Starscream

I agree but I also think when you see your product used on a different system in a different location and they are using your servers, I would raise my eyebrows and wonder. At least online passes were a way for everyone to contribute and at a reasonable cost. Well that example is possible but not 100% of the time. DLC is a different thing altogether and again I think most of it has been handled well and not too expensive.

Lol, that was great

The linked article is merely a fraction of the whole situation.Probably close to 95% of games are not big budget games or AAA games and occasionally you'll get a blockbuster out of that 95%. Games like Halo or Gears that are big budget and that take a few years between releases are great games and will bring back great profits. Statistically, low budget games will fail to bring in profits more than AAA titles. I am gathering he chose Cliffy B and his thoughts to try to use as an example of what is wrong with video game production because it's easy to pick apart if you limit your scope. If he were to use Mirrors Edge as an example, his rants would be spot on. Problem is, ME was an exception to the big budget rule. Expenses for you and me in every walk of life are increasing, so why does this dude think the game industry doesn't see those same increases? With online elements becoming normal and advertising and marketing costs continually rising, it makes sense that budgets are at an all time high. If his solution of tighter budgeting worked so very well, the wii wouldn't have been the gaming toilet for games. His examples like COD work well within his thoughts as would Madden. Nothing more than some roster updates and some new maps. Proven titles that don't need lots of marketing or major structure changes. Then again, what is the used value on those games as soon as the newest edition is released? How valuable is online play for Madden 2012 when 2013 comes out? I think he could have done better than using games that totally devalue in just 1 year when trying to put someone in their place about used game sales. I don't think Cliffy B represents the majority of game designers or speaks for the game industry as a whole. In the Reggie article linked is a very good yet very simple outlook as well. Again though, it's difficult to judge input from a figurehead of a company that spends as little as possible and has very little experience with online infrastructures and their costs. Somewhere in between these views is the reality of the situation. While many great games have been made with 1 person or small teams, many great games may require 1000 if the scope is that ambitious. Really the only thing I agree with either of them on is great games will sell. Emehr, I think online passes were the perfect solution. His points were lower value of games for resale, waste peoples time, and create too many problems. His examples were really far reaches. With the exception of a failed network, he had no points worthy to mention. I feel that they were a great idea for everyone. If you buy used, pony up a few dollars to play. Why should EA for example absorb the costs of you using their server for free if you bought the game used? At least the person that bought the game new did in fact contribute to all that were involved with the game at any level, whereas the second hand user contributes zero. It's only a few dollars and was actually very simple to introduce into the video game ecosystem, everyone paid, and retail/pubs/devs could still make a few $$$ towards expenses or profits.

http://www.joystiq.c...ignage-defaced/

Lol. Wow..... Just watch his tear jerking online pass video. Can never get enough of an entitled angry clueless gamer.....

No way. All it takes is Halo for me.

While everyone has been paying attention to Sony stealing the show from MS with no DRM and price, I can't help but notice the PS4 does absolutely nothing my PS3 doesn't do. Aside from updated graphics, it offers nothing. I see no point for paying for a direct copy of Xbox Live when I can just as easily use Live and simply know it works and works well. While the release game lineups for both are somewhat dis interesting to me, I oddly noticed there are more original new IP's appearing on the Xbone. The only intriguing thing I did see with the PS4 is the touchpad. On that note, I don't mean intrigued because it's awesome, more like intrigued as to why do this stupid crap, the same as I feel Kinect sucks and whatever dumb control ideas Nintendo currently has. Sony basically said nothing of the system, online structure, media features, nothing. Sony only capitalized on MS fumbles and seemed to have put no effort into explaining any reason why I would WANT the PS4. MS got what they deserved. It's one thing to blaze a new trail in uncharted spaces, it's another to blaze a trail where you don't need to. The fact that no publishers or developers have yet to comment on the DRM practices MS wants to impose leaves me thinking MS thought it was doing a favor and would set a precedent that others would welcome. While I firmly think that if publishers and developers want a cut of the used market, they 100% should be able to do so, it appears only MS decided to make this fight happen. It would be respectable for them to change this policy soon and slash $50 off the price, and MS will be fine. With all that said, Xbone for me. Halo alone makes it no decision but I also like some of the new features and some of the new IP's. The PS2 and PS3 were both overhyped let downs for me and MS seemed to always be able to pull in the games that got huge. I optimistically but cautously am having a tiny bit of faith.

it is getting a beefy upgrade. cross game chat!!!!! lol

damn sony really did ok this time. there's a buttload of games announced (altho i didn't pay attention to release dates) and i'm not interested in most of them but still. did they announce specs like sorage or eyetoy included in every system? anyways no preorder on this for me, ps2 and ps3 were basically dust collectors

just preordered mine. price was what i expected

They probably aren't good for gamers and for what we do know, won't be beneficial, and there probably isn't much in it for you except for some games. It's probably not a system for you.

Right because you are buying the car, not the right to use the car. Very simple.

