Originally posted August 8th 2013.
This was in response to this unboxing video made by XBOX.
Gamers, this is worth the read. And it also gives you a little idea into my thoughts of each company.
All I have to say is, how dare he call the kinect beautiful?
The kinect is pretty at best, like a 7/10 would still bang, sort of deal.
However, the kinect is super ugly on the inside. It's overly attached, puts meaning into every little thing you say, won't let you have any fun unless it's their, and watches you constantly, with the possibility of telling her parents every thing you do. I'm not to worried about her parents actually listening, but she still has everything else I just mentioned.
And worst of all, she isn't even the one you have a relationship with, it's her fraternal twin sister. And it's not like with the parents, kinect tells everything to XBOX and XBOX takes it all to heart.
Now XBOX was always an expensive girl. If you wanted to play with friends, she asked for shopping money. Then when she had a makeover, she wanted even more shopping money for the things she could do in addition to letting you play with friends. Now, in her 3rd make over, even more things that she boasts about costs shopping money. She was a fun bad girl that you had fun fighting aliens with back in high school, but nothing to build a relationship off of.
Now on the other hand, we have play station and Nintendo. We've known Nintendo the longest, and even though she went through many different phases, she's still a lovely girl. She's mostly over her fitness kick and realizes that not everyone likes jumping around and swinging their arms like crazy. Though she's might still hold many of the fitness tendencies, she decided to lay off bugging you and forcing you to do all sorts of crazy work outs in order to have a little fun. A nice girl, and some people are in a nice relationship, but others have friend zoned her saying "it was fun, but I want more, but I'll still hang with you when I'm with your fitness friends."
Now last we have the new girl next door, the playstation. Nintendo initially introduced you to her, but she started competing for your affections, and not to far after, they were bitter rivals. Nintendo always offered you a good time, but playstation could do many of the same things. After a make over montage and the adaption of a 2, she became super sexy while keeping all the things you loved about her before. She became a little demanding after her second make over, asking you to spend $600 for her beauty shop bill, but soon she found a cheaper shop and offered so many other features.
OK, enough console fan fiction for tonight.
Saturday, February 2, 2019
The Most Popular Arguments for XBOX ONE's DRM and My Response To Them (google plus reupload 2013)
Originally posted August 9th 2013.
I found this article on the most popular arguments for XBOX ONE'S DRM. Here are my responses.
post
Anyone looking for a good laugh? Well you'll probably get more of a chuckle, but still rich. Google "xbox one drm arguments" and you will read some of the stupidest reasons ever that you can't help but laugh at. Here's one article, and quick reasons why it's wrong.
"Xbox One would have solved the problem of buying a game on disc and then not being able to store it digitally or download it from the cloud."
1. I don't trust the cloud in the long run, especially long after the console has lost support from the developers. Also, it's not a problem. We've been swapping physical media for years and aside from super lazy lard butts, no one actually thinks it's a problem. And there is a reason why we buy physical. If we didn't want to swap the cartridge or disk, we'd buy the digital.
2019 thoughts, cloud gaming and digital only is a problem. The wii shop channel closed down, and now there are many games that can no longer be purchased.
"Publishers could charge less for games."
2. Uhhhh, yeah right. Physical and digital copies of the same game on the same console cost EXACTLY THE SAME, despite how there isn't the middle man and physical production costs.
"You could make more money from your trade-ins."
3. Or you could make even more selling it yourself through eBay. I sell things all the time on eBay, and things in DVD cases or cartridges are one of the easiest things to ship since all you need to do is put it in a bubble wrap shipping envelope. Never sell your games to gamestop or any other retailer. Digital licenses probably wouldn't be much better.
"Everyone used to hate Steam, but everyone loves it now. Xbox One could have been the same."
4. HAHAHAHAH Now that's rich. PC gamers like steam because of the sales, the ability to MOD the game, have the best hardware available, and output at maximum possible frame rate. Price, see #2, MOD the game, you've been banned from XBOX Live, best hardware available, you can't even remove the hard drive on the xbox one, so upgrading would count as modding, and then get banned from xbox live, max possible frame rate, no they boasted 60 fps at E3 and PC can get up to 100+ fps.
"Sharing games with your 10-person family plan would have been so much better than the total lack of digital sharing we have now."
5. Yes that's cool, if your family has more than 2 XBOX ONEs. My has one shared console between the entire family. Now what if 11+ people use the XBOX? Without the DRM, there's no problem, just 11+ profiles on the console, but everyone could use it, physical or digital. With the DRM, well then only 10 people could use it, meaning 1+ people are out of luck.
"The 24-hour online check-in was a necessary evil because it allows games to run entirely off the hard disk and be shared digitally."
6. Are you stupid? Like really stupid? We didn't need 24-hour check-ins with the physical or digital games before. We didn't need them to share our physical games before. It's been convention that you don't share digital games or DLC, but always share your physical, and physical is superior because it's unlimited storage limited only to your available shelf space.
"DRM makes stuff more affordable." 7. Since when? DRM only means you CAN'T buy affordable used games that you want only for a dust collector in your collection. Yes, I do buy games to further increase my collection and don't have much intention of playing much. I can get them for cheap at garage sales and through ebay and amazon. Can't do that any more with DRM.
"Now all we have is Xbox 360 2.0. How is this progress?"
8. And screwing the customer IS? Yes, people tend to generally not like change, but sometimes that change is just a bad idea, like deciding you're going to "improve" your life by "changing" your daily intake of cigarettes from 0 (not smoking) to a pack a day. The xbox 360 is a nice console. Sure the PS3 is better, but it's still good. Why take a step backwards?
I found this article on the most popular arguments for XBOX ONE'S DRM. Here are my responses.
post
Anyone looking for a good laugh? Well you'll probably get more of a chuckle, but still rich. Google "xbox one drm arguments" and you will read some of the stupidest reasons ever that you can't help but laugh at. Here's one article, and quick reasons why it's wrong.
"Xbox One would have solved the problem of buying a game on disc and then not being able to store it digitally or download it from the cloud."
