Could there really be no next-gen system from either Sony or Microsoft?

[Michael Corvin]

Unless they are dropping a ton on R&D for a new format, I think some form of BD is a forgone conclusion.

[kgrogers1979]

Blu-ray isn't really necessary since a physical format isn't really even necessary anymore. Steam has pretty much taken over PC gaming. Basically no PC gamer actually buys games on physical media anymore. The same could very well happen with consoles.

[Michael Corvin]

Originally Posted by kgrogers1979

Blu-ray isn't really necessary since a physical format isn't really even necessary anymore.

Bandwidth caps and lack of broadband in rural America say otherwise. Never mind that a console has to be simple enough for mom and dad as putting a disc in a drive for junior. They would just be pushing consumers towards the WiiU if they went all digital this time out.

Also, Steam succeeds because of game prices. They run frequent and insane deals to offset the cost of owning a physical copy (that has resale value). Microsoft has shown no evidence of embracing such a model. Kameo is still $20 on the Marketplace for fucks sake.

[kgrogers1979]

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin

Also, Steam succeeds because of game prices. They run frequent and insane deals to offset the cost of owning a physical copy (that has resale value).

That would be one of the biggest reasons why Sony and Microsoft would want to go all digital. They hate the used game market since they see no revenue from it. Going all digital would kill the used market.

Is broadband really still all that lacking in rural America? I live in rural America, and I have had broadband for several years.

[Michael Corvin]

As I pointed out though, who is going to embrace $60 digital games though? Neither MS or Sony has embraced the pricing flexibility of Steam or given us reason to believe they will. Again, Kameo...$20.

It's not about what MS, Sony & publishers want, it's about what the consumer will bear. I doubt consumers are ready for dropping $60 for a product they don't actually own. I know I'm not and I'm a launch day adopter.

[kgrogers1979]

You're assuming they would be using the exact same model next gen as they do this gen. Things change you know...

They would rather see revenue from a $10 digital game than not seeing anything at all from the sale of a $10 used game. So low prices are still a win for them.

The digital marketplace this gen is very small with few buyers, so that is why they can't afford to do crazy Steam-like sales, but who knows what may happen next gen. When Steam first started, people didn't have any clue that it would take PC gaming by storm like it has...

[Drexl]

Before they can switch entirely, there needs to be a transitional period in which everything (or a reasonably large percentage of it) is available either on physical media or digitally, like what the PS Vita is apparently getting. Music and PC games are still in that phase, and movies are getting there if they aren't already. From there it's a matter of watching the sales and gradually phasing out the old format. It happens all the time, with film vs. digital, VHS vs. DVD, etc.

Of course, games are a little different because the smaller titles are download only, but they'll still need to produce discs of the big titles. We're not at the point yet where they can end physical media. Maybe the generation after the next one.

[Groucho]

Originally Posted by fujishig

Of course, if Apple enters the market...

Technically, they're already in (and dominating) the handheld market.

Not sure how an Apple set-top console would fly, though. A one-button controller was fine for the 2600, but for today's games?

[orangecrush]

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin

As I pointed out though, who is going to embrace $60 digital games though? Neither MS or Sony has embraced the pricing flexibility of Steam or given us reason to believe they will. Again, Kameo...$20.

It's not about what MS, Sony & publishers want, it's about what the consumer will bear. I doubt consumers are ready for dropping $60 for a product they don't actually own. I know I'm not and I'm a launch day adopter.

To be fair, Sony has had some really good sales on retail games on PSN. Not as good as steam, but way better than anything MS has done.

[Michael Corvin]

Originally Posted by kgrogers1979

You're assuming they would be using the exact same model next gen as they do this gen. Things change you know...

Maybe, but you're talking about Microsoft here... a.k.a. the company that ushered in both the $60 game price and $80+ special editions. I just can't picture them cutting that in half for the sake of going digital, publisher pressure or not. Microsoft is in the business of raising prices, not lowering them.

I'm with Drexl. There needs to be a transitional period. I would like to see games go the route films have. Game + Digital Copy in some fashion.

[Cusm]

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin

Maybe, but you're talking about Microsoft here... a.k.a. the company that ushered in both the $60 game price and $80+ special editions. I just can't picture them cutting that in half for the sake of going digital, publisher pressure or not. Microsoft is in the business of raising prices, not lowering them.

I'm with Drexl. There needs to be a transitional period. I would like to see games go the route films have. Game + Digital Copy in some fashion.

I would love to have more older games downloaded for the price of used games. I picked up Assassin's Creed for $5 a couple of months ago, on Live it would have been $20 no way I would do that.

[atxbomber]

Originally Posted by kgrogers1979

Blu-ray isn't really necessary since a physical format isn't really even necessary anymore. Steam has pretty much taken over PC gaming. Basically no PC gamer actually buys games on physical media anymore. The same could very well happen with consoles.

Maybe it's changed since then, but as recently as 2010, only 73% of 360s were even connected to the internet, and only 60% of households in the US have access to broadband internet. Unless there's been a dramatic increase in both those numbers, I don't see anybody going digital only. Steam works different than consoles because it targets a different audience (anybody with a gaming computer is likely going to have broadband internet) and isn't the only point of retail for many of the games it sells. Maybe Next Gen will have day and date digital for everything, where you have the choice, but we're not going to see the end of physical media for the foreseeable future.

