How will you choose between MS & Sony's new consoles?

marshbaboon

I'm underwhelmed by both consoles, particularly the Xbox, to the point that I'm going to just buy a PS3 & any exclusives I've missed out on. I've always loved Xbox, but I wouldn't go near this abomination they're trying to hock. I want a games console to be, you know, a games console. For games.

Also paying for a subscription service riddled with advertisements is an absolute piss take, that's what stopped me from keeping my gold going on the 360.

Mitch Connor

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I think that is what MS and publishers wanted in the first place.

it will reduce new game sales as well - how many new game purchases are funded by trade ins? maybe not a massive percentage, but it is an issue none the less.

You also have the fact Gamestop have been told what the plan is and seem to be onboard with it - if not 100% happy.

The process, as reported, would kill the trade element of Gamestop. Any sales they did make would have a massive drop in profit margin for them (remember, they don't sell all they buy in, to begin with) and they would have a harder time selling them if there is a activation fee of £35. Some games would only sell for half that.

I have no doubt the publishers want a slice of the second hand pie - but the process as outlined in the report just doesn't make business sense for anyone.

Varik

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The process, as reported, would kill the trade element of Gamestop. Any sales they did make would have a massive drop in profit margin for them (remember, they don't sell all they buy in, to begin with) and they would have a harder time selling them if there is a activation fee of £35. Some games would only sell for half that.
.

From those rumours the price would be controlled by the shop with MS and the publishers/developers getting a fixed %, the 35 was meant to be the price that you'd pay to activate it if the game was not bought through one of MS partners.

You buy a used game from Gamestop and it works the same as a new game with no additional fee for use (they may alter what bonuses/DLC you get or don't get).

You lend/trade/private sell to someone then they would have to pay the 35, those shops that were not partnering with MS would be the same.

Mitch Connor

Varik wrote: »

From those rumours the price would be controlled by the shop with MS and the publishers/developers getting a fixed %, the 35 was meant to be the price that you'd pay to activate it if the game was not bought through one of MS partners.

You buy a used game from Gamestop and it works the same as a new game with no additional fee for use (they may alter what bonuses/DLC you get or don't get).

You lend/trade/private sell to someone then they would have to pay the 35, those shops that were not partnering with MS would be the same.

That makes more sense from the dev/publisher/MS/partner point of view.

Nasty for swapping games with friends though - really, really sh1t.

_Puma_

And here you have it.

It is simply down to Microsoft and publishers getting a slice of the used game market. (Note there is no compulsion on the Publisher to relay the revenue back to the Developer). It also explains why Microsoft will not allow Independent developers to self publish.
To hell with the inconvenience to gamers having to connect to a database every 24 hours, there is money to be made.

Varik

Mitch Connor wrote: »

That makes more sense from the dev/publisher/MS/partner point of view.

How, the partner sells the game and then MS and the publisher gets a cut.

_Puma_

You can be guaranteed that these Databases, whether it is a global system or a system tied to a specific retailer, will become the prime target for hackers worldwide.I hope Microsoft are up to the challenge.

So this Digital rights management system, like most DRM, will punish the customer first and foremost. Time will tell if it will stop piracy too but something tells me Microsoft wont really care as long as they make their money out of it.

Question is will Sony employ a similar system, they have already come out and said that you can use second hand games but how, that is the question. If it is the case that you cant get certain features such as multi-player from a used game then the online pass system was the ideal solution.

I'll probably be getting a ps4 at launch, always had a playstation over the years. I've never been interested in anything Xbox had to offer.
But if Sony follow suit with a system like microsoft I just won't bother. I'd get a pc instead.

ShadowHearth

Mitch Connor wrote: »

it will reduce new game sales as well - how many new game purchases are funded by trade ins? maybe not a massive percentage, but it is an issue none the less.

You also have the fact Gamestop have been told what the plan is and seem to be onboard with it - if not 100% happy.

