I'm skeptical of how successful this can be. For one thing, their analogy is flawed. It's easy to build the price wireless of service for ebooks into the purchase price because ebooks are, on average, less than 1MB in size. Contrast that with modern portable games, which can regularly exceed 1GB in file size. If Nintendo plans to build that cost into the price of games, they could be looking at a substantial markup. Also, acquiring the game is not the only consideration for portable game buyers. They'll also want online functionality within many games. Does Nintendo plan to offer this without subscription charges as well? How will they fund it?
The other problem with this is that it doesn't really address the main reason why so many people are opting for games on platforms like the iPhone, convenience. Despite Sony's and Nintendo's (best?) efforts, the DS and PSP are still pretty much only gaming devices in a world where mobile phones are becoming an increasingly convergent platform. Sony and Nintendo still provide a better gaming experience, but for a lot of people who are just looking to pass a few minutes of free time while they're on the go, mobile phones are increasingly "good enough". Why shell out another $100-$200 for a portable device, plus $30-$40 for games (not to mention deal with the logistics of charging and carrying a second device), when you've already got something in your pocket that replicates, say 70-80% of the functionality of a dedicated device? For some, the answer to that question is obviously "because the games are better". But as mobile phones get more and more powerful, that group will get smaller and smaller.
Wrong and wrong. It uses AT&T GSM and WiFi, where the Kindle uses Sprint CDMA only (on the $259 version). On space the Nook has 2GB internal storage (same as Kindle) but also has a micro SD slot that supports up to an additional 16GB.
Funny, I happen to hate Charles Stross for almost the exact opposite reason. His books are drowning in an obsession with flushing out every angle he can find on the technology, and leave almost no room for anything else.
Not really. While those are all sources of income, very few people would consider them for a primary occupation, and most people earning income from such ventures are still searching for a new career. Unemployment benefits should not punish those who put the effort in to maintain their livelihood simply because the government is too lazy to make a distinction between supplementary income and an actual job.
I think that the battery life of e-ink screens is something that a lot of ebook detractors haven't quite grasped. We live in a world where we charge dozens of devices on a daily basis. The idea of an electronic device that can be used for over a month without needing to be charged, and only takes an hour or so to top off, seems almost too good to be true to a lot of people. When your low battery indicator gives you not minutes or hours of warning to plug in, but days or weeks, the idea of being caught unawares without enough power becomes almost absurd.
Imagine having the ability to buy additional scenes to the film. Or a better camera angle.
Movies have been doing this for nearly a decade. Almost every film that gets released on DVD sees a basic version first, then a "collectors edition" follows several months later with director commentary, deleted scenes, etc... In fact, while people here rage against EA deigning to release extra content the day of the retail release, movie fans have been clamoring for such a thing on DVDs for quite some time now, as the current structure is intentionally designed to get people to purchase the DVD twice, first simply to watch the movie, then later in order to experience the extra content.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bulk of the comments in this thread seem to be to the effect of: a publisher is obligated to include all completed content of a game in the retail box at the ship date. The problem with this line of thinking is that it has no regard for what it costs to make that content or the fact that we, as gamers, are completely unwilling to pay more than $50 for a game (see the conversation on Modern Warfare 2 for the PC's price point), even while we continue to demand more and more from them.
People seem to think that if we somehow manage to abolish these DLC packs, that content will somehow end up in the retail version of the game instead. What they're forgetting is that publishers and developers aren't just doing this for the fun of it. They're doing it because they have to sell ever more expensive content to almost the same sized audience at the same price point they've always been. DLC and add-ons isn't some end run around the consumer to wring even more profit out of us, it's a last ditch effort to simply keep a lot of these products profitable at all. Without the option to sell this content as DLC, it doesn't end up in the retail package as everyone seems to think, it never even gets made.
I think the giant battery with a cable running into her chest might be enough of a clue for most trained medical professionals to figure out that her case is unusual.
What a terrible article. Regardless of where you fall on the issue of whether or not technical progress is accelerating, the arguments laid out in this article are just flat out bad. Here's a list of problems I spotted just on the first page.
-The author is 53, his grandmother lived to be ~80. He's contrasting the amount of technological changes is his 53 years to those in her 80 years.
-At one point he mentions "child mortality in industrialized countries dropped by 80 percent in those years". The definition of "industrialized" is not fixed, nor are nations fixed in that category. Are we to consider it less important that child mortality has dropped in "non-industrialized" nations during the later half of the 20th century?
