PS4 and Xbox Rumours
- Thread starter djkav
- Start date
Trouble is that new digital purchases seem to be more expensive, not less. Not sure how they can justify that with no packaging or distribution. I've paid full price on Steam before and don't mind it at all if I really want something badly enough. Though for the most part my Steam list is filled with bargains which I've bought on impulse (and hardly ever played! 
).
So, yes I think it will make us more selective and possibly filter out a lot of the dross at the same time.
I think it was bound to go this way eventually. Devs and publishers have been crying about it for years. And with good reason, I think.
A bold move from Microsoft, if true. Could end up alienating a lot of people but times change. These companies want maximum profit from their products and who can blame them.
).So, yes I think it will make us more selective and possibly filter out a lot of the dross at the same time.
I think it was bound to go this way eventually. Devs and publishers have been crying about it for years. And with good reason, I think.
A bold move from Microsoft, if true. Could end up alienating a lot of people but times change. These companies want maximum profit from their products and who can blame them.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 23,813
- Location
- South East
Please no! I HATE this kind of thing so much. I want to buy a game, for the normal price, and experience it as the developers intended me to.
Yeah but then you could spend the extra £20 or whatever on the "missing" bits and have it all?
The way I see it is a £20 game with associated DLC will be treated differently by the developer, as essentially, its the £20 game is what they are selling, or what they can bank on selling. The DLC works as attachments to that (like always).
A £40 game (based on this simple analogy) is going to make a better game because ultimately it was originally made as such. It doesnt mean when its broken into game+DLC its likely that everyone will buy all the DLC compared to the other method (though the quality of the DLC is more likely to be similar to the game), just that the £20 game on its own is likely to be the better example of the product. In addition, people dont buy a game because of the DLC, but the DLC because of the game; so the only guaranteed income is the game sales - any DLC sales are likely to follow how good the original game was; ergo this method will also more likely sell more DLC too.
Basically if you start telling developers to make a £20 game the quality is going to diminish IMO compared to game thats sold at the same price point but was originally made to a higher cost/specification. Unfortunately its just far more likely that the first method is adopted rather than the second when you start reducing such costs.
Obviously I havent taken loads of variables into account, but my point is somewhere there (I think) - if you make the headline price cheaper, you inherently reduce the initial perceived value of the whole product. A good example is XBL/PSN games compared to 'full price games'.
ps3ud0
A £40 game (based on this simple analogy) is going to make a better game because ultimately it was originally made as such. It doesnt mean when its broken into game+DLC its likely that everyone will buy all the DLC compared to the other method (though the quality of the DLC is more likely to be similar to the game), just that the £20 game on its own is likely to be the better example of the product. In addition, people dont buy a game because of the DLC, but the DLC because of the game; so the only guaranteed income is the game sales - any DLC sales are likely to follow how good the original game was; ergo this method will also more likely sell more DLC too.
Basically if you start telling developers to make a £20 game the quality is going to diminish IMO compared to game thats sold at the same price point but was originally made to a higher cost/specification. Unfortunately its just far more likely that the first method is adopted rather than the second when you start reducing such costs.
Obviously I havent taken loads of variables into account, but my point is somewhere there (I think)
- if you make the headline price cheaper, you inherently reduce the initial perceived value of the whole product. A good example is XBL/PSN games compared to 'full price games'.ps3ud0
Last edited:
It could also help Sony win the next gen war if MS did do it and Sony said they aren't doing it. I know for a fact that i'd get a PS4 in that case.
I don't see why they'd go the route of a cheap game topped up with DLC, when they can (as they do now) just sell you the game at full price AND the day-one DLC. Look at the number of people who bought the launch DLC for ME3; it was painfully obvious it was something that should have been included the game, people moaned about it, and bought it anyway because they'd already paid the £35 for the game and so wanted the full experience.
According to an article I read,in the UK we spent something like £800 million on new games but only £90 million on used games. So it's not like used games outsell new games.