1. I don't trust the cloud in the long run, especially long after the console has lost support from the developers. Also, it's not a problem. We've been swapping physical media for years and aside from super lazy lard butts, no one actually thinks it's a problem. And there is a reason why we buy physical. If we didn't want to swap the cartridge or disk, we'd buy the digital.
2019 thoughts, cloud gaming and digital only is a problem. The wii shop channel closed down, and now there are many games that can no longer be purchased.
"Publishers could charge less for games."
2. Uhhhh, yeah right. Physical and digital copies of the same game on the same console cost EXACTLY THE SAME, despite how there isn't the middle man and physical production costs.
"You could make more money from your trade-ins."
3. Or you could make even more selling it yourself through eBay. I sell things all the time on eBay, and things in DVD cases or cartridges are one of the easiest things to ship since all you need to do is put it in a bubble wrap shipping envelope. Never sell your games to gamestop or any other retailer. Digital licenses probably wouldn't be much better.
"Everyone used to hate Steam, but everyone loves it now. Xbox One could have been the same."
4. HAHAHAHAH Now that's rich. PC gamers like steam because of the sales, the ability to MOD the game, have the best hardware available, and output at maximum possible frame rate. Price, see #2, MOD the game, you've been banned from XBOX Live, best hardware available, you can't even remove the hard drive on the xbox one, so upgrading would count as modding, and then get banned from xbox live, max possible frame rate, no they boasted 60 fps at E3 and PC can get up to 100+ fps.
"Sharing games with your 10-person family plan would have been so much better than the total lack of digital sharing we have now."
5. Yes that's cool, if your family has more than 2 XBOX ONEs. My has one shared console between the entire family. Now what if 11+ people use the XBOX? Without the DRM, there's no problem, just 11+ profiles on the console, but everyone could use it, physical or digital. With the DRM, well then only 10 people could use it, meaning 1+ people are out of luck.
"The 24-hour online check-in was a necessary evil because it allows games to run entirely off the hard disk and be shared digitally."
6. Are you stupid? Like really stupid? We didn't need 24-hour check-ins with the physical or digital games before. We didn't need them to share our physical games before. It's been convention that you don't share digital games or DLC, but always share your physical, and physical is superior because it's unlimited storage limited only to your available shelf space.
"DRM makes stuff more affordable." 7. Since when? DRM only means you CAN'T buy affordable used games that you want only for a dust collector in your collection. Yes, I do buy games to further increase my collection and don't have much intention of playing much. I can get them for cheap at garage sales and through ebay and amazon. Can't do that any more with DRM.
"Now all we have is Xbox 360 2.0. How is this progress?"
8. And screwing the customer IS? Yes, people tend to generally not like change, but sometimes that change is just a bad idea, like deciding you're going to "improve" your life by "changing" your daily intake of cigarettes from 0 (not smoking) to a pack a day. The xbox 360 is a nice console. Sure the PS3 is better, but it's still good. Why take a step backwards?
My Reaction when Kinect was No Longer Mandatory (Reupload from Google Plus 2013)
(Originally posted August 12th 2013)
Look who might have my business now. The kinect was the only thing keeping me from getting an XBOX ONE. I would have looked into the modding community to see how I could manually remove the parts so that it wouldn't work but would trick the XBOX into thinking it was working. Now if I do end up getting an XBOX ONE and they don't make a bundle that doesn't have it, I can just throw the thing into my controller milk crate. Here's the article if you want to read the source.
http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-wont-actually-need-kinect-plugged-in-microso-1113142909?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow
Oh man, you have to read the comments. So many people are saying "but that was the only thing differentiating it from the PS4." Yes, that giant turd on the lawn was the only thing differentiating it from the PS4, but who in their right mind would be proud of a giant turd on their lawn. I would never use it, even for IR blasting and skype. I hate motion controls, like REALLY HATE THEM. I passed on a $50 Wii at a garage sale because I just don't believe in them and hate them with a passion, and as such would never play the kinect games. And as the guy in the video says, "if it's no longer required to make it run, why would you still require me to buy it?" Also the thing with the whole "the more I used it the more I loved it" thing, yeah no. I played many games that used motion controls, and only twice were they good and I thought "I would play this on a regular basis because the motion controls add to the experience." Skyward Sword and Trauma Center. Just get rid of the thing.
/post
And for an update, I have an XBOX ONE S. They ended up winning me over. And then they completely discontinued the Kinect.
Look who might have my business now. The kinect was the only thing keeping me from getting an XBOX ONE. I would have looked into the modding community to see how I could manually remove the parts so that it wouldn't work but would trick the XBOX into thinking it was working. Now if I do end up getting an XBOX ONE and they don't make a bundle that doesn't have it, I can just throw the thing into my controller milk crate. Here's the article if you want to read the source.
http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-wont-actually-need-kinect-plugged-in-microso-1113142909?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow
Oh man, you have to read the comments. So many people are saying "but that was the only thing differentiating it from the PS4." Yes, that giant turd on the lawn was the only thing differentiating it from the PS4, but who in their right mind would be proud of a giant turd on their lawn. I would never use it, even for IR blasting and skype. I hate motion controls, like REALLY HATE THEM. I passed on a $50 Wii at a garage sale because I just don't believe in them and hate them with a passion, and as such would never play the kinect games. And as the guy in the video says, "if it's no longer required to make it run, why would you still require me to buy it?" Also the thing with the whole "the more I used it the more I loved it" thing, yeah no. I played many games that used motion controls, and only twice were they good and I thought "I would play this on a regular basis because the motion controls add to the experience." Skyward Sword and Trauma Center. Just get rid of the thing.
/post
And for an update, I have an XBOX ONE S. They ended up winning me over. And then they completely discontinued the Kinect.
XBOX ONE's Policy Changes, a Tale of 3 Neighbors (google plus reupload from 2013)
Originally posted August 12th 2013
With the latest 180 by Microsoft with the kinect no longer being required to run the XBOX ONE, and all the fanboys complaining about how "we no longer have the future and now there's nothing separating the xbox one from the PS4," let me tell you a little story.
