Microsoft confirms XBOX ONE game pricing

[NaNoo123]

Can someone explain why EA's pass thingy was so bad in most peoples eyes?
Was it concept, implementation, etc.

Was it their way to stop used games, or was they trying to get paid to keep servers and all that entails running, which would be an on going cost compared to offline games.

Serious question, as I've never used it, but it 'seemed' to be hated.

Your all very creative on both sides to keep car analogy going this long. Lol.
Especially when there's ones that are at least in the same entertainment sector to choose from.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Can someone explain why EA's pass thingy was so bad in most peoples eyes?
Was it concept, implementation, etc.

Was it their way to stop used games, or was they trying to get paid to keep servers and all that entails running, which would be an on going cost compared to offline games.

Serious question, as I've never used it, but it 'seemed' to be hated.

Your all very creative on both sides to keep car analogy going this long. Lol.
Especially when there's ones that are at least in the same entertainment sector to choose from.

It was a few things. For starters, they determined that the preferable way to earn revenue was to go after gamers, not places like GameStop. I just flat-out didn't like the fact that to get a used EA title, I also had to buy something online (the Online Pass, of course), and that was too much of an annoying inconvenience (I try to limit the amount of times I put my personal information on the Internet). Oh, and since GameStop was/is every bit as greedy, they countered the $10 Online Pass with only an $8 price drop, meaning EA's used games were just $2 cheaper than the new version.

Maybe it wasn't their fault for wanting to make up lost money from used games, but they could have gone about it in a better way, like offering frequent sales to make new games more appealing than used ones at times.

 

[Reflexx]

Why do people say that its the fault of companies that they haven't found better ways to monetize their products, but complain when they find better ways to monetize their product?

DD is the future. It's the only way the industry survives because short sighted gamers wont accept a middle ground.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Why do people say that its the fault of companies that they haven't found better ways to monetize their products, but complain when they find better ways to monetize their product?

DD is the future. It's the only way the industry survives because short sighted gamers wont accept a middle ground.

What's the middle ground? They make used games incredibly inconvenient by requiring a physical and a digital purchase, the second of which might not be possible with younger gamers, who do not have credit cards. The problem is that they're not offering a middle ground, they're offering a still-in-their-favor middle ground that creates too much of an inconvenience for the consumer to make calling it a reasonable compromise a real possibility.

Digital downloads without a means of trading in the game, but at the same price, is not a middle ground. Lowering the cost of digital downloads because the consumer cannot recoup the cost of the product after he is finished (meaning he doesn't want the game anymore) would be a fair middle ground. Starting a competing business in which gamers can still trade in their products, but publishers and developers get a cut, would be a middle ground (granted, one that takes a lot of capital and effort on the parts of the publishers).

The idea of a middle ground is that it is a compromise. The efforts thus far have not been compromises. Again, how is making used games go up in cost for the consumer, along with inconveniencing the consumer, while getting money for yourself, a compromise? What is the benefit to the consumer in the Online Pass scenario? It's added cost and effort for the same result.

 

[Reflexx]

What's the middle ground? They make used games incredibly inconvenient by requiring a physical and a digital purchase, the second of which might not be possible with younger gamers, who do not have credit cards. The problem is that they're not offering a middle ground, they're offering a still-in-their-favor middle ground that creates too much of an inconvenience for the consumer to make calling it a reasonable compromise a real possibility.

Digital downloads without a means of trading in the game, but at the same price, is not a middle ground. Lowering the cost of digital downloads because the consumer cannot recoup the cost of the product after he is finished (meaning he doesn't want the game anymore) would be a fair middle ground. Starting a competing business in which gamers can still trade in their products, but publishers and developers get a cut, would be a middle ground (granted, one that takes a lot of capital and effort on the parts of the publishers).

The idea of a middle ground is that it is a compromise. The efforts thus far have not been compromises. Again, how is making used games go up in cost for the consumer, along with inconveniencing the consumer, while getting money for yourself, a compromise? What is the benefit to the consumer in the Online Pass scenario? It's added cost and effort for the same result.

It is a middle ground. It's not a PURE digital marketplace that eliminates all sharing and selling of games.

A middle ground means that both sides get some stuff they want and some stuff they don't want.

 

[Keith Wallace]

It is a middle ground. It's not a PURE digital marketplace that eliminates all sharing and selling of games.

A middle ground means that both sides get some stuff they want and some stuff they don't want.

Except we're not GAINING anything there. The companies GAIN the ability to provide games that won't be fed into the used game market. We're just getting a second method of purchasing games that restricts our ability to resell them. Now, if they're at a lower price point because of that, then there's a legitimate middle ground to be spoken for. If it's JUST adding $60 digital downloads to the game, that's just adding another pro for the big guys and nothing for us.

