I was just pondering; is there a Gamestop equivalent for movies?
I can't think of places that really sell used movies, other than yardsales, and maybe, goodwill. I'm sure places like that exist, but perhaps not as big as gamestop?
I think you should be able to lend games to people, give them to people, or sell them to someone who wants them. That gives you money, which is not bad; boost your own economy, and you can set the price, and all that. But selling to Gamestop, who mark up the price and sell it back to other consumers for their profit, I don't agree with.
I think, as a corporation that makes a lot of its cash through used games, they have a responsibility to the publishers and developers; and that a certain percentage should go to them.
Well that answers my question... that "ends" the LIVE argument. At least I don't have to pay for my little brother to play online too if he wants his own account.
Well that answers my question... that "ends" the LIVE argument. At least I don't have to pay for my little brother to play online too if he wants his own account.
This is actually a big deal for me and my wife. Don't wanna shell out $$$ for another XBL gold account when she plays infrequently, but sometimes we really do wanna play something together and we can't.
in engine just means it's in a game engine, not some other pre-rendered software. It also doesn't mean it was running at 30-60fps to create the video. The PS4 doesn't have it's own game engine.
This is actually a big deal for me and my wife. Don't wanna shell out $$$ for another XBL gold account when she plays infrequently, but sometimes we really do wanna play something together and we can't.
Microsoft also said that any guest account or non gold account on the xbox one will be able to play online as long as there is one gold subscription on the system and that it wont have to be logged in at the time to play.
So sounds like they both took the same route which is great.
I was just pondering; is there a Gamestop equivalent for movies?
I can't think of places that really sell used movies, other than yardsales, and maybe, goodwill. I'm sure places like that exist, but perhaps not as big as gamestop?
Pawn Shops, at least around here, have a big selection of DVDs. A lot of people use them as basically rental stores. Buy a DVD, watch it, take it back and use it for trade against getting a different one. It was cheaper than renting from Blockbuster back in the day, and there were no late fees.
I honestly hope that doesn't happen, because I feel it would seriously hurt the indie market. Trading at retail at least requires a tiny bit of effort, whereas doing it online would require none. The wear and tear also doesn't exist in the digital world, making a used game exactly the same as a new one.
The question is whether people would bother to save a few pennies. But I think they would, because looking for the best deal is fun and Steam sales already encourage this behavior.
I honestly hope that doesn't happen, because I feel it would seriously hurt the indie market. Trading at retail at least requires a tiny bit of effort, whereas doing it online would require none. The wear and tear also doesn't exist in the digital world, making a used game exactly the same as a new one.
The question is whether people would bother to save a few pennies. But I think they would, because looking for the best deal is fun and Steam sales already encourage this behavior.
except that reselling through steam (if managed properly) could still allow both valve and the developer to take a cut of the resale.
except that reselling through steam (if managed properly) could still allow both valve and the developer to take a cut of the resale.
Yes, that is possible, but I would be still very concerned about the economics of such system. The management is the key, but I find the whole idea to be extremely problematic. How would a digital resales work?
Would they allow the customers to resell games themselves at their own price? The availability of games (assuming that games could be resold over and over again) could lead to people trying to undercut each other. How far can they go before the developer cut is almost non-existent?
Would they create a standardized price formula that is applied to all used games? Let's say, 50% of the price of the new game? If yes how would it work with discounts? Would the price vary depending on the current cost of the game in the store?
How high could they make the developer cut without angering the customers? Suddenly the amount of money you make back would depend on the developers. I feel that things could get personal pretty quickly.
What incentive would we have to buy games new? Could this lead to an even larger number of day one DLC's, exclusive content, online passes and all that jazz? Could this further hurt game developers who make only single player games?
I know I may sound like a doomsday preacher, but we are talking about items that do not perish, cannot be damaged and cannot be lost. In digital space, the definition between "new" and "used" is extremely murky.
I have a lot of questions and a lot of doubts. I question whether saving a few pennies is worth going there. I don't think implementing something like this could be reversible.
i understand all the concerns, but it's something i'd still like to be explored... i mean, look at all the games (like torchlight or diablo, or mmo's or whatever) where an account is sometimes worth hundreds of dollars...
players sell those accounts, it happens a LOT. there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. but there IS something developers can do to:
1. make it safer for both parties.