Once there were 3 houses on a street. One was the oldest there and the owners had many kids, and the owner didn't care too much about what the other houses were doing. Well, he cared a little after people didn't care for him exercising outside infront of everyone. But this house isn't what the story is about. So lets go to the other 2 houses.
Now the 2nd house came a while later after the first house, and the owner competed some with the first house, but it was nothing when compared to the competition once a third house was built. The neighbors would admire both houses, and people would argue over who was better, especially the owners of the 2 houses. They would constantly try to out do each other with flashier lawn ornaments, new paint, and all sorts of things.
Well one day, after admiring the beauty of a farm, the owner of the 3rd house said he wanted to make his house look more like a farm, and to make it look more like a farm, he dumped hundreds of pounds of manure and cow pies on his lawn and said he's making a future farm. There was one problem, this was a residential neighborhood; no one wanted to live next to a wanna be farm, especially one where the "farmer" thought that hundreds of pounds of manure and cow pies would make his house a farm. Well, except for the next door neighbor who used his neighbor's screw-up to showcase how nice his house was.
The everyone said they didn't like the farm look, and hated the smell, but the owner of the 3rd house said "oh just wait till I get some crops and live stock in here, and you'll be really happy." Even after getting some crops and live stock, people still preferred the non-farm house. Even if he offered them farm fresh food, they just couldn't get over the smell and eye sore of a mini-farm in a residential neighborhood, plus the animals made noise at night.
After losing almost every admirer he had, the owner of the 3rd house decided that maybe he should change some things. He got rid of the animals, crops, and a fair amount of manure. However, there was still one section of the lawn that was covered in manure and it still made the house and lawn stink. Some people called that pile and stink a defining feature, but the owner got wise and removed that last pile. The lawn still stinks, but that might go away at some point.
Now you might think that everyone would see that the farm in a residential neighborhood would see that it was a bad idea. You may think that, but you'd be wrong. There were some people who actually wanted the farm. They thought that the farm was the best thing in the world. They even put all sorts of flyers on the 3rd house saying "bring back the farm." Though everyone in the neighborhood told them "if you want that, move out to the country and let us have our nice neighborhood."
Can you guess who the houses are? Oh, and though both the first and second house didn't have any of the farm crap, the first house still had a bunch of exercise equipment lying around and didn't have much in the way of lawn decorations. It will likely get some lawn ornaments, but right now it's pretty plain.
With the latest 180 by Microsoft with the kinect no longer being required to run the XBOX ONE, and all the fanboys complaining about how "we no longer have the future and now there's nothing separating the xbox one from the PS4," let me tell you a little story.
Once there were 3 houses on a street. One was the oldest there and the owners had many kids, and the owner didn't care too much about what the other houses were doing. Well, he cared a little after people didn't care for him exercising outside infront of everyone. But this house isn't what the story is about. So lets go to the other 2 houses.
Now the 2nd house came a while later after the first house, and the owner competed some with the first house, but it was nothing when compared to the competition once a third house was built. The neighbors would admire both houses, and people would argue over who was better, especially the owners of the 2 houses. They would constantly try to out do each other with flashier lawn ornaments, new paint, and all sorts of things.
Well one day, after admiring the beauty of a farm, the owner of the 3rd house said he wanted to make his house look more like a farm, and to make it look more like a farm, he dumped hundreds of pounds of manure and cow pies on his lawn and said he's making a future farm. There was one problem, this was a residential neighborhood; no one wanted to live next to a wanna be farm, especially one where the "farmer" thought that hundreds of pounds of manure and cow pies would make his house a farm. Well, except for the next door neighbor who used his neighbor's screw-up to showcase how nice his house was.
The everyone said they didn't like the farm look, and hated the smell, but the owner of the 3rd house said "oh just wait till I get some crops and live stock in here, and you'll be really happy." Even after getting some crops and live stock, people still preferred the non-farm house. Even if he offered them farm fresh food, they just couldn't get over the smell and eye sore of a mini-farm in a residential neighborhood, plus the animals made noise at night.
After losing almost every admirer he had, the owner of the 3rd house decided that maybe he should change some things. He got rid of the animals, crops, and a fair amount of manure. However, there was still one section of the lawn that was covered in manure and it still made the house and lawn stink. Some people called that pile and stink a defining feature, but the owner got wise and removed that last pile. The lawn still stinks, but that might go away at some point.
Now you might think that everyone would see that the farm in a residential neighborhood would see that it was a bad idea. You may think that, but you'd be wrong. There were some people who actually wanted the farm. They thought that the farm was the best thing in the world. They even put all sorts of flyers on the 3rd house saying "bring back the farm." Though everyone in the neighborhood told them "if you want that, move out to the country and let us have our nice neighborhood."
Can you guess who the houses are? Oh, and though both the first and second house didn't have any of the farm crap, the first house still had a bunch of exercise equipment lying around and didn't have much in the way of lawn decorations. It will likely get some lawn ornaments, but right now it's pretty plain.
XBOX ONE Kinect will fail like Wii motion controls (gogle plus reupload 2013)
Originally posted August 13th 2013.
The short, "full market adaptation of the kinect" will only bread shovelware and stupid tacked on kinect controls. The long, well read.
A message to all the Microsoft fan boys saying that Microsoft is moving in the wrong direction by not making the kinect required and developers will develop amazing titles and uses for it because of full market adaptation. All you need to do is look back 1 generation, and I'm not talking about Kinect 1.0, I'm talking about the Nintendo Wii.
Now all you Wii fans out there, I am NOT talking about the wii as a whole and am only talking about the motion controls. With that in mind, continue reading.