Actually, I can. With fact based information. Auto Business model for profits: Extremely HIGH initial costs Percentage made off of each contracted supplier Percentage made on Logistics Percentage made form franchise fees Percentage made from point of sale new Percentage made from license fees Percentage made from aftermarket parts Percentage made from.....wait for it...............USED car sales through certified programs Movie Business Model: HIGH initial costs Percentage made from distribution Percentage made from sales at theaters Percentage made from home sales Percentage made from Premium channels Percentage made from Network channels Percentage made from rentals Percentage made from licensing Percentage made from merchandise Book Business model: LOW initial costs. Percentage made from each sale, digital or hard copy (over simplified this one) Video Game Business Model: Moderate to high initial cost Percentage made from developers Percentage made from original point of sale Percentage made on merchandise Percentage made on license fee (very uncommon) I'm skipping music as it's much like the movie industry. As you can see, not only are there some products that make money at every level from start to finish, some even make money off of used products!!! While you chose to take a small snapshot of a much larger picture to hold your stance, these comparison always fail and always will. Because it's a product you can touch does not mean it's comparable beyond that. If you noticed, each of those industries has unique business models. Each of these unique ones provide a profit for the company. Companies, unless expressed, are NOT Non profit and should not be expected to be. Movie costs are astronomical compared to books and this is where your over simplified comparison FAILS. Not one of these different industries can use the others business model. It's not even realistic to think they can. Not one company on this planet is all about you or what is best for you. They simply provide goods and services that you may want or need. They do NOT owe you anything beyond a condition of quality or reliability. Now, please explain to me why video games, whose cost are considerably high to produce and relatively inexpensive to purchase, should work on the book model? Would you prefer the Movie model? Simply put, the expenses involved and the relatively low profits DO NOT work anymore. There needs to be a change and it is being pursued. BTW, is now a bad time to mention Gamestop make money off the same product multiple times.............

In this very unique situation, yes. Let's just say, for the limited amount of people to make money on before retail, the expense of the products production and development, and only one point of sale ever, and the ever changing environment of technology, and finally a non disposable product, I do 100% think profits should occur at every point of sale, new or used and rental fees. Please, please, please, do not try to counterpoint with cars, or books, or movies etc. I really don't feel like trying to explain because that would be a long post and probably boring. And nobody would really take into consideration what I point out.

Up until now, yes. Software though, has exclusions, primarily license permissions. If your purchase is for the License to use the software, no ownership is granted of the software. I would assume that's why EA had the Online Pass system in place because it technically didn't count as profit twice. So I would expect that Xbone games will now have fine print stating you don't own the product, just limited rights to the license, much like every piece of computer software. Just taking I quick look at the wording on the Halo 4 package in front of me, I own it. That fine print will change. Clearly, the video game industry has been running along for decades with no attention paid to rentals or used games. I would think, since the introduction of online services for home consoles, the ability to "see" the difference between copies sold as new and the different amount of unique users to that piece of software has been an eye opening experience. For example, 57000 copies of a game are sold but 84000 unique users have played that game, I would think publishers see that as lost profits from new game sales, and I don't think that's unfair to assume. As for rentals, I have never been able to find anything regarding fees to the owner of the game, just permissions to rent so again, this may have been lack of foresight. Other options to keep things in check would be higher new game prices that the additional percentage would go directly to publishers/developers or the now extinct Online Pass system. The problem is, everyone is still going to cry rivers of tears over the additional costs.

This particular part intrigues me. Exactly what or who has been given the authority to determine how much a company can make on their IP and at what point?

The question wasn't about ethics. It's was about business models.

I thought I had read in an article that the possibility was there to sell a digitally purchased game. I cannot back this up or find it so I'll take back my statement. It's pretty simple if you ask me. DRM is there provided by MS, what the publishers decide to do with their material is 100% up to them. I'm probably alone in thinking this is pretty fair.

You are a very intelligent person and very creative. Since you joined here, you have always interested me with your website and your posts. Does every single business, from Maria's Manure Farm all the way to Apple use the same identical business model?

Because, as usual, these examples are an epic fail. They have been since they started be used/overused in these arguments. Is the concept of business models so hard too grasp?

someone gets it

Pretty much. This seems to be a steep quick step. Although, if I read it correctly, it appears you can trade in digitally purchased games, which, I'm not aware of that being done before. It's possible that may be a perk of some sort. I am scratching my head as to exactly what MS themselves could gain from this. If at E3 Sony announces the same type of set up, I'd would think it's safe to think that the software companies made this push. If Sony does not have this model, it will be interesting to see exactly which system gets the big time exclusives. My bet would be the XBone in that case. It doesn't seem to work well for the consumer either way. If Madden 14 or whatever is ONLY on the Xbone for example, Sony would have a battle in front of them. Like it or not, Madden sells some systems. EA managed to strong arm MS on the original Xbox, I could see it happening again. Anyways, I'm still on board for one. I don't collect, I usually only buy games I really want when they are released new, don't trade in or sell games and all of my crap in the house is on the network at all times and almost all of it has constant online connections for various reasons. I do wonder about the point you brought up in one of the threads though about the games NOT being usable at the end of the Xbone lifespan. I can't fathom they will just be useless but as we are seeing, strange things happen.

Good to see. I think I sent a PM about a few years ago lol Still piloting?

Didn't see Oddworld mentioned. Those games were awesome!

What is NOT known is what is in place 4 years down the road. Or even 1. Maybe the online check system that is implemented doesn't work. Maybe digital downloads become the norm in 2 years. The fact is, online check will happen. Exactly what happens remains to be seen.