Xbox 720 & PS4 seriously need to have multi disc changers in them

[Snitsky]

Don't you think?

I often avoid playing games besides RB just because having to switch the discs around is annoying

I want like at least a 5 disc changer to be in the Xbox 720

I'm suprised they haven't done this to a console yet honestly

[Maghook]

Who says they'll be using discs in next-gen consoles... well, other than Nintendo, seeing as how they're always two generations behind.

[Snitsky]

Who says they'll be using discs in next-gen consoles... well, other than Nintendo, seeing as how they're always two generations behind.

Well because

If they go digital people will find a way to get all their games for free

Also having literal discs boosts gamings economy with gamestops trade ins and blockbuster & others rentals

[Maghook]

If they go digital people will find a way to get all their games for free
Wrong.


Also having literal discs boosts gamings economy with gamestops trade ins and blockbuster & others rentals
Wrong.

Ugh...

[Flawless]

If this generation's games take upwards of 25gigs a pop, next generation's games will take upwards of 70-100gigs per game.

Personally, at 5 MBPS, and I'm probably average... the internet isn't fast enough to keep up with that. And I'm one of the lucky ones with not download limit.

Throw on top of that people like me who collect games/movies and if I don't get a hard copy of something I'll purchase a lot less, and everyone loses.

I like to get things for my money, not just code.

[Maghook]

Who says we'll have to download hard-copies of games in order to play them? Let cloud computing take care of that for you. You want a 6-disc stacker, CD changer in your console... people complained the original Xbox was too large, how big do you think they'll be now?

Also,

If they go digital people will find a way to get all their games for free
Totally, that's why I'm able to pirate every piece of RB DLC and XBLA game ever made, available on such an "insecure" network, without any repercussions. All consoles have safeguards against piracy. Sure, there are people who hax0r their consoles, but they are such a low percentage of the whole gaming population, no one needs to worry.


Also having literal discs boosts gamings economy with gamestops trade ins and blockbuster & others rentals
The developers see none of the money that game retailers get from trade-ins, rentals, etc...

Where is the logic in this thread?

[Transbrak]

How lazy can you be?

[BBBD]

More moving parts means just another thing that can break.

[Soratar]

I thing it would definatly be useful, but only if they got it right.

[Maghook]

I thing it would definatly be useful, but only if they got it right.
Coming to a store near you...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/12/68899087_141aaa3f0d.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/20/68899024_d6411a4275.jpg?v=0

[Oscar-Rio]

stupid idea.

What they need to do is do away with discs altogether and offer games on a flash drive USB. Consoles will be cheaper, smaller, and run more efficiently.

And, way to pick very fair poll options you goob :rolleyes:

[Maghook]

By 2015, with the way things are going, they'll have flash drives large enough to hold 200GB... now, it all just boils down to read/write speeds.

[topperharley]

More moving parts means just another thing that can break.

Also, higher cost to produce. New consoles are already expensive enough, let's not make them more so.

[Julio_Strikes_Back]

It's a good idea. I like my physical media, and hard drives are effing expensive.

[Sarge51]

Changing discs isn't that big of an issue. I've been doing it for many years and I don't mind. The only thing that annoys me is when I drop the CD or knock over my 360 with a game inside and it stops working because it scratched the CD to hell and back.

I think flash drive games would be kind of cool. Just plug and play, carry it with you anywhere easily on a key ring. It would store data on itself like gameboy games, etc. I still just prefer the cool looking disc art. :p

[FloodOne]

Totally, that's why I'm able to pirate every piece of RB DLC and XBLA game ever made, available on such an "insecure" network, without any repercussions. All consoles have safeguards against piracy. Sure, there are people who hax0r their consoles, but they are such a low percentage of the whole gaming population, no one needs to worry.

And when games are offered as a digital only copy, the hacks will become ever more frequent. Just because it's not widespread now, doesn't mean it won't be.


The developers see none of the money that game retailers get from trade-ins, rentals, etc...

I think he used his words poorly, but yes, trade-ins and retailers making money does boost the overall economy, maybe just not the games industry. It doesn't matter as much as some of you might think, used DVD sales have been happening forever, and big budget blockbusters still get made every year.

[insanesmurf90]

Interesting concept, I never thought of it before. It would be nice to have, especially since I tend to rotate between the same 4 or 5 games. And I'm extremely lazy. So I vote yes.

[Oscar-Rio]

Interesting concept, I never thought of it before. It would be nice to have, especially since I tend to rotate between the same 4 or 5 games. And I'm extremely lazy. So I vote yes.

and you obviously like having an even larger footprint for your console and enjoy having to shell out even more money for it, and have potentially more problems with something you paid more for. That's cool.

[kiggidykev]

Needless and costly extravagance, in my opinion.

[ham736]

USB-like lfash drives that plug into a special port on the console would be cheaper and allow more space for both consoles, especially the xbox. It would also be cheaper to manufacture the console without the dvd/bdvd drive inside.

[rowtheboat]

No they don't

[ThunderCurls]

If they call it the Xbox 720 I'm going to shoot myself...that is almost as bad as Band Hero.

[Renrock]

I'm surprised Sony hasn't done it yet. I always thought the PS2 would have it since their CD and DVD jukeboxes were big at the time.




