Xbox 720 Is Super Powerful, Contains 16-Core CPU

Quote from GreggerG : One of the things I'm trying to point out is that if used games go away, then more people WILL start to wait. I stated several reasons for this assertion already. No idea where you pulled that number from but we'll go with it. So them losing about 5% sales due to this one segment of the market is no big deal? And hey, you made up some numbers so I'll do the same. What about if they lose another 5% on people short on money due to no trade ins or used game sales on ebay? And then another 10% due to people not paying $60 because they aren't sure it's worth it? Previously they would buy, knowing they could sell if it sucked. Now they'll wait until price drops bring it down to $30. That's a 20% sales drop. Not peanuts.

there is no 20% sale drop for most major AAA titles, you can try to spin this any way you wish, but any big release title will be bought new.
The industry survives on the big release title, it doesn't survive on the niche market.
Lets take for example the nintendo DS
Nintendo makes their $$ from Mario/Zelda/Pokemon. It doesn't make its $$ from the niche games such as Radiant Historia, Lunar Knights, The World Ends with You, etc.

Quote : Again, you're taking one specific example and applying it to all games. This one example does not mean every game can be handled the same way. Activision could put sh!t in a box, slap COD on it and sell millions on day 1. I'm talking more about the smaller niche games that make the video game market better, not worse, that generally need word of mouth to have success. If Dark Souls came out in a world with no used game sales, how many people would have taken the chance on paying $60 for it out of the gate and then recommended it? Weekly sales would have fallen even faster and Dark Souls may not even have been made.

Actually Dark Souls sold so much probably because of world of mouth from Demon Souls, nothing really to do with Used Game sales sorry.
And lets analyze Dark Soul's sales:
Released October 8, 2011
Week 1 sales on PS3 were 141,665 in the USA,
35,951 in week 2
17,722 in week 3
16,705 in week 4
.
Total 1st month sales: 212,043 units sold
Total sales in the USA for PS3 version in 2011 was 296,317.

So from 2 months (november/december) even factoring in the holiday rush, the game sold an additional 84,274.
Not too shabby, but not ground breaking.

So im fairly confident that my stance that a game makes majority of its $$ on initial launch, aka meaning buying it brand new is valid dont' you think?

Quote : Big games will still sell plenty, yes. Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, COD, The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Zelda, Mario, etc. will all be fine but the cost will be to the littler guys. Fewer chances will be taken with new IP, the smaller developers and publishers will be bought up by the giants - Activision, Ubisoft, and EA - and they will control so much of the market that they'll be able to do whatever they want, which is rehash after rehash and sequel after sequel. The industry will become stagnant.

The industry has basically become stagnate, besides indie devs and small (very small) niche publishers, games have become just rehashing sequels. Look at what happens when a Developer tries to release a new IP, it gets shut down and destroyed in sales, I.E. Mirror's Edge from EA. The industry counts on these rehashes to survive, small niche titles just don't work unless they generate a ridiculous cult following. Publishers just won't take the risk. This is why so many of us i guess more "mature/refined" gamers are looking at indies for games.

Quote : So you chastise me for using my personal experience in game buying as (not) "thinking about the big picture" but just "centered around yourself" and then you turn right around and do the exact same thing. You've seen this at the Gamestop where you worked. Wow. That means every single game sold throughout the entire country...nay, the world...is the parent doing this same thing. Why the hell do all the other retailers bother if they are all bought by parents at Gamestop? I mean Best Buy, Target, Walmart, Meijer, Toys R Us, Fry's, Kmart, etc. should all just give it up if they're not selling any games. Online retailers, too, like Amazon, Newegg, TigerDirect, all those people on ebay, craigslist, Glyde...they should all just quit.

you do realize i was using gamestop as an example of a retailer that sells games at MSRP at launch right? BB/Target/Walmart/etc all pretty much sell their launch titles at MSRP. Newegg may give you preorder bonus credit for a future game as does Amazon, but you're still technically paying full price for that game and getting credit to buy more from them down the line. There's a reason they offer these credits, to get you to continue to buy from them obviously.

Quote : Worth noting - the Gamestops I have been in near me are the complete opposite. Adults in there buying games for themselves (I think I read somewhere that the average age of gamers nowadays is over 30) and parents telling their kids that they're "not going to pay $60 for a game that you'll play for 2 weeks and then never play again -- choose one for $30" and "if you want that one, then you're going to have to trade in some of your others to pay for it."

Do you really think this is the norm or do you think this is the exception? Again maybe here in NYC/LI area where the standards of living are higher, and where i live is mid/upper mid class this is the exception to elsewhere, but when I worked at EB up in Albany where i'd say its middle class it was the same, my experiences locally around here are the same. You can't really say this isn't the case that parents usually just pay MSRP because how many people pay full $60.00 for XBox Live? You know there's a ton of people that pay that price.