Let's look at the Wii. By design of the freaking controller, every consumer had 100% market adaptation of the motion controls. By your logic, every game would have either used the gamecube controllers or utilized the wiimote in a revolutionary, immersive way that completely revolutionized gaming. Unfortunately, that is far from the truth. I can count the number of worthwhile games that fully utalized the motion controls of the wiimote or just used gamecube controls. Now I am not, I repeat, NOT, talking about if a game was good or not, just if the motion controls of the wiimote were fully utilized or if they just said "screw the motion controls, let's use the gamecube controller." And if someone can produce a list of over 6 games that are actually worth while, not a collection of mini games, that fully utilize the motion controls or just say no, I highly doubt you can produce a list of games that is larger than 31, and with counting in binary, I can get up to 31 on one hand.
But back to the subject of motion controls, aside from maybe 4 games, every other game had tacked on motion controls because developers felt they needed to put some kind of motion controls into their games, and this includes good games like Mario Galaxy and DK Country Returns. That, or they did utilize the motion controls but were not worth while and only fun for 30 minutes, like wario ware.
Now here's now I see the kinect. First, most developers are probably going to go the rout of "screw that, let's use gamecube controllers." If developers do decide to include some kinect controls into their game, it will likely be the "whack-a-mole" like controls we found in so Wii games. Sure, they won't be literal "whack-a-mole" like controls like with wii games, at least I hope developers won't make you suddenly put down your controller and start flailing your arms mid-game, but they won't be super useful and wanted by gamers and they'll just wish that it wasn't there and now you're shovel ware. There might be a hand number of games that fully utilize the kinect and are worthwhile, but for most people, that doesn't warrant an extra $100 to be "included" with the console.
Originally posted August 16th 2013
I decided to torture/laugh today by looking at articles about the kinect no longer being required and I cringe laughing at people saying "but the kinect 2.0 is awesome. Sure the original kinect didn't go over well, and neither did wii motion controls, playstation 2 eyetoy, playstation 3 move, and the PS4 isn't including the eye because people don't want it, but we know that full market adaptation will encourage developers to utilize the kinect in a great way." OK, it's more the just the thing about full market adaptation and then the comments bring up the other failed attempts, but really, it won't go over well. I heard one developer say it's like trying to program for a mouse with no click button. I wish people would realize that it doesn't matter how good the screwdriver is, they're all equally useless when trying to drive a nail and you're better off just using a hammer. That's how I see home motion controls. Home gaming is trying to drive a nail. I don't care how good your motion tracking hardware is, all I foresee is shovelware and tacked on motion controls.
You can use the thing about screwdriver driving a nail, just give me credit. It's a great analogy.
The short, "full market adaptation of the kinect" will only bread shovelware and stupid tacked on kinect controls. The long, well read.
A message to all the Microsoft fan boys saying that Microsoft is moving in the wrong direction by not making the kinect required and developers will develop amazing titles and uses for it because of full market adaptation. All you need to do is look back 1 generation, and I'm not talking about Kinect 1.0, I'm talking about the Nintendo Wii.
Now all you Wii fans out there, I am NOT talking about the wii as a whole and am only talking about the motion controls. With that in mind, continue reading.
Let's look at the Wii. By design of the freaking controller, every consumer had 100% market adaptation of the motion controls. By your logic, every game would have either used the gamecube controllers or utilized the wiimote in a revolutionary, immersive way that completely revolutionized gaming. Unfortunately, that is far from the truth. I can count the number of worthwhile games that fully utalized the motion controls of the wiimote or just used gamecube controls. Now I am not, I repeat, NOT, talking about if a game was good or not, just if the motion controls of the wiimote were fully utilized or if they just said "screw the motion controls, let's use the gamecube controller." And if someone can produce a list of over 6 games that are actually worth while, not a collection of mini games, that fully utilize the motion controls or just say no, I highly doubt you can produce a list of games that is larger than 31, and with counting in binary, I can get up to 31 on one hand.
But back to the subject of motion controls, aside from maybe 4 games, every other game had tacked on motion controls because developers felt they needed to put some kind of motion controls into their games, and this includes good games like Mario Galaxy and DK Country Returns. That, or they did utilize the motion controls but were not worth while and only fun for 30 minutes, like wario ware.
Now here's now I see the kinect. First, most developers are probably going to go the rout of "screw that, let's use gamecube controllers." If developers do decide to include some kinect controls into their game, it will likely be the "whack-a-mole" like controls we found in so Wii games. Sure, they won't be literal "whack-a-mole" like controls like with wii games, at least I hope developers won't make you suddenly put down your controller and start flailing your arms mid-game, but they won't be super useful and wanted by gamers and they'll just wish that it wasn't there and now you're shovel ware. There might be a hand number of games that fully utilize the kinect and are worthwhile, but for most people, that doesn't warrant an extra $100 to be "included" with the console.
Originally posted August 16th 2013
I decided to torture/laugh today by looking at articles about the kinect no longer being required and I cringe laughing at people saying "but the kinect 2.0 is awesome. Sure the original kinect didn't go over well, and neither did wii motion controls, playstation 2 eyetoy, playstation 3 move, and the PS4 isn't including the eye because people don't want it, but we know that full market adaptation will encourage developers to utilize the kinect in a great way." OK, it's more the just the thing about full market adaptation and then the comments bring up the other failed attempts, but really, it won't go over well. I heard one developer say it's like trying to program for a mouse with no click button. I wish people would realize that it doesn't matter how good the screwdriver is, they're all equally useless when trying to drive a nail and you're better off just using a hammer. That's how I see home motion controls. Home gaming is trying to drive a nail. I don't care how good your motion tracking hardware is, all I foresee is shovelware and tacked on motion controls.
You can use the thing about screwdriver driving a nail, just give me credit. It's a great analogy.
Used Games Are Not Piracy, Just Make your Games Better (google plus reupload from 2013)
Originally uploaded September 15th 2013. For context, this is a time when there was a big discussion over xbox one DRM and many discussions over why used games are killing the market, and DLC was the big thing people were angry about. Now adays it's all about microtransactions.
I really hate it when people compare used games to piracy. Their argument, "developers don't make money on used sales just like how they don't make money on pirated games."
