EA to drop online passes in future games

Taken from IGN:

Online Passes the controversial attempt by many publishers to encourage new game sales by locking online-centric content for used copies has become engrained in gaming culture over the last several years. But according to a report on VentureBeat, one major company is doing away with them.

Electronic Arts the mega-publisher behind a litany of games including Madden, FIFA, Battlefield, Dead Space, Mass Effect and more will be discontinuing its Online Pass initiative. In a statement provided to VentureBeat, EAs John Reseburg said that none of our new EA titles will include that feature.

Reseburg admitted that Online Passes just dont seem to be working. Initially launched as an effort to package a full menu of online content and services, many players didnt respond to the format. Weve listened to the feedback and decided to do away with it moving forward.

Many major publishers including Sony and Ubisoft continue to use Online Passes, though interestingly, Microsoft never seemed to go down that road. Will EAs abolishment of this system coerce other publishers to follow suit?

Good for EA to drop this, but the cynic in me can't help but think there's an ulterior motive to this that's gonna blindside gamers later down the line. Of course, I've got nothing to substantiate those claims, so I'll just consider this a good thing until proven otherwise.

What say you, PGD?

Taken from IGN:

Online Passes the controversial attempt by many publishers to encourage new game sales by locking online-centric content for used copies has become engrained in gaming culture over the last several years. But according to a report on VentureBeat, one major company is doing away with them.

Electronic Arts the mega-publisher behind a litany of games including Madden, FIFA, Battlefield, Dead Space, Mass Effect and more will be discontinuing its Online Pass initiative. In a statement provided to VentureBeat, EAs John Reseburg said that none of our new EA titles will include that feature.

Reseburg admitted that Online Passes just dont seem to be working. Initially launched as an effort to package a full menu of online content and services, many players didnt respond to the format. Weve listened to the feedback and decided to do away with it moving forward.

Many major publishers including Sony and Ubisoft continue to use Online Passes, though interestingly, Microsoft never seemed to go down that road. Will EAs abolishment of this system coerce other publishers to follow suit?1PMrFister

Good for EA to drop this, but the cynic in me can't help but think there's an ulterior motive to this that's gonna blindside gamers later down the line. Of course, I've got nothing to substantiate those claims, so I'll just consider this a good thing until proven otherwise.

What say you, PGD?

They probably figure if someone buys the game used they can sell them more DLC than if they made them pay a $10 fee first. Like if someone buys used, sees the online pass, they might not even bother with the multiplayer. But when they can access that at no additional cost, they might be more likely to purchase DLC items, like those weapon packs in Mass Effect 3. 

[QUOTE="1PMrFister"]

Taken from IGN:

Online Passes the controversial attempt by many publishers to encourage new game sales by locking online-centric content for used copies has become engrained in gaming culture over the last several years. But according to a report on VentureBeat, one major company is doing away with them.

Electronic Arts the mega-publisher behind a litany of games including Madden, FIFA, Battlefield, Dead Space, Mass Effect and more will be discontinuing its Online Pass initiative. In a statement provided to VentureBeat, EAs John Reseburg said that none of our new EA titles will include that feature.

Reseburg admitted that Online Passes just dont seem to be working. Initially launched as an effort to package a full menu of online content and services, many players didnt respond to the format. Weve listened to the feedback and decided to do away with it moving forward.

Many major publishers including Sony and Ubisoft continue to use Online Passes, though interestingly, Microsoft never seemed to go down that road. Will EAs abolishment of this system coerce other publishers to follow suit?Vari3ty

Good for EA to drop this, but the cynic in me can't help but think there's an ulterior motive to this that's gonna blindside gamers later down the line. Of course, I've got nothing to substantiate those claims, so I'll just consider this a good thing until proven otherwise.

What say you, PGD?

They probably figure if someone buys the game used they can sell them more DLC than if they made them pay a $10 fee first. Like if someone buys used, sees the online pass, they might not even bother will the multiplayer. But when they can access that at no additional cost, they might be more likely to purchase DLC items, like those weapon packs in Mass Effect 3. 

I agree. That's the best way to go about it but I also can't help but feel it will only be replaced with something. One can only hope. juradai

[QUOTE="juradai"]I agree. That's the best way to go about it but I also can't help but feel it will only be replaced with something. One can only hope. 1PMrFister

Well the day the industry moves to all digital is the day the used market dies. Consoles are actually pretty much the last bastion of any form of used games whatsoever, the used game market is practically non-existent on PCs and mobile. 

[QUOTE="1PMrFister"][QUOTE="juradai"]I agree. That's the best way to go about it but I also can't help but feel it will only be replaced with something. One can only hope. Vari3ty

Well the day the industry moves to all digital is the day the used market dies. Consoles are actually pretty much the last bastion of any form of used games whatsoever, the used game market is practically non-existent on PCs and mobile. 

I'm suprised that EA dropped online pass in future games. But, it shouldn't been created in the first place for gamers detested the idea.

That's surprising....I'm almost scared to get excited since so many of us have been griping about this lately. Are they really listening? Can't be.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

[QUOTE="1PMrFister"] I'm quite positive this isn't the last time we'll be seeing attempts from EA to marginalize or eliminate the used game market. Pushing the line of what counts as acceptable publisher behavior is what they do best.juradai

Well the day the industry moves to all digital is the day the used market dies. Consoles are actually pretty much the last bastion of any form of used games whatsoever, the used game market is practically non-existent on PCs and mobile. 

I agree that it would be a bad move for the consumer. It does seem rather inevitable though, and it's not just games - music already has made the transition, movies and TV shows are now being streamed, e-books are gaining popularity, etc... the move of games from being primarily physically distributed to a media digitally distributed is just part of a larger trend. 

I think this upcoming generation is the last console generation that will support any kind of physical media. 

