Advertisement
BioShock leads September GOD barrage News
Xbox 360 News by Robert Purchese
Microsoft has announced plans for Games on Demand, Avatar Marketplace and Deals of the Week for September.
Revered atmospheric shooter BioShock joined the downloadable game service yesterday. Next week, FIFA Street 3 barges in, swishing cartoon ponytails that flatter to deceive. That might not make sense, whereas Tom's FIFA Street 3 review does. [You say that... - Ed]
Shaun White Snowboarding slides into the picture the following week, and the first Fable II episode rounds out the month on 29th September. This will be free, remember, with subsequent ones to cost.
Lode Runner will be next week's Deal of the Week, followed by Pinball FX and finally the top 10 most downloaded songs of Guitar Hero World Tour.
September arrivals on the Avatar Marketplace include Forza Motorsport 3, '80s Modern and Urban Culture themes.
Advertisement
Are you excited about Fable II on Xbox 360?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
BioShock
Fable II
Latest Features
-
BioShock Interview [48]
-
BioShock Review [42]
-
BioShock Review [1109]
-
BioShock First Impressions [74]
-
BioShock Interview [45]
Latest Videos
Exclusive: BioShock comparison video [15] 4 November, 2008
Bioshock - Plasmid powers [4] 14 August, 2007
Latest News
-
BioShock 1 due for Mac next month [32]
-
Spanish director in BioShock talks [14]
-
BioShock man working on new shooter [13]
-
BioShock and Oblivion UK bundle dated [25]
-
BioShock to get novelisation [14]
Latest Screenshots
20 August, 2007 [30]
Release Date Out now!
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-39 of 39 in total
Poster
|
andywilkie35
09/09/09 @ 11:07
+2
I haven't bought anything for my avatar as I don't really see much of a point. However I'm willing to review this if my avatar is able to dress as one of the Beatles on the Sgt Pepper album cover :)
|
|
Ace_McCloud
09/09/09 @ 11:24
0
Hold on - Fable 2 has co-op!? What's that like?
Edit: /realised I didn't read that in this story. Erm, must've clicked through to it from here
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/09/09 @ 12:32
|
|
+2
These old games should really cost no more than £15 but, better still, cost around £10. There's no distribution, packaging, manual or disc costs after all, and almost all of the Games On Demand titles can be picked up for much less either second-hand or even new from your local games store or online even cheaper.
Asking £20 for these games is just plain greedy if you ask me and is another nail in the coffin for digital distribution as far I'm concerned... how much would Microsoft charge for brand new games for example? Steam, for example, seem to always charge the full RRP for new PC releases. It's worrying really... a possible future where you have no choice but to pay full-price for new downloadable games which have no second-hand value. |
|
0
I won't buy GOD stuff until the price becomes more realistic.
Though I shamefully (and a little drunkardly) bought the Penny Arcade Cardboard Samurai outfit as I had 320 points left (and have had for over 2 years now never able to get rid of them). I hate MS points. Edit - I am guessing Bioshock will be £20. Utter rip off as I bought the superior PC version for £3 from Steam.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/09/09 @ 13:24
|
|
-1
@JonFE - "Darren, I'm afraid that as long as digital content providers still depend (at various levels) on the retail chain, they cannot really compete with them in price..."
I know, I know... I've heard that argument time and time again but if Microsoft really want digital distribution of games to replace physical media then they need to buck the trend and do something about the ridiculous prices. Retailers can complain all they want about being undercut but at the end of the day digital distribution is just another form of competition. Online retailers like Play.com don't have to artificially inflate their prices to keep local stores like HMV competitive. Still, on reflection I'm kind of glad that retailers are putting up a fight as I don't like the idea of games, movies and music being entirely digitally distributed anyway; I'd much sooner own a disc in a box even if it does mean more clutter. At the end of day I can choose to sell them on if I want. |
|
+2
if Microsoft really want digital distribution of games to replace physical media then they need to buck the trend and do something about the ridiculous prices.
Trouble is Microsoft want to replace physical media and keep the ridiculous prices. And if they keep pricing them like this then a few years down the line we'll get used to it that cost won't loook so ridiculous anyway. If MS wanted to increase sales in GOD they could easily cut the prices a little bit, but increasing sales isn't the main aim of this project. the main aim is to establish these prices as the norm, so that when digital distribtuion naturally becomes a popular option, the prices are acceptable. It's the same thing as MS not liking free DLC. It's not because of the relatively small revenue they'll get from making devs stick a nominal price on, it's because wants customers to expect this stuff to be expensive so they'll gradually get used to it. |
|
+5
It has more to do with retailers than anything else. You don't want to piss them off and deprive them from their 2nd hand market revenue. If MS were to do that, retailers would just pile up 360s in a dark corner where no customer ever goes and they would vastly display Wiis and PS3s.
