thevulture wrote:Thing is though Toxie, since when have the likes of Sony or MS really given a ripe fig, what we the customers wanted?.
That's why I added at the end that I'll be interested to see which of the big publishers decides to go fully digital first, and then if they then revert back to physical media if they don't immediately make the fortune that they seem to think they'll make.
They all talk about it and constantly threaten it, seems that they're a little reluctant to actually take that next step though. They know the problems and pitfalls involved just as well as the rest of us.
JennyTablina wrote:In the case of Microsoft: Game Room apparently flopped big time - people simply were not buying the retro titles (or I assume this to be the case, as Game Room hasn't seen an update for over a year now)
It was a completely broken model though. You couldn't just download the actual games you wanted, you were forced to download packs containing 3 or 4 games whether you wanted them all sitting on your hard drive or not. In my experience, the leaderboards wouldn't update properly half the time either, and I've got a decent connection. Then there was the fact that the people who developed it (Krome) ran into financially difficultys and laid off most of their staff. On top of that, the pricing was a bit of a hard sell as well, 400 points each for games that are easy to get hold of free elsewhere , plus the likes of Time Pilot which was already available on XBLA complete with a bunch of Achievements. The emulation on a lot of the games wasn't great either, the likes of Iron Horse suffered severe sound problems for example. And then there was all the unwanted Atari 2600 games...one of which wasn't even a game (Venetian Blind demo) but they were still charging the same rate for them. I could go on here, but you get the idea...Game Room as it was just wasn't fit for purpose, there was a hell of a lot more to it than people just 'not buying the retro titles'.
JennyTablina wrote:IMO for digital distribution to really win out on retail, the industry needs to work out how customers can hold onto their purchases and so on. It's okay while a generation is ongoing, but there needs to be assurances that next gen people can at least transfer their purchases or carry them over to the next system I think (or at least keep servers up). People will always be wary if they think their purchases can be taken away whenever Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo decide to take them away
I mostly agree with that.
There needs to be some assurance at least that even when a next gen system with it's own online service is released, that support isn't just immediately dropped for the older system and owners will still be able to buy games for it and retain full use of at least the single/local multiplayer modes of the ones they've already purchased, along with any single player/local multiplayer DLC they've purchased for them.
JennyTablina wrote:The reason the Go failed, is because Sony shafted the genuine PSP existing customer base that WAS buying games for the system. Had the promised UMD transfer ever come through, it might of been a different story for the Go, but that and the stupid pricing to begin with really killed the Go's chances.
Well...yes and no. UMD transfer would have helped it quite a bit, but the stupid prices and the facts that (in terms of games alone at least...and games are the main reason people buy consoles after all) it was no different to the existing PSP asides from you couldn't buy cheap games for it, swap/lend any with your mates or sell your unwanted games afterwards were probably the big nails in it's coffin.
JennyTablina wrote:Looking at the PSN store since on Vita it seems Sony and other companies have learned that flexable pricing is viable on digital, thank goodness.
For smaller games on XBLA and PSN maybe, the prices for retail games are still ridiculous, or at least they were when I last checked about a week ago. Sony and the others haven't really learned at all.