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

[QUOTE="1PMrFister"] I'm quite positive this isn't the last time we'll be seeing attempts from EA to marginalize or eliminate the used game market. Pushing the line of what counts as acceptable publisher behavior is what they do best.juradai

Well the day the industry moves to all digital is the day the used market dies. Consoles are actually pretty much the last bastion of any form of used games whatsoever, the used game market is practically non-existent on PCs and mobile. 

I don't see how going all digital would affect collector's editions. Make it so that people can order the collector's edition on the publisher's website, and they ship it to your personnal address. Moreover, I really, really doubt that collector's editions are a "huge revenue stream". 

Going digital-only has a huge advantage: it gets rid of Gamestop. Gamestop does everything in its power to move sales from the new market to the used market, because that's where they make their money. Get rid of them, and suddenly the actual productive elements of the industry receive 100% of the customers' money that is dedicated to gaming, minus the small marketing boost that brick and mortar provides. Gamestop is a leech that sucks money out of the industry. You might save 5$ on used games, but really, you'd save a lot more on average in a competitive digital market. Just look at PC gaming and its constant online sales. 

A well done digital-only console market would reduce costs for publishers/developpers and increase the number of sales in which they actually receive money. If the market is competitive, that means that gamers will see a decrease in average game price, not to the full extent of the cost reduction, but it would still be better than that 5$ you save when you choose to give your money to Gamestop instead of publishers/developers.

[QUOTE="juradai"]

For Vari3ty & 1PMrFister: I hope that these mega-publishers see that there are other ways to subsidize revenue other than containing or even eliminating the used market. Collector's edition of games is a huge revenue stream along with comic spin-offs and movies. These guys need to really look at the big picture. Moving all digital would be a very bad move.ReddestSkies

I don't see how going all digital would affect collector's editions. Make it so that people can order the collector's edition on the publisher's website, and they ship it to your personnal address. Moreover, I really, really doubt that collector's editions are a "huge revenue stream". 

Going digital-only has a huge advantage: it gets rid of Gamestop. Gamestop does everything in its power to move sales from the new market to the used market, because that's where they make their money. Get rid of them, and suddenly the actual productive elements of the industry receive 100% of the customers' money that is dedicated to gaming, minus the small marketing boost that brick and mortar provides. Gamestop is a leech that sucks money out of the industry. You might save 5$ on used games, but really, you'd save a lot more on average in a competitive digital market. Just look at PC gaming and its constant online sales. 

A well done digital-only console market would reduce costs for publishers/developpers and increase the number of sales in which they actually receive money. If the market is competitive, that means that gamers will see a decrease in average game price, not to the full extent of the cost reduction, but it would still be better than that 5$ you save when you choose to give your money to Gamestop instead of publishers/developers.

Are you suggesting that they would order the game online and download it immmediately then receive the remaining physical pieces of the collector's edition from the publisher via mail? If so, I don't know how well that will be received. Part of the magic of getting the coillector's edition is the unboxing with the game otherwise it ends up just being some extra items you bought from a store, ya know?

What basis are you going off that it isn't a huge revenue stream? I'm getting my basis off the fact that they have Collector's editions for almost every single game that comes out. Also, the outrageous prices that some of these collector's editions come out at are insane and have increased in price dramatically since the PS2 era. I know because I used to buy them often and still do every once in a while. The collector's editions are also an invaluable marketing tool, too. 

I also think you are making an assumption that a digital only console market would lower the price of games. What makes us so sure that the publishers would pass that cost-savings down to us? Using Gamestop's used game sales price for newly released games is a bit of an unfair comparison seeing that games drop in price $10-$30 within the first 40 days of a game's release. 

Ultmately, I see a hybrid of both physical and virtual media being the standard more so this coming generation and the one after, but I have my doubts that physical media will completely go away as there are just too many revenue channels in place that rely on it.

Are you suggesting that they would order the game online and download it immmediately then receive the remaining physical pieces of the collector's edition from the publisher via mail? If so, I don't know how well that will be received. Part of the magic of getting the coillector's edition is the unboxing with the game otherwise it ends up just being some extra items you bought from a store, ya now?

What basis are you going off that it isn't a huge revenue stream? I'm getting my basis off the fact that they have Collector's editions for almost every single game that comes out. Also, the outrageous prices that some of these collector's editions come out are insane and have increased in price dramatically since the PS2 era. I know because used to buy them often and still do every once in a while. It's also an invaluable marketing tool, too. 

I also think you are making an assumption that a digital only console market would lower the price of games. What makes us so sure that the publishers would pass that cost-savings down to us? Using Gamestop's used game sales price for newly released games is a bit of an unfair comparison seeing that games drop in price $10-$30 within the first 40 days of a game's release. 

Ultmately, I see a hybrid of both physical and virtual media being the standard more so this coming generation and the one after, but I have my doubts that physical media will completely go away as there are just too many revenue channels in place that rely on it.

juradai

If you want, they could just ship it to you and make it so that you receive it on release day... It's not a complex thing to organize. Also, you're the one saying that they're a "huge revenue stream" and I'm just doubting that, so the burden of proof is on you.

As for game prices, I'm gonna have to repeat myself: look at the PC game market. The average game price dropped significantly, especially with the numerous sales. Moreover, publishers are much less necessary onPC than on consoles because of digital distribution. Less intermediaries between the developers and the customers is a very, very good thing, both for the well-being of the industry and for the customer himself.

[QUOTE="juradai"]

Are you suggesting that they would order the game online and download it immmediately then receive the remaining physical pieces of the collector's edition from the publisher via mail? If so, I don't know how well that will be received. Part of the magic of getting the coillector's edition is the unboxing with the game otherwise it ends up just being some extra items you bought from a store, ya now?

What basis are you going off that it isn't a huge revenue stream? I'm getting my basis off the fact that they have Collector's editions for almost every single game that comes out. Also, the outrageous prices that some of these collector's editions come out are insane and have increased in price dramatically since the PS2 era. I know because used to buy them often and still do every once in a while. It's also an invaluable marketing tool, too. 