The process, as reported, would kill the trade element of Gamestop. Any sales they did make would have a massive drop in profit margin for them (remember, they don't sell all they buy in, to begin with) and they would have a harder time selling them if there is a activation fee of £35. Some games would only sell for half that.

I have no doubt the publishers want a slice of the second hand pie - but the process as outlined in the report just doesn't make business sense for anyone.

That is the point. They made it so unattractive that it wount be profitable to do for places like gamestop. So they killed second hand market, but at the same time they say "oh, but we letting you to still do second hand game thingy :pac:"

I would not be a person, who would relay in trading in games or buying second hand games, but now and then when there is savage gamestop deal, where they shoot themselves in a foot, or when I see some older gems i missed out, i go for it. I do realise too, then a lot of new games are being funded by second hand games trade in.

I am worried more about ability of just buying a damn game and owning it. My friend moved in to my place for few days a week. He brough his ps3 games and controller, we play some of that stuff on my ps3 now. With new xbox we can forget about it. Come to think of it, he wount be able to play on console at all as where he lives, the max internet speed he can get is less then 1mbit and costs stupid money.

sarumite

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I would not be a person, who would relay in trading in games or buying second hand games, but now and then when there is savage gamestop deal, where they shoot themselves in a foot, or when I see some older gems i missed out, i go for it. I do realise too, then a lot of new games are being funded by second hand games trade in.

They are also missing out on genuine potential revenue from second hand games. I bought several games second hand and then spent a considerable amount of money on DLC ( I bought all the DLC for Borderlands and FO:NV and most DLC for burnout paradise for example). I get PS+ also (add me anyone, username sarumite) and I have bought DLC for games I get on that also (most recently sleeping dogs). With the increasing availability of DLC, second games can actually provide a revenue stream for publisher/developers.

DarkJager

I've been purely Xbox since the original launched but the more I hear about Xbox One, the less I think ill be buying it. It sounds like it's geared more towards entertainment than gaming, with the ability to play games tacked on as an afterthought. Microsoft will need to pull out an absolutely jaw dropping "Ill buy the console just to play that" game at E3 to sway me back.

As of now I think Sony will be getting my money this time around.

C14N

ShadowHearth wrote: »

By the way lads. Is it me or Xbox got it self even further away from Japan market? So far New Xbox just screams off "america! **** yeah!" " for the Bro's!!!". As we know Xbox in Japan is very unpopular, western games even less.

They really do seem to have gone that way. I'd say it's a case of them just not understanding how to be profitable in Asia so they're just not going to invest much into it at all.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Here's MS's second hand sales solution. I don't see retail being happy about this and they could even boycott the system like the PSPGo.

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/publishers-to-receive-cut-of-xbox-one-pre-owned-sales-at-retail/0116137

That sounds awful. This completely kills the second hand market for the console. I'm surprised they even decided to bother making up this system instead of just saying "F*ck second hand games". Look at it this way, if that 10% figure is in any way accurate (let's be optimistic and change it to 20%), that just renders the whole idea pointless for both retailer and consumer.

This means that someone going to trade in their games will be paid, by default, less than 20% of what the game will sell for (since the shop gets a 20% cut of the sale). Considering the retailer wants to make some sort of profit it will probably be about 10% (still using the optimistic figure here). So if an average second hand game goes for €30 (assuming it's relatively recent, under a year old), you get three Euro for trading in your game. How many people out there will really want to part with their new game for THREE measly squids? At an impossibly high figure they would be looking at a fiver, which still probably isn't enough to make me part with any one game on my shelf.

Varik wrote: »

You lend/trade/private sell to someone then they would have to pay the 35, those shops that were not partnering with MS would be the same.

Which also kills second hand sales. Who's going to buy any game second hand when you have to pay the price of a new release just to use it?

_Puma_ wrote: »

It is simply down to Microsoft and publishers getting a slice of the used game market. (Note there is no compulsion on the Publisher to relay the revenue back to the Developer).

