VGLeaks: Xbox 720 specs rumor

[ddarko]

What's the point of owning a console if it lacks all the benefits to not being just another pc? On many occasions, I've taken a game to a friends house to play, but it looks like those days are over.

Game discs could be linked to the owner's online account, not the console hardware. One of the rumors about the PS4 is that everyone playing together on a console would each be able to log into their individual online accounts and get credit for achievements (this is part of the social aspect that the PS4 is suppose to emphasis). If this is true, then it's a small step further to create anti-used game system that allows you to use a game disc on a friend's console by logging into your account from it. This kind of setup give you the flexibility to play your game on someone else's console while effectively preventing the resale of the game since anyone selling a game would have to provide their online login.

 

[cplusplus]

Nor do the video industry guys seem to appreciate that many people who buy used games are price sensitive so they won't buy new games if used games go away - they just won't buy games, period. They also seem deaf to the argument that even though the sale of a used game may not directly benefit a publisher/developer/console maker, the existence of a secondary resale market ultimately increases the sales of consoles and games because many price sensitive buyers who would otherwise be scared off from a console system if they knew they could only buy $60 new games are willing to commit because of the availability of much cheaper used games.

This is a BS argument. Those gamers are not really "price-sensitive", they're just lazy. Because if they were truly price-sensitive (from this point forward, I'm just calling them cheap), they'd know that pretty much every AAA console game can usually be found for at least $10 off, and usually $20, within a month of release from at least 1 major retailer (Best Buy, Target, Walmart, or even Amazon or Newegg for the online shoppers). And time probably isn't that big of an issue to them since you generally aren't going to find used copies of a game day 1, but even then let's say it is. Multiple retailers (Amazon, Newegg, Best Buy) have recently been offering specials that basically give you store credit for pre-ordering games from them. So you can still have your game day 1 (or close to it if you buy it online), and save an extra $10-20, which is more than you'll generally save by buying the game used from places like Gamestop.

And this anti-used game DRM can work, and is already working right now with Steam, it's just that publishers and the console manufacturers (as the owners and operators of the online infrastructure) are going to have to be willing to do something that they haven't shown that they're willing to do yet. And that's lower prices early and often. Not necessarily at launch, but shortly thereafter, and deeper than they probably would like. Be proactive in your sales, and people won't mind that they can't buy a used copy or sell the copy they have, because that copy came cheap enough that the extra couple dollars saved or the $15-20 they would have gotten back for it wouldn't really matter.

 

[ddarko]

This is a BS argument. Those gamers are not really "price-sensitive", they're just lazy. Because if they were truly price-sensitive (from this point forward, I'm just calling them cheap),

People who buy used games are "lazy" and "cheap" - this says more about you than it is a plausible explanation for why folks buy used games. I'll stay away for demeaning and questionable moral judgments about used games buyers and stick to basic economics. Used game sales exist because there's a demand that new game prices aren't meeting.

And this anti-used game DRM can work, and is already working right now with Steam,

It's working so well that Valve got sued last week by German consumer groups for restricting the resale of games. The relatively brief history of digital goods has been that restrictions of sales that are accepted at first are gradually overturned by market and consumer demand. Almost all digital music is DRM free now and people are starting to chafe against DRM restrictions on other digital products. Trying to apply these restrictions to physical media like game discs is retrograde and backwards.

Be proactive in your sales, and people won't mind that they can't buy a used copy or sell the copy they have, because that copy came cheap enough that the extra couple dollars saved or the $15-20 they would have gotten back for it wouldn't really matter.

Do you really think no one at EA or Take-Two has considered lowering prices and running sales to fight the second hand sales of games? Maybe the reason publishers can't match the used game prices is because they can't, economically. Development, royalties and licensing are the main costs for console games and they impose a floor on new game prices. A used game seller will always have a price advantage because they don't have to recoup any of these costs while a publisher does. Economics, not ignorance or unwillingness to implement an obvious pricing strategy, is the reason why console game publishers haven't been able to lower prices enough to eliminate the price appeal of used games. If it was as easy as you think it is, it would have been done already and publishers and console makers wouldn't have to resort to a technical lockout to try to stamp out used game sales. Game publishers and console makers are attracted to a used game lockout because they're trying to achieve what the free market denies them.