-His metric is entirely subjective. What was a more significant invention, the telephone or the Internet? Which event has more historical significance, the launch of Sputnik, the Apollo moon landing, or the flight of Spaceship1? The author treats these questions as if the answers are patently obvious, and offers no supporting evidence for his conclusions.
-His choices of which technologies should get mention are equally subjective. The first heart transplant gets a mention, but not the cloning of Dolly the sheep. The nylon and the zipper pass muster, but not velcro.
In the end, this authors arguments against accelerating change are even more poorly made than those made for it by all the singularity believers, who take it as a forgone conclusion, that he's trying to debunk here.
Yeah, but I bet your "spouse" won't be able to be a same-sex ruler
Really? If there was ever a game that would allow this, I would think it would be Fable. Both previous games have allowed for homosexual relationships and marriages. Not to mentioned that polygamy, STDs, orgys, birth control, and infidelity were also all included in some form or another in Fable 2. As far as video games go, Fable is about as sexually progressive as you get.
I could probably sit here and make a list 3 pages long of changes and improvements that I'd like to see in Fable 3 (and I genuinely enjoyed Fable 2). But if I had to pick just one thing that I'd like to see in the next game it would be this. One of the things about Fable 2 that really set it apart from all the others in my mind, was the ability for the character to truly influence the environment of the game world. Save a farmer from a group of bandits, for instance, and 10 years later there's a thriving farm where there was just a shack and a meager carrot patch. Choose not to save him, or join that bandits though and even the farm would be just a distant memory.
However, this aspect of the game was only expressed at a handful of choice moments in Fable 2. The one thing I'd like to see in Fable 3 is more of these, a lot more, and more dynamic changes as well.
Games, in principle, could make perfectly decent movies(half life could really do with a decent treatment)
The problem with game>movie transitions is the same problem with movie>game transitions. In both scenarios you have a set amount of people who are going to buy the game or see the movie for no other reason than the name. Since the developer or producer can already count on X amount of sales regardless of how much time or money they put into the project, their incentive to put more than the bare minimum into it is therefore reduced. Until the average consumer can start looking past brand recognition as a primary motivation to spend their money this balance is not going to shift.
Stardock has already been doing something similar to this for some time now. Those who pre-ordered Sins of a Solar Empire, Gal Civ 2, or any of either game's numerous expansions got access to closed betas very early on in the games' developments. The payoff, for those who invested in the games early on, is the ear of the developer and a chance to have a much larger say in how the game turns out than is usual.
eh... while your analysis is reasonable, it is missing a key point. Gamestop buys a new game for $20, then resell the game for $55. I believe game developers are mad at gamestop for essentially stepping in and taking a sale. In fact, if you track Gamestop used prices, you tend to find the used copy only $5 dollars cheaper than the new version.
True, but Gamestop is not the only place where people buy and sell used games. Additionally, they do not enjoy such a wide margin on games for more than perhaps a month or two after the initial release.
however, the purpose of my example was not so much about how much Gamestop takes, but about the economic logic behind used sales that I think a lot of the developers and publishers are overlooking. There are other factors at work here as well. For instance, when consumers sell an old game they often use the proceeds to purchase a new one. So eliminating used sales will also have a slightly offsetting negative effect on new game sales through that avenue as well.
I completely disagree. If you aren't allowed to resell games, then there's only ONE source of a game, and that's brand spankin' new directly from the developer. They'd see about the same amount of new sales as before plus a VAST increase in profits from sales of older games at reduced prices, these are profits that the resellers are presently getting.
Combine that with them being able to reduce the price of older games at their own pace. Basically, a good chunk of the money EB is currently getting is going to go to EA and EB is going to go out of business.
It shouldn't happen though, copyright should only extend to the first sale.
You're forgetting one thing though, and that's competition. Developer A may want to keep prices at $60 and simply increase sales, but if Developer B can increase sales even further by lowering the price to $50 while still turning a profit, then they're going to do it, which in turn forces Developer A to lower their price to $50 or risk losing too many sales to Developer B. Unless developers and producers are going to illegally collude on prices, then the price will always approach the margin, and the margin in an industry that has eliminated used sales is lower than the margin in an industry that hasn't.
