Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dysfunctional Console Industry Struggles For New Profit Centers

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the play-board-games-instead dept.

The Almighty Buck 351

MojoKid writes "The rumor mill is still churning out quite a bit of information on new consoles this week, including new data on Nintendo's upcoming Wii U. According to unnamed developers, the Wii U actually isn't as powerful as the Xbox 360 or PS3, despite boasting HD graphics and significantly improved hardware. Meanwhile, the Xbox 720, codenamed Durango, is reportedly targeting the holiday season of 2013 as a launch window. Rumors are floating about of a required always-on internet connection and of locking out the used game market. What this discussion truly highlights is just how dysfunctional the entire console industry is and how skewed its profits are. Profits on hardware sales are so small, game shops can't survive on console sales alone. $60 MSRPs are subsidized by exchange and trade-in programs. Kicking Gamestop in the teeth may occasionally sound like fun, but the idea of killing the used games market doesn't make much sense. If used title values collapse and MSRPs stay the same or rise, the entire industry could hamstring itself in the name of higher profits."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Stores (2)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571157)

All three consoles have an online store for downloadable games, apps, etc.

Microsoft charges for XBox Live Gold. They've had other avenues for profit during this entire generation.

Re:Stores (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571415)

yep - they as in the console companies.

but this industry refers to other players in the industry, namely game stores. which are as fucked as they're always been. of course if it was a goldmine.. everyone would be doing it and it wouldn't be a goldmine anymore.

If they kill the used game market, (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571161)

They damn well better lower the prices on new games. Or my new gaming platform just may be an iPad buying games off the the app store.

Re:If they kill the used game market, (5, Insightful)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571215)

You're not the only one. It's interesting to note that there's no market for used iPad games either. I suppose when the game is a few dollars, nobody cares.

Mobile device games are a lot like the games we used to play in video arcades. Frankly, I welcome the return of these smaller games.

Re:If they kill the used game market, (4, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571377)

Console makers realize people aren't going to go for required always-on internet, lockout of online play beyond the original owner, or the various other schemes they have tried to keep people other than the original purchaser from using physical media.

It won't be long before they make games download-only, and linked to your user account only. I'm sure they would sacrifice their firstborn to implement this today, but internet connection speeds simply aren't there yet. Sure, it'll be marketed as being done out of 'convenience' to the user, but it's out of convenience to their profit margins.

On behalf of the rest of the world I say to them - if you want to make more money just raise game prices. Don't require internet connections. Don't continue to try to destroy the secondard market. We aren't going to buy all the games new that we are currently buying used, we'll just play less games. If $60 isn't enough then try $75. If your product is good, the market will bear it.

No sense being a dog in the manger about it. (not that they are listening)

Putting them on internet (2)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571663)

My theory is that if the console makers don't change strategy that tablet gaming will replace console games. tablets will soon have enough capability to be functionally equivalent in every way that matters to the user. just add a control device like a kinect or something to interface. That will actually be good for game makers since it will expand the number of consumers in general but bad for block buster game makers that require concentration of high sales in a few expensive games.

Adding more and more features and unneeded power to consoles just drives this convergence point sooner because as soon as tablets are good enough for more people than consoles thats where the market for games will go.

The direction consoles need to go is to become cheap appliances that do a few specific jobs really well. toasters for gaming and netflix viewing. If you want them to do other things then they need to do those more conveniently than a tablet. Responding to my e-mail from across the room sitting in my chair staring at a plasma screen is not likely to ever be convenient. Even if you add a keyboard, I do don't want to look up from the keyboard at a screen far away.

When I first saw the wii U I thought that as industrial design goes it was but ugly and clumsy looking. It looks like a chubby leapster or other kiddie console. something from the old days. a flop for sure.

But since then I started to think that maybe the wii U is the right way to go if you want consoles to be useful living room appliances. You need a tablet like interface for too many things. the Wii u will give you both. and with all Nintendo stuff it's going to be less expensive than the Xbox and ps3, which makes it more useful as a low cost appliance. Something that is at the right price point to be worth getting for its reduced functionality but better suitability for specific tasks.

It still is ugly. But it is probably the right way to go.

Re:If they kill the used game market, (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571781)

if you want to make more money just raise game prices.

We aren't going to buy all the games new that we are currently buying used, we'll just play less games

It isn't about making more money. If they want to make money they can follow Steam and LOWER prices and get more sales. Making money is not the issue (don't let any of the copyright math about "lost sales" fool you)

What this is really about about is control. That (the bold) is exactly what they want you to do - just don't play their games at all. Ditto for pirates

They see themselves as owners of a theater, with the full price of a new game being the admission/ticket fee. They don't want anybody who paid nothing (from their perspective) to get to watch the show

I'm not saying their perspective is right or wrong. Just pointing out that it's not about money. It's about control

Re:If they kill the used game market, (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571845)

On behalf of the rest of the world I say to them - if you want to make more money just raise game prices. Don't require internet connections. Don't continue to try to destroy the secondard market. We aren't going to buy all the games new that we are currently buying used, we'll just play less games. If $60 isn't enough then try $75. If your product is good, the market will bear it.

Here's the thing, though, games are expensive to make, and getting more and more so every day. But are we getting better games for that bigger investment? Prettier games? Sure. Better sound? Yup. Good voice acting and mo-cap? Indeed. But are the GAMES getting better?

There really isn't anything that console makers are doing to help make better games beyond providing decent APIs, although there are lots they are doing to make them more of an audio/video spectacle. After all, you could provide a great API that only a small percentage gets used due to cross-platform concerns, or that doesn't matter because they're using exclusively using middleware, that end customers aren't going to care about. But awesome video for a prime time commercial? That's demonstrable.

