Sony joins EA and Ubisoft in considering limitations on used games

[pcchen]

The problem with that thinking is what if a short game costs lots to make? Final price should be proprtional to cost to create, if we're going to have varied pricing, but the economy doesn't work that way.

I don't agree. If a short game is costly to make, they should better be sure that more people would want to play that. This is simply market working. Trying to artifically change that is not going to work very well.

This is my kinda thining too, and I do look for long-term value in purchases. There's still an argument against it though (but TBH, I'm not one of those 'art-house' gamers who feels niche titles should be supported because they're different!)

Yeah I definitely agree with that

Depends on the game. I rarely ever return to a game once finished, but some titles encourage revisiting. I have played and 'finished' R:FoM, Valkyria Chronicles, KZ2 (don't care for online), Civilization Revolution, and a host of PSN titles like PJ Monsters and Savage Moons. The only one I've payed again is Civ Rev, because it's designed that way. I considered playing VC again but the game wasn't quite was I was hoping for. There are plenty of new games to keep us interested, and with limited play time, how many people really have time to revisit old games they've done with?

No, a good game doesn't inherently mean post-completion value that makes it worth keeping, and there are some experiences that are just done and dusted.

To be honest if this is a big problem then game companies should seriously consider subscription model or renting model.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

To be honest if this is a big problem then game companies should seriously consider subscription model or renting model.

This is an interesting proposition. What if gaming goes more TV like? You pay a subscription to a gaming channel that provides you a range of games to choose from, and the games come and go, with boxed sets released after the fact for collectors. I think physical distribution remains the bottleneck. Once we're clear of that and all digital distribution, we'll see a world of sales strategies employed.

 

[patsu]

I don't agree. If a short game is costly to make, they should better be sure that more people would want to play that. This is simply market working. Trying to artifically change that is not going to work very well.

I think the issue is no one knows when and how the consumer market swing. If they pour in the money to develop one title over 2-3 years, the general taste may have swung. They may also face competition with a famous franchise at launch. Or many companies going for the same idea until the consumers burn out. There are other (human) factors at work.

The other way is to focus on casual, simple titles. Here, the core gamers may complain.

To be honest if this is a big problem then game companies should seriously consider subscription model or renting model.

I think they are (See Playstation Plus, which is largely a content package, not a utility package). The take up is small at this moment. But businesses will evolve. The MMO scene for example is another related area (subscription, free to play).

The consumers at large may not follow. Need more time to improve and validate, I believe.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The consumers at large may not follow. Need more time to improve and validate, I believe.

Interestingly though, TV programmes are the same idea but it works in reverse. People now have the option not to subscribe to any TV channels but to buy DVD box sets instead, and yet they're happy subscribing. Unless gamers buy DVD boxsets instead of subscribing to TV channels, then they're typically following two paths with their media and are happy with both, yet they'll grumble I'm sure if there's a forced change either way!

 

[Gradthrawn]

This is an interesting proposition. What if gaming goes more TV like? You pay a subscription to a gaming channel that provides you a range of games to choose from, and the games come and go, with boxed sets released after the fact for collectors. I think physical distribution remains the bottleneck. Once we're clear of that and all digital distribution, we'll see a world of sales strategies employed.

I really like that idea. And this is coming from someone who enjoys collecting games. I would probably get a chance to play a lot more games that way (queue them up, let them download), and then buy physical, standalone, copies of those that I really enjoy. There are some games I'm just always going to want to have a physical copy of, and this model supports that.

EDIT

Although I suspect total potential subscriber base to be an even bigger bottleneck than the physical medium is at this point in order for that model to work properly. By work properly I mean financially viable for publishers and developers.

 

[patsu]

That's what OnLive and Gaikai are after. They use a streaming model though.

In the mean time, the bulk of the industry needs a forward path too.

 

[corduroygt]

Isn't that the same as PSN+ with but with better games? So charge $200/year for PSN and but better, full length games on there?

 

[AntShaw]

Isn't that the same as PSN+ with but with better games? So charge $200/year for PSN and but better, full length games on there?