Well in all honesty if the game was doing well in this fictional, bizzaro-world second hand games market, the publisher would realistically allocate more funds to whoever made it for future projects. It will hurt developers that are not subsidiaries of or in long term contracts with their publishers though.

I kind of feel like at this stage, Sony could just say "we're not limiting second hand games in any way at all" and could end up making a lot of money on that. Sure, they won't make a penny on the second hand sales (realistically, neither will MS if they really do pursue the system in the articles above) but there would surely be huge numbers of people who would buy the console and games for it just because they know they could trade it in if they wanted.

ShadowHearth

C14N wrote: »

They really do seem to have gone that way. I'd say it's a case of them just not understanding how to be profitable in Asia so they're just not going to invest much into it at all.



That sounds awful. This completely kills the second hand market for the console. I'm surprised they even decided to bother making up this system instead of just saying "F*ck second hand games". Look at it this way, if that 10% figure is in any way accurate (let's be optimistic and change it to 20%), that just renders the whole idea pointless for both retailer and consumer.

This means that someone going to trade in their games will be paid, by default, less than 20% of what the game will sell for (since the shop gets a 20% cut of the sale). Considering the retailer wants to make some sort of profit it will probably be about 10% (still using the optimistic figure here). So if an average second hand game goes for €30 (assuming it's relatively recent, under a year old), you get three Euro for trading in your game. How many people out there will really want to part with their new game for THREE measly squids? At an impossibly high figure they would be looking at a fiver, which still probably isn't enough to make me part with any one game on my shelf.



Which also kills second hand sales. Who's going to buy any game second hand when you have to pay the price of a new release just to use it?



Well in all honesty if the game was doing well in this fictional, bizzaro-world second hand games market, the publisher would realistically allocate more funds to whoever made it for future projects. It will hurt developers that are not subsidiaries of or in long term contracts with their publishers though.

I kind of feel like at this stage, Sony could just say "we're not limiting second hand games in any way at all" and could end up making a lot of money on that. Sure, they won't make a penny on the second hand sales (realistically, neither will MS if they really do pursue the system in the articles above) but there would surely be huge numbers of people who would buy the console and games for it just because they know they could trade it in if they wanted.

Well it all boils down to one thing now. If Sony comes out in E3 and says: "We are not doing the second hand system like MS does and keep it traditional console style". Then they won the next Generation battle already.

ahnowbrowncow

ffs, it only gets worse for xbox fans

C14N

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

ffs, it only gets worse for xbox fans

I'm assuming that's a mistaken link. Either that or you think it sucks that attractive people like Xbox fans are going to be unwelcome at Primark

Varik

C14N wrote: »

That sounds awful. This completely kills the second hand market for the console. I'm surprised they even decided to bother making up this system instead of just saying "F*ck second hand games". Look at it this way, if that 10% figure is in any way accurate (let's be optimistic and change it to 20%), that just renders the whole idea pointless for both retailer and consumer.

Read the rumour again.

ShadowHearth

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

ffs, it only gets worse for xbox fans

Thanks feck I am ugly as sin! :pac:

Varik

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Well it all boils down to one thing now. If Sony comes out in E3 and says: "We are not doing the second hand system like MS does and keep it traditional console style". Then they won the next Generation battle already.

If they don't give something to the publishers then they lose the next gen, Sony's not going to be able to live of just first party games like Nintendo if MS are getting preferential treatment from 3rd parties.

In any case they've said they're implementing a system that allows each publisher to decide themselves with they themselves not commenting if they'll be doing it with their own published games.

C14N

Varik wrote: »

Read the rumour again.

I just read it again. Why?

ShadowHearth

Varik wrote: »

If they don't give something to the publishers then they lose the next gen, Sony's not going to be able to live of just first party games like Nintendo if MS are getting preferential treatment from 3rd parties.

