{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by NoelKannagi:
6/30/2013 5:00:49 AM
13
Another thing people do not realize, is that used games sales contribute to the expensive $60 price tag on new games. If no used games were sold at all, they would make a large profit on their new games, meaning they could sell their games at a cheaper price, like $40, and still make a profit.
And guess what kids! If you idiots did not whine and bitch about the Xbox One, then Microsoft could have set up an amazing digital distribution system to implement after the Xbox One, where they completely cut out the manufacturing of the discs and game cases, and cut out stores like GameStop, meaning the prices of games would be even cheaper! And there would likely be sales just like on Steam! But all you kids care about is the present, nobody cares about the future of anything.
English
-
Edited by MSNBC: 3/13/2015 2:06:46 AMOh, Noelle. It's too bad MCC takes up a massive fu[i]c[/i]king 100 GBs on my console, and I bought that game [b]physically[/b]. I look forward to the future where I can buy a grand total of five games on my consoles and then spend my "saved money" on external hard drives. And I realize this is a necro now. Shit.
-
I didn't think of that now I feel......... Enlightened, they actually had a great system for Xbox one. The best of discs going around a store and getting opinions and actually getting the disc. Then the digital part where it would instantly download to the console and forever be on your library it WOULD have been a good thing.
-
They'd keep the 60$ price tag even if used games were done with because everybody is used to paying that. It'd just be a larger profit for Micro$oft. But I see your point
-
ima slap you
-
It's Microsoft we're talking about. If they can force everyone to pay $60 and get an even larger profit by cutting out manufacturing and distribution costs, then they will do it. They're turning for a profit and if they have dominance over the market with no competition, then why would they lower the profit gained by having huge sales and cheaper games? Be real.
-
Edited by Nobody: 6/29/2013 6:47:34 PMThe majority of profit increase would have come from more people paying for the services to those that actually provide them. I think that a bigger problem than rentals is illegal downloading which a lot of you guys think is ok.
-
Gosh, I would not know why companies use sales... I think they want to lose money! Sales improve profit, you get the hardcore gamers with the release-price and the rest when the prices start dropping. Sale: selling stuff to people for such a low price that they will buy it even if they are not sure they want it (exagerating)
-
If MS had a monopoly over the gaming market by making ever Xbox game only available through their own digital distribution, then they would have a monopoly over the market for Xbox games. They could make you pay $100 and they'd sell. They would have no competition. In a normal market that is very true. People will say, why go to Walmart and pay $40 when Target has it on sale for $25? Other people notice and the game sells quite a lot, especially if it's a great game. If MS had a monopoly over the market like Shiraho described then the most they'd discount the game would be 10 bucks. No competition, then no incentive to lower prices because if people want the game, then they will have to pay your price for it if nobody else has it or ever will have it.
-
But I honestly don't get why they would get a monopoly? You can still buy hard copies in stores? And no competion? If all xbox games were 100 dollars I know what console I would (not) buy.
-
Basically this. You have to lead in with incentives. Not with hopes.
-
Edited by Smarkdow: 6/29/2013 5:53:02 AM[quote]Another thing people do not realize, is that used games sales contribute to the expensive $60 price tag on new games.[/quote]How so? [quote] If no used games were sold at all, they would make a large profit on their new games, meaning they could sell their games at a cheaper price, like $40, and still make a profit.[/quote]They've had chances to do this with services like Games on Demand and Origin, and they haven't done it. There is no reason to believe that publishers, once given full control over the distribution of their games with no competition whatsoever, would charge less for for their games. They'd effectively have a monopoly, and consumers tend to benefit least from monopolies. Bobby Kotick once said that if he could charge more for games, he would. That, I believe. [quote]And guess what kids! If you idiots did not whine and bitch about the Xbox One, then Microsoft could have set up an amazing digital distribution system to implement after the Xbox One, where they completely cut out the manufacturing of the discs and game cases...[/quote]Disc and game cases cost very, very little to produce. [quote]And there would likely be sales just like on Steam![/quote]The big difference being that Steam has competition. Closed platforms like consoles? Not really. [quote]But all you kids care about is the present, nobody gives a flying fuck about the future of anything...[/quote]Better to live in the present than some vague notion of the future.
-
[quote]And guess what kids! If you idiots did not whine and bitch about the Xbox One, [/quote] It's funny when you people always do this "stop bitching kids" stuff when there were actually...[i]guess what![/i]...more issues that factored into the complaints.
-
So by that logic, games in Australia and New Zealand should, at the very least, cost around $60 right? *looks at local EB games - $120+ price tags on new games - even when they're a few months old *listens to all the aussies saying the same thing Yeah nah, trickle down effects don't happen, Mr Reaganomics..............