2. ensure they get a "fair" cut.
so for example, somebody has a marvel heroes account... it's a free to play game with an in-game shop where people can buy new heroes and costumes and stuff. "player A" has not only spent a long time in game, but has spent quite a bit of money on characters/costumes. is now bored of the game and wants to sell it.
ordinarily, a new player would have two choices:
1. get this "free" game, buy the characters they want, level them up...
2. buy "player A"'s account from him.
option 1 would give the developer their money, option 2 wouldn't. additionally, option 2 would also have risks involved for both players... what if player 1 didn't give over the account after sale, or player 2 didn't give the right amount of money and ran with the account?
so then Valve step in and say "okay guys, you can sell/buy this account, through us. we will charge you $1 for the transaction which will guarantee you both security of the sale, additionally another 15% of the sale value will go to the developer as their sale royalty".
something along those lines could work (obviously numbers would be adjusted).
Yeah, I see where you are coming from, but I also think that transferring accounts in MMO's and multiplayer games is quite different. In fact, I think it could be done as a part of an in-game store, without ever stepping into the realm of a Steam-wide used games policy.
My biggest fear is that allowing used games on Steam would seriously hurt sigleplayer games. I feel that one of the reasons why so many singleplayer games are moving towards open-world style gameplay is because studios are desperate to add more value and keep players attached to their copies. Selling a 8-10 hour game doesn't seem to cut it these days, as a lot of people trade them in shortly after beating it.
While AAA studios can afford making massive, open world games, indies could be left out of the loop and their games could be seen as disposable. There's a lot of small indie games, that have short but great campaigns and I don't want them gone. Neither I want them to change their design so that they can remain competitive in a cutthroat, used games economy.
Edit:
Also, just wondering. Couldn't it be possible that some governments may have issues with players reselling their characters/items? I could see someone arguing that players who create characters solely to profit from their sale should be taxed, or are involved in gambling. If I recall correctly, US has some pretty harsh laws on online gambling. I fear that once you start allowing players to legitimately profit from your games, you may run into problems. I'm not sure if there are any games, that allow you to do that without resorting to the grey market.
I think its because their Japanese, there a bit more humble than US Ceos.
That, plus they learned a very hard lesson from the PS3 launch and all the issues surrounding it following the high they got from the PS2 success, so they're trying their best to avoid all of that.
Damn, Cerny is an amazing speaker. His optimism and passion is contagious.
I was REALLY impressed when Sony revealed the PS4, and announced that Mark Cerny was the lead system architect. He doesn't have nearly as much business experience, and isn't as visible in terms of his public recognition. But for anyone familiar with some of the industry's more prominent developers, he is a living legend. The man is a game development wizard, and master-level programmer. He's been developing and producing critically acclaimed titles his entire career. Hearing him talk at that initial PS4 presentation really helped to set my mind at ease as to Sony's direction with the PS4.
what a great talk. If more big companies put aside the usual nonsense of lame jokes and awkward presentations coupled with mindless PR barf and decided to put together amazingly interesting stuff like this, the world would be a better place.
Seems pretty wasteful if it's true. Windows takes less RAM with all kinds of crap running and these consoles are supposed to be dedicated to gaming. Guess this is the result of all the integrated social crap that no one wants.
Seems pretty wasteful if it's true. Windows takes less RAM with all kinds of crap running and these consoles are supposed to be dedicated to gaming. Guess this is the result of all the integrated social crap that no one wants.
Could possibly need to use more ram for the OS becuase gddr5 isn't really tuned for dealing with OS/cpu like tasks like ddr3 is.
Pretty frustrating that this is just now coming through the pipes (if its true). Seems to me like another instance of sony keeping info close to the chest and letting microsoft get burned for sticking their neck out.
This is an illogical argument, you're arguing sideways to the point, a smart phone is designed with all those features in mind, that isn't really an example of feature creep, that's why we call them "Smart" phones, I buy one because I want the ability to go online and call people and text people, and take photos, the games I could go without though.
