The Official Xbox 360 Thread

[ChrisC]

If they can't sell enough games to make money, then they should take a look at their business model/overheads.

They have showed things are on the slide by adding online passes with games. If you buy a second hand game with a used pass then you have to pay £8 for a new one.

You only have to look on eBay a week after a new release and there are thousands of second hand copies of a certain game for sale. Over a month or two I wouldn't like to guess how many second hand copies have been sold.

Most of them buyers would have bought that game new before eBay come along. Game retailers sell second hand games but they are priced so high when a fairly new release that most would just buy a new copy for a few more quid.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

If folk are willing to pass on a game after a week it can't be that compelling a game.

[ChrisC]

If folk are willing to pass on a game after a week it can't be that compelling a game.

The last of us was released last week on PS3. Said to be one of the best games ever made. Go and have a look how many are for sale on eBay used and completed. People play games for silly amounts of hours a day and can easily complete a story within a few days. Doesn't mean it isn't very compelling.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

If folk are willing to pass on a game after a week it can't be that compelling a game.

The last of us was released last week on PS3. Said to be one of the best games ever made. Go and have a look how many are for sale on eBay used and completed. People play games for silly amounts of hours a day and can easily complete a story within a few days. Doesn't mean it isn't very compelling.

So the developers either make their games last longer or find a way to increase releases. Either way, the business model in relation to their costs doesn't work anymore.

[thebish]

If folk are willing to pass on a game after a week it can't be that compelling a game.

The last of us was released last week on PS3. Said to be one of the best games ever made. Go and have a look how many are for sale on eBay used and completed. People play games for silly amounts of hours a day and can easily complete a story within a few days. Doesn't mean it isn't very compelling.

the answer, surely, is to add a game restriction that only allows a maximum of three hours gameplay per day... that's enough for anyone...

[ChrisC]

If folk are willing to pass on a game after a week it can't be that compelling a game.

The last of us was released last week on PS3. Said to be one of the best games ever made. Go and have a look how many are for sale on eBay used and completed. People play games for silly amounts of hours a day and can easily complete a story within a few days. Doesn't mean it isn't very compelling.

the answer, surely, is to add a game restriction that only allows a maximum of three hours gameplay per day... that's enough for anyone...

It would obviously never happen, but would add an interesting twist for people gripped by a game. It would be like women with soaps.. find out what happens tomorrow

[thebish]

If folk are willing to pass on a game after a week it can't be that compelling a game.

The last of us was released last week on PS3. Said to be one of the best games ever made. Go and have a look how many are for sale on eBay used and completed. People play games for silly amounts of hours a day and can easily complete a story within a few days. Doesn't mean it isn't very compelling.

the answer, surely, is to add a game restriction that only allows a maximum of three hours gameplay per day... that's enough for anyone...

It would obviously never happen, but would add an interesting twist for people gripped by a game. It would be like women with soaps.. find out what happens tomorrow

it's the future!

[Worthy4England]

Microsoft have backed down. No DRM and no 24 hour online requirement. Shame as the family sharing feature has to go as a result of this as does being able to play without the physical disc in the drive. Meaning the cool switching from one game to another instantly also goes.

They should have stuck to their guns.

Still those who want no progress or change will be delighted!

Sony should have done the same as Microsoft and both gone with the DRM. Nothing will progress without it. I personally believe Sony was going to go with the DRM but changed tactics when they seen the Xbox E3 conference and the inevitable reaction.

People don't realise that the games would come down in price in time just like steam on the PC game front. Looks like we will have to wait for the next gen in about 10 years to get that progression now.

Yeah, but people like me who don't mind waiting and buying games cheaply second hand are better off.

The DRM thing has to happen one day. It would be better happening now rather than 5-10 years down the line. The longer it takes and the more money developers lose on second hand games, the less big blockbuster games we will get. If anything game prices will go up and the second hand games will go up in price without the DRM.

For anybody interested, games are prices at £49.99 and £54.99 at the moment for Xbox One games.

