Xbox 720 Reveal

[Spider]

I think the rage is a lot more widespread than that. Or not rage, but discontent. I was at a family gathering yesterday and my 18 year old niece impressions of the new xbox was that it was crap. She's not what you'd call a hard core gamer, in fact quite the opposite. She's naturally colored by her younger brothers I'd assume, but it seems the opinion is fairly wide spread.

 

Even my brother thought Microsoft had dropped the ball with that announcement, and he works at Microsoft (though a completely different division). Never have we agreed so much when discussing the later MS products...

[alanschu]

 

Although I think this is gone (which is too bad IMO) with the recent changes.

Edited June 20, 2013 by alanschu

[AwesomeOcelot]

That's never been how sharing was going to work on the XBone, it's just what fanboys imagined after they heard about the shared library feature.

[Tale]

Although I think this is gone (which is too bad IMO) with the recent changes.

An unsubstantiated leak is saying it never worked that way. It was just a 30-45 minute full game trial.

 

A comment from cboat (a poster notorious for accurate leaks on neogaf) implies it was a 60 minute trial.

[alanschu]

 

 

An unsubstantiated leak is saying it never worked that way. It was just a 30-45 minute full game trial.

A comment from cboat (a poster notorious for accurate leaks on neogaf) implies it was a 60 minute trial.

 

If the Pastebin is to believed, they were undecided as to whether or not a session could simply be restarted (meaning the 60 minute interrupt was mostly there as a reminder/annoyance to encourage the full purchase of the game).

 

I was very intrigued at how this would go, and hope that MS does not actually suspend the service (even if it does end up just being a 60 minute demo).

[Tale]

Full game trials are something PS+ has. However with the problem of demos reducing sales more often than improving them I'm skeptical of them keeping it. But if implemented, I disagree with limiting it based on friends and family.

 

I'm kind of in a position where I would be okay with losing resale if publishers stopped pushing impulse buys, pre-orders, and hype, and started giving out better demos. If we're going to move into "games as a service" era, we kind of have to get into a spot where bad service means the customer doesn't pay as much, if at all. The good and the bad.

[alanschu]

If it was just demos, I agree that there'd be less reason to restrict it to friends and family.  If it's the full game (even with interruptions), the restriction makes a lot more sense.

 

 

Do you have any information regarding demos and their success/failure to improve sales?  That whole area seems kinda muddy to me.

[Tale]

That's what Jesse Schell said at DICE 2013.

Skip to 10 minutes if you just want that.

[alanschu]

Interesting, thanks.

 

I can definitely understand how a demo would hurt sales if the demo was subpar, but never really factored in the impulse aspect.  The "Oh cool, I tried it" that would have still bought the game just to try it.

 

I'd be interested in seeing the details of the aggregate just for my own curiosity.

Edited June 20, 2013 by alanschu

[Nordicus]

I still remember rolling my eyes at that graph the first time I saw it.

 

 

Schell forgets the #1 rule of any statistics reading:

 

Correlation does not imply causation

 

The data on that graph is positively spartan (is that graph based on means or medians? Where did EEDAR get the sales data, VGChartz?), and Schell doesn't take into account if many publishers and developers in AAA field of gaming are simply confident enough in their marketing to not need a demo. This'd mean having no demos would be a result of expected good sales, not something that slashes your revenue by half

 

Simply a gross oversimplification of data

 

EDIT:

 

An example: I could make a chart where games are categorized by their launch prices, and then compare their unit sales. You can bet your ass that $60 games would be way above $10 in sold units. Does it mean higher price gets you more sales? NO

[alanschu]

The great thing about the internet is that someone somewhere utter that phrase, and it became the great chorus of dismissal.  The phrase is overused, and we lack the context to dismiss it outright due to an idea that correlation does not imply causation.

 

I find this interesting:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/06/20/todays-falsehood-correlation-i/

 

It's correct that we cannot assume that these games sold much better specifically because of the marketing plan, and we'd need to look into which games were specifically used in the aggregate (hence why I asked to look at it).