I also think you are making an assumption that a digital only console market would lower the price of games. What makes us so sure that the publishers would pass that cost-savings down to us? Using Gamestop's used game sales price for newly released games is a bit of an unfair comparison seeing that games drop in price $10-$30 within the first 40 days of a game's release. 

Ultmately, I see a hybrid of both physical and virtual media being the standard more so this coming generation and the one after, but I have my doubts that physical media will completely go away as there are just too many revenue channels in place that rely on it.

ReddestSkies

If you want, they could just ship it to you and make it so that you receive it on release day... It's not a complex thing to organize. Also, you're the one saying that they're a "huge revenue stream" and I'm just doubting that, so the burden of proof is on you.

As for game prices, I'm gonna have to repeat myself: look at the PC game market. The average game price dropped significantly, especially with the numerous sales. Moreover, publishers are much less necessary onPC than on consoles because of digital distribution. Less intermediaries between the developers and the customers is a very, very good thing, both for the well-being of the industry and for the customer himself.

I came back with a valid reason for my statement in regards to the revenue collector's editions bring in on my last post. I genuinely wanted to know your basis and now that I have offered you mine it would only seem fair for you to lay out the reason for your "doubts".

You don't have to repeat yourself to me about your stance on why you think games will drop in price. I fully understand that you are using the PC market as the foundation for how you perceive it will turn out. However, we are talking about the console market. A very different animal. A closed platform versus an open platform. The supply chains in the console market are firmly rooted in place and everyone is going to want a piece of the $60 per game that flows through it. You don't have that same set up with PC gaming. This doesn't mean I don't want prices to go down. I just don't think it will work the same way as the PC market as you seem to indicate.

Sent on release day? I really don't see that happening and I feel that you are over-simplifying it. I just don't think it will be received well by the target demographic that buy collector's editions.

I came back with a valid reason for my statement in regards to the revenue collector's editions bring in on my last post. I genuinely wanted to know your basis and now that I have offered you mine it would only seem fair for you to lay out the reason for your "doubts".

You don't have to repeat yourself to me about your stance on why you think games will drop in price. I fully understand that you are using the PC market as the foundation for how you perceive it will turn out. However, we are talking about the console market. A very different animal. A closed platform versus an open platform. The supply chains in the console market are firmly rooted in place and everyone is going to want a piece of the $60 per game that flows through it. You don't have that same set up with PC gaming. This doesn't mean I don't want prices to go down. I just don't think it will work the same way as the PC market as you seem to indicate.

juradai

Amazon, for example, can tell me exactly on what day I'll receive an order. It's not rocket science. 

Yes the console market is different due to its closed nature. However, the competition between Sony and Microsoft is strong enough for the customer to benefit from the cost reduction generated by the elimination of Gamestop. The competition isn't as strong as on the PC, but I think it's good enough to drive prices down at least a little.

But beyond prices, Gamestop is bad for the industry. It's an uncessary intermediary that leeches money away from developers.

Amazon, for example, can tell me exactly on what day I'll receive an order. It's not rocket science. 

Yes the console market is different due to its closed nature. However, the competition between Sony and Microsoft is strong enough for the customer to benefit from the cost reduction generated by the elimination of Gamestop. The competition isn't as strong as on the PC, but I think it's good enough to drive prices down at least a little.

But beyond prices, Gamestop is bad for the industry. It's an uncessary intermediary that leeches money away from developers.

ReddestSkies

Stuffjuradai

I feel like I'm just repeating the same thing over and over, but here it is one last time:

Collector's editions: I don't understand what's your problem with ordering a limited edition online. They would make the same package (including the game...), but ship it to you instead of Gamestop. I don't see why you wouldn't accept that model... I never said that you'd have to break up the collector's edition or whatever, they can include a game disc if you want.

Prices: like I said, it depends on how competitive the digital market is. I think that the competition between Sony and Microsoft is good enough for prices to decrease at least a little. The more intense the competition is, the more prices will decrease.

Gamestop: it is an unnecessary intermediary leeching money off the industry. Of course it's bad for the industry if developers/publishers pay unecessary costs to maintain nearly-useless brick and mortar shops that tries to drive sales away from new units. 70 percent of what gamers receive when selling used games goes into buying new products? Well, 30 percent of that money doesn't go back to the industry. And 100% of the money that Gamestop receives when they sell that used game to someone else doesn't go back to the industry either. Gamestop provides a marketing boost, but literally steals sales away from developers.

EA are so kind...

[QUOTE="juradai"]StuffReddestSkies

I feel like I'm just repeating the same thing over and over, but here it is one last time:

Collector's editions: I don't understand what's your problem with ordering a limited edition online. They would make the same package (including the game...), but ship it to you instead of Gamestop. I don't see why you wouldn't accept that model... I never said that you'd have to break up the collector's edition or whatever, they can include a game disc if you want.

Prices: like I said, it depends on how competitive the digital market is. I think that the competition between Sony and Microsoft is good enough for prices to decrease at least a little. The more intense the competition is, the more prices will decrease.

Gamestop: it is an unnecessary intermediary leeching money off the industry. Of course it's bad for the industry if developers/publishers pay unecessary costs to maintain nearly-useless brick and mortar shops that tries to drive sales away from new units. 70 percent of what gamers receive when selling used games goes into buying new products? Well, 30 percent of that money doesn't go back to the industry. And 100% of the money that Gamestop receives when they sell that used game to someone else doesn't go back to the industry either. Gamestop provides a marketing boost, but literally steals sales away from developers.

good for gamers i guess....but theres always a catch with ea....

Sir... We were discussing how going digital-only would have an impact on collector's editions of games and how publishers would handle it. If games were digital-only then there would be no physical game disc with a collector's edition hence they would have to sell the collector's items separately. What part of that are you not getting? You are repeating yourself because you're not addressing my points or elaborating on yours. You just think that giving a pretentious simplified reply is good enough to give weight to your claims. Your claim of competition between Sony and Microsoft does little to back up a projected bona fide price drop if everything went digital-only. The thing is, Sony and MS don't control the pricing on games, the publishers do. So, my question was how can you make the assumption that those cost-savings will be passed down? You can't. Simple.