I'm suprised they haven't done this to a console yet honestly
Well, the SEGA Genesis had a jukebox (http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7913) add on. :)

[topperharley]

used DVD sales have been happening forever, and big budget blockbusters still get made every year

But big budget blockbusters have a worldwide theatrical release before they go to DVD, video games don't, so it's not the best analogy.

[Apples]

Seems like a "nice to have but not really necessary" feature that would bump up costs.

[FloodOne]

But big budget blockbusters have a worldwide theatrical release before they go to DVD, video games don't, so it's not the best analogy.

That's true, some games can't even be released worldwide simultaneously (I'm looking at you Squeenix).

However, the games industry is more closely related to the film industry than any other media, so it's the best analogy to be made.

Besides, plenty of movies live off of their DVD sales, not every blockbuster kills at the theater.

[TheDreamGhost]

Multi disk consoles sounds like a nifty idea, but in the long run, it's not worth it, the size of a multi disk changer in most cars is already the size of a slim ps2, so imagine trying to put one in a console, it would make even the original PS3 look slim.

[0MFGimCUTE]

well i'll admit that i don't exactly look forward to changing the disc, but it doesn't stop me from playing other things lol if i really want to play something i am not going to be that lazy to push the button and exchange the disc.

thats like saying you are too lazy to change your clothes so you will just stay in the same ones forever (ew)

it takes like literally 2 seconds to change the disc. Just saying

[Mega-Tallica]

I'd rather keep it the way it is. First of all, if you want a five-disc changer, that's going to take up some room and the system's are already bulky and big as it is.

[NormanCoxwell]

How LAZY have we become that we cant get up and switch a freakin' disk? I mean seriously. Plus multi-disk changer things could hold many problems with size as well as disks being stuck or lost. Rate of destroyed systems would sky-rocket. Like red-ring but maybe also destroying 5 of your games at once.

[wcarnation]

Who says they'll be using discs in next-gen consoles... well, other than Nintendo, seeing as how they're always two generations behind.

Enjoy never having anything but the most popular games available. Never being able to find rarities used, or being able to sell your games.

[iamtheddrman]

Who says we'll have to download hard-copies of games in order to play them? Let cloud computing take care of that for you. You want a 6-disc stacker, CD changer in your console... people complained the original Xbox was too large, how big do you think they'll be now?

Also,

Totally, that's why I'm able to pirate every piece of RB DLC and XBLA game ever made, available on such an "insecure" network, without any repercussions. All consoles have safeguards against piracy. Sure, there are people who hax0r their consoles, but they are such a low percentage of the whole gaming population, no one needs to worry.


The developers see none of the money that game retailers get from trade-ins, rentals, etc...

Where is the logic in this thread?
First off, cloud computing would only be valid for those people in the largest cities in the nation, where they have access to 50-100Mbps downstream speeds. Those of us with just 10Mbps wouldn't be able to keep up with the demand of downloading games on the fly.

Secondly, like several people have said, the more digital downloads are offered, the more people will pirate games and DLC. Sure, Xbox LIVE can ban people for doing that, but that won't stop everybody.

Lastly, the developers don't see a cent of the trade-in/resale/rental market. But GameStop will go out of business if they have no physical discs to sell. Heck, they'd go out of business if they weren't allowed to do trade-ins and used games. Hollywood Video and Blockbuster would still be around without games, but it would put a major hurting on their bottom line. Basically, the developers aren't the only ones who make money off of games, and that would put an even bigger burden on a sector of our economy that is hurting as-is.

There's your logic :rolleyes:

[BallisticJunkfood]

If they call it the Xbox 720 I'm going to shoot myself...

That was the first thing I thought when I saw this thread. It took me a little while to get to what it was actually about.

On that note, I like the idea of these flash drive games. Easier to store and move, easier to switch out games, cheaper consoles. Sounds good to me.

[iamtheddrman]

The problem I see with using flash drive games and removing the disc drive is that it takes out all compatibility with DVD/Blu-ray. Then the consoles can no longer double as movie players, as many people (myself included) refuse to buy digital movies. The quality is nowhere near as good as Blu-ray unless you make the file size ridiculously huge, which makes hard drive space a concern. I really do like the idea of flash drive media though, so if the movie studios switched to that too, I'd be all over it.

[SonicRocker15X]

I love how biased against changing discs this poll is. It's obviously so fairly balanced.

[insanesmurf90]

and you obviously like having an even larger footprint for your console and enjoy having to shell out even more money for it, and have potentially more problems with something you paid more for. That's cool.

Good lord, I just thought it was a good idea that the OP said. But your superior knowledge makes my opinion inferior, I should've known.

[FloodOne]

Good lord, I just thought it was a good idea that the OP said. But your superior knowledge makes my opinion inferior, I should've known.

You'll get used to him over time.

[citric_bullets]

Cons (additional cost, larger console, etc) outweigh the minor additional convenience for me. Changing discs isn't really a big deal at all. If getting up to change discs actually IS a big deal for you, then you could probably use the additional walk to the other side of the living room and back.

[seinman]

I always thought this would be a good idea, but ONLY as an add-on. I'd never buy it, my console is close enough to my couch that I don't give a damn. But for people with fancy theater installs (I've seen theater rooms where the equipment was actually in another room from the screen and couches), or lazy people, or the handicapped, it's a great idea. Just don't force me to pay extra to have it built in, and I'm happy.