 

 

For instance, in your "edit" section, you provide a data set that can be easily reasoned away via dismissal.  It starts to border on reducto ad absurdum and isn't really relevant, because it's easy to point out and recognize the other factors that would be involved (namely, demand), and trivial to illustrate that your analogy means nothing.  We have more information in your analogy than in the EEDAR study (which is decidedly closed).

 

As for "Schnell doesn't take into account ..."  Schnell may not take it into account, because he's in a keynote speech with a fixed time limit to say what he wants to say, where getting bogged down in the details is one of the worst things you can do.

 

We should be skeptical of the claims (which are actually quite old), since we can't be sure of the methodology.  These are simply statistical measurements, but saying "correlation does not imply causation" is a wee bit too dismissive.  Unless you're suggesting that the EEDAR people didn't attend the same first year stats courses that you did (they make some other observations as well, though again, I don't have access to the study so I can't really treat it as anything more than observations).

 

Frankly, we don't have the information to be fully dismissive or accepting of the statistics given, and simply being able to create some logical constructs (note: logic and reality are often not agreement, especially when dealing with irrational entities) that are equally as valid as the claim Schnell put forth does not serve as evidence that a causal influence is not there, either.

 

 

TL;DR As a once ardent supporter of the "correlation does not imply causation" defense, I now feel it's overused and over relied upon by people to the point where it mostly comes across as a statement of the obvious.

[licketysplit]

Glad I'm on PC. this console nonsense seems a mess.

[BruceVC]

Glad I'm on PC. this console nonsense seems a mess.

 

QFT

[greylord]

In truth, seeing how Blizzard turned out, do not think Demos decrease sales.  I think TIMING is the key though.  IF you release the game, and then wait a month or two, then release a demo...that Demo can perhaps catch the interest of those who did not buy.

 

Blizzard jumped in leaps and bounds with it's early demos of games...and what was even better was that it built a bridge for the sequels of those games.  People remembered the demos well...and then bought the later games (and of course word of mouth).

 

A similar thing can be stated of piracy (not for piracy...just saying).  Normally many game makers erroneously think that because their game sold well, it could have sold even better because of high piracy numbers...and the high piracy hurt their actual sales.  This is a meme that I think has been false for a while.

 

I think instead, the amount of piracy is similar to the interest in a game.  If it has high interest in the general population, it may have a high interest among the pirates, and those two may form a similar statistic which can show how well a game may or may not sell.

 

Both of these could be relavant in more ways simply by stating...the interest shown in a form of media entertainment on the internet can be directly correlated to how successful it will be in sales/release.

 

It tag this because a similar idea has been stated by film makers in regards to piracy, and other ideas...but in reality they still have a hard time predicting whether a film will succeed or not at times.

 

But those with a high degree of knowledge on how the waves and patterns of the internet work...have found in truth that perhaps there IS correlation...but it's not exactly with how much something is pirated...though that could be a reflection, but instead on how much people are trying to find information or look up that information.

 

When looking at how interested people are...that can be directly correlated to how successful a film will be...

 

http://www.thestar.com/life/technology/2013/06/12/google_says_it_can_predict_a_films_box_office_success_through_internet_searches.html

 

This is more with the movie demo/trailers...

 

and I would agree a bad demo, or a bad trailer can cause a BAD effect on sales...but I'd say the effects found by Google probably could be applied to wide spectrum of entertainment.

 

IMO of course.

[greylord]

^ A deal-breaker for me too, am pre-ordering a PS4.

 

I want a games console, not a digital lifestyle belief system.

 

Interestingly enough, the PS3 was considered an everything in the living room box, including a Blu-Ray player, internet browser, game console, and more...when it was released.

 

Xbox shouldn't be looked down on as it creates this idea...as I think it's simply copying what Sony did several years ago.  Of course the release of the PS3 was NOT all that spectacular (perhaps something else MS should consider), but it DID help make the Blu-ray triumph over the HD DVD by giving free advertising and prominent shelf space to Blu-Ray advertising via the PS3.

