Quantcast
New Business Model for console

Forums - Sales Discussion - New Business Model for console

Which combination of console price and gaming price would you prefer?

399 USD console; 60 USD game 11 47.83%
 
599 USD console; 40 USD game 12 52.17%
 
Total:23
the-pi-guy said:
Cobretti2 said:
i see what you saying but I am tired of broken games from day 1.

Id gladly pay $20 more a game to ensure I get it on a medium and in a complete state that doesn't require downloading a bit patch day 1.

Console makers get a cut usually around $20-$25 for each copy a game gets sold.  OP is suggesting that cut would get folded into the console's cost.  

Game developers would be making around the same amount they do now.  So not sure how games would get any more broken than they are right now.

They wouldn't be more broken. What I am saying is it has gotten to a point where its becoming annoying and making some people wonder why bother with consoles if they can get the same broken game on PC. Consoles should go back to core roots of plug and play that is what made them attractive over PC. Devs should make more and just get the damn job done right with the extra money as prices haven't really gone up for years whilst development and scale of games has gotten even bigger.



 

 

Around the Network
Cobretti2 said:
the-pi-guy said:

Console makers get a cut usually around $20-$25 for each copy a game gets sold.  OP is suggesting that cut would get folded into the console's cost.  

Game developers would be making around the same amount they do now.  So not sure how games would get any more broken than they are right now.

They wouldn't be more broken. What I am saying is it has gotten to a point where its becoming annoying and making some people wonder why bother with consoles if they can get the same broken game on PC. Consoles should go back to core roots of plug and play that is what made them attractive over PC. Devs should make more and just get the damn job done right with the extra money as prices haven't really gone up for years whilst development and scale of games has gotten even bigger.

Complexity and size of the games make it basically impossible to be full bug free. Almost all games have patch nowadays.

But it is very pug and play still. It is automatic patching.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

This will benefit the hardcore considerably more than it would benefit the casuals. That's a terrible business model for a company looking to move 100 million units over the lifetime of the device. It's basically the opposite of what we've been hearing whispers about, in that MS is thinking about having you pay affordable monthly fee's for the hardware as long as you're subbed to their online services. If you were to put a program like that up against what you described, the monthly hardware model is going to see much greater success in terms of moving hardware. Paying for things up front is not the future, let alone the present, it's the past.

I didn't propose it, but it is also possible to have the same 600 USD paid monthly for those who want. That isn't the most critical part of the idea.

But yes the biggest benefit would come to people that buy the games new and perhaps 2 years after launch (so new games cheaper and the console already discounted). People that buy very few games certainly would perceive as it being less interesting idea.

You made the thread didn't you? The problem is you're starting to make it much more complicated, and with consoles the point is to make it as easy and simple as possible. Having a bunch of different ways to get your hands on hardware in terms of payments, opens the flood gates to everything else. Why not a bunch of different ways to get your hands on games in terms of payments? Why not just have 10 different hardware models, all with mostly the same core necessities, but with price options? Why not a bunch of different storage models with different pricing? Why not a larger cased model with better cooling for a higher price? Why not a model of every color for different prices?  

The fact of the matter is a bunch of these things will come at a later point in time, and will be priced differently, usually lower, so the main difference is waiting. There's nothing wrong with having to wait a while, as long as a life isn't at risk. No options isn't good, but too many options isn't good either. The only reason you see MS tossing out every option under the sun, is because they are trying to find the option that's the cash cow. If they ever find it, like PS has, they will at the very least slow down with the options, if not put them on hold.

A cheap console with more expensive games makes the most sense for one particular reason. People need the console to be able to play the games, the same console for the most part which they are ok with for the most part, and yet they all want different games. So you make the console the same cheap price for the most part for everyone, and you charge different prices for different games. That way nobody can really be upset about the hardware cost, and can choose to pay for the games they want to play. Having others basically subsidize the games through the console price so you can have cheaper games because you are going to buy more and will save more money, allowing you to buy even more, isn't going to fly for them.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

I didn't propose it, but it is also possible to have the same 600 USD paid monthly for those who want. That isn't the most critical part of the idea.

But yes the biggest benefit would come to people that buy the games new and perhaps 2 years after launch (so new games cheaper and the console already discounted). People that buy very few games certainly would perceive as it being less interesting idea.

You made the thread didn't you? The problem is you're starting to make it much more complicated, and with consoles the point is to make it as easy and simple as possible. Having a bunch of different ways to get your hands on hardware in terms of payments, opens the flood gates to everything else. Why not a bunch of different ways to get your hands on games in terms of payments? Why not just have 10 different hardware models, all with mostly the same core necessities, but with price options? Why not a bunch of different storage models with different pricing? Why not a larger cased model with better cooling for a higher price? Why not a model of every color for different prices?  

The fact of the matter is a bunch of these things will come at a later point in time, and will be priced differently, usually lower, so the main difference is waiting. There's nothing wrong with having to wait a while, as long as a life isn't at risk. No options isn't good, but too many options isn't good either. The only reason you see MS tossing out every option under the sun, is because they are trying to find the option that's the cash cow. If they ever find it, like PS has, they will at the very least slow down with the options, if not put them on hold.

A cheap console with more expensive games makes the most sense for one particular reason. People need the console to be able to play the games, the same console for the most part which they are ok with for the most part, and yet they all want different games. So you make the console the same cheap price for the most part for everyone, and you charge different prices for different games. That way nobody can really be upset about the hardware cost, and can choose to pay for the games they want to play. Having others basically subsidize the games through the console price so you can have cheaper games because you are going to buy more and will save more money, allowing you to buy even more, isn't going to fly for them.