Current console makers don't want the tide to turn because they like the $60 game, and would also like the $75 game, and a $90 even more. They're running a percentages game after all, so licensing fees are kept intentionally high to prevent smaller developers from getting a foothold. Smaller developers spend a much greater percentage of their development costs in tuning the game and not just herding content farms overseas to generate a bunch of graphics, animation, and audio assets.

I don't know if there's an answer to all this that doesn't wind up in an eventual video game market implosion.

Re:If they kill the used game market, (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571305)

With downloadable content, the console makers will probably develop into a more Steam-like service, with discounts for older games taking the place of used sales.

Well, one HOPES anyway.

Re:If they kill the used game market, (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571409)

Only one thing you can be sure of, when they are done you'll be transferring more money to them than you were before for the same thing.

Re:If they kill the used game market, (3, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571589)

Perhaps, but you may be getting more product in return. In the end, most companies don't really care how much money they make per customer, as much as they care about how much of a return they get on the money they invested. If they can make more money from their development expense by selling more copies at a lower price, they will. If they can make more money by selling less copies at a higher price, they'll do that. That's why companies sink money into marketing. If a marketing dollar spent results in $1.10 worth of additional profit, then they'll spend it. Generally speaking, they'd love it if you buy older games for not much money, as that's icing on the cake for them.

Re:If they kill the used game market, (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571601)

You can bet that's what they're expecting. Whether they'll get it will depend on exactly how far the consumer will go on the console side before piracy will start to look more attractive than putting up with the hassle of trying to be honest.

Re:If they kill the used game market, (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571811)

Great. So how are they going to convince retailers to sell the console hardware at nearly zero profit (as is the case today) when they aren't going to be the ones selling the games? PCs and tablets aren't sold using the razor blade model, ya know.

Re:If they kill the used game market, (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571413)

Hence why they're rumored to be developing an ARM-based Xbox Lite console [ign.com] .

While unappealing to me, I think it would be a smart move for Microsoft. There's a ton of money to be made on cheap apps, as the rise of the smartphone/tablet as a gaming platform illustrates easily...

It's called the Lumia, and it has two problems (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571575)

Microsoft already has an ARM-powered Xbox Lite, called a "cell phone running Windows Phone 7". Microsoft outsources manufacturing to Nokia and other companies. It has two practical problems: First, instead of physical buttons, it has a completely flat touch screen, and one can't find the on-screen buttons by feel. Second, in Microsoft's home country, it appears to be sold only in a bundle with a commitment to buy $1,440 of cellular voice and data service. This commitment is not something a parent is likely to buy several of the way parents have bought a DS for each child.

Re:It's called the Lumia, and it has two problems (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571665)

You're assuming parents aren't buying cell phones for their kids.

If I'm a parent buying a cell phone for my kid regardless, and they can get cheap/free apps, that seemingly beats paying $150 for a DS and and then a bunch of $40 games. I'm not spending an additional $1,440 for gaming, because I'm paying for a family cell phone data plan regardless.

I've heard that Windows Phone 8 (based off Windows 8) will support peripherals. So you might be able to prop up your phone in front of you, but play with a wireless 360 controller.

Re:It's called the Lumia, and it has two problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571865)

Why wait? get an "iControlPad" (or similar) for your Android or iPhone now. Put the phone in and you have a controller with a screen on it (that happens to be a phone). Throw emulators into the mix and you have 20 years of games to play, without considering the app store.

Re:If they kill the used game market, (5, Interesting)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571707)

Oh yeah, also, historically speaking, we're paying much less for a new game than we used to be. Ditto consoles.

According to The Inflation Calculator [westegg.com] :

Atari 2600 - $199 in 1977 - $707 today (in 2010 dollars, anyway)
Intellivision - $299 in 1979 - $886 today
NES - $199 in 1985 (US release) - $398 today
PC Engine/TG-16 - $249 in 1989 - $432 today

Games were also pretty expensive. I didn't actually buy my own games until the NES-era (and I'm having a hard time finding historical retail prices on video game cartridges), but even then, a new game was somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 back then, which would translate to $100 today. And look at how little you got for it in the case of a lot of games! I paid the equivalent of $100 for Mario Bros. 2 and beat it in a day. Ditto Mega Man 2 and 3. Ditto a lot of games.

I think many of us are more cognizant of how much were paying for games today because we're not using birthday money and allowance to buy them anymore, coupled with the fact that it's harder and harder to justify the expense with the economy being rough like it is. But in truth, we used to get charged a hell of a lot more.

That's not to say that I don't have my own misgivings, particularly related to the abuse of DLC as a concept. It seems like more and more games are coming out with 2/3 of the content they used to, with the intention of selling the remaining 1/3 in a few $10 increments down the road. The DLC on disc bullshit [angryjoeshow.com] is even more ridiculous and unforgivable in my opinion.

Re:If they kill the used game market, (2)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571857)

But in 1977, a regular PC (e.g. an Apple ][) was $1298, about six times the cost of an Atari 2600. Today's enthusiast gamer PC setup will come in at around the same price (~$1300), and thus a console for $199 has about the same pricing distance as it was 35 years ago.

If you look at prices, don't just adjust for inflation, you have also to check for the alternatives then and today.

Higher profits (5, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571189)

Killing used sales doesn't mean higher profits for console makers. Those who are only willing to spend $20 on a used title aren't suddenly going to drop $400+ for a new console and then start paying $60 for new games. They'll likely just spend $20 on used games for current gen titles like they do. Console makers will hurt the adoption of their consoles and lower profits. And some gamers will be less likely to spend $60 on games that already currently do so, if there is no longer an option to sell the game back and make back some of their money.