Eventually it will be because within 10 years or so the vast majority of media content will be streamed and licensed this way. You will hook your brand new console up to the network, pick your game from a huge list of options, your credit card will be billed for each hour that you play. This is the dream of the game development studios, same revenue, no production and logistics cost just some servers.
When there is no option, no choice, the rental model will be king. The model will be different, but I suspect that price will be fairly high.
I have to still disagree. Developers can set their price, but they cannot force people to pay it. One thing to keep in mind is that game developers and publishers are not in the "video games" market. they are in the "entertainment" market, and compete against other media for peoples' dollars and time. At the moment game makers are reaping the benefits of those in the film and television industries forgetting this, but it can always swing the other way. In the end a product is always worth only what it's purchaser is willing to pay.
I doubt it. It's hard for me to believe that the publisher never played a scenario similar to yours in their minds.
I don't find it difficult to believe at all. The human capacity for self deception is astonishing, and corporations have a tendency to view themselves and their products in a more than slightly optimistic light.
I don't agree with your argument that people will be less likely to buy a game due to the fact that they can't resell it. I think resell value is far down on the priority list when buyers make decisions on purchasing games. I don't have any numbers to back that up, but how often do you hear someone say "This game is great, but I'm not going to buy it because I won't be able to sell it when I get bored with it?" I think you are making a big assumption by asserting that there is the net gain is negligible (not to mention you provide nothing but speculation).
Really? I see people comment all the time about how they're turned off of digital purchases because they can't resell them.
Obviously not everyone is going to sit down and do a cost/benefit analysis over the price of a game, but subconsciously everyone makes some sort of value judgement on whether or not a product is worth the asking price when they purchase it, and for a lot of people resale value is an issue that gets considered.
And yes, I am speculating here. But so is everyone else. We don't need to have corporate sales records in front of us to discuss our opinions.
I may be in the minority here, but I really don't mind if digital distribution takes over retail. Developers will be less dependent on publishers, and hence more free to make the games they want. Decreased distribution costs will allow companies to sell their games cheaper while still maintaining a good profit margin.
I don't disagree here. I think that eventually all game distribution will be digital. I just don't think that developers will get the volume of sales they're expecting at the prices they want to charge.
Just to play the devil's advocate, someone in the development community would say that the difference is that while a car's condition depreciates through use, a used game plays exactly the same as a new one. And there's a bit of truth to that. A used game typically only sells for about 10% less than a new copy at somewhere like Gamestop, while used car values drop precipitously over time.
The problem here is one of buyer's and seller's expectations. Publishers and developers do not want to sell you games. They want to sell you limited use of games. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, it's something people do all the time. Think of any time you've rented a movie or game. And I don't think that most gamers would mind simply buying limited use of games. After all, if you buy a game, play it, then sell it, that's essentially what you did for the cost of the purchase price minus the sales price. Where these expectations clash though is in the pricing. Many developers seem to think that a limited use right should be priced the same as purchasing the game. Obviously gamers don't see it this way. If developers want to essentially sell rentals, they're going to lower their prices dramatically. Something I don't think many of them have realized yet, because if they had we would not be hearing about the abolishment of used games sales nearly as much.
Developers and publishers are under the, mistaken, impression that they're missing out on huge revenue stream through used games. Let's assume that I buy a game for $60. Once I'm done with it, I sell it, either through Gamestop or Amazon for about $20 net. They take a $10 commission and sell it to someone else for $30. In this scenario developers seem to think that they've missed out on a single $60 from the person who bought it at $30 used, but that just isn't the case.
First of all, the person who waited for a used copy at $30 isn't going to spend $60 in the absence of a used copy. They're going to wait until the new copies are about $30 and buy it then. Giving them fewer choices of how to spend their money does not magically give them more money to spend. Also, the person who bought the game at $60, didn't just buy a game. They bought a game that they knew they could sell for ~$20. By stripping out the ability to resell the game you lower the value of the game to the initial buyer as well. So without the used option, the developer doesn't get two $60 sales, they get one $40 sale and one $30 sale. But they have to pay for all the production, shipping, packing, etc... costs for a second copy of the game as well. So at the end of the day the net gain is more or less zero.
You clearly have not played 'Daxter' or 'Ratchet & Clank: Size Matters'. Both are action/platformers, and traditionally you'd think "two analog sticks". But the games were designed and implemented in a way that you just don't need two sticks. One stick is fine, you never miss the second analog stick. If only some PS3 games had camera systems like that.
