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

[Punisher A.J.]

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

well actually.......... they publish so they still get $$$.

 

[samstewiefisher]

Nah sorry but its a stupid idea. I already have 21 games for the ps3 right now and i want to get heavy rain, GOW3 and Uncharted 2. Its still pretty early in the ps3s life cycle yet so there will be a lot more out that i want in the future. With the games i have it would already be more expensive for me to get a console through your system than just buying one outright. And its hardly a "free" console if I have to pay for it anyway by buying more expensive games is it?

 

[armaina]

No offense but, that's just stupid. I'm sorry you can't afford a specific game console or games, but giving consoles for free is not practical in the least, no company would be able to exist and we'd have no consoles at all.

 

[Souplex]

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

Console manufacturers get a percentage of the game sale money in exchange for the right to use their console.

 

[Susan Arendt]

So, the companies making consoles - who already take a loss on consoles, even charging $400 for them - should take a bigger loss because you want cheaper games?

Sorry, but no.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

By your argument, PCs should be free then if a gamer wants it.

Off Topic: (Anyone else having to click on the Quote Button then click "Open in New Tab" to get quoting to work? :/)

 

[Caligulove]

I hear what you're saying, but the biggest problem remains that console manufacture and game development are not done by the same companies.

Sometimes they are, though those are usually subsidiaries of a larger company. It wouldn't work without a massive overhaul which would be very difficult to adapt to.
I could see it in the far future, though...

 

[SirDoom]

It makes no sense. In the case of hardcore gamers, the company makes more money. That also means the consumer pays more.

Think about it, you pay a large initial investment followed by smaller cost for games as it is. If you were to make consoles free and charge $20 more for games, you would be screwing over a lot of gamers. Let's look at the Xbox. $200 for a console, 60$ for games. Using your system, the cost would even out at 10 games. Then, after that, people would just be paying $80 a game instead of $60, even though they've already paid for the original cost of the console in the older pricing system.

Now, if you were a person who only buys a few games, or someone who uses a service like Netflix, this system would be great for you, as you get out cheap. If you buy a lot of games, you'll essentially be paying an extra $20 per game you buy for no extra content. That would not go over well with the consumer.

 

[Snarky Username]

But after 20-30 games, you make up the price of the free console and just start paying more for every game.

And before you ask, yes I have over 30 games, and yes, life without friends can be very fulfilling.

Also consoles cost a ton to develop and manufacture, and if companies gave them away for free, then the game industry would die a very quick death. All because someone posted a thread on the Escapist thinking it would be a good idea...

 

[Popcicle42]

Sounds like my point has already been said: The manufacturer loses money on the console as it is. They recoup than money from licensing, peripherals (such as controllers, additional cords, wireless cards, memory, etc.) and in-house game design.

Secondly, consider what it would take to recoup that loss if they did use that sales model: Say the cost of a console now is $300, and they increased the cost of games by $10 and reduced the console cost to $0. The company would have to sell 30 games to recoup that cost. 30... I play my 360 alot, but I don't own 30 games for it. Even if they increased the cost per game by $20, they need to sell 15 at that newer rate... and if I'm stingy for the normal, $60 cost, what makes you think I'll spend $80 fifteen times?

So, in a nutshell, no.

 

[The Rockerfly]

They're going to charge as much as they can get away with for both consoles or games. That's how the economy works. The only way they'll ever get cheaper is if people simply stop buying them. But since the popularity of gaming (especially console gaming) is only increasing, you can expect prices to go up.

Then why has every major console only cut prices since release?
If they were selling at $500 a pop, why not keep it that high?

My 360 cost $499 when I first bought it (1st Generation).
Now, it's $299 and comes with two big-name games (Forza 3 and Halo ODST).

Gaming popularity has only gone up since then, so why wouldn't prices, if what you're saying is true?
And why would Microsoft and Sony both sell their consoles at a loss to them?

Increased competition and nearly all electronics are massively reduced very quickly because after the market that will pay the premium price for electronics, the company needs to get more sales from people who won't pay a premium.
For example look at the Wii, it's still the same price after all these years yet the Wii has sold more than any other household console. However the PS3 which has sold the least has dropped the most in price

It's just supply and demand and the video game industry is being much more effected by it, as shown by my Wii and PS3 example and the MW2 price being higher even though it was guaranteed to sell more

 

[armaina]

Uhhh, because most people already have consoles now. Duh. That's how it works with all products. You get the idiot fanboys to spend an arm and a leg at first, and then once they all have consoles you lower prices to attract the more frugal audience.

Er... what... no that's not the reason at all. First of all, prices on consoles have to do with production costs, in fact, in the first run of a console some companies many even sell at a loss in the beginning in order to make sure the price isn't too far out of range. Prices reduce over time due to falls in production costs. Just like with computer parts each year technology that was top of the line the year before will often drop significantly in just the next year. For that reason, the cost to produce a console now as opposed to the day of it's release, can often be significantly cheaper and allow for price reductions without a loss.

Now sure, a company may hang on to the initial price for as long as they can before dropping, that's not surprising. But it's not because it's the highest they can get away with, it's because on the release, it's the lowest they can get away with financially and still be marketable. Price drops occur later because tech becomes cheaper and it helps boost sales, it's not because 'everyone already has them'.

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, for once, I'm not concerned with sense. Most businesses don't know how to run themselves anyway and it becomes one big Dilbert world. Hell, a number of Dilbert comics were based off of real life, anyhow. So, I say 'hell with it'. Yes, I'd pay more for games if consoles didn't cost anything. It would require the marriage of the console companies to the game-making industry, but it'd be easier in the long run.

 

[Shock and Awe]

It would be bad for the console makers and for those who buy many games.

 

[GL2814E]

I fail to see how giving Konami an extra $10 per game is going to give incentive for Sony to develop the PS4 and give it away for free...

I totally agree.

 

[Blackvegie]

Why don't we have free food also? Free accommodation? Free everything!

GODDAMNED COMMUNISTS!!

 

[Mahha]

Now that son is communism.
Are you a communist, son?

Well if you look at it really close the SFRJ (thats the Yugoslav model) model of communism was actually really good. Sure you couldn't buy most things buy you were never hungry or jobless. I remember how wealthy my grand parents were back in the day... It was really good compared to this crap we have now.

 

[Mcface]

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

/thread