I don't understand how Microsoft and Sony think this will lead to higher profits. And frankly if Microsoft or Sony does this, but the other does not, then it will just drive business to that console.

Re:Higher profits (4, Interesting)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571287)

I don't understand how Microsoft and Sony think this will lead to higher profits.

I sometimes think that high prices aren't all about profit. It almost seems like Microsoft / Sony / Nintendo think it would be an insult to offer their best titles for $15 even if that meant they would make much more money. Prestige matters to them.

Re:Higher profits (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571345)

Might be granny and auntie christmas purchase marketing. "the $60 game must be better than the $30 game... I'll buy junior the $30 game"

Re:Higher profits (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571359)

Thanks /. for the post editing button.... not

Re:Higher profits (4, Funny)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571441)

Might be granny and auntie christmas purchase marketing. "the $60 game must be better than the $30 game... I'll buy junior the $30 game"

Thanks /. for the post editing button.... not

Or your Auntie or Granny just doesn't like you much.

Re:Higher profits (5, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571495)

Technically, it is the game publisher who sets the price. For instance, at one point someone decided to challenge the Madden franchise by offering a $20 alternative.

Developers and publishers have both been going belly up. Budgets on games are going through the roof. You need $20 million to put together a AAA title these days, with some games costing $100 million to make.

NES games in 1985 were $35, which is over $70 in today's dollars. But the cost of making a game is considerably higher today than it was in 1985. Some people claim that there are more consumers today, so you can sell more copies.

But there were 62 million NES consoles sold. There have been 62 million PS3 consoles sold and 65 million XBox 360 consoles sold. Given that many people have replaced 360's due to defective hardware, I'm not sure you can honestly say you can expect more sales from a console game today than during the height of the NES.

$60 isn't ridiculous when you look at it. I don't know why people felt $35 was fine in 1985, but assume better games today should sell for $15 as you suggest.

Re:Higher profits (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571585)

Technically, it is the game publisher who sets the price.

While that's true, Microsoft and Sony both pressure the publisher towards higher-priced games in a variety of ways. Examine for example Halo. All the IP is controlled by a holding company controlled by Microsoft so it's not like there's any separation there. Halo games have all the fancy crap, the themes and the videos and the DLC. If you want to have that stuff for your game you have to shell out a bunch of bucks to Microsoft for them to handle the downloads and such for you on a service which is then paid for again by the players who subscribe to it. Consequently if you want your game to not look like it has a crappy feature set compared to Halo you're going to need to spend some money, and that money has to come from somewhere, so you're going to have to charge more if you want to look like you care about providing the features that Xbox 360 players have been convinced they should expect, when most of those features basically amount to providing free advertising for games — worse than free, in fact, you're paying them for the privilege of advertising their game when you pay for some avatar DLC or a system theme.

$60 isn't ridiculous when you look at it. I don't know why people felt $35 was fine in 1985, but assume better games today should sell for $15 as you suggest.

Used games ought to be available, though, at which point they're $15. The players who want to have lots of people to play multiplayer with bear the burden of development by paying full price. No multiplayer, no incentive to pay a lot, IMO.

Re:Higher profits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571655)

The cartridges contained additional physical hardware, today you're just buying a disk with raw data.

Re:Higher profits (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571821)

Prestige matters to their investors.

FTFY

Re:Higher profits (1)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571341)

I was rather late to the console party. I got a PS3 for it's media capabilities, but picked up a few used/sale games due to how cheap they were; I mostly play them when I have a parry, let them out and let people manage playing them for themselves. I have not and will not drop $60 for a new game, I don't even do that with my PC which is my primary gaming platform.

Re:Higher profits (5, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571371)

They aren't going to be married to a $60 price point. If they cut out the used game market, then it becomes a curve over time. Right now, we have a situation where a small number of die hards pay $100 + for a pre-release version with some extra trinkets, the first-day adopters pay $60 for a new game, a large number of people buy it at retail for $40 a year later, then it goes in the bargin bin for $20 or $30 a few years later. That's the curve. The problem for publishers is that they have to compete with their own used games at the end of this curve.

The new model will look different, and will vary a lot from game to game. Basically, the game publishers will try to maximize revenue by getting each customer to pay the highest price they are willing to pay, with the reward of getting the game sooner than you would have for a lower price. When your distribution costs approach zero as they do with digitial distribution (remember that Wal-Mart probably gets somewhere between $10 and $20 out of that $60), you can sell a game for $7 and still make a profit. And that beats not making a profit. So expect used games on consoles to follow the same thing that's happened on Steam. Eventually some pretty good but old games will show up for a few dollars on the consoles; this is a price point that isn't worth GameStop's trouble. There's already some flavor of this with the fact that you can buy MarioCart for N64 on the Wii market for $5.

Re:Higher profits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571623)

They aren't going to be married to a $60 price point,

Of course not, $70 is a much better price point.

Re:Higher profits (4, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571727)

If that's what the market will bear, then that's what the price will be. If people are willing to pay it, then it's a fair price. This sucks for poor people who happen to be video game enthusiasts, but such is the way with a free market.

The other thing to remember is that we're not talking about bread, or water, or heating oil, or any of a variety of fundamental needs. It really is pretty viable for you to decide to go down to the library and read a book for free instead of playing the latest video game. Then buy it when it drops to $40 or whatever your purchase point is.

Re:Higher profits (3, Insightful)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571843)

That's the curve. The problem for publishers is that they have to compete with their own used games at the end of this curve.

Excellent statement but this bit is a bit off. The problem for publishers is not at the end of the curve, but at the start. Game chains like GameStop will carefully calculate demand and order as few copies as they need to seed a local market of used copies. They will do their best to brainwash children into beating games and return them for "amazing credit value" (rip-off values) and then push a full wall of these new titles for a $2 dollar discount.

