[News] Disc-less XBox One - $399?

[LethalWolfe]

I've never met a developer that's as hell bent on sticking to release dates as you . Not even the publishers I've worked with are that bad, and they're the ones that control release dates, not the developers. It's a non-issue.

I've seen publishers punish stores for breaking embargo by not shipping them games until the street date. Retailers care and as long as retailers are a big chunk of the publishers' revenue than publishers will care too (or at least act like they care).

Because mail is unpredictable. And the stores in the UK have 1 big distribution centre each. You can't accurately predict the arrival times of items.

I didn't realize mail in the UK was so poorly run. In the US you can pick a shipping priority (next day, 2-day, 3-day, etc.,) and the shipper (postal service, FedEx, UPS, etc.,) will get the package there that day baring unforeseen events like a snow storm.

But all the highstreet stores also sell online. Nobody is missing out.

How are stores that obey the embargo not missing out? Stores usually get games in 4-5 days before the release date. If Store X breaks embargo and starts selling the game immediately but Store Y and Store Z down the street don't break embargo then they are missing out. Selling online is a moot point as I still have to wait until the release date to get the game vs getting it early from Store X.

Press embargoes usually end way before preorders ship. I think the closest to launch is 1 week, 5 days before anything is sent out. There is no chance of ruining anything. And bear in mind they only apply to press, when I've had games early from the biggest of studios they've actually encouraged talking about the game.

I'm not talking about ruining anything. I'm talking about the limitations placed on media that wants early access to games, trailers, interviews etc.,. and that it's no different than the limitations placed on retailers. In both cases it's to level the playing field and the embargo is part of the contract people agree to in order to do business with the publisher.

Maybe it's a cultural thing that's seen more as a formality no one actually bothers with in the UK but in the US it is taken more seriously?

 

[Taustin Powers]

What a strange thing to pick to feel so passionately about...

Who cares if a handful of people get to play a game two days before everyone else? Come on, seriously...

 

[MRU]

What a strange thing to pick to feel so passionately about...

Who cares if a handful of people get to play a game two days before everyone else? Come on, seriously...

Lol... Agreed.

Maybe I'm used to not necessarily getting my game on launch day even when I have pre-ordered months in advance. If some one gets it a day or two early - who cares (I doubt the majority of consumers do).

 

[0098386]

I didn't realize mail in the UK was so poorly run. In the US you can pick a shipping priority (next day, 2-day, 3-day, etc.,) and the shipper (postal service, FedEx, UPS, etc.,) will get the package there that day baring unforeseen events like a snow storm.

It's not, the problem is just inconsistency. Everything is very quick. It's just no matter what you select; 1st or 2nd class, recorded or not. It arrives 1-3 days after dispatch.

Maybe it's a cultural thing that's seen more as a formality no one actually bothers with in the UK but in the US it is taken more seriously?

I don't know about that, this is the first time I've ever seen someone care about others getting a game a day or two early.

 

[the8thark]

Those are very silly, unrealistic reasons. What game has "festivities" on launch day? Even Pokemon's "launch event" lasts for a few months. What's stopping games that feature this from doing it on the day? Is it unethical to ship games late instead, it can take 1-4 days for First Class mail to travel around the UK after all.

Games bought online and shipped via the post are often shipped early so they "hopefully" arrive at your door on release day. That's been the case for me when I've ordered online.

So I'm not to order a game online, instead spend 60 minutes driving there and back to my nearest city to queue up and hope the store still has copies in?

You order it online and with luck you get it on release day. See previous comment. And it's no one's fault if someone lives 1 hour from their game store.

I've never met a developer that's as hell bent on sticking to release dates as you . Not even the publishers I've worked with are that bad, and they're the ones that control release dates, not the developers. It's a non-issue.

You ever heard of Blizzard Entertainment? They are very strict on release dates and times. And Nintendo can be strict on the issue at times too. Just two examples that immediately came to mind.

Because mail is unpredictable. And the stores in the UK have 1 big distribution centre each. You can't accurately predict the arrival times of items.