I have not. So I'll take your word that it works well. However, for every R&C or J&D how many PSP games are there that don't work? Sure developers can design for one stick, just like developers can design games that use the Wii remote in innovative ways. But in general they don't, because it's just easier to shoehorn in an existing control scheme even if the fit isn't quite right.
They have rectified the situation - Sony is moving to digital downloads. Several recent games have been digital download only ('Patapon 2' for example.) Many games have re-released as digital downloads ('Ratchet & Clank: Size Matters', 'SOCOM', etc.) So yeah, Sony has already been providing a path that doesn't solely rely on UMD's for playing games on the PSP.
Why should I have to go to a store to pick up a PSP game, these days? Either as UMD or (your suggestion) flash stick? The games aren't that big (1.8GB at most... often much smaller) so I'd rather buy them online and push them to my PSP. It's faster, and I don't ever have the issue games being "sold out".
I guess Sony has an additional incentive, in that if you buy games from the PSN Store, you can "tie" the game to the person, so can reduce piracy. But I don't really care about the anti-piracy thing - for me, it's about having games I want to play at a price I'm willing to pay. Digital downloads are much cheaper - I mentioned in my other comment that digital downloads (obviously) don't include the cost of physical media like UMD.
As an example (on the PS3, etc.) look at 'Battlefield 1943'. I played the demo, then bought the game online. I didn't even have to leave my basement and go into the Big Blue Room (aka "outside") to pick up a copy. I just bough it. That's the way it ought to be, especially for a game like B'43 that isn't very big. Don't force gamers to go to some brick-and-mortar store to buy things.
This "buying things off the Internet" thing did eventually catch on. Learn to embrace it.:-)
I understand that they're moving away from the UMD with their downloads program. I just don't think that their market base is ready to move to just downloads. In this very discussion thread there are numerous commentors complaining about being forced to use downloadable format for games like Patapon 2. Sony should provide the download option alongside a physical, non-UMD, format.
Perhaps, but the game is also at the mercy of the community. And even if it does pass through everything unscathed, it's still essentially consigned to XBLA's equivalent of a bargain bin. Not exactly the ideal route to publication any developer who can afford not to wants to take.
On the subject of the analog stick, I think it needs to be an either or situation. Either two analog sticks or none. The problem with a single analog stick is that it invites developers to attempt console style 3D games, but doesn't provide a means to control the camera. If Sony can't find a way to comfortably integrate both sticks then I would prefer them just to ditch them both altogether, then at least developers would be forced to design games for a specific control scheme instead of porting conventions from the PS2 that don't fit on the platform.
I don't see why the touchscreen would be a no-go. Both of Sony's competitors use touch screens successfully, and it's much easier to integrate into a given product design than something like the analogue stick. I'm not suggesting replacing the manual buttons with touch-screen, iPhone style, simply augmenting them. Like the DS, but without the annoying extra screen and stylus.
As far as flashed based media goes, I'm aware of the reasons why Sony chose to stick with disks originally. But that was 5 years ago, it's time to rectify the situation. The thing about the PSPgo is that they've fragmented the platform the way they would have with a new platform launch without any of the benefits of a new platform. And while digital download only is ok for a spin-off SKU like the PSPgo, it's still to early for that to be the standard for the entire platform. Instead of the PSPgo, what Sony needed to do was new platform that takes both digital downloads and a physical flash based media. But as usual, they dropped the ball.
On the topic of battery life, the PSPgo, which doesn't use any spinning disk, has the same battery life as previous PSPs. Why? Because Sony in their infinite wisdom decided to shrink the size of the battery along with dropping the UMD drive.
Sony's QA for the platform is not the same thing as a developer's internal QA. Generally platform holders have additional QA guidelines that they require developers to meet in order to publish on their platform. For example, Microsoft requires all games on the 360 to run at 720p resolution and have 1000pts worth of achievements. The platform holders QA process can be a double edged sword. It can keep especially poor quality games off the platform, however it can also discourage smaller indie developers, who might not have the time and resources to deal with a lengthy and costly external QA process, from even attempting to publish a game on the platform. This is why you see so much more indie development on open platforms (like the PC) or semi-open platforms (like the iPhone) than you do on closed platforms like the PSP.