Like I've said, I've come to believe that brick and mortar stores like Gamestop do play an essential role in selling and promoting games. You can just as easily throw Best Buy and Amazon in to this as well because they are doing the exact same thing. The claim that they steal sales away has never been proven. The claim that 70 percent of the income gamers receive from turning in their used games is spent on new gaming products has been proven. If you remove that then how can you be so sure that the same amount of people that would buy through a brick and mortar store would buy directly from the publisher? You can't. Convenience of the transactions plays a big part in this whole thing.

These very same brick and mortar stores provide essential data to publishers such as how many individuals reserved a copy of a specific game making it easier for publishers to project inventory more accurately for each release. The reason why the stores are able to do that is because they have a relationship with the end user, which is something that publishers are not quite in the position of being in. juradai

A digital-only console would still have some way to play or install games that come either on a disc or on a USB key or whatever. It would be ridiculously easy for publishers to include a physical copy of the game in your collector's edition. They don't have to breakup the package: they'd still give you the same thing as if the whole industry was physical.

You don't understand how prices are determined in the first place and so there is very little I can do to make  you understand why prices are likely to go down if costs are cut in a competitive market. The question isn't about whether or not publishers will feel like passing down savings. It is about whether or not the market is competitive enough for a (small) price battle to occur either between Microsoft and Sony, or between publishers. I think so. I think that in a digital-only gaming world, the competition would be strong enough for companies to regularly put games on sale, making the average game price lower than that of the current market in which publishers have more costs and therefore, can afford less price cuts.

The claim that they steal sales away has never been proven? Wtf, have you ever walked into a Gamestop? Every single Gamestop I've been to had a very clear policy of telling customers to buy used instead of new (to save 5$!). Every time I show up to the counter with new games, they tell me "you could save X$ if you got them used instead, are you SURE you want to buy them new?", and that was the case in multiple cities. How can you not see how they steal sales away. The 70% figure is useless to the debate because it's not new money being brought into the gaming industry. It's not a useful statistic at all here. Here's a useful statistic: 100% of the money spent on used games go to Gamestop, 0% goes to the productive elements of the industry. The role that Gamestop plays in promoting games is impossible to quantify, but one thing's for sure: it's not essential. Just look at the PC gaming industry.

"Convenience" is buying a game from your couch and having it download in 30 minutes, instead of walking into a store in a crowded mall. People are used to buying digital things now. They already buy digital-only games on their phones and PC. They buy digital movies and digital music. And all of these industries are better off without the unnecessary costs that are physical media and physical stores.

You could preorder a game that is digitally distributed... Your last paragraph has nothing to do with the discussion. If anything, the preorder databases would be better organized in a digital-only world where you don't have to deal with small game shops. Moreover, you don't have to project inventory when your product is digital, isn't that wonderful? Even less unnecessary costs!

No, it would'nt. We're talking about a hypothetical digital-only console. Meaning, it will only play digital games. That's my whole reasoning behind it having an effect on collector's editions in the first place. 

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

You don't understand how prices are determined in the first place and so there is very little I can do to make  you understand why prices are likely to go down if costs are cut in a competitive market. The question isn't about whether or not publishers will feel like passing down savings. It is about whether or not the market is competitive enough for a (small) price battle to occur either between Microsoft and Sony, or between publishers. I think so. I think that in a digital-only gaming world, the competition would be strong enough for companies to regularly put games on sale, making the average game price lower than that of the current market in which publishers have more costs and therefore, can afford less price cuts.

ReddestSkies

Yes, yes I do. I know exactly how they are determined. I find it funny that you indicate a (small) price drop now when you were initially campaigning for "a decrease in average game price". A small price drop is what? ...maybe $5? I don't know about you but a small price decrease isn't worth relinquishing to digital-only distribution. Sales are always going to happen regardless of the media format so to use that doesn't do much to help support your point. Based on what you have said within your last few posts, I think it is you, that is having difficulty grasping the console gaming market and all that it entails. Your comparison to the PC market is just doesn not work here. 

The claim that they steal sales away has never been proven? Wtf, have you ever walked into a Gamestop? Every single Gamestop I've been to had a very clear policy of telling customers to buy used instead of new (to save 5$!). Every time I show up to the counter with new games, they tell me "you could save X$ if you got them used instead, are you SURE you want to buy them new?", and that was the case in multiple cities. How can you not see how they steal sales away. The 70% figure is useless to the debate because it's not new money being brought into the gaming industry. It's not a useful statistic at all here. Here's a useful statistic: 100% of the money spent on used games go to Gamestop, 0% goes to the productive elements of the industry. The role that Gamestop plays in promoting games is impossible to quantify, but one thing's for sure: it's not essential. Just look at the PC gaming industry.

"Convenience" is buying a game from your couch and having it download in 30 minutes, instead of walking into a store in a crowded mall. People are used to buying digital things now. They already buy digital-only games on their phones and PC. They buy digital movies and digital music. And all of these industries are better off without the unnecessary costs that are physical media and physical stores.

ReddestSkies

Yes, it's never been proven. You can't prove that the people that sell their used games and use that same money to buy new will just continue to buy new once you remove the enabling patform Gamestop/Best Buy/Amazon. Without these brick and mortar stores, the industry would lose new game sales because fewer people would take the risk of buying a $60 game without the safety net of the trade-in.

Video games in their physical format are being used as a currency. The convenience of taking a game after you have finished it and easily selling it to someone else for money so you can use it to by another game is convenient for those unwilling or unable to spend the cash out of pocket for a new release. You can't do that with digital files. 