There's no way they can sell these games for £10, it's just common sense. Just appreciate having the option and if it's too much for your liking don't buy them. Simple as. |
|
0
@skillian - I can see your point but I don't like Microsoft's policy myself. Like many corporations I think that they're getting very greedy and it'll eventually come back and bite them in the face when someone else decides that it's better in the long run to give people what they expect: value for money.
In this economic climate why would you pay £20 for old games when they can be bought much cheaper elsewhere? Yeah, it's a choice but if you really want to throw your money away, buy the boxed game cheaper online or locally and give the extra to a worthwhile charity, not Microsoft and its greedy publishers. |
|
+4
Like many corporations I think that they're getting very greedy and it'll eventually come back and bite them in the face.
Microsoft have always been greedy and unethical (prepares for downvotes but c'mon, you know it's true) and they have risen to become one of the most profitable companies in history. I don't think this is really going to do them any harm. In fact strategies like this will probably ensure they stay at the top. Even better, now they are in the console business they have an army of defenders who will irrationally defend their every move, which is unlike anything they ever experienced in the PC space. Things are looking rosy for Microsoft, and prices for DLC, digital distribution and online gaming aren't going to get normalised by competition anytime soon. Micrrosoft have enough cash to not have to react in the same way a regular business might have to, and frankly, the competition would like those prices to be accepted as normal too.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/09/09 @ 14:07
|
|
DefdumBlindkid
09/09/09 @ 13:24
0
I think the whole concept of GOD is a bit pants unless a you have more money than sense or are just lazy. I just can't see it it taking off because the price point of arcade title's is already quite high. I was thinking the other day when I picked up a new copy of Dead Space for £9.99- that it was cheaper than a lot of inferior, digital only, 'arcade' titles. Crazy...
Quite interested in the idea of Fable II's episodes though. Not that I'll buy them of course but I will download the first part free and treat it as an extended demo. If I like it I'll pick up a physical copy cheap and carry on. Not sure that is what MS has in mind but works for me. :-) |
|
+1
@ skillian:
All these things you accuse Microsoft of, can (and should) be leveled to all big corporations though. Like all of them, Microsoft isn't around to do us any favours, it is around to make profit; that's what big companies do. Of course it's greedy and unethical; they all are because you don't really get that big by playing nice, none of them is. Why single MS out? As for digital distribution, I don't think it will be the norm any time soon (hopefully and thankfully), but expect more push for it in the near future... |
|
Bravestinsane
09/09/09 @ 13:38
-1
Well Unfortionaltly for Microsoft i will never embrace digital distribution as long as i can buy the same game from a shop for less than half the price they are trying to charge me.
DLC is one thing becaus you can't buy that elsewhere, but those prices for GOD are ridiculous. |
|
0
@ Ace_McCloud
Fecking terrible, to answer your question. The camera panning alone utterly ruins it, and you can't leave the proximity of your 'host'. Such a shame, it could have been excellent, if they'd only allowed the players the same camera control they do in the main game.The proximity thing I can understand, but fixing the camera angles makes it nearly unplayable. And GOD can bite my ass at that price! /lightning strike |
|
0
Why single MS out?
Because this is a story about Games on Demand. And because Microsoft have a bigger influence over the whole gaming industry right now than any other company in the world. As for digital distribution, I don't think it will be the norm any time soon (hopefully and thankfully), but expect more push for it in the near future... Depends what you mean by soon I guess, but I think people underestimate it. IMO game shops will soon be going the way of music stores and disappearing from the high street pretty soon. And then presumably MS would drop their digitally distributed prices because they no longer have that pressure from the retailers, right? (Heh, it sounds even more ridiculous when I actually type it out myself).
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/09/09 @ 14:44
|
|
0
@skillian: That and no other (as yet) console manufacturer has released old titles at very high end and new downloadable game prices.
The only one I can think of is Burnout Paradise on PS3. I bought that do to the amazing developer support for content. But I won't buy Need For Speed Most Wanted again for £20! Completely agree with the points you made. |
|
+3
@ skililan: I fail to understand on what grounds you claim "Microsoft have always been greedy and unethical". It's because they brought PC to every midle class family? Is it because they chose to put GoD prices expensive? I don't think PSPGo software pricing will prove you're right. I think it's sectarism most of all. MS biggest problem isn't "greedy and unethical", it's something else which lives inside some ppls minds.
