scooby_dooby
Legend
randycat99 said:
it's not MY inquiry. But welcome to the thread, I'm glad we agree that it's not feasible.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DVDs are big enough for Next-Gen + File sizes for X360 launch games
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
it's not MY inquiry. But welcome to the thread, I'm glad we agree that it's not feasible.
They won't be able to get away with charging for a P2P network so Live profits will evaporate and have to recouped elsewhere.
A DL service was relevant in how much it could alleviate the need for extra storage space because in affect the medium would not be used anymore. As long as a physical media is used a DL service will have no affect on the storage consumed on it by a game.
At least that what I think it was about when we began discussing this.
A DL service was relevant in how much it could alleviate the need for extra storage space because in affect the medium would not be used anymore. As long as a physical media is used a DL service will have no affect on the storage consumed on it by a game.
At least that what I think it was about when we began discussing this.
scooby_dooby
Legend
scificube said:They won't be able to get away with charging for a P2P network so Live profits will evaporate and have to recouped elsewhere.
A DL service was relevant in how much it could alleviate the need for extra storage space because in affect the medium would not be used anymore. As long as a physical media is used a DL service will have no affect on the storage consumed on it by a game.
At least that what I think it was about when we began discussing this.
except that completely splits the userbase, requires need for much more expensive HDD's, requires a high-speed internet conncection, and allows only a certain # of games until you run out of space.
Could you possibly split the userbase any more than that? Horrible, terrible idea.
Whatever they do, the DVD , non-internet, users must be able to buy the game. this is key to any sound strategy, you can not split the userbase. Developers will support the majority installed base, so must always allow the games to be made available to the majority.
So, if disc space really became an issue, and they wanted to do downloadable games, they would still have to sell 2-disc DVD version of games in store for the other users.
Downloadable games is not a solution for storage space because it requires too much HDD space, and splits the userbase immensely. It could only be used in conjuction with retail games to offer more convenience.
Downloadeable game content is great when you don't store it on the harddisk: it keeps on bringing in profits! If they make it the equivalent of about a dollar each and make it completely transparent, the monthly bills can be a heavy money-maker.
They can and want to do the same with full games: you just rent them, like at the video rental, and pay per use or per month to be able to enjoy them. And the same goes for movies.
While many people still lack the bandwidth, it's definitely the model of the future. And consider this: what would be more expensive: the server setup and bandwidth needed to deliver it, or the money lost in the publishing and retail channels?
And if you buy the game on DVD, what's keeping them from demanding on-line activation? You might have bought the DVD, but that doesn't have to mean that you can play it as many times and as long as you want!
I think the only reasons that isn't done yet are about market penetration and the large amount of people who haven't got broadband yet. Then again, including WiFi helps to assure it's easier to hook it up.
They can and want to do the same with full games: you just rent them, like at the video rental, and pay per use or per month to be able to enjoy them. And the same goes for movies.
While many people still lack the bandwidth, it's definitely the model of the future. And consider this: what would be more expensive: the server setup and bandwidth needed to deliver it, or the money lost in the publishing and retail channels?
And if you buy the game on DVD, what's keeping them from demanding on-line activation? You might have bought the DVD, but that doesn't have to mean that you can play it as many times and as long as you want!
I think the only reasons that isn't done yet are about market penetration and the large amount of people who haven't got broadband yet. Then again, including WiFi helps to assure it's easier to hook it up.
Pay per play is a mechanism that has a great potential to turn the average gamer off. For example the summer doldrums...I often stick in an old favorite until the Christmas season until things heat up again. With this mechanism I would have to pay to do that since the game isn't even mine...which already sets me off right there.
There are problems for the developer too. No one will be able to get away with charging $60 for a game people can temporarily pay. It is very much like a rent situation. Game rentals don't top 6-8 dollars right now. Developers would have to depend on a gamer to rent their game 7-10 times before they get the same amount of revenue...that is if it is an objective to take the portion they would have had to pay publishers for themselves. If not then it's a few less rentals or a higher cost per rental to bring revenue to them.
As a gamer I feel the temptation for episodic release would be to tempting to the average developer over what is described above where games are cut up into portions and you pay each chunk at a time and they eliminate the pay per play from the system. This would be bad for me the consumer. I would have to contend with bad episodes and a fragmented experience now matter how good the game in all would be. We also run the danger of never ending games which can be good but also quite bad.
As a gamer I want to own my games. I want to be able to play them whenever I want to or collect on the remaining value after I've finished them or don't like them. I do not feel my sentiment are at all uncommon if not shared by a significant majority of gamers. The average joe believes they own what they pay for.
