The Sony Worldwide Studios boss added: "Europe is a hugely important market and we do hear on Twitter that lots of people who are unhappy and say, 'why do US consumers get this on PS Plus and not in Europe?' And things like that all the time. So it's all relative, right? They see the other territories all the time. Now it's even easier to see what's available in other territories because of the internet."

EA looking at used games from a 'customer-first standpoint'
Company also not expecting increased software pricing next-gen

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



Is he saying they think people would pay that?

In a broader set of community, people don't pay attention to a lot of the details. We've seen it in the research, we've seen it in a lot of the data points.

The best way for console makers to deal with the used games market is to ensure their games are so good that people don't want to trade them in, Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime told Polygon. But supporting used games is also important, he added.

"We have been very clear, we understand that used games are a way for some consumers to monetize their games," Fils-Aime said. "They will buy a game, play it, bring it back to their retailer to get credit for their next purchase. Certainly, that impacts games that are annualized and candidly also impacts games that are maybe undifferentiated much more than [it] impacts Nintendo content. Why is that? Because the replayability of our content is super strong. The consumer wants to keep playing Mario Kart. The consumer want to keep playing New Super Mario Bros. They want to keep playing Pikmin. So we see that the trade-in frequency on Nintendo content is much less than the industry average – much, much less. So for us, we have been able to step back and say that we are not taking any technological means to impact trade-in and we are confident that if we build great content, then the consumer will not want to trade in our games."

The notion that trade-ins are affecting game sales is and always has been BS - often the price of a trade-in is only £5 difference AT THE VERY MOST. In other words, the buyer was NEVER gonna pay full price if they're trying to minimize cost/risk like that. And how do they think kids buy new games? You know, including the ones with the really expensive maps that need/will need a subscription? It's not like they're even getting a decent return on, er, their returns...

Clifford's stance is fairly clear -- games are too expensive, and so the customers must be the ones to compromise. This is presented as our responsibility, our fault even. We "expect" good looking games with high marketing budgets, and publishers are forced to comply.

Legendary Nintendo designer Shigeru Miyamoto told CVG this week that piracy is a bigger threat to his company's business than the used games market.

Hold on. I do not care about marketing budgets. If the game is good then word of mouth will tell everyone what they need to know. They will leave glowing reviews. All that is needed are simple ads or prizes to be given via magazines and you can get to serious gamers who might subscribe to gaming magazines and they can leave reviews. Gameplay always trumps looks for gamers.