This is correct. You choose travelling to the store, buying the game digital download and downloading on the day or buy and have it posted to you (hoping it'll come on the day). If not at least you saved yourself the travel fares/fuel cost going to and from the store.

But all the highstreet stores also sell online. Nobody is missing out.

Correct. And most won't ship their online physical sales so the customer gets the game a few days early. So there is no issue there.

Press embargoes usually end way before preorders ship. I think the closest to launch is 1 week, 5 days before anything is sent out. There is no chance of ruining anything. And bear in mind they only apply to press, when I've had games early from the biggest of studios they've actually encouraged talking about the game.

Of cause, talk about the beta of games is free advertising.

 

[LethalWolfe]

It's not, the problem is just inconsistency. Everything is very quick. It's just no matter what you select; 1st or 2nd class, recorded or not. It arrives 1-3 days after dispatch.

Inconsistent delivery from a delivery service sounds like poor quality to me.
If I pay extra for next day or two day service it should arrive on schedule.

I don't know about that, this is the first time I've ever seen someone care about others getting a game a day or two early.

This does seem like one of the more odd things I've gotten into an involved discussion about...

 

[0098386]

Games bought online and shipped via the post are often shipped early so they "hopefully" arrive at your door on release day. That's been the case for me when I've ordered online.


You order it online and with luck you get it on release day. See previous comment. And it's no one's fault if someone lives 1 hour from their game store.


You ever heard of Blizzard Entertainment? They are very strict on release dates and times. And Nintendo can be strict on the issue at times too. Just two examples that immediately came to mind.


This is correct. You choose travelling to the store, buying the game digital download and downloading on the day or buy and have it posted to you (hoping it'll come on the day). If not at least you saved yourself the travel fares/fuel cost going to and from the store.


Correct. And most won't ship their online physical sales so the customer gets the game a few days early. So there is no issue there.


Of cause, talk about the beta of games is free advertising.

I think wires are getting crossed.

Both physical stores that also sell online (which is all in the UK), and online-only stores (Amazon, and the rest that I somehow feel like not mentioning now for fear of them receiving nasty emails) will ship games early so their customers definitely get them in time for the launch. No one has one-up on the other.

So you're really suggesting that someone waste money, fuel and take time out of their day just to pick up a game because if I buy it online I might get it earlier? To take the risk that the game might have sold out? Are we supposed to make an event of this? Should we wear our "picking up a new game" party hat to engage in launch day festivities in-game?

Tell you what, instead of going crazy over other people getting games up to 48 hours in advance, why not "stick to the rules" yourself? If you get something early just keep it unopened, and at 1 minute past midnight open it up wearing the "new game party hat".

----------

Inconsistent delivery from a delivery service sounds like poor quality to me.
If I pay extra for next day or two day service it should arrive on schedule.

If you definitely want it on time there are alternatives by the same company. They do a really good 24 hour postage thing, but obviously you pay more.

 

[lolwatpear]

Disc-less isn't radical at all. It's what should be happening. The disc drive is a waste of space, makes noise, is slow, and costs money. It should be replaced with something that can enable consumers to buy physical games though.

 

[thehustleman]

What do you think?

"Discless Xbox One would be amazing. But too radical a move for Microsoft"

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-5...amazing-but-too-radical-a-move-for-microsoft/

Terrible idea.

1. Download games have less value. You can sell a new game once you've beaten it or if you simply don't like it and get most of your money back (I'd say 50bucks) but with a downloaded game, it's gone, you don't own it, and you're stuck with it.

2. Downloaded games are cheaper to make, so no logical reason they shouldn't cost less than an optical copy. With a download they do not have to pay for making and printing the manual, no artists fees for the inside of the book, they don't have to buy cases, buy discs, print discs, assemble it all, store it in a warehouse, ship it from the warehouse, and they don't have to give the store a cut of the sale. So why are they both 60 bucks? When I know for a fact they're saving bread on the download copy? Then they don't have to worry about people buying used, there would be no such thing. They should lower the price to 44.99
AT MOST

3. It's much quicker and easier to simply walk or drive over to Walmart, buy a game, then come home and play it rather than wait for it to download THEN wait for it to install.