Heck, look at Modern Warfare right now at GameStop's website. [gamestop.com] Amazing savings, eh? $2 whole bucks saved in exchange of a box filled with store stickers and thorn box!

You will find even great games back in the used bins in large numbers and an artificially created scarcity for new copies of the "hot" title. See, kids eventually are "educated" that should they return the game as soon as they can from release date, they will get more money back (still a rip-off value but a lesser rip-off.) This is not a new practice, but as games get more expensive to produce, and the market becomes more competitive, it becomes a larger issue, especially for smaller game titles (not so much for the Modern Warfare’s of the world.)

I actually perceive the end of the curve used copies to be extremely undesirable for most people. At that point they are so thorn and destroyed that you may as well just get the new copy for $20.

This is one of the reasons online play has become so big in the last few years: online components tend to encourage people to keep their games for longer instead of just beating a campaign and returning the thing.

Re:Higher profits (1)

MikePo (579147) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571395)

They both have to do it or it will not work, but if they get together, the masses will unfortunately follow

Re:Higher profits (1)

Rifter13 (773076) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571499)

Console games used to be $50. They bumped them to $60, and the secondary market took off, after that. They took the market past what it could handle. I do believe that this will hurt consoles more than anything. Most "kids" I know, buy used. That is a fairly large demographic to cut out.

Re:Higher profits (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571533)

As a kid I remember saving up money to buy Super Mario 3 for $35. If you account for inflation, that's over $70 in today's dollars.

Console game prices do go up in time, but that's because all prices go up over time.

Re:Higher profits (4, Insightful)

Rifter13 (773076) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571619)

One of the MAJOR problems, though, is that inflation has gone up, while general salaries have remained stagnant. So, people don't make a LOT more than they did 10-20 years ago, but things cost more. It's getting to the point right now, that charging $60 for game is going to slow sales for many, MANY titles. I think the REAL gaming success story, over all, is Steam. They are very aggressive on pricing, and they just send you games, when you want them, day or night.

Re:Higher profits (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571819)

It's getting to the point right now, that charging $60 for game is going to slow sales for many, MANY titles.

I don't believe this to be true. We're at a point where at debut, premire titles sell in the hundreds of thousands of copies within the first 24 hours of release. There are release parties, where people rejoice in their freedom to drop three Jacksons plus tax for the right to get a game within minutes of its availability. There was nothing of this magnitude in the NES era.

Re:Higher profits (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571847)

The median household income has risen 30% since 1990. Prices have gone up about 65%. So there is definitely a disparity, but people didn't make MORE money 20 years ago. They made 30% less.

It should be noted that we're in a recession. If the economy hadn't tanked, there probably wouldn't be as much of a disparity in income growth rate and inflation.

Re:Higher profits (3, Insightful)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571597)

Those who are only willing to spend $20 on a used title aren't suddenly going to drop $400+ for a new console and then start paying $60 for new games.

Here is the biggest issue with your observation. The problem is not people buying old used games for $20 bucks. The problem is people that just pay $57 bucks at a GameStop for a used game instead of paying the $60 for the new copy.

At every level, the only one winning here is GameStop. The used copies are rarely in a condition where they are only worth 3 bucks less, yet that’s the undercut range they go for with used games is only between $2 to $5. Given the conditions they sell them at, these used games should be worth about 50% of the new copy price.

Given no choice, most these people will just buy new, heck, if GameStop was not pushing the used copy down their throats with "incentives" like free magazine subscriptions and discounts for a yearly fee, they would never had looked at the used copy anyways.

I am not in favor of used copy banning, but it's this predatory actions from chains like GameStop that are actually hurting many studios that barely can make a profit due to not having the marketing backing that you see behind titles like Modern Warfare.

Re:Higher profits (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571741)

Those people are idiots. And that behavior will stop pretty quick given that many games now include a one-time code for some of the content. The used copy is often devalued by $10 by these online codes, making it really hard to sell a used game for anything more than $50.

If someone purchases a new game for $60, they consume that code, and then someone later buys that game used with less content for $50, then the publisher was never going to get that sale. That consumer has determined they aren't willing to spend more than $50. And the publisher likely can't afford to sell that game for $50 brand new.

Re:Higher profits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571839)

... The used copies are rarely in a condition where they are only worth 3 bucks less, yet that’s the undercut range they go for with used games is only between $2 to $5.

Heck, you could say the same about their "new" games. I've never understood how they could get away with calling a game new when it's been taken out of it's sealed packaging, put in a sleeve in a drawer and employees are allowed to take those copies home to play. Well, for that matter, I've never understood why anyone would buy anything there, but I guess that's just me...

Re:Higher profits (1)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571701)

It doesn't matter to the publishers whether the gamers that spend $20 a month on used games will only buy a new game every 3 months. For them, that is profit already. Not a cent spent on used games goes to the publishers and studios. It all goes to Gamestop and other retailers.

Even if people buy 1 new game every six months rather than 10 used games a month, it's more beneficial for the publishers that way.

Re:Higher profits (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571863)

Option A). 3 used games on current gen consoles they already one

Option B). Spend $400 on a new console, and then purchase 1 new game for the same price as 3 used games

You honestly think the budget gamers are all going with option b?

To the games industry: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571207)

Or, how about...um...I don't know...make better, replayable games that people would want to play and keep for years?

Captcha: nonsense

Re:To the games industry: (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571245)

Even if they do that, the games aren't necessarily worth much money.

I still play and love games like Asteroids or Tetris. I've been playing Asteroids for around 30 years now and Tetris for 20. It doesn't get much more replayable than that.

Re:To the games industry: (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571265)

No profit in that. You wont want to buy other games if you are satisfied with what you have, at least thats their reasoning.

Re:To the games industry: (3, Interesting)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571439)

They've already been massively cheaping out by churning out these games that are basically just unreal clones.

Make a few maps and a few weapons, corral a server or two, you're done. No need to invest in an actual story or developing an expensive single player campaign. Force everyone into online play.

Online play also has the bonus effect of making a game useless after most people have moved on to the next big game, thus encouraging the player of the current game to buy something new.

Re:To the games industry: (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571637)

But if gamers can keep replaying their old games, why would they buy the new ones? Playing old games is picking the pockets of the developer!!!

No thanks, I don't want a console. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571217)

This is why I don't own *ANY* of the new consoles. Between Sony's credit card fiasco and the "we need more money so screw over the consumer" attitude, no thank you. I'll stay on my PC.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console. (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571283)

I'll stay on my PC.

Yeah, you can always buy PC games used!! And no one would even *think* of requiring an always on internet connection for a PC game.

Oh wait...

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console. (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571455)

Not to worry, the friendly and benevolent folks of the internet develop cracks for these games!

And none of them would even *think* of doing anything malicious, so just go ahead and execute their code on your machine, Administrator.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571775)

>2012
>not sandboxing Windows

lol

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571471)

If you cannot afford to buy a game new, wait for a price drop, or get a new hobby and quit whining like a cheerleader who didnt get named prom queen.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571633)

If you cannot afford to buy a game new, wait for a price drop

By which time the publisher will likely have turned off the matchmaking servers for the game's online multiplayer. Google dnas error 103 to see how this has affected PS2 and PS3 games.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console. (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571711)

Except on pc (which is being discussed, not consoles) this is not the case.

I played Tribes 2 online with people just the other day. Thats totally is less than 6 months old right?

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console. (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571505)

Well, at least there are games without nonsensical DRM and the entire platform isn't locked down. There are games with DRM obviously, but you just have to avoid buying them (don't even pirate them: that's free advertising that they don't deserve).

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console. (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571563)

Well, at least there are games without nonsensical DRM

Unfortunately, they're getting few and far-between these days. And many PC developers (not all, but a lot of big names) have come up with some of the most insane DRM schemes of late. It's nuts that you would even need an internet connection to play Skyrim, for example. But if you play it on a PC, you do (not so on a console, but you can bet that's going to follow suit soon enough).

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console. (2)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571653)

Last time I checked, Skyrim does not need an internet connection to play, just to activate it the first time.

Either that or my 4 hour session while my internet was being worked on was all in my head.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console. (1)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571361)

It's funny since after a few threads on troublesome releases of games a console is a more locked down PC.
Try and play a game and it over heats your console, some suggested you patch it, while others suggest you re-install it.

I forgot what platform they were talking about after reading the fixes as it's the same stuff you'd hear for the PC.

Re:No thanks, I don't want a console. (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571513)

I have all the consoles. And a gaming PC. And an iPad.

*Real* gamers play everywhere. :-)

Back to the future (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571219)

Specifically, back to 1983 [wikipedia.org] . It's a big step in that direction. Don't think for a moment that it can't happen again. It can.

Re:Back to the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571687)

It can happen, but it won't kill PCs or mobile gaming. In fact, I'm fairly sure the 1983 crash was very beneficial to the PC market.

Worked for the PC game market (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571235)

the idea of killing the used games market doesn't make much sense

It does if you're looking to appease developers. And if you think that killing the used console game market is going to hurt developer profits, I would like to submit exhibit A: The PC game industry.

Unfortunately, the consumer suffers. But what's new, huh?

Re:Worked for the PC game market (1)

Moridin42 (219670) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571443)

Yep. it worked so well the PC game ecosystem is flourishing! Only.. it isn't, really, unless we're talking indie developers that are hitting close to the mobile app price points. I have a hard time believing Microsoft, Sony, or console development studios are going to aim that low ..

Re:Worked for the PC game market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571583)

Stop your lies, console plebeian. The PC industry is doing great. It makes money, not as much as consoles but way too much to be ignored. Go look at the sales charts instead of parroting this meme without thinking.

Re:Worked for the PC game market (3, Interesting)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571593)

The main reason that the PC is doing better is that the development companies dont have to make expensive we-lose-our-ass-on-each-sale hardware every 5 years. All they have to do is pop some new parts in the dev machines every 2-3.

Same goes for the consumer. The last time I spent 300+ on PC parts (the cost of a new console by a very modest estimate) My purchase Included one of the most expensive parts to buy, a new monitor. And even then, it isnt NECCISARY to upgrade all that often, I know people who game on PC who havent upgraded in 6+ years.

Then we have Things like steam sales, and if you are patient with your gaming, you can come away smelling like a rose most of the time. That one game you kinda wanted to try 6 months ago but never gort around to it? if it was good, you are looking at $30, not so good? $5-$10.

The videogame hobby as a whole, is cheaper for the consumer on the PC

Re:Worked for the PC game market (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571805)

The videogame hobby as a whole, is cheaper for the consumer on the PC

Does this remain true even if you take into account that console games are far more likely than PC games to support multiplayer on one machine through gamepads?

Re:Worked for the PC game market (1)

MrManny (1026106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571729)

I would like to submit exhibit A: The PC game industry.

Unfortunately, the consumer suffers. But what's new, huh?

...which - according to some - is dead. (I don't agree with that though, quite on the contrary. But it may show what there isn't really a consensus here and arguing logically is tricky because of that.)

Well then ... (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571259)

Rumors are floating about of a required always-on internet connection

That pretty much guarantees I won't buy the next XBox.