[benson111]

Here's what is more than likely going to happen. The X-Box is actually fine as is, other than the limited storage. Microsoft is likely working on an external ( Xbox only ) Stackable HD (Either in flash format or HardDrive) System. ( Not really but roll with me here ) You could get them from 200 GB - 1 terabyte. Then you could purchase game strait from live and DL them strait to the drive of your choice. Each drive only needs to be encoded with your gamer tag/ or imprinted with a serial number from your console to eliminate piracy and sharing.

Honestly Some games on Xbox already ask you to chose the "Device" to save or load data from, it wouldn't be a stretch to add more drives.

[jeccaneko]

I'd rather them spend the time, effort, and money to do something much more useful for the console.

But so says the person with hundreds of CDs and does not own a disc changer. I'm used to it. :p

[ArmsAreLoud]

Cons outweigh the pros like a whale outweighs a feather.

Also, for anyone who is against all games being DLC eventually: you should probably try Steam.

Then again, the Big Three look like third graders next to Valve, so yeah.

Also also, lol at poll options.

[iamtheddrman]

Cons outweigh the pros like a whale outweighs a feather.

Also, for anyone who is against all games being DLC eventually: you should probably try Steam.

Then again, the Big Three look like third graders next to Valve, so yeah.

Also also, lol at poll options.
I actually do have Steam. And I've never bought a game through their interface. I still prefer to have the physical discs no matter what. It just gives me more peace of mind knowing I have it there in case anything happens. Yes, I know that I can re-download any games I own to any computer that I log in on. I just find that re-downloading process to be incredibly inconvenient compared to installing from a disc. If the U.S. was on pace with the rest of the world in terms of downstream speeds, I might change my mind. But we're so horribly behind that it would be foolish to exclusively switch to that right now.

I still think the idea of a 5- or 10-disc changer as an add-on feature isn't a bad idea at all. Those of us who would actually buy it (like the HD DVD drive) would buy it, and the rest of the people who think it's a terrible idea and waste of money wouldn't be affected by a price increase for the base model.

[HeyRiles]

You would have to be a fool to think that games would not be hacked with a secure network if they were all digital. It's been done now, even - there was a homebrew hack about two months ago or so where somebody hacked the Nintendo servers and managed to put out a pack of downloadable content that had every single Rock Band song available for Wii at the time, all for no charge

Plus, I am going to be a very unhappy boy if game discs go the way of cartridges, or go the way of newspapers

[Maghook]

It's not like EVERYONE will resort to piracy... like I said, it can happen, but the percentage of piracy is low enough, at the moment, not to bother with. There's private servers for WoW, but they still have over 3 million subscribers.

If you're the type of person who thinks a CD stacker/changer is innovative, why don't you think downloadable games are an even wiser option? For example, take the recent re-release of Monkey Island... the original came with, what, up to 10 floppies or something? Now it's all in one neat package for a couple hundred megabytes. What's more practical?

Are you simply afraid of letting go of older, defunct technology, for newer, convenient technology? Why does it bring comfort to know you have the physical item with you? Don't you find that, eventually, they take up space?

[seinman]

Download-only isn't a viable option, at least in America. There HAS to be a physical alternative. Why? Games are already either on DVD (up to 9 GB) or Blu-Ray (up to 50 GB, I think?). A whopping 40% of Americans can't even get broadband, and another 20-30% can't get speeds above 3-5 mbps.

Let's take a game like Rock Band 2, which is around 8 GB. To download over a 4 mbps connection, which is about average, it would take 4.5 hours. By the time the next generation rolls around, I'd plan on games being in the 15-25 GB range, easily. 25 GB would take 14 hours. I can drive to the store, buy a disc, and be back home in 30 minutes. Why would I want to wait 14 or more hours to do the same thing?

And that's if the Xbox/PS/whatever is the only device using the connection. Over that 14 hours, I'm sure someone else would also be online at some point, slowing it down further. Big family with a lot of computers? Count on adding 5 or 6 hours to that time, easily. Now we're getting close to the 24 hour mark, just to acquire a SINGLE game.

I have an above average internet connection, it peaks out around 30 mbps. Even then, if games get up to the 40-50 GB mark, which is what Blu-Ray can ALREADY hold this generation, you're still looking at 4-5 hours. 4-5 hours, on a top of the line connection that the vast majority of people can't even get in the first place.

Clearly, disc-based media is still going to be the standard for a long time, unless they supplement it with some sort of in-store purchasing option. Perhaps a kiosk that you can plug your removable HD into, stick your cash in, and buy games that way? If they could get them in enough stores, it could work. Of course, if you're going to the store anyway, why not just buy the disc and be done with it?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any downloadable games at all, I'm just saying there needs to be a physical product no matter what. That way, people with super fast internet connections that don't want to get the game right away can use the download option and just wait. Whereas people without fast connections, or who want to play right now, still have the option of going to the store and buying a disc-based copy.

[Maghook]

You guys assume the internet we have today will never change... what if the devs offered to pre-download the game early, but would only be unlocked and playable on the release date (many PC games do this already)? You'll have as long as you want to get ready, since I'm sure games go gold months before shipping. This also cuts away printing and shipping costs, effectively reducing the price.

[Flawless]

This also cuts away printing and shipping costs, effectively reducing the price.


Ahahahahaha :D

[Maghook]

Ahahahahaha :D
I know, I wish... but it does indeed reduce the price, whether or not the developers and publishers want to pass on that price-cut is solely up to them and them alone.