You can get a GameFly rental membership, 1 game out at a time for $180 a year. I'm always confused at why digital content delivery systems always end up trying to charge more?

 

[dobwal]

Well yes, its true that people will try to find better deals, but if you want to buy a 2010 car or electronic device, there arent that many out there on the secondhand market. Yes there are some out there, but not enough to be considered competition imo

Games are different because within a month you can easily find used copies sitting right next to new ones. Used games are a perfect substitute with high availability and they steal a lot of sales away from new games.

I hope this clears what I've been trying to say.

While new autos are released every year, models only change every 4-7 years. Used auto compete very much with new car offerings especially after the first couple of years.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Isn't that the same as PSN+ with but with better games? So charge $200/year for PSN and but better, full length games on there?

That's what I'm thinking. Or rather, you'd buy PS4 and it'd come with one year's subscription (or rather, you'd subscribe to PSN and get a PS4 for an introductory price, similar to subscribing to Sky and getting a Sky+ box), and every game appears online. Each year you have to renew your subscription or play nothing. Just like cable. Why there's an ad at the top of this page recommending Virgin TV+Broadbnad+Phone for £18. Clearly a games channel would have trouble competing valuewise with that, although realistically it'd need to cost more and would be saving mainstream gamers money typically. Perhaps they'd need an authentic cable model with ad breaks every 15 minutes?

 

[dobwal]

I am not saying short games are bad. What I mean is, if a game is short, it should be priced accordingly... However, let's just compare a game to a movie. Supposed that a game provides one weeks of entertainment, 2 hours per day. That means it provides 14 hours of fine entertainment. Now, a movie is normally 2 hours, with everything provided (a game normally don't provide a console for you). So, if a game is 7 times more expensive than going to a movie, it's probably too expensive.

Are movies tickets priced according to a movie's length or cost to produced?

You want varying costs based on average time to finish, then you want a world where COD and other games like Halo go for several hundred dollars a pop. I notice most people only talk about lowering retail prices for games that can finished faster than whats typical, but hardly do those same people advocate for games like FF or GT going for double, triple or quadruple the price of retail because their average length of completion is well beyond whats typical.

 

[specwarGP2]

While new autos are released every year, models only change every 4-7 years. Used auto compete very much with new car offerings especially after the first couple of years.

Well you just reaffirmed my point. If you want to buy a 2010 model used car, you will have to wait at least a couple years to have a good selection to choose from. 2010 model used cars dont compete with 2010 model year new cars really. There just arent that many around to be considered competition.

Previous model year cars do compete with the current model year, but they are inferior to a new car. The same can't be said for games. A used game for all intents and purposes is identical to a new one, so you dont have the mindset that people have with cars that they dont trust the previous owner so they buy new for peace of mind (like me).

 

[Gradthrawn]

Isn't that the same as PSN+ with but with better games? So charge $200/year for PSN and but better, full length games on there?

You can get a GameFly rental membership, 1 game out at a time for $180 a year. I'm always confused at why digital content delivery systems always end up trying to charge more?

I'm not sure the numbers would work very well (financially speaking, for publishers). That could work for a "1 game out" type of limit, but that's not exactly the type of model I thought Shifty was referring to. One analogous to Cable TV. While, technically speaking, I can only watch 1 channel at a time, I have immediate access to them all and whatever content they're currently providing (and limited back catalog via on-demand).

While new autos are released every year, models only change every 4-7 years. Used auto compete very much with new car offerings especially after the first couple of years.

Yeah, exactly. Ask some dealership owners how well they'd survive without their used car lots, especially now, and see what they say.

EDIT

Well you just reaffirmed my point. If you want to buy a 2010 model used car, you will have to wait at least a couple years to have a good selection to choose from. 2010 model used cars dont compete with 2010 model year new cars really. There just arent that many around to be considered competition.

I think you're missing his point. We're not talking about 2010 vs 2011 models. We're talking about 2005 - 2010 model vs the upcoming 2011 - 2016 model. Mid-model life cycle changes (MMCs) typically only happen in the cars 3rd year, and those changes are often rather minor. With full model changes (FMCs, the "new" models) happening every 5 or so. The changes that happen during the life cycle of a given model are typically rather minor and not something most buyers would notice (or care about). There are exceptions, of course. So, outside of that very first year of a new model, used (like for like) still competes.

