If it is tied to the Gamertag, you could still play on both boxes. Unfortunately you'd have to actually use that Gamertag to play it based on the current information.
No they don't not the AAA games. Hulu/Netflix is like GOG - but games on Steam are not cheaper - they are still $50-$60 for the really top notch ones. This is a transition - and it is great for developers and publishers, and in the end, consumers will get better products and more of them as we go forward. Yes, it hurts Gamestop, but they are going to die anyway - just like Blockbuster, digital goods is where we are going, should be there already, IMO. DD
If GameStop didn't see this coming then they deserve to go out of business. I'm shocked that so many of you are shocked about this. How many people resell Angry Birds? You can't and you don't because it isn't how it works. These games are these companies IP. They deserve the right to make money on it. Just because you like to play every game without paying for it doesn't entitle you to do that. This will turn out like every other change in technology. People will b**** and moan but they will conform eventually.
No way...if Gamestop wants to cling on for dear life, it has no choice but to conform. If it doesnt, then itll face the end of its lifespan. I can guarantee they will adapt to what MS wants, they would be insane if they didnt. We'll see. It would be a terrible, terrible business decision if they chose not to play along, and instead, let another business come in play the used game market.
Angry Birds if FREE. Not many Xbox games are. Nobody is shocked, but their business model was built before this movement. They made billions off of the idea. I want them to get their piece of the pie, except for EA, who can go to hell. If they cut game prices or only charged a nominal fee, it wouldn't be a big deal to me. I'll just pass on the XboxOne. We'll see how many more people do, and if this was a good or bad decision.
It can't survive on 10% gross profit margin. It isn't possible. If they want to survive, they'll have to actually do the opposite.
Like I said, 10% of 1 billion dollars is a lot better than 0% of 1 billion dollars. You overrate the cost of Gamestop playing along. Their profits will drop significantly, but relying on just new game sales will not be as profitable for them as relying on new game sales and a 10% margin on used games. Only time will tell, and I will gladly tip Clutch $100 if Gamestop decides to only sell new games and not play into the used game market.
Well, if the article I linked to is accurate, they're being very greedy. Essentially enforcing a minimum ~$50 price for used games. Retailers/sellers only get a few dollars off a sale (BTW, why would Gamestop offer more than $1 to someone to buy their game if they can only sell if and get $3-$5 tops?). The rest goes to MS and the publisher. And who knows how MS will split that, though they could get pretty greedy with that. That sounds so crazy that I'm pretty sure it isn't true (Eurogamer has an article that suggests things are still being finalized regarding the fees). But if it is, it is pretty clear that MS is greedy to me. They're not cheaper, but there definitely is a difference in pricing models for PC games (especially via DD) and pricing for console games. Yes, the top games for both start at the same price, but I think in the PC space, that's just price discrimination in effect. The hardcore, dedicated guys will pay $50-$60 (or, as crowd-funding for games like Star Citizen have shown, even $100+) to support the games they enjoy. But publishers tend to drop prices very quickly in the PC space in order to appeal to the average PC gamer (most Steam gamers I know don't even buy a game unless its part of a Steam sale). The Witcher 2 (good example of AAA PC game) did retail for $50 at launch, but it was reduced to $40 shortly after that. In fact, I believe some DD sites offered it for $36 as preorder. Pretty sure it has gone on sale for as little as $5-$10 since then (and it is a strongly supported game). Star Citizen also seems like a top notch game, and you guys are only asking for $30 IIRC. You don't really see that in the console space at all. In addition to that, I think some of the comparisons to how things work in the PC space are a little misleading. I'm not sure I'd use "hey, it works in the PC space" as an example of how this is a good thing. Don't publishers usually ignore the PC space because not a lot of people buy games (and certainly not at full price)? Certainly there are other factors as well, but just because this is how PC games are handled doesn't make it "good" for consumers. PC gamers just tolerate it I think, especially since there are other advantages offered (better deals, mod support, better graphics, etc.). I'm not sure those same advantages would apply in the console space. On another point, while I agree that publishers could really use some of this lost revenue to stay afloat, I think they also need to evaluate their current business practices. The gaming industry is out of control with these development costs. I admit I like these pretty looking games, but you can't go around spending $100M+ on these games given how many people actually play/buy games. When you need to sell 5M-7M copies of a game to make a profit, you're doing something wrong. I'm curious...are you at all concerned about this backfiring? I agree the used game market is a problem, but it isn't ALL bad. You might be worried about the guy who waits a week and pays $45 for a used copy of a recently released game. But what about the guy who sold the game, and now has $30 (or whatever) to spend on a new game? Plus the guy who bought the game new (at $60) probably factored in resale value in this purchase. Would he still buy it if he new he couldn't get $30+ back for it? I don't remember the exact numbers from GameStop, but they did seem to push the fact that their business model does actually put a decent amount of money back into the purchase of new games. The industry needs to transition away from used games IMO (at least for the majority of sales), but I think they need to be careful about it. If the guys in charge bungle this (i.e., gamers are pissed and just quit gaming), it may just end up causing a large decrease in game sales. You guys might start getting your cut from all used game sales, but if total revenue is down, was it really worth it? Of course, with Wii U and PS4 seemingly not doing this, at least not on a system level, it also is a concern about whether going about this transition in a half-ass way will be that productive. If GameStop just ends up strongly pushing PS4 versions of games, business could just be the same as usual. I don't think that's going to happen, but I think this kind of transition has to be lead by all the industry leaders, not just one of them. I pointed this out earlier, but under the reported model, I don't really get why retailers would play along with this model (again, they'd only be able to offer gamers a few dollars for their games in order to keep any profit of their own...that's not going to happen). It has to be different from that I think. Just a few dollars off their profits is fine, but they can't take it all (essentially making it impossible to profit off used games). Also stated this, but curious to see if GameStop will push games for systems that don't follow this practice (though it is possible publishers will try to enact their own systems on other systems).
Except your gamer tag will be tied to your face and voice on the Xbox One with the Kinect. Is is even going to be possible to log into someone else's gametag on the Xbox One? Are we going to have a situation where I buy a game, but my roommate cannot play it on the same console? I cannot imagine that MS will be that restrictive, but it certainly seems like they are on the surface.
Your roommate needs to stop stealing. If he didn't give EA $60 then he obviously shouldn't be playing the game.
Who says they will abandon used games? Just XBoxOne used games. New games have a margin of about 20%. So you are basically admitting they can't survive on 10%.
Eurogamer with some further clarification on X1 trade-ins and preowned sales: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-24-this-is-how-xbox-one-game-trade-ins-will-work-apparently
Most steam games even the good ones are under $50. Also their prices drop must quicker and steam offer specials all the time. Steam games are indeed cheaper.
Thought this was an interesting study: http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/6/6696/papers/ishihara_ching_uvg011311.pdf It covers the effects of the used game market in Japan. It concludes that if you get rid of used games but publishers do NOT optimally price their games, this would actually result in less money going to publishers. But, if publishers do price their games correctly, eliminating the market could result in higher profits for publishers. I think a lot of people figured something like that. I think lots of people (myself included) would accept getting rid of used games, but only if publishers reduced the cost of their games. I think a lot of us figure that's just not going to happen (we are talking about EA, Activision, etc....hell, they might try INCREASING prices), so getting rid of used games seems like an overall negative. Start pricing games at $30-$40 (with maybe some <$20 deals in the first 12-18 months), and I'd stop my complaining. (who cares what some stupid study says?)