For some reason, Microsoft thinks it's funny to offer old 360 games for download, three times as much as the US pays for them, and three times as much as you can purchase them, new, in store.

[seinman]

You guys assume the internet we have today will never change...
Of course the internet will get faster, however games will increase in size at the same rate, if not faster. Look at it this way: ten years ago, the average broadband connection was 1 mbps. Today it's 4 mbps. That's a 4x increase in speed over a decade. Ten years ago, the average video game was 650 MB, today it's between 8 and 20 GB. That's an increase of between 12x and 32x. I doubt it'll ever take less than 5 hours for the average user to download the average sized game using the average speed internet connection available at the time.


what if the devs offered to pre-download the game early, but would only be unlocked and playable on the release date (many PC games do this already)?
That's fine for people buying it on the release date, but how many do? Only the biggest fanatics. The only game I've EVER purchased on release day was Rock Band 2. Every other game, I've waited until real users wrote reviews, and I could play it myself either by renting it or at a friend's house. Demos don't count, you don't get the full story from most demos. I'm not dropping $60 on a game I don't know for sure that I'll enjoy. So for me, and I bet the majority of players, the majority of game purchases happen after release day, when pre-downloading is pointless because you haven't decided to buy it until you're ready to buy it anyway.

[Maghook]

Personally, I'd prefer small cases with flash drives, kind of like the DS.
They tried and failed already, releasing CDs on USB sticks down here earlier in the year... who knows if it'll pick up in the future.

Just give me a flash drive, filled with FLAC music... it all ends up on my iPod anyway.

[iamtheddrman]

It's not like EVERYONE will resort to piracy... like I said, it can happen, but the percentage of piracy is low enough, at the moment, not to bother with. There's private servers for WoW, but they still have over 3 million subscribers.

If you're the type of person who thinks a CD stacker/changer is innovative, why don't you think downloadable games are an even wiser option? For example, take the recent re-release of Monkey Island... the original came with, what, up to 10 floppies or something? Now it's all in one neat package for a couple hundred megabytes. What's more practical?

Are you simply afraid of letting go of older, defunct technology, for newer, convenient technology? Why does it bring comfort to know you have the physical item with you? Don't you find that, eventually, they take up space?
I'm not saying we should do away with DLC. That would be FOOLISH, period. I think it would be equally foolish to stop making discs. I said nothing about a CD changer being "innovative" since they've been around for what, 20 years? I think it would be a nice add-on feature that's 100% optional, so that lazy people like me wouldn't have to switch discs as often. I've got 4 game boxes sitting directly in front of my Xbox right now because those are the 4 games I've been playing the most lately. A 5-disc changer would take care of that for me.

For small games like XBLA and PSN games, DLC is perfectly acceptable. For a game the size of Metal Gear Solid 4, downloading would not be a viable option for MANY years. It's 50 freaking GB! Even on the fastest connection available in America that would take several hours. Like seinman said, who's going to trash their internet connection for that long when they can just drive to the store and buy it and be back in 30 minutes or less? It doesn't make sense.

Discs are hardly a "defunct" technology. Blu-rays, DVDs, music CDs, etc, make up the VAST majority of sales in their respective industries (well maybe not CDs anymore, but it's far from defunct). People like me who prefer quality will buy a Blu-ray LONG before downloading some compressed, crappy-quality download. I also like having a shelf that has my boxes so I can physically look at my collection to decide what I want to watch/play. You should also consider that hard drive failure is not an IF situation, it's a WHEN situation. ALL hard drives crash eventually, though sometimes it can take 10-20 years. With your model, I'd have to redownload potentially over a terabyte of data when the hard drive eventually crashes. How long is THAT going to take? If my hard drive dies and I have a disc, it'll take me no time to start playing again. You also have to consider DRM with games. I hate the idea of not actually owning what I just paid for. With DRM, Microsoft, Sony, or whoever basically has the right to strip you of the software you bought for any reason they see fit.


Download-only isn't a viable option, at least in America. There HAS to be a physical alternative. Why? Games are already either on DVD (up to 9 GB) or Blu-Ray (up to 50 GB, I think?). A whopping 40% of Americans can't even get broadband, and another 20-30% can't get speeds above 3-5 mbps.

Let's take a game like Rock Band 2, which is around 8 GB. To download over a 4 mbps connection, which is about average, it would take 4.5 hours. By the time the next generation rolls around, I'd plan on games being in the 15-25 GB range, easily. 25 GB would take 14 hours. I can drive to the store, buy a disc, and be back home in 30 minutes. Why would I want to wait 14 or more hours to do the same thing?

And that's if the Xbox/PS/whatever is the only device using the connection. Over that 14 hours, I'm sure someone else would also be online at some point, slowing it down further. Big family with a lot of computers? Count on adding 5 or 6 hours to that time, easily. Now we're getting close to the 24 hour mark, just to acquire a SINGLE game.

I have an above average internet connection, it peaks out around 30 mbps. Even then, if games get up to the 40-50 GB mark, which is what Blu-Ray can ALREADY hold this generation, you're still looking at 4-5 hours. 4-5 hours, on a top of the line connection that the vast majority of people can't even get in the first place.