Quote : Maybe the store you worked in is in an area where bunches of rich parents buy their kids whatever the hell they want to shut them up? Or maybe they have to buy the violent games for their kids because they're M for Mature but the kids actually give them the money for it? Or maybe the kid let the parent sell their old games on ebay or craigslist to get the money to pay for the new one? Who knows, but you can't use your personal experience in a debate while at the same time telling others they can't use theirs.

I'm not using my personal buying experience though, im using a sampling of the usual customer that walks into one of these game stores or best buy or walmart. The avg consumer pays MSRP for their products, this isn't really a big debate. Whether its computers, ipads, video games, etc, im pretty sure majority of people are paying MSRP.

Quote : So of the three specific games you mentioned, after I pointed out the opposite of what you had said was actually true, you choose one and say that it's a bad example. World class debate skills right there. You sound like Rick Perry - I said 3 but, no, I can't remember the other 2. That's about as good as you saying that we can't factor in sale prices when talking about buying a game..."yes you can buy it cheaper when it's on sale, but that doesn't matter in a debate about the price you pay for an item."

Far Cry 3 the preorder was GMG's preorder bonus code right? If you bought it on Steam or amazon im pretty sure it was still MSRP 49.99? or 59.99. How many people do you know that insist on buying their game only on Steam?

I didn't bother doing the research for BL2 on your numbers initially so thats why i didn't counter it, i assumed you were right in your numbers and i just accepted that fact. However the borderlands 2 price was also the GMG 35% off coupon deal.
Fun fact: 1.25 million preorders for borderlands 2, i wonder how many were at MSRP, what do you think? Again remember majority of people are not the deal hunters you are apparently. I'd say a good chunk of these people are MSRP, especially those who bought the treasure chest (i preordered the chest version at gamestop for MSRP so i guess i'm a sucker)
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/2...worldwide/

Quote : 2 things here - First, I'm not arguing with you about my spending habits. I'm saying that my point of view is going to become more common if used game sales go away...and right now maybe the big dogs don't give 2 sh!ts about little old me. But what if 25% of their target audience begins to think the same way after buying a couple $60 coasters that they can't sell? Secondly, if the employees can't push used games and the people want them new instead...why the hell is the used game market a problem that has to be taken away? Again, your personal observations do not an argument make.

Look towards PC to see if this matters. Again im telling you if PC gamers have adapted and were "conditioned" to accept the fact there's no Used games anymore, why is it so hard to think console gamers will do the same? The only way you can prevent something like this from happening is if you boycott/refuse to purchase products from the companies that are doing this. I ask you, how many people do you honestly think will take a stand like that? Just look at the MW2 boycott on steam (lol)

Quote : Nothing to say here other than the bonus part can be quite large if the sales of the game are good for a while. With digital distribution, a much higher percentage of the sale price can be profit. No disc to print, no packaging cost, no shipping cost, etc. This is how prices on PC games come down faster than disc games on consoles, but at the moment the digital versions of console games are not lowered in price accordingly. That will need to change if/when used games are cut out and digital distribution on consoles becomes a more viable option.

I agree absolutely, which is why if you see Sony's selling digital release date copies of titles on PSN for discount on many of their 1st party products, or offering discount on DLC if you buy from their PSN store. Also Sony's seen that people don't want to double pay for Vita/PS3 versions, so they're offering Cross Buy for many of their titles, ie. PS Allstars, Sly Cooper.

Look you seem to think i want this to happen and to screw all the used game market.
I told you, i couldn't care less if it happens as im primarily a PC gamer, and this has already happened to me. Console gaming going this path isn't really anything that'll make/break my decision on buying a new gen console.

Oh and side note on how some companies are screwing the used game market:
I dunno if you know or care, but a used Vita Cartridge if not completely uninstalled from the original Vita Console cannot track Trophy achievements. Meaning if i buy say Marvel Vs Capcom 3 on the Vita new, and i put it in my system. Once you insert the cartridge, it'll install some game data and save data partition along with trophy achievement partition. If i do not remove the game data from my vita before i trade in the game, the person who buys it next will not have trophy support. Again to me i don't give 2 shits as I can't be bothered with achieves and epeen rep. But there are some achievement whores who'll be very upset if something like this happens (*cough curtie*)

TL : DR
Why can't we all be friends

Quote from GreggerG : As for the specific situations you mentioned... Borderlands 2, you're wrong. I was watching prices on that game for a full month before I bought it. It was ~$42 for a 4 pack before release on PC and available at $25 for a short time a couple weeks after. It didn't hit $25 on consoles until Black Friday, 2 months later. For Far Cry 3, PC preorder was available at $32.50. As far as I know, the best console price to date was $35. It can be had right this minute for $30 on PC. Darksiders II - not sure if srs. It was $19 at the beginning of October on PC, less than 2 months after release. And I believe it was ~$14 for the complete package on Amazon not too long ago, too. It was ~$9 on PC in December around Christmas. I highly doubt that console has beaten the last 2 of these.