I don't understand the desire for convergence on consoles though, because I want them just for games, I hate having everything connected, it makes it so hard to get away from certain people and problems. I just want my games to be games, they're an escape, let them be that, this is why I'm mostly going back to playing handheld and oldschool games, and reading novels. Too many computers and too much facebook integrate in my life. It just aint right man, they should let people develop for NES and PS2 again. It wasn't a better time for life, but it kinda was for games.
10 years ago people thought that adding a camera to a cell phone was weird and "why would I want a camera on MY CELL PHONE," etc etc.
It's the same thing, and your argument is literally the same argument that people made up until they finally sold a phone with the right mix of features to excite them.
We take a game console, we start adding other features, and eventually it's not a game console, it's a smart console or however you want to brand it. You can call it illogical all you want, but it's just history repeating itself.
The NES/PS2 era being some sort of wonderful time for games compared to now is some serious rose-tinted glasses as well.
Well lets say the general consensus. Why buy a gaming console to look at facebook and watch TV.
I don't believe people would buy that with that intention. They would still buy it with the intention that its a gaming device. It only becomes problematic when the features become invasive to your gaming experience.
If it is capable of those things but you are never required to use them, then I'm fine with that.
If studios start designing games where you are required to post on your FB to get past a certain point in the game, that's what I return it to the store.
No dude, it's called a PC, we have those already...
And seriously, consider all the awesome games that came out for NES, SNES, and PS2, I'm saying that personally I'd rather just play those over again than most modern games, cause nothing modern excites me much, and that's just personal preference.
Check out the Indie games scene, surely there's some stuff there for you. There's been a huge resurgence of old-school-inspired games like Shadowrun Returns, Shovel knight, Broken Age, etc. There's bound to be something.
Just because the new consoles have extra features doesn't mean they're inherently worse, or that they just don't offer the things you want. We've still got plenty of power to play games, particularly the types of games you seem to be interested in the most. We've still got 4.5 dedicated for gaming, and presumably we'll have the ability to disable the excess crap we don't want, freeing up the rest of that RAM.
I don't believe people would buy that with that intention. They would still buy it with the intention that its a gaming device. It only becomes problematic when the features become invasive to your gaming experience.
If it is capable of those things but you are never required to use them, then I'm fine with that.
If studios start designing games where you are required to post on your FB to get past a certain point in the game, that's what I return it to the store.
Don't you think though that the RAM reserve for the O/S and background programs could have been put to better use in the consoles primary focus of playing games?
i fail to see the issue here? early reports were that the ps4 would have 4gb with an OS that only uses 512mb. that left 3.5gb for games, right?
well, they've obviously decided that having more features available on the OS is a good thing, and applied that to their increased RAM amount. gaming gets more RAM than earlier estimates anyway, so everyone wins!
What iam kinda suprised about is, that the OS for a console, that i would expect to be slim and purpose build since it can be tailored to the specs of the system uses up more RAM in both systems than a full blown Win 7 Home (probably even prof) 64 install does. I mean my Windows 7 got 2 GB of RAM usage for itself, and it's a very all purpose OS that i always considered unnecessarily bloaded, but well seems i was wrong, seems Win 7 is actually to be considered slim...
What iam kinda suprised about is, that the OS for a console, that i would expect to be slim and purpose build since it can be tailored to the specs of the system uses up more RAM in both systems than a full blown Win 7 Home (probably even prof) 64 install does. I mean my Windows 7 got 2 GB of RAM usage for itself, and it's a very all purpose OS that i always considered unnecessarily bloaded, but well seems i was wrong, seems Win 7 is actually to be considered slim...
that depends how many of its features you have active at any one time... how much more ram would be used if your screen were covered in widgets, if your background were set to rotate through 1000 images, if you were to load photoshop through a windows app rather than through an explorer page etc.
i think the reason so much ram is used on these new consoles, is that EVERYTHING has to be accessible instantly, whether you're inside a game, on a webpage, watching a movie... you need to be able to switch instantly and seamlessly between all the programs.
that depends how many of its features you have active at any one time... how much more ram would be used if your screen were covered in widgets, if your background were set to rotate through 1000 images, if you were to load photoshop through a windows app rather than through an explorer page etc.
i think the reason so much ram is used on these new consoles, is that EVERYTHING has to be accessible instantly, whether you're inside a game, on a webpage, watching a movie... you need to be able to switch instantly and seamlessly between all the programs.
