PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4

[LaBounti]

Thats a joke, right?

So full on no used games is better then? No one can stop it regardless.

 

[Imari]

So full on no used games is better then? No one can stop it regardless.

It's basically the same thing, you're just advocating the thin edge of the wedge.

It can be stopped. It won't happen if the companies see that it's costing them more sales than it's gaining them. That's all. If it makes them less money they won't do it, which is why it's a relevant question of how many people won't buy the system at all.

Me, I'd go a long way to avoid buying a system like this. If there are amazing games ONLY available on PS4, maybe I'd buy it eventually. But this sort of control of ownership is not something that I think should be encouraged, and so I'd really try to avoid encouraging it with my wallet if I can.

 

[LaBounti]

It's basically the same thing, you're just advocating the thin edge of the wedge.

It can be stopped. It won't happen if the companies see that it's costing them more sales than it's gaining them. That's all. If it makes them less money they won't do it, which is why it's a relevant question of how many people won't buy the system at all.

Me, I'd go a long way to avoid buying a system like this. If there are amazing games ONLY available on PS4, maybe I'd buy it eventually. But this sort of control of ownership is not something that I think should be encouraged, and so I'd really try to avoid encouraging it with my wallet if I can.

Nothing wrong with voicing an opinion, I also started with no one will agree with it. It's not the same thing not even basically, after time its open season for used games. Just an idea, I do not care if used games are locked out.

But to the loyal gamer's who buy new in the first place(you know the people who provide the used games?) they are the ones that will keep the companies in business(like they did for 5+ years). Sony and other publishers do not care about cheap gamer's who do not want to buy new games, clearly they want to stop it.

 

[Imari]

But to the loyal gamer's who buy new in the first place(you know the people who provide the used games?) they are the ones that will keep the companies in business(like they did for 5+ years). Sony and other publishers do not care about cheap gamer's who do not want to buy new games, clearly they want to stop it.

Ah, of course. Bring on the buzzwords and rhetoric. Shall we bring in the fact that by buying used you're helping to save the planet by recycling? Less discs made means less global warming, less rainforests plundered and the Albanian fruitbat will be saved. /sarcasm

There's nothing more or less loyal about buying a game new. Brand loyalty is continued use and ownership of a brand. And there's nothing more or less cheap about buying it used, it's called pragmatism.

I will say this. If game companies made games that people wanted to keep, the used market wouldn't even be a problem.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I will say this. If game companies made games that people wanted to keep, the used market wouldn't even be a problem.

But that's almost as much of a loaded statement as the one you sarcastically replied to. No matter how bad the game, there's somebody out there who values it and keeps it. Hell, I hunted down Star Wars: Masters of Teras Kasi on eBay a few years back since I regretted parting with it as a kid, and that is a lousy game .

My problem with all of these proposed anti-used-game tactics is that it also screws with my current game setup. I haven't bought a used game in years, when a new version is available; the savings are typically $5 or $10, and I'd rather the peace of mind of getting the game first. But, we have two PS3's; one in the living room, one in the bedroom. The girlfriend and I have separate accounts, and share some games between the two. This approach screws things up for us, much like the Online Passes already have; the girlfriend said she's unlikely to pay the extra just to go online on All-Stars Battle Royale since the one pass provided with the game is now tied to my account on the living room system. As others have mentioned, borrowing games will now be off the menu, which is silly.

While I can understand the idea, in theory - it rubs me all sorts of wrong that GameStop can probably end up making a few hundred on one particular copy of a game and offer such pathetic trade-in values - I don't think it sets a very good precedent. What next? Systems that can't be given to others?

 

[Imari]

But that's almost as much of a loaded statement as the one you sarcastically replied to. No matter how bad the game, there's somebody out there who values it and keeps it. Hell, I hunted down Star Wars: Masters of Teras Kasi on eBay a few years back since I regretted parting with it as a kid, and that is a lousy game .

You're right, it was a throwaway comment that I regret making. It's not correct, good or bad games really have next to nothing to do with the used games market.

As you say, there are people that will hold onto anything. And likewise there are people who would pass on even the bestest and greatest games when they're done.

And I guess that's really the problem. The removal of half the options. I agree that there's all sorts of things wrong with the Gamestop model of business, but I hate to all the other good things about used games go along with it.