 

[cplusplus]

People who buy used games are "lazy" and "cheap" - this says more about you than it is a plausible explanation for why folks buy used games. I'll stay away for demeaning and questionable moral judgments about used games buyers and stick to basic economics. Used game sales exist because there's a demand that new game prices aren't meeting.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being cheap, because there isn't. I'm saying that the price difference isn't there, especially if you're willing to take store credit instead of cash. Multiple stores will give you $20 off a game in store credit by pre-ordering it (I can give you specific examples from Best Buy, Microsoft's online store, and Amazon), and some will offer games for $10-12 off the price directly before release (Newegg). And that is for a game that you will either be able to pick up the day it releases, or have it shipped to you that day. That right there is much better than buying used from places like Gamestop, and about on the same level (if not a little better, as I don't use Ebay for buying games) as buying used from Ebay, but without the hassle of having to go through the various issues you might have with an Ebay purchase. So if gamers are buying used instead of looking around and using deals like this, then yes, I'm going to call them lazy, because that's exactly what they're being, and costing themselves money by doing so.

 

[American Gunner]

People that are saying they are done with consoles if this happens, what are you going to play? PC has always been this way, so I don't see why it is ok for PC to not have used games but it isn't for consoles.

 

[ddarko]

So if gamers are buying used instead of looking around and using deals like this, then yes, I'm going to call them lazy, because that's exactly what they're being, and costing themselves money by doing so.

What's more plausible if you're a merchant and a competing store is drawing business away from you? That the other store is offering something you're not or that customers are too "lazy" to understand your deals are better? Any merchant that thinks the way you do won't be in business for long. Sorry, the multibillion trade in used games doesn't exist because of customer sloth.

People that are saying they are done with consoles if this happens, what are you going to play? PC has always been this way, so I don't see why it is ok for PC to not have used games but it isn't for consoles.

It's irrelevant. So what if PC games never really developed a big resale market? Why should that mean console gamers should accept the same? Isn't the better question why PC gamers have put up with these restrictions when console gamers haven't?

Whatever the historic reasons for its development, used games sales of console games is an established and popular practice. Folks understandably don't want the option taken away from them. How would you react if Marvel or DC invented a way that prevented anyone from buying or selling used print comic books? Maybe you wouldn't care but I'm pretty sure most comic book readers would be really hostile. It's not a big mystery why lots of people hate this idea.

 

[BoberFett]

People that are saying they are done with consoles if this happens, what are you going to play? PC has always been this way, so I don't see why it is ok for PC to not have used games but it isn't for consoles.

Are you 15? PC gaming has not always been this way. You give your disc to someone else, they install it, they play it. Don't know what you're talking about. Only recently with everyone slobbering all over Steam as the be-all-end-all of gaming have games become locked to a user.

And if the future of gaming is heavy handed DRM, I'll give up the hobby altogether. Board games can be played by *gasp* dozens of people without each of them paying for their own copy.

 

[American Gunner]

Are you 15? PC gaming has not always been this way. You give your disc to someone else, they install it, they play it. Don't know what you're talking about. Only recently with everyone slobbering all over Steam as the be-all-end-all of gaming have games become locked to a user.

And if the future of gaming is heavy handed DRM, I'll give up the hobby altogether. Board games can be played by *gasp* dozens of people without each of them paying for their own copy.

So you're going to give up gaming and play board games because you can't sell off used games? Have fun buddy. I enjoy the games I play, and not being able to sell them isn't the end of the world.

 

[BoberFett]

So you're going to give up gaming and play board games because you can't sell off used games? Have fun buddy. I enjoy the games I play, and not being able to sell them isn't the end of the world.

It's not just about selling used games. It's about buying used games that are no longer in print. It's about loaning games to friends. And you can bet if they go this far, they won't stop there. Have a friend over to play a multiplayer game with you? Have fun buying their one day pass, buddy.

Video games are not the only thing to do in life. If they make it more difficult than it needs to be, there are any number of other activities that are just as enjoyable.

 

[juiio]

People that are saying they are done with consoles if this happens, what are you going to play?

The 30+ years worth of games that I've accumulated, not to mention the major consoles that I have never owned. Even if you are the type of person that doesn't like to replay games, there are almost assuredly still tons of good games that you've never played.

 

[purbeast0]

those of you who only buy used games won't hurt the industry at all by not buying the console, since it's not like you would be giving the companies any money for software down the road anyways.

 

[American Gunner]

those of you who only buy used games won't hurt the industry at all by not buying the console, since it's not like you would be giving the companies any money for software down the road anyways.

This is also true. I very rarely bought used games, but I would trade in game to fund a new game I was on the fence about. I know I was part of the problem, but it's something I don't do anymore. People that talk about the industry failing but then go and only buy used games aren't helping at all.