 

[The Hustleman]

I don't think developers have a right to used game sales.

They made the game to be sold, it got sold.

It's the same as used clothing. If I buy a brooks brothers suit, wear it, then decide to sell it to some place like Plato's Closet, then they sell it to someone else, NO ONE owes brooks brothers anything.


Why should have developers be different?


All used games were new at some point

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Keith Wallace]

I don't think developers have a right to used game sales.

They made the game to be sold, it got sold.

It's the same as used clothing. If I buy a brooks brothers suit, wear it, then decide to sell it to some place like Plato's Closet, then they sell it to someone else, NO ONE owes brooks brothers anything.


Why should have developers be different?


All used games were new at some point

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

It's not a matter of if they deserve used game profits. It's a matter of if they can survive without them. There IS a decent number of publishers who have been sold/broken up over the past few years (Midway Games, Atari, and THQ come to mind). with the unreasonable expectation developers have put on them (to where 4 million sales can be called a failure), it's kind of a matter where if they DON'T get some money from the used games market, the new games market might dry up. It's tough to put a bunch of money into a game, when you know probably 60% of the sales of the game are going to be secondhand purchases that you make no money on.

As I've said before when used games were compared to used cars, your comparison is off. Used clothes, even ones that appear to be in solid condition, tend to have natural wear and tear occur over time. Clothes cost pennies to create in many cases, and they can last only a couple of years, in many cases. However, a used game is the result of a high-cost product (games aren't cheap to make). The used disc can survive for YEARS after it's sold, if the owner isn't careless. You also don't have the issue of "outfits" with clothes, where what you wore yesterday needs maintenance (cleaning) before it can be used (worn) again.

There really isn't a thriving used market that compares to the video game market, plain and simple. It cannibalizes the new games market pretty badly at times, and it could lead to a lot of problems for developers and publishers in the industry. Used clothes don't stay in high-quality condition as long as game discs, limiting the potential supply for that market. Then there are a lot of people who are just "weirded out" by owning a stranger's used clothes, putting another limiting factor on the used clothes market. They just don't compare because the products don't compare.

 

[ncxcstud]

I don't think developers have a right to used game sales.

They made the game to be sold, it got sold.

It's the same as used clothing. If I buy a brooks brothers suit, wear it, then decide to sell it to some place like Plato's Closet, then they sell it to someone else, NO ONE owes brooks brothers anything.


Why should have developers be different?


All used games were new at some point

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

I would think that the profit made on a shirt is quite high compared to that made on a game. Brooks Brothers isn't spending 10 million to design your new suit. More than likely you're buying the name - and a higher price - for a product that at cost is 'more than likely' very,very cheap. The higher prices at stores on clothes - I would think - are to combat the future used sales of their own product.

 

[MerlotC]

I'd be quite happy if games were digital download only with no resell value if the new sale price was $50 instead of $60. I wonder how the the lost sales from people not wanting to buy digital would compare to the gained sales of no used games.

 

[The Hustleman]

It's not a matter of if they deserve used game profits. It's a matter of if they can survive without them. There IS a decent number of publishers who have been sold/broken up over the past few years (Midway Games, Atari, and THQ come to mind). with the unreasonable expectation developers have put on them (to where 4 million sales can be called a failure), it's kind of a matter where if they DON'T get some money from the used games market, the new games market might dry up. It's tough to put a bunch of money into a game, when you know probably 60% of the sales of the game are going to be secondhand purchases that you make no money on.

As I've said before when used games were compared to used cars, your comparison is off. Used clothes, even ones that appear to be in solid condition, tend to have natural wear and tear occur over time. Clothes cost pennies to create in many cases, and they can last only a couple of years, in many cases. However, a used game is the result of a high-cost product (games aren't cheap to make). The used disc can survive for YEARS after it's sold, if the owner isn't careless. You also don't have the issue of "outfits" with clothes, where what you wore yesterday needs maintenance (cleaning) before it can be used (worn) again.

There really isn't a thriving used market that compares to the video game market, plain and simple. It cannibalizes the new games market pretty badly at times, and it could lead to a lot of problems for developers and publishers in the industry. Used clothes don't stay in high-quality condition as long as game discs, limiting the potential supply for that market. Then there are a lot of people who are just "weirded out" by owning a stranger's used clothes, putting another limiting factor on the used clothes market. They just don't compare because the products don't compare.

People buy used games because they cost less and they can sell it back if /when they finish it.

If publishers set up something like that and undercut gamestop it would be great.