There's a lot of dialogue here around "how much developers lose" in a market that's worth $26Bn and expected to rise to $27.5Bn in 2014 (Console games market). The total video games market is worth $66Bn per annum.

Just remind me who's losing what here?

If I buy a game - and it's one of the few products I can buy that I can't really see how it's going to pan out until I actually buy it and play it - and I think it's total pants, I should continue to have the right to sell it for whatever I can make on it.

Developers can see how much they could increase games pricing before breaking the economic model if they want to - that's fine by me - or they can look at matching their costs to the current marketplace's capability to absorb those costs.

Thinking aloud, I'm fairly sure that developers could make a game that requires you to be online to play it, and match the disc code to the mac address or the device as part of that processs, rendering it unplayable by any other MAC address. Why haven't they done that?

I wouldn't buy half the new games I do, if strict DRM was implemented - so they'd lose out the other way too. It's not all one way traffic - they can also save themselves some cash on developing more DRM techniques - that might knock a few quid off the asking price.

[2399]

Let's Get back on topic! (360 talk)

I still have not played the xbox really, but continue to buy games.

Latest is NEW Duke Nukem without the cover for $5...
WWE Smackdown Vs. Raw 2008 for $4
and for $9 Viva Pinata / Forza 2 Pack.

[89bwfc89]

Pre-ordered the Xbox One yesterday for Mr 89 now they've done a u-y. He's been very stressed since the release as to what do because he swore he would never buy anything Sony, but wasn't that impressed with the restrictions imposed by the Xbox One. I don't know who he made the oath to or what the consequences would be if he broke it but my god he took it seriously. I'm glad that choosing between an Xbox One and a PS4 is the only dilemma in his life!!

[BWFC_Insane]

Microsoft have backed down. No DRM and no 24 hour online requirement. Shame as the family sharing feature has to go as a result of this as does being able to play without the physical disc in the drive. Meaning the cool switching from one game to another instantly also goes.

They should have stuck to their guns.

Still those who want no progress or change will be delighted!

Sony should have done the same as Microsoft and both gone with the DRM. Nothing will progress without it. I personally believe Sony was going to go with the DRM but changed tactics when they seen the Xbox E3 conference and the inevitable reaction.

People don't realise that the games would come down in price in time just like steam on the PC game front. Looks like we will have to wait for the next gen in about 10 years to get that progression now.

Yeah, but people like me who don't mind waiting and buying games cheaply second hand are better off.

The DRM thing has to happen one day. It would be better happening now rather than 5-10 years down the line. The longer it takes and the more money developers lose on second hand games, the less big blockbuster games we will get. If anything game prices will go up and the second hand games will go up in price without the DRM.

For anybody interested, games are prices at £49.99 and £54.99 at the moment for Xbox One games.

There's a lot of dialogue here around "how much developers lose" in a market that's worth $26Bn and expected to rise to $27.5Bn in 2014 (Console games market). The total video games market is worth $66Bn per annum.

Just remind me who's losing what here?

If I buy a game - and it's one of the few products I can buy that I can't really see how it's going to pan out until I actually buy it and play it - and I think it's total pants, I should continue to have the right to sell it for whatever I can make on it.

Developers can see how much they could increase games pricing before breaking the economic model if they want to - that's fine by me - or they can look at matching their costs to the current marketplace's capability to absorb those costs.

Thinking aloud, I'm fairly sure that developers could make a game that requires you to be online to play it, and match the disc code to the mac address or the device as part of that processs, rendering it unplayable by any other MAC address. Why haven't they done that?

I wouldn't buy half the new games I do, if strict DRM was implemented - so they'd lose out the other way too. It's not all one way traffic - they can also save themselves some cash on developing more DRM techniques - that might knock a few quid off the asking price.

Worthy, my undertstanding is that the current model works well for big publishers and developers for the big franchises such as COD/Battlefield/Fifa etc etc but lesser known games really struggle to break even. Hence a reduction in the overall quality and a focus on churning out more and more iterations of the "big brands".