4. They would have to find a new distribution channel for the hardware because why would Gamestop, Walmart, target sell a console that cuts them completely out? Download only? It would be bad business on their part. They would piss off too many retailers.

5.

 

[musicpenguy]

Walmart is happy to sell Apple TVs and other digital only boxes. I'll still shop at BestBuy for iTunes gift cards because of their rewards program etc.

The situation may be a bit different, but this is nothing new

 

[SilentPanda]

2. Downloaded games are cheaper to make, so no logical reason they shouldn't cost less than an optical copy. With a download they do not have to pay for making and printing the manual, no artists fees for the inside of the book, they don't have to buy cases, buy discs, print discs, assemble it all, store it in a warehouse, ship it from the warehouse, and they don't have to give the store a cut of the sale. So why are they both 60 bucks? When I know for a fact they're saving bread on the download copy? Then they don't have to worry about people buying used, there would be no such thing. They should lower the price to 44.99
AT MOST

They're a business. They have no need to 'pass the savings on' if digital units are selling at acceptable rates to them. I also think they need to price digital games at the same price as physical ones for now since otherwise the retail stores would feel undercut. Basically, there's really no reason to. People will buy it at this price anyway.

3. It's much quicker and easier to simply walk or drive over to Walmart, buy a game, then come home and play it rather than wait for it to download THEN wait for it to install.

I haven't purchase a single physical game for my PS4 and have no intent of doing so. For me it would take more time to go to the store and back. PS4 games (to the best of my knowledge) require a full install to even play from the disc. I know with digital games you can play while it's downloading. For most games I can start playing within 10-20 minutes of purchase. I recognize everyone's situation is different, but for me digital games are wonderful.

 

[gkarris]

..
2. Downloaded games are cheaper to make, so no logical reason they shouldn't cost less than an optical copy. With a download they do not have to pay for making and printing the manual, no artists fees for the inside of the book, they don't have to buy cases, buy discs, print discs, assemble it all, store it in a warehouse, ship it from the warehouse, and they don't have to give the store a cut of the sale. So why are they both 60 bucks? When I know for a fact they're saving bread on the download copy? Then they don't have to worry about people buying used, there would be no such thing. They should lower the price to 44.99
AT MOST
..

What I'm hearing is that physical copies were supposed to be $70-$80 for this gen in order to make it worthwhile for publishers to release physical copies.

Older articles:

"Gaming Roundup: Will Next-Gen Consoles Usher in the $70 Video Game?"

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/03/gaming-roundup-will-next-gen-consoles-usher-in-the-70-video-game

"Pachter: Next-gen games cost $70, no more consoles after"

http://www.destructoid.com/pachter-next-gen-games-cost-70-no-more-consoles-after-248325.phtml

So, $60 for the digital is about right...

 

[LethalWolfe]

2. Downloaded games are cheaper to make, so no logical reason they shouldn't cost less than an optical copy. With a download they do not have to pay for making and printing the manual, no artists fees for the inside of the book, they don't have to buy cases, buy discs, print discs, assemble it all, store it in a warehouse, ship it from the warehouse, and they don't have to give the store a cut of the sale. So why are they both 60 bucks? When I know for a fact they're saving bread on the download copy? Then they don't have to worry about people buying used, there would be no such thing. They should lower the price to 44.99
AT MOST

The cost difference isn't very big. Manufacturing and distribution is typically the least expensive part of making a game for a big publisher (on average about 5% from what I've read). Also, they still have the same "artists fees" for the manual because they still sell a physical copy of the game. A download is actually an additional cost compared to in the past when only physical copies existed.

The prices between digital and physical stay the same because retailers make up the lion's share of revenue for publishers and they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Digital prices will also typically stay higher after a game has come out because there is no physical inventory to clear out. Physical games go on sale when retailers need to move inventory and are willing to take a profit cut (or even a loss) to get rid of it but digital have an inventory problem.

 

[thehustleman]

They're a business. They have no need to 'pass the savings on' if digital units are selling at acceptable rates to them. I also think they need to price digital games at the same price as physical ones for now since otherwise the retail stores would feel undercut. Basically, there's really no reason to. People will buy it at this price anyway.