 

Still, it wasn't until more recently that the PS3 and Sony even caught up with MS in console sales...at the beginning they were getting pretty soundly thrashed and trounced by MS and the Xbox 360 in the gaming market (though as I said, the DID win the media medium war between HDDVD and Blu-ray because of the PS3).

[entrerix]

sony "lost" (the first few years, in america) because the ps3 was stupid expensive

 

microsoft will lose this whole generation for being both $100 more expensive, and the drm fiasco cost them a lot of goodwill

[alanschu]

 

 

I think instead, the amount of piracy is similar to the interest in a game.  If it has high interest in the general population, it may have a high interest among the pirates, and those two may form a similar statistic which can show how well a game may or may not sell.

 

I have zero doubts that a highly selling game is also typically a highly pirated game.

[Keyrock]

sony "lost" (the first few years, in america) because the ps3 was stupid expensive

 

microsoft will lose this whole generation for being both $100 more expensive, and the drm fiasco cost them a lot of goodwill

Yeah, when the PS3 launched it was simply far too expensive.  There is a threshold for a console that if you cross it, no matter how impressive the machine, it will not sell.  This was first shown by the failure of the Neo Geo, which was a revolutionary machine for its time, but the price was just way too high.  Sony did not learn from this blunder and repeated it with the PS3.  The XBOX180 is dangerously close to that threshold, plus as enterix wrote, they have egg on their face because of DRM Gate 2013.

 

Note:  This applies to handhelds too.  The 3DS launched above the threshold, it stumbled out of the gate.  Big N acted quickly and lowered the price and now it's consistently the best selling console (home or handheld) week to week.  The Vita launched above the threshold, it stumbled out of the gate.  Sony did not drop the price until very recently and the Vita has been dying a slow death.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Keyrock

[alanschu]

The PS4 is clocking in at a higher price point most of the other successful consoles, sans the PS3, as well (even adjusting for inflation, although not by much).  Although I feel that gamers focus a lot more on the actual price point and tend to stick with those numbers moreso.

 

[BruceVC]

The PS4 is clocking in at a higher price point most of the other successful consoles, sans the PS3, as well (even adjusting for inflation, although not by much).  Although I feel that gamers focus a lot more on the actual price point and tend to stick with those numbers moreso.

 

 

Its good to see Microsoft hasn't been exorbitant and has been consistent in there pricing around the Xbox

[alanschu]

$499 is a bit of a jump, but at the same time they are intending to do more (and presumably hit a wider audience) with it as well.  Though the price point will still hurt widespread adoption on some level.  I'm curious how much, however.

[BruceVC]

$499 is a bit of a jump, but at the same time they are intending to do more (and presumably hit a wider audience) with it as well.  Though the price point will still hurt widespread adoption on some level.  I'm curious how much, however.

You right, I didn't realize that its going to cost $499. That's about a 30% increase relative to previous versions. But as you mentioned it should have some enhancements so I suppose it can be justified

[greylord]

Didn't realize the Sega Saturn was at $400...and that was years ago.  I can see one (probably one of many) reasons it didn't take off as well as they would have liked.

 

CD-I is one I remember...if price is an issue, I suppose we can see that the little difference of a few dollars (okay, maybe more than a few) why it didn't do so well with the CD tech and then the original PS broke out from the crowd of CD consoles that were coming around in the second half of the 90s.  (That and I don't really recall any good games for the CD-I either...of course back then I was solidly a PC gamer...so I'm probably not the best judge of which games were good or bad from back then).

[alanschu]

I still remember reading up on the prices of the 3DO and Neo Geo.  Jebus.

[Calax]

Should be noted that the PS3 posted up there was the most basic model. for 50-100 bucks more you could get a 60 or 80 gig hd instead of the 20 (which didn't have enough room for much more than game saves).