[msdmoney]

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin

As I pointed out though, who is going to embrace $60 digital games though? Neither MS or Sony has embraced the pricing flexibility of Steam or given us reason to believe they will. Again, Kameo...$20.

It's not about what MS, Sony & publishers want, it's about what the consumer will bear. I doubt consumers are ready for dropping $60 for a product they don't actually own. I know I'm not and I'm a launch day adopter.

The reason they haven't embraced the price flexibility is because they have no reason to. They are still living in a retail, physical copy world, and the downloadable games are an afterthought to their tried and true business model. I also think people have a misguided perception of the pricing of downloadable games because their main experiences are psn and the 360. These are closed platforms where the platform holder is the distributor and keeps very tight control over the store and content. The main problem with this system isn't that the games are downloadable, but that the pricing is so tightly controlled by the platform holder. Once you've purchased a 360 they control the distribution to you. Just look at the difference in pricing on a closed platform that isn't so tightly controlled like the iphone. And then look at the downloadable prices on an open platform like the pc where Steam, Amazon, D2D, greenmangaming, impulse/gamestop, and GOG are all competing for your money.

[Michael Corvin]

Originally Posted by msdmoney

The reason they haven't embraced the price flexibility is because they have no reason to. They are still living in a retail, physical copy world, and the downloadable games are an afterthought to their tried and true business model.

Very true, but that doesn't hold for games no longer at retail. Games have a shelf life of a year, if they're lucky (longer for the big titles). Why are launch games still $20?

I can get any launch 360 game about $5 used or I can buy a digital version for $20. If they were serious about killing the used market they would price older titles competitively.

Originally Posted by Cusm

I would love to have more older games downloaded for the price of used games. I picked up Assassin's Creed for $5 a couple of months ago, on Live it would have been $20 no way I would do that.

Exactly.

[Drexl]

Originally Posted by msdmoney

The reason they haven't embraced the price flexibility is because they have no reason to. They are still living in a retail, physical copy world, and the downloadable games are an afterthought to their tried and true business model. I also think people have a misguided perception of the pricing of downloadable games because their main experiences are psn and the 360. These are closed platforms where the platform holder is the distributor and keeps very tight control over the store and content. The main problem with this system isn't that the games are downloadable, but that the pricing is so tightly controlled by the platform holder. Once you've purchased a 360 they control the distribution to you. Just look at the difference in pricing on a closed platform that isn't so tightly controlled like the iphone. And then look at the downloadable prices on an open platform like the pc where Steam, Amazon, D2D, greenmangaming, impulse/gamestop, and GOG are all competing for your money.

It's just like the record companies all over again, isn't it? Look at the indie bundles, where small developers are selling their games for a pay-what-you-want price. It's just like the music artists selling directly. Indie Gala includes indie rock albums in addition to games, in fact.

[GizmoDVD]

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin

Maybe, but you're talking about Microsoft here... a.k.a. the company that ushered in both the $60 game price and $80+ special editions. I just can't picture them cutting that in half for the sake of going digital, publisher pressure or not. Microsoft is in the business of raising prices, not lowering them.

I'm with Drexl. There needs to be a transitional period. I would like to see games go the route films have. Game + Digital Copy in some fashion.

Ushered in?

Were you not a gamer during the SNES/Genesis days? Plenty of games were $60 (I think even more), and that was in early 90's money. Even some N64 Games.

And Special Editions? Again, Earthbound for SNES. Madden 2005 for Xbox and PS2.



What about Shenmue for Dreamcast? Sonic adventure 2 for Dreamcast?
Resident Evil 4 for GameCube? Resident Evil 4 for PS2? Mortal Kombat Deception?

Need me to go on? You act as-if it's all Microsofts faults when there were plenty of $60 and Special Edition games before Microsoft even launched a freakin' console. Game studios decided that they could get an extra $10-$20 out of gamers by tossing in a slip cover/DVD Extra/Bonus crap. It's a way for them to spend $4 more and make an extra $20.

You seem to forget SONY launched a PS3 at $499 and $599 while MS launched a year earlier at $299 and $399. Why no crying about that?

[GizmoDVD]

Originally Posted by Michael Corvin

Very true, but that doesn't hold for games no longer at retail. Games have a shelf life of a year, if they're lucky (longer for the big titles). Why are launch games still $20?

I can get any launch 360 game about $5 used or I can buy a digital version for $20. If they were serious about killing the used market they would price older titles competitively.

Lazy people. They are hoping people are too dumb to actually try and find the game cheaper and would rather just go 'oooh, $20 for Perfect Dark Zero on XBL? I'll take it!". Some consumers don't trust used games or don't even think they will be priced that low. Why not get $20 for a dumb person than sell 4 copies at $5 (digitally) each?

Not something I agree with, as I sure as hell won't spend $20 on a digital game when the physical disc is $5 and could be traded in when I finished it.

