- 9,134
- 1,012
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
so what happens if ms and sony say no? the publishers are gonna survive on that pc money?
this is MS saying "give us exclusives and we'll do it" and sony saying "we can't let them have games we dont so we'll do it"
The Old PlayStation Thread | *NEW THREAD IS UP*
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by iheartboost,
- Start date
this is MS saying "give us exclusives and we'll do it" and sony saying "we can't let them have games we dont so we'll do it"
- 12,462
- 11,638
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
E3 is exactly 2 weeks away. I'm hearing big things will happen. Sony looks on point more than ever from what some insiders have been saying.
PS+ didn't come on Vita till last November right which was like 10 months after release so I'm not expecting much as far as games but then again PS4's third party situation is a lot different so maybe some of the indie games will be on it.
I thought this as well but if you think about the system MS have in place, they will get a cut of every used game sale. They will earn millions with that system in place and even with games they haven't developed
I heard it will still be $60.
- 1,556
- 1,178
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
This is an honest question for our resident NT devs such as HybridSoldier: are used games really that big of a deal for you guys? I know your companies pour millions of $$ into developing your games but aren't you guys making even more in profit?How does the movie industry do it when it comes to Netflix, redbox, and borrowing movies?
This doesn't apply to me anymore, but I remember when I was younger, trips to Blockbuster was the best thing in the world. We didnt have too much money back then, so being able to borrow different games for $5 instead of paying full price opened up games for me. That along with being able to trade games with my friends on the playground was a must.
I think it's pretty messed up for these video game companies to alienate those who are less fortunate just so they can try get a piece of the used games $$ pie.
This doesn't apply to me anymore, but I remember when I was younger, trips to Blockbuster was the best thing in the world. We didnt have too much money back then, so being able to borrow different games for $5 instead of paying full price opened up games for me. That along with being able to trade games with my friends on the playground was a must.
I think it's pretty messed up for these video game companies to alienate those who are less fortunate just so they can try get a piece of the used games $$ pie.
- 63,610
- 50,738
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
i agree what abut when family members hand down their older games to siblings? it isnt like they are purposefully trying to get over on games. not to mention arent games just like other retail products where as a company buys wholesale for a cheaper price then sells for msrp. arent u guys getting money regardless
- 17,034
- 7,981
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2008
I was hoping with the streaming service, Geikei, that Sony acquired you'd see digital rentals where a portion would be kicked back to Sony and to the developer.
- 12,462
- 11,638
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
Good article to read in addition to what Hybrid willl say
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Di...n-2012-Used-Game-Sales-Retail-Down-54210.html
- 49,030
- 61,328
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
Your right both parties do benefit from this
- 1,556
- 1,178
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
From what I gather from this article, it says that the used games market are a fraction of the entire video game market and are declining. If that is the case, then why would the Video Game companies care to dip in to this declining market at the expense of bad pr, backlash, or even worse less money, if the consumer were to just be mad at the situation and just erase video games out of their budget.
I've also read that their biggest rivals and main source of concern is mobile gaming such as the iOS, android, etc. The casual gamer (I would assume are younger than 15 years and older than 30 years old) is starting to set their sights on these mobile games as opposed to video game consoles. They don't have to go out of their way to get a new console since their smartphone or tablet is capable of running these games on top of its other main functions.
Why would the video games companies put themselves risk by further alienating the casual gamers by making full fledged consoles a more expensive hobby (by not having some kind of Used games market/ taking away renting and borrowing from blockbuster or friends) and lose the casual gamers to the mobile games. The casual gamers (and their parents) see iOS games which are are $.99 - $4.99 and would surely take that over $30-$60 or $20 if you want to include the "Greatest Hits" (since that would be the only price available for new or "Used with a Fee" games).
- 10,799
- 3,525
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
There's a few things I take issue with in that Cinemablend article and while I'm not in sales and marketing I have seen how our higher-ups have clamored for change and how the industry has been changed because of the used games hit. The development process had to be changed about 6 years ago because publishers needed (or jumped on) a new business model to recoup development costs which skyrocketed in the PS3/360 generation.