In fact, all game publishers should get behind a business, a business that buys used games, let's say for 28 bucks (less if the booklet and manual aren't included) and sells them for 50 (instead of gamestop and their 55) and splits the 22 bucks gained between the developer, publisher, and the store selling it.

Game publishers would LOVE That, consumers would love it, developers would love it, problem solved.

Multiple streams of income for the makers and customers get to save some money.


I don't see why that wouldn't work, so why hasn't anyone implemented it?

I'd be quite happy if games were digital download only with no resell value if the new sale price was $50 instead of $60. I wonder how the the lost sales from people not wanting to buy digital would compare to the gained sales of no used games.

They'd just figure out other ways to get it. Some will steal it and some won't steal it but will find a way to pirate it. Game makers spend way too much time and money trying to stop piracy but it's a waste of funds. It will always happen.



Ms took the wrong approach in banning systems that are modded from live, what they should have done was charged to play pirated games online.

Hit then with a 20$ fee to play online with it for each pirated title and get paid.



Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Keith Wallace]

People buy used games because they cost less and they can sell it back if /when they finish it.

If publishers set up something like that and undercut gamestop it would be great.

In fact, all game publishers should get behind a business, a business that buys used games, let's say for 28 bucks (less if the booklet and manual aren't included) and sells them for 50 (instead of gamestop and their 55) and splits the 22 bucks gained between the developer, publisher, and the store selling it.

Game publishers would LOVE That, consumers would love it, developers would love it, problem solved.

Multiple streams of income for the makers and customers get to save some money.


I don't see why that wouldn't work, so why hasn't anyone implemented it?

The American government hates anything that can even HALFWAY be considered to be a monopoly (in most cases). I've suggested setting up such a service on multiple occasions, but the government would call it collusion and price-fixing if publishers got together and started their own competing service (because having a store for each publisher in every city's unreasonable). It'd end in a breakup of the company and MASSIVE fines for the publishers, as it would be seen as anti-competitive.

Also, neither you nor I knows the costs of running such a business. $22 per sale might not cut it when we're talking about running the infrastructure. There might not be a high-enough profit margin to make up for the costs of rental space, storage, employees, and all of that. Especially at the start, the volume of sales would be unlikely to be great enough to make the attempt feasible. That, and it would more-likely just result in price drops at GameStop, which would cut the business off at its legs.

A competing business would be the best answer to help everyone, but it likely would fail badly because it's WAY too late to build such a business from the ground up, especially when it means finding common ground (and splitting profits) among money-grubbing publishers (oh, and determining who pays what percentage of the costs would be equally difficult).

 

[TonyDedrick]

It's not a matter of if they deserve used game profits. It's a matter of if they can survive without them. There IS a decent number of publishers who have been sold/broken up over the past few years (Midway Games, Atari, and THQ come to mind). with the unreasonable expectation developers have put on them (to where 4 million sales can be called a failure), it's kind of a matter where if they DON'T get some money from the used games market, the new games market might dry up. It's tough to put a bunch of money into a game, when you know probably 60% of the sales of the game are going to be secondhand purchases that you make no money on.

As I've said before when used games were compared to used cars, your comparison is off. Used clothes, even ones that appear to be in solid condition, tend to have natural wear and tear occur over time. Clothes cost pennies to create in many cases, and they can last only a couple of years, in many cases. However, a used game is the result of a high-cost product (games aren't cheap to make). The used disc can survive for YEARS after it's sold, if the owner isn't careless. You also don't have the issue of "outfits" with clothes, where what you wore yesterday needs maintenance (cleaning) before it can be used (worn) again.

There really isn't a thriving used market that compares to the video game market, plain and simple. It cannibalizes the new games market pretty badly at times, and it could lead to a lot of problems for developers and publishers in the industry. Used clothes don't stay in high-quality condition as long as game discs, limiting the potential supply for that market. Then there are a lot of people who are just "weirded out" by owning a stranger's used clothes, putting another limiting factor on the used clothes market. They just don't compare because the products don't compare.

Many of those companies failed due to over saturation of its products with zero innovation (Midway), completely out of touch with modern gaming (Atari) and just really poor decision making (THQ and that bomb known as Udraw come to mind).

Not to completely absolve used games from having an effect. I just don't think its numero uno on the list of issues that plague gaming.

 

[Reflexx]

Except we're not GAINING anything there. The companies GAIN the ability to provide games that won't be fed into the used game market. We're just getting a second method of purchasing games that restricts our ability to resell them. Now, if they're at a lower price point because of that, then there's a legitimate middle ground to be spoken for. If it's JUST adding $60 digital downloads to the game, that's just adding another pro for the big guys and nothing for us.

There would have been the GAIN of having all of your games at your fingertips through your account, whether you bought them online or on disc. There would have been family sharing.

