GasBandit
Staff member
Video Game News and Miscellany
- Thread starter figmentPez
- Start date
I think he means because if someone is looking to really get a bargain on console games, they can easily go the used physical or borrow/buy from friends route. It's really hard to compete with that for digital titles on console, so they keep the price high and promote the digital versions as more for people looking to avoid a physical copy, i.e. a luxury (on console). It only works that way because the physical disc still exists.
The foreground colors on the PS4 one look a little paler, but the background is nice and clear.
GasBandit
Staff member
It most stood out to me in the scene around 1:40, being shot with the captain's forearm in the extreme foreground, the quartermaster in the middle, and the waves in the background. On the PS3 both the arm and the waves are blurry as hell, whereas on PS4 all three are in sharp focus.
I was thinking about how those sales exist because users also can't sell their games.
Like @Ravenpoe said, you can't sell digitial downloads from consoles either, but the console online marketplaces don't generally have the sorts of sales steam does. You can buy used physical games if you can find them, but that doesn't justify the lack of online sales, and on top of the that, the X-box One system was an attempt to prevent users from being able to do that either. The console makers want you to just have to buy from them so they can charge as much as they want.
No, Steam sales exist because Steam has serious competition with Origin, GOG, Gamefly (formerly Direct2Drive before the buyout), Humble Bundle, and others. They also exist because the only cost of producing a digital copy of a game is the bandwidth. It is almost pure profit. You don't have to pay...
- licensing fees for the console
- console maker's cut
- Production costs
- Transportation costs
- You can't "steal" a digital game, so you're not losing the costs you put in to produce a physical copy.
Valve takes a small cut of the sales (I heard it was like 5-10 percent) and that's it.
Because the margin is so big for digital games, it is possible to drastically cut the price and still make a profit. You also don't have to worry about supply because all you need to do is make more keys, so it's possible to keep your classic games in your active catalog where they will make you money instead of sitting on a shelf somewhere.
But all of this hinges on fairly pricing the goods... which is something none of the console makers seem to understand.
I don't recall which designer, but they said in an interview that when their game had a sale (like 75% off), they made 500% more money in one day than they did since the game had been released earlier this year. Digital sales are great for both designers AND consumers.
I know that the guys behind Alan Wake had to fight really hard with Microsoft to get the cash for a PC port... and then the game paid for it's port with hours of going on sale. Fuck, Payday 2 made back it's entire development cost on all three systems with just the Steam pre-orders. Digital is clearly the way of the future but it's never going to take off on the consoles until they can offer competitive prices.
Well, Sony SORT OF has a good thing going. They've got the PSN Plus account. $50 a year, free games every month that you can use as long as your membership is going (even after it's re-upped). Many of those games are AAA games, too. I've had it on and off for a few years and really enjoyed it.
I can see why some would be against it, though. Unlike Steam, you don't get to keep the games. Though if you buy anything discounted from Plus (which does give some good discounts), you get to keep it. The whole can't keep the games if you don't have Plus only applies for the totally free games.
I can see why some would be against it, though. Unlike Steam, you don't get to keep the games. Though if you buy anything discounted from Plus (which does give some good discounts), you get to keep it. The whole can't keep the games if you don't have Plus only applies for the totally free games.
That's actually not much less than the console platform fee (though it varies by game). It's more the lack of production costs and the fact that there is no retailer mark-up (which is a good $15-20 out of that $60 price). Otherwise, 100% agreed.
Which is really, really strange. 8 years ago was one thing, but the market movements of the last couple years should have really made it clear that the $60 price point, whatever its market desirability before, is clearly on much shakier ground now. It doesn't mean that there can't be $60 games, but it's nonsensical that it's the default.
Yes. Sales exist because all of that. But that doesn't mean that what I said is wrong. If people were able to sell their digital games, some people may profit from those sales and steam will have competition al year from users selling their games instead of semi anual special events. At least that is how I see it.
And this is from a port from the PS3. The next gen consoles will be amazing in 2-3 years.
figmentPez
Staff member
One could just as easily show that used copies of games don't sell for that much less than retail prices. (i.e. L4D2 used from GameStop is $30. Digital download is $30; Alan Wake used is $18, download is $30) The idea that it's hard to compete with that price is bullshit, especially when you consider that the console maker gets nothing from a used game sale (unless that sale sparks DLC purchase).
The reasons that there aren't sales on digital downloads for consoles:
- Console makers are playing politics with Gamestop (and other retail spaces). Console makers know they still need retail space, especially to sell console hardware. They can't undercut retail too much, or they'll hamper their ability to sell machines, lose a marketing outlet, etc.
- Console makers don't like the idea of games being less expensive. Nintendo especially has said they don't want games to go down in price over time (that's why they stopped having Player's Choice titles, and why they engaged in price fixing in the 1980's.) They want to hold on to higher price points, because they're worried that if prices drop too predictably, then they'll get fewer people paying $60 for new games.
Steam doesn't have to worry about either of those real points. PC games have lost shelf-space drastically in the past, and don't have a used market worth speaking about. Nor is there any subsidized hardware for retailers to push on behalf of Valve (and presumably the Steam box won't change that). Lastly, Valve has shown they know what's up when it comes to making money off of cheap games. You can hypothesize all you want about them changing policy should they get the upper hand over consoles, but if they piss off gamers, there's always the competition of GOG, Humble Bundle, Green Man Gaming, etc., etc. on PC (and piracy).