OK, piracy and used games are not on the same level. The main reason is because, unlike piracy where an infinite amount of people can enjoy 1 once legal copy at 1 time, only 1 person can enjoy a used game at 1 time, up to 4 if it has split screen multi-player. The person who sold the used copy forfeited his rights to play that copy. He can no longer play the game he sold to someone else. If a pirate seeds his torrent, an unlimited number of people can enjoy that copy while the seeder also enjoys his copy. Even if he doesn't seed, the original torrent is still up for an unlimited number of people to get.
Another reason used games are not on the same level is because, unlike seeding a torrent, a fair amount of weighing of positives and negatives must happen before a consumer sells his copy of a game. As mentioned earlier, the first owner loses his ability to play the game once it's sold, therefor, he must be sure he doesn't want this game anymore or that the positives of selling the game outweigh the potential future enjoyment. I assume most people don't seed their torrents because they're lazy or don't like the thought of people getting stuff off their computer, or something like that, but it doesn't have the same choices that must be made like with selling a used game.
Now to address the lack of developer compensation. It is true that developers don't make money off of the sales of used games and they don't make money off of the download of pirated games, and as such it does make sense that developers would want to lower the instance of both. I don't know how to curb piracy. People seem to like steam sales and apparently that significantly lowered piracy in Russia, but I'm not going to try to come up with ideas on how to lower that; I have no ideas how to lower piracy, and since this rant isn't about ethics of piracy, I'll just stop it here.
WARNING: Explanation of basic economic concepts ahead. Please proceed to the next paragraph if you already understand the basics of free market capitalism and new game prices.
The main difference between the new and used game market is the new game market operates on a fixed price model with the price set by the developers and the used game market operates at fair market price as dictated by the consumer, aka, free market forces. In a capitalist economic society, consumers as a whole decide what they are willing to pay for a product which matches what sellers as a whole decide they wish to sell the product for. For a used game, there is a set supply as determined by the number of people wishing to sell their game and a set demand as determined by the number of people wishing to buy that game. Then based on supply and demand, the price for that game is determined by how much the seller is willing to accept based on how badly they wish to sell the game and how much the buyer is willing to depart with in order to get that game. It's basic econ. Now with the new game market, there is theoretically an unlimited supply because the production companies can print off as many copies as they want. To keep these games from being sold for nothing as would be dictated by a free market system for an item with an unlimited supply, the publishers specify what the price is going to be. There will be people willing to pay that price if they see that as being a fair price, but it's not always the same as there would be if an equilibrium supply and demand was found.
ECONOMICS OVER NOW.
Here's a way to lower used game sales though. It's a really simple concept, make games that people won't want to sell. If a game is really good and offers great gameplay and replay value, people won't be so quick to sell. This then lowers the supply in the used game market. Also if the game is really good and offers great gameplay and replay value, that increases the demand for the game. In a free market system such as the used game market, the price is directly related to supply and demand, and if you can get the price of a used game higher than a new game, people will buy the new game over the used game, because people generally go with the cheapest version. If the difference is $5-$10 dollars, it could go either way. The ability to have a game that's never been touched by anyone is worth $5-$10 to some people, others it's not. However, when the difference is $40, the consumer will go with the much cheaper version almost all of the time. Games such as the EA sports titles come to mind when thinking about the price difference between new and used. Stores might still have copies of Madden 2k-whatever, and as required by their agreement with EA, they must still sell that at whatever the standard retail price is, let's say $40. However, when everyone is selling last year's edition, the fair market price for the used game goes down to $1 because everyone wants to sell it and no one wants to buy it.
Now lets look at another game, Xenoblade Chronicles for the Wii. This game also has a $40 price difference between the new and used copy. Now what sets this apart from madden? It's quite simple, the used version is $40 more expensive than the used version. You heard me right, developer required retail price for a new copy is $40 cheaper than a used copy. If you find a new copy at gamestop, walmart, or anyone else that gets their games from the developers, they have to sell it for $50. If you find a used copy at gamestop or ebay, it's gonna cost you around $90. Gamestop was even involved in a scandal where they got shipments of new copies and they opened them up to call them used so they could sell them for more money. It's not ethical, and I'm not entirely sure if it's legal, but they were just playing to the free market.
Now as a developer, ask yourself, why was the game selling for $90 used when a new copy was cheaper? Well part of that is it was a limited release game with far fewer copies on the market. However there are probably a couple games that had the same number of sales new but now go for $10, so don't think that limited release is the answer. The primary reason, is that supply and demand dictated that $90 price tag. People were not so quick to sell their game because they really liked it, thus there was very little supply. Also, many people wanted to play it, thus there was high demand. Mixing the low supply and high demand gave that game a high price, one larger than that of the new price as dictated by the developer. If this game had a much larger release, the used price would probably be around the new price with that $5-$10 price difference, maybe less.
Now what sets a pirate apart from a buyer of used games? Simple, a pirate is not willing to pay for the content, but a used buyer willing to pay for it so long as the price matches what they are willing to pay for it. If they don't think the game is worth $50 but it is worth $20 and lower, and they can get it for $20 or lower, they will buy it for $20 or lower, compensating the developer or not so long as it was once bought legally and the previous owner can't use it anymore. Now you can remedy this by dropping the price to fair market value or lower and get some money for it, like the steam sales, or you could keep it at $50 and wonder why people would sell their games for $20; 5% of that $20 if they use a middleman like gamestop. But price drops might not seem like a good idea the year it was released because then the guys who already bought it feel like chumps and won't buy early again. So what's a developer to do?
I already said it, make games people aren't so willing to resell. If someone buys a $50 game and finds out it's only $20 worth of fun, there's a good chance they will cut their losses and sell for $20, probably then buying a better game with that money. Make a game that's $90 worth of fun and charge $50, people won't be so quick to resell for anything under original purchase price; maybe even a little over original purchase price. If you want to undercut used games, sell at or under fair market value.