In any case they've said they're implementing a system that allows each publisher to decide themselves with they themselves not commenting if they'll be doing it with their own published games.

Same way publishers want to make games for a platform, which is owned by greater number of households. If there will be only 1million xbox one sold to 20million PS4s, then clearly publishers will have to play ball and switch to ps4. Wii U is a great example. Rayman Legends proves it.

Same way I understand what you are saying. Problem is all parties need play ball and get in to middle ground. Unfortunately from all this the only one who gets fecked is consumer.

Varik

C14N wrote: »

I just read it again. Why?

Because that 10% is being attributed to different things and each site is both agreeing with and conflicting with each other.

ConsoleDeals.co.uk are saying that the 10% is the discount that the used game can go for ( going by your €30 used games price)
New game €33
Used game €30

With the no mention of how much anyone gets.

mcvuk.com are saying that the shop gets a fixed percentage and they are missreading the the consoledeals post and taking the 10% as that profit (around the same as selling a new game); A sold used game makes the shop a €3 profit on a €30 used games, with the rest going to the person who sold the game and MS.

One one has said that the person selling it would get only 10% trade in other than you.

C14N

Varik wrote: »

If they don't give something to the publishers then they lose the next gen, Sony's not going to be able to live of just first party games like Nintendo if MS are getting preferential treatment from 3rd parties.

True, but if it did happen and it resulted in the sales of the XBO suffering greatly compared to that of the PS4, it wouldn't matter who was pandering more to publishers. I highly doubt many would even refuse to release games on the system based on that anyway. It's not like Nintendo where the hardware is kept hugely out of line with the competition.

Varik wrote: »

Because that 10% is being attributed to different things and each site is both agreeing with and conflicting with each other.

ConsoleDeals.co.uk are saying that the 10% is the discount that the used game can go for ( going by your €30 used games price)
New game €33
Used game €30

With the no mention of how much anyone gets.

mcvuk.com are saying that the shop gets a fixed percentage and they are missreading the the consoledeals post and taking the 10% as that profit (around the same as selling a new game); A sold used game makes the shop a €3 profit on a €30 used games, with the rest going to the person who sold the game and MS.

One one has said that the person selling it would get only 10% trade in other than you.

I hadn't read the Consoledeals link, I was just going off the MCVUK story, which said the following:

The retailer can then sell the pre-owned game at whatever price they like, although as part of the system the publisher of the title in question will automatically receive a percentage cut of the sale. As will Microsoft. The retailer will pocket the rest.

Unconfirmed reports on ConsoleDeals.co.uk suggest that retail’s slice will be as little as ten per cent.

Which, to me, means that the retailer gets to keep 10% of the sale. So this would mean that if a game sold for €30, the shop gets €3 and MS and the publisher scoop up €27 without footing the bill for actually buying the game back from the consumer.

However, reading the Consoledeals link, this clearly isn't what was really meant, which was that if a game retails new at £40, it will have to be sold at £35 (roughly a 10% discount). This is still a terrible system by itself that really over values second hand games imo. I still can't see many people going for the second hand option for the sake of saving 10% of the price of the new copy.

NotorietyH

C14N wrote: »

True, but if it did happen and it resulted in the sales of the XBO suffering greatly compared to that of the PS4, it wouldn't matter who was pandering more to publishers. I highly doubt many would even refuse to release games on the system based on that anyway. It's not like Nintendo where the hardware is kept hugely out of line with the competition.

