Top
180°

Shuhei Yoshida on Used Game Fees: "More and More Games are Becoming a Service"

"President of Sony's Worldwide Studios for SCE Shuhei Yoshida gave his view point on the demand for pre-owned fees among developers across the world. This was in regards to Microsoft's announcement that it would leave fees for lending and selling games to the game publishers for its Xbox One."

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
The story is too old to be commented.
ATi_Elite1643d ago (Edited 1643d ago )

MS saw the rental/resale industry make way too much cash from used games and MS has decided that they want a LARGER chunk of the Games cash.

Xbox1 seems to be more of a Publishers friend
PS4 more of a gamers friend

the line has been drawn.

Lovable1643d ago

Too bad I'm not a publisher.

FordGTGuy1643d ago (Edited 1643d ago )

I have something for you to think about.

Gamestop isn't able to compete day one with new game sales by selling the same game for $5 cheaper the next day at times. This allows for Publishers to sell games at a cheaper price new and make more money while also getting a cut on every used game sale.

Publishers are able to get more money from new games and used, they invest more in their developers.

Developers are able to make more high quality games that the consumers want.

Consumers in the end ultimately profit from the arrangement by getting the games they want.

Consumers get: cheaper games, better games and more games....

This DRM is anti-consumer is bullshit it's just too bad that the online community can't understand why.

Love the disagrees why don't you actually tell me why I'm wrong instead of just disagreeing like a herd of sheep.

D-riders1643d ago

Ford
as a developer I can tell you it doesnt work like that. You get you bonus for the games which is usually paid upfront by the publisher, Respwan as an example.
With the used games policy the money goes to publishers who pay dividend to investors from that. Its why bobby kotick got paid 69 million last year. do some research dude and stop padding peoples pockets who are already loaded.
I'mnot rich and I sell games but If your gonna give me more money for something that someone else has already bought. That doesnt take you to be a rocket scientist to figure out your just an idioit

andron6661643d ago

Or more profits for publishers and MS...

Hicken1643d ago

Your entire theory is based on the HOPE that the "savings" will trickle down. But there are too many inaccuracies, fallacies, and assumptions required.

For example, you have to ASSUME publishers would sell new games at a cheaper price; there is ZERO guarantee that they will.

IF they do cut prices, then that'll be because the used market has gotten smaller. And if that's the case, then profits for new games probably won't change much, as many, MANY people trade in old games toward new games. So maybe they can afford a few more new games without trading in, but since prices will be low, would the increase in revenue even be significant?

All that aside, we have no idea if these policies would alter production practices, which is really the problem. Publishers are absolutely idiots when it comes to how they spend money during a game's development.

Oh, and here's a huge thing: you're making the asinine argument that DRM isn't anti-consumer, and that it's only purpose is to curb the used market. The purpose of DRM is to control the games you spend money on. Note that I didn't say "buy," because with all the restrictions on use, you're not buying games, but renting them until such time as publishers see fit to shut down servers.

I dunno about you, but I'll be damned if I'm giving them full retail price for a game that disappears whenever they say so.

There's a whole lot more wrong with DRM, and with your statement, but myself and others have covered enough that you should be satisfied by now, right?

cell9891643d ago

more like, the more money they get the more they are going to wat. The more they see how they can control the game with consumers, the more BS they are going to feed us. The more power you give them the less rights as consumers we'll have. We as consumers have the ultimate control for its our money that keeps them alive, so get too grumpy and expect backlash from consumers

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1643d ago
cleft51643d ago (Edited 1643d ago )

This makes everything a lot clearer. The thing is Microsoft isn't wrong they are just jumping the gun. They see where things are going in the future so they tried to seize control of that future and dictate it to their own demands.

It's the absolute control that they are trying to exert that is the problem and the fact that they didn't give me one single good reason for mandatory 24 hour check-ins or always online. They just tried to force a future on us that we aren't sure we want.

Yet when you look at what Ubisoft was offering it really impressed me. Ubisoft did a better job of making a case for Always Online than Microsoft even attempted to do. I have no doubt that in the next generation of gaming after the PS4 everything will be going in the direction Microsoft just tried to force on us. The difference is that gamers will be ready and willing for that new future and we will embrace it. Now is not the time for what Microsoft tried to pull. They jumped the gun and it ended up ruining the credibility and loyalty they built with the Xbox 360.

darthv721643d ago (Edited 1643d ago )

as honest with the gamers as to why their policy is a benefit instead of a requirement then it could have been perceived better. They never really explained how or why they just said here it is.

sony at least is persuading the consumer to listen. Asking someone to listen and telling someone they have to listen can result in two different responses. One can be positive while the other more resentful no matter if the topic is the same thing.

Ms never made the case for their policy regardless if it was the right move for the industry or not. Now the consumer backlash is so loud they wont take anything MS says into consideration.

the old phrase of, "its not what you say but how you say it", fits perfectly in this situation.

D-riders1643d ago

no, trying to block used games in an industry like this one is ludacris. There Idea is right but their method is wrong. First off they should have had companies come out in a press conference a year ago to prepare gamer for the future. I bet money that if MS had ten really big comapnies come out and say that they cany support used games anymore.Then the news would be easier. But to the gamers who know business they would still cry bull. name another industry that sells a product and then trys to get money nsecond hand sells. Going broke for any company is because of bad management. Ok take used games out of the equation completely. Then if a company goes broke its cause they didnt sell enough. Used games is a rip off excuse

cleft51643d ago

If you look at Steam and whats happening on the mobile tablets/phone markets you can clearly see that digital is becoming much more prevalent. The thing is there are a lot of benefits to going pure digital and one of the big one is the pricing on new games.

It isn't unusual in the PC market to see amazing deals on the hottest new releases before they even come out. You could pick up Bioshock Infinite on Steam for like $45 new and then there where all of the deals surrounding that title. For instance, you could get like 3 free quality games and a discount on the PC version from GreenManGaming and other sources.

The reason used games are so important is because of how expensive games are in general. $60 is a lot of money. Now if you can get crazy deals quickly it becomes less important to rent games. There is ultimately a tradeoff that happens, used games go away and the consumer gets games at a significantly reduce price rate and the price of games drop much quicker.

The problem with what Microsoft was doing was that they offered us nothing in return, but took everything away from us. Needless to say gamers where not pleased. But this is the future whether we like it or not.

uuaschbaer1643d ago

Which is why I'm buying them less and less, essentially ... partly.

ElitaStorm1643d ago (Edited 1643d ago )

i agree with Yosh, there are somethings you dont have control over, its the future and things change but the way microsoft is doing it is wrong.

Its like they want to make history really bad and want to be remembered.

if a man want to make a story he needs to know what kind of story he wants to tell.

mmj1643d ago (Edited 1643d ago )

How would people feel if car manufacturers kept the same prices for their cars but you never owned it and couldn't sell it on? any manufacturing industry can be a service industry if they market it that way...

Hopefully the EU will put the smackdown on game manufacturers pretending to be a service industry whilst maintaining physical ownership pricing models. If they want to be a service industry then it should be a small monthly fee only and free upgrades to the latest games.