Look, I'm not condoning the practice I'm merely pointing out the affects obejctively. I don't shop at Gamestop. I haven't for several years. I used to think the same way you do. I really did. However, reluctantly so, I have found them to be a necessary evil for the console industry.

Moreover, you don't have to project inventory when your product is digital, isn't that wonderful? Even less unnecessary costs!

ReddestSkies

Yes, yes you do. It's called paying royalties to the manufacturer on every game being release on their console. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo have monopolized the release of every game made for their console, and currently require all publishers to pay a royalty for every game prior or at the time of release not during the sale hence the closed patform part of the console industry and why your constant reference to the PC industry is fundamentally flawed. 

No, it would'nt. We're talking about a hypothetical digital-only console. Meaning, it will only play digital games. That's my whole reasoning behind it having an effect on collector's editions in the first place. juradai

My digital-only Windows tablet (it doesn't have a disc drive) supports that fancy thing called "USB keys". I can put a game on a USB key, plug it into my tablet, install it and play it there. There's no reason why you couldn't do that on a digital-only console. This discussion is ridiculous, I can't believe I keep addressing that point. This is a non-issue and the solutions are obvious.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]You don't understand how prices are determined in the first place and so there is very little I can do to make  you understand why prices are likely to go down if costs are cut in a competitive market. The question isn't about whether or not publishers will feel like passing down savings. It is about whether or not the market is competitive enough for a (small) price battle to occur either between Microsoft and Sony, or between publishers. I think so. I think that in a digital-only gaming world, the competition would be strong enough for companies to regularly put games on sale, making the average game price lower than that of the current market in which publishers have more costs and therefore, can afford less price cuts.juradai

Yes, yes I do. I know exactly how they are determined. I find it funny that you indicate a (small) price drop now when you were initially campaigning for "a decrease in average game price". A small price drop is what? ...maybe $5? I don't know about you but a small price decrease isn't worth relinquishing to digital-only distribution. Sales are always going to happen regardless of the media format so to use that doesn't do much to help support your point. Based on what you have said within your last few posts, I think it is you, that is having difficulty grasping the console gaming market and all that it entails. Your comparison to the PC market is just doesn not work here.

I SAID A SMALL PRICE BATTLE, NOT A SMALL PRICE DROP. You could have a small price battle that leads to a huge price drop due to other elements (or you could have a small price battle that leads to a small price drop too!). Of course sales happen everywhere, what I'm saying is that sales going to be more significant if publishers can afford to lower the price more due to savings in costs. Example: the PC market. 

But let me go back to your first sentence cause it's really, really bugging me. You find it funny that I indicate a "small" price drop (I didn't say that, but let's continue) when I was initially campaigning for a "decrease in average game price". How is a small price drop NOT a decrease in average game price? Not only do you misquote me, but you also fail to make sense in showing how your misquote works against my argument. Beautiful.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

The claim that they steal sales away has never been proven? Wtf, have you ever walked into a Gamestop? Every single Gamestop I've been to had a very clear policy of telling customers to buy used instead of new (to save 5$!). Every time I show up to the counter with new games, they tell me "you could save X$ if you got them used instead, are you SURE you want to buy them new?", and that was the case in multiple cities. How can you not see how they steal sales away. The 70% figure is useless to the debate because it's not new money being brought into the gaming industry. It's not a useful statistic at all here. Here's a useful statistic: 100% of the money spent on used games go to Gamestop, 0% goes to the productive elements of the industry. The role that Gamestop plays in promoting games is impossible to quantify, but one thing's for sure: it's not essential. Just look at the PC gaming industry.

"Convenience" is buying a game from your couch and having it download in 30 minutes, instead of walking into a store in a crowded mall. People are used to buying digital things now. They already buy digital-only games on their phones and PC. They buy digital movies and digital music. And all of these industries are better off without the unnecessary costs that are physical media and physical stores.

juradai

Yes, it's never been proven. You can't prove that the people that sell their used games and use that same money to buy new will just continue to buy new once you remove the enabling patform Gamestop/Best Buy/Amazon. Without these brick and mortar stores, the industry would lose new game sales because fewer people would take the risk of buying a $60 game without the safety net of the trade-in.

Video games in their physical format are being used as a currency. The convenience of taking a game after you have finished it and easily selling it to someone else for money so you can use it to by another game is convenient for those unwilling or unable to spend the cash out of pocket for a new release. You can't do that with digital files. 

Intellectual dishonesty. New games don't cost $60 forever. You could only buy new and still never pay $60, even today.

You seem to think that it's a good thing for developers if people exchange games, because some of that money is used to buy new games. You don't see the full picture. If someone buys that used game, the money received by the seller is not "new money" being injected into the industry. Example:

Today's scenario: Player A pays new game (1) $60, plays it, sells it to Gamestop for $40, and buys a new game (2) with 70% of that money, so $28. Player B buys game 1 for 55$ from Gamestop. Net money received by the publishers/developers: $88 (minus Gamestop's cut). Net money received by Gamestop: 55$

Digital scenario: Player A spends $60 on a game (or on 5 games because there's a massive sale that day). Player B spends 40$ on a game (he would have spent more at Gamestop because of the marketing boost). Net money received by the productive elements of the industry (and no Gamestop cut!): $100

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Moreover, you don't have to project inventory when your product is digital, isn't that wonderful? Even less unnecessary costs!

juradai

Yes, yes you do. It's called paying royalties to the manufacturer on every game being release on their console. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo have monopolized the release of every game made for their console, and currently require all publishers to pay a royalty for every game prior or at the time of release not during the sale hence the closed patform part of the console industry and why your constant reference to the PC industry is fundamentally flawed. 

That model makes sense today because publishers are shipping out a certain number of units to retailers at launch, and pay royalties based on that. Clearly that model would change with a digital system.