I haven't purchase a single physical game for my PS4 and have no intent of doing so. For me it would take more time to go to the store and back. PS4 games (to the best of my knowledge) require a full install to even play from the disc. I know with digital games you can play while it's downloading. For most games I can start playing within 10-20 minutes of purchase. I recognize everyone's situation is different, but for me digital games are wonderful.

So essentially you agree with getting less and paying the same?

Downloads are cheating me, only way om buying them is if they're cheaper or free. I prefer to het the most for my money.

And Sony and MS both came in before launch and stated that games would not go up in cost.

Oh and BOTH physical and download are digital. You do know Blu-ray is a digital format just like DVD right?

Physical and download are both digital.

 

[SilentPanda]

So essentially you agree with getting less and paying the same?

Downloads are cheating me, only way om buying them is if they're cheaper or free. I prefer to het the most for my money.

And Sony and MS both came in before launch and stated that games would not go up in cost.

Oh and BOTH physical and download are digital. You do know Blu-ray is a digital format just like DVD right?

Physical and download are both digital.

I'm not getting less. I am getting the whole game. I don't typically sell my physical games and when it do it's often very late and I end up getting $2 or so for them. They stated games would not go up in cost and they have not gone up in cost. And yes I'm aware physical and download are digital. When one refers to digital games they are most often referring to downloaded games.

 

[thehustleman]

I'm not getting less. I am getting the whole game. I don't typically sell my physical games and when it do it's often very late and I end up getting $2 or so for them. They stated games would not go up in cost and they have not gone up in cost. And yes I'm aware physical and download are digital. When one refers to digital games they are most often referring to downloaded games.

Actually you are getting less, thus is fact not opinion.

You get the download, you're LICENSING it, not buying. You don't own it, period.

With a physical copy, you own it.


Also if you choose not to sell it, it's on you. Personally I'd rather recoup what I can and get the next best thing.

 

[gkarris]

Physical vs. Digital (Downloads) is a long and dubious discussion.

What I'm afraid is that the industry is going that ways anyway. Physical will always be costly to manufacture.

Access is always an argument, but it seems that Apple and Google aren't really missing the fact that their software and apps are essentially now download-only.

If this disc-less XBOne is released, it will be interesting to see how it does. It seems a hard sell to those ready to buy when they see a full blown PS4 console for the exact same price - or do you want a Kinect instead of a disc drive?

 

[0098386]

Actually you are getting less, thus is fact not opinion.

You get the download, you're LICENSING it, not buying. You don't own it, period.

With a physical copy, you own it.

Kinda, depends on the software.
On the PSP for example, UMD games won't play on the Vita but PSN downloads will. Who knows what the next gen will have in terms of storage media? All we know is that there's nothing stopping PS4 games from playing on the PS5 (unless there's another big architecture shift). At the start of the Vita's life I started to shift over my fave PSP UMD games to PSN so that I would always have them.

It's not the case for all. I can't play my PS3 downloads on a PS4, or Xbox 360 on Xbox one. (The Wii U is fine there )

 

[SilentPanda]

Actually you are getting less, thus is fact not opinion.

You get the download, you're LICENSING it, not buying. You don't own it, period.

With a physical copy, you own it.


Also if you choose not to sell it, it's on you. Personally I'd rather recoup what I can and get the next best thing.

I never said that discs were a bad thing... you stated digital downloads are horrible, I just stated that I prefer them over physical discs.

Often times with physical copies you still technically only own a license for it.

 

[the8thark]

Tell you what, instead of going crazy over other people getting games up to 48 hours in advance, why not "stick to the rules" yourself? If you get something early just keep it unopened, and at 1 minute past midnight open it up wearing the "new game party hat".

This I do. I tell the stores I will pick it up on the day even if it's on sale earlier. And for ones I order online and get early I install them early and wait for the day and hour to play them. I'll never play them early.

I see your point of view. And It's not like I can prevent others breaking the rules so I guess as long as I do the right thing, I'll have a clear conscious.