 

[juiio]

those of you who only buy used games won't hurt the industry at all by not buying the console, since it's not like you would be giving the companies any money for software down the road anyways.

It isn't that simple. There are tons of people who are willing to pay full price for a game because they know that they can sell the game when they are done with it. One of the reasons why companies can charge $60 for a new release is because there is a used game market.

 

[ddarko]

those of you who only buy used games won't hurt the industry at all by not buying the console, since it's not like you would be giving the companies any money for software down the road anyways.

Game publishers and console makers make money from used gamers - sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly. DLC and expansion packs that a used game buyer downloads goes straight to the publisher and console maker. Someone who's reluctant to pay full price for a new game may be willing to give it a shot when it's used, get hooked and buy the sequel at full price. Used games simulates console purchases - the lower the cost to play, the more consoles sold. And used gamers do buy new games by trading in old games.

To think that publishers don't benefit from used gamer sales is tunnel vision and wrong. Anything that encourages people to play video games ultimately helps the console business.

 

[purbeast0]

It isn't that simple. There are tons of people who are willing to pay full price for a game because they know that they can sell the game when they are done with it. One of the reasons why companies can charge $60 for a new release is because there is a used game market.

games should be MUCH more expensive than they are if you were to go by inflation. hell some n64 games cost more than games do now and that was decades ago. but atari games were $50 and that was long long ago. so yea, the used game market has nothing to do with the $60 asking price of games this gen.

Game publishers and console makers make money from used gamers - sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly. DLC and expansion packs that a used game buyer downloads goes straight to the publisher and console maker. Someone who's reluctant to pay full price for a new game may be willing to give it a shot when it's used, get hooked and buy the sequel at full price. Used games simulates console purchases - the lower the cost to play, the more consoles sold. And used gamers do buy new games by trading in old games.

To think that publishers don't benefit from used gamer sales is tunnel vision and wrong. Anything that encourages people to play video games ultimately helps the console business.

that is true, but i'd be willing to bet they have market experts out there who have compared the numbers and there is a reason they would go that route, if they did infact go that route.

typically consoles are sold at a loss, so if people who are ONLY buying used games won't buy the console, it won't be really hurting them much.

but lets also be honest - the majority of people who primarily purchase used games do not fall into your category of people who will buy them then spend a boatload on DLC and buy the sequel brand new. they are typically people who think $60 is overpriced for games and cry about new game prices in general.

 

[ddarko]

but lets also be honest - the majority of people who primarily purchase used games do not fall into your category of people who will buy them then spend a boatload on DLC and buy the sequel brand new. they are typically people who think $60 is overpriced for games and cry about new game prices in general.

That's a stereotype, not honesty. What is the better position for the publisher -

A) a world where used games are banned - the price sensitive consumer who thinks $60 is too much won't buy the new game at all, meaning no sale and no chance of further DLC sale; or

B) a world where used games are allowed - the price sensitive consumer buys the game at $30 and the publisher has the chance to entice the buyer to also purchase the $10 DLC or expansion pack. In this world, even if the gamer buys the DLC, he's still spends a total of $40, less than the $60 new game price he's unwilling to pay under A.

There's no financial model where the publisher is better off in A over B. In A, the software publisher makes nothing and can't make anything. In B, the publisher doesn't get a cut of the used game sale but getting the game in the hands of the gamer opens up the possibility to secure a future DLC sale. It's true the gamer may not buy any DLC but then the publisher is no worse off than it would have been under A. B is still preferable over A because of the opportunity to sell DLC.

 

[juiio]

games should be MUCH more expensive than they are if you were to go by inflation. hell some n64 games cost more than games do now and that was decades ago. but atari games were $50 and that was long long ago. so yea, the used game market has nothing to do with the $60 asking price of games this gen.

What games cost in the past is irrelevant. There are many people who wouldn't pay $60 now without being able to recoup some of that via the used game market. New game sales would drop without a used game market, and supply and demand obviously affects price.

 

[purbeast0]

That's a stereotype, not honesty. What is the better position for the publisher -

A) a world where used games are banned - the price sensitive consumer who thinks $60 is too much won't buy the new game at all, meaning no sale and no chance of further DLC sale; or

B) a world where used games are allowed - the price sensitive consumer buys the game at $30 and the publisher has the chance to entice the buyer to also purchase the $10 DLC or expansion pack. In this world, even if the gamer buys the DLC, he's still spends a total of $40, less than the $60 new game price he's unwilling to pay under A.