Sony failed with this model with the PSP GO!. Charging MSRP for a digital copy when the UMD was either the same price or cheaper will not fly. I fully expect every console/handheld maker to reduce the digital price over physical in the next few years, especially as retail stores start to shutter more frequently.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by fujishig

Of course, if Apple enters the market...

Apple already tried its hand at designing a game console, back in 1995. It was even going to be an open platform, with consoles from multiple manufacturers. Only Bandai ever produced one, and it flopped:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Bandai_Pippin

Of course, Apple made that back when Steve Jobs wasn't with the company. Now that Steve's returned... oh, wait.

As Groucho pointed out, iOS has grabbed a large share of the handheld market, but those devices are so touch focused I see it hard translating to home console. Also, portable devices are, by necessity underpowered.


One possibility for an "open platform console" would be an Android-powered TV device like GoogleTV, which already has some games on it, as well as an On-Live app, allowing the playing of many PC games via streaming. However, Android devices already have a history of fractured compatibility.

[Michael Corvin]

Originally Posted by GizmoDVD

Ushered in?

Were you not a gamer during the SNES/Genesis days? Plenty of games were $60 (I think even more), and that was in early 90's money. Even some N64 Games.

Miss the point much?

Prior to the 360 the SRP of the vast majority of games were $49.99. Were there games that ran more? Of course, there's an exception for everything. Hell I paid $90 or whatever ridiculous amount SFII was on the SNES. Outside of the rare cartridge pricing, games have basically been $50 since the NES and up until the 360 launched.

If you were on the net in 2005 when the $10 hike went into effect, it was bitched about relentlessly. It was a big deal when it happened so much so that it became a big deal when the Wii launched and kept the $50 SRP.

Same goes for special editions. Sure there were some here and there on mostly niche titles, but none that were such a resounding success that Halo 2 was. They proved that people were willing to pay a $20 premium for mostly useless junk.

[kgrogers1979]

People never bother adjusting for inflation...

A dollar in 1990 certainly is not the same as a dollar today. The Time Value of Money 101.

Adjusted for inflation a $50 game in 1990 would be $82 today. That's more expensive than games today...

The Atari 2600 launched in 1977 at $199. That would be $707 today, more expensive than even what the PS3 launched at.

People that say video games have increased in price don't really know what they are talking about.

[Superboy]

Originally Posted by kgrogers1979

According to some people Nintendo is going the way of Sega... for the last 15 years or so...

No. No no no no no way are they going the way of Sega. Those critics are stupid. The gaming media is terrible, and it is an absolutely horrible institution. Reviewers are complete and utter morons, they're nothing more than glorified PR junkies. Everyone thought that the DS was going to lose to the PSP, and it crushed the PSP and utterly humiliated it, and still the media refused to acknowledge the faults of the system to the point that Sony made a follow up system with all the same flaws and more. Then they hurled even more moronic criticism towards the 3DS, and what an epic failure of a success that is. And the Wii, because it has inferior graphics to the PS3 and 360, but it's only the better system because it has better games, and for some reason it outsold both competitors constantly.

Sega made a series of world-class mistakes. I don't know how long you've been following the video game industry, but nothing Nintendo has done could ever measure up to how god-awful and fucking bone-headed Sega was.

[kgrogers1979]

Originally Posted by Superboy

No. No no no no no way are they going the way of Sega. Those critics are stupid.

Those critics are usually teens who think they know everything.

Sega made a series of world-class mistakes. I don't know how long you've been following the video game industry, but nothing Nintendo has done could ever measure up to how god-awful and fucking bone-headed Sega was.

I was joking. I know Nintendo isn't going out of the hardware business anytime soon. I have been playing ever since I was 3 years old in the very early 80s on my dad's Atari 2600, so I know the industry pretty well. Yes, I know Sega had a long string of massive failures that eventually led to them leaving the hardware business. The Sega CD to 32X to Saturn to Dreamcast was just failure after failure. To say that Nintendo has never had an equivalent failure is wrong however. Need I remind you of the Virtual Boy? But yeah, that is really the one and only failure Nintendo has had as of yet. It would take a string of failures for them to go the way of Sega. No company goes out of business after just one failure. If they did, no company would ever last.

[Superboy]

Oh, the Dreamcast wasn't a failure the way their other systems were. It had great games, and great support. It was just too late... and in the face of Sony's market dominance, it could not succeed. Although the PS2 ended up being a terribly mediocre system.

[kgrogers1979]

Great games and support don't necessarily make you a success. Dreamcast was a failure because it did not sell well. That's all that really matters. Sure the diehard fans of the Dreamcast, and there were many such fans, loved the games but the sales were dismal and so therefore it failed.

On the other hand, Nintendo hasn't had good support from third parties in a long time. Basically if you buy a Nintendo console now, you are essentially buying it because you love Mario and Zelda. However, despite a lack of third party support, Nintendo has remained successful because unlike their competitors they are able to manufacture the consoles cheaply. Nintendo doesn't need to sell a lot of units in order to make profit. And that's what really separates success from failure. Success is making a profit.

[Groucho]

Lack of third party support? Go into any Walmart and there's a pile of shitty third party Wii games a mile high.