Yes, it typically takes thousands if not millions of dollars to develop and make a game. Video games are a form of art, but not all art is created equal. I know I'm terrible at drawing and painting. I could spend the same amount of time and money on resources as Da Vinci did when painting the Mona Lisa. Thing is, if I managed to sell it, I would be lucky if I recouped the money I spent on paint. What makes my work of art worth $1 but Da Vinci's worth billions? They both took the same amount of time resources and there's the same number of copies in the world. Well his looks great and defines a generation of artistic creation, whereas mine is probably a lopsided circle that no one cares about. Don't invest millions of dollars in lopsided circles and expect to make a lot of money. Make the games that define a generation of games, and see how many used copies are out on the market. Just look at Earthbound. That game defined RPGs on the SNES, and loose carts are going for $150. When a virtual console release for the Wii U was produced, it was the top selling virtual console game, and it wouldn't surprise me if it outsells games like Mario U. It was that good. Now if you look at a game like NCAA Basketball, fair market value is under $1, and if a virtual console game was released, it probably wouldn't sell at all, because it's a lopsided circle. It probably cost a couple thousand dollars to make, but it's not worth the $2 of silicone, plastic, and other guts within it. Why, because it's a lopsided circle.
What's the moral of this story? Pirates are not the same as people who buy used games. Pirates aren't going to pay fair market value, new or used, because they would rather get it for free. Used game buyers will pay what they deem to be a fair price. If they feel a game is worth the $50 price tag for a new game, they will pay that $50. If not, they will wait until they can get it for the price they feel is fair, new or used. If you want to compete with the used game market, drop the price to used fair market value price, or make a game that is worth the $50, or make it worth more than $50 but charge that, that'll really screw the used game market.
Now don't get me wrong, I despise piracy. Arguments such as "avoiding DRM and the company sucks" I call Bull. Everyone who uses those arguments that I've met ultimately does it because they want free stuff. The only time I can understand piracy is if there's no legal way to get the content, like with Star Fox 2 for the SNES. Unlike the used game market that shows what fair market value is, piracy is just free stuff from an unlimited source. Piracy is bad, don't do it.
I really hate it when people compare used games to piracy. Their argument, "developers don't make money on used sales just like how they don't make money on pirated games."
OK, piracy and used games are not on the same level. The main reason is because, unlike piracy where an infinite amount of people can enjoy 1 once legal copy at 1 time, only 1 person can enjoy a used game at 1 time, up to 4 if it has split screen multi-player. The person who sold the used copy forfeited his rights to play that copy. He can no longer play the game he sold to someone else. If a pirate seeds his torrent, an unlimited number of people can enjoy that copy while the seeder also enjoys his copy. Even if he doesn't seed, the original torrent is still up for an unlimited number of people to get.
Another reason used games are not on the same level is because, unlike seeding a torrent, a fair amount of weighing of positives and negatives must happen before a consumer sells his copy of a game. As mentioned earlier, the first owner loses his ability to play the game once it's sold, therefor, he must be sure he doesn't want this game anymore or that the positives of selling the game outweigh the potential future enjoyment. I assume most people don't seed their torrents because they're lazy or don't like the thought of people getting stuff off their computer, or something like that, but it doesn't have the same choices that must be made like with selling a used game.
Now to address the lack of developer compensation. It is true that developers don't make money off of the sales of used games and they don't make money off of the download of pirated games, and as such it does make sense that developers would want to lower the instance of both. I don't know how to curb piracy. People seem to like steam sales and apparently that significantly lowered piracy in Russia, but I'm not going to try to come up with ideas on how to lower that; I have no ideas how to lower piracy, and since this rant isn't about ethics of piracy, I'll just stop it here.
WARNING: Explanation of basic economic concepts ahead. Please proceed to the next paragraph if you already understand the basics of free market capitalism and new game prices.
The main difference between the new and used game market is the new game market operates on a fixed price model with the price set by the developers and the used game market operates at fair market price as dictated by the consumer, aka, free market forces. In a capitalist economic society, consumers as a whole decide what they are willing to pay for a product which matches what sellers as a whole decide they wish to sell the product for. For a used game, there is a set supply as determined by the number of people wishing to sell their game and a set demand as determined by the number of people wishing to buy that game. Then based on supply and demand, the price for that game is determined by how much the seller is willing to accept based on how badly they wish to sell the game and how much the buyer is willing to depart with in order to get that game. It's basic econ. Now with the new game market, there is theoretically an unlimited supply because the production companies can print off as many copies as they want. To keep these games from being sold for nothing as would be dictated by a free market system for an item with an unlimited supply, the publishers specify what the price is going to be. There will be people willing to pay that price if they see that as being a fair price, but it's not always the same as there would be if an equilibrium supply and demand was found.
ECONOMICS OVER NOW.
Here's a way to lower used game sales though. It's a really simple concept, make games that people won't want to sell. If a game is really good and offers great gameplay and replay value, people won't be so quick to sell. This then lowers the supply in the used game market. Also if the game is really good and offers great gameplay and replay value, that increases the demand for the game. In a free market system such as the used game market, the price is directly related to supply and demand, and if you can get the price of a used game higher than a new game, people will buy the new game over the used game, because people generally go with the cheapest version. If the difference is $5-$10 dollars, it could go either way. The ability to have a game that's never been touched by anyone is worth $5-$10 to some people, others it's not. However, when the difference is $40, the consumer will go with the much cheaper version almost all of the time. Games such as the EA sports titles come to mind when thinking about the price difference between new and used. Stores might still have copies of Madden 2k-whatever, and as required by their agreement with EA, they must still sell that at whatever the standard retail price is, let's say $40. However, when everyone is selling last year's edition, the fair market price for the used game goes down to $1 because everyone wants to sell it and no one wants to buy it.
Now lets look at another game, Xenoblade Chronicles for the Wii. This game also has a $40 price difference between the new and used copy. Now what sets this apart from madden? It's quite simple, the used version is $40 more expensive than the used version. You heard me right, developer required retail price for a new copy is $40 cheaper than a used copy. If you find a new copy at gamestop, walmart, or anyone else that gets their games from the developers, they have to sell it for $50. If you find a used copy at gamestop or ebay, it's gonna cost you around $90. Gamestop was even involved in a scandal where they got shipments of new copies and they opened them up to call them used so they could sell them for more money. It's not ethical, and I'm not entirely sure if it's legal, but they were just playing to the free market.