I could reference to the Apple store and my point would still stand. Compare iOS to handheld game prices ;)

My digital-only Windows tablet (it doesn't have a disc drive) supports that fancy thing called "USB keys". I can put a game on a USB key, plug it into my tablet, install it and play it there. There's no reason why you couldn't do that on a digital-only console. This discussion is ridiculous, I can't believe I keep addressing that point. This is a non-issue and the solutions are obvious. ReddestSkies

So suddenly this device has a USB port now? My iPad, which is digital-only, doesn't have one so explain to me how they would deliver the game using the method you just proposed without sending it digitally? USB is still a form of physical media.

Completely-missing-point rebuttal...

ReddestSkies

Ugh... I feel we are just going to get deeper and deeper with this conversation and end up both going no where. It already feels like we've passed the point. We are looking at this from different perspectives and we will see how this all ends up going. Good luck to ya!

Nice try. Even in the ridiculous scenario in which a Sony or Microsoft console only uses proprietary ports which aren't necessarily compatible with physical storing devices, workarounds could still be found to deliver you your OH SO IMPORTANT physical game copy of your OH SO IMPORTANT collector's edition.

But maybe I'm just missing the point and physical discs are the only thing holding this industry together. Higher costs and more intermediaries can't be a bad thing. :roll:

Nice try. Even in the ridiculous scenario in which a Sony or Microsoft console only uses proprietary ports which aren't necessarily compatible with physical storing devices, workarounds could still be found to deliver you your OH SO IMPORTANT physical game copy of your OH SO IMPORTANT collector's edition.

But maybe I'm just missing the point and physical discs are the only thing holding this industry together. Higher costs and more intermediaries can't be a bad thing. :roll:

ReddestSkies

Of course it's futile. You're saying that it's impossible to put together a complete collector's edition for a hypothetical digital-only console. And you refuse to see the numerous obvious solutions. And you're not in the slightest bit taking into consideration that Microsoft and Sony push their consoles as "entertainment centers", which implies that they need to be compatible with a wide variety of things. And all of that, while overvaluing collector's editions weight in the industry.

And then you misquote me and say that I'm "completely missing the point" when I explain why unnecessary intermediaries and higher costs are bad for the industry and that I'm grasping at straw when I show you that your iPad can, indeed, read usb keys, with its proprietary ports (MS and Sony will never again use proprietary ports exclusively). And of course I can't compare the console game market with any other media market, ever. It's special and it evolves in a special world. And then you wonder why I use a small amount of sarcasm against someone who's being so ridiculously close-minded?

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Nice try. Even in the ridiculous scenario in which a Sony or Microsoft console only uses proprietary ports which aren't necessarily compatible with physical storing devices, workarounds could still be found to deliver you your OH SO IMPORTANT physical game copy of your OH SO IMPORTANT collector's edition.

But maybe I'm just missing the point and physical discs are the only thing holding this industry together. Higher costs and more intermediaries can't be a bad thing. :roll:

juradai

Reminds me of a certain user on this board that has a Batman avatar. His name starts with a G

CecilChups

Many of you newcomers have a serious problem with anyone refuting your precious little opinions and musings and you immediately fall back on pejoratives like arrogance, pretentiousness, etc.

My advice is to either learn to defend your arguments or grow a thicker skin and walk away.

What I don't advise is calling me out like you've done here.

Reminds me of a certain user on this board that has a Batman avatar. His name starts with a GCecilChups

Wow. No subtlety at all. :lol:

[QUOTE="CecilChups"]

Reminds me of a certain user on this board that has a Batman avatar. His name starts with a G

Grammaton-Cleric

Many of you newcomers have a serious problem with anyone refuting your precious little opinions and musings and you immediately fall back on pejoratives like arrogance, pretentiousness, etc.

My advice is to either learn to defend your arguments or grow a thicker skin and walk away.

What I don't advise is calling me out like you've done here.

Of course it's futile. You're saying that it's impossible to put together a complete collector's edition for a hypothetical digital-only console. And you refuse to see the numerous obvious solutions. And you're not in the slightest bit taking into consideration that Microsoft and Sony push their consoles as "entertainment centers", which implies that they need to be compatible with a wide variety of things. And all of that, while overvaluing collector's editions weight in the industry.

And then you misquote me and say that I'm "completely missing the point" when I explain why unnecessary intermediaries and higher costs are bad for the industry and that I'm grasping at straw when I show you that your iPad can, indeed, read usb keys, with its proprietary ports (MS and Sony will never again use proprietary ports exclusively). And of course I can't compare the console game market with any other media market, ever. It's special and it evolves in a special world. And then you wonder why I use a small amount of sarcasm against someone who's being so ridiculously close-minded?

ReddestSkies

Taken from IGN:

Online Passes the controversial attempt by many publishers to encourage new game sales by locking online-centric content for used copies has become engrained in gaming culture over the last several years. But according to a report on VentureBeat, one major company is doing away with them.

Electronic Arts the mega-publisher behind a litany of games including Madden, FIFA, Battlefield, Dead Space, Mass Effect and more will be discontinuing its Online Pass initiative. In a statement provided to VentureBeat, EAs John Reseburg said that none of our new EA titles will include that feature.

Reseburg admitted that Online Passes just dont seem to be working. Initially launched as an effort to package a full menu of online content and services, many players didnt respond to the format. Weve listened to the feedback and decided to do away with it moving forward.

Many major publishers including Sony and Ubisoft continue to use Online Passes, though interestingly, Microsoft never seemed to go down that road. Will EAs abolishment of this system coerce other publishers to follow suit?1PMrFister

Good for EA to drop this, but the cynic in me can't help but think there's an ulterior motive to this that's gonna blindside gamers later down the line. Of course, I've got nothing to substantiate those claims, so I'll just consider this a good thing until proven otherwise.

What say you, PGD?

I'll admit that I've become increasingly cynical over the past decade when it comes to the game industry, particularly with regard to the big publishers.  So, while I welcome this kind of news, I too am rather dubious, and wonder what other schemes are in the pipeline.  At this point I really don't trust any of the publishers, mostly because they have eroded that trust over the years through the implementation of some rather anti-consumer schemes and practices.