The first thing I want to mention is that the numbers don't reflect all used games sales. They're leaving off the sales that happen via personal sale, eBay, or Craigslist. The second thing is of course DLC is up because it's become almost mandatory for games to push out DLC. The whole debacle with Capcom and the on-disc DLC was really telling, even though there was significant backlash about the on-disc DLC (which I personally feel is a total rip-off to the consumer) they still made a great profit with the DLC of SFxTekken and RE:6.
Designers will sit back and tell you things like "We have tried to mitigate it by creating games that offer re-playability, by supporting them with DLC that's worth hanging onto the game for, or offering tools that let them take things further." However, it's the investors and publishers who are dictating the amount of DLC to be added NOT the designers. Obviously, we want to keep you playing and we want to give you the best experience possible but for a designer to sit back and say that DLC is a service to the player is plain BS.
DLC is there to make money and is a direct response to the rising costs of development and needing more profitability. You should all know by now that most of the DLC was already planned from conception and has been held back so it can be released later for profit. Now I'm not saying that all DLC is 100% done by launch (make no mistake, some is) but they certainly have already had massive work put in during the normal production cycle and very well could have made it into the shipped game. Sometimes things are held back because they're not done, if first week sales are strong enough the investors will be willing push out DLC for more profit and give a little more time and money so that the DLC can ship. How many times have you played some DLC that feels like it was just a left of level/scenario or that it was something that got resurrected from the cutting room floor? How many times have you sat there and said why wasn't this just included in the normal game? I'd love to sit back and say that DLC should be delivered in a better manner with higher quality content or expansions but as long as you guys keep buying it it's never going to stop.
In the same vein, the more that you guys clamor for used games the more that the publishers and investors know that you will continue to pay for them. So why not cut out the middle man? Why shouldn't the publisher's and the console makers themselves reap the all the rewards. I've NEVER been against used games for the consumer, I've been against retailers like Gamestop, reselling and getting rich off of the hard work of other people and still screwing you over with crappy trade-in value and prices. Gamestop earned roughly 48% of its gross profits from used games, that's half their freaking business. It disgusts me. As a retailer they should be making about 30% on new game sales. When there's a used game sale first of all you get shafted on trade in value and second they're keeping 100% of the profits. The break down looks like this for new games (based off a $50 price tag)
View media item 431640
I want a solution where the developers console makers and publishers all get a cut without a middleman. I want the consumers to get a FAIR price for their games and to be able to access them from anywhere. I DO NOT want people to STEAL games like they STEAL music. If that means there has to be authentication checks through the internet then so be it.
The last thing about that article that bugs me is the statement "Used games only account for $1.59 billion in revenue, which means that a year's-worth of the used game market barely makes up for a fraction of what Activision Blizzard or Electronic Arts make in a single quarter." Right there you're looking at the two giants in the industry. The rest of the publishers aren't raking in near the amount of money as those two behemoths. Losing 1.59 billion is nothing to scoff at.
I'd go on about mobile gaming but honestly I don't want to even get into it in this post. The majority of publishers and developers are fine with what the mobile market brings to the table. Mobile games do not replace console or PC games and mobile game revenue can be used to supplement bigger budget console games.
Oh and someone asked a few pages back why I won't disclose who I work for. Well if you look at just the content of this post there's more than enough of controversial statements that could reflect back on me personally or on the studio I work for. Not to mention my other personal opinions here on NT. It's nice to be able to remain semi-anonymous on here and be able to discuss and post the information that I do in here and other threads without feeling like there could be recourse in my current or future job. If I want to get into a lengthy professional discussion devoid of opinion I'll use my NeoGAF account for that. I don't want to end up like this guy:
http://kotaku.com/5966058/ex+developers-rant-reveals-why-madden-is-a-dream-job-and-disillusioning
The first thing I want to mention is that the numbers don't reflect all used games sales. They're leaving off the sales that happen via personal sale, eBay, or Craigslist. The second thing is of course DLC is up because it's become almost mandatory for games to push out DLC. The whole debacle with Capcom and the on-disc DLC was really telling, even though there was significant backlash about the on-disc DLC (which I personally feel is a total rip-off to the consumer) they still made a great profit with the DLC of SFxTekken and RE:6.
Designers will sit back and tell you things like "We have tried to mitigate it by creating games that offer re-playability, by supporting them with DLC that's worth hanging onto the game for, or offering tools that let them take things further." However, it's the investors and publishers who are dictating the amount of DLC to be added NOT the designers. Obviously, we want to keep you playing and we want to give you the best experience possible but for a designer to sit back and say that DLC is a service to the player is plain BS.