By shortening it's QA process Sony clearly is hoping that it will attract many of the indie developers that are publishing in so much abundance on the iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm skeptical of how successful this can be. For one thing, their analogy is flawed. It's easy to build the price wireless of service for ebooks into the purchase price because ebooks are, on average, less than 1MB in size. Contrast that with modern portable games, which can regularly exceed 1GB in file size. If Nintendo plans to build that cost into the price of games, they could be looking at a substantial markup. Also, acquiring the game is not the only consideration for portable game buyers. They'll also want online functionality within many games. Does Nintendo plan to offer this without subscription charges as well? How will they fund it?
The other problem with this is that it doesn't really address the main reason why so many people are opting for games on platforms like the iPhone, convenience. Despite Sony's and Nintendo's (best?) efforts, the DS and PSP are still pretty much only gaming devices in a world where mobile phones are becoming an increasingly convergent platform. Sony and Nintendo still provide a better gaming experience, but for a lot of people who are just looking to pass a few minutes of free time while they're on the go, mobile phones are increasingly "good enough". Why shell out another $100-$200 for a portable device, plus $30-$40 for games (not to mention deal with the logistics of charging and carrying a second device), when you've already got something in your pocket that replicates, say 70-80% of the functionality of a dedicated device? For some, the answer to that question is obviously "because the games are better". But as mobile phones get more and more powerful, that group will get smaller and smaller.
Wrong and wrong. It uses AT&T GSM and WiFi, where the Kindle uses Sprint CDMA only (on the $259 version). On space the Nook has 2GB internal storage (same as Kindle) but also has a micro SD slot that supports up to an additional 16GB.
Funny, I happen to hate Charles Stross for almost the exact opposite reason. His books are drowning in an obsession with flushing out every angle he can find on the technology, and leave almost no room for anything else.
Not really. While those are all sources of income, very few people would consider them for a primary occupation, and most people earning income from such ventures are still searching for a new career. Unemployment benefits should not punish those who put the effort in to maintain their livelihood simply because the government is too lazy to make a distinction between supplementary income and an actual job.
I think that the battery life of e-ink screens is something that a lot of ebook detractors haven't quite grasped. We live in a world where we charge dozens of devices on a daily basis. The idea of an electronic device that can be used for over a month without needing to be charged, and only takes an hour or so to top off, seems almost too good to be true to a lot of people. When your low battery indicator gives you not minutes or hours of warning to plug in, but days or weeks, the idea of being caught unawares without enough power becomes almost absurd.
Imagine having the ability to buy additional scenes to the film. Or a better camera angle.
Movies have been doing this for nearly a decade. Almost every film that gets released on DVD sees a basic version first, then a "collectors edition" follows several months later with director commentary, deleted scenes, etc... In fact, while people here rage against EA deigning to release extra content the day of the retail release, movie fans have been clamoring for such a thing on DVDs for quite some time now, as the current structure is intentionally designed to get people to purchase the DVD twice, first simply to watch the movie, then later in order to experience the extra content.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bulk of the comments in this thread seem to be to the effect of: a publisher is obligated to include all completed content of a game in the retail box at the ship date. The problem with this line of thinking is that it has no regard for what it costs to make that content or the fact that we, as gamers, are completely unwilling to pay more than $50 for a game (see the conversation on Modern Warfare 2 for the PC's price point), even while we continue to demand more and more from them.
People seem to think that if we somehow manage to abolish these DLC packs, that content will somehow end up in the retail version of the game instead. What they're forgetting is that publishers and developers aren't just doing this for the fun of it. They're doing it because they have to sell ever more expensive content to almost the same sized audience at the same price point they've always been. DLC and add-ons isn't some end run around the consumer to wring even more profit out of us, it's a last ditch effort to simply keep a lot of these products profitable at all. Without the option to sell this content as DLC, it doesn't end up in the retail package as everyone seems to think, it never even gets made.
I think the giant battery with a cable running into her chest might be enough of a clue for most trained medical professionals to figure out that her case is unusual.
What a terrible article. Regardless of where you fall on the issue of whether or not technical progress is accelerating, the arguments laid out in this article are just flat out bad. Here's a list of problems I spotted just on the first page.
-The author is 53, his grandmother lived to be ~80. He's contrasting the amount of technological changes is his 53 years to those in her 80 years.
-At one point he mentions "child mortality in industrialized countries dropped by 80 percent in those years". The definition of "industrialized" is not fixed, nor are nations fixed in that category. Are we to consider it less important that child mortality has dropped in "non-industrialized" nations during the later half of the 20th century?