BL2 could be had for about $35-38 before release, not counting the 4-pack sales. Darksiders 2 could have been had for $5 MANY times, and as lows as $1 through an Indie bundle site. FC3 was as low as $25 at one point.

http://slickdeals.net/f/5165560-G...st57736792

Quote from GreggerG : http://slickdeals.net/f/5165560-G...st57736792

this thread is about the Microsoft locking used games, not Sony
it was already confirmed sony wasn't locking games =P

Quote from IPT : this thread is about the Microsoft locking used games, not Sony it was already confirmed sony wasn't locking games =P

I'd be shocked at this point if MS would announce that they'll lock down used games on the 720. I just can't see it happening. Have to imagine that if they had those plans already in place, they'd be scrambling to reverse them or loosen the restrictions by putting the choice in the hands of the publisher.

Quote from IPT : this thread is about the Microsoft locking used games, not Sony it was already confirmed sony wasn't locking games =P

Quote from godfather927 : I'd be shocked at this point if MS would announce that they'll lock down used games on the 720. I just can't see it happening. Have to imagine that if they had those plans already in place, they'd be scrambling to reverse them or loosen the restrictions by putting the choice in the hands of the publisher.

I wish I would have had a pulse on the gaming scene when they started to charge for LIVE. It was such a new feature it wasn't completely uncalled for...was it? But, the point of that...they had the balls to make that choice...they could do this one too.

What if...they say "single use game codes are needed" (aka: partially block Used) but your XBLA games carry over (PSN does not). +1 Sony, +1 MS....the Sony number would probably be bigger for most though.

Quote from Curtieson : I wish I would have had a pulse on the gaming scene when they started to charge for LIVE.

LIVE was always a paid service. I know, I subscribed on launch day.

Quote from Jabbit : LIVE was always a paid service. I know, I subscribed on launch day.

i think he meant when they brought on subscription for multiplayer
M$ was 1st to really embrace online multiplayer, i mean the PS2 attempted to but failed miserably lol

Quote from IPT : i think he meant when they brought on subscription for multiplayer M$ was 1st to really embrace online multiplayer, i mean the PS2 attempted to but failed miserably lol

Gotcha.

Quote from Jabbit : LIVE was always a paid service. I know, I subscribed on launch day.

yep to IPT. You could play online other places, like on your PC but people mention the PS2 and Gamecube...but they got away from the start with charging for it.

Quote from IPT : i think he meant when they brought on subscription for multiplayer M$ was 1st to really embrace online multiplayer, i mean the PS2 attempted to but failed miserably lol

But you could do it on PCs, but was it solely LAN stuff? I remember playing Counter Strike on our college server or direct connecting via a 28k to my buddy to play Warcraft II, so it goes to the simplicity of the console, but also the hosting I guess.

Could also see a new LIVE tier where if you pay for it you don't ever need to plug in single use codes...but they could do that now, but could use the newness of the 720 to give it a test.

Quote from Curtieson : yep to IPT. You could play online other places, like on your PC but people mention the PS2 and Gamecube...but they got away from the start with charging for it. But you could do it on PCs, but was it solely LAN stuff? I remember playing Counter Strike on our college server or direct connecting via a 28k to my buddy to play Warcraft II, so it goes to the simplicity of the console, but also the hosting I guess. Could also see a new LIVE tier where if you pay for it you don't ever need to plug in single use codes...but they could do that now, but could use the newness of the 720 to give it a test.

um dude i dunno about your life, but World of warcraft released in 2004
and before WoW there was Everquest, Lineage, etc in MMOs. i myself was playing Ragnarok Online
Also SC1 was released in 1998, WC3 was released in 2002, and both had battle.net support for both online play & Lan.

Quote from IPT : um dude i dunno about your life, but World of warcraft released in 2004 and before WoW there was Everquest, Lineage, etc in MMOs. i myself was playing Ragnarok Online Also SC1 was released in 1998, WC3 was released in 2002, and both had battle.net support for both online play & Lan.

I have never played World of Warcraft in my life. I was talking about...~1999 ish...my buddy and I would connect via dialup modems and play Warcraft II.

So you are saying SC1 would have been a game that had embraced online multiplayer in late 90s. Only PC though, obviously. And then MS would have been the 1st console do embrace it successfully, and I wouldn't doubt it was so successful because they could put more hardware behind it because of the incoming cash flow.