Clearly, disc-based media is still going to be the standard for a long time, unless they supplement it with some sort of in-store purchasing option. Perhaps a kiosk that you can plug your removable HD into, stick your cash in, and buy games that way? If they could get them in enough stores, it could work. Of course, if you're going to the store anyway, why not just buy the disc and be done with it?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any downloadable games at all, I'm just saying there needs to be a physical product no matter what. That way, people with super fast internet connections that don't want to get the game right away can use the download option and just wait. Whereas people without fast connections, or who want to play right now, still have the option of going to the store and buying a disc-based copy.
Thank you. Very well written. I think both are viable, and now necessary, options for the gaming industry. I can foresee a future where games are offered both ways (Warhawk anyone?), but it's way too early to fully switch to downloads. In the distant future, that could certainly be the case, but like I said before, I would prefer to own a disc because I don't have to deal with any DRM that way.


You guys assume the internet we have today will never change... what if the devs offered to pre-download the game early, but would only be unlocked and playable on the release date (many PC games do this already)? You'll have as long as you want to get ready, since I'm sure games go gold months before shipping. This also cuts away printing and shipping costs, effectively reducing the price.
The internet WILL change. My school is on the Internet2 backbone, and it's pretty sweet. Speeds will increase tremendously over the next several years, but the internet speeds will probably always lag behind the growth of physical media. Back in the 90s, the average person had 56kbps and a hard drive around 800MB. The internet speed was roughly 0.007% of the hard drive space per second. Now the average hard drive is 320 GB and the average download speed is 3Mbps. The internet speed is roughly 0.0009% of the hard drive space per second. So over the past decade or so, the hard drive capacity has increased at a rate of 746% faster than the internet connection speed. Keep that up and you'll see why downloading won't magically become feasible in the future. You could do the same thing for game size or whatever and get similar results. Unless games hit a wall and quit growing, or there's a HUGE breakthrough in networking technology, it just won't happen.

[killer_roach]

Personally, I'd prefer small cases with flash drives, kind of like the DS.
They tried and failed already, releasing CDs on USB sticks down here earlier in the year... who knows if it'll pick up in the future.

Just give me a flash drive, filled with FLAC music... it all ends up on my iPod anyway.

They still here have albums sold on microSD cards... the quality still isn't FLAC, but 320Kbit MP3 isn't shabby, either. Cell phones are driving that market.

I think you'll see ultimately a two-tier system, with a lot of the top-tier games still being released as physical releases for quite some time and smaller titles moving more and more to a downloadable format. Physical distribution doesn't suit all games, nor should it. (The converse holds true as well; some releases are just meant for physical media.)

But a disc changer for consoles? I laugh at how lazy people must be with disc changers for DVD players, consoles is even worse...

[DMBillies]

With a 120 GB PS3 becoming the standard and 1TB drives being commonplace, it is not hard to imagine the storage space issues some of you are worried about being a non-issue by the time the next gen of consoles comes out.

The internet will also get faster as demand for the infrastructure grows. I'd rather wait 4 hours (or even a day) for a download that I can just start and walk away from instead of dealing with having to go somewhere that is potentially out of my way. I think I can live for a day without a video game. Also, as said, new releases could potentially be downloaded in advance to reduce server load and ensure the game is ready to go on the release date.

The simple fact is that the savings game companies will realize due to digital distribution (e.g., no physical media to produce, no expensive shipping of product which is only getting worse as gas prices increase, less to coordinate on a global scale, not losing out on new sales due to the used game market) will significantly outstrip any costs they do incur (e.g., securing their network, bandwidth and servers to distribute the games, additional piracy).

I'm not saying the next consoles will not have disk drives at all (although it would not surprise me if they didn't), but I think you're foolish to believe that disks will still be the primary method for game consumption as of the time the next consoles drop... which is at least a few years away still. Now that people are becoming more comfortable with digital downloads via iTunes, it is not at all a large jump to do the same on consoles. Physical media isn't going to disappear, but it is not unrealistic to assume that disks might be on the chopping block in favor of other media that download the games to a harddrive (e.g., flash)... which would cut out the disk entirely and save some money on console manufacturing.

[DookieMan]

I mean, it'd be a nice feature, but not a huge necessity. It would be nice to go back and forth between RB5 and the Beatles. :P

[FloodOne]

You guys assume the internet we have today will never change... what if the devs offered to pre-download the game early, but would only be unlocked and playable on the release date (many PC games do this already)? You'll have as long as you want to get ready, since I'm sure games go gold months before shipping. This also cuts away printing and shipping costs, effectively reducing the price.

You're naive if you think a digital only market will actually pass the savings to the consumer. We will still pay $60+ for any new release until the company decides to drop the price. There won't be any shelves to clutter, so retailers won't lower their prices to get some extra space for new stock, and you're talking about killing a very viable and profitable sector in our economy in a flash.

Not to mention hacks, piracy, and outlandish demands by the console makers to allow any game on their system.

Steam is not the end all, be all prophet of gaming's future. It's just going to be an alternative to physical media.

[Kidmitt]

Wow... just wow...
My games sit one foot away from my PS3. In the time it takes to boot the system up, I've already put the disc in. Then, when I turn it off, by the time the system shuts off I've already taken the disc out. Yay! Problem solved!

[killer_roach]

Wow... just wow...
My games sit one foot away from my PS3. In the time it takes to boot the system up, I've already put the disc in. Then, when I turn it off, by the time the system shuts off I've already taken the disc out. Yay! Problem solved!