I have no interest in having my XBox being required to always be connected so they can implement annoying features like ads in my XBox and other nuisances.

I don't play on-line, and I mostly view a console as a stand-alone, mostly off-line game. So, if it truly does require a constant internet connection, it's not going to get bought by me.

Removes the entire advantage of consoles (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571357)

Yeah, I thought people bought consoles instead of gaming on a PC precisely because their Internet connection sucked, such as farmers and their children who have to live in a rural area. At least games for consoles are historically more likely to support multiplayer with one machine and one monitor, especially on Wii.

Re:Removes the entire advantage of consoles (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571437)

Yeah, I thought people bought consoles instead of gaming on a PC precisely because their Internet connection sucked, such as farmers and their children who have to live in a rural area.

I'm sure for many people that's a big part, but for me I simply have no interest in a video game console which demands a constant internet connection.

I'm not playing on-line. I'm not downloading content. I don't even have an XBox-live membership. But, after the recent update to my XBox where Microsoft started putting ads in my console, I basically decided to unplug it from the internet.

I'm a casual gamer at best. To me an always-on connection is a deal breaker. WTF do I need an internet connection for to play an hour or so of Need For Speed or something? No reason other than appeasing their DRM wishes and to make sure they can send me ads and probably track my usage. Not happening.

So, any console which requires a constant internet connection is pretty much guaranteed to not be bought by me.

Re:Well then ... (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571477)

Same. Always-on is a dealbreaker for me.

If both Sony and MSFT implemented always-on, I simply wouldn't buy either.

Same story over again (5, Insightful)

billcarson (2438218) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571263)

I believe the console market is in the same position as the arcade halls were back in the early '90: filled with 'mature companies', struggling to provide added value to their product over the then relatively new home consoles. If the console market wants to survive, they really need to move away from copying the success factors from the PC market, and provide added value to their product that the PC industry can't easily copy, just like surviving arcade manufacturers are doing nowadays. And, while I agree it is hard to find such elements, they certainly exists. The wii-type thing was a good start. Just adding a faster internet modem and high end graphics card isn't going to do it this time.

powerful, what is it? (-1, Offtopic)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571331)

actually isn't as powerful as

What does that mean?

My old wii seems to output decent 480p at refresh rate. I suppose 1080p would be nice although it would obviously have no effect on gameplay or enjoyment of the console. If I wanted fancy graphics I wouldn't be playing on a TV anyway, I'd play skyrim on my 1600x1200 PC with a graphics card that cost more than a entire xbox.. And if I didn't care at all about graphics at all (lets play scrabble!) I'd be playing on my cheapie cellphone.

So again, what is this "power" they're talking about?

I think we may be descending into an audiophool era where green magic marker around the perimeter of the disk makes mario more fun. We're already there with the $50 HDMI cables, so ...

More pixels; cheap phones (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571449)

My old wii seems to output decent 480p at refresh rate. I suppose 1080p would be nice although it would obviously have no effect on gameplay

With more pixels, you can see smaller objects farther away. This translates into, for example, more enjoyable sniping in a first-person shooter. And with more pixels, you can give each of four players his or her own 480p window, which I admit might not be valuable to you given your preference for a single-player computer role-playing game.

And if I didn't care at all about graphics at all (lets play scrabble!) I'd be playing on my cheapie cellphone.

The cheapest cellphones don't even support apps. On Virgin Mobile USA, for example, you have to go up to a $35/mo cellphone to get Android app support; Virgin won't activate Android phones on, say, a $7/mo voice-only plan designed for occasional use. A lot of parents aren't willing to part with that much money for each member of the household.

Yep. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571347)

the Wii U actually isn't as powerful as the Xbox 360 or PS3

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Rumors are floating about of a required always-on internet connection and of locking out the used game market.

I'm almost positive if these rumors prove to be true, the receptive companies will take a huge hit in sales.
I'm not huge on the "I hate company X because of this, this, and this" mentality that most of slashdot has, but if I buy a game? I expect it to be mine.
And in these difficult economic times? I expect a lot of people think similarly to this, being able to sell games you're not using for extra cash is great.
The ONLY reason I'd go along with this was if game prices dropped. Dramatically.
I'm talking maybe $20-$25 a game, at most.

Re:Yep. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571447)

I live in the boonies and I want my console game most when the power is up but the internet is down and I can't even get online. Planning to move further out where I may even end up on satellite, urgh. I just have to stick with the old games and systems if this happens. No big deal though, there's hundreds of games I haven't played yet for the systems I've got.

Re:Yep. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571565)

Yeah, this is my take on it as well.
That, and with every form of DRM, someone, somewhere takes it as a challenge and takes it down.
Up until the past year or so, I've been very much against piracy. But when companies do shit like this...Yo fucking ho.

What is Nintendo doing? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571383)

While the Wii was very successful, even tough technologically as advanced as its nearest competitors as the PS3 and the Xbox 360. However with the new version, you would expect it to be at least a little more powerful the their aging competitors. It not like I am expecting the Wii U to have superior graphics over the PS4 or the Xbox 720 but... It should be at least a little better then these old systems.

Re:What is Nintendo doing? (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571749)

Hopefully more of the same. I'm not that interested in the specs of the console (though the Wii U w/ 768MB or more of memory on the same die as the main processor (and graphics processor?) shouldn't be a slouch) --- I want widescreen and better support for contemporary, flat-screen televisions.

I _really_ enjoyed Red Steel 2 and Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword for the Wii (and to a lesser extent Wii Sports Resort, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Link's Crossbow Training (at one time I was buying used copies of the game, making wooden Wii Zapper style shells at my workbench and giving them out to co-workers) and a fair number of the FPS games --- Goldeneye 007 was way cool, Metroid Prime Trilogy: Collector's Edition is amazing and Resident Evil 4 for the Wii is arguably the definitive version ('cept there's an HD version for the PS3 I believe)).