 

[eastmen]

I'm not sure why people keep bringing up cars. It makes no sense.

1) Retailers get the intial cut of the car. This is where cars and games differ

2) Auto companys then charge dealerships and places like 10 minute oil change for parts which then they go and charge consumers more. Some cars are better than others but your going to need to change your oil and the filter every 3-10 thousand miles. Then you have brakes and other things that they get a cut of.

3) When a new car becomes used it has physical wear and its not as desired as a new car. Not to mention that it doesn't become used until 2-3 model years later.

4) Auto makers already came up with a way to get cash from the used market. They still get money for the parts used for repair and oil changes and what have you , but they also have certified used cars which they get a piece of the actuion on.

 

[specwarGP2]

I think you're missing his point. We're not talking about 2010 vs 2011 models. We're talking about 2005 - 2010 model vs the upcoming 2011 - 2016 model. Mid-model life cycle changes (MMCs) typically only happen in the cars 3rd year, and those changes are often rather minor. With full model changes (FMCs, the "new" models) happening every 5 or so. The changes that happen during the life cycle of a given model are typically rather minor and not something most buyers would notice (or care about). There are exceptions, of course. So, outside of that very first year of a new model, used (like for like) still competes.

But that's what the used game market is. You have a used game that is only $5 cheaper than the new one. The equivalent be like a 2010 new car that sells for $60k vs a 2010 used car that sells for $55k with a few hundred miles on it, and that's a situation you rarely see.

Older used cars have significant savings because they're not as good as new. They have accumulated miles and wear and tear. Not to mention you dont know what the car has been through. Used cars will give you more problems than a new one. So there is a tradeoff you have to decide on when buying used vs new. Games arent like that. They're good as new except for the missing shrink wrap.

So yes, used cars compete with new ones, but they dynamic is different compared to how used games compete with new games.

 

[patsu]

You can get a GameFly rental membership, 1 game out at a time for $180 a year. I'm always confused at why digital content delivery systems always end up trying to charge more?

May have to look at it case by case, although there are some general principles which may apply.

The vendors are using the physical channel as a reference. In general, if they can get away with it, there is no reason why the businesses want to charge lower than B&M price. They will try to push it up, and see if the consumers bite. In many cases, the *convenience* of digital delivery can be worth something.

e.g., It *can* be cheaper to buy tickets from offline agent than using an Internet booking system. Day-n-date VoD movie is being priced more than Blu-ray movies (not to mention renting from RedBox @ $1.50 is cheaper than PSN/XBL rented movies), etc.

Plus, you may need to pay more for higher bandwidth also.

[size=-2]Don't forget to borrow movies/music from the public library for free ![/size]

 

[corduroygt]

Perhaps they'd need an authentic cable model with ad breaks every 15 minutes?

I was thinking more in terms of HBO, Cinemax, etc, which are premium cable channels and they cust about $10/month and have no ads. Cable box itself costs $10/month to rent, and then you could subscribe to the EA channel, Activision channel, for a monthly fee.

I wonder if the finances work out for that, because that looks like a winner, no worrying about buying or selling games, just use them as if you use your cable box. They can pretty much use pc parts to make the box. Sounds like a much better investment than the money sink that's Onlive...

You could even have ads between each new multiplayer match, while you're waiting for everyone to connect. Since you don't want to be absent when the multiplayer match starts, you'd be guaranteed to watch the ad

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It wouldn't be worth a standalone box I don't think, but as a service on one of the consoles, it makes some sense.

 

[specwarGP2]

I was thinking more in terms of HBO, Cinemax, etc, which are premium cable channels and they cust about $10/month and have no ads. Cable box itself costs $10/month to rent, and then you could subscribe to the EA channel, Activision channel, for a monthly fee.

As someone who has cable TV with premium channels, that can get expensive very quickly!

 

[corduroygt]

As someone who has cable TV with premium channels, that can get expensive very quickly!

Not really since Atlus channel would be the only one you need