DLC is there to make money and is a direct response to the rising costs of development and needing more profitability. You should all know by now that most of the DLC was already planned from conception and has been held back so it can be released later for profit. Now I'm not saying that all DLC is 100% done by launch (make no mistake, some is) but they certainly have already had massive work put in during the normal production cycle and very well could have made it into the shipped game. Sometimes things are held back because they're not done, if first week sales are strong enough the investors will be willing push out DLC for more profit and give a little more time and money so that the DLC can ship. How many times have you played some DLC that feels like it was just a left of level/scenario or that it was something that got resurrected from the cutting room floor? How many times have you sat there and said why wasn't this just included in the normal game? I'd love to sit back and say that DLC should be delivered in a better manner with higher quality content or expansions but as long as you guys keep buying it it's never going to stop.
In the same vein, the more that you guys clamor for used games the more that the publishers and investors know that you will continue to pay for them. So why not cut out the middle man? Why shouldn't the publisher's and the console makers themselves reap the all the rewards. I've NEVER been against used games for the consumer, I've been against retailers like Gamestop, reselling and getting rich off of the hard work of other people and still screwing you over with crappy trade-in value and prices. Gamestop earned roughly 48% of its gross profits from used games, that's half their freaking business. It disgusts me. As a retailer they should be making about 30% on new game sales. When there's a used game sale first of all you get shafted on trade in value and second they're keeping 100% of the profits. The break down looks like this for new games (based off a $50 price tag)
View media item 431640
I want a solution where the developers console makers and publishers all get a cut without a middleman. I want the consumers to get a FAIR price for their games and to be able to access them from anywhere. I DO NOT want people to STEAL games like they STEAL music. If that means there has to be authentication checks through the internet then so be it.
The last thing about that article that bugs me is the statement "Used games only account for $1.59 billion in revenue, which means that a year's-worth of the used game market barely makes up for a fraction of what Activision Blizzard or Electronic Arts make in a single quarter." Right there you're looking at the two giants in the industry. The rest of the publishers aren't raking in near the amount of money as those two behemoths. Losing 1.59 billion is nothing to scoff at.
I'd go on about mobile gaming but honestly I don't want to even get into it in this post. The majority of publishers and developers are fine with what the mobile market brings to the table. Mobile games do not replace console or PC games and mobile game revenue can be used to supplement bigger budget console games.
Oh and someone asked a few pages back why I won't disclose who I work for. Well if you look at just the content of this post there's more than enough of controversial statements that could reflect back on me personally or on the studio I work for. Not to mention my other personal opinions here on NT. It's nice to be able to remain semi-anonymous on here and be able to discuss and post the information that I do in here and other threads without feeling like there could be recourse in my current or future job. If I want to get into a lengthy professional discussion devoid of opinion I'll use my NeoGAF account for that. I don't want to end up like this guy:
http://kotaku.com/5966058/ex+developers-rant-reveals-why-madden-is-a-dream-job-and-disillusioning
Last edited:
- 23,342
- 5,982
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
E3 will reveal finalize price.
- 1,556
- 1,178
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
Thanks for the insight Hybrid. Its good to hear from an actual Developer's POV...
So it looks like we're on the same page on:
- how having no used games is bad for the consumer
- DLC being a little bit of a rip off at times (but its understandable in that its an OPTION for the consumer to spend extra money for more content and therefore bringing more money for the Devs/Publishers)
Do You have any ideas on how to cut out the middleman of the used games market and keeping from pushing the development costs to the consumer?
- 13,708
- 2,819
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
Hybrid, as usual, touched pretty much every point. Thank you sir.
The DLC situation is definitely a tricky one. There's been more than one time where we've been working on something, and while it would just need a little more testing before launch, we'd get the call from upstairs saying,"Just hold it for DLC." It sucks, but this is the business that we live in. There has to be some way to keep the consumers playing and not trading it in so GameStop can get all the money, and this is what works right now.
Last edited:
- 12,462
- 11,638
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
Thanks for the post Hybrid and sorry about posting the article. Didn't know how wrong it was.
Looking at the breakdown of where the money goes, DLC must cut out a lot of the middlemen.
