Xbox Series X

[cmdrdredd]

Mad? Why? I feel a little sad.
I don't know why people are so attached to inserting plastic discs into devices.
If someone is so frightened of downloading games from cloud, how will he survive... not being able to download them at all? Because unless you're 70 or older, you'll very likely see a cloud-only console generation.

Is this the first time you're saying farewell to a physical media type?

I precisely said buying an Xbox and a separate 2-year subscription makes no sense. Yes, I meant that it's more expensive that way.
I commend your arithmetic proficiency.

Very much so. Enthusiasts + people who just like to preorder stuff and have it before the neighbour (this is mostly a cultural thing).

Most people just buy a console when they feel like gaming. This is pretty much built into the console user experience (which is meant to be more relaxing and casual).
This is why we still see PS4 and Xbox One being sold, which is probably something many forum members find impossible to digest.

A lot of people do t pay for unlimited data from their ISP. To download all the games they want would eat up their data too quick. And there are collectors and the whole “if I delete it but 4 years later I wanna play I can just put in the disc”. There are reasons.

 

[piokos]

A lot of people do t pay for unlimited data from their ISP. To download all the games they want would eat up their data too quick. And there are collectors and the whole “if I delete it but 4 years later I wanna play I can just put in the disc”. There are reasons.

I'm not saying there aren't any reasons (although I'm still shocked anyone living in a developed country would have to pay for data on a broadband - that is just absurd).

I'm simply saying that being so attached to discs, showing absolutely no will to migrate to digital (even criticizing digital-only console existence), will ultimately become a problem.

You can get many old games on MS store, often for very little money. And - theoretically - it'll keep working forever, whereas physical media won't.
25 years ago moving to a unified data media seemed like a great idea. CDs were way cheaper and smaller (at least thinner) than cartridges. Then we got DVD/BR and you could use the console for watching movies.
Today the optical drive is hardly useful for most and it's just as huge as it was in 1995.
If physical media has to remain with us for now (because some unfortunate people have to pay for their home transfer) - fine, that's an obvious argument. So why not move back to cartridges? Or standardized flash cards? They're cheap, small, fast.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I'm not saying there aren't any reasons (although I'm still shocked anyone living in a developed country would have to pay for data on a broadband - that is just absurd).

I'm simply saying that being so attached to discs, showing absolutely no will to migrate to digital (even criticizing digital-only console existence), will ultimately become a problem.

You can get many old games on MS store, often for very little money. And - theoretically - it'll keep working forever, whereas physical media won't.
25 years ago moving to a unified data media seemed like a great idea. CDs were way cheaper and smaller (at least thinner) than cartridges. Then we got DVD/BR and you could use the console for watching movies.
Today the optical drive is hardly useful for most and it's just as huge as it was in 1995.
If physical media has to remain with us for now (because some unfortunate people have to pay for their home transfer) - fine, that's an obvious argument. So why not move back to cartridges? Or standardized flash cards? They're cheap, small, fast.

Cause carts cost more than optical media.

I’m surprised you didn’t realize ISPs charge for data. I mean Comcast and AT&T are likely the biggest in the US and both have data caps. You can pay for more data or pay for unlimited. There may be some that do not have a cap but as far as I know all the major ones do. You may also forget that some people living way outside the urban areas have almost no broadband access. My uncle for example is in rural Ohio and has to pay for satellite broadband which is much more expensive.

 

[purbeast0]

I've bought multiple games at launch that I simply did not like and ended up selling them. That is not possible with digital games.

The 2 most recent ones I can remember this gen are Kirby and Mario Aces on Switch. Kirby was just way too easy and I beat it so quickly and just did not like it really. Mario Aces had some tacked on single player that I finished in like 3 sessions of playing, and then I went online and it was awful with lag everywhere.

I paid $60 for both of these at launch. I sold both of them for $40.

Had I purchased those digital, I would have been out the $80 I ended up getting back for them.

I also got PSVR with Skyrim and sold Skyrim because I don't like it. Had it been digital that wouldn't have been possible.

My buddies and I also have game nights where we all hang out and play random ass games and we all bring over various games. Not possible with digital copies.

I will stick with physical media as long as possible.

 

[piokos]

Cause carts cost more than optical media.

Oh come on. New console games cost $50.
How much would it cost to put them even on standard SD cards? $1 per copy?
That could be easily offset by the savings coming from a MUCH smaller box and not having to use expensive optical drives in consoles.

In the end this has nothing to do with cost or practicality. Some people simply like buying BIG BOXES. And everyone else has to suffer.
Which means everyone else had to wait until digital-only consoles became feasible.

<RANT>
The optical drive in a console is the last one most people will own in their lifetime. They already don't have it in their PCs, their audio equipment, their cars.
Both MS and Sony built the whole next gen marketing around hugely fast, modern SSDs and the great features that became possible.
And in the same device you get a big, stupid optical drive from the 90s that runs big, stupid Blu-ray discs from mid 2000s.
Sony makes archive discs that are 10x more dense than BR, which means games could have already been sold on 8cm discs (or smaller).

Don't you find it a little weird that BR is still used in a console that's marketed as the latest and greatest in entertainment technology? Really?
</RANT>

I’m surprised you didn’t realize ISPs charge for data. I mean Comcast and AT&T are likely the biggest in the US and both have data caps.

 

[DeathReborn]

Part of selling their move to digital to us consumers was cheaper games, I have yet to see any evidence of that but I have seen copious evidence of QA on games getting worse.

 

[piokos]

I've bought multiple games at launch that I simply did not like and ended up selling them. That is not possible with digital games.

There's no technical or legal reason why a digital copy couldn't be made "resellable".
There's also no reason a physical disc copy wouldn't have to be assigned to a single user account forever.

This reality we live is just an extension of times where we had no Internet and no feasible way to "register" a game.
For now, console makers decided not to change how physical copies work.
This could be easily changed with a new console gen. It won't happen this year, but don't take this for granted.

The only missing element is either having all consoles connected to the Internet (not necessarily via your ISP - could be a GSM chip) or making the physical media writeable.

In fact, it would be good for game studios as well, because they could enforce a "minimal" using time (say: a month).
Whereas today physical media can change hands on daily basis and be used by countless people. You can buy a single copy with your neighbour.

What we're talking about is the main reason why console games are more expensive than PC games. Console users are more into reselling or lending their games. They used to go to game rental stores a lot more often as well.

I paid $60 for both of these at launch. I sold both of them for $40.

Had I purchased those digital, I would have been out the $80 I ended up getting back for them.

That's just backwards thinking. If no game could be resold, they could be sold for less in the first place. I'm not saying they would be.

 

[purbeast0]

There's no technical or legal reason why a digital copy couldn't be made "resellable".
There's also no reason a physical disc copy wouldn't have to be assigned to a single user account forever.

This reality we live is just an extension of times where we had no Internet and no feasible way to "register" a game.
For now, console makers decided not to change how physical copies work.
This could be easily changed with a new console gen. It won't happen this year, but don't take this for granted.

The only missing element is either having all consoles connected to the Internet (not necessarily via your ISP - could be a GSM chip) or making the physical media writeable.

In fact, it would be good for game studios as well, because they could enforce a "minimal" using time (say: a month).
Whereas today physical media can change hands on daily basis and be used by countless people. You can buy a single copy with your neighbour.

What we're talking about is the main reason why console games are more expensive than PC games. Console users are more into reselling or lending their games. They used to go to game rental stores a lot more often as well.

That's just backwards thinking. If no game could be resold, they could be sold for less in the first place. I'm not saying they would be.

Digital games can't be resold, and they aren't being sold for less. Not really sure what you were blabbing about other than that.

As @DeathReborn said cheaper digital games was promised to us and it never became a reality.

Like if they sold digital games at launch for $50 and retail games for $60, I am pretty confident you'd see a major increase in digital copies over physical.

 

[piokos]

Part of selling their move to digital to us consumers was cheaper games, I have yet to see any evidence of that but I have seen copious evidence of QA on games getting worse.

Latest games cost more or less the same no matter which form you choose. But games may be cheaper in general. We'll never know that.
I'm not sure if there was any promise that a digital copy would be cheaper than one on a disc (with both on offer). Who gave it?

As for older games, I think digital stores worked out pretty well (on PCs as well). You can buy countless older titles that would be really hard to find in stores. And pricing during sales (which happen all the time) is excellent.

Digital games can't be resold, and they aren't being sold for less. Not really sure what you were blabbing about other than that.

They can't be resold because of a choice MS made.
There's no reason why they couldn't be resold in the future (it's easy to implement).
Just like there's no reason why physical copies wouldn't be assigned to the first buyer forever (this is slightly more challenging).
This is what I meant.

Like if they sold digital games at launch for $50 and retail games for $60, I am pretty confident you'd see a major increase in digital copies over physical.

I don't know why that would make any sense for the game studios - willingly sacrificing profit. You have some good theory on that?

I can only assure you that personally (and I'm not selling the games I finished nor buying used) I probably pay less for digital than I would for physical. That's because I don't focus on the latest titles and the sales on MS store are pretty great. But I've never really thought about the savings. I buy digital games for convenience.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Oh come on. New console games cost $50.
How much would it cost to put them even on standard SD cards? $1 per copy?
That could be easily offset by the savings coming from a MUCH smaller box and not having to use expensive optical drives in consoles.

In the end this has nothing to do with cost or practicality. Some people simply like buying BIG BOXES. And everyone else has to suffer.
Which means everyone else had to wait until digital-only consoles became feasible.


The optical drive in a console is the last one most people will own in their lifetime. They already don't have it in their PCs, their audio equipment, their cars.
Both MS and Sony built the whole next gen marketing around hugely fast, modern SSDs and the great features that became possible.
And in the same device you get a big, stupid optical drive from the 90s that runs big, stupid Blu-ray discs from mid 2000s.
Sony makes archive discs that are 10x more dense than BR, which means games could have already been sold on 8cm discs (or smaller).

Don't you find it a little weird that BR is still used in a console that's marketed as the latest and greatest in entertainment technology? Really?


View attachment 30617

My PC has a blu-ray burner, the cost of a million memory cards is undoubtedly much higher than a million blank optical discs, people still buy movies on disc because the quality is better and they actually own it(plus the extras on the disc), heck people still buy records because the sound is different.

Your usage doesn’t translate to everyone else. You really should stop thinking everything revolves around you. People do want the physical copy, it’s not hard to understand this.

Also sony already tried many times to release consumer hardware that used their proprietary media and memory formats. All failed miserably. I also gave up trying to figure out what your map is trying to say.

You are in your own world and won’t accept any facts, just you’re biased opinion.

 

[purbeast0]

They can't be resold because of a choice MS made.

This has nothing to do with MS. It's a digital thing. Sony and Nintendo are in the same boat. I don't game on PC but a quick google search says you can't sell Steam games either.

I will continue to live in the real world while you keep talking about what "could" be happening in the real world.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Part of selling their move to digital to us consumers was cheaper games, I have yet to see any evidence of that but I have seen copious evidence of QA on games getting worse.

Same for movies. We have Disney selling theatrical releases for $30 on a service you have to pay $7/mo to access. I’ve never paid anywhere near $30 to watch a movie in the theater and I could buy the UHD Blu-Ray for less than that when it releases. There is no discount for going digital that’s for sure.

 

[cmdrdredd]

What we're talking about is the main reason why console games are more expensive than PC games. Console users are more into reselling or lending their games. They used to go to game rental stores a lot more often as well.

False a new release pc game is the same price as a new release ps4 game. You can’t talk about steam sales and buying old games without counting physical game sales from retailers including Black Friday, buy 2 get 1 free deals etc. Not to mention buying games used can save some cash too.

 

[purbeast0]

Same for movies. We have Disney selling theatrical releases for $30 on a service you have to pay $7/mo to access. I’ve never paid anywhere near $30 to watch a movie in the theater and I could buy the UHD Blu-Ray for less than that when it releases. There is no discount for going digital that’s for sure.

Yeah but when you have a family of 4, $30 is cheaper than $60.

Like we rented Scoob and The Trolls sequel for $20 and didn't feel bad about it. 3 of us watched it.

But I do agree that Mulan being $30 (thought it was $35) on a $7/month subscription service is ridiculous. Especially when they put out Onward for free on there months prior.

 

[JujuFish]

Yeah but when you have a family of 4, $30 is cheaper than $60.

Like we rented Scoob and The Trolls sequel for $20 and didn't feel bad about it. 3 of us watched it.

But I do agree that Mulan being $30 (thought it was $35) on a $7/month subscription service is ridiculous. Especially when they put out Onward for free on there months prior.

Mulan will also be free.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yeah but when you have a family of 4, $30 is cheaper than $60.

Like we rented Scoob and The Trolls sequel for $20 and didn't feel bad about it. 3 of us watched it.

But I do agree that Mulan being $30 (thought it was $35) on a $7/month subscription service is ridiculous. Especially when they put out Onward for free on there months prior.

They did it that way because all theaters (maybe not all but most anyway) were closed and they weren’t going to make any money. They made the decision to sell it on their service rather than postpone the release like other movies. It will eventually be free on there after a while. You aren’t wrong though that a family to the theater is way more than $30.

 

[purbeast0]

Mulan will also be free.

They did it that way because all theaters (maybe not all but most anyway) were closed and they weren’t going to make any money. They made the decision to sell it on their service rather than postpone the release like other movies. It will eventually be free on there after a while. You aren’t wrong though that a family to the theater is way more than $30.

Onward was included for free on Disney+ like 3 or 4 weeks after it was released in the theaters due to covid. I highly doubt it made much money at all because it was right when covid became a thing.

It's already like 3-4 weeks since Mulan release and I don't expect it to be free on there any time soon.

 

[Aikouka]

Personally, I prefer having an optical drive simply because physical games are an option. The only downside to a physical game is that loading that game requires you to insert the disc. It can be a bit of a pain, but when you consider the benefits (as other users have noted), there's at least a useful nature.

