of sorts (department stores also sell games but "true geeks" don't buy games where mom buys milk or dad bought his TV.)

To the games industry:

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, how about...um...I don't know...make better, replayable games that people would want to play and keep for years?

Captcha: nonsense

Re:To the games industry:

[Eponymous Coward]

Even if they do that, the games aren't necessarily worth much money.

I still play and love games like Asteroids or Tetris. I've been playing Asteroids for around 30 years now and Tetris for 20. It doesn't get much more replayable than that.

Re:To the games industry:

[Moheeheeko]

No profit in that. You wont want to buy other games if you are satisfied with what you have, at least thats their reasoning.

Re:To the games industry:

[tripleevenfall]

They've already been massively cheaping out by churning out these games that are basically just unreal clones.

Make a few maps and a few weapons, corral a server or two, you're done. No need to invest in an actual story or developing an expensive single player campaign. Force everyone into online play.

Online play also has the bonus effect of making a game useless after most people have moved on to the next big game, thus encouraging the player of the current game to buy something new.

Re:To the games industry:

[residieu]

But if gamers can keep replaying their old games, why would they buy the new ones? Playing old games is picking the pockets of the developer!!!

Re:To the games industry:

[ifrag]

basically just unreal clones

No need to invest in an actual story or developing an expensive single player campaign. Force everyone into online play.

So basically just Unreal Tournament clones. Unreal (and Unreal II) had very big Single Player campaigns by any shooter standard.

Re:To the games industry:

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough, I really loved Mirror's Edge, and have been replaying it frequently, even though it's short and an unreal engine-based game.
Even though the story sucked, too!

No thanks, I don't want a console.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I don't own *ANY* of the new consoles. Between Sony's credit card fiasco and the "we need more money so screw over the consumer" attitude, no thank you. I'll stay on my PC.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[crazyjj]

I'll stay on my PC.

Yeah, you can always buy PC games used!! And no one would even *think* of requiring an always on internet connection for a PC game.

Oh wait...

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[firex726]

It's funny since after a few threads on troublesome releases of games a console is a more locked down PC.
Try and play a game and it over heats your console, some suggested you patch it, while others suggest you re-install it.

I forgot what platform they were talking about after reading the fixes as it's the same stuff you'd hear for the PC.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[tripleevenfall]

Not to worry, the friendly and benevolent folks of the internet develop cracks for these games!

And none of them would even *think* of doing anything malicious, so just go ahead and execute their code on your machine, Administrator.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you cannot afford to buy a game new, wait for a price drop, or get a new hobby and quit whining like a cheerleader who didnt get named prom queen.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[GmExtremacy]

Well, at least there are games without nonsensical DRM and the entire platform isn't locked down. There are games with DRM obviously, but you just have to avoid buying them (don't even pirate them: that's free advertising that they don't deserve).

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[Quiet_Desperation]

I have all the consoles. And a gaming PC. And an iPad.

*Real* gamers play everywhere. :-)

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[crazyjj]

Well, at least there are games without nonsensical DRM

Unfortunately, they're getting few and far-between these days. And many PC developers (not all, but a lot of big names) have come up with some of the most insane DRM schemes of late. It's nuts that you would even need an internet connection to play Skyrim, for example. But if you play it on a PC, you do (not so on a console, but you can bet that's going to follow suit soon enough).

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[tepples]

If you cannot afford to buy a game new, wait for a price drop

By which time the publisher will likely have turned off the matchmaking servers for the game's online multiplayer. Google dnas error 103 to see how this has affected PS2 and PS3 games.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[Moheeheeko]

Last time I checked, Skyrim does not need an internet connection to play, just to activate it the first time.

Either that or my 4 hour session while my internet was being worked on was all in my head.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[Moheeheeko]

Except on pc (which is being discussed, not consoles) this is not the case.

I played Tribes 2 online with people just the other day. Thats totally is less than 6 months old right?

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[Anonymous Coward]

>2012
>not sandboxing Windows

lol

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[Endo13]

You're looking at it with tunnel vision. The beauty of the PC as a gaming platform is that you're not limited to AAA games from big pulishers. Far, far from it. There's so many different PC games available from millions of sources, it would be completely impossible to list them all. The PC doesn't need AAA publishers at all. The second they die or move on, someone else will be there to fill the void.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[tepples]

The beauty of the PC as a gaming platform is that you're not limited to AAA games from big pulishers.

And the beauty of the consoles is that more games support two to four gamepads because people actually have their consoles hooked up to big enough monitors, unlike their PCs. (PCs can be connected to TVs through the appropriate cable, but as you pointed out before, almost nobody does it in practice.) Where does this leave non-big developers that want to make local multiplayer games?

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[Anonymous Coward]

play Tribes:Ascend, its free.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[CronoCloud]

You don't expect them to keep those servers up forever, do you? Heck they only just took down the EQOA servers last week. Though some popular online PS2 games still do work.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[CronoCloud]

Where does this leave non-big developers that want to make local multiplayer games?

Small developers don't make local multiplayer games, it's that simple. If you're small, you do single-player or online and just live with the limitations.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[tepples]

You don't expect them to keep those servers up forever, do you?

No, but I expect them to provide a way to pass the proverbial torch to community-run servers.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[Nyder]

Last time I checked, Skyrim does not need an internet connection to play, just to activate it the first time.

Either that or my 4 hour session while my internet was being worked on was all in my head.

Weird, my cracked version doesn't need to check in to activate it.

So who is getting punished here?

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console.

[Endo13]

And that has what, exactly, to do with this discussion? Oh, right. Nothing at all.

Back to the future

[HBI]

Specifically, back to 1983. It's a big step in that direction. Don't think for a moment that it can't happen again. It can.

Re:Back to the future

[Anonymous Coward]

It can happen, but it won't kill PCs or mobile gaming. In fact, I'm fairly sure the 1983 crash was very beneficial to the PC market.

Re:Back to the future

[Megane]

This is more like the computer games market of the '80s, not the 1983 crash, which was about consoles. The 1983 crash was due to low-priced crapware console games flooding the market, combined with failure of better console systems to take hold in time, which let cheap 8-bit "home computers" fill in the void. It would be like getting a good gaming PC today for $250-$300, making it competitive with the PS3 and 360.

The computer games market of that era was all about constantly upping the ante on copy protection, which is equivalent to what is happening today with constantly upping the ante on DRM. Not that people weren't copying disks left and right back then, even without the internet.

Re:Back to the future

[ArhcAngel]

Loss of publishing control

Activision was founded by Atari programmers who left the company in 1979 because Atari did not allow credits to appear on the games and did not pay employees a royalty based on sales. At the time, Atari was owned by Warner Communications, and the developers felt that they should receive the same recognition that musicians, directors, and actors got from Warner's other divisions. After Activision went into business, Atari quickly sued to block sales of Activision's products, but never won a restraining order and ultimately lost the case in 1982.[7] This court case legitimized third-party development, encouraging companies such as Quaker Oats (with their US Games division) to rush to open video-game divisions, hoping to impress both stockholders and consumers.

You know it's on when Quaker Oats gets in the game baby!

Re:Back to the future

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

LOL that's awesome.

Quaker Oats are the best.

Worked for the PC game market

[crazyjj]

the idea of killing the used games market doesn't make much sense

It does if you're looking to appease developers. And if you think that killing the used console game market is going to hurt developer profits, I would like to submit exhibit A: The PC game industry.

Unfortunately, the consumer suffers. But what's new, huh?

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[Moridin42]

Yep. it worked so well the PC game ecosystem is flourishing! Only.. it isn't, really, unless we're talking indie developers that are hitting close to the mobile app price points. I have a hard time believing Microsoft, Sony, or console development studios are going to aim that low ..

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop your lies, console plebeian. The PC industry is doing great. It makes money, not as much as consoles but way too much to be ignored. Go look at the sales charts instead of parroting this meme without thinking.

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[Moheeheeko]

The main reason that the PC is doing better is that the development companies dont have to make expensive we-lose-our-ass-on-each-sale hardware every 5 years. All they have to do is pop some new parts in the dev machines every 2-3.

Same goes for the consumer. The last time I spent 300+ on PC parts (the cost of a new console by a very modest estimate) My purchase Included one of the most expensive parts to buy, a new monitor. And even then, it isnt NECCISARY to upgrade all that often, I know people who game on PC who havent upgraded in 6+ years.

Then we have Things like steam sales, and if you are patient with your gaming, you can come away smelling like a rose most of the time. That one game you kinda wanted to try 6 months ago but never gort around to it? if it was good, you are looking at $30, not so good? $5-$10.

The videogame hobby as a whole, is cheaper for the consumer on the PC

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[MrManny]

I would like to submit exhibit A: The PC game industry.

Unfortunately, the consumer suffers. But what's new, huh?

...which - according to some - is dead. (I don't agree with that though, quite on the contrary. But it may show what there isn't really a consensus here and arguing logically is tricky because of that.)

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[tepples]

The videogame hobby as a whole, is cheaper for the consumer on the PC

Does this remain true even if you take into account that console games are far more likely than PC games to support multiplayer on one machine through gamepads?

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[Anonymous Coward]

For the freeloader who just goes to other people houses to play games, no, it doesn't. And it is a well known fact that Multiplayer is the cancer on the videogame industry. The "fuck the story does it play well online" mentality of modern Devs has killed off what was left of some very good games.

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[Moheeheeko]

Unfortunately for consoles, split-screen multiplayer is a dying breed. Even though you can have 4 controllers connected to the system, unless you are playing an older game or something off of Xbox live arcade, you can generally now only have 2 or so play together, and for the sake of more profit im sure future consoles will kill that as well.

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[Hatta]

I would like to submit exhibit A: The PC game industry.

OK, go ahead. Submit your evidence that killing used PC game sales did not hurt developer profits. Let's see the data.

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[24-bit Voxel]

To be fair, even the games with supposedly "great story" are mostly tripe. Compared to real literature game stories are basic and childlike, with the exception of Half Life 2. Even Mass Effect (which everyone rages about) has some pretty crappy story.

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to submit exhibit A: The PC game industry.

OK, go ahead. Submit your evidence that killing used PC game sales did not hurt developer profits. Let's see the data.

Given the extremely deep discounts brand new titles soon see, especially during Christmas in the US, I would say the lack of used sales has actually hurt PC gaming a lot.

Also, if you dig, you can find stuff like the EA CEO reporting to the board about their own studies of their customers revealing that without an option to buy or sell used a really big segment of them have to simply buy less games (so yes, this includes the group that does buy new, but must sell their games in order to finance their next purchase). With little tidbits like these you can start to piece together a more rational story than the one being presented to gamers (which mostly appears intended to manipulate behavior, notice how it's usually our "heroes", aka the famous devs, that deliver the message). These are hard to find and they don't show up in the standard "industry" news, but they're out there if you dig (and yes, it's a pain, don't expect a first page Google hit).

Something else is going on here, I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it's not the argument the gaming world is having yet again in this thread, that's a sideshow and not even what the publishers worry about in their own boardrooms.

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[Anonymous Coward]

As counter argument, I'd like to submit exhibit Z: The PSP Go.

The first handheld in the console side of things that attempted to go digital only - thereby attempting to completely remove the used market. It tanked.

I'd also like to point out always-online DRM, the rumoured method of killing used games on the next gen consoles, is a tactic that's actually making even some die hard fans of PC games pass on games.

A console where it's required to be online to play it is a console I will never EVER touch. It's bad enough when that 60 dollar purchase is nothing but a time limited rental (Always online drm included on it, at which point you can't play it anymore after they turn off the server) but when the 400-800 dollar console you bought and ALL the games on it become the glorified rental? No fucking thanks. (And yes, the next gen consoles will cost in that range, if not higher if Sony had it's way, in the first year or two.)

I don't think a new gen console could survive a launch honestly. It took them years for the 360 and PS3 to become mainstream and profitable. And that was before the economy tanked. It didn't get much better, and more people simply won't have the cash to spend on one unless it launches at the same price the current consoles are currently sitting at. Yeah, no fucking chance.

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[Clovis42]

Unfortunately, the consumer suffers. But what's new, huh?

How has the consumer sufferred under Steam?

Before Steam, even like 20 years ago, my "price point" for a game was around $20. I knew that once the price (used or new) dropped below that, I had a window to grab the game before it dissapeared from the store.

My price point is now well under $10 for a AAA game. Go on a PC gaming website forum like RockPaperShotgun and ask how many games people have. You'll see a thread filled with, "More than I have time to play." Steam has streamlined the whole process and delivered huge price cuts on all levels of gaming (indie to AAA). Steam also has some great competition from GOG, Gamersgate, even GameStop Downloads, so they're not a monopoly either.

As long as the developers play along, I only have to worry about Steam's DRM. I'd prefer none, but Steam's not bad. I can install my games on whichever computer I want.

