Heaven forbid you admit you just jumped the gun and misspoke, or didn't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
Printable View
Heaven forbid you admit you just jumped the gun and misspoke, or didn't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
I didn't do either, although I probably didn't explain myself well enough to be clear. Regardless, I choose to bow out rather than get involved in a flame war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Anyway, back to the subject of ISP bandwidth caps. From Joystiq:
"When questioned about it at a press event for the device last night, OnLive founder Steve Perlman didn't seem concerned. First, the console is rarely using the full 5 Mpbs. In fact, he said, it's often far less. Also, Perlman hopes that ISPs will give special consideration to OnLive as the service may well drive cable customers to upgrade their datastream."
This seems really contradictory to the current agendas of companies like Comcast.
Not sure about that. Comcast was only capping upload, right? And Advo posted some good info about what they're doing to offer more bandwidth at better prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMax
No they put a 250gb download cap in place in October.
And Comcast would love a popular service that causes customers to upgrade their datastream. More $$$$$ = good. Plus it's not like the average user is going to have OnLive on at all times to eat up bandwidth, especially since it will probably end up being more about "bite-sized" gaming sessions than marathons.
*SWOON*
YES
A good point about game pricing and publishers brought up by Bill Harris at Dubious Quality:
Quote:
Let's go back to Dean Takahashi's article for a moment. Remember his breakdown of who gets the money when a new, $60 game is sold?
--$27 is retained by the publisher
--$15 is kept by retailers (plus all resale revenues)
--$12 is lost to piracy
--$7 goes to the game owner (through resale, apparently)
I know, that's $61, not $60. Those are the figures in the article, though, so it's as close as I can get (I assume it's a rounding issue).
Immediately, publishers are going to retain $19 more, because the piracy and resale markets go to zero. No one who uses this service can copy a game, and no one who uses this service can resell a game.
I promise you that publishers won't be giving $15 to OnLive for each copy sold of a game, because the publishers have 100% of the leverage here. OnLive is a new service, and if the publishers don't support it, it's DOA. Let's say that publishers agree to pay $10 to OnLive per copy sold (and I think that's an incredibly high guess).
So instead of keeping $27 from a $60 sale, publishers will be keeping $50. At least.
See where I'm going here? Publishers, at the same time they have been screaming that current piracy rates represent the apocalypse, have also told us over and over again that game prices would be cheaper if it weren't for pirates. They've also been screaming that the resale market is just absolutely killing them.
Well, if this service actually launches, we will all see if, to put it delicately, they were full of shit. They have every reason in the world to want this technology to succeed, and one of the ways it has a much, much better chance of succeeding is if they reduce the price on games sold through OnLive. I don't mean $5 off a $59.95 game--I mean at least $15, and preferrably $20.
I mean, they should, right? They're keeping $23 more per unit!
How much of a shot in the arm would it be if it was $20 cheaper to buy a game via OnLive? Hell, people would be falling all over themselves to sign up, even with an annual subscription fee. And unless the publishers have been lying to us all along, it should be easy to do, right?
So if this service launches and games are still being sold at $59.95 (no different than retail), then we should all raise our middle fingers in their general direction, because we will be getting screwed.
This is everything the publishers said they wanted. Now it's time for them to put up or shut up.
Can you really say every game is losing 12 bucks to piracy though? Fuck is the PS3 even modded yet, I don't think it has been. I don't think console piracy this gen is as rampant as PC piracy, DS and PSP not counting. Besides the point that just looking at revenue, the 12 and 7 bucks would still show up under the publishers revenue. Last gen with 50 dollar games publishers were getting around 35 bucks a game. I really don't see it dropping to 27 with a 10 dollar raise in game prices. I would wager publishers are getting 40 - 45 on every game sold. I'm sorry but this just seems like fishy fucking math IMHO to try and make this service seem like the end all be all.
Bill Harris has clearly not bought a computer game this generation if he thinks they cost $60. Nor does it make sense that they're losing money to piracy on a per-unit basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy