Starscream
-
Posts
3,323 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Store
Posts posted by Starscream
-
-
-
Lol. Wow.....
Just watch his tear jerking online pass video.
Can never get enough of an entitled angry clueless gamer.....
-
1
-
-
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.
-
This really wouldn't surprise me. Hopefully as a result the PS network will get a beefy upgrade.
Did you pre-order any games along with the console?
it is getting a beefy upgrade. cross game chat!!!!! lol
-
2
-
-
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
-
2
-
-
I posted this elsewhere, thought I would share:
To anyone who insists we are "overreacting" or that this is "the wave of the future", I posit this question: Can you explain to me how any of the big problems (used game licensing, 24-hour checkin, mandatory kinect) are GOOD for the gamer? How do they DIRECTLY BENEFIT us? I don't want to hear about how the publishers like them, I don't want to hear about how it's "inevitable" or "progress", I definitely don't want to hear how it's "not a big deal". Just tell me, in simple terms WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME?? So far, no one can. Microsoft is asking me to give up the rights I've had as their consumer, and they can't tell me what I get in return.
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.
-
A car is a complex mechanical device that exhibits physical wear, and if you do not buy from a certified dealership the car companies are not raising a fit over every corner lot
The car is sold, its none of the makers concern anymore what you do after that (aside from warranty) if you take it back to the dealership for a new one then great, that dealership gets to sell it again and the maker gets a small slice if they are a part of the certfication process. BUT! GM for instance is not installing lock out codes if you buy a used car from some guy in the paper and holding the goods in ransom for a special code rendering the product inoperable.
Right because you are buying the car, not the right to use the car. Very simple.
-
you can't explain it because comparing it to cars, books, and movies ARE the same thing. what other products earn a profit multiple times from the same item? ZERO. only goverments do that soft of thing.
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.............
-
So you think that a company should be able to make money on a product that they already made money on?
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.
-
The first sale doctrine for starters. Once the first sale is complete, then so long as no additional copies are created, you're suppose to be able to do what you want with it. Including selling that copy to another. The original creator has no legal rights to demand a cut of any of those sales.
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.
-
Publishers just couldn't stand seeing a third party making millions selling used products that the original buyer no longer wanted and started craving a (very large) cut of the pie they had no rights to in the first place.
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?
-
Companies with no ethics try to screw the public all of the time. If the majority will fall for it, the company will keep screwing, then screw even harder. Eventually gamers will have to pay by the hour.
The question wasn't about ethics. It's was about business models.
-
You're not reading it right. What was said (to make it sound like some new innovation) is that the One will "enable" you to trade in your purchases.. IF the publisher of the game allows you to.
I'll remind you that it's the publishers that have been foaming at the mouth about used games for the second half of this generation. You can bet very few if any will be opting in to this. So don't buy a game expecting to resell it just because Microsoft claims it will be a potential possibility.
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.
-
1
-
-
If the examples would sink in, they wouldn't have to be overused. A game on a disc is a physical thing. Once sold at full price, I should be able to buy or sell it like any other physical thing. It's how the world works. Calling a scam a "business model" doesn't make the scam any less of a scam.
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?
-
All I know is that if any other type of company sold a product and wanted a percentage of the used sale, people would get pissed off. You can buy and sell a used car, a used bicycle, a used banjo, or a used kazoo without paying the original company a dime. The people who will fall for this scam in the near future deserve to get it up the ass.
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?
-
awesome post
someone gets it
-
It's clear that an all digital console future requires weening us off of physical media. So it was never just going to be a flip of a switch.
I just didn't expect such a drastic step. I knew digital distribution was going to be equal in importance to retail this generation but I didn't envision restrictions on retail games, despite all the publisher hate directed towards the used game industry, being so severe so suddenly.
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.
-
1
-
-
lol... ummm yeah I'm back! ...and playing games again after a break ... and I'm doing ok, thanks for asking.
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!
-
It's not opinion based. They've been quite clear that the console has to essentially be connected to Xbox Live to function. You can only go 24 hours offline as a compromise for local internet service issues and Xbox Live maintenance.
Those are the facts. They're not speculation.
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.
-
holy crap CLOCK!!!!!!!! how have you been?!
-
You don't see an expiration date on a system that has to talk to Xbox Live in order to function?
That service isn't forever. The original Xbox has been offline for over three years now for example. Under the system they've discussed the past several days, when the plug is pulled, the console will be useless and your game discs will be useless.
That's an expiration date.
Oh, no actually I was really thinking more on the lines of online multiplayer servers going down and didn't think much about subscription based or your example.
And again, until Microsoft presents the FACTS, I'm not gonna wonder.
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Used Games & AAA Games Are Incompatible!
in Modern Gaming Discussion
Posted · Edited by Starscream
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.