Sure, I can't sell my old games, but I really don't care. I really don't want to bother trying to get $1 on a trade-in for a game I spent $5 on. I wouldn't buy used with prices like that either. I really don't mind directly supporting the game makers, especially since I buy so much indie stuff.

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

How about living room control? Smart TVs are coming, voice activated, NetFlix streaming is gaining popularity, Hulu. These will soon compete against cable (hopefully sooner rather than later). Game consoles have been able to browse the web and play Blurays for a while now. AppleTV, WD TV Live, etc allow you to play your traditionally computer media on your TV.

The game console is positioned to do all of those things. After all, they have been more and more becoming general purpose computers, just one that's convenient to hook to your TV. They could become living room boxes instead of game consoles. Maybe eventually the gaming part will just be an add on to the device. Imagine, they could put freaking ads on every aspect of your TV usage.

I see our options opening up right now rather than going into a single device but who knows what the future holds.

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[Endo13]

There's plenty of money to be made in the PC game ecosystem. It's just not all accessed exactly the same way as with consoles. For example, F2P with microtransactions on PCs is huge right now. In fact, I'd wager that market alone makes more money than all consoles (including handhelds) put together. So yes, it's flourishing. But hey, don't take my word for it. Go see what Mark Pincus or Markus Persson might have to say about it.

Re:Worked for the PC game market

[Moridin42]

lol.. console plebian.. funny stuff. The PC industry is not "doing great." It survives. Big fucking deal. Perhaps you would like to look up the definition of "flourishing." The market segment that is doing well is, as I said, the segment hitting the price points (and game types) as can be found on mobiles. This is essentially the segment that consoles are NOT suited to, precisely because they are readily filled by the mobile or PC that quite a lot of people have or can get for less than a console.

Maybe you'd like to stop replying without thinking.

Also, I've spent way more hours on PC games than console ones.

Well then ...

[gstoddart]

Rumors are floating about of a required always-on internet connection

That pretty much guarantees I won't buy the next XBox.

I have no interest in having my XBox being required to always be connected so they can implement annoying features like ads in my XBox and other nuisances.

I don't play on-line, and I mostly view a console as a stand-alone, mostly off-line game. So, if it truly does require a constant internet connection, it's not going to get bought by me.

Re:Well then ...

[tripleevenfall]

Same. Always-on is a dealbreaker for me.

If both Sony and MSFT implemented always-on, I simply wouldn't buy either.

Re:Well then ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll probably do what I've done for the last two generations: hold off purchasing until the console is hackable. Then I can use it the way I want to use it, and not how the conglomerate overlords dictate I can use it.

Same story over again

[billcarson]

I believe the console market is in the same position as the arcade halls were back in the early '90: filled with 'mature companies', struggling to provide added value to their product over the then relatively new home consoles. If the console market wants to survive, they really need to move away from copying the success factors from the PC market, and provide added value to their product that the PC industry can't easily copy, just like surviving arcade manufacturers are doing nowadays. And, while I agree it is hard to find such elements, they certainly exists. The wii-type thing was a good start. Just adding a faster internet modem and high end graphics card isn't going to do it this time.

Re:Same story over again

[Anonymous Coward]

Would Microsoft be willing to kill gaming in Windows to support xBox? Especially if Tablets/SmartPhones are "taking off" and they may be seeing the death of desktop PCs? I could easily see MS making Windows 9 or 10 be a "business" OS (think Win2K which did poorly with games)... Then force the Xbox as their game platform and "media" platform that talks to your "phone" and tablet, all at a low monthly bill....

Re:Same story over again

[billcarson]

By all means, that seems like a risky operation. If they kill of their PC gaming division, they lose a large part of their 'entertainment customers' as well (those that use a pc mainly for multimedia, games and social networking). Once these customers are forced into the console market, Microsoft loses their grip on the market, as they are not the dominant console player.

Re:Same story over again

[marcosdumay]

Yeah, if Microsoft needs an strategy to make people finally use Linux, that will do.

Re:Same story over again

[Anonymous Coward]

and provide added value to their product that the PC industry can't easily copy...

Thing is, the PC can easily copy anything. Hence the reason companies and governments want it dead.

Re:Same story over again

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Plus games are one of the biggest reasons I still use Windows, maybe the only reason.

Yep.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

the Wii U actually isn't as powerful as the Xbox 360 or PS3

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Rumors are floating about of a required always-on internet connection and of locking out the used game market.

I'm almost positive if these rumors prove to be true, the receptive companies will take a huge hit in sales.
I'm not huge on the "I hate company X because of this, this, and this" mentality that most of slashdot has, but if I buy a game? I expect it to be mine.
And in these difficult economic times? I expect a lot of people think similarly to this, being able to sell games you're not using for extra cash is great.
The ONLY reason I'd go along with this was if game prices dropped. Dramatically.
I'm talking maybe $20-$25 a game, at most.

Re:Yep.

[drinkypoo]

I live in the boonies and I want my console game most when the power is up but the internet is down and I can't even get online. Planning to move further out where I may even end up on satellite, urgh. I just have to stick with the old games and systems if this happens. No big deal though, there's hundreds of games I haven't played yet for the systems I've got.

Re:Yep.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Yeah, this is my take on it as well.
That, and with every form of DRM, someone, somewhere takes it as a challenge and takes it down.
Up until the past year or so, I've been very much against piracy. But when companies do shit like this...Yo fucking ho.

Re:Yep.

[jandrese]

Why shouldn't it be a surprise? The graphics hardware in a 360 or a PS3 is positively low end by today's standards. While I know that Nintendo doesn't bother to compete on megapixels, it's really trivial to build even a cheap PC these days that will completely spank the last generation consoles performance wise. It doesn't seem to make sense to bring a new console to market that is even more limited than that. Basically, the per-console savings of just a few dollars each to go from low end to ultra low end graphics wouldn't seem to justify hamstringing your developers so much.

Re:Yep.

[DeanCubed]

Quick Googling reveals that this rumour about the Wii U's lack of power, from 'an anonymous developer' (probably one with a vested interest in the Wii U failing), is complete BS.

Crytek founder Avni Yerli: The hardware is "very good". "Our guys in Nottingham, they are very happy with their tests on the dev kits and they're excited about it."

Tekken designer Katsuhiro Harada: Very 'impressed by the 60fps running of the game (Tekken) on the Wii U'

Vigil Games: “We had the game at the same level as high end pc version in a matter of days and a few lines of code got the game up and running on tablet in 5 mins.”

Gearbox: "The Wii U version (of Aliens: Colonial Marines) has so much more to offer... no other platform can do what the Wii U can do. The machine itself will be one of the best looking versions of the game [sic] because they’ve got more RAM than some of the other things [platforms]“, says Martel. “...they’ve got this really great processor.”

Epic Games: “It will do things current HD consoles simply cant do its going to be a powerful box.”

”EA: “Wii U is not a transitional platform, it is a true next generation system.”

THQ: “WiiU is just alot more powerful than current HD consoles it does 1080p very easy.”

Removes the entire advantage of consoles

[tepples]

Yeah, I thought people bought consoles instead of gaming on a PC precisely because their Internet connection sucked, such as farmers and their children who have to live in a rural area. At least games for consoles are historically more likely to support multiplayer with one machine and one monitor, especially on Wii.

Re:Removes the entire advantage of consoles

[gstoddart]

Yeah, I thought people bought consoles instead of gaming on a PC precisely because their Internet connection sucked, such as farmers and their children who have to live in a rural area.

I'm sure for many people that's a big part, but for me I simply have no interest in a video game console which demands a constant internet connection.

I'm not playing on-line. I'm not downloading content. I don't even have an XBox-live membership. But, after the recent update to my XBox where Microsoft started putting ads in my console, I basically decided to unplug it from the internet.

I'm a casual gamer at best. To me an always-on connection is a deal breaker. WTF do I need an internet connection for to play an hour or so of Need For Speed or something? No reason other than appeasing their DRM wishes and to make sure they can send me ads and probably track my usage. Not happening.

So, any console which requires a constant internet connection is pretty much guaranteed to not be bought by me.

What is Nintendo doing?

[jellomizer]

While the Wii was very successful, even tough technologically as advanced as its nearest competitors as the PS3 and the Xbox 360. However with the new version, you would expect it to be at least a little more powerful the their aging competitors. It not like I am expecting the Wii U to have superior graphics over the PS4 or the Xbox 720 but... It should be at least a little better then these old systems.

Re:What is Nintendo doing?

[WillAdams]

Hopefully more of the same. I'm not that interested in the specs of the console (though the Wii U w/ 768MB or more of memory on the same die as the main processor (and graphics processor?) shouldn't be a slouch) --- I want widescreen and better support for contemporary, flat-screen televisions.

I _really_ enjoyed Red Steel 2 and Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword for the Wii (and to a lesser extent Wii Sports Resort, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Link's Crossbow Training (at one time I was buying used copies of the game, making wooden Wii Zapper style shells at my workbench and giving them out to co-workers) and a fair number of the FPS games --- Goldeneye 007 was way cool, Metroid Prime Trilogy: Collector's Edition is amazing and Resident Evil 4 for the Wii is arguably the definitive version ('cept there's an HD version for the PS3 I believe)).

I'm looking forward to Xenoblade Chronicles and The Last Story --- but I'd really like to see a free-form, open-ended, create-your-own-character RPG like Valhalla Knights: Eldar Saga w/ Motion Plus controls like Red Steel 2 and Skyward Sword, or at least a fun target game which uses Wii Sports Resort's gyroscopic bow controls (Fledge's Pumpkin Toss is fun, but I'd like to see Link's Crossbow Training re-made as a real archery game).

William

Re:What is Nintendo doing?

[GargamelSpaceman]

I have a Wii. It's almost 100% used for watching Netflix. My first grader doesn't care for games, and though I was a gamer once, neither do I. I want something more computer like, yet dirt simple to hook up to the TV so I can watch Netflix, YouTube and do light Web Browsing, and maybe email checking.

Maybe there is already some kind of Roku thing that does it. I got YouTube vids running briefly though Opera which runs on Wii, but it wasn't smooth. I'd get some wireless keyboard to keep on the coffee table if this were done well.

I'll probably get some such device soon. I tend to really delay in getting devices unless it's bothering me a lot only upgrading when I have to - waiting means you get more when you finally plop down your money. Spring is here, so I'll at least wait till the winter TV watching season before updating my devices.

Having the ability to play games is a nice to have, but why would one need more gaming power than what the Wii offers already, ever? Higher res? Maybe. But I won't pay for it. I'll take it if it comes naturally because the current hardware has better performance for the same price, but although I do enjoy lil' flash games from time to time, 99.99% of the enjoyment I will ever get from playing a 3d game happened while playing Doom for the first time. I saw the third dimension on screen, and was duely wowed, and then it completely lost any appeal. It's been 16 years since I played Doom for the first time, and no 3d game has made me waste more than a few hours - including Doom which wasn't great other than that it was the first real 3D game. I played Wolfenstein before Doom, but it wasn't totally textured, so I count Doom as the first one I've played.

3D games suck for some reason, and it's been long enough that if it were going to change, it would have.

If only player 1 has the Wii U controller

[tepples]

From the article:

effectively using the touchscreen means finding a way to make it uniquely useful without giving the player who possesses it an overwhelming advantage. There are some multiplayer games that will map very effectively to this concept--but most won't.

Isn't this a case where players 2, 3, and 4 can use a DS Lite, DSi, or 3DS with DS Download Play?

Re:If only player 1 has the Wii U controller

[Maximum Prophet]

From the article:

effectively using the touchscreen means finding a way to make it uniquely useful without giving the player who possesses it an overwhelming advantage. There are some multiplayer games that will map very effectively to this concept--but most won't.

Isn't this a case where players 2, 3, and 4 can use a DS Lite, DSi, or 3DS with DS Download Play?

There's no way they could make game play identical between a special purpose device and general purpose devices. (unless the special purpose device *is* just a DS in a slightly different case)

If I were to get one of these, I'd leave the touchscreen controller in the box, and get several DS's. Perhaps that's Nintendo's plan. The touchscreen device might just be a "starter", but to get full control, you need a DS.

There is no COULD hamstring...

[fallen1]

They WILL hamstring themselves. Even with the overall apathetic appearance of a large portion of the United States, if they attempt to kill off the secondary or used game market they will, in effect, be killing the console game market. The only people who can afford to throw $60+ at a game every time they turn around does not constitute the overall gaming market. I would be willing to bet that those people with large enough bank accounts to buy games AT WILL amounts to less than 10% of the overall gaming market. The VAST majority of the gaming market depends on being able to play a game and then turn it in to lessen the cost of the next game, specially when you can run through the majority of the games on the market in under, what? -- 20 hours per game?