There's no financial model where the publisher is better off in A over B. In A, the software publisher makes nothing and can't make anything. In B, the publisher doesn't get a cut of the used game sale but getting the game in the hands of the gamer opens up the possibility to secure a future DLC sale. It's true the gamer may not buy any DLC but then the publisher is no worse off than it would have been under A. B is still preferable over A because of the opportunity to sell DLC.

C) the people who would only buy used games prior now caves and will buy new games because that is all they have the option to do.

that is what the companies are hoping for who are going this route. no one can predict the future though so if it goes this route we'll have to see if their gamble pays off.

What games cost in the past is irrelevant. There are many people who wouldn't pay $60 now without being able to recoup some of that via the used game market. New game sales would drop without a used game market, and supply and demand obviously affects price.

there are many MORE people who are willing to pay $60 for a new game than those who aren't. if there wasn't, the industry wouldn't be setting new records for sales year after year.

i personally don't know one person who buys games for $60 because they know they can resell them to recoup some of the cost. if i personally was going to do that, i'd just redbox the game for a week then get rid of it since that would be cheaper than buying/selling. granted, with this scheme, the redbox situation is out of the picture as well.

 

[juiio]

there are many MORE people who are willing to pay $60 for a new game than those who aren't. if there wasn't, the industry wouldn't be setting new records for sales year after year.

Obviously there are more gamers now than before, but that isn't relevant. We are comparing next generation's market with used game to next generations market without used games, not comparing next generation's market to markets in eras gone by.

 

[ddarko]

C) the people who would only buy used games prior now caves and will buy new games because that is all they have the option to do.

that is what the companies are hoping for who are going this route. no one can predict the future though so if it goes this route we'll have to see if their gamble pays off.

D) people who finance new game purchases with trade-in cut back, leading to a drop of new games sales. Console publishers shoot themselves in foot.

There's no historic or economic evidence that artificial restraint on trade lead to more prosperity or a healthier industry, none whatsoever. What makes you think there's a chance the console biz has discovered a third path that no one has before? Anyone think the car industry would be better off without used car sales? Publishing would be thriving if we got rid of used bookstores? The real estate market would be better if you could only buy new houses? Everyone intuitively understand such restraints would be self-defeating and only hurt their respective industries yet you want to "see if their gamble pays off" in the video console biz. This isn't a "gamble," it's stupidity. The video game market isn't immune from the laws of economics.

 

[American Gunner]

At the end of the day, I don't see MS doing this in this generation. Maybe in the gen after this one everything will be digital, and then all of this won't matter. If anything, I could see the industry going to a code that you need to enter just to play the game. If you buy it used, you will have to spend $10 to be able to play the game, and that money goes back to the developer.

 

[purbeast0]

D) people who finance new game purchases with trade-in cut back, leading to a drop of new games sales. Console publishers shoot themselves in foot.

There's no historic or economic evidence that artificial restraint on trade lead to more prosperity or a healthier industry, none whatsoever. What makes you think there's a chance the console biz has discovered a third path that no one has before? Anyone think the car industry would be better off without used car sales? Publishing would be thriving if we got rid of used bookstores? The real estate market would be better if you could only buy new houses? Everyone intuitively understand such restraints would be self-defeating and backfire yet you want to "see if their gamble pays off" in the video console biz. This isn't a "gamble," it's stupidity. The video game market isn't immune from the laws of economics.

comparing purchasing houses and cars to purchasing $60 entertainment items? really?

and fwiw i am not saying that i think this is going to happen for sure, just that i personally don't care if it does and i can see from their point of view why they may give it a go. i do think it is a pretty stupid idea for them to do this, but again, i can see why they may give it a go.

 

[SaurusX]

Here's a novel question: How do you expect to be able to play the DRM'd games of today 20 years from now? If you need an always-on internet connection or code verification to some server at the publisher's HQ, what happens when that server is turned off? The retro games of the 80's and 90's are still easily enjoyed, because they were stand alone products and not tenuously connected bits of far flung programming code.

 

[ddarko]

comparing purchasing houses and cars to purchasing $60 entertainment items? really?

Yes, really. The supply and demand curve for used cars and houses is the same as it is for used video games. Supply and demand for video games isn't unique or can be compared to the supply and demand of other goods and services.

 

[BoberFett]

those of you who only buy used games won't hurt the industry at all by not buying the console, since it's not like you would be giving the companies any money for software down the road anyways.

Fail. This has been debunked over and over. Used games do support the market, because used games were once new games. Without the ability to sell something you no longer need, the value of a new game MUST decrease. If the price of games does not decrease to match the lessened value, then fewer people will buy the new item.

This is pretty basic economics.