 

[Luminis]

But to the loyal gamer's who buy new in the first place(you know the people who provide the used games?) they are the ones that will keep the companies in business(like they did for 5+ years). Sony and other publishers do not care about cheap gamer's who do not want to buy new games, clearly they want to stop it.

So, what of the guys buying new games? You're forgetting that eliminating the second hand market also denies them the chance to pass their games on (which they evidently do). Less money recouped from games means less money to buy new games. Add to that that you'll probably be shelling out even more in the future for DLC and stuff and voilá.

 

[HKS racer]

Assuming the PS4 will be similar to the PS3 in that I can upgrade the hard drive capacity on my own, with something like a 1TB 2.5" SSD, then I'd still buy it 👍

I don't share games really, nor do I buy 2nd hand. Mostly because I know the profit margins Game$top gets and I refuse to encourage them ripping off us gamers like that. Otherwise, at home I've got a full GB LAN and 15/15 FIOS so I'm all for all digital content

Jerome

I don't like Gamestop either. I buy my games online in auction sites (don't want to advertise). It's too convenient for me, with my 45 euro I recently purchased F1 CE, Unreal Tournament III, Resistance and Grid. Great value for money. I prefer buy 4 good games (even if they are not new) instead of a single new one.

It won't effect game sales one bit.... I mean someone has to buy it new in the first place and Sony does not care for those who buy the system(loss profit) but not new games(lost profit)....

A lot of people purchased GT5 at day one. I'm one of them. Usually I buy 2nd market games but for GT5 I made an exception.

So, what of the guys buying new games? You're forgetting that eliminating the second hand market also denies them the chance to pass their games on (which they evidently do). Less money recouped from games means less money to buy new games. Add to that that you'll probably be shelling out even more in the future for DLC and stuff and voilá.

Great point, I know people that are avid Gamestop users. What they do is:
preorder new stuff, give in their used games they preordered months ago.
If they cannot longer do that, they'll obviously have less money for new stuff on the long run.

With the "only new games" thing low budget Gamestoppers will buy GT6, new COD or Battlefield, new FIFA or PES eventually new Uncharted and that's pretty much all for a year of gaming. Small companies with niche videogames will be the most affected. Which is a tragedy for originality and new ideas.

 

[Mulan]

The thing is, with todays business model the games need to cost alot.
If the businessmodel goes from retail and secondhand to a more e-business, no disc solutions games can go down 50% easy. Plus you get a totally direct selling modell
that is in no need of opening hours and the marketing can be done precisely at the customers (depending on what you have and what you like, here i find the music and film streaming doing a great job).

Hopefully it will come to that point that
you pay a monthly fee and get all the games for free and all DLC in the PS+ store as long as you pay. I dont see games any different than other entertainment regarding this. Just a matter of diskspace and bandwidth required.

Of course there should be a model with renting single games too. Like pay 1$ each day you play the game (max 30-60$). You finish the game early you pay little, play it alot and pay full price. This is way better for environment (since this is brought up) than keep pressing discs.


But that is today maybe a bit wishfull. What i still think is possible is multilicenses. Buy a game for 3 machines a little more expensive or buy for one (still one disc). Like Microsoft and Antivirus companies do. Problem is if retailers can hold stock for two models + all the Special editions the games now have.

 

[Musolini187]

i buy 60% of my games used (but from people directly, meaning 10/20 euros). if i can't play sh games, ps4 and sony can die for all i care. i would either stop gaming or just go pc.

 

[HKS racer]

you pay a monthly fee and get all the games for free and all DLC in the PS+ store as long as you pay. I dont see games any different than other entertainment regarding this. Just a matter of diskspace and bandwidth required.

Sounds interesting but I don't see EA agreeing with that at all. They don't want to be included in a service and gain the same money of a small company they'll obviosly want a much bigger % no matter the quality of EA products.

This will cause a general flattening on quality because if the income is costant, companies will try to reduce productions cost as much as they can, in other words this mean crappy games for all.

Another drawback is companies cannot longer make a selling hit out from nothing. I.e. Borderlands 2, all the marketing "gurus" were saying they have no chances. They were wrong.

 

[Luminis]

With the "only new games" thing low budget Gamestoppers will buy GT6, new COD or Battlefield, new FIFA or PES eventually new Uncharted and that's pretty much all for a year of gaming. Small companies with niche videogames will be the most affected. Which is a tragedy for originality and new ideas.

