MrPopo wrote:I see, so a $10 online pass that you likely wouldn't use 2.5 years after release (multiplayer is either dead or only full of people obsessed with the game) or included optional DLC (optional) is the same thing as $30 to be able to play the game at all.
What? I'm too tired to figure out how you got that out of what I was saying.
You're confusing the number of people having played game X with the market for game X. People who buy a used copy don't increase the market. By your logic piracy increases the market and keeps back the smart phones/tablets.
See the 3rd point on the 8th post on the 4th page of this thread that o.pwuaioc wrote. Your marketing error here has already been pointed out.
Console market is definitely dying, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is where they are heading.
However, I really hope tablets and such step it the hell up if they intend to replace consoles. While I can imagine playing console games on a tablet, I sure as hell can't imagine it being anywhere near as comfortable.
In short, I need something tactile. These touchscreens do not do it for me in the least. I need a joystick and some pushbuttons. Even if they allow for such options, touchscreen being the 'default' means that a huge majority of the games made in the future will cater to that style of control primarily and any other style of control will be focused on last, if at all.
MrPopo wrote: By your logic piracy increases the market and keeps back the smart phones/tablets.
No. By this logic he speaks about the option that I as a consumer have to buy/sell my stuff so i can buy more new stuff, and the people who buy the used item still can enjoy it.
They CAN still enjoy it. The devs are putting in a cost to buying used which exists with EVERY OTHER PRODUCT but doesn't exist with games.
I was pointing out that he's well wealthy enough to be able to have a purchasing habit that the large majority of gamers don't.
That's an argument for lowering new prices, not encouraging used sales.
See the 3rd point on the 8th post on the 4th page of this thread that o.pwuaioc wrote. Your marketing error here has already been pointed out.
I already responded to that point, namely that razor and blades has nothing to do with the used game market.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
MrPopo wrote:They CAN still enjoy it. The devs are putting in a cost to buying used which exists with EVERY OTHER PRODUCT but doesn't exist with games.
So, game developers are thinking of putting in a cost to buying used games (you need to pay to "unlock" a used game in order play it, so that developers get reimbursed for used game purchases), and you are saying that EVERY OTHER PRODUCT does this? Is that really what you are saying?
MrPopo wrote:They CAN still enjoy it. The devs are putting in a cost to buying used which exists with EVERY OTHER PRODUCT but doesn't exist with games.
So, game developers are thinking of putting in a cost to buying used games (you need to pay to "unlock" a used game in order play it, so that developers get reimbursed for used game purchases), and you are saying that EVERY OTHER PRODUCT does this? Is that really what you are saying?
No, I'm saying that other products have a cost to buying them used. With a car you have more maintenance to do sooner. Used books are worn down and frequently have pages ready to fall out. A used game is effectively pristine; at worst you lose out on a manual and case. That's valuable to people like us, but it doesn't matter to a large portion of gamers.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
MrPopo wrote:They CAN still enjoy it. The devs are putting in a cost to buying used which exists with EVERY OTHER PRODUCT but doesn't exist with games.
So, game developers are thinking of putting in a cost to buying used games (you need to pay to "unlock" a used game in order play it, so that developers get reimbursed for used game purchases), and you are saying that EVERY OTHER PRODUCT does this? Is that really what you are saying?
No, I'm saying that other products have a cost to buying them used. With a car you have more maintenance to do sooner. Used books are worn down and frequently have pages ready to fall out. A used game is effectively pristine; at worst you lose out on a manual and case. That's valuable to people like us, but it doesn't matter to a large portion of gamers.
I'm glad I asked you if that's what you meant before typing a bunch of profanity.
Now, remind me to never shop at the used book-stores that you go to! Also, did you really just compare video games to cars? I'm going out to buy a used 360 tomorrow... oh wait... I also have to pay my friend to fix the RRoD on it. Maybe I'll buy that Game Gear I had my eye on. I just have to send it to get those audio capacitors fixed...
These derailed threads take the fun out of gaming. Everyone go to bed!
the7k wrote:Console market is definitely dying, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is where they are heading.
However, I really hope tablets and such step it the hell up if they intend to replace consoles. While I can imagine playing console games on a tablet, I sure as hell can't imagine it being anywhere near as comfortable.
In short, I need something tactile. These touchscreens do not do it for me in the least. I need a joystick and some pushbuttons. Even if they allow for such options, touchscreen being the 'default' means that a huge majority of the games made in the future will cater to that style of control primarily and any other style of control will be focused on last, if at all.
Yeah, Ben Cousins really downplays this in the talk and claims that because arcades had superior controllers to consoles and still failed, that the inferior controls of mobile games when compared to consoles shouldn't matter much either. But the drop in quality from console controller to mobile controller is far greater than the drop in quality from arcade controller to console controller.
MrPopo wrote:They CAN still enjoy it. The devs are putting in a cost to buying used which exists with EVERY OTHER PRODUCT but doesn't exist with games.
So, game developers are thinking of putting in a cost to buying used games (you need to pay to "unlock" a used game in order play it, so that developers get reimbursed for used game purchases), and you are saying that EVERY OTHER PRODUCT does this? Is that really what you are saying?
No, I'm saying that other products have a cost to buying them used. With a car you have more maintenance to do sooner. Used books are worn down and frequently have pages ready to fall out. A used game is effectively pristine; at worst you lose out on a manual and case. That's valuable to people like us, but it doesn't matter to a large portion of gamers.
Never bought a used album I guess. Never bought a used game that didn't work either.
I just skimmed the thread for responses because there are 7 pages of it, but I think the guy is right on the money. I'm a bit surprised so many posters here disagree, I wonder if some of you are just in denial. Last year's GDC was dominated by social gaming, and this year's GDC was dominated by social, iOS and Android (if you want go and read Sirlin's blogs about the GDC, they are really good).
There are a few effects that should be accounted for, like the PS3 and XBOX360 being older than the iPad, but that I think only adjusts the period of effective transitioning a bit later than it may appear now. The transition is still going to happen. The guy only had 30 minutes to talk, he can't cover everything and I think he did a great job.
The majority of people don't really need (or care) for the very best graphics - at a certain stage it is "good enough". I would argue that the transitioning from the arcades occurred quite a bit before there was graphics parity, because convenience and price matter more.
Honestly I believe there was already a significant transition of market share to handhelds with the DS offering pretty decent graphics (good enough) - even though it did not have dual sticks or anything. I also think that the Wii clearly shows that graphics don't matter THAT much.
Even when the next-gen consoles come (PS4? Will Microsoft even launch another one - not sure), phones and tablets will be released yearly and have a performance evolution that is more gradual (a bit like PCs do), it may not take long for them to once again catch up.
Also, the hardware of mobile phones is often subsidized by data plans, another big factor as people (they do end up paying for it, they just don't "feel it").
People are overplaying the fact that the controls in mobile phones suck. For many games, no they don't (the games that sell very well actually). Also, it is not just graphics that will keep getting better but also the controls will improve with technology and devs getting used to create for the new paradigm.