Their need for control and their greed will be their undoing. A lot of people say that voting with your dollars doesn't work. I say that it will work when at least 50% of the market rises up against the corporate overlords who are producing this crap. Who want us, the gamers, to continually pay them for the privilege of using their game - not owning OUR game. As these rumors become fact, I hope that each of you who despises this will begin educating those fellow gamers who may not be following the information. Educate them that the cool thing to do is not to buy that uber new shiny, but to reject the new paradigm that the corporations want to foist upon all of us. Actually vote with your dollars this time and not just pay it lip service. All it takes is enough of us protesting in forums, in direct mails to the companies, in e-mails to the companies, and DO NOT BUY ANY NEW CONSOLES. Make it plain and clear, without resorting to cursing and ranting, that you nor anyone in your family or circle of friends will be purchasing any gaming console that removes the rights of the people* to First Sale Doctrine or the ability to trade it in so you can afford to purchase another new game.

Make them understand they will pay for their hubris by us, the gamers, simply saying "No."

* Do NOT, under any circumstance, call yourself a consumer. We should always remind them that even if we act as a group, we are individuals who are much more than just a consumer.

Re:There is no COULD hamstring...

[tomhath]

The VAST majority of the gaming market depends on being able to play a game and then turn it in to lessen the cost of the next game, specially when you can run through the majority of the games on the market in under, what? -- 20 hours per game?

Very good point. Perhaps the best strategy would be for the game makers to DROP the price to where $new - $used is today. Maybe $20 instead of $75 would be far more profitable. Then people wouldn't fret about not being able to sell used games.

Re:There is no COULD hamstring...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be willing to bet that those people with large enough bank accounts to buy games AT WILL amounts to less than 10% of the overall gaming market.

And these are the the people who actually contribute to the game devs/publishers' bottom line.

None of the money in used sales end up in their pockets. It might actually affect them negatively, since GameStop needs to order less copies of the games if they can reuse existing used ones. As such, your boycotts and protests won't actually change their bottom line much

It's not unheard of that they sell console hardware at a loss. The money's in the games, and again, they aren't seeing your money in their pockets as is.

So it doesn't matter if used games are the majority of the market. They're not going to "pay" as much as you think they would for their hubris.

Re:There is no COULD hamstring...

[Eivind Eklund]

I doubt it is the vast majority; but I will believe it is the vast majority of your social circle. Among my social circle (which does not include teenagers), people mostly do not trade in games. We do buy some used, but the only cases I've heard of people trading in games is when they clearly felt the game sucked.

I suspect the teenager gamers do the trade ins; and also some fair amount of hardcore gamers. The latter clearly buy a higher number of games - but the question is how much profit it leads to for the game developers. If they buy and resell, it's a low profit per unit - and each time one of us that don't resell buy a used game, it creates a loss of almost the same number of dollars as we pay for the game developer, assuming we're price sensitive enough that we'd only buy it at that price. Or more dollars, if we would have been willing to pay more but got a used game because it was or would become available.

Now, locking out used games would lijkely also lock out using the games at a friend's house, and lending/borrowing games, and using the games without an Internet connection. The latter is a dealbreaker for me; not being able to borrow and lend would also be annoying.

Eivind.

Re:There is no COULD hamstring...

[snadrus]

My understanding is they lose serious money on new consoles. So no education necessary. They take the hit for new consoles, then no one buys games.

Re:There is no COULD hamstring...

[genghisjahn]

You're all individuals! You have to think for yourselves!
We're all individuals! We have to think for ourselves!

What's wrong with "good enough?!"

[erroneus]

These damned MBAs out there seeing only what they want to see and not understanding the whole picture is a problem. For one, the used market is actually vital to the game industry. Without it, people are less inclined to buy new things as they [rightly] feel that the ability to sell something they bought for a rather high price is a way to lessen the sting of the high prices and the high risk when some games end up being rather disappointing. After all, there are no returns on most of these which is a huge risk for the buyer.

But beyond this, it's clear that the technology of games has just about plateaued for now. Things aren't getting any better or more exciting until the next earth-shattering invention. The Wii and Kinect and whatever the PS3 has are fun and all, but when it comes to long-play games, I'm sorry, but endurance shouldn't be a requirement. The gimmick has already worn off on me. I do like sword fighting games though... just not enough good ones and anything for Kinect will just suck.

But what's wrong with keeping things as they are for a while?! The PC market "matured" from always wanting to upgrade. The gaming market is there right now, I believe. Let's just sit on our laurels for a while and let the innovation in game creativity run on its own for a while. The greed and unrealistic perspective of change and control and getting people to buy new things every 5 minutes needs to fade.

Re:What's wrong with "good enough?!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Some would agree with your statements.

Others would call it "stagnation".

Those people who would call it "stagnation" are the ones who got burned in the past by agreeing with similar statements in similar situations regarding technology.

The people who did the burning were the ones who, in the past, called those similar statements "stagnation" and decided to go forward instead.

As a quick example, BlackBerries were considered "good enough" by RIM.

Re:What's wrong with "good enough?!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Being one of those damned MBAs, I strongly suspect that the used game market is not going anywhere. Everyone is ranting and raving over rumor. While there may be some truth to those rumors, you should keep the whole picture in mind.

One: Sony releases a whole year before Microsoft. Two: Microsoft and Sony are competitors. Three: in business, specifically marketing, you generally deal with your competitors' products through points of differentiation. If Sony releases a console that is hostile to used games and things don't go so well for them, I guarantee you that Microsoft will release a console that is friendly (or at least not hostile) to used games. If that happens, Microsoft captures an even larger share of the console game market than they have now. Consider that the rumors about Microsoft's console could exist only to serve as misinformation for their competitor, encouraging them to release (a year sooner) something that will ultimately damage the Sony brand in the eyes of consumers.

But hey, I'm a damned MBA that can't understand the whole picture.

Re:What's wrong with "good enough?!"

[erroneus]

The Blackberry argument was moving until I realized that Blackberry didn't fully engage a changing market. The smart phone market was changed by iPhone and followed by Android. The excitement became the new norm and Blackberry seemed to sit back like Microsoft saying "the internet is just a fad" and didn't really engage until they were too late to the party. Putting Angry Birds on Blackberry could have saved them, believe it or not.

There is no great new thing in the condole gaming market. The only new things are bad things -- pricing models, distributing models, subscription models, cutting out used games and making people pay for additional content and all that ugliness.

As things are right now, the next generation will not be a huge difference from the current generation. It will just be a lot more restrictive. After all, what resolution is better than 1920x1080? They all do that resolution now. Color? Sound? All pretty much as good as they can get. Sure, things can get faster... have more memory... incremental improvements. There has been experimentation with gaming interfaces beyond the controller with joysticks, direction pads and buttons, but none of them have replaced the humble controller. (And by the way, I'm still pissed off that I don't have a good "shoot at the screen" gun game for XBox360... that Cabella's crap just sucks and I'm guessing they are the reason other game makers aren't able to publish screen shooter games.) Perhaps it's just my lack of imagination, but I just don't see any serious improvements in the near future. And keep in mind that we are talking about gaming consoles, not PCs optimized for gaming. After all, one of the things about consoles is a more level playing field -- they all work exactly the same.

So, "stagnation" is pretty much built-in at the moment. They have no gimmick to excite the market. They just have some agendas to fulfil for the content publishers. The "great experiment" which was the PSP-sans-disk-drive seems to have been successful enough to show console makers that the market will tolerate a huge change in the way the game is played, but only if they all do it at the same time.

And what's more, the games... suck.

[aussersterne]

There's no gameplay in games anymore. They're just the same kinds of fx-fests that overpriced Hollywood "blockbusters" are. Trite plot, no imagination, no interactivity, no fun.

Games haven't been fun for 15 years or more at this point, and knowledge of how to actually make a fun game seems to have disappeared from the earth. Stop developing new consoles with more shiny parts, you don't need all that hardware and nobody wants to buy it.

Just make more games, and spend less on each one of them, since game cost seems to be positively correlated with game boringness.

Remember the days when every single arcade game in the room was fun, even though they were all platformers with silly-simple graphics? Remember the days of the Atari consoles, the Nintendo NES, or even the early 16-bit era with SNES and Genesis? 80% of all the games were fun, and none of them tried to be overwrought world-shattering hyperrealistic blockbusters.

They were games. Games are meant to be simple and fun. Everything else is bullshit.

Re:And what's more, the games... suck.

[Anonymous Coward]

Either rose colored glasses or QQ cry baby "this is too hard", i'll let you decide which you are.

Re:And what's more, the games... suck.

[alen]

WTF?

i bought some of those classic games for my iphone and ipad and never play them. they suck. i even had Command and Conquer decades a few years back and the early C&C games suck compared to the later ones. the control sucks, the graphics suck.

Re:And what's more, the games... suck.

[serviscope_minor]

Games haven't been fun for 15 years or more at this point,

Rubbish!

Let's see what was around 15 years ago or so. My favourites were:

C&C: Red Alert
Quake 2
Half Life
GTA
Final DooM expansion pack

You _can_ claim those games weren't fun and innovative, but you'd be talking utter tosh.

Remember the days when every single arcade game in the room was fun

Nice rose-tinted goggles you have there. No, they weren't all fun. Many of them were kind of sucky, but they disappeared sooner, spread less widely and have generally been rightfully consigned to the dustbin of forgettable medicore entertainment.

You remember SF2ce or what ever because it was fantastic and you've conflated the history of games onto the ones you remember.

Games are meant to be simple

No.

Re:And what's more, the games... suck.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll never understand guys like you. Yout just like my dad who thinks they only made classic, perfect films in the black and white era of Hollywood, and he forgets that you simply don't hear about all the horrible films that were made. You are misremembering the 8 and 16 bit days. 80% good? 90% of the games were complete crap. It's what lead to the first industry collapse before the NES revived it. That was the reason behind the whole "Nintendo seal of approval" thing. And it was still >80% crap.

I've been gaming since 1975 when my dad got a Magnavox Odyssey from cheap from a coworker who had two for some reason, and every generation has gotten better and better. I was skeptical of ME3's multiplayer, but it's been the most fun I've had in a while. And, actually, behind the shiny graphics is that simple gameplay you advocate. Kill everything and stay alive. But some of us like the fact that the enemy has some smarts now. They aren't just blobs of colors running into your bullet stream. They dodge. They take cover. They flank you. They snipe you right back. And you have living teammates who can help and strategies can be developed for the toughest enemies. These things are good.

Games are meant to be simple and fun.

Ridiculous piffle. Games *can* be simple and fun. They can also be enormously complex, or anything in between. WhoTF are you to place such a limit on the definition of games? Hell, some of the RPGs from your Golden Era were like spreadsheet programs that only occasionally remembered you were supposed to be a character in a high fantasy setting. I swear some were just a reskinned Visi-Calc. ;-) Sorry, but some of us love complex gaming. I love the idea I can go into Skyrim, and gather the skills and materials I need to put together a diamond ring that lets me pick any lock in the game with ease, especially when I charged it with the soul of the local bandit chief who taunted me. ;-)

I would think you'd be happy with the new mobile app era. Lots of simple games. Angry Birds and World Of Goo sound right up your alley. Go. Have your fun, but there's no need to dump on an industry of clever programmers and hard working artists, and try to claim it's completely devoid of creativity and talent.

Re:And what's more, the games... suck.

[Megane]

You know, those old games still (generally) work. Even if you don't want to pirate, there's few things better than a chipped Xbox and a Free McBoot PS2, each with a large hard drive, and rips from your own game library. (Substitute CFW PSP and 16GB memory card for portable gaming, which can also play PS1 rips.)

Many older system games work well through emulation, though unfortunately the kind of horsepower (or at least RAM) needed for N64 isn't available on the easily cracked consoles. Old PC games might have a problem with "too new" hardware or not being compatible with NT or later, but a good VM can help with that.

Re:And what's more, the games... suck.

[Omestes]

Games haven't been fun for 15 years or more at this point, and knowledge of how to actually make a fun game seems to have disappeared from the earth.

What games have you been playing? I've been having a blast, and plan on continuing to do so through at least the rest of the year (this is a very good year for gaming, at least on the PC). With the rise of indie studios, and small release games I've been as happy as I've been in a long time. Yes, there is a ton of big market crap, yes there is a bit of a plague going on in the console scene (oh boy, a stealthy tactical shooter involving hiding behind brown walls! Woo!), but I'd say the industry is doing pretty well. Yes, the big studios are getting stale, releasing only "safe" games, but smaller studios have more than made up for it. There does need to be an "Interplay" out there releasing interesting titles, and rock solid turn-based RPGs (there is always Atlus in console land, I suppose)... But other than that...

