Nintendo to offer Wii DLC and you have to pay for some online games X_X

[Bodhesatva]

Stever89 said:

Bodhesatva said:

I want to ask this question more generally, because I think it's an important point. For anyone who's looked at MS and Sony's financial statements for the last 2 or 3 years, it's pretty apparent that they have to make more money somehow. And in case you thought this was a momentary, 2-3 year blip, the situation has generally gotten worse, not better; Sony made more money in the PS1 era (Despite the PS2 being a more popular console both in hardware and software sold), and it's readily apparent that they'll make a lot less money in the PS3 era. What we may think is a lot of money -- 600 dollar PS3, 400 dollar Xbox 360s, 60 dollar games -- clearly isn't enough.

They have to make more money. What do you suggest they do? I'll give you some options:

1) Decrease the power of the consoles in the future. Take the Wii route, and take small steps.

2) Increase the price of the hardware

3) Increase the price of the games

4) Introduce for-pay downloadable content

5) Introduce an online subscription service

Option 1 seems to be completely unacceptable to a lot of people. Option 2 and 3 seem almost absurd, as people are complaining about the prices of the PS3 and 360 even now, when their respective companies have bled billions to push them at their current costs.

Number 4 has already been put in place by all 3 companies, and for Microsoft and Sony, it clearly isn't enough to stem the tide.

So that leaves number 5. Am I missing something? Is there some error in my calculations here? Because from what I see, subscription costs are simply a necessity. Or we can all buy Wiis. Or they can sell the PS3 for 800 dollars. You chose, because Sony and Microsoft aren't going to be happy bleeding billions upon billions of dollars for eternity.

 

Isn't number 2 some of the reasons why PC gaming has died? Too expensive hardware (for most games at least, and the more hardcore games usually have high spec requirements), along with unreliable software. And I think the only problem most people have this time around is the great difference between the Wii's power and the HD consoles power. I don't think anyone (from this forum) complained that the PS2 wasn't as powerful as the GC or Xbox. Why weren't people saying that games should be put on those consoles because they'd look better?

It seems Naz is right. Only a few people care about graphics, and they should either get a nice computer and help the real graphic machine, or deal with less than "great" graphics. Otherwise, it won't be casuals that destroy the market. It'll be the hardcores.

That was basically the point I was making -- all the possibilities I listed are either unpalatable to the 360/PS3 consumer (1,2,3,5) or have already been implemented and aren't enough on their own (4).

But something on that list has to happen, because economic reality demands it. To go to an extreme to highlight the point: I would love to have a brand new quad core computer for 200 dollars, but such a pricing structure would quickly put Dell, Gateway, and other hardware manufacturers out of business. There is no magic fairy dust that suddenly makes high end electronics cheap to develop (please keep in mind everyone that I'm talking about the pricing structure over the life of the system, not just right now. Production costs will drop, but so too will MSRPs). I have to either be prepared to pay more, or be willing to buy a cheaper, less powerful computer.

And that's basically the situation that PS3/360 users are in: pay more, or buy cheaper, less powerful systems, because the current pricing structure isn't tenable.