By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Mass Effect 3 Demo Shows the Absurdity of Xbox Live Gold - 1UP

Tagged games:

TheKoreanGuy on 07 February 2012
Fumanchu said:

Sony was actually losing money selling the PS3 at $600. 

I think it's almost entirely the used game market as to the reason why multiplayer is 'tacked on' to most games.  Developers either pay for the support fees in multiplayer (no idea of costs) or face a large percentage of owners trading their games in upon completion and lose sales. 

The game prices haven't really gone up in over two decades now, but the budgets and support costs have dramatically. 

Yeah, the PS3's launch was not planned very well. Sony incorrectly thought the market would eat up anything they put out and thought the technology in it would be a good justification. I'm sure Sony learned their lesson with that one. That's why the Vita isn't merely an upgraded PSP.

Used games are also a huge but different issue. I can see why it can hurt sales. But isn't this the case with every used market? Unless there was a ban on selling your own goods, I can't see how these companies can stop that without getting some people angry. Used games are helpful since I can't find a lot of old games on sale for new. I heard the Next Xbox is going to stop used games somehow. We'll see how that turns out.

Actually game prices did go up. It used to be $50 but Microsoft upped the price to $60 saying it helps support development costs. It's only $10 more but just that contributes a lot since every person who buys the game is spending $10 more.



Around the Network
Fumanchu on 07 February 2012
TheKoreanGuy said:
Fumanchu said:

Sony was actually losing money selling the PS3 at $600. 

I think it's almost entirely the used game market as to the reason why multiplayer is 'tacked on' to most games.  Developers either pay for the support fees in multiplayer (no idea of costs) or face a large percentage of owners trading their games in upon completion and lose sales. 

The game prices haven't really gone up in over two decades now, but the budgets and support costs have dramatically. 

Yeah, the PS3's launch was not planned very well. Sony incorrectly thought the market would eat up anything they put out and thought the technology in it would be a good justification. I'm sure Sony learned their lesson with that one. That's why the Vita isn't merely an upgraded PSP.

Used games are also a huge but different issue. I can see why it can hurt sales. But isn't this the case with every used market? Unless there was a ban on selling your own goods, I can't see how these companies can stop that without getting some people angry. Used games are helpful since I can't find a lot of old games on sale for new. I heard the Next Xbox is going to stop used games somehow. We'll see how that turns out.

Actually game prices did go up. It used to be $50 but Microsoft upped the price to $60 saying it helps support development costs. It's only $10 more but just that contributes a lot since every person that buys the game is spending $10 more.

That's right sorry - I forgot there was an increase in the US.

In Australia the prices have remained the same anyway. 

I'm not getting into the used games debate, but I believe that's why a lot of the games are offering multiplayer. 



Fumanchu on 07 February 2012
pezus said:
Fumanchu said:
TheKoreanGuy said:
NotStan said:

It's not whether you're right or not about the argument, it's the fact that you critisize one example for being stupid then go off and make an even stupider comparison, thus making you seem like a giant hypocrite.

Your posts are making my head hurt, you seem to have been brainwashed or something. "look at the guys who back me up", then look at 20-something million gold subscribers, and look how many give less shit about what you want and pay anyway.

And  you seem to pointedly ignore posts that actually justify the online capabilities, gold makes sure that the publishers don't burden the cost of brandwith and provide matchmaking for games, although it makes no sense customer having to pay for it, it's there to justify the cost of hosting and make it easier for the developers. At ridiculously low prices per year in some cases - in some even lower than half the original RRP, only the cheapest of cheapskates would be bitching about the cost, of course it'd be nice not to pay, but then again, I am not cheap enough to actually complain about paying for a service I preffer much more. Although I haven't played PSN in about a year now, when I did, it was wild and unpredictable on non exclusive games, the games seemed dead, no one had headsets, no cross-game chat capabilities, and nevermind my experience being around the time when MW2 has been hacked to shit.

Your argument is interesting, you're probably one of those people who was willing to fork out $600 for a new PS3, yet complain about paying for live. Sheep we are indeed(!).

Look, I have nothing against you. So don't resort to attacking me directly when I have done nothing wrong. By definition, a stupid comparison would be an incorrect one. It would indeed be "stupid" if I said, look Live is just like slavery! That's not what I said at all. My analogy was on why millions of people supporting something is not enough justification. But Sevengen's original post said Netflix = library rentals. Go ahead and read it again. That is an incorrect analogy so I pointed it out.

Anyways, both sides have legitimate reasons and I hope you agree with that. You even admitted it's too bad that they are putting the cost on us and you're just willing to deal with it. That's fine but let's not forget our own rights in the process. If we went along with these big businesses and forgot our own rights, SOPA would've been a reality. Also, you'll have companies like Square Enix, which I don't know if you have heard already, have decided to make DLC CONCLUSIONS for FF XIII-2. Like wtf? I already paid $80 for my collector's edition. Now I don't get to know how the story concludes unless I pay an additional fee? Sure, it might only be like $5 or something. Much like how you pay 60 freaking dollars for a game and then a little more for just accessing the online part. The cost is not the problem. It's that these companies are trying to make profit the wrong way. I'm not AGAINST companies making profit. Charging for a launch PS3 at $600? That was again trying to make profit incorrectly. FYI I did not get a PS3 until it went down to $399. Asking for what I already paid for (the game) is not being a cheapskate. If these developers can't cover the costs of their own games, maybe they should not include a multiplayer component. Seriously, every developer these days is starting to think they need multiplayer on their game in order to be successful. Another thing that has changed with this generation. This generation has seen so many changes it's hard to ignore, so please understand. It's this stupid economy. I'm going to blame the recession.

Sony was actually losing money selling the PS3 at $600. 

I think it's almost entirely the used game market as to the reason why multiplayer is 'tacked on' to most games.  Developers either pay for the support fees in multiplayer (no idea of costs) or face a large percentage of owners trading their games in upon completion and lose sales. 

The game prices haven't really gone up in over two decades now, but the budgets and support costs have dramatically. 

Game prices have increased almost everywhere outside of English-speaking countries. For example, games cost about 2-2.5 times as much now as they did 4 years ago over here.

Wow ok, I stand corrected.