Poll: Consoles should be FREE!!!!!!

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

There are a number of problems with this idea.

1. The consoles are made by different companies than the games. The xbox is made by microsoft, the PS3 is made by Sony, and the Wii is made by nintendo, however gmaes for these systems are made by hundreds of third party developers.

2. These days consoles do a lot more than just play games. Ok, well this isn't exactly true for the Nintendo Wii, but the PS3 is also a blueray player, and can access the internet, and both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 get netflix, and on demand movies which you can buy. These are no longer just game machines, they are full entertainment systems, and they are bought for more than just to play games.

3. This would only make sense for hardcore players, those people who buy tons of games. This is how World of Warcraft works, the game itself is incredibly cheap, or even free in some cases, but they make the bulk of their money from the subscriptions. This means that the more people play, the more they pay. Sadly, this doesn't work the same way for consoles, where after you buy a certain game, you can play it as much as you want. Most of the people on the escapist buy and play a lot of different games, but there are many out there who only have 4 or 5 titles, and are content with them, which would end up losing money for the companies providing the free consoles.

4. When people buy used games, the money from the sale of the game goes directly to the retailer, and not to the developer, or publisher. If games became more expensive by $10 or $20 to make up for free consoles, people would actually buy a lot more used games, which would lose the developers more money, and would not recoup the loses from giving away free game systems by the manufacturers.

The way the current videogame market works, the OP's idea cannot be profitably supported.

this. the logic in the original post is awful (sorry, but true, gaming is an "entertainment" for certain individuals for a reason, people DONT buy consoles for a reason, wether it is they dont like games or dont want to play them) there are so many "what ifs" and "buts" in this logic that it would destroy the industry

 

[AngelSword]

The problem is the initial investment of the console production. Just because you intend on making the money back ex pos facto, that doesn't change the fact that the consoles still cost money to produce.

 

[major28]

this would never work bc anyone could go out and buy a wii xbox and ps3 which eliminates market competition between sony microsoft and nintendo and since games would all be priced the same and be the same quality microsoft will go out of buissness bc the xbox cant match ps3 graphics and the ps3 and wii would be the only system left... this could work

 

[WakeTheDead1]

if consoles were free the companies wouldn't put as much effort into making them better than the competitor and the standard and overall strive for making the next step up in gaming would disappear

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

I'm surprised at the results of this poll. If you got a free PS3, you would have to buy 15 games before that money you saved is offset. Can the average Escapist member not do math?

 

[Hollywood Knights]

So you advocate that a company give away a product at a loss of hundreds of dollars in the hopes that the average customer will buy the dozens of games it takes to make up the difference and turn a profit? I'm pretty sure that's an unsound idea.

I agree. What's more, if you made consoles free, every single person would get one of each. As it stands, far, far, far from every person even owns a console, let alone more than one. Through that alone, it would probably cripple the companies that produce them inside a day (apart from they'd run out of consoles, but on paper at least). Sure if people buy lots of games they'd make a profit, but that's an awfully big risk to take. I play a lot of games, yet I only own two boxed games for my 360. Others I've played are ones that have been borrowed from friends. Also, putting up the price of games would make consumers more hesitant about buying them in the first place, in case they didn't like them.

As a final point, I don't think either product is overpriced. I bought my 360 last summer for about 100 pounds, and my PS2 years ago for about 200. That's not a high price for how much enjoyment I've had out of them.

 

[Daffy F]

But the companies making the consoles aren't the ones who are making the games...

Hmmm. It seems the first post ended the thread.

 

[blalien]

Okay, in all fairness to the OP, people here are not getting it. I'm putting this in bold so people notice it when they skim through the thread.

The whole point is that console manufacturers would require other companies to make a licensing deal for the right to develop games for that console. The extra $20 for that game would go straight to the console manufacturer.

Now whether that would actually work financially, I doubt it. If each game brings $20 to the company, and a console costs on average $300, every free console user would need to buy on average 15 games before this scheme benefits the company. I don't know how many games the average consumer buys for a console, but I doubt it's nearly that high. You would probably have to raise the price of the game by $50, and at that point, every game purchase would be an agonizing decision. People would just snatch up the console and only buy one or two games for it.

What might work is if the consoles do cost $300 and games cost $100, but upon the purchase of a console, you get a waiver for three free games of your choice, to be redeemed at any point in the future. Actually this probably still would fail, but it would fail slightly less than that other plan.

So I don't think the idea would work, but it wasn't really such a bad idea. Sorry nobody else around here is understanding what you were trying to say.

 

[WaywardHaymaker]

If consoles were free, I'd pay a shitload more for games because otherwise the whole industry would asplode. I don't want that.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

I think the gaming industry (like the others) should be collectivized and socialized. Then the consoles AND the games are free. Not only would they be free, but they'd be far better because they'd be made through cooperation rather than competition.

 

[TheRealGoochman]

Yes I would pay more if the console was free.....but the thing is I do not think Consoles should be free

 

[Kanima423]

Interesting theory ... but it would have to be a download only service for the game idea to possibly work (Not sure it would help with piracy but thats not my department!) not to mention the third party develpoers would have to be stuck with some sort of fee for the company that created the system to profit off of their games. In the end I don't think it would do so well ... oh yeah and I like cheese.

 

[Sovvolf]

Consoles are very expensive to research and develop, there is no way you could expect them to be free.

This, a thousand times.
Microsoft and Sony aren't making money on any console sold.
When you add up reasearch costs, development costs, and final production, both Sony and Microsoft are in the red with every console they sell. The only way they make it back is through licensing cuts from games sold.

Yeah this. Consoles take a lot of money, research, headaches, people pulling hair out, people contemplating suicide, time and effort in order to make. Not only that, console are sold at an extremely cheap price, so cheap that the companies don't make profit from the consoles them selves. I think in order to actually make profit of the consoles them selves, the price for one would be in the thousands. Besides, if consoles were made to be free, then no one would make them.

 

[Knight of Cydonia]

I think its cheaper for us if they aren't....

I think....

(god, how i got in to top level maths i will never know)

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I would pay for more expensive games if the consoles were free, but you do have to understand something. Companies are already losing tons of money on the systems, and attempting to make it back on the accessories, paraphernalia, and software that goes with it. As time goes on, it becomes more cost efficient, but initially, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are already taking big hits when they release a console.

 

[jFr[e]ak93]

But the companies making the consoles aren't the ones who are making the games...

Good point

 

[Soxafloppin]

It would cost us more in the long term.

I vote no.

 

[Hollock]

they usually lose money selling the consols at the prices they are for the first year of release, the idea of giving these things away for free is ridiculous.