Same for movies. We have Disney selling theatrical releases for $30 on a service you have to pay $7/mo to access. I’ve never paid anywhere near $30 to watch a movie in the theater and I could buy the UHD Blu-Ray for less than that when it releases. There is no discount for going digital that’s for sure.

To be fair, these theatrical rentals are mostly because they have no way of controlling the number of viewers. Although, what made Mulan weird is that if you just wait until December, it's free to watch on Disney+.

Digital games can't be resold, and they aren't being sold for less. Not really sure what you were blabbing about other than that.

I've mentioned this before, but even though PC users like to talk about how digital storefronts provide cheaper games, I somewhat disagree with that. The thing is that physical games take up physical space in warehoueses and stores. This space is valuable to the store/company, and as a result, if a product (game) doesn't sell as well as they'd like, it will be marked down. It isn't crazy that I see a physical game listed on Slickdeals for a discount, and I've never seen anything close to that on any digital storefront including console and PC (maybe excluding gray-market key resellers).

My buddies and I also have game nights where we all hang out and play random ass games and we all bring over various games. Not possible with digital copies.

This reminds me of Microsoft's ill-fated digital-only push for the Xbox One. The one thing that I really liked about it was that they wanted to push this idea of sharing games. It meant that I could buy games, and share my library with my brother, or in your case, your friends could share them amongst each other. Although, in this dream scenario, my only worry would be that they take a Steam-like approach where if someone is playing a game from your library, you cannot play ANY games. (That even happens if you're logged into two PCs in the same house.)

It's already like 3-4 weeks since Mulan release and I don't expect it to be free on there any time soon.

As noted above, the movie will be free for all Disney+ users in December. The $30 cost is a fee for "early viewing".

 

[purbeast0]

As noted above, the movie will be free for all Disney+ users in December. The $30 cost is a fee for "early viewing".

Again, Onward came out on Disney+ without an "early viewing" fee. Or actually it may have been on there for a week with a fee (think it was $20 or $25) but we waited a week for it to be free.

Mulan will have been on Disney+ for 3+ months before it is free on their, which is pretty much the standard time frame a movie is in the theaters now a days.

 

[quikah]

Again, Onward came out on Disney+ without an "early viewing" fee. Or actually it may have been on there for a week with a fee (think it was $20 or $25) but we waited a week for it to be free.

Mulan will have been on Disney+ for 3+ months before it is free on their, which is pretty much the standard time frame a movie is in the theaters now a days.

Onward was actually released in Theaters at the same time the pandemic blew up. I think Disney kind of panicked. They had time to setup Mulan release on digital.

 

[DeathReborn]

Yeah but when you have a family of 4, $30 is cheaper than $60.

Like we rented Scoob and The Trolls sequel for $20 and didn't feel bad about it. 3 of us watched it.

But I do agree that Mulan being $30 (thought it was $35) on a $7/month subscription service is ridiculous. Especially when they put out Onward for free on there months prior.

In the UK Mulan is £19.99 (had to look it up as I do not use Disney+) while cinema tickets near me are £4.99 each and on Tuesday & Wednesday you can get 2 for 1 tickets. It's stupid how some countries get it free (after subscription cost) and others pay through the nose.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Onward was included for free on Disney+ like 3 or 4 weeks after it was released in the theaters due to covid. I highly doubt it made much money at all because it was right when covid became a thing.

It's already like 3-4 weeks since Mulan release and I don't expect it to be free on there any time soon.

Onward made 168million at the box office. Mulan made 0 from theater sales. It’s possible they are waiting for it to hit some magic number before it rolls over to being free for subscribers. It’s also possible they will milk it until nobody is paying $30 for it which may be a while. Why make it free if people are paying?

I see it mentioned free in December but I didn’t see this announcement. Though to be fair I hadn’t followed too close. I actually would have gone to see it in theaters, looked like a cool martial arts fantasy movie.

 

[purbeast0]

Damn I would not have expected Onward made that much since it was out for so little time. It was a great movie btw.

 

[JujuFish]

Onward made 168million at the box office. Mulan made 0 from theater sales. It’s possible they are waiting for it to hit some magic number before it rolls over to being free for subscribers. It’s also possible they will milk it until nobody is paying $30 for it which may be a while. Why make it free if people are paying?

I see it mentioned free in December but I didn’t see this announcement. Though to be fair I hadn’t followed too close. I actually would have gone to see it in theaters, looked like a cool martial arts fantasy movie.

They announced like a month ago that it would be free on December 4th.

 

[cmdrdredd]

They announced like a month ago that it would be free on December 4th.

That’s cool. I’ll watch it then.