Also, realize that most of everything, even back in the day, was also crap. Go to an independent game store (or browse a large ROM site), one that still stocks used NES games, and ponder how many of them are terrible marketing tie ins thrown together in a weekend. Kids will buy anything and enjoy it, but luckily the game market is starting to pander to adults now (the people who grew up with the Atari or NES).

Also, realize that there is more than "hyper-realistic" AAA titles out there. I sank more time into Minecraft and Terraria than I probably spent playing any retro game outside of the occasion Square title. Torchlight 2 is going to stress my relationship with my girlfriend. I managed to sink more time into The Binding of Isaac than I'm willing to admit, same with Dungeons of Dredmore and S.P.A.Z. These are just the more popular ones, I've gotten a good amount of enjoyment out of TOME (a roguelike), and a decent amount of Android games. Since the bad-days of the mid-2000s (oh boy, another console shooter...), I haven't really been without a decent game. There is more right now that look good than I'd ever be able to play, even if I still had the schedule I did when I was eight.

More pixels; cheap phones

[tepples]

My old wii seems to output decent 480p at refresh rate. I suppose 1080p would be nice although it would obviously have no effect on gameplay

With more pixels, you can see smaller objects farther away. This translates into, for example, more enjoyable sniping in a first-person shooter. And with more pixels, you can give each of four players his or her own 480p window, which I admit might not be valuable to you given your preference for a single-player computer role-playing game.

And if I didn't care at all about graphics at all (lets play scrabble!) I'd be playing on my cheapie cellphone.

The cheapest cellphones don't even support apps. On Virgin Mobile USA, for example, you have to go up to a $35/mo cellphone to get Android app support; Virgin won't activate Android phones on, say, a $7/mo voice-only plan designed for occasional use. A lot of parents aren't willing to part with that much money for each member of the household.

Re:More pixels; cheap phones

[Eponymous Coward]

If you are willing to buy your phone, you can get a pretty good deal from Ting. I really like their model and when my contract is up, I'm going to give them a try.

Re:More pixels; cheap phones

[tepples]

If you are willing to buy your phone

Which is the other problem. A parent trying to decide between a $170 Nintendo 3DS on the one hand and a $400 paid-in-full smartphone plus a $62 iControlPad on the other hand will more than likely choose the console.

Re:More pixels; cheap phones

[Eponymous Coward]

We got our kid an iPod touch. It cost more than a DS, but it does lots more, the games are dirt cheap, and there are no tiny cartridges to lose.

Re:More pixels; cheap phones

[Applekid]

The cheapest cellphones don't even support apps. On Virgin Mobile USA, for example, you have to go up to a $35/mo cellphone to get Android app support; Virgin won't activate Android phones on, say, a $7/mo voice-only plan designed for occasional use. A lot of parents aren't willing to part with that much money for each member of the household.

Apps != Android. I haven't seen a "dumb" phone that didn't have a Java J2ME VM in a long while. Plenty of fun games for the platform, too. I even had a good browser, too, with Opera Mini.

Re:More pixels; cheap phones

[tepples]

I haven't seen a "dumb" phone that didn't have a Java J2ME VM in a long while.

Audiovox 8610, Virgin Mobile. This page says it won't run J2ME, and the only games that come on it are Blackjack and a Columns clone. Even J2ME phones on some carriers will often refuse to give the privileges that an application reasonably needs; several such privileges are set to "deny always" instead of "ask first". I can dig up references for that if you want.

Re:More pixels; cheap phones

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember playing sega dreamcast games in 480p on a computer monitor and let me tell you, the graphics were amazing. Virtua Tennis was never so sharp as when I played it on the monitor, or F355, or Soul Calbur etc... Yes 480p is less than 1080p, but 480p@60fps rock solid game will destroy any 1080p game (upscaled most of the time) at swinging frame rates every day of the week.

Re:More pixels; cheap phones

[Applekid]

I haven't seen a "dumb" phone that didn't have a Java J2ME VM in a long while.

Audiovox 8610, Virgin Mobile. This page says it won't run J2ME, and the only games that come on it are Blackjack and a Columns clone.

Well, sure, although I'm checking the Virgin Mobile site and they don't currently sell that phone. I guess I should have specified that I don't know anyone with a dumb phone that's still using a model old enough to not have J2ME. Blast from the past, though, my first cell was via Virgin Mobile, also an Audiovox, CDM-8500. Thanks for the neat site, I was psyched to see it!

Even J2ME phones on some carriers will often refuse to give the privileges that an application reasonably needs; several such privileges are set to "deny always" instead of "ask first". I can dig up references for that if you want.

Sadly true, but not insurmountable. In advance of the criticism, however, I agree that just because those kinds of things can be hacked away doesn't mean it's necessarily easy or that anyone would even bother. I don't miss the hundreds of slightly different little data cables as opposed to USB.

That's fine

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who buys all his games new, I have no problem with the death of the used game industry. I'm just hoping it helps out niche titles like Radiant Historia and BlazBlue.

Good.

[bistromath007]

"Killing" the console with these particular problems would really just mean their market shrinks to its natural size, as opposed to the current state in which more people want in because of artificially low console prices.

Net effect: PC gaming no longer screwed up by megacorps chasing fratfucks and other casuals. Players having higher barrier to entry causes more devs to consider risk taking, returning artistic credibility to the medium. Bobby Kotick switches to making staplers. The Mona Lisa takes her top off, and everybody gets a free husky puppy.

Bring that shit.

My brother works for one of EA's big "franchises"

[Anonymous Coward]

(yes he wants to move, but the economy is in the shitter).

One of my favorite parts of console gaming has always been the multiplayer aspect - like sports and racing games where four (or more) people can plug in a controller, and everyone is part of the action on a big TV.

Well, DRM and online have killed the (modern) console party. Split-screen games have been greatly reduced in the 360/PS3 generation, and you can expect more of the same next time around.

My brother is very specific on the reason why. If you force people to play online, that's potentially extra sales for EA. There's no technical reason to exclude split-screen from recent titles, just a financial reason.

A game night used to be a memorable occasion, now it's something you might do if you're a bit bored. EA and their cronies, diluting our quality of life for some short-term bucks.

the era of "hardcore" is over

[alen]

the era of the walk/run kill a few enemies, scour for crap and repeat is over. the market is now after casual kiddie games. angry birds made more money than most "hardcore" violent games. i love Mass Effect and other games like this, but this is the new era of gaming.

farmville/cityville were just sim city clones with a social aspect and publishers have noticed. if you don't like any kinect games its because you aren't the target market for them. the market just became a lot bigger and the run/kill games are now a tiny part of it. anyone who won't get it will be run out of business.

my wife games more than i do, but she never touches the PS3 or the xbox and never shoots anything or anyone

for years gamers have screamed for innovation and new genres. now you got it, finally

Re:the era of "hardcore" is over

[issicus]

yeah. bigger better graphics does not make games that much more fun ether. so why make a bigger better machine to run them...

Re:the era of "hardcore" is over

[phriedom]

Yep, you're right, Skyrim totally flopped. Bethesda will never make another bloody RPG.

Hey Microsoft, you know what we want?

[NetJunkie]

We want an updated Xbox. I want an Xbox that can compete fairly well with modern PCs. I want to run games at 1080p and have them look good with high frame rate. I want it to be quiet. I want it to have a good online gaming experience, which honestly I think Live has done. I want good first party games. The problem is that the current consoles are old. They are outdated. My gaming has dropped off over time as the games and quality are lagging. Don't try to reinvent everything...I'm trying to make it easy for you. Give me a modern capable console.

Re:Hey Microsoft, you know what we want?

[mattbee]

My blog agrees with you :) I wrote the same thing in response to the Sony PS4 rumours which were just as dire - why aren't they keeping everyone trucking with a simple upgrade of the same machines - lots of RAM, the next generation of whatever graphics chip they bought the first time round. Users get a Xbox360+ or PS3.5, and a set of games with an "enhanced mode" for newer consoles. Developers get to breathe, use the same tools as they're just finished learning, and can put out higher quality titles for less effort. I don't see the down side, or what anyone Sony/MS can gain by throwing it all away again.

Re:Hey Microsoft, you know what we want?

[autocannon]

How does getting a modern capable console translate into getting more games with better quality? Increasing pixel counts and fps doesn't mean the game is better or more fun, just prettier to look at.

Re:Hey Microsoft, you know what we want?

[NetJunkie]

We know. We all know that graphics don't equal fun. But....better graphics can absolutely help enhance games. I play my 360 on a 65" 1080p Plasma. I want it to look good on a display that size and the current consoles are woefully lacking. There is nothing I can think of that goes on a spec sheet that immediately equals better games..but the specs help to support the game devs vision.

Re:Hey Microsoft, you know what we want?

[DrGamez]

You want a PC that will cost twice as much as they're willing to build the next XBox for.

devs did it to themselves

[alen]

i played black ops after it came out. play it once and its useless to replay. same with gears of war.

Mass effect and other RPG/shooter combos can be replayed a lot of times with different strategies each time

if you want people to buy your games new and not sell them, make games with replay value

Re:devs did it to themselves

[DrGamez]

But what about games that don't warrant a replay? Journey and Braid are both amazing games but after the first play-through there may not be a whole lot of point of running through them again?
(Both of these games are not $60 though, so I see your point.)

a resurgance of pc games?

[Spinalcold]

does this mean that consoles may eventually stop undercutting pc's? if they stop taking losses on sales it may even the playing field.

It's called the Lumia, and it has two problems

[tepples]

Microsoft already has an ARM-powered Xbox Lite, called a "cell phone running Windows Phone 7". Microsoft outsources manufacturing to Nokia and other companies. It has two practical problems: First, instead of physical buttons, it has a completely flat touch screen, and one can't find the on-screen buttons by feel. Second, in Microsoft's home country, it appears to be sold only in a bundle with a commitment to buy $1,440 of cellular voice and data service. This commitment is not something a parent is likely to buy several of the way parents have bought a DS for each child.

Re:It's called the Lumia, and it has two problems

[Enderandrew]

You're assuming parents aren't buying cell phones for their kids.

If I'm a parent buying a cell phone for my kid regardless, and they can get cheap/free apps, that seemingly beats paying $150 for a DS and and then a bunch of $40 games. I'm not spending an additional $1,440 for gaming, because I'm paying for a family cell phone data plan regardless.

I've heard that Windows Phone 8 (based off Windows 8) will support peripherals. So you might be able to prop up your phone in front of you, but play with a wireless 360 controller.

Re:It's called the Lumia, and it has two problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wait? get an "iControlPad" (or similar) for your Android or iPhone now. Put the phone in and you have a controller with a screen on it (that happens to be a phone). Throw emulators into the mix and you have 20 years of games to play, without considering the app store.

Re:It's called the Lumia, and it has two problems

[tbannist]

Do you really want to have your children to have their gaming system with them at all times?
How will having a games machine always at their finger tips going to affect their performance in school?
If you decide that they're spending too much time paying games, your only option is to delete the games from the phone and then will be able to reinstall them as quickly as you delete them.

Making a phone your child's primary gaming platform may not be a wise idea.

Re:It's called the Lumia, and it has two problems

[Enderandrew]

I expect the schools to stop kids from pulling out a gaming device and playing during class. My daughter is in an after-school program at school. I know other kids there have their DS out playing games after school. No doubt many do over recess, lunch, etc. as well. A cell phone isn't any different.

Re:It's called the Lumia, and it has two problems

[AngryDeuce]

When I was in school, if they caught you playing with anything, be it a Gameboy, a Tiger Electronics handheld, or even listening to music on a walkman, they took it from you. Even on the fucking bus on your way to school, they took it from you and made you wait until the end of the fucking year to get it back. One kid had his TI-82 taken away for playing Tetris on it, and his mother had to go to the school board to get it back so he could use it for math; I probably gave the faculty of my high school about 8 walkmans over the course of my high school career. The only way we could possibly game during the school day was to surreptitiously install games on our computer lab PC's, and that only worked because the faculty was pretty much clueless when it came to computers (I had to bring my own copy of Windows 3.11 and update many of their computers myself, and I was certainly no David Lightman).

Standards must be very lax as far as that shit goes, today, though. I see kids as young as grade school age carrying around iPhones these days, and I can't imagine very many parents would take the same "then you shouldn't have brought it to school, asshole!" attitude my own parents did when their kid's cell phones get taken away.

Re:It's called the Lumia, and it has two problems

[spire3661]

I had an original, day-one Gameboy all through high school. As long as I wasnt using it in class non one cared. But I was also an A/V nerd so all the teachers knew me. I was also a bit of a troublemaker so the VP knew id be in his office soon enough for something anyways.

'Jail-Breaking' a legitimate profession?