I'm looking forward to Xenoblade Chronicles and The Last Story --- but I'd really like to see a free-form, open-ended, create-your-own-character RPG like Valhalla Knights: Eldar Saga w/ Motion Plus controls like Red Steel 2 and Skyward Sword, or at least a fun target game which uses Wii Sports Resort's gyroscopic bow controls (Fledge's Pumpkin Toss is fun, but I'd like to see Link's Crossbow Training re-made as a real archery game).

William

If only player 1 has the Wii U controller (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571385)

From the article:

effectively using the touchscreen means finding a way to make it uniquely useful without giving the player who possesses it an overwhelming advantage. There are some multiplayer games that will map very effectively to this concept--but most won't.

Isn't this a case where players 2, 3, and 4 can use a DS Lite, DSi, or 3DS with DS Download Play?

Re:If only player 1 has the Wii U controller (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571511)

From the article:

effectively using the touchscreen means finding a way to make it uniquely useful without giving the player who possesses it an overwhelming advantage. There are some multiplayer games that will map very effectively to this concept--but most won't.

Isn't this a case where players 2, 3, and 4 can use a DS Lite, DSi, or 3DS with DS Download Play?

There's no way they could make game play identical between a special purpose device and general purpose devices. (unless the special purpose device *is* just a DS in a slightly different case)

If I were to get one of these, I'd leave the touchscreen controller in the box, and get several DS's. Perhaps that's Nintendo's plan. The touchscreen device might just be a "starter", but to get full control, you need a DS.

There is no COULD hamstring... (4, Insightful)

fallen1 (230220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571397)

They WILL hamstring themselves. Even with the overall apathetic appearance of a large portion of the United States, if they attempt to kill off the secondary or used game market they will, in effect, be killing the console game market. The only people who can afford to throw $60+ at a game every time they turn around does not constitute the overall gaming market. I would be willing to bet that those people with large enough bank accounts to buy games AT WILL amounts to less than 10% of the overall gaming market. The VAST majority of the gaming market depends on being able to play a game and then turn it in to lessen the cost of the next game, specially when you can run through the majority of the games on the market in under, what? -- 20 hours per game?

Their need for control and their greed will be their undoing. A lot of people say that voting with your dollars doesn't work. I say that it will work when at least 50% of the market rises up against the corporate overlords who are producing this crap. Who want us, the gamers, to continually pay them for the privilege of using their game - not owning OUR game. As these rumors become fact, I hope that each of you who despises this will begin educating those fellow gamers who may not be following the information. Educate them that the cool thing to do is not to buy that uber new shiny, but to reject the new paradigm that the corporations want to foist upon all of us. Actually vote with your dollars this time and not just pay it lip service. All it takes is enough of us protesting in forums, in direct mails to the companies, in e-mails to the companies, and DO NOT BUY ANY NEW CONSOLES. Make it plain and clear, without resorting to cursing and ranting, that you nor anyone in your family or circle of friends will be purchasing any gaming console that removes the rights of the people* to First Sale Doctrine or the ability to trade it in so you can afford to purchase another new game.

Make them understand they will pay for their hubris by us, the gamers, simply saying "No."

* Do NOT, under any circumstance, call yourself a consumer. We should always remind them that even if we act as a group, we are individuals who are much more than just a consumer.

Re:There is no COULD hamstring... (1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571745)

The VAST majority of the gaming market depends on being able to play a game and then turn it in to lessen the cost of the next game, specially when you can run through the majority of the games on the market in under, what? -- 20 hours per game?

Very good point. Perhaps the best strategy would be for the game makers to DROP the price to where $new - $used is today. Maybe $20 instead of $75 would be far more profitable. Then people wouldn't fret about not being able to sell used games.

What's wrong with "good enough?!" (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571405)

These damned MBAs out there seeing only what they want to see and not understanding the whole picture is a problem. For one, the used market is actually vital to the game industry. Without it, people are less inclined to buy new things as they [rightly] feel that the ability to sell something they bought for a rather high price is a way to lessen the sting of the high prices and the high risk when some games end up being rather disappointing. After all, there are no returns on most of these which is a huge risk for the buyer.

But beyond this, it's clear that the technology of games has just about plateaued for now. Things aren't getting any better or more exciting until the next earth-shattering invention. The Wii and Kinect and whatever the PS3 has are fun and all, but when it comes to long-play games, I'm sorry, but endurance shouldn't be a requirement. The gimmick has already worn off on me. I do like sword fighting games though... just not enough good ones and anything for Kinect will just suck.

But what's wrong with keeping things as they are for a while?! The PC market "matured" from always wanting to upgrade. The gaming market is there right now, I believe. Let's just sit on our laurels for a while and let the innovation in game creativity run on its own for a while. The greed and unrealistic perspective of change and control and getting people to buy new things every 5 minutes needs to fade.

And what's more, the games... suck. (0)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571445)

There's no gameplay in games anymore. They're just the same kinds of fx-fests that overpriced Hollywood "blockbusters" are. Trite plot, no imagination, no interactivity, no fun.

Games haven't been fun for 15 years or more at this point, and knowledge of how to actually make a fun game seems to have disappeared from the earth. Stop developing new consoles with more shiny parts, you don't need all that hardware and nobody wants to buy it.

Just make more games, and spend less on each one of them, since game cost seems to be positively correlated with game boringness.