-His metric is entirely subjective. What was a more significant invention, the telephone or the Internet? Which event has more historical significance, the launch of Sputnik, the Apollo moon landing, or the flight of Spaceship1? The author treats these questions as if the answers are patently obvious, and offers no supporting evidence for his conclusions.
-His choices of which technologies should get mention are equally subjective. The first heart transplant gets a mention, but not the cloning of Dolly the sheep. The nylon and the zipper pass muster, but not velcro.
In the end, this authors arguments against accelerating change are even more poorly made than those made for it by all the singularity believers, who take it as a forgone conclusion, that he's trying to debunk here.
Yeah, but I bet your "spouse" won't be able to be a same-sex ruler
Really? If there was ever a game that would allow this, I would think it would be Fable. Both previous games have allowed for homosexual relationships and marriages. Not to mentioned that polygamy, STDs, orgys, birth control, and infidelity were also all included in some form or another in Fable 2. As far as video games go, Fable is about as sexually progressive as you get.
I could probably sit here and make a list 3 pages long of changes and improvements that I'd like to see in Fable 3 (and I genuinely enjoyed Fable 2). But if I had to pick just one thing that I'd like to see in the next game it would be this. One of the things about Fable 2 that really set it apart from all the others in my mind, was the ability for the character to truly influence the environment of the game world. Save a farmer from a group of bandits, for instance, and 10 years later there's a thriving farm where there was just a shack and a meager carrot patch. Choose not to save him, or join that bandits though and even the farm would be just a distant memory.
However, this aspect of the game was only expressed at a handful of choice moments in Fable 2. The one thing I'd like to see in Fable 3 is more of these, a lot more, and more dynamic changes as well.
Your analogy does not negate the GP's argument. In fact I think quite a few people would read that as supporting of the GP's argument.
Games, in principle, could make perfectly decent movies(half life could really do with a decent treatment)
The problem with game>movie transitions is the same problem with movie>game transitions. In both scenarios you have a set amount of people who are going to buy the game or see the movie for no other reason than the name. Since the developer or producer can already count on X amount of sales regardless of how much time or money they put into the project, their incentive to put more than the bare minimum into it is therefore reduced. Until the average consumer can start looking past brand recognition as a primary motivation to spend their money this balance is not going to shift.
Stardock has already been doing something similar to this for some time now. Those who pre-ordered Sins of a Solar Empire, Gal Civ 2, or any of either game's numerous expansions got access to closed betas very early on in the games' developments. The payoff, for those who invested in the games early on, is the ear of the developer and a chance to have a much larger say in how the game turns out than is usual.
eh ... while your analysis is reasonable, it is missing a key point. Gamestop buys a new game for $20, then resell the game for $55. I believe game developers are mad at gamestop for essentially stepping in and taking a sale. In fact, if you track Gamestop used prices, you tend to find the used copy only $5 dollars cheaper than the new version.
True, but Gamestop is not the only place where people buy and sell used games. Additionally, they do not enjoy such a wide margin on games for more than perhaps a month or two after the initial release.
however, the purpose of my example was not so much about how much Gamestop takes, but about the economic logic behind used sales that I think a lot of the developers and publishers are overlooking. There are other factors at work here as well. For instance, when consumers sell an old game they often use the proceeds to purchase a new one. So eliminating used sales will also have a slightly offsetting negative effect on new game sales through that avenue as well.
I completely disagree. If you aren't allowed to resell games, then there's only ONE source of a game, and that's brand spankin' new directly from the developer. They'd see about the same amount of new sales as before plus a VAST increase in profits from sales of older games at reduced prices, these are profits that the resellers are presently getting.
Combine that with them being able to reduce the price of older games at their own pace. Basically, a good chunk of the money EB is currently getting is going to go to EA and EB is going to go out of business.
It shouldn't happen though, copyright should only extend to the first sale.
You're forgetting one thing though, and that's competition. Developer A may want to keep prices at $60 and simply increase sales, but if Developer B can increase sales even further by lowering the price to $50 while still turning a profit, then they're going to do it, which in turn forces Developer A to lower their price to $50 or risk losing too many sales to Developer B. Unless developers and producers are going to illegally collude on prices, then the price will always approach the margin, and the margin in an industry that has eliminated used sales is lower than the margin in an industry that hasn't.