Well the instant Access to stuff is an argument ofcourse, i just hope it will be worth it for Sony to keep them loaded in the ram at all time instead of unloading them at gaming time. I mean i see it beeing nice that it's all loaded on the spot but does it have to be kept loaded even when running a game. I mean they managed to keep rather good looking game and rather elaborate OS with quite low loading times in 512 MB of ram in the PS3, they should be able to reduce the OS footprint during gaming to 1 GB by unloading unnecessary services like Picture viewer, movie player or whatever.
The OS better be bloody good then. Not some stupid mass of lists within lists.
yeah, and also better be really really smooth,
ps3 os performance kinda choppy, and also take a look at playstation store, it is basically a total JOKE, how could they manage to slow down the performance at the point it is unbearable ...
The worst experience I've had in enjoying a game and the interface being utter rubbish, was FIFA 2013, the player/menu item you're trying to select gets skipped over and then you're in a completely different part of the team menu system. NHL hockey also isn't very good. Maybe it's the PS3 but from a gaming experience EA's GUIs are flashy but unresponsive as fuck.
edit: not completely relevant, but i'd like to share my thoughts on GUIs in general.
The one thing I've always hated, was the PS3's message system. If someone sends me a message, I would like to be able to read it instantly. Not 20 seconds for a menu to load, then 5 seconds per level of the messages, with another 10 seconds for it to load the message. Replying can take another 10 seconds of loading. I can hide in the most secluded area, and someone will still find, and kill me, before I can respond to a message.
Even if I click the PS button, and I see someone approaching, before the menu completely loads, it takes forever to try closing it again. I usually just end up dead.
I really hope they take a smarter approach, and the system is managed better so it's faster.
I may be buying a vita now... I just bought some for my kids, last christmas, and I was pretty impressed by it, but the lack of games was disappointing. Now cheaper memory, and only $199... and the better PS4 support. I'm pretty much sold. I'll wait until I'm closer to buying the PS4 though (in case that decision changes).
For those who may have missed the PS4 UI presentation, or just didn't get to see it very well, because of the shitty camera work at the Gamescom presentation:
lol, it was SO terrible. Whoever was in the booth, choosing which camera to display, should be fired. Every time something important appeared on the screen, they switched to a scan of the audience
Replies
I can't think of places that really sell used movies, other than yardsales, and maybe, goodwill. I'm sure places like that exist, but perhaps not as big as gamestop?
I think you should be able to lend games to people, give them to people, or sell them to someone who wants them. That gives you money, which is not bad; boost your own economy, and you can set the price, and all that. But selling to Gamestop, who mark up the price and sell it back to other consumers for their profit, I don't agree with.
I think, as a corporation that makes a lot of its cash through used games, they have a responsibility to the publishers and developers; and that a certain percentage should go to them.
Well that answers my question... that "ends" the LIVE argument. At least I don't have to pay for my little brother to play online too if he wants his own account.
This is actually a big deal for me and my wife. Don't wanna shell out $$$ for another XBL gold account when she plays infrequently, but sometimes we really do wanna play something together and we can't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FK8dgzW0o8
They just keep making my decision easier....
Microsoft also said that any guest account or non gold account on the xbox one will be able to play online as long as there is one gold subscription on the system and that it wont have to be logged in at the time to play.
So sounds like they both took the same route which is great.
Pawn Shops, at least around here, have a big selection of DVDs. A lot of people use them as basically rental stores. Buy a DVD, watch it, take it back and use it for trade against getting a different one. It was cheaper than renting from Blockbuster back in the day, and there were no late fees.
They might have to allow used games selling at some point (in .de, at least)..