Or, for that matter, kill two birds with one stone by turning it on by putting the disc in :)

[iamtheddrman]

With a 120 GB PS3 becoming the standard and 1TB drives being commonplace, it is not hard to imagine the storage space issues some of you are worried about being a non-issue by the time the next gen of consoles comes out.

The internet will also get faster as demand for the infrastructure grows. I'd rather wait 4 hours (or even a day) for a download that I can just start and walk away from instead of dealing with having to go somewhere that is potentially out of my way. I think I can live for a day without a video game. Also, as said, new releases could potentially be downloaded in advance to reduce server load and ensure the game is ready to go on the release date.

The simple fact is that the savings game companies will realize due to digital distribution (e.g., no physical media to produce, no expensive shipping of product which is only getting worse as gas prices increase, less to coordinate on a global scale, not losing out on new sales due to the used game market) will significantly outstrip any costs they do incur (e.g., securing their network, bandwidth and servers to distribute the games, additional piracy).

I'm not saying the next consoles will not have disk drives at all (although it would not surprise me if they didn't), but I think you're foolish to believe that disks will still be the primary method for game consumption as of the time the next consoles drop... which is at least a few years away still. Now that people are becoming more comfortable with digital downloads via iTunes, it is not at all a large jump to do the same on consoles. Physical media isn't going to disappear, but it is not unrealistic to assume that disks might be on the chopping block in favor of other media that download the games to a harddrive (e.g., flash)... which would cut out the disk entirely and save some money on console manufacturing.
I had several points that you may have missed. First off, the capacity of discs and hard drives will still outgrow the speed of internet connections for quite some time. Therefore, it will take longer and longer to download a game, not the other way around. Sure, hard drive capacity will grow tremendously, I said the same thing. But the point is that it's not the only point of failure in a digital download model. Internet speeds, DRM, hardware failure, etc all cause major issues with that model, IMO. The Steam model works pretty well, but I still prefer to have a hard copy so that I don't have to redownload if anything gets corrupted or my drive crashes.

As for discs not being the primary distribution, what about the iTunes vs CD argument? iTunes has been around for YEARS and physical CDs still compete with it very well. It goes to show that not everybody is on the digital distribution bandwagon (for a variety of reasons) and that physical media isn't going anywhere any time soon. I think DLC is awesome for some things, just not as the ONLY way for me to buy a video game.

And to be honest, nobody in the consumer market should care if the big companies are going to save money on distribution. We won't see a dime of that savings. 360 games wouldn't magically come down to 50 bucks or whatever if they were only digital. The company would just have a bigger profit margin.

[Maghook]

You're naive if you think a digital only market will actually pass the savings to the consumer. We will still pay $60+ for any new release until the company decides to drop the price. There won't be any shelves to clutter, so retailers won't lower their prices to get some extra space for new stock, and you're talking about killing a very viable and profitable sector in our economy in a flash.

Not to mention hacks, piracy, and outlandish demands by the console makers to allow any game on their system.

Steam is not the end all, be all prophet of gaming's future. It's just going to be an alternative to physical media.
You should've read my next post, bro! :p

[Kasil]

It's not necessary, but it'd be nice. I wouldn't mind not having to get up to change games if I had the ones I normally played in already.

I mean, I'll only be switching games out so many times between Halo 7, Rock Band 5, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4, Gears of War 3, and Left 4 Dead 3.

[Explosion2]

In the future, discs will probably just export to the hard drive, and something would tell the system that you still own the disc, and you could play any game you wanted. Kind of like what the Xbox does now, except it would just KNOW that you own the disc, instead of having to check.

[CBizkit]

Coming to a store near you...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/12/68899087_141aaa3f0d.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/20/68899024_d6411a4275.jpg?v=0

well atleast they got a new venting hole so the giant Xbox doesn't go red (RROD)...if you catch my drift=)

[Hastyl3]

Disk changer? How lazy can people be?


Anyway, I like the idea of flash drive gaming. Think about it, an easier way to change games, more storage space, faster loading times. It feels almost like a step back from CDs and almost on par with cartridges but easier. Only problem I see with it is piracy. Downloading games is a hassle and I find it hard to believe that you would rather wait and download 30+ gigs to play a game than being able to just go to a store, buy the game and play it almost immediately.

You can't buy a used copy of downloaded games. The price will like stay the same since manufacturing costs will be pretty damn low(Downwards of 1 cent).

[ExpertDrummer]

How lazy can you be?

I was thinking exactly the same.

[Lily_Mu]

Funny how the first post insults the Wii.

2 generations behind? You're totally right, considering the Xbox Avatars and Project Natal came before the Wii.

Oh wait...

[iamtheddrman]

Funny how the first post insults the Wii.

2 generations behind? You're totally right, considering the Xbox Avatars and Project Natal came before the Wii.

Oh wait...
Except Project Natal is NOTHING like the Wii, unless you mean any motion controller is copying the Wii. Motion capture has been around MUCH longer than the Wii, it's just been a fringe technology. Natal will also be infinitely better than the Wii if they actually stick to their tech demo. The Wii doesn't have that kind of precision.

/Wii-flame

[Explosion2]

if anything (it's a big step up from it, but if we're accusing people of copying), Natal copied Eyetoy. I got Eyetoy Play:2 for christmas an entire year before I got the wii.

[FloodOne]

You should've read my next post, bro! :p

Yeah, sorry. I didn't catch that until after I posted.