Eventually it will be because within 10 years or so the vast majority of media content will be streamed and licensed this way. You will hook your brand new console up to the network, pick your game from a huge list of options, your credit card will be billed for each hour that you play. This is the dream of the game development studios, same revenue, no production and logistics cost just some servers.
When there is no option, no choice, the rental model will be king. The model will be different, but I suspect that price will be fairly high.
I have to still disagree. Developers can set their price, but they cannot force people to pay it. One thing to keep in mind is that game developers and publishers are not in the "video games" market. they are in the "entertainment" market, and compete against other media for peoples' dollars and time. At the moment game makers are reaping the benefits of those in the film and television industries forgetting this, but it can always swing the other way. In the end a product is always worth only what it's purchaser is willing to pay.
I doubt it. It's hard for me to believe that the publisher never played a scenario similar to yours in their minds.
I don't find it difficult to believe at all. The human capacity for self deception is astonishing, and corporations have a tendency to view themselves and their products in a more than slightly optimistic light.
I don't agree with your argument that people will be less likely to buy a game due to the fact that they can't resell it. I think resell value is far down on the priority list when buyers make decisions on purchasing games. I don't have any numbers to back that up, but how often do you hear someone say "This game is great, but I'm not going to buy it because I won't be able to sell it when I get bored with it?" I think you are making a big assumption by asserting that there is the net gain is negligible (not to mention you provide nothing but speculation).
Really? I see people comment all the time about how they're turned off of digital purchases because they can't resell them.
Examples:
Warhammer DoW II Review
Left 4 Dead Review
Obviously not everyone is going to sit down and do a cost/benefit analysis over the price of a game, but subconsciously everyone makes some sort of value judgement on whether or not a product is worth the asking price when they purchase it, and for a lot of people resale value is an issue that gets considered.
And yes, I am speculating here. But so is everyone else. We don't need to have corporate sales records in front of us to discuss our opinions.
I may be in the minority here, but I really don't mind if digital distribution takes over retail. Developers will be less dependent on publishers, and hence more free to make the games they want. Decreased distribution costs will allow companies to sell their games cheaper while still maintaining a good profit margin.
I don't disagree here. I think that eventually all game distribution will be digital. I just don't think that developers will get the volume of sales they're expecting at the prices they want to charge.
Just to play the devil's advocate, someone in the development community would say that the difference is that while a car's condition depreciates through use, a used game plays exactly the same as a new one. And there's a bit of truth to that. A used game typically only sells for about 10% less than a new copy at somewhere like Gamestop, while used car values drop precipitously over time.
The problem here is one of buyer's and seller's expectations. Publishers and developers do not want to sell you games. They want to sell you limited use of games. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, it's something people do all the time. Think of any time you've rented a movie or game. And I don't think that most gamers would mind simply buying limited use of games. After all, if you buy a game, play it, then sell it, that's essentially what you did for the cost of the purchase price minus the sales price. Where these expectations clash though is in the pricing. Many developers seem to think that a limited use right should be priced the same as purchasing the game. Obviously gamers don't see it this way. If developers want to essentially sell rentals, they're going to lower their prices dramatically. Something I don't think many of them have realized yet, because if they had we would not be hearing about the abolishment of used games sales nearly as much.
Developers and publishers are under the, mistaken, impression that they're missing out on huge revenue stream through used games. Let's assume that I buy a game for $60. Once I'm done with it, I sell it, either through Gamestop or Amazon for about $20 net. They take a $10 commission and sell it to someone else for $30. In this scenario developers seem to think that they've missed out on a single $60 from the person who bought it at $30 used, but that just isn't the case.
First of all, the person who waited for a used copy at $30 isn't going to spend $60 in the absence of a used copy. They're going to wait until the new copies are about $30 and buy it then. Giving them fewer choices of how to spend their money does not magically give them more money to spend. Also, the person who bought the game at $60, didn't just buy a game. They bought a game that they knew they could sell for ~$20. By stripping out the ability to resell the game you lower the value of the game to the initial buyer as well. So without the used option, the developer doesn't get two $60 sales, they get one $40 sale and one $30 sale. But they have to pay for all the production, shipping, packing, etc... costs for a second copy of the game as well. So at the end of the day the net gain is more or less zero.
You clearly have not played 'Daxter' or 'Ratchet & Clank: Size Matters'. Both are action/platformers, and traditionally you'd think "two analog sticks". But the games were designed and implemented in a way that you just don't need two sticks. One stick is fine, you never miss the second analog stick. If only some PS3 games had camera systems like that.