[X!0mbarg]

Looks like the console industry will join with companies that already have people set up in kiosks at local malls offering to jail-break consoles, as well as cell phones and iPads.
Then you can play used games, and won't need an always-on internet connection that checks all your activities with Big Brother (Unless, of course, you're an online addict of MMORPGs, then you're out of luck)
Who knows? Maybe there will be someone that starts up a 'Liberation' server, so people can register their system on That server, and even play online with their friends without paying the manufacturer for the 'Right to Play' their games? (StarCraft, anyone?)

New field of Lawsuits and Claims: Unlicensed Online Services that Break an already broken system! Terror Ensues!

All this push for "Cloud Computing", and still Big Brother does not get the fact that people don't actually Trust him!

More push = less trust!

Putting them on internet

[goombah99]

My theory is that if the console makers don't change strategy that tablet gaming will replace console games. tablets will soon have enough capability to be functionally equivalent in every way that matters to the user. just add a control device like a kinect or something to interface. That will actually be good for game makers since it will expand the number of consumers in general but bad for block buster game makers that require concentration of high sales in a few expensive games.

Adding more and more features and unneeded power to consoles just drives this convergence point sooner because as soon as tablets are good enough for more people than consoles thats where the market for games will go.

The direction consoles need to go is to become cheap appliances that do a few specific jobs really well. toasters for gaming and netflix viewing. If you want them to do other things then they need to do those more conveniently than a tablet. Responding to my e-mail from across the room sitting in my chair staring at a plasma screen is not likely to ever be convenient. Even if you add a keyboard, I do don't want to look up from the keyboard at a screen far away.

When I first saw the wii U I thought that as industrial design goes it was but ugly and clumsy looking. It looks like a chubby leapster or other kiddie console. something from the old days. a flop for sure.

But since then I started to think that maybe the wii U is the right way to go if you want consoles to be useful living room appliances. You need a tablet like interface for too many things. the Wii u will give you both. and with all Nintendo stuff it's going to be less expensive than the Xbox and ps3, which makes it more useful as a low cost appliance. Something that is at the right price point to be worth getting for its reduced functionality but better suitability for specific tasks.

It still is ugly. But it is probably the right way to go.

Re:Putting them on internet

[guises]

just add a control device like a kinect or something to interface

Have you actually used a Kinect? You can't control things for shit. It's a novelty and maybe a convenience device for simple interface commands, no more.

People have this doomsday attitude regarding cell phone and tablet gaming, as though it's inevitable that they not only can but will replace control pad gaming or mouse and keyboard gaming. It is not going to happen. The interface just isn't there, and tack-on products like you suggest reduce portability, reduce the user base, and add clutter to something that's supposed to be starkly simple.

A touch interface is certainly good for some things, point and click adventures are great for this, but you're talking about a supplement, not a replacement, to traditional gaming.

Re:Putting them on internet

[spire3661]

HDMI out (or Widi or Airplay) and bluetooth gamepads = ANY tablet can easily be a gaming console.

Re:Putting them on internet

[tycoex]

Completely agree with this. I imagine a world (maybe in 10 years or so?) where when we come we simply place our cell phones on a little pad that connects them to all our other crap. They interact with our tv and wireless controllers for games, and our monitors, wireless keyboards, and wireless mice for computers.

Re:Putting them on internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you looking at the keyboard? Learn touch-typing, and get a cheap bluetooth keyboard.

Re:Putting them on internet

[Daniel Phillips]

Have you actually used a Kinect? You can't control things for shit. It's a novelty and maybe a convenience device for simple interface commands, no more.

I haven't used the Kinect but I have used Sony's "Move" controller and it sucks just as you say. For the games that support both, the gamepad controller is always much more usable, accurate and responsive. Note that "accurate" is already a joke for any console controller.

Takeaway

[93 Escort Wagon]

Nintendo knows where the money is.

Microsoft and Sony need to upsell their existing customer base in order to succeed, just like the last time around.

Theodore Sturgeon's 90% of crud

[tepples]

Remember the days of the Atari consoles, the Nintendo NES, or even the early 16-bit era with SNES and Genesis? 80% of all the games were fun

How much of this is due to rose-colored glasses? If you played then, you thought the games you happened to receive as gifts were fun because you had little to compare them to. If you play now through emulators, you remember only the fun games, not Theodore Sturgeon's 90% of crud in the "full ROM set" that people tend to torrent. Among the crud are the games reviewed in Something Awful's ROM Pit.

Re:Theodore Sturgeon's 90% of crud

[Anonymous Coward]

How much of this is due to rose-colored glasses?

And how much is due to opinion? All of it.

Re:Theodore Sturgeon's 90% of crud

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all those games, Solar Jetman was the only one I'd actually heard of. I liked that game and went back to it (beating it, even) only a few years ago.

The game industry...

[blahplusplus]

... is run by morons anyway, and a lot of the developers are just as stupid. Game development costs from the late 90's onwards have just been going up exponentially and killed a lot of smaller B and C level game developers so now we're stuck with game companies that are risk averse because the costs to make a game who's graphics are at the current GPU level is just too costly. Yet a 2D game like New super mario bros. Wii sells millions. Publishers/developers were too quick to kill 2D games when 3D arrived and basically did it to themselves financially, but they never got the message and DRM and all sorts of scam artistry is now the norm to try to capture every dollar they can. The industry over the last 10 years has been pretty bad, the worst part about this is the large segment of the population that pays for MMO's and DLC which feeds the completely corrupt game industry.

It looks like half of a 3DS

[tepples]

(unless the special purpose device *is* just a DS in a slightly different case)

Photos make the Wii U controller look almost like a cut-down 3DS. Compare this illustration to this photo. It just has a bigger touch screen, a second Circle Pad on the right, no top screen, no GPU, no Game Card or SD slot, and probably only enough CPU to display rendered images that the console streams to it.

Definitely too hard.

[aussersterne]

I expect to be able to sit down and enjoy a game from minute one, with no learning curve, no research, and no commitment. And then to walk away again.

I'm a busy person. I'm not wasting my time or my cognitive resources on "learning how to play a game" or "developing enough coordination to manage 150 different controls" so that sometime dozens and dozens of hours down the road I get the satisfaction of being an elitist that can claim to be good at something no-one else is good at.

I still have a Genesis system sitting here and basically every single game offers at least nominal fun, even if it's not the sort of thing that will last for days. I can't say the same for the "big name" games I've played over the last decade. They're all basically the same game: steep learning curve, fiddly 3D play, no fun.

Some will just put it down to price, but I think there's something to the fact that Angry Birds is a runaway hit while console makers (and big game companies in mobile space) suffer. People want to play stuff that's accessible, immediately entertaining, and that is a break from your job. Most people do not care to play games that require the game to become the job itself in order for you to enjoy it and/or have success at it, and there are a good many people that would not enjoy current games even if they made it their job.

Re:Definitely too hard.

[jxander]

Unsure if serious ...

Regardless, there is definitely room in the video game landscape for both varieties of games. Simple games with zero learning curve and instant gratification, and more complex games that teach you complex strategies and let you continue to improve over a long timeframe.

The best games, however, give you both: the ability to play instantly, and a well constructed learning curve that improves your skills as the game goes on. For a perfect explanation of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM

I suppose I could make analogies to one-night stands and long committed relationships, and how they each have advantages (as Ron White put it: "She knows what I like and I know what she won't do...") but I think the youtube clip really sums it all up nicely.

RIDIN ON CARS!

Re:Definitely too hard.

[autocannon]

This is so right. I'd like to throw out Madden as a great example. Anyone ever try to pick up and play that game without playing it before? It is grossly complicated. Remember Tecmo Superbowl? That game was fun and easy. Every boy's house that had a NES had that game or rented it at some point.

Too old? How about NFL Blitz? While not a traditional NFL game, it sure was fun as hell to play against people and anyone could come in and pick up the basics in very short order.

Madden though? I've tried 2 different years since 2005. Both got traded in within a month.

Re:Definitely too hard.

[Quiet_Desperation]

That's all fine. The problem is that you are declaring everything outside what you like to be rubbish and bullshit, and that's nonsensical, albeit typical. Yes, Angry Birds is a big hit. So is Skyrim.

I have a very complicated job that involves designing things that get shot into outer space. I find deep and complicated game worlds like Skyrim to be incredibly relaxing after a long day. It's not all twitch and skills. You can spend a lot of time just ferreting out how the game world works and how the various skill and magic systems interact, maybe in ways even the game's designers didn't expect. And then a dragon lands on your head. :-)

There's an entire continuum of gaming available, from the complicated to the simple. Skill levels from Demon's Souls to the latest Bejeweled clone. And it's everywhere. You can play a simple puzzler on XBox Live Arcade, or delve deep into FF Tactics job trees on an iPad. The Golden Age of gaming is right freaking now, man.

Re:Definitely too hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

I still have a Genesis system sitting here and basically every single game offers at least nominal fun

Go to your room, play Shaq Fu, and think about what you just said.

Re:Definitely too hard.

[CronoCloud]

You would have been modded up to +5 Insightful if you hadn't posted anonymously.

Oh the hyperbole ...

[tgd]

I may be odd-man out on here, but I don't find $60 a particularly large amount of money to spend on something I get 10-20 hours of enjoyment out of. And there are plenty of games that I've gotten 10x that out of for the same $60. I happen to like the big, detailed, long games that require teams of 250 people a couple of years to make. I don't expect to pay $5 for a game like that, nor do I feel its right to thank them for their hard work by buying the game from someone else used.

Hell, I even like having authors of books I happen to like actually being paid for the work they did for me.

Here's the reality: If you don't value your entertainment to that level, don't buy it. The game makers will get the hint. Maybe the market really has shifted to $5 throw-away casual games, with companies like Zynga shooting for quantity, not quality. Maybe the market can only really sustain a dozen or two games with mid-eight-figure development budgets a year.

I do find it baffling how little people value the efforts of those who are providing entertainment to them. I'm not so poor that paying $10 to see a movie I'm excited about is a problem, nor am I so poor or easily amused that I value my entertainment at $1 an hour.

Re:Oh the hyperbole ...

[grumpyman]

I totally agree. The $80 I spend on original SC+exp (or WC3+exp) amount to almost nothing when I count the number of hours I spent on that thing.

Re:Oh the hyperbole ...

[jxander]

Both agree and disagree with the first point.

I don't find $60 too steep for an occasional REALLY freaking good game. For instance, I love the Mass Effect series, and despite all the chaos surrounding the 3rd one, I still felt it was a good game and worth the price I paid. However $60 as the standard price-point for every single game that comes out is absurd. Especially for games like Madden, Tiger Woods and Call of Modern Warduty which basically charge you the full $60 every year for what amounts to an expansion pack at BEST.

I just feel that there is currently too much of a disparity between Mega-huge AAA titles and little $10 indy projects like Limbo or Bastion (both great games, btw)

If the rumors presented in the article come to pass, and the next gen consoles are fully connected at all times, we may see a shift to correct this with their inevitable storefronts that will be included. The games that require giant teams of 250 people working for years on end can start at $60 or higher, whereas smaller titles (perhaps still from the big studios) can debut in the $20-30 range and indy titles can sell for whatever they feel like.

The one problem I have with your argument is the movie comparison. You can't simply equate dollars to time, without considering barrier to entry. To play a video game is a $60 buy in (not counting console price) and for that price I could see 5-7 movies depending on theater/matinee/etc. If I grab just one bad game, $60 down the hole, where as seeing 5-7 movies will all but guarantee I see a few winners. Movies that I can remember and reminisce with friends. Might be a few stinkers, but even bad movies can be entertaining (hence the phrase "so bad it's good") whereas bad games can easily become unplayable. Currently, the ability to sell bad games to Gamestop helps to alleviate some of the pain, and if that goes away... well, I might just hedge my bets and see a half-dozen movies instead.

Re:Oh the hyperbole ...

[Clovis42]

I'm not so poor that paying $10 to see a movie I'm excited about is a problem, nor am I so poor or easily amused that I value my entertainment at $1 an hour.

I could pay $1/hour for my entertainment, but since I have the option not to, I don't. I actually keep a detailed spreadsheet, so I know that I actually pay about $.30/hour overall (for games).

I've never bought a game at $60, but I'm primarily a PC gamer. I paid $40 for Skyrim, but spent 120 hours on it so far. Several indie games cost less than $10 but I've got insane hours out of (Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress*, A Valley Without Wind, Crusader Kings, etc.).

And I don't feel like I'm hurting the developers; I'm supporting them! I spent like $300+ on games last year. I really don't see how $60 is needed even for a AAA game when you can get huge numbers of sales at $20.

Anyway, the reason people don't want to pay $60 is that the market is moving away from that. That doesn't mean you only get $1/$5 crappy iOS games. You get a wide range of games at a good price and everyone wins. *I gave Tarn Adams $30 for DF last year, and will probably give more this year.