[FloodOne]

Funny how the first post insults the Wii.

2 generations behind? You're totally right, considering the Xbox Avatars and Project Natal came before the Wii.

Oh wait...

Yeah, motion control wasn't pioneered by the Wii, and NATAL is nothing more than the EyeToy with some heavy duty tech behind it.

[madcow36]

More moving parts means just another thing that can break.

this ^

[Maghook]

Funny how the first post insults the Wii.

2 generations behind? You're totally right, considering the Xbox Avatars and Project Natal came before the Wii.

Oh wait...
Nintendo has let you play DVDs on the Wii and the Gamecube for how many years years now?
Oh, wait...

The original Xbox came with a hard-drive...

Nintendo has always been two generations behind. They may have brought motion technology to a wider audience, but it's all been done before.

[killer_roach]

You can't buy a used copy of downloaded games. The price will like stay the same since manufacturing costs will be pretty damn low(Downwards of 1 cent).

Actually, you're wrong, but I'll spare you the price theorist's approach to it unless you want to hear it (it's looking likely that I will be doing my Ph.D. dissertation on aspects of price theory).

[FloodOne]

Actually, you're wrong, but I'll spare you the price theorist's approach to it unless you want to hear it (it's looking likely that I will be doing my Ph.D. dissertation on aspects of price theory).

I'd love to hear it, actually. I highly doubt any savings will be passed to the consumer, when development budgets are spiraling out of control and Activision would love to raise our prices even further than the appalling $90 USD for the standard MW2 in the UK. It's only a matter of time before they (and other corporations) bring those prices over here.

[killer_roach]

Okay, here it is.

Publishers of video games work under a monopolistic competition framework when it comes to the pricing model of their titles. Ultimately, all sales of their game originate through them, although they "compete" in the sense that the consumer has virtually limitless choices in the market. As a result, publishers will tend to price more or less as monopolists, trying to capture the greatest amount of profits possible without driving their prospective buyers to another game in the process. One of the means of doing this is through the process of price discrimination.

Price discrimination is a method in which a monopolist charges prices relative to their willingness to pay. Since first-degree price discrimination (literally charging unique prices to each buyer) is illegal, and second-degree price discrimination (volume discounts) really doesn't apply to the market, the only price discrimination mechanism that they have left is third-degree, which involves sorting consumers into groups and charging those groups different prices according to their relative willingness to pay.

"But," you may be wondering, "there are no groups when it comes to game buyers. Everybody pays roughly the same price at the same time."

That's exactly right. Note the "at the same time" part. In the video game market, publishers use time as a proxy for willingness to pay. After all, they know that there are a group of people who will pay full MSRP to have a game the day it comes out, while others will simply wait for it to drop to a price point that is more agreeable with them. As a result, the publisher simply waits for the market to segregate itself.

Some people will argue that, due to research that's been done with Steam's sales showing revenues for games increase when the price is cut, the price should fall to lower levels out of the gate. Let's look at it this way. A highly anticipated title like Resident Evil 5 can sell a half-million copies its first week out at $60 a pop, resulting in $30 million in revenue. Imagine, then, that they could sell two million if they dropped the price to $20 at launch, thereby getting $40 million in revenue, another $10 million better than the current model (for the time being we'll ignore console licensing fees, as those alone would invalidate this thought exercise; you couldn't price that low and expect to remain profitable from the start). That being said, there's a half-million people whom we've shown are more than happy with paying $60 for it, and you just sold it to them for $20. So, from the standpoint of the publisher, they just lost $40 on half a million sales for a total hit to the bottom line of $20 million (which would be, since that price increase is likely already on top of nearly all of the average fixed costs of half a million games, nearly pure profit; surely not the wisest of moves).

That being said, unless a title is extremely highly anticipated through brand lock-in, it's very difficult to deviate much in price from the rest of the new games market, lest you drive the public to something else. Hence Activision testing the waters with MW2 (both in console software prices for overseas markets and for the PC version worldwide). They know people will want to play it, and they aren't going to just go to the competition; they'll either buy it at the price they charge or they'll stick with playing MW1. Either way, they win (as they can sell map packs to MW1 players ad infinitum if necessary).

Once sales start tapering off, publishers start lowering the price to capture more of the market and get more revenue out of it. That being said, there's effectively a bottom point for the market in the console market due to licensing fees; there's a reason you'll rarely, if ever, see a new game less than $15 or so or a downloadable title for less than $5 on the consoles.

The PC, where there are no licensing fees (but still only a small handful of major publishers), tends to bottom out around $5 for everything (although indie developers have at times experimented with lower points for downloadable titles), mainly due to that being perceived as a bottom-end "impulse buy" price (and, in all fairness... it kinda is; I've bought some stuff off of Steam simply because, at $5, I'm sure I could get some enjoyment out of it).

However, the ultimate example of the monopolistic competition effect appears in the iPhone app market, where a near-infinite number of publishers has effectively driven the price of software titles quickly toward the marginal cost point of producing the software, which, naturally, is zero.

Basically, you have a combination of a few things in play here; monopolistic competition (in every market), effective publisher oligopoly (in PC and console markets), and closed, licensed market ecosystems (in console markets). All of these provide different ultimate equilibrium prices in the long run, with the market for larger and/or console titles in the downloadable space approaching a "standoff" point (where no publisher is willing to deviate much from), and the market for smaller titles ultimately approaching marginal cost (zero).