Which, already, is pretty expensive, if you think about it. Four games, if you buy them new, is 70 x 4 = 280 bucks. If you went about last years games and bought 'em used, you'd get ten games. Easily.

The thing is, with todays business model the games need to cost alot.
If the businessmodel goes from retail and secondhand to a more e-business, no disc solutions games can go down 50% easy.

There's a flaw in your train of thought, though. And that is assuming that the savings will be forwarded to the customers. Just look at console games: They usually start out at 70 bucks. The very same PC game retails for, what, 50 when new? Or just look at how some games that don't sell well drop to half price within laughably short amounts of time. Or, take the best example there is: Things like Blizzard's battle.net store. The downloadable games there are more expensive than a hard copy from a retailer.

So, no, games don't need to cost a lot. They do because people are okay with shelling out as much. And as long as games sell at 70 bucks, they will be sold at that price. What, do you think a company will go "Yeah, we're saving money now, let's cut into our revenue and sell the games cheaper?"

Or, well, think about this way: Someone offered you 70 bucks for your game. Do you give it to them for 35 because you can or do you take another 35 and enjoy your additional money?

Hopefully it will come to that point that
you pay a monthly fee and get all the games for free and all DLC in the PS+ store as long as you pay.

So, you basically want to rent games instead of buying them?

 

[thelvynau]

I have 50 games on my ps3 now from what is being described it looks like if I bought a ps4 I wouldnt get anywhere near the same.

Edit: plus I own these 50 games this sounds like in that model I wouldnt own my games either.

 

[sems4arsenal]

Plus the fact sometimes you play second hand games (to try them as you wouldn't normally buy them first hand) then you might like said game,allowing you to purchase the sequel first hand and becoming a fan of the series.

 

[Mulan]

There's a flaw in your train of thought, though. And that is assuming that the savings will be forwarded to the customers. Just look at console games: They usually start out at 70 bucks. The very same PC game retails for, what, 50 when new? Or just look at how some games that don't sell well drop to half price within laughably short amounts of time. Or, take the best example there is: Things like Blizzard's battle.net store. The downloadable games there are more expensive than a hard copy from a retailer.

So, no, games don't need to cost a lot. They do because people are okay with shelling out as much. And as long as games sell at 70 bucks, they will be sold at that price. What, do you think a company will go "Yeah, we're saving money now, let's cut into our revenue and sell the games cheaper?"

Or, well, think about this way: Someone offered you 70 bucks for your game. Do you give it to them for 35 because you can or do you take another 35 and enjoy your additional money?


So, you basically want to rent games instead of buying them?

That is why i say, todays business model. Because they have to set price according to retail. They dont want to upset retailers since they are still large. And since retailers set prices they set the norm for what a game costs.
Now, take away this factor, take away the need to have to buy a disc and own it and start thinking monthly/yearly or whatever fee and you have something new. Ok, so games will get worse? Perhaps there needs to be a extra income to the games that are popular. Perhaps DLC still need to cost extra and so on. But it is possible. What i want to turn is the fact that lousy games have no place in the internetshops, people wont buy them if they get low rating. But in retailworld, retailers must buy crappy games to get access to the popular ones. This is the way it works (i know since im in this business). The lousy games are being payed one way or another. And finally retailer drop the price to get rid of them since they lock money and stockvalue. (that is why new popular games cost alot)

renting games, sure i want this. If it is made like i hope it can be then better that way. I dont want to own physical discs and i want to play whenever i want. Id get more content and i maybe will even try new games i never wanted to try. Just press start and choose a game so much better than searching for discs.

 

[HKS racer]

I have the feeling they'll keep selling stuff in discs, even if they deny 2nd hand markets. Gamestop is too big to allow Microsoft and Sony do that, they have contracts and deals.

What Mulan said about a description based service, a monthly/yearly fee and you can play everything unfortunately is totally utopistic, because software house with huge investments will hate an "income cap". What's the point of a big investment if you already know you can't gain more money than that?

 

[Mulan]

I have the feeling they'll keep selling stuff in discs, even if they deny 2nd hand markets. Gamestop is too big to allow Microsoft and Sony do that, they have contracts and deals.

What Mulan said about a description based service, a monthly/yearly fee and you can play everything unfortunately is totally utopistic, because software house with huge investments will hate an "income cap". What's the point of a big investment if you already know you can't gain more money than that?