Re:Oh the hyperbole ...

[Quiet_Desperation]

Skyrim has cost me 50 cents per hour of entertainment so far. Find me a better deal. My shiny new optimized assassin thief alchemist is ready for the DLC. Where's my DLC, Bethesda!? Eh, I'll go make that Fortify Speech Amulet Of Give Me All Your Money instead, I guess, and I need a new batch of poisons.

Re:Oh the hyperbole ...

[dbergerson]

IMO, the flaw in your argument is that you are assuming that all games give you this value.
There is a handful of games that people will value and the fact that you generally can not try before you buy is a serious issue.
For me, personally, I still play Rise of Nations on a PC. I have probably played at least 10 hours a week since it came out, nearly 10 years ago. Of course, that was worth the price. Then look at Star Wars, MMO, a game that got 2 hours of my time, TRYING to like it. And of course, there are others that are quickly deleted, not long after installation.
Before you go off and start talking about, "Review sites." Most of those are glorified paid for advertising by the makers.
IMO, the industry, whether it is for consoles or for pc's, needs to come out with fully playable demos, capped at some time or level OR implement very liberal return policies. Then, you will see a lot more people not complain as much about the price. The don't want to feel they got ripped off.

Re:Oh the hyperbole ...

[tgd]

In my experience, not having a demo available is probably a good sign that the game sucks...

So I don't buy them. Simple as that. I wouldn't spend $20 on a game I wasn't sure I was going to like, either.

Re:Oh the hyperbole ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well based on what you wrote. Don't sell/buy used cars, houses, rubber, plastic, paper, glass, metals, the list goes on. It's called free market capitalism, if something has value and there is a demand, you can sell or buy it. I noticed you brought up $5 casual throw away games. I agree that most games on the market end up being made for quantity and not quality.

  However, that is exactly why people want the price lowered or they purchess used; Its not a matter of being poor. Its voting with your dollar. I stopped going to see some of the $10 movies you mention because they're trash and a waste of a hour and a half of my life. When was the last time one of the movies you were excited to see actually met your expectations? I'm not attacking you personally, I just dislike the idea of people forking over their hard earned money for sub-par entertainment. If developers made games of substance very few people would be able to buy them used because no one would turn them back in.

Just my opinion.

Re:Oh the hyperbole ...

[slackersurreal]

I actually keep a detailed spreadsheet, so I know that I actually pay about $.30/hour overall (for games).

Please don't ever leave slashdot you big sexy nerd you.

Re:Oh the hyperbole ...

[DeadCatX2]

Left 4 Dead 2 cost me $5. I've played for over 800 hours so far. This is less than one cent per hour. I spend more on electricity to play the game than I do the actual game.

My wife also got a copy for $5. She has played for almost 2000 hours.

Re:Oh the hyperbole ...

[humanrev]

Left 4 Dead 2 cost me $5. I've played for over 800 hours so far. This is less than one cent per hour. I spend more on electricity to play the game than I do the actual game.

My wife also got a copy for $5. She has played for almost 2000 hours.

See, this is another reason why I don't like using Steam anymore. Unless I'm playing in offline mode (which is never), I'm going to end up with reasonably accurate playtimes of my games. I don't care about the logging itself, that doesn't bother me - it's the fact that if I go to my profile and see I've spent 2000 on a game, I will feel bad about myself because it's 2000 hours I could have spent working on an Arduino project, or working in the garden, or learning a programming language, or going out and taking photographs, basically anything other than sitting on my ass and playing computer games and running out of life doing it.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy games. I just don't like being reminded about how much life I'm losing to them. 2000 hours on a single game? What the fuck dude! I'm not arrogant enough to tell your missus how to life her life (and yours) but doesn't looking at a stat like that elicit some kind of concern at least? That maybe there's more to life than games? I dunno.

#7: Thou shalt let us play with real-life friends

[tepples]

Anonymous Coward wrote:

My brother is very specific on the reason why. If you force people to play online, that's potentially extra sales for EA. There's no technical reason to exclude split-screen from recent titles, just a financial reason.

Quoted for emphasis. Here's what Cracked's David Wong has to say about the subject.

I see a problem... 'A gamers Eco-System'

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a few issues with this always connected / no 2nd hand games resale issue.

  Not everyone is made of money. I know a lot of kids from single parent families that play on the Xbox360 quite happily at the moment. Also they don't have & can't
afford to have the internet. So this will be a lost market for the majors if they push this crap through. These same kids swap games they can't afford to buy every
game that comes out. They for a long time have done what gamers have done before them. Since they days of the great & humble Spectrum's, Commodore 64's,
NES, SEGA Master System, SNES, Megadrive's, Neo-Geo, N-64, Atari Jaguar, Playstation and whatever else gamers have been able to swap/lend sell their
Tapes ( soz i know we started pirating around here.. tape to tape decks FTW! ) Cartridges, CD's & DVD's. This is what sells a console in the end. Its how big
a selection of games a gamer thinks he might be able to get with his friends that decides the one with the largest market share. If I know my friends all have
Machine-A I'll get Machine-A so I can play their game when they've finished with it, thus they could borrow one of mine. If a gamer without money has this way of
'Gamer Life' stolen by a greedy company that waists £££ on frivolous Execs, Lawyers & Shareholders & stupid titles he'll walk away from Consoles or go out
& find a way around the restrictions that doesn't feel like he's kicking is own head in every time he spends money on a game - i.e- Hacked/chippery or cracked
PC games all swappable &/or downloadable.

All the majors have to do is make an always on internet connection mandatory for online internet multi-player, simple.

If they are worried about Piracy on the consoles just lock the mainboard & DVD/Blueray drive down to make copies non-viable (HINT = SEGA Dreamcast)
Make gamers register with a phone call to activate a game. Codes can be generated from a combination of system properties/user info & ask the gamers
on activation if they'd like to be able to lend the gameout up to 5 friends. This last bit could have a dual use. Point out that if they say 'No' then there's no point
in anyone stealing their game media (discs) as it wont reactivate again without the owners INFO being used (could use Kinect here for voice recording or picture
snapping to make key for code) to activate.. possibly use a tone signal from tv speakers to send code through phone mic. Activation would require a code from a
text message or a sequence tone from the phone held near the console. (Ok last one's a bit much but possible)
  If they choose to allow the friends up to 5 different systems route then the company could monitor the application & clients using the facility. both methods
would activate in the same way. They just have to allow the first account to be the only one to have multiplayer access if needed.

I just think its sad & wrong to see the always on internet idea pushed on these entertainment devices as a lot of it's current user base can't afford an internet or
to buy games brand new all the time without being able to do what their elders have done before them.

All just ideas & musings

P Aurilen
 

They KNOW that people WILL go for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

They went for Steam.

In fact, they're downright aggressive in defending and promoting always-on-internet, lockout of online play beyond the original owner and all the other schemes that Steam can implement to ensure that nobody other than the original purchase can use either the digital or physical media.

They KNOW people will not only go for it, but will DEMAND that anyone who doesn't must be a tinfoil hat wearing crazy.

They know it because Steam has shown them.

Re:They KNOW that people WILL go for it.

[Gideon Wells]

I have a simple view on that matter.

Steam works because I own the games. They are digital and will eventually go on sale, and drop in price. There is no shelf space battle to encourage pure digital video games to vanish. Steam also works for me because the games are tied to my account (mostly, I'm sure there are exceptions). New computer? I still have all my games.

Conditions where I feel these companies are going too far:
* The games are tied to a console or PC/configuration. I don't want to lose games because faulty hardware fries my console, or a false positive from upgrading my graphics card makes it look like a new machine.

* If the consoles are reliant on disks (or cartridges as some rumors are implying for the new X-Box) then you have a physical good aspect of the game that can be damaged, lost and progressively harder to find as time goes on due to physical real-estate in stores not wanting to house old "new" games. Banning used cartridges/disks is just asking for piracy. I can still buy Half-Life 1 on Steam. Now, point me to where I can buy a new copy of Lunar 2: Eternal Blue Complete (released same year) if I wanted to support the company fully over buying used.

You have to read the details

[Anonymous Coward]

When you analyze the price of a game, you ahve to look at more than the total price. You have to look at :
1) the development & test price
2) assets / art price
3) the distribution price
4) the "cut" the intermediary pays
5) breakage

Whereas assets (2) rose in price paradoxically due to the fact that firm don't reinvent the wheel and reuse engine , (1) has dropped and the quality rose in parallel. (3) actually slightly dropped as channel got better and new channel came in (amazon , and now digital download). (4) even disappear totally in some case (own Digital distribution by EA) as well as (5).

Without knowing the weight in price of all those you can't compare 1985 price to 2012 price. Heck look at breakage (5) it is actually incredibly low now compared to when magnetic disk or tape had a lot of breakage.

What single killer app is worth $62?

[tepples]

Why wait? get an "iControlPad" (or similar) for your Android or iPhone now.

First, do all games support it? What incentive do developers have to support a $62 device that very few people will already have? What single killer app is worth $62? Second, an Android phone still costs bucks per month for cellular voice and data service, unlike a DSi or 3DS.

Re:What single killer app is worth $62?

[Enderandrew]

But that still isn't an additional cost for gaming. If I have an Everything Data Family plan, and I give my kid a cell phone, then I don't magically pay that cost a second time as part of a gaming budget.

Re:What single killer app is worth $62?

[tepples]

If I have an Everything Data Family plan, and I give my kid a cell phone

...would it be cheaper than giving the kid a $7 per month flip phone and having the kid just use a land line for long calls?

Re:What single killer app is worth $62?

[Enderandrew]

I'm not aware of any option for a $7 cell phone plan in the US. The cheapest individual phone plans I see run around $35 a month. With Sprint's Everything Data Family Plan, it costs me $20 to add a line for my kid, who gets data and minutes.

Re:What single killer app is worth $62?

[tepples]

I'm not aware of any option for a $7 cell phone plan in the US.

Virgin Mobile USA's cheapest payLo plan is $20 per 90 days.

Re:What single killer app is worth $62?

[Marc_Hawke]

T-Mobile "pay as you go" I pay $30 a YEAR. No data option though without paying monthly.

Re:What single killer app is worth $62?

[Fallingcow]

My wife teaches 6th grade in a pretty damn poor area.

All the kids have smart phones.

She used to teach 3rd grade in the same school.

All the kids had smart phones.

Whether they should or not, no-one seems to mind paying for even very young kids to have expensive data/voice/text plans. I don't get it either, but that's the state of things.

Incidentally, the 3rd grade boys all played Modern Warfare on the X-Box, not Mario on the Wii like one might expect. So weird.

In short, cell phone? Practically guaranteed. DS/PSP? Maybe.

Re:What single killer app is worth $62?

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to the fact that you do not know how it works, It will suffice to laugh at you tepples, instead of mocking you.

Affordability

[phorm]

Used games are affordable. Most (smartphone/tablet) games are also rather affordable.
Additionally, they're transferable between your devices (with the same account)

The hassle of transferring $5 app ownership is greater than the cost of just buying the app for $5 straight-out.
If it's a $60 app, then things might well be different.

Impulse buys: cheap, network games in-store

[__aawavt7683]

They should allow the in-store tryout and purchase of the cheap *-Network-only games. Those are games people don't see anywhere else, can't rent, and they're cheap enough to be impulse buys. Tack a dollar or two on, specify login name as a "Buy For" option, all the payment goes through Microsoft/Sony/whatever, and ends up on the user's machine at home when they turn it on.

It's a whole area that isn't available to any retailers that they should be clamoring for the ability to sell to. Provide all of them as playable demos on the special demo boxes, or with store credentials. The people can play for 5 minutes or something before a game over or level end, maybe. Instantly switchable between games, with no downloads required in-store -- it can already be there.

Rumors

[virgnarus]

The summary made sure to clarify the constant online connection for Durango were just rumors, yet no problem stating the anonymous "developer" claims against the Wii U hardware as factual when it is indeed also a rumor. In contrast:

• EA: "Wii U is not a transitional platform, it is a true next generation system."
• Vigil: “We had the game at the same level as high end PC version in a matter of days and a few lines of code got the game up and running on tablet in 5 mins.”
• Crytek: “Wii U devkits are very powerful, the specs are very good.”
• Epic: “It will do things current HD consoles simply cant do it's going to be a powerful box.”

These were all even early statements from them when fiddling with the old dev kits given to them. Certainly does not give the "anonymous devs" claims any credence, but regardless of this people love slurping up this sensationalist swill. Same goes for the Durango mess.