I have not. So I'll take your word that it works well. However, for every R&C or J&D how many PSP games are there that don't work? Sure developers can design for one stick, just like developers can design games that use the Wii remote in innovative ways. But in general they don't, because it's just easier to shoehorn in an existing control scheme even if the fit isn't quite right.
They have rectified the situation - Sony is moving to digital downloads. Several recent games have been digital download only ('Patapon 2' for example.) Many games have re-released as digital downloads ('Ratchet & Clank: Size Matters', 'SOCOM', etc.) So yeah, Sony has already been providing a path that doesn't solely rely on UMD's for playing games on the PSP.
Why should I have to go to a store to pick up a PSP game, these days? Either as UMD or (your suggestion) flash stick? The games aren't that big (1.8GB at most ... often much smaller) so I'd rather buy them online and push them to my PSP. It's faster, and I don't ever have the issue games being "sold out".
I guess Sony has an additional incentive, in that if you buy games from the PSN Store, you can "tie" the game to the person, so can reduce piracy. But I don't really care about the anti-piracy thing - for me, it's about having games I want to play at a price I'm willing to pay. Digital downloads are much cheaper - I mentioned in my other comment that digital downloads (obviously) don't include the cost of physical media like UMD.
As an example (on the PS3, etc.) look at 'Battlefield 1943'. I played the demo, then bought the game online. I didn't even have to leave my basement and go into the Big Blue Room (aka "outside") to pick up a copy. I just bough it. That's the way it ought to be, especially for a game like B'43 that isn't very big. Don't force gamers to go to some brick-and-mortar store to buy things.
This "buying things off the Internet" thing did eventually catch on. Learn to embrace it. :-)
I understand that they're moving away from the UMD with their downloads program. I just don't think that their market base is ready to move to just downloads. In this very discussion thread there are numerous commentors complaining about being forced to use downloadable format for games like Patapon 2. Sony should provide the download option alongside a physical, non-UMD, format.
Perhaps, but the game is also at the mercy of the community. And even if it does pass through everything unscathed, it's still essentially consigned to XBLA's equivalent of a bargain bin. Not exactly the ideal route to publication any developer who can afford not to wants to take.
On the subject of the analog stick, I think it needs to be an either or situation. Either two analog sticks or none. The problem with a single analog stick is that it invites developers to attempt console style 3D games, but doesn't provide a means to control the camera. If Sony can't find a way to comfortably integrate both sticks then I would prefer them just to ditch them both altogether, then at least developers would be forced to design games for a specific control scheme instead of porting conventions from the PS2 that don't fit on the platform.
I don't see why the touchscreen would be a no-go. Both of Sony's competitors use touch screens successfully, and it's much easier to integrate into a given product design than something like the analogue stick. I'm not suggesting replacing the manual buttons with touch-screen, iPhone style, simply augmenting them. Like the DS, but without the annoying extra screen and stylus.
As far as flashed based media goes, I'm aware of the reasons why Sony chose to stick with disks originally. But that was 5 years ago, it's time to rectify the situation. The thing about the PSPgo is that they've fragmented the platform the way they would have with a new platform launch without any of the benefits of a new platform. And while digital download only is ok for a spin-off SKU like the PSPgo, it's still to early for that to be the standard for the entire platform. Instead of the PSPgo, what Sony needed to do was new platform that takes both digital downloads and a physical flash based media. But as usual, they dropped the ball.
On the topic of battery life, the PSPgo, which doesn't use any spinning disk, has the same battery life as previous PSPs. Why? Because Sony in their infinite wisdom decided to shrink the size of the battery along with dropping the UMD drive.
Please don't feed the troll
Sony's QA for the platform is not the same thing as a developer's internal QA. Generally platform holders have additional QA guidelines that they require developers to meet in order to publish on their platform. For example, Microsoft requires all games on the 360 to run at 720p resolution and have 1000pts worth of achievements. The platform holders QA process can be a double edged sword. It can keep especially poor quality games off the platform, however it can also discourage smaller indie developers, who might not have the time and resources to deal with a lengthy and costly external QA process, from even attempting to publish a game on the platform. This is why you see so much more indie development on open platforms (like the PC) or semi-open platforms (like the iPhone) than you do on closed platforms like the PSP.
By shortening it's QA process Sony clearly is hoping that it will attract many of the indie developers that are publishing in so much abundance on the iPhone.