I'll take a 'wait and see' approach, and keep a careful eye on further developments.  If EA can really prove that they were serious about ditching DRM and some of their other anti-consumer baggage, and start producing games that appeal to me again, then I'll consider returning as a customer.  However, I still dislike Origin, so that is another barrier that I would have to overcome to even consider their future franchises.

I've seen your posts for a while. It's always the same pompous condescending tone for the most part. People like you have very frail and fragile egos. It stems from insecurity. The only way that you can convey your hostile mood is behind a computer, anonymous and without worry. I bet in reality, you're a whole different person in front of someone. Especially an individual bigger than you. I'd doubt you would act the same way and in the same manner. Your post right here is proof of it.

CecilChups

I'm certain you thought your cliché, trite armchair psychoanalysis clever but you are trafficking in rather mundane and overused retorts that have nothing to do with much of anything and rather seek to obfuscate the dearth of intellectualism in your own vapid writings.

The whole nerd-behind-the-PC thing is beyond played out, wouldn't you agree?

As to my ego, bear in mind that all human beings have one and the entire reason for argument is that two or more egos butt skulls in an attempt to prove or persuade; competition is, by default, predicated on warring egos and an argument is nothing more than a competition of words and ideas.

Then there is the stark irony of your attack on my ego juxtaposed with your own hubris. Were you as intelligent, self-assured and mature as you claim you wouldn't have bothered to publically insult me nor respond to my relatively gentle admonishment. Instead you've clearly read my posts and what I write offends you, likely because you lack the skills to rebut me directly, evidenced by your need to bring this discussion to a personal and nasty level.  

Nothing I've written towards you was even remotely offensive or aggressive. I did take issue with your trollish behavior regarding a singular post but I also gave you the benefit of the doubt in that very same response and yet here you are proving me correct.

My advice is stick to the argument and leave this personal crap on the sidelines. You'll have a much better time on this particular forum.

[QUOTE="CecilChups"]

I've seen your posts for a while. It's always the same pompous condescending tone for the most part. People like you have very frail and fragile egos. It stems from insecurity. The only way that you can convey your hostile mood is behind a computer, anonymous and without worry. I bet in reality, you're a whole different person in front of someone. Especially an individual bigger than you. I'd doubt you would act the same way and in the same manner. Your post right here is proof of it.

Grammaton-Cleric

I'm certain you thought your cliché, trite armchair psychoanalysis clever but you are trafficking in rather mundane and overused retorts that have nothing to do with much of anything and rather seek to obfuscate the dearth of intellectualism in your own vapid writings.

The whole nerd-behind-the-PC thing is beyond played out, wouldn't you agree?

As to my ego, bear in mind that all human beings have one and the entire reason for argument is that two or more egos butt skulls in an attempt to prove or persuade; competition is, by default, predicated on warring egos and an argument is nothing more than a competition of words and ideas.

Then there is the stark irony of your attack on my ego juxtaposed with your own hubris. Were you as intelligent, self-assured and mature as you claim you wouldn't have bothered to publically insult me nor respond to my relatively gentle admonishment. Instead you've clearly read my posts and what I write offends you, likely because you lack the skills to rebut me directly, evidenced by your need to bring this discussion to a personal and nasty level.  

Nothing I've written towards you was even remotely offensive or aggressive. I did take issue with your trollish behavior regarding a singular post but I also gave you the benefit of the doubt in that very same response and yet here you are proving me correct.

My advice is stick to the argument and leave this personal crap on the sidelines. You'll have a much better time on this particular forum.

No, I never said it was impossible. I said that it would not be received well by the target demographic but your coming into this discussion ready for fight, which was never my intention. Your over-simplified, hyperbolic responses do little to back up your points. To be honest, based on your previous posting history with others in this forum, I initially hesitated to even respond to your reply. I was a fool to engage in any sort of rational conversation with someone who leans so heavily on assumptions. But hey, continue to misread and misconstrue my replies to whatever fits your agenda. We all know there isn't enough people around here that do that. juradai

Excellent, a little "holier-than-thou" ramble. You should have went with your instinct and not replied. This way, we both would have saved time. You could have remained in your close-minded world in which the status-quo is the best possible situation. And I wouldn't have had to explain things to someone who doesn't want to analyze possibilities and won't bother reading my posts properly. If I knew that the rest of your posting history looked like this "debate", I surely wouldn't have replied myself. Especially with the misquoting, the nonsense, the self-declared victories and the, might I repeat, close-mindedness.

By the way, it's not true that everything that isn't a number written in an article is an "assumption". Repeating that word a billion times won't make it true. My posts ITT contain a lot of "I think", a lot of "likely", a lot of "possible", "if it's competitive enough", a lot of "if well done", etc. I'm talking in possibilities and almost never made an absolute statement. You're the one who's not only not being rational, but who doesn't even understand the very obvious nuances in my posts.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="CecilChups"]

I've seen your posts for a while. It's always the same pompous condescending tone for the most part. People like you have very frail and fragile egos. It stems from insecurity. The only way that you can convey your hostile mood is behind a computer, anonymous and without worry. I bet in reality, you're a whole different person in front of someone. Especially an individual bigger than you. I'd doubt you would act the same way and in the same manner. Your post right here is proof of it.

CecilChups

I'm certain you thought your cliché, trite armchair psychoanalysis clever but you are trafficking in rather mundane and overused retorts that have nothing to do with much of anything and rather seek to obfuscate the dearth of intellectualism in your own vapid writings.

The whole nerd-behind-the-PC thing is beyond played out, wouldn't you agree?

As to my ego, bear in mind that all human beings have one and the entire reason for argument is that two or more egos butt skulls in an attempt to prove or persuade; competition is, by default, predicated on warring egos and an argument is nothing more than a competition of words and ideas.