Do you think we will see a bigger push next gen for digital games? I see Sony promoting Day 1 digital and the only thing holding them back is the price. Might that change next gen for the devs to see more of their money?
Looking at the breakdown of where the money goes, DLC must cut out a lot of the middlemen.
Do you think we will see a bigger push next gen for digital games? I see Sony promoting Day 1 digital and the only thing holding them back is the price. Might that change next gen for the devs to see more of their money?
rell826
Banned
- 6,740
- 2,125
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2013
I simply don't complain about DLC anymore. Most of it is useless crap, but the general public is too stupid to realize it. I'm not going to keep forking over $10-15 for useless microtransactions like maps which should have been included in the game to begin with. I refuse to buy DLC unless it truly brings something to the table. Mass Effect 3s DLC was a wash as was Assassin Creed IIIs George Washington. My problem with DLC today is that developers have the audacity to announce it months before the game releases.
Last edited:
- 12,462
- 11,638
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
This!!
Kepp that stuff to yourself till it's ready. After what happened to capcom I don't know why people still announce it before the game has come out.
People need to look at Polyphony with Gran Turismo 5. They did DLC properly
- 17,034
- 7,981
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2008
Its to the point I want for any Bethesda game to come out with a GOTY or Premium edition with all DLC before I even buy it. You just know its coming.
- 951
- 34
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
Wed, May 29, 2013 | 17:31 BST
[h1]PS4: PS Vita remote-play support mandatory for all games[/h1]
PlayStation 4 titles must all support PS Vita remote-play functionality, and the only exception is games that use the PS4 Eye camera.
Noted as a rumor earlier, the news was confirmed by Sony Computer Entertainment Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida on Twitter.
“Yes, it’s true unless the game requires specific hardware like the camera,” he said.. “It will be great to play PS4 games on PS Vita.”
The original information came froma Eurogamer Digital Foundry report, which stated: “A trusted PlayStation 4 developer source with a proven track record for accuracy has told Digital Foundry that Sony has mandated Vita Remote Play for all upcoming PS4 games – except those that require the use of its bundled stereoscopic camera, the PS4 Eye.”
Such a move could propel interest in PS Vita handhelds moving forward, providing the same brand of off-TV play currently employed on Wii U.
The earlier report added that cross-play between PS4 and PS Vita will downscale the, “1080p framebuffer to the Vita’s native 960×544 resolution, using the PS4′s in-built hardware h.264 video encoder to compress the image”, which is then transferred to the handheld via Wi-fi.
Would you use this feature? Would it make you more inclined to buy a PS Vita? Let us know below.
Thanks CVG.
[h1]PS4: PS Vita remote-play support mandatory for all games[/h1]
PlayStation 4 titles must all support PS Vita remote-play functionality, and the only exception is games that use the PS4 Eye camera.
Noted as a rumor earlier, the news was confirmed by Sony Computer Entertainment Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida on Twitter.
“Yes, it’s true unless the game requires specific hardware like the camera,” he said.. “It will be great to play PS4 games on PS Vita.”
The original information came froma Eurogamer Digital Foundry report, which stated: “A trusted PlayStation 4 developer source with a proven track record for accuracy has told Digital Foundry that Sony has mandated Vita Remote Play for all upcoming PS4 games – except those that require the use of its bundled stereoscopic camera, the PS4 Eye.”
Such a move could propel interest in PS Vita handhelds moving forward, providing the same brand of off-TV play currently employed on Wii U.
The earlier report added that cross-play between PS4 and PS Vita will downscale the, “1080p framebuffer to the Vita’s native 960×544 resolution, using the PS4′s in-built hardware h.264 video encoder to compress the image”, which is then transferred to the handheld via Wi-fi.
Would you use this feature? Would it make you more inclined to buy a PS Vita? Let us know below.
Thanks CVG.
- 9,134
- 1,012
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
ps4 while i watch tvWed, May 29, 2013 | 17:31 BST
[h1]PS4: PS Vita remote-play support mandatory for all games[/h1]
PlayStation 4 titles must all support PS Vita remote-play functionality, and the only exception is games that use the PS4 Eye camera.
Noted as a rumor earlier, the news was confirmed by Sony Computer Entertainment Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida on Twitter.
“Yes, it’s true unless the game requires specific hardware like the camera,” he said.. “It will be great to play PS4 games on PS Vita.”