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/01/valve-sued-by-german-consumer-group-because-steam-users-cant-resell-games/
I honestly hope that doesn't happen, because I feel it would seriously hurt the indie market. Trading at retail at least requires a tiny bit of effort, whereas doing it online would require none. The wear and tear also doesn't exist in the digital world, making a used game exactly the same as a new one.
The question is whether people would bother to save a few pennies. But I think they would, because looking for the best deal is fun and Steam sales already encourage this behavior.
except that reselling through steam (if managed properly) could still allow both valve and the developer to take a cut of the resale.
Yes, that is possible, but I would be still very concerned about the economics of such system. The management is the key, but I find the whole idea to be extremely problematic. How would a digital resales work?
Would they allow the customers to resell games themselves at their own price? The availability of games (assuming that games could be resold over and over again) could lead to people trying to undercut each other. How far can they go before the developer cut is almost non-existent?
Would they create a standardized price formula that is applied to all used games? Let's say, 50% of the price of the new game? If yes how would it work with discounts? Would the price vary depending on the current cost of the game in the store?
How high could they make the developer cut without angering the customers? Suddenly the amount of money you make back would depend on the developers. I feel that things could get personal pretty quickly.
What incentive would we have to buy games new? Could this lead to an even larger number of day one DLC's, exclusive content, online passes and all that jazz? Could this further hurt game developers who make only single player games?
I know I may sound like a doomsday preacher, but we are talking about items that do not perish, cannot be damaged and cannot be lost. In digital space, the definition between "new" and "used" is extremely murky.
I have a lot of questions and a lot of doubts. I question whether saving a few pennies is worth going there. I don't think implementing something like this could be reversible.
players sell those accounts, it happens a LOT. there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. but there IS something developers can do to:
1. make it safer for both parties.
2. ensure they get a "fair" cut.
so for example, somebody has a marvel heroes account... it's a free to play game with an in-game shop where people can buy new heroes and costumes and stuff. "player A" has not only spent a long time in game, but has spent quite a bit of money on characters/costumes. is now bored of the game and wants to sell it.
ordinarily, a new player would have two choices:
1. get this "free" game, buy the characters they want, level them up...
2. buy "player A"'s account from him.
option 1 would give the developer their money, option 2 wouldn't. additionally, option 2 would also have risks involved for both players... what if player 1 didn't give over the account after sale, or player 2 didn't give the right amount of money and ran with the account?
so then Valve step in and say "okay guys, you can sell/buy this account, through us. we will charge you $1 for the transaction which will guarantee you both security of the sale, additionally another 15% of the sale value will go to the developer as their sale royalty".
something along those lines could work (obviously numbers would be adjusted).
My biggest fear is that allowing used games on Steam would seriously hurt sigleplayer games. I feel that one of the reasons why so many singleplayer games are moving towards open-world style gameplay is because studios are desperate to add more value and keep players attached to their copies. Selling a 8-10 hour game doesn't seem to cut it these days, as a lot of people trade them in shortly after beating it.
While AAA studios can afford making massive, open world games, indies could be left out of the loop and their games could be seen as disposable. There's a lot of small indie games, that have short but great campaigns and I don't want them gone. Neither I want them to change their design so that they can remain competitive in a cutthroat, used games economy.
Edit:
Also, just wondering. Couldn't it be possible that some governments may have issues with players reselling their characters/items? I could see someone arguing that players who create characters solely to profit from their sale should be taxed, or are involved in gambling. If I recall correctly, US has some pretty harsh laws on online gambling. I fear that once you start allowing players to legitimately profit from your games, you may run into problems. I'm not sure if there are any games, that allow you to do that without resorting to the grey market.
if someone is making an actual living from gaming, they should be taxed on it. it should be declared as self employed income.
quite inspirational ...
I was REALLY impressed when Sony revealed the PS4, and announced that Mark Cerny was the lead system architect. He doesn't have nearly as much business experience, and isn't as visible in terms of his public recognition. But for anyone familiar with some of the industry's more prominent developers, he is a living legend. The man is a game development wizard, and master-level programmer. He's been developing and producing critically acclaimed titles his entire career. Hearing him talk at that initial PS4 presentation really helped to set my mind at ease as to Sony's direction with the PS4.