People will pay the £40-50 pounds for the latest Call of Duty in their millions the game will make loads, and next year the same game will be released with a new number next to it and the cycle repeats.

But for a new title people are far less prepared to splash out the money and often will "wait and see and pick up a used copy". Hence limiting a developes revenue. Of course the argument is to make the game so compelling to the mass market that people don't do that, but in itself that limits the genre and scope of games dev's might decide to make.

Before the DRM U-Turn Microsoft had a system whereby you could potentially play games on your friends list for free (presumably for a limited time I've heard 1 hour per game mentioned") before being given the option at the end to purchase it electronically (the game was already downloaded from the Cloud so progress into the game would be saved and seamless). Now I realise that is a bit like the "demo system". Except it was actually letting people play the full game (so if I'm only interested in the MP, I can judge that properly and not have to rely on an SP demo for example) and if people liked the game they could buy it and seamlessly carry on their play. For me that system certainly has it's advantages. And I can see why as a developer it could be massively attractive, especially on the "less than AAA titles". Surely the next gen will be the last one that has physical discs at all so DRM will be implemented sooner rather than later on consoles.

I still think Microsoft had the right idea (probably - with caveat of the fine details being right) but pitched it completely wrong.

[americantrotter]

Make downloading games cheaper. The developers see more of the money and the game cant be resold. In exchange the consumer that buys fitrst receives a discount. It's that simple. There is no real reward for downloaded games despite the fact it cuts out middlemen. So how are you going to convince consumers to move forward, when you don't move forward in meaningful ways? And why is your explination better than anything Microsoft was prepared to give?

And btw, it's still 100.00 more and it still has an always on camera. No Thanks.

[BWFC_Insane]

Make downloading games cheaper. The developers see more of the money and the game cant be resold. In exchange the consumer that buys fitrst receives a discount. It's that simple. There is no real reward for downloaded games despite the fact it cuts out middlemen. So how are you going to convince consumers to move forward, when you don't move forward in meaningful ways? And why is your explination better than anything Microsoft was prepared to give?

And btw, it's still 100.00 more and it still has an always on camera. No Thanks.

How do you know that Microsoft weren't/aren't going to be offering the download versions cheaper?

BTW you can turn the kinect camera off.

[boltonboris]

Another thing we seem to missing here.. If there games that were only accesible via downloading the content through their consoles. There'd be thousands upon thousands of people being made redundant from companies that sell computer games.

It would set a dangerous precedent

[a1]

Another thing we seem to missing here.. If there games that were only accesible via downloading the content through their consoles. There'd be thousands upon thousands of people being made redundant from companies that sell computer games.

It would set a dangerous precedent

not really.

folk download music and books now.

and GAME went bankrupt when its main source of income is ripping folk off with high priced second hand games.

the jobs wouldve just moved

"1000 jobs to go at computer game reseller"

"700 job created by digital distribution reseller"

yeah.

even the "vendor lock in" has been done previously.

[2399]

I miss GAME

Today I put on Lay-by Red Dead Redemption GOTY Edition!!!

[ChrisC]

I miss GAME

Today I put on Lay-by Red Dead Redemption GOTY Edition!!!

Game is still open

Just less shops about. I was in Game on Sunday at Trafford Centre

[2399]

Not in Australia

From June Last year:
Retailer GAME Australia is to immediately shut 16 stores, with the remaining outlets to close in coming weeks

[ChrisC]

Not in Australia

From June Last year:
Retailer GAME Australia is to immediately shut 16 stores, with the remaining outlets to close in coming weeks

Don't worry, they are still online (or not in Australia?)

Supermarkets do better deals anyway

[Prufrock]

Another thing we seem to missing here.. If there games that were only accesible via downloading the content through their consoles. There'd be thousands upon thousands of people being made redundant from companies that sell computer games.

It would set a dangerous precedent

I think that precedent has been well and truly set, Boris!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;