Sure there is more ways to get money. And i still belive that they actually can earn lots of it even if a game doesnt cost as much. Think of Angry birds, Mine Craft and so on. And lots of theese games can even be played for free or cost a small amount of money. A game that is played alot can get more money. A gamer can perhaps play 12h/day max? Count on this and you get a amount each game can get. Now set this x millions and x months and actually they can get more money than selling it just once. And there is better incomeflow and perhaps not so focused on releaseday sellings and after that scrap the game and start another releaseday project. If they constantly support a game and do it good they will have longtime return of investment instead of focusing on releaseday (aka EA style).

But yeah, it will take time. Many companies have made up their businesses through a model they know and it is hard to change this since it involves old business going down and new ones rising.

By the way, i think Game Stop and others like them have trouble already and i dont see them setting any rules at all, as much as music, photo, movie renting/selling companies can do to change evolution.
As much as other large companies can stop it (Kodak, Sony, Nokia...all have or had trouble thinking old)

 

[Luminis]

That is why i say, todays business model. Because they have to set price according to retail. They dont want to upset retailers since they are still large. And since retailers set prices they set the norm for what a game costs.

That's part of where it originated from, yeah. Now, why would publishers wish to undermine a pricing scheme that is increasing their revenue? Just give a logical explanation as to why they would want to do that. After decades of expensive games, do you honestly think that they'll lower prices because they can?

That's a thing you do to secure mor market share. Or you can do what oil companies do: Make sure everyone's charging the same over-inflated price and milk your customers to hell and back again.

Now, take away this factor, take away the need to have to buy a disc and own it and start thinking monthly/yearly or whatever fee and you have something new. Ok, so games will get worse? Perhaps there needs to be a extra income to the games that are popular. Perhaps DLC still need to cost extra and so on.

Which basically means you get either glorified demos or are paying for DLC and whatnot anyways,

renting games, sure i want this. If it is made like i hope it can be then better that way. I dont want to own physical discs and i want to play whenever i want. Id get more content and i maybe will even try new games i never wanted to try. Just press start and choose a game so much better than searching for discs.

And then a game you really like, which happens to not be mainstream, is removed from the servers for getting too little interest. And that's ignoring any technical issues. "Play whenever you want"? Yeah, I'd love that. THat's what I can do now. Make everything online and I won't.

 

[HKS racer]

Only loyal fans will care about DLC if with a subscription fee people can play every other game with no additional costs.

Or eventually, I know what will happen with this "subscription thing". You pay a montly fee and you can play every game "for free". Then if you want to beat the game you need to purchase stuff. Basically PSN and Live will become a global "free to play" scheme. No thanks.

How many people skipped iRacing only because of the subscription thing? Lots of.

 

[Mulan]

I get it all, the need of physical discs will be here for a while longer. But to play it online you still need a pass. This is not going to change. My point is that the games will cost and developers still will need to get money. But its the inbetween that is interessting when internet is setting pressure on the established and old businessmodels. This is true for all contentdriven sales and even for hardware if we see what internet does to price and retailers. Now i dont think games will move over just because it is less profitable i belive they will do this beause they actually can earn more money and depend less on publishers, retailers, distributors, investment in disc, marketing, and so on and so on. To make a game can actually be alot easier since investment is lower and you reach a greater public. Why Sony would push for this or Microsoft? I bet Apple and Google have shown that it can be done and people love it. If they succeed they have a good place for many other hardware/software related cross selling earnings. From going, no bluray in store no sells to all is awailable at all times everywhere is something wonderfull.

 

[ussr]

Fingers cross for no backward compatibility, and Yes for second hand used games playability. 👍

 

[thelvynau]

I get it all, the need of physical discs will be here for a while longer. But to play it online you still need a pass. This is not going to change. My point is that the games will cost and developers still will need to get money. But its the inbetween that is interessting when internet is setting pressure on the established and old businessmodels. This is true for all contentdriven sales and even for hardware if we see what internet does to price and retailers. Now i dont think games will move over just because it is less profitable i belive they will do this beause they actually can earn more money and depend less on publishers, retailers, distributors, investment in disc, marketing, and so on and so on. To make a game can actually be alot easier since investment is lower and you reach a greater public. Why Sony would push for this or Microsoft? I bet Apple and Google have shown that it can be done and people love it. If they succeed they have a good place for many other hardware/software related cross selling earnings. From going, no bluray in store no sells to all is awailable at all times everywhere is something wonderfull.