 

[Keith Wallace]

There would have been the GAIN of having all of your games at your fingertips through your account, whether you bought them online or on disc. There would have been family sharing.

1. The anywhere access didn't require the DRM check, really.
2. We were never given official information of the sharing feature, so I cannot say that it was a fair tradeoff for never being able to access games if your Internet is out for an extended period of time (let alone for those overseas in the military or many in a number of countries where the console wasn't launching simply would have been without the ability to play games whatsoever).
3. I was speaking as to my displeasure with the EA Online Pass, not the Xbox One's initial DRM policy. The Online Pass wasn't a middle ground, that's what I was saying. That was purely charging customers more for the same product.

 

[EchoRedux]

It's not a matter of if they deserve used game profits. It's a matter of if they can survive without them.

Almost every industry is like that. Can the auto industry survive used cars? We've seen Suzuki's US operations declare bankruptcy and pull out of the US. Eagle, Pontiac, Saturn, Oldsmobile, American Motors etc etc ALL GONE!!! Designers in the garment and clothing go bye bye too.

If the developers in the gaming market cannot meet the demands of the consumer, then they are to go out of business. If a consumer really wants to save 5 dollars between buying new and used, so be it. I think the market is oversaturated right now and innovation is at it's lowest, but there will always be devs producing new games.

It might be easier to look at this on an individual basis. Say a kid only has 200 dollars a year to spend on games. If he only bought new games, assuming he sold them back at 20 bucks, he could only afford 5 games per year. If the kid buys games used at say 40 bucks and sells them back at 15, he can probably play 8 different games.

If the dev's and publishers want people buying new, offer something like buy 3 games new get the fourth free or something like that. Encourage people to buy new.

 

[EchoRedux]

Also the point I forgot to clarify in the scenario was that dev's are really only missing out on their cut of 5 games, not 8, because the kid on a budget could not afford to buy 8 games new even after selling them all back for 20 bucks.

 

[DavidinCT]

The car talk is a joke... Why does anyone think used video games compare to used car sales ? A game does not need new tires ever year or 2, nor breaks or oil changes, etc.. Sure, they can make money off of extra parts but, it's like a DLC for games, some will need/want, others wont.

So, 1/2 the people hate the thought of used games because the DRM on X1 was changed ? So what would you do make it better ?

Here's what I would do but, I know it would never happen and you can chose from one of these options.

1. Digtal downloads for all new retail games $49.99 (dropping $2-$5 every 30-60 days), and $59.99 in the store for a retail disc (or $54.99 used at game stop)

2. Retail/Digital game downloads $49.99 and $9.99 for online use, the online pass would be tied to your account, let a friend use a game he/she would have to pay for the pass, same with selling the game.

3. The current system, $59.99 online or digital.

So, the devs want more money and want to limit used games sales ? Number 1 and 2 promote that. You want to get rid of used game sales ? LOWER the price of games. Give people an option. The reason why used games are so big, it's the price. If you do a digital download, you can't sell it, so at a lower price point up front you lose the right to share or sell your game, promoting more sales at a better value.

The only thing that Microsoft did by removing the DRM features from the X1 is go back in time. No one in their right mind would prefer a retail game on a digital download for the same price (No sharing, no playing at your friends house, and you have to wait hours for it to download to play), if they added sharing features (like old DRM) to digital downloads, it would have an advantage here.

The only thing that online and retail discs at the same $59.99 price is promote the advanage of buying the retail box. Sure buying digital has some advanages but, the negitives outweigh them for most people.

 

[Keith Wallace]

If the developers in the gaming market cannot meet the demands of the consumer, then they are to go out of business. If a consumer really wants to save 5 dollars between buying new and used, so be it.

In that same vein, if a developer/publisher wants to find a way to lessen the amount of money lost through used game sales (be it a transition to digital only or an EA-style Online Pass), so be it. They have every right to the highest profit, same as consumers have the right to look for the best deal. If a consumer cannot afford to purchase as many games in that market, then they are not to purchase as many games just the same. Each side is free to act and react based on the situation.

 

[Keith Wallace]

1. Digtal downloads for all new retail games $49.99 (dropping $2-$5 every 30-60 days), and $59.99 in the store for a retail disc (or $54.99 used at game stop)

I don't know that publishers can FORCE GameStop to sell at $60. If they dropped digital downloads to $50, GameStop might just do the same with physical copies, sacrificing the per-game profit to keep quantities high. That, or they might do it $60 new and $45 used, to make sure that the used market continues to undercut the new digital market, if nothing else.

I've made suggestions on alternatives on multiple threads. I don't care to re-hash that for the 5th time.