$60 is ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is quite simple why $35 twenty years ago was ok and $60 today is not; the basis for calculating inflation is on the "cost" and has no correlation to take home pay; which has been stagnant for over 30 years... Therefore, although the cost, according to inflation should be higher, the amount of money people have for entertainment is the same as twenty years ago. A better way to look at the cost/pay would be as a ratio in which the buying power of the general public is the same as it was 20 years ago but the costs are twice as much; effectively meaning people have half the amount of money of twenty years ago to spend on entertainment.

Re:$60 is ridiculous

[Enderandrew]

Actually, I was mistaken. SMB3 was $50 when it was released, which would be over $100 today.

And the median salary in the US has gone up over 30% over the past 20 years.

Re:$60 is ridiculous

[Eponymous Coward]

The point is that there are more people willing to buy games at $10 than $50. Last year, I spent way more on cheap games for my PC and phone than I did for my PS3. I can't see that trend changing for me any time soon, especially since most of the PS3 games I've bought have sucked (with the notable exception of Little Big Planet and maybe Katamari).

Re:$60 is ridiculous

[Enderandrew]

They can't sell a game for $10 retail. There is the cost to ship it to a retailer. There is retailer markup. There is the licensing cost to the console maker. A brand new retail game that costs $20 might only send $5 back to the publisher per copy. If the game cost $20 million to produce (again, entry level for a AAA title) then they'd have to sell 4 million copies to break even.

Top selling games aspire to sell 1 million copies. Only 25 PS3 games have ever sold 1 million copies. Even if sales should increase at the lower cost, if you need 4 million copies to break even, then that isn't a good business model.

You also have to realize that people think less of items that are priced cheaper. There was someone who tried unseating Madden with a $20 football video game (NFL2k series? Can't remember) and they failed miserably. They didn't sell more copies at the lower price point because people assume a cheaper game is inherently a lesser game.

Re:$60 is ridiculous

[Eponymous Coward]

They can't sell a game for $10 retail

No they can't. That's why retail's future is bleak and digital delivery is so big. New consoles are going to require an always-on internet connection to support new business models like in-game purchases and advertising. Stupid little games like the pictionary game Zinga just bought generates $100,000 of sales per day. There's no reason a major AAA title couldn't potentially do 10x that. If they figure it out, that title may be free.

If the console makers were smart, they would take a look at what Apple is doing and do a better job. Apple makes it relatively easy and cheap to develop for their platform while console makers do everything they can to prevent it. Apple has a decent web browser while the consoles either don't have one or the one they do have is terrible. Apple revs their platform annually and console makers sit on their hardware for too long, and sometimes go backwards with console capabilities. Frankly, I'm surprised they are doing as well as they are.

Re:$60 is ridiculous

[Enderandrew]

You can develop XBox Live, PSN and WiiWare titles for digital delivery today.

Re:$60 is ridiculous

[Eponymous Coward]

It is far, far easier to get a game into the iOS App store than onto the Wii or PS3. I have no idea about XBox Live.

Re:$60 is ridiculous

[Eponymous Coward]

FYI, here's a page describing what it takes to become a WiiWare developer. It isn't even close to as easy as it is for iOS devices.

Re:$60 is ridiculous

[Tassach]

Actually, I was mistaken. SMB3 was $50 when it was released, which would be over $100 today.

And the median salary in the US has gone up over 30% over the past 20 years.

So, by your own numbers, median salary has gone up by 30%, but prices have more than doubled, and you can't see the problem? Are you really that math-impaired?

Re:$60 is ridiculous

[Enderandrew]

And yet my post was originally in response to someone claiming games should cost $15.

If games were $50 in 1985, then why should they cost $15 now when development costs have skyrocketed?

Even if games only matched the growth rate of income, then a $50 game should cost $65 today. Stop trying to claim that $60 is ridiculous.

Re:$60 is ridiculous

[damnbunni]

NFL2K didn't fail because people assumed it was cheap.

NFL2K sold okay. But then EA got an exclusive license for NFL football, and since then NO ONE ELSE has been able to make an NFL football game.

And realistically, no one's going to buy a football game without the NFL license.

So that's why the competition for Madden failed - EA prevented there from BEING any since 2005.

The exclusivity deal is estimated to be worth 'hundreds of millions' of dollars. So we won't be seeing another 2K Sports football game.. ever, probably.

Which is sad. They were a hell of a lot better than Madden, and forced the Madden team to actually improve their product.

This article lacks content

[ZombieBraintrust]

The article linked in the summary fails to provide any evidense or content. Why is the console industry dysfunctional? Not in the article. Instead we get old rumors about the specs for new consoles. Big waste of time and space.

Infinite spin: It actually breaks Tetris.

[tepples]

The definition of Tetris changed in 2001 with the introduction of infinite spin (explanation) and T-spin triples (explanation), among other changes that "actually break[] Tetris" according to a review by Ryan Davis of GameSpot. So have you been playing old Tetris or modern Tetris for the past decade?

Always-on Internet

[Githaron]

Rumors are floating about of a required always-on internet connection ...

If the next generation of consoles require an internet connection for offline processes, the current generation of consoles is the last generation of consoles I will be purchasing. This is coming from a person who spends a significant amount of time playing video games.

The same goes for the games themselves.

Wii U? Do Not Want

[TheNinjaroach]

the Wii U actually isn't as powerful as the Xbox 360 or PS3

Oh for crying out loud, Nintendo has gone completely niche at this point. Their platform is so much like a lesser version of Apple's, gimped software features, walled garden environment but you don't even get the cutting edge highly polished hardware. Just some decent first party software

The underspec'ed hardware is going to be a huge failure for Nintendo. The Wii version of any game is significantly hampered compared to any other platform. The hardware investment is not worth the payoff of a handful of good first-party titles, of which there are far too few.

Finally, the Internet-o-phobia present in all online Wii games makes their multiplayer modes worthless. I do not want to exchange 16 digit PIN codes for every new game that I want to play with the same old friends.

Japanese console makers don't get it, and Microsoft's platform doesn't appeal to me. I've known for awhile now that my current set of video game consoles will be the last that I ever purchase for myself.

I see something bigger happening

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the air free TV getting replaced by mandatory cable, used game market going away, internet becoming more and more censored... pretty soon people will no longer be able to afford cheap entertainment.

Do you know what happens when you take away cheap entertainment? For one crime goes up. Second the apathetic general masses are no longer placated by their cheap entertainment. They might actually start to care more about what's going on in this country. More protests, revolts... revolution.

You know in a way this might be a good thing. When people no longer distracted by cheap entertainment we may actually see change happen in this country.

Re:My brother works for one of EA's big "franchise

[jxander]

Not entirely true. While I don't doubt that EA will do everything in their power to bolster sales, there *IS* a technical limitation as well. Have you ever played 2-player split screen on a modern widescreen TV? The aspect ratio is absurd either way you split it.

Irrelevancy and fancy accounting

[CAIMLAS]

What this sounds like to me is a combination of two things: fighting the impending irrelevancy and threat of the iPhone and Android, and trying to lock in another profit center to deal with the fact that they're not the only game in town anymore (literally).

Irrelevancy: Look, what these next gen consoles are up against is the cheapest of the cheap: we're at a point where you can get a $100 device running Android, hook it to your TV, and play any number of games off Google Play for free or near free. They're not up against their old consoles, particularly with how mature and well featured some of the Android games are getting. (There are FPS games on Play which rival the original Counterstrike in features and surpass it on graphics by quite a bit, all playable on your phone...)

Profit center: Again, $50-60 games which might suck on a $400 console you might buy if there are a couple games on it you like does not hold a candle to the $4 and under games. Since most people probably buy a console (due to the cost) once there are games they want to play available, and only buy a handful of games (what parent wants to regularly 'feed' their kids' console at $50/game or who wants to risk $50 on something that's horrible?).

Hollywood accounting: I suspect that the game industry has succumbed to Hollywood accounting. They claim a loss on the games or that they're not making a profit for accounting reasons, making it look like everyone's "losing" money. I'm sorry, but as popular as even the worst games are, they're selling them for $50+ each. I understand development costs are higher now than they used to be due to the epic nature of many movies, but there's little reason (IMO) for the disproportionate claims.

as a gamer

[Eponymous Hero]

i own roughly 80 xbox360 games. i rarely sell back my games (i think i've turned in a total of 5), because i'm usually careful enough to buy games i'm confident i'll enjoy, and it's refreshing to go back to a game i haven't played in years. i'm also a collector, and yeah i shell out extra cash for the limited editions. i upgraded my console to the 320GB hard drive because i was running out of space just for the DLC. there's no way in hell i can store all the games i want to keep on the hard drive alone -- the discs themselves are quite useful as a means to store and organize games.

are they going to release 500PB hard drives for me store all my games and DLC for a reasonable amount of time? what happens to the collectibles in an era where games are download only?

Take fighting games, for example

[tepples]

Unfortunately for consoles, split-screen multiplayer is a dying breed.

What advantage does Internet multiplayer have over shared-screen multiplayer for, say, a fighting game? Fighting games are very sensitive to latency, even more so than, say, military first-person shooters because a fighting game can't use dead reckoning to predict short-term trajectories. And a fighting game like Street Fighter series or Smash Bros. series doesn't need to split the screen; it can just zoom out to show the part of the arena where the player characters are fighting.

Re:Take fighting games, for example

[Moheeheeko]

The advantage there is being able to play against more than just my few friends in the room. IDK about you, but my friends get burnt out on fighting games after about an hour or so, especially if there is one person who is obviously better than everyone else (usually the person who owns the game).

Before internet matchamking for fighting games was introduced, only the few who went to tournaments or frequented arcades really cared about fighting games past the first few hours of figuring out who you are good with, then the game got tossed into the box with the other games that come out once in a blue moon. Now more people are becoming "hardcore" fighting game fans because they dont have to worry about leaving their friends in the dust. The argument could be made that they could buy it and get better themselves but that renders your point moot.

Re:Take fighting games, for example

[tepples]

So how do Internet fighting games work around Internet lag?

Re:Take fighting games, for example

[Moheeheeko]

Its hardly noticeaable to me, once in a blue moon somone lags out. Apparently its not something to worry about.

Re:Take fighting games, for example

[CronoCloud]

I've been told that the "lag" isn't really an issue these days. There's some rather popular online fighting games on PSN.

Simple to hook a PC to a modern TV

[tepples]

I want something more computer like, yet dirt simple to hook up to the TV

Any high-definition TV that isn't an early-adopter 1080i CRT supports HDMI in, which works with any PC that has DVI-D or HDMI out. Most high-definition TVs also support VGA in, which works with any PC that has VGA or DVI-I out. Even standard-definition TVs need only a $30 cable from SewellDirect.com to convert VGA signals to composite or S-Video.

why would one need more gaming power than what the Wii offers already, ever?

Perhaps for titles that you can't get through Nintendo for some reason. Have you ever heard of Bob's Game?

waiting means you get more when you finally plop down your money.

Unless, say, a flood takes out all the hard drive factories.

Re:Simple to hook a PC to a modern TV

[GargamelSpaceman]

I guess an old or cheap new computer running Windows might be what I want then, with a wireless keyboard and mouse.

Enough deployed Bluetooth gamepads?

[tepples]

Since when are there enough deployed Bluetooth gamepads to make a game designed for Bluetooth gamepads commercially viable? Otherwise, your $4 game is suddenly a $66 game when the player realizes he needs an iControlPad.

Re:Enough deployed Bluetooth gamepads?

[spire3661]

In the next console hardware generation, do you honestly think the tablet folks are going to sit back while MS Sony and Nintendo continue to dominate the market? We are not going to see 3 players next console round, but rather 6 or 10. Apple, FOR SURE, will be launching a gamepad device at some point in the future. All the tools are in place for an Apple console-like experience, all that is missing is the officially supported apple controllers.

Re:Enough deployed Bluetooth gamepads?

[tycoex]

But what if every game is controllable using the gamepad? It's not like you don't have to buy controllers for consoles, and you already own a cell phone so it at least cuts out the price of the console itself.

Re:Enough deployed Bluetooth gamepads?

[DinDaddy]

Rumors are already appearing:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/04/02/apple_working_on_physical_game_controller_for_ipads_and_other_ios_devices_.html

Re:Enough deployed Bluetooth gamepads?

[Daniel Phillips]

Android 3.0+ features native gamepad support

Re:Enough deployed Bluetooth gamepads?

[damnbunni]

Grand Theft Auto III for Android natively supports Playstation 3 gamepads - those are Bluetooth, albeit with the need to use a USB cable to pair them.

It also works just dandy in 1080p with the HDMI out on my tablet.

Re:Enough deployed Bluetooth gamepads?

[tepples]

Deployed phones and PDAs still feature Android 2.x

Re:My brother works for one of EA's big "franchise

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, Sony tried to tackle the problem with their 3D display that claims to allow 2 people to share the same screen using special glasses. From what I hear it's not 100% success, and I know /. loves to hate Sony, but it's an interesting idea.