Remember the days when every single arcade game in the room was fun, even though they were all platformers with silly-simple graphics? Remember the days of the Atari consoles, the Nintendo NES, or even the early 16-bit era with SNES and Genesis? 80% of all the games were fun, and none of them tried to be overwrought world-shattering hyperrealistic blockbusters.

They were games. Games are meant to be simple and fun. Everything else is bullshit.

Re:And what's more, the games... suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571627)

Either rose colored glasses or QQ cry baby "this is too hard", i'll let you decide which you are.

Theodore Sturgeon's 90% of crud (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571715)

Remember the days of the Atari consoles, the Nintendo NES, or even the early 16-bit era with SNES and Genesis? 80% of all the games were fun

How much of this is due to rose-colored glasses? If you played then, you thought the games you happened to receive as gifts were fun because you had little to compare them to. If you play now through emulators, you remember only the fun games, not Theodore Sturgeon's 90% of crud in the "full ROM set" that people tend to torrent. Among the crud are the games reviewed in Something Awful's ROM Pit [somethingawful.com] .

Re:Theodore Sturgeon's 90% of crud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571771)

How much of this is due to rose-colored glasses?

And how much is due to opinion? All of it.

That's fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571465)

As someone who buys all his games new, I have no problem with the death of the used game industry. I'm just hoping it helps out niche titles like Radiant Historia and BlazBlue.

Good. (1)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571503)

"Killing" the console with these particular problems would really just mean their market shrinks to its natural size, as opposed to the current state in which more people want in because of artificially low console prices.

Net effect: PC gaming no longer screwed up by megacorps chasing fratfucks and other casuals. Players having higher barrier to entry causes more devs to consider risk taking, returning artistic credibility to the medium. Bobby Kotick switches to making staplers. The Mona Lisa takes her top off, and everybody gets a free husky puppy.

Bring that shit.

My brother works for one of EA's big "franchises" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39571509)

(yes he wants to move, but the economy is in the shitter).

One of my favorite parts of console gaming has always been the multiplayer aspect - like sports and racing games where four (or more) people can plug in a controller, and everyone is part of the action on a big TV.

Well, DRM and online have killed the (modern) console party. Split-screen games have been greatly reduced in the 360/PS3 generation, and you can expect more of the same next time around.

My brother is very specific on the reason why. If you force people to play online, that's potentially extra sales for EA. There's no technical reason to exclude split-screen from recent titles, just a financial reason.

A game night used to be a memorable occasion, now it's something you might do if you're a bit bored. EA and their cronies, diluting our quality of life for some short-term bucks.

the era of "hardcore" is over (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571519)

the era of the walk/run kill a few enemies, scour for crap and repeat is over. the market is now after casual kiddie games. angry birds made more money than most "hardcore" violent games. i love Mass Effect and other games like this, but this is the new era of gaming.

farmville/cityville were just sim city clones with a social aspect and publishers have noticed. if you don't like any kinect games its because you aren't the target market for them. the market just became a lot bigger and the run/kill games are now a tiny part of it. anyone who won't get it will be run out of business.

my wife games more than i do, but she never touches the PS3 or the xbox and never shoots anything or anyone

for years gamers have screamed for innovation and new genres. now you got it, finally

Hey Microsoft, you know what we want? (2, Insightful)

NetJunkie (56134) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571529)

We want an updated Xbox. I want an Xbox that can compete fairly well with modern PCs. I want to run games at 1080p and have them look good with high frame rate. I want it to be quiet. I want it to have a good online gaming experience, which honestly I think Live has done. I want good first party games. The problem is that the current consoles are old. They are outdated. My gaming has dropped off over time as the games and quality are lagging. Don't try to reinvent everything...I'm trying to make it easy for you. Give me a modern capable console.

devs did it to themselves (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571549)

i played black ops after it came out. play it once and its useless to replay. same with gears of war.

Mass effect and other RPG/shooter combos can be replayed a lot of times with different strategies each time

if you want people to buy your games new and not sell them, make games with replay value

a resurgance of pc games? (1)

Spinalcold (955025) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571571)

does this mean that consoles may eventually stop undercutting pc's? if they stop taking losses on sales it may even the playing field.

'Jail-Breaking' a legitimate profession? (1)

X!0mbarg (470366) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571611)

Looks like the console industry will join with companies that already have people set up in kiosks at local malls offering to jail-break consoles, as well as cell phones and iPads.
Then you can play used games, and won't need an always-on internet connection that checks all your activities with Big Brother (Unless, of course, you're an online addict of MMORPGs, then you're out of luck)
Who knows? Maybe there will be someone that starts up a 'Liberation' server, so people can register their system on That server, and even play online with their friends without paying the manufacturer for the 'Right to Play' their games? (StarCraft, anyone?)

New field of Lawsuits and Claims: Unlicensed Online Services that Break an already broken system! Terror Ensues!

All this push for "Cloud Computing", and still Big Brother does not get the fact that people don't actually Trust him!

More push = less trust!

Takeaway (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571699)

Nintendo knows where the money is.

Microsoft and Sony need to upsell their existing customer base in order to succeed, just like the last time around.

The game industry... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39571825)

... is run by morons anyway, and a lot of the developers are just as stupid. Game development costs from the late 90's onwards have just been going up exponentially and killed a lot of smaller B and C level game developers so now we're stuck with game companies that are risk averse because the costs to make a game who's graphics are at the current GPU level is just too costly. Yet a 2D game like New super mario bros. Wii sells millions. Publishers/developers were too quick to kill 2D games when 3D arrived and basically did it to themselves financially, but they never got the message and DRM and all sorts of scam artistry is now the norm to try to capture every dollar they can. The industry over the last 10 years has been pretty bad, the worst part about this is the large segment of the population that pays for MMO's and DLC which feeds the completely corrupt game industry.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?