Then there is the stark irony of your attack on my ego juxtaposed with your own hubris. Were you as intelligent, self-assured and mature as you claim you wouldn't have bothered to publically insult me nor respond to my relatively gentle admonishment. Instead you've clearly read my posts and what I write offends you, likely because you lack the skills to rebut me directly, evidenced by your need to bring this discussion to a personal and nasty level.  

Nothing I've written towards you was even remotely offensive or aggressive. I did take issue with your trollish behavior regarding a singular post but I also gave you the benefit of the doubt in that very same response and yet here you are proving me correct.

My advice is stick to the argument and leave this personal crap on the sidelines. You'll have a much better time on this particular forum.

You are not the first one to get offended by Grammaton's posting styIe. We get at least a couple of new posters every month writing the same post again and again. It's quite hilarious how people get so offended by his writing styIe. As if his vocabulary somehow hurts your ego. YOU are the one who called him out for no reason... then proceeded to psycho-analyze him instead of just owning up and apologizing for instigating a fight.

Grammaton's posting styIe is different, yes, but I'd take a 1000 Grammatons over posters who just sit there and make passive aggressive comments towards other users. What exactly did you contribute by making that post? Absolutely nothing. Well except for derailing the thread and needlessly dissing another user who had nothing to do with the thread.

Next time perhaps take a page out Grammaton's book, and spend some time actually discussing the topic at hand. You may not have the vocabulary he posseses but you can definitely take your time and write out a coherent response like Grammaton that doesnt neccessarily insult people. Again, it's not HIS fault that you get offended by his writing styIe.

[QUOTE="juradai"] No, I never said it was impossible. I said that it would not be received well by the target demographic but your coming into this discussion ready for fight, which was never my intention. Your over-simplified, hyperbolic responses do little to back up your points. To be honest, based on your previous posting history with others in this forum, I initially hesitated to even respond to your reply. I was a fool to engage in any sort of rational conversation with someone who leans so heavily on assumptions. But hey, continue to misread and misconstrue my replies to whatever fits your agenda. We all know there isn't enough people around here that do that. ReddestSkies

Excellent, a little "holier-than-thou" ramble. You should have went with your instinct and not replied. This way, we both would have saved time. You could have remained in your close-minded world in which the status-quo is the best possible situation. And I wouldn't have had to explain things to someone who doesn't want to analyze possibilities and won't bother reading my posts properly. If I knew that the rest of your posting history looked like this "debate", I surely wouldn't have replied myself. Especially with the misquoting, the nonsense, the self-declared victories and the, might I repeat, close-mindedness.

By the way, it's not true that everything that isn't a number written in an article is an "assumption". Repeating that word a billion times won't make it true. My posts ITT contain a lot of "I think", a lot of "likely", a lot of "possible", "if it's competitive enough", a lot of "if well done", etc. I'm talking in possibilities and almost never made an absolute statement. You're the one who's not only not being rational, but who doesn't even understand the very obvious nuances in my posts.

Well, I suppose that's that then. We officially now have equal disregard for each other. So, let's part ways on this and move on, shall we?juradai

Assumption! =P

Yeah, moving on ;)

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

[QUOTE="juradai"] No, I never said it was impossible. I said that it would not be received well by the target demographic but your coming into this discussion ready for fight, which was never my intention. Your over-simplified, hyperbolic responses do little to back up your points. To be honest, based on your previous posting history with others in this forum, I initially hesitated to even respond to your reply. I was a fool to engage in any sort of rational conversation with someone who leans so heavily on assumptions. But hey, continue to misread and misconstrue my replies to whatever fits your agenda. We all know there isn't enough people around here that do that. juradai

Excellent, a little "holier-than-thou" ramble. You should have went with your instinct and not replied. This way, we both would have saved time. You could have remained in your close-minded world in which the status-quo is the best possible situation. And I wouldn't have had to explain things to someone who doesn't want to analyze possibilities and won't bother reading my posts properly. If I knew that the rest of your posting history looked like this "debate", I surely wouldn't have replied myself. Especially with the misquoting, the nonsense, the self-declared victories and the, might I repeat, close-mindedness.

By the way, it's not true that everything that isn't a number written in an article is an "assumption". Repeating that word a billion times won't make it true. My posts ITT contain a lot of "I think", a lot of "likely", a lot of "possible", "if it's competitive enough", a lot of "if well done", etc. I'm talking in possibilities and almost never made an absolute statement. You're the one who's not only not being rational, but who doesn't even understand the very obvious nuances in my posts.

You both are incredibly intelligent members so if I may, might I suggest things just got a bit heated?  

[QUOTE="juradai"] Well, I suppose that's that then. We officially now have equal disregard for each other. So, let's part ways on this and move on, shall we?ReddestSkies

Assumption! =P

Yeah, moving on ;)

:lol:

Alright. I'm glad we can at least end on a laugh.

You are not the first one to get offended by Grammaton's posting styIe. We get at least a couple of new posters every month writing the same post again and again. It's quite hilarious how people get so offended by his writing styIe. As if his vocabulary somehow hurts your ego. YOU are the one who called him out for no reason... then proceeded to psycho-analyze him instead of just owning up and apologizing for instigating a fight.

Grammaton's posting styIe is different, yes, but I'd take a 1000 Grammatons over posters who just sit there and make passive aggressive comments towards other users. What exactly did you contribute by making that post? Absolutely nothing. Well except for derailing the thread and needlessly dissing another user who had nothing to do with the thread.

Next time perhaps take a page out Grammaton's book, and spend some time actually discussing the topic at hand. You may not have the vocabulary he posseses but you can definitely take your time and write out a coherent response like Grammaton that doesnt neccessarily insult people. Again, it's not HIS fault that you get offended by his writing styIe.

S0lidSnake

Firstly, thanks.

You saved me the hassle.

Secondly, he's pissed about this.

He made the comment that he would "LOL" if GTAV was panned like Duke Nuken.

I pointed out that seemed overtly trollish and he didn't take the criticism well.