The original information came froma Eurogamer Digital Foundry report, which stated: “A trusted PlayStation 4 developer source with a proven track record for accuracy has told Digital Foundry that Sony has mandated Vita Remote Play for all upcoming PS4 games – except those that require the use of its bundled stereoscopic camera, the PS4 Eye.”
Such a move could propel interest in PS Vita handhelds moving forward, providing the same brand of off-TV play currently employed on Wii U.
The earlier report added that cross-play between PS4 and PS Vita will downscale the, “1080p framebuffer to the Vita’s native 960×544 resolution, using the PS4′s in-built hardware h.264 video encoder to compress the image”, which is then transferred to the handheld via Wi-fi.
Would you use this feature? Would it make you more inclined to buy a PS Vita? Let us know below.
Thanks CVG.
Last edited:
- 3,272
- 627
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2012
Wed, May 29, 2013 | 17:31 BST
[h1]PS4: PS Vita remote-play support mandatory for all games[/h1]
PlayStation 4 titles must all support PS Vita remote-play functionality, and the only exception is games that use the PS4 Eye camera.
Noted as a rumor earlier, the news was confirmed by Sony Computer Entertainment Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida on Twitter.
“Yes, it’s true unless the game requires specific hardware like the camera,” he said.. “It will be great to play PS4 games on PS Vita.”
The original information came froma Eurogamer Digital Foundry report, which stated: “A trusted PlayStation 4 developer source with a proven track record for accuracy has told Digital Foundry that Sony has mandated Vita Remote Play for all upcoming PS4 games – except those that require the use of its bundled stereoscopic camera, the PS4 Eye.”
Such a move could propel interest in PS Vita handhelds moving forward, providing the same brand of off-TV play currently employed on Wii U.
The earlier report added that cross-play between PS4 and PS Vita will downscale the, “1080p framebuffer to the Vita’s native 960×544 resolution, using the PS4′s in-built hardware h.264 video encoder to compress the image”, which is then transferred to the handheld via Wi-fi.
Would you use this feature? Would it make you more inclined to buy a PS Vita? Let us know below.
Thanks CVG.
Wow they are really trying to push the vita
Still aint copping though
Bend_The_Knee
formerly gotholesinmysocks
- 61,339
- 23,039
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
- 1,556
- 1,178
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
Sounds like fun to me. I wouldn't mind playing Fifa or MVC while watching tv.
Q's:
- is there any way to play outside your house? i.e. I wonder if someone can make a workaround like how Slingbox can stream the tv's broadcast over the internet
- is Sony going to come out with a Watchglass equivalent? Where you can connect via iPad and use it as a map or select 2k13.Madden Plays (Excited to see if games are actually going to utilize a tablet or the Vita as an extra screen)
Q's:
- is there any way to play outside your house? i.e. I wonder if someone can make a workaround like how Slingbox can stream the tv's broadcast over the internet
- is Sony going to come out with a Watchglass equivalent? Where you can connect via iPad and use it as a map or select 2k13.Madden Plays (Excited to see if games are actually going to utilize a tablet or the Vita as an extra screen)
- 9,516
- 3,730
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
I was excited about the use of tablets too. My main game is Madden and I really don't see how a tablet can be incorporated in live play. I love and hate gimmicks but as I get older I've learn to save my money rather than feed into them.
- 9,134
- 1,012
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
gotta wait for that gaikai tech
the ps3 had internet streaming with psp/vita also but it was awful for gaming, ps4 should have it over the internet too but probably also awful for gaming
Last edited:
- 1,398
- 505
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2012
i think it's pretty telling that DLC has become something that we've been beaten over the head with so many times that people are generally sayin, ' eh who cares i just don't (sometimes do) buy it,' when in the beginning the public generally railed against it. this is why the gaming industry thinks it can get away with doing other stuff they know we hate
- 12,462
- 11,638
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
Yea it comes with two options, a direct connection or over the internet.
View media item 432887
Direct connection works well. I've tried it with FF7 and Tokyo Jungle. Over the internet is at the mercy of your internet and since the PS3 wasn't built with remote play in mind it's usually laggy.
That should change with the PS4 since it does most of the leg work using the built in encoder and gaikai streaming tech but it'll still depend on your internet.
Here's Bioshock and Ni No Kuni via remote play using a hacked ps3
Similar threads