Yeah if say Sony didn't have that used game policy and as a result say sold a lot more consoles than Microsoft, a publisher isn't going to ignore that huge sales base. Money talks. Look how quickly EA switched over sides to Microsoft for the next gen. The platform leader gets to set the tone. Hypothetically if after 6 month, Sony had sold 5 million and XOne 3 million. Taking out used game sales from Sony, they'd still probably sell as many copies on the PS4 as they would on the XOne. If the used game thing actually did swing sales in Sony's favour.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out in terms of software sales. I think the Microsoft will sell a lot of consoles, but a bit like the Wii, with a casual/mainstream audience, they might sell a tonne of Call of Dutys and FIFA, (like Nintendo first party games on the Wii), but any game outside of those core franchises might not sell well. COD and FIFA is almost in the casual game bracket in terms of there being a very narrow audience. Maybe not casual, but I don't think they're what they call hardcore gamers any more. I know in the States there's a huge number of people who only buy Madden and COD every year and nothing else.

Mitch Connor

Varik wrote: »

How, the partner sells the game and then MS and the publisher gets a cut.

Em, that's exactly how it makes sense.

Mitch Connor

ShadowHearth wrote: »

That is the point. They made it so unattractive that it wount be profitable to do for places like gamestop. So they killed second hand market, but at the same time they say "oh, but we letting you to still do second hand game thingy :pac:"

I would not be a person, who would relay in trading in games or buying second hand games, but now and then when there is savage gamestop deal, where they shoot themselves in a foot, or when I see some older gems i missed out, i go for it. I do realise too, then a lot of new games are being funded by second hand games trade in.

I am worried more about ability of just buying a damn game and owning it. My friend moved in to my place for few days a week. He brough his ps3 games and controller, we play some of that stuff on my ps3 now. With new xbox we can forget about it. Come to think of it, he wount be able to play on console at all as where he lives, the max internet speed he can get is less then 1mbit and costs stupid money.

in my opinion if you kill the second hand market you kill the retailer, and if you kill the retailer there is going to be problems, surely GameStop wouldn't be too happy to go along with this process.

MadYaker

Mitch Connor wrote: »

in my opinion if you kill the second hand market you kill the retailer, and if you kill the retailer there is going to be problems, surely GameStop wouldn't be too happy to go along with this process.

Brick and mortar stores are a thing of the past. By the time the PS5 comes around in a few mores years everything will be online. They couldn't care less about what old style retailers think.

I usually don't buy the "oh people only want to hack it because the manufacturer did x, y, z" arguments but unless several things can be hacked and edited about this console and enough good games are released for all that to be worthwhile then I don't see me buying this.

Retr0gamer

If MS lose a tonne of money yet they manage to kill Gamestop they will chalk that up as a victory. It seems with the current system in place MS will control used game prices as well as new which is great for them and very bad for the consumer and is effectively a monopoly.

ShadowHearth

NotorietyH wrote: »

Yeah if say Sony didn't have that used game policy and as a result say sold a lot more consoles than Microsoft, a publisher isn't going to ignore that huge sales base. Money talks. Look how quickly EA switched over sides to Microsoft for the next gen. The platform leader gets to set the tone. Hypothetically if after 6 month, Sony had sold 5 million and XOne 3 million. Taking out used game sales from Sony, they'd still probably sell as many copies on the PS4 as they would on the XOne. If the used game thing actually did swing sales in Sony's favour.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out in terms of software sales. I think the Microsoft will sell a lot of consoles, but a bit like the Wii, with a casual/mainstream audience, they might sell a tonne of Call of Dutys and FIFA, (like Nintendo first party games on the Wii), but any game outside of those core franchises might not sell well. COD and FIFA is almost in the casual game bracket in terms of there being a very narrow audience. Maybe not casual, but I don't think they're what they call hardcore gamers any more. I know in the States there's a huge number of people who only buy Madden and COD every year and nothing else.

Considering all this, I really hope Gamers will vote with wallet and go for ps4 ( thats ofc if they are not going same way ). These big companies have to understand that we, gamers pay money for their product. If if wont buy product, they wount make any money.

COYVB

NotorietyH wrote: »

Look how quickly EA switched over sides to Microsoft for the next gen.

EA didn't switch anywhere though. MS threw a load of money at them for a few early DLC deals and they accepted it. There's the exact same content, for the most part, on both consoles