That said, I think the answer lies in developing new forms of gameplay to recreate that "have buddies over and game" feel, instead of trying to bring back to split screen

"Party" games (i.e. Mario Party) bring people together by letting them take turns.

I played Tales of Symphonia on the GameCube with my friends, as we can each control one of the characters in combat. Fun times.

Also played PacMan Vs and Zelda 4 Swords on the cube together, but those require GBAs as well to function

So it's not that you can't make games which allow for people to play together on the same console/in the same room, it's just that... well, IMNSHO, we're obsessed with the 1st/3rd person perspective in multiplayer games (I'm looking at you, FPS). Under 1st/3rd person, you're limited to what you can do

Buying two copies

[tepples]

Also right out of the gate PC games are $10 cheaper

What you say is true in the case of one gamer per household but not so much for households with more than one gamer. A lot of PC games won't activate for more than one e-mail address.

Re:Buying two copies

[tycoex]

This is my biggest grate with PC gaming. I'm a PC gamer myself who built my own desktop specifically for gaming, so I do love PC gaming. However, if I want to play a game with my wife it's much cheaper to buy it on ps3 (if available), than to buy two copies for the PC.

Also, while consoles are sadly getting away from local multiplayer and becoming more like PCs, there is still a larger amount of games with local multiplayer than on the PC. There's just something to be said for playing a game together on a single screen, rather than two separate screens.

And for groups of friends, there's no argument that a Wii with brawl or mario kart is by far the best way to go.

Re:Buying two copies

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

How long before this happens with console games? Sounds like it's coming soon. Sure they'll let you play with others in multiplayer but this will be on someone's account. Maybe you'll buy the ability to allow 3 guests to play on your account at the same time. Or maybe everyone that's playing will need their own gamertag and will have to purchase the right to play the game. That would allow you to play it at any house that has said console, but that used to be free if someone had a copy of the game.

Re:Buying two copies

[tepples]

there is still a larger amount of games with local multiplayer than on the PC.

One can use any HDTV as a PC monitor. But PC games tend not to support this mode because not enough people are interested enough in learning how to get the most out of a PC to the point where they learn that PC-to-TV is possible. If this can be solved, there's no need for consoles. Any suggestions for how to achieve this?

Re:Buying two copies

[tycoex]

I personally have my desktop connected to my living room TV, but even still I don't tend to play games on the television much. Most PC games are designed to be played from a close distance, and so even though my monitor is smaller and of worse resolution, they still tend to be better than on the TV.

In addition to this controllers still seem better than mouse/keyboard for TV gaming. Yes, controllers can be used with the PC but that's an additional cost, and not all games allow their use.

PCs would have to be vastly simplified to work for the average console consumer in my opinion, which kind of eliminates the entire point of playing on a PC.

Economic Theory

[Phoenix666]

Economic Theory tells us that it's better to be a monopolist than to compete in a free market. The only thing better than a monopolist is to be able to exercise price discrimination. That means you can charge lower prices for the same goods to capture more revenue. Video game companies are among the few who can do that. They charge more for pre-release, full-price at release, and then scale it down afterward depending on the sales volume and time from release. In mathematical terms, they capture more of the demand curve, and thus, higher profits.

So they're already sitting in the catbird seat, yet still grasping for more.

Greed knows no limits.

Verblen Effect

[rsborg]

Might be granny and auntie christmas purchase marketing. "the $60 game must be better than the $30 game... I'll buy junior the $30 game"

This is what is known as the Verblen effect [1]. Thing is, it doesn't just do to price it higher. The overall packaging needs to be better, and to look "richer" (curiously this likely leads to bullshot [2]). Playability (and replayability) are relegated to the bottom of the list, along with meaningful plot.

Funny thing, the verblen effect is likely altered by App Stores where there isn't any physical packaging, and lots of word-of-mouth. Of course, even in this genre, depth of game and complexity are diminished in order to give instant satisfaction to the buyer (note: the buyer is likely NOT purchasing for someone else - so again even digital packaging isn't nearly as important). In this space, reviews are king, and are already gamed.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
[2] http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/09/12

Love buying online

[deciduousness]

Personally I wish that every game was available to be bought online for consoles. I am actually pretty shocked that there are quite a few games that I can't buy online, especially new releases. When the closest game store is at least a half hour away in traffic, I would just rather not buy the game. It also encourages more impulse buying from me. When I end up with some free time and read about an interesting game... I want to play it now. If I can't play it now, I will just find a good book to read, which I can easily find online.

What is this "Game Shop" of which you speak?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that something like Amazon? Or do you refer to the $5 bin at Wal-Mart or Best Buy?

Or is this some sort of arcane thing where you have brick walls surrounding the sales of one type of product (like bargain shoes or VCR tapes?) In other words, a business model that no longer seems to work effectively (when it works at all.)

One word

[fireylord]

Laptop. That is where you are making your mistake. Using a laptop for PC gaming is, frankly, like trying to ice skate uphill.

If not bundled, a killer app is needed

[tepples]

Since when are there enough deployed Bluetooth gamepads to make a game designed for Bluetooth gamepads commercially viable?

But what if every game is controllable using the gamepad?

My point appears to have missed you, for which I apologize. If the gamepad isn't bundled with the system or at the very least sold in the same brick and mortar store that sells the system, there has to be a first game that's good enough to inspire people to go online and buy a gamepad sight unseen. That's enough to deter some developers from taking the effort to support even one gamepad because it's not likely to be the brand that everyone already owns. And then you get into fragmentation when different games support different gamepads. Or what am I still missing?

Re:If not bundled, a killer app is needed

[spire3661]

Oh you mean like the fragmentation we see now with kinect, move and wii plus?? The fact is every modern console manufacturer has shattered the 'it has to ship with it or no one will support it" mantra. Even the Xbox360 can be assumed to have a hard drive now, even though it didnt originally ship with one, due to MS adding onboard flash and allowing USB as HDD.

Players next console round

[tepples]

We are not going to see 3 players next console round, but rather 6 or 10.

The last time this happened, there were the Jaguar, 3DO, NEC PC-FX, Amiga CD32, Pippin, Saturn, PlayStation, and N64. How many of those made money? Let's assume the next console round will involve at least Microsoft (Xbox Durango and docked Lumia), Nintendo (Wii U), Sony (PS4), Apple (docked iPad), and Motoogle (docked Xyboard). How many console makers can be viable at once?

Consoles going the way of the CD music industry

[Daniel Phillips]

Console makers have just abused their customers too much. The sun is setting on the console industry while mobile and indie gaming are rising.

Do games supporting a gamepad support all of them?

[tepples]

The only expansion motion controller for Xbox 360 is Kinect. If an Xbox 360 game supports Kinect, it supports all expansion motion controllers for the platform. Likewise with PlayStation Move for PlayStation 3 and Wii MotionPlus for Wii. Is it the same way with Bluetooth game controllers? If I buy an iControlPad, an iCade 8-Bitty, or a Dual Shock 3, can I be sure it'll work with all Android games that claim to support "a gamepad", or do I need to look for games that specifically support each model of Bluetooth game controller?

Must all developers move?

[tepples]

Please consider the following proposition: Someone with an idea for a new video game that works better with gamepads than with a mouse and keyboard, even someone with a working prototype for PC, MUST first move to Austin, Boston, or Seattle so that he can gain experience working for a company that already has a license to publish on consoles. Is this true or false?

Struggles for new profit centers, relies on old

[tepples]

Dysfunctional Console Industry Struggles For New Profit Centers

And the beauty of the consoles is that more games support two to four gamepads because people actually have their consoles hooked up to big enough monitors, unlike their PCs.

And that has what, exactly, to do with this discussion?

No matter how dysfunctional the console industry becomes, as long as the consoles have an oligopoly on games in genres that work best with gamepads, they'll still have at least some profit centers.

$10

[ryanmc1]

My price point for game is $10, and this is only for full games on disk. For download games I won't pay more than $5. I mostly buy games used (GameFly is great), but every once in a while I will run across a great sale, or something and I can pick up a new game for $10 or less. For example, just a couple weeks ago I bought Batman Arkham city ($10), Rage($5), and BulletStorm($5) new for $20 total at Best buy. I always wait for the Xbox live games to go one sale before I purchase them. If the console makers force out used game sales I will either not buy a new console, or I will wait a couple years until there are enough old games that have come down in price to keep me busy.

Let them

[Osgeld]

There is nothing like a crash to get a system rebooted

A New Profit Source

[Digital Vomit]

Dysfunctional Console Industry Struggles For New Profit Centers

Here's an idea for a new profit center: console industry executive salaries. The CEO of Electronic Arts, Larry Probst, is overpaid by at least $12 million dollars annually. And that's just one executive. There's easily hundreds of millions of dollars in the untapped profit source of console industry executive salaries.

Re:Do games supporting a gamepad support all of th

[spire3661]

You are making a mountain out of a molehill, there is a lot of desire for tablet as console to occur. Controller support is there already, built into the most modern systems. Any tablet console scheme will support the full range of traditional controllers that current gen consoles do. ( wireless, dbl sticks, 4 buttons, 8 way POV, analog and digital triggers). If you think Win 8 tablets and Win 7/8 phone/tablets wont support an Xbox controller natively then you really aren't paying attn. Android has controller support baked in, you KNOW Apple has a scheme ready to go. Its going to happen.

Gamestops problems

[fireylord]

Gamestop have also taken a perfectly good download based games portal (Impulse) and removed any semblance of customer service and putting the customer first. Have been having massive problems trying to buy ONE title from their service, and they have been of zero help trying to resolve it. I have now given up and have resolved to never give Impulse any more money. Way to take a smallish games portal and trash it's customer base Gamestop!

What's dysfunctional about the console industry?

[RockDoctor]

They make products that people don't buy.

They go out of business.

I fail to see the dysfunction.

Re:Wii U? Do Not Want

[Elrond, Duke of URL]

The underspec'ed hardware is going to be a huge failure for Nintendo. The Wii version of any game is significantly hampered compared to any other platform. The hardware investment is not worth the payoff of a handful of good first-party titles, of which there are far too few.

I think you're greatly underestimating the Wii's appeal to casual gamers. Niche or not, if it sells well then it is hardly a failure, and the current Wii has sold remarkably well. I agree that good specs, or something at least on par with the aging PS3, for the new Wii U would make sense and would be very nice, but that is not the end-all goal for console makers or the people buying them.

Also, I would argue that each person would need to make their own judgement about whether or not it is worth the cost. For example, I happen to own a Wii console and, by and large, the main reason I bought one was precisely for those first party games because, at least in the case of Nintendo, they have a long history of being very good games and a lot of fun to play.

In the end, it all comes down to your personal balance of the costs and benefits. For the price I bought the Wii at and knowing that I would mostly (though not entirely) be playing a handful of first party games, the balance was acceptable. If the Wii had cost more, say in the range the PS3 sells for, then the cost/benefits definitely wouldn't have worked out.

To somebody else, that balance wouldn't work. Maybe they don't like the first party games, or maybe they find even the Wii to be too expensive. Or whatever else. Clearly that person shouldn't make the purchase.

Will I buy a Wii U? I really don't know. I can reasonably count on continued first party games of very high quality and enjoyment, but I'll have to balance that with the cost of the new console. Because its specs aren't state-of-the-art I imagine that the cost won't be astronomical. Other factors, like the rumored always-on Internet connection requirement, must also be taken into consideration. *That* possible requirement would, for me, weigh far more heavily against the console than its hardware specs.

Re:Wii U? Do Not Want

[DeanCubed]

I need to apparently post twice in order for people to see it, but the rumours that the Wii U is underpowered compared to todays consoles is rubbish.

Quick Googling reveals that this rumour about the Wii U's lack of power, from 'an anonymous developer' (probably one with a vested interest in the Wii U failing), is complete BS.

Crytek founder Avni Yerli: The hardware is "very good". "Our guys in Nottingham, they are very happy with their tests on the dev kits and they're excited about it."

Tekken designer Katsuhiro Harada: Very 'impressed by the 60fps running of the game (Tekken) on the Wii U'

Vigil Games: “We had the game at the same level as high end pc version in a matter of days and a few lines of code got the game up and running on tablet in 5 mins.”

Gearbox: "The Wii U version (of Aliens: Colonial Marines) has so much more to offer... no other platform can do what the Wii U can do. The machine itself will be one of the best looking versions of the game [sic] because they’ve got more RAM than some of the other things [platforms]“, says Martel. “...they’ve got this really great processor.”

Epic Games: “It will do things current HD consoles simply cant do its going to be a powerful box.”

”EA: “Wii U is not a transitional platform, it is a true next generation system.”

THQ: “WiiU is just alot more powerful than current HD consoles it does 1080p very easy.”