hey69 said:
explosion of second hand games? that already started many years ago as far as i can see around me
It's gotten more prominent, but 6% is no huge matter. (I don't know what the percentage here would be. I also ignore the extra percents they gave to "playing at friends" and "piracy" as they've always been around.) If it does, however, kick itself up into the 20%+ area and keeps climbing, then I imagine publishers will get very worried. Middlemen would start making a lot more money, and new games would sell less and less. They may start trying their own distribution methods, taking legal action to stop it (as was, I guess, done with PC gaming since you can't rent or swap them at all. As hard drives and mass storage becomes more prominent for consoles, they could be hit by the same consumer limitations), or take an even larger stand against piracy--which may have weird affect on their usual hardware choices.
It's not like it's something I want to see stopped, but it will be interesting to see how it develops.
Gubbi said:
wazoo said:
- he criticize bad valued bundles (bundles with cheap and bad games), which is also a good point, because it artificially increases the entry price and push back the day they are really buying games.
I completely agree with you here. But is this a X-Box only phenomenon ?
I got GT3 with my PS2 and could choose between 3 AAA titles, Halo, DOA3 and Rallisport:Challenge, for both my XBoxen (first one broke after attempt to mod it
)
You get good bundles on occasion too, but much of the time it's a shruggable game or lots of random crap tossed on to attract attention. PS2's been bundling in ATV Offroad Fury 2 for ages, and the Xbox sat on Tetris Worlds and The Clone Wars as their throwaway games. You tend to get better bundles around holiday-time, but otherwise it usually comes with a package cost increase as well, so it's like "save $10 on Halo when you buy an Xbox!" Nintendo's have, by and large, at least involved better games or--in fact--a choice of MANY games.
It's hard to tell what's going on, of course, since manufacturers and retailers can make up their own bundles, but I figure N/S/M have at least some say in what's offered and how, so they should be keeping an eye on things.
As for financially viable console: They're trying to grab marketshare (and mindshare) you do that by lowering prices. It also looks as if Sony has poured alot more money into the next gen hardware than Microsoft has, money that has to be amortized.
They also poured a lot more money than others into R&D for the PS2--which was not far into the generation--so it's not unheard of or inviable for them. (Not to mention their next-gen R&D is supposed to be covering a lot of other products for them as well.)
Microsoft, however, seems like it won't produce any profit from the entire Xbox endeavor--hardware nor software nor subscriptions--within its lifespan (unless predictions have been updated?) so it behooves them to shorten its span and produce a better-designed machine for them that they have more control over. It's also something Microsoft would like to continue in the future, I figure, as it gets consoles closer to merging with their PC strengths and would bring developers more in line with their APIs and software side than getting used to hardware intricacies over a long span and being able to concentrate on games rather than "the next thing" after a few years.
Sony isn't affected as much, since it had an extra year (plus eight months in Japan) and would have likely been aiming inside 2006 anyway, but Nintendo gets caught up and ther long-term plans interrupted if
everyone is aiming before they'd move. They do have a point to complain about; as much as I like seeing tech get better, four years is way too short on the console end. (And I already have PC's for the slow, incremental, fun progress.
) R&D would almost immediately have to shift attention to the next generation and shaft improvements/alternate designs for the current one, and developers will get their own timetables interrupted (or worse, squozen even tighter) which either impacts the quality of their games, or the amount of improvement they can stretch over a console; and they'll have less room for error-recovery. We'd see a higher percentage of "games that were in development with on sketchy ideas of hardware and no real understanding" and many high-profile ones that would move up quickly to the NEXT generation since they'd have extensive development schedules and wouldn't want to get caught with their pants down as the better hardware arrives.
Nintendo has reason to complain--and valid points--even if it sounds like sour grapes, but offhand I'm not sure what they can
do. It will ultimately be the development community that accepts/rejects an approach, so if Microsoft pushes an endeavor too hard and enough support to Sony and Nintendo... <shrugs>
Offhand, I think we'll have a lot of conflicting ideas in console space soon. Microsoft will attract the PC development crowd regardless and will be busy trying to link their assorted devices together on the software side. Nintendo will be busy trying to develop alternate plans and interest in the gaming side, sprucing up their own developed titles and trying new routes--as opposed to burning cash to push hardware as hard as it can--as its strength and only fallback is its game development expertise and strength-of-licenses. Sony may end up having some leeway, depending on how long-term CELL will get used. I'm sure they'd be perfectly happy to keep the typical 5-6 year console lifespan and improve along the way, but if they feel threatened from an angle and CELL improves enough and cuts cost enoguh along they way, they could release a new machine on a shorter schedule as well. (And likely the software development wouldn't change as violently as previous generations, either.) But they wouldn't WANT to, as the longer you can coast, the easier it is on developers and the more profit you make on your original investments. (And you can play around a bit more with other ideas.)
Microsoft might be content next gen--if their business plan and costs this time are better worked-out--with the typical, longer lifespan, but offhand I think they'd want to keep pushing, as it suits their style, interrupts their competition's, attracts public attention, and would link them closer with their PC strengths. Ultimately, however, we'll have to see how the whole community reacts or even if it splits. (At some point in the future I could see PC/Xbox development as pretty much a constant--even to the frustration of PC gamers--with other "console-only" titles thrown into the mix because, well, they like to sell games, and the rest centered around Sony and Nintendo, encorporating PC-styled games in their own way.)
The market's getting big and diverse enough to support an awful lot, so I have a feeling it's going to be a bumpy ride.