Ok I will disagree with this I love my collection of bluerays and I still dont see how they will make games cheaper just because their cost are lower.

I dont think you will convince me otherwise perhaps slowly but no I really dont like that direction.

 

[nealcropper]

I can understand we're your coming from on the no second hand game market thing, I can almost agree with you, almost.

I said this in this very thread not long ago, and I do admit, it does seem that this is the way things are going to go, maybe not this next generation, maybe the one after, or even after that, and we as gamers may have to get used to it, or stop gaming.

Lets face it, if your choices are:
1. Buy only new games, digitally.
2. Don't play console at all. Ever.
Which would you choose?

I know which I would go for.

BUT, I fear a massive amount of people would make the jump to PC never to be seen on a console again. This can only be a bad thing, not just for developers, but publishers, the company making the system, hell, even us gamers would feel it.

The way I see it, there has to be a happy medium, in order for a transition to be made. How can Sony or Microsoft do this? Easy, make two systems, one for hard media, one for digital media. It's not as stupid as it sounds. How many different PS3 or 360 systems are available now?

For the digital media, offer two plans, one were you just buy the games outright, and another were you offer a "cloud based" gaming plan, on a pay annually/monthly.

I said all this a while ago, and had quite an in depth discussion with Simonk, were he, admittedly, showed me some flaws in my plan. I understand that there are problems which I cannot see or address. Obviously a company like Sony or Microsoft would be able to sort out, unless its not viable. Then I would be happy to admit it.

 

[Samus]

Lets face it, if your choices are:
1. Buy only new games, digitally.
2. Don't play console at all. Ever.
Which would you choose?

Yes but we as consumers have the power to make sure it doesn't come down to that. Well, I accept that eventually the disc is going to go away but I don't believe we have to accept that everything will be new or nothing or at all with no way to re-sell anything.

Even if someone buys every game new and doesn't loan out games or borrow games I don't understand why they would be behind the proposed restrictions, in no way would it be good for any consumers. The idea that games will suddenly become better and cheaper if that was the only option is silly, business doesn't work that way. The idea of a used market has existed for as long as their has been a new market and it hasn't killed off any other industries. The used car market is huge, DVDs, Blu-Rays and CDs are another huge market and one similar to videogames, are they whining about it?

 

[Tornado]

Fingers cross for no backward compatibility, and Yes for second hand used games playability. 👍

Yeah, we heard you the first dozen times.

Lets face it, if your choices are:
1. Buy only new games, digitally.
2. Don't play console at all. Ever.
Which would you choose?

The second one. If it does come down to that, there would be no reason whatsoever to play games on consoles anymore.

The way I see it, there has to be a happy medium, in order for a transition to be made. How can Sony or Microsoft do this? Easy, make two systems, one for hard media, one for digital media. It's not as stupid as it sounds. How many different PS3 or 360 systems are available now?

 

[Samus]

Indeed. I don't particularly like the idea of download only stuff but I accept it'll come eventually and I buy games on steam but for one reason, because they're cheap and on sale. I never buy digital games at full price and if hypothetically PS4 went digital only with all games at £40 there is no way I would embrace that. I'm not paying £40 for a digital download that could be taken away from me hypothetically, no chance.

 

[Smoke&Slide]

Just a quick question, will the PS4 be a stand alone music player or could you connect it to a hi-fi dac ?.Using the PS4 for downloading from Sony or whoever ?.

 

[Samus]

Just a quick question, will the PS4 be a stand alone music player or could you connect it to a hi-fi dac ?.Using the PS4 for downloading from Sony or whoever ?.

Uhm, we don't know.

 

[HKS racer]

Lets face it, if your choices are:
1. Buy only new games, digitally.
2. Don't play console at all. Ever.
Which would you choose?

There will always be a third option.

step A:
- Buy a gaming PC

step B:
- Take advantage of Steam special offers

step C, the most important:
- Laugh at Sony and Microsoft business model.

 

[Scaff]

There will always be a third option.

step A:
- Buy a gaming PC

step B:
- Take advantage of Steam special offers

step C, the most important:
- Laugh at Sony and Microsoft business model.

That will be my route (either that or just shift all the money I spend on gaming over to my guitars).