I don't know how we gone from possibly having monthly payment to having 10 different HW and 10 different payment.

It isn't about others paying the cost of the SW for me, it is about platform holder not getting royalties because they already picked up. Myself I buy 90% of my games when they are 10-20 bucks so this wouldn't benefit me.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

You made the thread didn't you? The problem is you're starting to make it much more complicated, and with consoles the point is to make it as easy and simple as possible. Having a bunch of different ways to get your hands on hardware in terms of payments, opens the flood gates to everything else. Why not a bunch of different ways to get your hands on games in terms of payments? Why not just have 10 different hardware models, all with mostly the same core necessities, but with price options? Why not a bunch of different storage models with different pricing? Why not a larger cased model with better cooling for a higher price? Why not a model of every color for different prices?  

The fact of the matter is a bunch of these things will come at a later point in time, and will be priced differently, usually lower, so the main difference is waiting. There's nothing wrong with having to wait a while, as long as a life isn't at risk. No options isn't good, but too many options isn't good either. The only reason you see MS tossing out every option under the sun, is because they are trying to find the option that's the cash cow. If they ever find it, like PS has, they will at the very least slow down with the options, if not put them on hold.

A cheap console with more expensive games makes the most sense for one particular reason. People need the console to be able to play the games, the same console for the most part which they are ok with for the most part, and yet they all want different games. So you make the console the same cheap price for the most part for everyone, and you charge different prices for different games. That way nobody can really be upset about the hardware cost, and can choose to pay for the games they want to play. Having others basically subsidize the games through the console price so you can have cheaper games because you are going to buy more and will save more money, allowing you to buy even more, isn't going to fly for them.

I don't know how we gone from possibly having monthly payment to having 10 different HW and 10 different payment.

It isn't about others paying the cost of the SW for me, it is about platform holder not getting royalties because they already picked up. Myself I buy 90% of my games when they are 10-20 bucks so this wouldn't benefit me.

Well when you start at a single larger one time payment, then allow for monthly payments, why not more, and why stop at payments?

You say that at the end of your initial post, that you would have and prefer the upfront money and mention you think it could have a bad effect even if you preferred this model. How does this not benefit you, or do you want the gaming industry to work against you?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

I don't know how we gone from possibly having monthly payment to having 10 different HW and 10 different payment.

It isn't about others paying the cost of the SW for me, it is about platform holder not getting royalties because they already picked up. Myself I buy 90% of my games when they are 10-20 bucks so this wouldn't benefit me.

Well when you start at a single larger one time payment, then allow for monthly payments, why not more, and why stop at payments?

You say that at the end of your initial post, that you would have and prefer the upfront money and mention you think it could have a bad effect even if you preferred this model. How does this not benefit you, or do you want the gaming industry to work against you?

Because it isn't because you have 2 options that you would end up having 100. Tests usually have written answer, True or False, 5 options... why not make one that for each question you have 50 options them?

Yes I would prefer the upfront, and asked what others would prefer. Of course it could have a bad effect or could have a good effect, it isn't something we can be certain what would end up being, it depends a lot on the marketing and how to show value to customers.

Most of the things I defend aren't to directly benefit me. I'm in a position that more government protectionism and intervention would probably benefit me individually, but from my knowledge the overall result for society is worse than free market. So I defend minimum government and taxes even if for me that would probably end up in worse situation than today. The thing is I'm well enough, stronger and smarter than average so I can couple and adapt to the bad stuff government do, but a very big portion of the people aren't and they shouldn't be suffering from the leeches at the government.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Do we have a source for console makers getting $20/game? I find it hard to believe.

I think AAA publishers would rather pay fees bc it makes all the extra DLC crap look more reasonable. I am seeing many games trying for deluxe packs or “season passes” at $120-$200 Canadian. It already looks crazy as it adds 50% to 120% to the price, but it would look that much worse if the manufacturers managed to enforce a $40 up front price.



Games come down in price anyway. I'd rather pay less for the console, and then wait for games to be cheap.



PS4 Pro, Nintendo Switch, PC: i5-4670k, RX470.

Games already drop into that price range decently fast (Nintendo being the exception). Unless that means games would fall to ~20 instead.
I preffer the way it is, and I think it's better for them too.
Having a lower enter price brings more people to their systems which brings more sales to the games there, increasing the enter price with raising the consoles price considerably would take away people from their platform.
They would be profiting a lot with each console unit sold but be completely dependant on it.
Consoles get a lot cheaper to make down the road and they end up profiting in both ways during the generation, more people into their console also means more services to be sold, aside of just games. (Like PS+)
On our consumer side, it would take too much of an investment to even get into it. At least here and Brazil you know the prices as already quite prohibitive, increasing that a lot means people stay longer on older gen, which also means they will be buying games cheaper by default too, not needing them to release for cheaper.



couchmonkey said:
Do we have a source for console makers getting $20/game? I find it hard to believe.

It's 30% for Digital Games ($18). 30% is the standard rate across most stores, Google Play, Apple, Steam etc.

The platform holder gets a lower cut from Physical games around $12, as retailers need to take a cut. Though not every source says the same thing, and certain games may cut deals with the platform holder. I.E Platform holder taking less of a cut for Exclusive content, or early dlc on that platform.

^ This image includes marketing, which is questionable as that's paid for beforehand, really that should probably just be added to the Publisher's cut.

So if the Platform Holder waived their cut and no other changes were made you'd get this price instead of $60:

Digital - $42
Physical - $48



PS4 Pro, Nintendo Switch, PC: i5-4670k, RX470.