Its more about people already dont like DLC now as it is (mainly because it should be already in the game), when that becomes an additional, more unlikely, purchase because people arent buying as many games due to this DRM, the developers are going to build to cost.
Anyway this was off the tangent that ic1male would prefer cheaper priced cut-down games - I just dont think that be an easy pill to swallow if we just look at how day-1 DLC and the like is treated today.
ps3ud0
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
Games are so cheap to buy new so soon after release that this really is a non-issue for me personally. Forza Horizon, Resident Evil 6, NFS Most Wanted, Far Cry 3, Hitman Absolution, all those games scored favourably in reviews, have only been out for 3-4 months at the most and can all be had on Amazon brand new for £25 or less. Then there are the masses of great games which were released in 2012, 2011 and prior to 2011 which can be had brand new for between £10-£20, games really aren't expensive at all.
Which is exactly what I do - I wait. I haven't bought a game on release day since Battlefield 3 which was what, 16 months or so ago? But that's just me. Outside of that I buy preowned - which I won't be able to do anymore if this story is true (and I decide to buy a new Xbox).
PS4 it is, then!
PS4 it is, then!
yeah same lol. hopefully xbox price lives up to the specs.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
Which is exactly what I do - I wait. I haven't bought a game on release day since Battlefield 3 which was what, 16 months or so ago? But that's just me. Outside of that I buy preowned - which I won't be able to do anymore if this story is true (and I decide to buy a new Xbox).
PS4 it is, then!
That's the best way to do it, the only games I would buy on release would be online games where you need to level up with the competition and games that I've been looking forward to for years (GTA V, MGS5 etc).
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 3,524
if the ability not to use pre owned games or pop round a mates and take a game. then playstation it would be for me. just dont like the dualshock 
This is true now, but wasn't the case during the first couple of years of the current consoles release.
I believe that games get heavily discounted now because there is so much competition. You have years of great games available to consumers all competing with each other.
At the beginning of a new console cycle, firstly the games RRP are going to be at least £10 higher than they are now, so around £50, and they will not be discounted any where near as quickly as games are now, due to the massively decreased choice consumers will have.
We have been spoiled the last few years when even AAA xmas titles get discounted by retailers to £22.50 to capture the market. This year I got Far Cry 3, and last year Skyrim. This is the most I have ever paid for a game, but those days will be gone for the first few years on the consoles.
This will lead to issues if there is no second hand market, because if all games cost £40+, and you have no way to trade them in for new ones, people are just going to stop buying as many games until the market gets more saturated and prices come down.
im sure they'l change it just for you
as for game prices they will probably stay around the same level as now, as they know if they put them up too much they just wont sell enough.
The thing is, if prices of games are higher and pre-owned (i.e. trading in) are no longer available, then I suspect a whole raft of people will delay their purchase. This, in turn, will ultimately lead to prices dropping quicker after release, market forces and all that
I stand by what I have said previously in that I think, objectively, £40 for a game is reasonable value.....but not for everyone (and I include myself in that). I also suspect that devs will not go down the route of £20 game + up to £20 in add-ons (i.e. multiplayer, trinkets etc.) as this will likely impact sales projections and hence budget of games....and so on.
So, I would be disappointed if the whole trade-in setup dissolves, as it allows me more game purchases.....quite simply, I will spend less on games and this could be what many do. Ultimately, will the size of market therefore remain similar ?
I stand by what I have said previously in that I think, objectively, £40 for a game is reasonable value.....but not for everyone (and I include myself in that). I also suspect that devs will not go down the route of £20 game + up to £20 in add-ons (i.e. multiplayer, trinkets etc.) as this will likely impact sales projections and hence budget of games....and so on.
So, I would be disappointed if the whole trade-in setup dissolves, as it allows me more game purchases.....quite simply, I will spend less on games and this could be what many do. Ultimately, will the size of market therefore remain similar ?