Not that it won't happen anyway but pay for play tactics and taking away game ownership will be a motivation to try an attempt to cheat the system.
There is a strong potential for disaster for all involved with such a system.
--------------------------
I'm not saying a DL service is not feasible in the future. It just doesn't look like the transition will be as smooth and easy to make happen to me as it does to others.
There are problems for the developer too. No one will be able to get away with charging $60 for a game people can temporarily pay. It is very much like a rent situation. Game rentals don't top 6-8 dollars right now. Developers would have to depend on a gamer to rent their game 7-10 times before they get the same amount of revenue...that is if it is an objective to take the portion they would have had to pay publishers for themselves. If not then it's a few less rentals or a higher cost per rental to bring revenue to them.
As a gamer I feel the temptation for episodic release would be to tempting to the average developer over what is described above where games are cut up into portions and you pay each chunk at a time and they eliminate the pay per play from the system. This would be bad for me the consumer. I would have to contend with bad episodes and a fragmented experience now matter how good the game in all would be. We also run the danger of never ending games which can be good but also quite bad.
As a gamer I want to own my games. I want to be able to play them whenever I want to or collect on the remaining value after I've finished them or don't like them. I do not feel my sentiment are at all uncommon if not shared by a significant majority of gamers. The average joe believes they own what they pay for.
Not that it won't happen anyway but pay for play tactics and taking away game ownership will be a motivation to try an attempt to cheat the system.
There is a strong potential for disaster for all involved with such a system.
--------------------------
I'm not saying a DL service is not feasible in the future. It just doesn't look like the transition will be as smooth and easy to make happen to me as it does to others.
I don't think it's a bad thing; they're just new revenue models and new ways of doing business, which is something I think the games industry badly needs. If you look at the movie industry (IMO the closest analogue to the games industry), there are all sorts of ways to make money: theatres, rentals, DVDs, in-flight movies, pay-per-view, on-demand, etc. The games industry is pretty one-dimensional in comparison. Giving game companies different and more interesting ways to sell their games could expand the market and create more space for more companies to be financially successfully, thereby leading to more diversity in games. I think we all can agree that's a good thing.scificube said:Not that it won't happen anyway but pay for play tactics and taking away game ownership will be a motivation to try an attempt to cheat the system.
There is a strong potential for disaster for all involved with such a system.
And if some of the models that come out of this turn out to be terrible to the consumer, no big deal - the market will get rid of those. Look at what happened to Divx (the movie rental format, not the MPEG-4 derivative). I have faith in the market for those. But even if it doesn't, if it makes for a healthier games market, we'll just have to deal with it. You know what's really terrible for consumers? Fractured and competing consoles that are absolutely incompatbile with each other, with exclusive games going to each one. But we deal with it. We'll deal with the trade-offs of new game models in the same way.
scooby_dooby
Legend
There's 2 giant barriers to online delivery of games though, bandwidth and storage space.
Currently the size of games is toally outpacing BW, and storage space. HDD are two expensive to hold more than 20 or 30 games, and BW is so low that even with hi-speed you would be waiting 6-12hours at least to download a game. Meanwhole games continue to grow...and grow..and grow...
With pay-per-view, or video on demand, you get the movie instantly, you don't wait 10hours, and if you did, those sales models would never have been successful.
Before downloadable games can ever happen, BW needs a huge huge boost, and the issue of affordable, abundant storage space needs to be solved. That's years off...
Currently the size of games is toally outpacing BW, and storage space. HDD are two expensive to hold more than 20 or 30 games, and BW is so low that even with hi-speed you would be waiting 6-12hours at least to download a game. Meanwhole games continue to grow...and grow..and grow...
With pay-per-view, or video on demand, you get the movie instantly, you don't wait 10hours, and if you did, those sales models would never have been successful.
Before downloadable games can ever happen, BW needs a huge huge boost, and the issue of affordable, abundant storage space needs to be solved. That's years off...
In a country like Sweden, where very many people have 10Mb internet connections, and most students have those for free (the main gaming market), I think the only thing holding it back is a lack of local servers to deliver the content at that speed.
That gaming is specifically US and Japanese centric, because most game companies are in those countries, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible in a significant part of their overseas market. And the others can go and buy the DVD, and get it unlocked on-line.
That gaming is specifically US and Japanese centric, because most game companies are in those countries, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible in a significant part of their overseas market. And the others can go and buy the DVD, and get it unlocked on-line.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 3K