[bermuddy]

i remember a ffew years ago when the 2k sports games were selling brand new for $40. it crushed madden that year and that's when EA bought the nfl license.

[bmaninc]

Um, that was awesome, roach. I know most of it, but it was a GREAT refresher.

[iamtheddrman]

Great write-up roach! It all makes sense and was thoroughly enjoyable to read. I like when other people around here take the time to write long, well thought-out posts for the edification of others. I'm not alone :)

[killer_roach]

Great write-up roach! It all makes sense and was thoroughly enjoyable to read. I like when other people around here take the time to write long, well thought-out posts for the edification of others. I'm not alone :)

I've been working on it for a bit as part of a presentation I'll be giving in the spring to the Economics Student Association here. The whole thing is about business theory in digital media, but the price theory stuff is what I've gotten the most questions on so far. People aren't really affected by piracy or distribution questions directly; they are, however, keenly interested in why things cost as much as they do :)

[DeadManDrumming]

We really don't need multi-disk changer. What happens if the hardware breaks, etc. More work than help in the long run.

As for digital. That is the way PC has gone (Steam etc). I would like Digital to stay as far away as it can. It has already screwed the PC market. What I mean by screwed is that Digital is actually more expensive (unless certain one time offers are made), than their pre-owned counterparts.

[FloodOne]

I've been working on it for a bit as part of a presentation I'll be giving in the spring to the Economics Student Association here. The whole thing is about business theory in digital media, but the price theory stuff is what I've gotten the most questions on so far. People aren't really affected by piracy or distribution questions directly; they are, however, keenly interested in why things cost as much as they do :)

Great explanation bro.

However, I still don't think we'll be paying $40 for a brand new game, even if it's a digital download only title. We shall see though.

[killer_roach]

Great explanation bro.

However, I still don't think we'll be paying $40 for a brand new game, even if it's a digital download only title. We shall see though.

I think Xbox Live Arcade and the PlayStation Network would have a word with you there. :)

Are we likely to see a $40 AAA title on a console through digital distribution? Almost assuredly not; the costs to the publisher are too high to make that work. Heck, for a full retail AAA title, the fees from XBLA or PSN are likely to be greater than they would be through a retail release!

[FloodOne]

I think Xbox Live Arcade and the PlayStation Network would have a word with you there. :)

Are we likely to see a $40 AAA title on a console through digital distribution? Almost assuredly not; the costs to the publisher are too high to make that work. Heck, for a full retail AAA title, the fees from XBLA or PSN are likely to be greater than they would be through a retail release!

Personally, I can't count the digital, bite sized games they sell on PSN and XBLA as a full game. I have my fair share of them, but they aren't games I anticipate coming out (except for Fat Princess, I was chomping at the bit for that one).

All AAA titles are going to cost $60+, no matter the way we consume them, that is a fact. Digital distribution won't pass the buck to us, it will increase the profit margins of pubs/devs (in theory, anyway).

[Mystlyfe77]

Resistance is futile. Digital-only is coming, and sooner than people expect. And probably sooner than America will be ready for. But it's coming.

[killer_roach]

Personally, I can't count the digital, bite sized games they sell on PSN and XBLA as a full game. I have my fair share of them, but they aren't games I anticipate coming out (except for Fat Princess, I was chomping at the bit for that one).

All AAA titles are going to cost $60+, no matter the way we consume them, that is a fact. Digital distribution won't pass the buck to us, it will increase the profit margins of pubs/devs (in theory, anyway).

The only cost reduction is in PC-based digital distribution. As I alluded to earlier, Microsoft set up the fee structure on Xbox Live Arcade to be similar to the iTunes Music Store, and Sony roughly followed suit. As a result, the console makers are taking a larger chunk out of downloadable games than they are out of retail games...

...then again, it's unlikely we'll see much of a cost reduction on PC either, mainly due to the fact of Microsoft actively working to downplay PC game development and steering PC devs to the 360.

[FloodOne]

Resistance is futile. Digital-only is coming, and sooner than people expect. And probably sooner than America will be ready for. But it's coming.

Not if the consumer stops purchasing. Plenty of tests into the market have failed, died, and withered away. If the consumer doesn't respond, the medium will not be used.


The only cost reduction is in PC-based digital distribution. As I alluded to earlier, Microsoft set up the fee structure on Xbox Live Arcade to be similar to the iTunes Music Store, and Sony roughly followed suit. As a result, the console makers are taking a larger chunk out of downloadable games than they are out of retail games...

...then again, it's unlikely we'll see much of a cost reduction on PC either, mainly due to the fact of Microsoft actively working to downplay PC game development and steering PC devs to the 360.

Which is A-OK by me, I don't like the thought of spending $600 to get my foot in the door, and then upgrading every 2nd or 3rd year to stay current. It's why I'm a console gamer.

[ThunderCurls]

Not if the consumer stops purchasing. Plenty of tests into the market have failed, died, and withered away. If the consumer doesn't respond, the medium will not be used.

If.

[FloodOne]

If.

And a majority of people polled would buy a hard copy over a digital one any day.

If you offer MW2 as a disc and as a digital copy side by side, and for the same price, what do you think the ratio of sales will be?

[TheClashTheClashTheClash]

God forbid you get up and walk 5 feet to change the disc