Now as a developer, ask yourself, why was the game selling for $90 used when a new copy was cheaper? Well part of that is it was a limited release game with far fewer copies on the market. However there are probably a couple games that had the same number of sales new but now go for $10, so don't think that limited release is the answer. The primary reason, is that supply and demand dictated that $90 price tag. People were not so quick to sell their game because they really liked it, thus there was very little supply. Also, many people wanted to play it, thus there was high demand. Mixing the low supply and high demand gave that game a high price, one larger than that of the new price as dictated by the developer. If this game had a much larger release, the used price would probably be around the new price with that $5-$10 price difference, maybe less.
Now what sets a pirate apart from a buyer of used games? Simple, a pirate is not willing to pay for the content, but a used buyer willing to pay for it so long as the price matches what they are willing to pay for it. If they don't think the game is worth $50 but it is worth $20 and lower, and they can get it for $20 or lower, they will buy it for $20 or lower, compensating the developer or not so long as it was once bought legally and the previous owner can't use it anymore. Now you can remedy this by dropping the price to fair market value or lower and get some money for it, like the steam sales, or you could keep it at $50 and wonder why people would sell their games for $20; 5% of that $20 if they use a middleman like gamestop. But price drops might not seem like a good idea the year it was released because then the guys who already bought it feel like chumps and won't buy early again. So what's a developer to do?
I already said it, make games people aren't so willing to resell. If someone buys a $50 game and finds out it's only $20 worth of fun, there's a good chance they will cut their losses and sell for $20, probably then buying a better game with that money. Make a game that's $90 worth of fun and charge $50, people won't be so quick to resell for anything under original purchase price; maybe even a little over original purchase price. If you want to undercut used games, sell at or under fair market value.
Yes, it typically takes thousands if not millions of dollars to develop and make a game. Video games are a form of art, but not all art is created equal. I know I'm terrible at drawing and painting. I could spend the same amount of time and money on resources as Da Vinci did when painting the Mona Lisa. Thing is, if I managed to sell it, I would be lucky if I recouped the money I spent on paint. What makes my work of art worth $1 but Da Vinci's worth billions? They both took the same amount of time resources and there's the same number of copies in the world. Well his looks great and defines a generation of artistic creation, whereas mine is probably a lopsided circle that no one cares about. Don't invest millions of dollars in lopsided circles and expect to make a lot of money. Make the games that define a generation of games, and see how many used copies are out on the market. Just look at Earthbound. That game defined RPGs on the SNES, and loose carts are going for $150. When a virtual console release for the Wii U was produced, it was the top selling virtual console game, and it wouldn't surprise me if it outsells games like Mario U. It was that good. Now if you look at a game like NCAA Basketball, fair market value is under $1, and if a virtual console game was released, it probably wouldn't sell at all, because it's a lopsided circle. It probably cost a couple thousand dollars to make, but it's not worth the $2 of silicone, plastic, and other guts within it. Why, because it's a lopsided circle.
What's the moral of this story? Pirates are not the same as people who buy used games. Pirates aren't going to pay fair market value, new or used, because they would rather get it for free. Used game buyers will pay what they deem to be a fair price. If they feel a game is worth the $50 price tag for a new game, they will pay that $50. If not, they will wait until they can get it for the price they feel is fair, new or used. If you want to compete with the used game market, drop the price to used fair market value price, or make a game that is worth the $50, or make it worth more than $50 but charge that, that'll really screw the used game market.
Now don't get me wrong, I despise piracy. Arguments such as "avoiding DRM and the company sucks" I call Bull. Everyone who uses those arguments that I've met ultimately does it because they want free stuff. The only time I can understand piracy is if there's no legal way to get the content, like with Star Fox 2 for the SNES. Unlike the used game market that shows what fair market value is, piracy is just free stuff from an unlimited source. Piracy is bad, don't do it.
So What if PS4 and XBOX ONE Are Similar with their Camera Features (Google plus reupload from 2013)
Originally posted September 26th 2013. I made in response to this article: PlayStation 4 new camera, an xbox copycat?
Yeah... Thing is though, Sony is playing it cool. They're all "yeah, use it if you want to, but it's whatever." They've been like that since launch. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they dropped the mandatory inclusion, aka every PS4 ships with it, not "you must have this plugged in at all times," even before the xbox one announcement. They knew that gamers didn't really care about it, as shown by the playstation move. They made some games for it, but once they saw that no one was buying it, they were all "ok then, let's not care about it." Microsoft however, "man kinect is amazing. You need to get this for your xbox 360 to really improve your gaming experience. Just look at all these 'awesome' game's were making, like kinect adventures and kinectamals." Problem is, rather poorly received. Sold decently from what I heard, but no one was buying a third kinect game and devs weren't to thrilled to program for something people didn't really care for.
Now with this generation, there are 2 schools of thought with the camera control accessory; make it super technologically advanced and force it onto people, or make it super technologically advanced and say "yeah get it if you want but we don't care."
Initially, Microsoft was all "this is an amazing piece of tech. This IS XBOX ONE. We want to make sure you know that, so we're going to make it so that your XBOX won't work without it connected. But trust us, you'll love it just as much as us." They probably only dropped the required connection after some exec's cat chewed through the wire and said "hey guys, I have mine connected, but it doesn't work. My cat chewed through it. The guys on all the internet were right, this will be a problem if for people with cats and/or children, and since that's our target market, we don't want to lose them over this."
Sony on the other hand, "yeah we thought about including it, but then we remembered that you guys don't really care for motion controls. We'll have it do the whole voice controls and face recognition sign in thing if that's what you're in to, but we really don't care. Buy it if you want."
Sure, both consoles are quite similar as to what they can do, but so was the 360 and PS3, and to an extent, so was the PS2 and XBOX classic.
