Wonder what the odds are now?

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/co ... ay-1160205

You won! Changing before the product was even launched.

Now the question will be will this be enough to deter buyers? It might be. While this complete about face is probably enough for many I suspect that many will wait for some time to see what actually happens before they buy.

Cliff spouts more sh1te

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/41 ... leszinski/

What an utter tit.

[quote][Bleszinski believes publishers will only accelerate their efforts to maximize profits using DLC, micro transactions and "tacked on multiplayer"./quote]
in other words "hardcore" gamers will lose out.

He's a loudmouth and the important point in what he's saying isn't the one he wants to make. He states that top end console titles don't make a profit. This is mostly true. The point is the industry's answer to this is 'squeeze the customer harder', when in fact it should be 'how do we do we get our costs down? Should we continue to spend £100 million marketing a game that therefore will have to sell six million copies to show a profit'?

Nobody minds DLC if it genuinely adds to the game, even some of the cynical stuff works just cos the game did. This prat's using the 'threat' of practices that he obviously knows are BS to start with!

Exactly. If the game is not good enough to start with then the options for DLC are limited. I have only bought a couple of the DLC for Civ 5 but still play the game and one day will buy more.

Xbox One: was Microsoft's reversal the right decision?

The company has abandoned plans for a 'digital first' console, turning to a model based on boxed copies and pre-owned sales. Have consumers won?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 ... soft-right

Good article. I try to avoid digital purchases where possible. For all the talk of 'buying a licence', no company is ever gonna delete or power down my physical copy!

Plus the games companies generally don't deserve the money for digital console games sales; the prices are just laughable.

It is a good article.


We also needed to see the prices that would be charged for the games. £50 for a digital only game that might not live up to expectations is a leap too far for most. With physical media you could at least sell the disks. That does not exist with digital only sales. Until that is clear the whole concept was flawed. They should have left the DRM out and then launched the store and market place for pre owned downloads later. Then once people can see that digital games are much cheaper they might consider them. Steam was able to take off because many of the games were cheap.


Which explains why the public said no.

Steam took off because you needed it to play HL2 and counterstrike source

Absolutely. I remember the amount of rage doing the rounds when HL2 required Steam (myself included). Now Steam, for the most part, gets love from the gaming community. Maybe MS should have stuck with it? Who knows!

I think that they should possibly continue but run it in parallel. If people can buy the boxed version for £50 and the downloadable for £25 let people decide. They way they did it was badly managed.

from most of the reactions on gaming websites, it was the old way or no way. Plus do you really think publishers of the AAA games would go for that type of differential between physical and digital versions. That is blind utopian optimism at its best.

That was just a suggestion. At the end of the day the publishers will decide what the price will be. If they sold both for £50 I know what most people would go for.

Australian government to support indie developers

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/41 ... evelopers/

That quite a chunk of cash relative to the figures