Could be fake, but.... (XB1 engineer talks)

[theprof00]

Zappykins said:

theprof00 said:

..." It was only once they had a digital marketplace with DRM that was locked down to prevent sharing that they could do super discounted shit."
... "Hey publishers, you limit game to 39.99, we ensure every license transfer you get 10$, gamestop gets 20$" that is a decent model... Microsoft gets a license fee on first and subsequent game purchases, compared to just first now? That's a revenue increase.".

.. We come in trying to find a way to take money out of gamestop, and put some in developers and get you possibly cheaper games and everyone bitches at MS. Well, if you want the @#$@ing from Gamestop, go play PS4."...

(I took text out, it is market with ...)

What! A REASONABLE understanding that we could be paying for games directly?  Not the oil companies for drilling the oil, or the chemical companies for making it into plastic, not the oil companies again to ship the things around the world, plus paying the shippers/packagers, then all the retailers, their rent, their employees, the returns from crazy people, the mark up at retail on games.

So that currently, say a publisher only makes say $5 on a retail game, we could go directly from them on our existing infrastructure (i.e. the Internet) and buy the game from them?

So, with what you are stating, the cost of the game we buy digitally, more of those dollars actually goes to people who make/created the game?  So can we conclude that they will then have more money to make more games?

Right now, yes it looks like a hybrid of digital/retail.  Seems like an awkward baby step, but I get what you are saying.

My only current bump is for people say with say with bad or no internet, like soldiers station over seas.  I know they can’t play online games, but I hope they find a way to let them play offline games – say having your console set in offline mode.

 

The problem is....there's a better way to fix this system.