PS2 and XBOX classic; both could play music, both could play DVDs, both could do online multiplayer. The features were super similar with the only things separating them being exclusives and one having a payment wall for the online and DVD services.
PS360; both could do DVD, both could do HD video disk playback, both could download games through their online store, both could buy movies and TV shows through their online store, both have a web browser (though one got it much later than the other), both have a large number of streaming services, both have online multiplayer, etc. Main differences that separated the 2 consoles, exclusive games, one having a payment wall for services and HD video disk playback, and the same one with the payment wall adopting the failed HD video disk.
Later in their life, they both made motion control accessories, both of which got mixed to negative reviews from developers and consumers. Main difference, one shoehorned their motion control accessory and the other just kind of let it fade to not caring.
Now with PS4 XBOX ONE, there were a million differences. One made you check in every 24 hours and the other didn't, one made you stay online whenever you played it and the other didn't, one let you share games and the other didn't, one made you not only buy a motion control camera, it also made you use it all the time, and the other one didn't even make you buy the motion control camera, like before, one locked close to everything behind a payment wall and the other didn't...the list goes on and on. The only thing that was similar was the multiplats, some streaming services, and both used blu-ray. Thing is, people didn't like the differences. People preferred one to the other 20 to 1. Spoilers, XBOX ONE did all the consumer unfriendly stuff and PS4 didn't. Only thing people didn't like about PS4 was that they made video capture a pain and super complicated while XBOX ONE didn't.
Well, Microsoft then changed their tone once they saw the numbers, releasing what I will call "XBOX 180." They dropped all their consumer unfriendly practices, making it "very similar to the PS4." They still make you buy the motion control camera, but you don't need to have it connected the all the time.
Now there were some things that XBOX got right, like voice commands and face sign in for their motion camera and allowing game capture. To make things better, PS4 allows game capture and motion camera things.
Once again, they're essentially the same, except for exclusives and one locking most of the features behind a payment wall, just like the past 2 generations. I don't get why people act surprised when the consoles are very similar to each other. Don't they know only Nintendo can do things differently?
/post
Looking back, I find it kind of funny how people were going crazy about the motion controls, considering they're now dead 5 and a half years later.
Yeah... Thing is though, Sony is playing it cool. They're all "yeah, use it if you want to, but it's whatever." They've been like that since launch. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they dropped the mandatory inclusion, aka every PS4 ships with it, not "you must have this plugged in at all times," even before the xbox one announcement. They knew that gamers didn't really care about it, as shown by the playstation move. They made some games for it, but once they saw that no one was buying it, they were all "ok then, let's not care about it." Microsoft however, "man kinect is amazing. You need to get this for your xbox 360 to really improve your gaming experience. Just look at all these 'awesome' game's were making, like kinect adventures and kinectamals." Problem is, rather poorly received. Sold decently from what I heard, but no one was buying a third kinect game and devs weren't to thrilled to program for something people didn't really care for.
Now with this generation, there are 2 schools of thought with the camera control accessory; make it super technologically advanced and force it onto people, or make it super technologically advanced and say "yeah get it if you want but we don't care."
Initially, Microsoft was all "this is an amazing piece of tech. This IS XBOX ONE. We want to make sure you know that, so we're going to make it so that your XBOX won't work without it connected. But trust us, you'll love it just as much as us." They probably only dropped the required connection after some exec's cat chewed through the wire and said "hey guys, I have mine connected, but it doesn't work. My cat chewed through it. The guys on all the internet were right, this will be a problem if for people with cats and/or children, and since that's our target market, we don't want to lose them over this."
Sony on the other hand, "yeah we thought about including it, but then we remembered that you guys don't really care for motion controls. We'll have it do the whole voice controls and face recognition sign in thing if that's what you're in to, but we really don't care. Buy it if you want."
Sure, both consoles are quite similar as to what they can do, but so was the 360 and PS3, and to an extent, so was the PS2 and XBOX classic.
PS2 and XBOX classic; both could play music, both could play DVDs, both could do online multiplayer. The features were super similar with the only things separating them being exclusives and one having a payment wall for the online and DVD services.
PS360; both could do DVD, both could do HD video disk playback, both could download games through their online store, both could buy movies and TV shows through their online store, both have a web browser (though one got it much later than the other), both have a large number of streaming services, both have online multiplayer, etc. Main differences that separated the 2 consoles, exclusive games, one having a payment wall for services and HD video disk playback, and the same one with the payment wall adopting the failed HD video disk.
Later in their life, they both made motion control accessories, both of which got mixed to negative reviews from developers and consumers. Main difference, one shoehorned their motion control accessory and the other just kind of let it fade to not caring.
Now with PS4 XBOX ONE, there were a million differences. One made you check in every 24 hours and the other didn't, one made you stay online whenever you played it and the other didn't, one let you share games and the other didn't, one made you not only buy a motion control camera, it also made you use it all the time, and the other one didn't even make you buy the motion control camera, like before, one locked close to everything behind a payment wall and the other didn't...the list goes on and on. The only thing that was similar was the multiplats, some streaming services, and both used blu-ray. Thing is, people didn't like the differences. People preferred one to the other 20 to 1. Spoilers, XBOX ONE did all the consumer unfriendly stuff and PS4 didn't. Only thing people didn't like about PS4 was that they made video capture a pain and super complicated while XBOX ONE didn't.
Well, Microsoft then changed their tone once they saw the numbers, releasing what I will call "XBOX 180." They dropped all their consumer unfriendly practices, making it "very similar to the PS4." They still make you buy the motion control camera, but you don't need to have it connected the all the time.
Now there were some things that XBOX got right, like voice commands and face sign in for their motion camera and allowing game capture. To make things better, PS4 allows game capture and motion camera things.
Once again, they're essentially the same, except for exclusives and one locking most of the features behind a payment wall, just like the past 2 generations. I don't get why people act surprised when the consoles are very similar to each other. Don't they know only Nintendo can do things differently?
/post
Looking back, I find it kind of funny how people were going crazy about the motion controls, considering they're now dead 5 and a half years later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)