Framerate on the PS3 looks a lot lower than the PS4, even with the worse texture filtering and "shimmer." I'm assuming that the soft focus is deliberately being used to keep framerate up rather than as any sort of artistic trick.
Also, is that Louis Gossett Jr. as the voice of the mate? (Googles around a bit) Nope.
--Patrick
Cross gen games are not a great way to determine a consoles strengths since they're almost always developed on the lower end hardware and ported up.
COMPLETELY UNRELATED
Battlefield 4 runs at 1080 on PS4 and the speculation (since they're being so secretive about it) that it's upscaled 720 on One.
Pretty fantastic comparison here:
http://www.videogamer.com/features/article/battlefield_4_which_is_better_xbox_one_or_ps4.html
COMPLETELY UNRELATED
Battlefield 4 runs at 1080 on PS4 and the speculation (since they're being so secretive about it) that it's upscaled 720 on One.
Pretty fantastic comparison here:
http://www.videogamer.com/features/article/battlefield_4_which_is_better_xbox_one_or_ps4.html
Last edited:
I know that in some parts of Europe at least, Steam has the functionality to sell games back directly to Valve. It's because of some law that was passed a few years back that makes it explicit that game purchasers own the title they are buying and not some strange, nebulous license to it. Because it's theirs, they are legally required to have the ability to sell it.
This hasn't had a huge effect on the market place.
Yes. That is the point I was waiting for. You could sell games back to valve. They still keep control of the price and the users will still have to wait for a sale to buy the game for less money. That is a way to do it. And maybe that was the reason ms said you could sell your digital games only to "participant retailers". But now we will never know.
Until Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are willing to show that they understand how market forces work on game pricing, I simply have no desire to give them complete control over my gaming library. Nintendo has already doubled down and stopped offering greatest hits at a reduced price because they felt it was encouraging players to wait for a better prices. The only reason they reduced the price on the 3DS is because no one was buying it at $200 due to a lack of titles, but then they immediately released a better version of the 3DS within a year so they could start charging $200 again. The WiiU is still 300+ dollars, despite any sort of killer app from Nintendo itself since launch. Microsoft tipped their hand early and showed the most anti-consumer piece of hardware ever and Sony simply skated around the issue.
Really, how am I supposed to trust these guys when every move they make seems to be about driving up price instead of providing a better user experience? Compare that to Valve and it's Big Picture mode, a free expansion of the Steam service that optimizes games for play on your TV, and it's upcoming Steam Machine to make it even easier? Valve is ALL ABOUT making gaming better. Or GOG, which has been about providing you with complete control of your games since Day 1 and work tirelessly to make all the games on it's service compatible with modern systems? These companies have made user experience the most important thing.
My point is that valve is giving better service because the limitations they give to their users. I'm not saying that ms will follow valve example if they get away with "always online". What I'm trying to say is that all the goodness valve have is partly because they used policies that will never be accepted in the console world.
It's more that those used policies are tempered by a pricing scheme that makes sense to consumers. They see the advantage of Steam and are willing to accept the limitations it presents in exchange for those prices. Microsoft offered nothing except the Family Sharing plan... which Steam is now implementing because it was the only good idea they had.
There really isn't any argument about this: Valve has given a persuasive argument for it's service. Microsoft has not. In fact, it didn't even try beyond "developers want this to protect profits". Until Microsoft can do this, there is no reason to trust them as much as Valve.
EA opens studio to make RTS game. Company begins work on RTS game. EA wants it to be some FTP mess. Company repurposes game into FTP mess. People hate FTP mess. EA cancels game and shutters studio.
CIRCLE OF LIFE!
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/201...s-command-conquer-closes-victory/#more-174491
I can't think of a single series more trudged through the mud of bad corporate decisions than Command and Conquer.
CIRCLE OF LIFE!
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/201...s-command-conquer-closes-victory/#more-174491
I can't think of a single series more trudged through the mud of bad corporate decisions than Command and Conquer.
Is there some reason the employees of the studio/the studio itself can't sue EA for poor management? Their professional lives have been turned upside down by their poor management and has hurt their future prospects in the industry because of it.
GasBandit
Staff member
Challenge everything.
...Well,.....I'm a huge C&C fan, but I can't take this as bad news (for the game, it's obviously bad for the people working on it). Everything we heard about the new game was horrible or worse. C&C4 bombed pretty badly and they went even further in that direction; I'm sure it would've been a wreck and I'm glad it was never released.
Too bad they closed Victory over it, though...but Westwood is long gone anyway.
I can't believe they actually expected EA to treat them more fairly than Activision. They should have teamed up with Valve and made Titanfall a Steam Machine/PC exclusive at launch.
GasBandit
Staff member
Quite so. Any developer who gets into bed with EA today, after all that has been shown about them, deserves the super-mutant-crotch-crickets they wake up with the next morning. It's a shame gamers have to suffer for it too, though.
And that's why Gabe Newell is the sexiest man in gaming.