Seems pretty wasteful if it's true. Windows takes less RAM with all kinds of crap running and these consoles are supposed to be dedicated to gaming. Guess this is the result of all the integrated social crap that no one wants.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps3-system-software-memory
also it's not too bad to just take more now, and optimize later and see how things go with these "extra OS" things.
You don't know that. Don't assume what you like/don't like is the global truth.
Well lets say the general consensus. Why buy a gaming console to look at facebook and watch TV.
Could possibly need to use more ram for the OS becuase gddr5 isn't really tuned for dealing with OS/cpu like tasks like ddr3 is.
Pretty frustrating that this is just now coming through the pipes (if its true). Seems to me like another instance of sony keeping info close to the chest and letting microsoft get burned for sticking their neck out.
Why buy a cell phone to play games/take photos/surf the internet/navigate/900 other features that existed in independent devices?
Convergence is not bad.
10 years ago people thought that adding a camera to a cell phone was weird and "why would I want a camera on MY CELL PHONE," etc etc.
It's the same thing, and your argument is literally the same argument that people made up until they finally sold a phone with the right mix of features to excite them.
We take a game console, we start adding other features, and eventually it's not a game console, it's a smart console or however you want to brand it. You can call it illogical all you want, but it's just history repeating itself.
The NES/PS2 era being some sort of wonderful time for games compared to now is some serious rose-tinted glasses as well.
I don't believe people would buy that with that intention. They would still buy it with the intention that its a gaming device. It only becomes problematic when the features become invasive to your gaming experience.
If it is capable of those things but you are never required to use them, then I'm fine with that.
If studios start designing games where you are required to post on your FB to get past a certain point in the game, that's what I return it to the store.
Just because the new consoles have extra features doesn't mean they're inherently worse, or that they just don't offer the things you want. We've still got plenty of power to play games, particularly the types of games you seem to be interested in the most. We've still got 4.5 dedicated for gaming, and presumably we'll have the ability to disable the excess crap we don't want, freeing up the rest of that RAM.
Don't you think though that the RAM reserve for the O/S and background programs could have been put to better use in the consoles primary focus of playing games?
microsoft use exactly the same for their OS.
i fail to see the issue here? early reports were that the ps4 would have 4gb with an OS that only uses 512mb. that left 3.5gb for games, right?
well, they've obviously decided that having more features available on the OS is a good thing, and applied that to their increased RAM amount. gaming gets more RAM than earlier estimates anyway, so everyone wins!
again, i fail to see the problem.
that depends how many of its features you have active at any one time... how much more ram would be used if your screen were covered in widgets, if your background were set to rotate through 1000 images, if you were to load photoshop through a windows app rather than through an explorer page etc.
i think the reason so much ram is used on these new consoles, is that EVERYTHING has to be accessible instantly, whether you're inside a game, on a webpage, watching a movie... you need to be able to switch instantly and seamlessly between all the programs.
Well the instant Access to stuff is an argument ofcourse, i just hope it will be worth it for Sony to keep them loaded in the ram at all time instead of unloading them at gaming time. I mean i see it beeing nice that it's all loaded on the spot but does it have to be kept loaded even when running a game. I mean they managed to keep rather good looking game and rather elaborate OS with quite low loading times in 512 MB of ram in the PS3, they should be able to reduce the OS footprint during gaming to 1 GB by unloading unnecessary services like Picture viewer, movie player or whatever.
yeah, and also better be really really smooth,
ps3 os performance kinda choppy, and also take a look at playstation store, it is basically a total JOKE, how could they manage to slow down the performance at the point it is unbearable ...
[ame="
edit: not completely relevant, but i'd like to share my thoughts on GUIs in general.
Even if I click the PS button, and I see someone approaching, before the menu completely loads, it takes forever to try closing it again. I usually just end up dead.
I really hope they take a smarter approach, and the system is managed better so it's faster.
Also.. more ps4 news FTW!
http://gamescom.eu.playstation.com/
[ame="