Analise Sony or Apples prices and you won't jump saying "greedy and unethical", you probably say "you only buy if you want" or something else. Probably. I think it's only fair to include in those rants the confession "I don't like them, not sure why, I just don't". Can you imagine youself calling Apple greedy and unethical for selling an OS wich most of its code comes from FreeBSD (as in *free*) for 150 pounds ?
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/09/09 @ 15:14
|
|
0
@skillian
And then presumably MS would drop their digitally distributed prices because they no longer have that pressure from the retailers, right? (Heh, it sounds even more ridiculous when I actually type it out myself). No, they will adjust their prices to maximise profits: for example, imagine you just created a game and someone told you that you could sell 1 copy of the game and make £1,000,000 profit (to a very rich and stupid gamer ;) ) or sell 10,000,000 copies and make £10 profit on each which would you go for? Once you remove the costs of a physical version the price you set largely depends on the market size and the likelihood of any given customer buying any given product. |
|
DefdumBlindkid
09/09/09 @ 14:23
0
@skillian-IMO game shops will soon be going the way of music stores and disappearing from the high street pretty soon.
I think a lot will but the strong will survive. HMV is still pretty busy round my way :o) |
|
0
@miiiguel
Because it's a Wiki page you will probably dismiss it, but the article here does a good job of explaining and referencing some of the criticisms of Microsoft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_o... And of course found Microsoft have been guilty, multiple times and in multiple countries, of unlawful practices. Anyway, my point here isn't just to deride Microsoft as some terrible company out to screw it's customers of all the money they can. IMO they are that, but as has been pointed out there are many other companies that behave as bad or worse, and I think we could look to mercenary armies, oil companies or financial institutions like Goldman Sachs if we want to talk about corporations that are doing real damage to millions of people around the world, not just trying to make video games an expensive hobby. edit:@ sneetch: Yes you are right of course, they will set the price at whatever point it is that brings in the most revenue - even moreso when it is DD, because the cost of manufacture is basically zero so price point is the only real consideration. I should have worded that better. But my point was that Microsoft are trying to condition us so that are concepts of 'value' are different by the time DD is a normal way for people to buy games. Balancing the price point will still be the most important thing as it always will be, but if they lay the groundwork here then ,to borrow your example, they could sell 10,000,000 copies at £20 profit instead of just £10. edit again: and HMV are only doing well because all their rivals collapsed.
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 09/09/09 @ 15:36
|
|
+1
"And of course found Microsoft have been guilty, multiple times and in multiple countries, of unlawful practices. "
Yes last time, they were found guilty of including a browser in their OS. Let's face it, they still have an image problem, and most criticisms aren't based on any pragmatic issue - you had to dig a wiki page to sustain your *strong* claims. I strongly believe that's a good thing Apple isn't in MS position, IT world wouldn't be this "democratic", just to give an example. I'm not envagelising MS, as a matter of fact I don't even use MS OSes, though count me out to make claims based on something I read on the internet, or because I think IE sucks. Lack of competition isn't MS fault, when Apple choses to sell a FreeBSD flavoured OS for 150 pounds... they chose to be "IT for the rich". |
|
0
I hardly had to "go digging" to find criticism of Microsoft - it's not exactly hard to find criticism of them on the web. I just used that wiki page because it has references and lays out some info nicely on a single, readable page.
And there's no need to convince me that Apple wouldn't be any better in MS' position - I agree they'd probably be even worse. I don't own any Apple products, whereas I've bought quite a few MS products over the years, so I'm not saying any of this stuff out of brand loyalty.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 09/09/09 @ 16:12
|
|
0
@skillian
Yes you are right of course, they will set the price at whatever point it is that brings in the most revenue - even moreso when it is DD, because the cost of manufacture is basically zero so price point is the only real consideration. I should have worded that better. But my point was that Microsoft are trying to condition us so that are concepts of 'value' are different by the time DD is a normal way for people to buy games. Balancing the price point will still be the most important thing as it always will be, but if they lay the groundwork here then ,to borrow your example, they could sell 10,000,000 copies at £20 profit instead of just £10. Good point, you're completely correct and I agree; if they get us to start thinking "new game? Only £150? Bargain!" then that helps them to maximise their profits. Here in Europe (at least in Ireland and the UK, dunno about the continent so much) much more than the States we have stores that seriously discount older games to clear stock and it would really suit MS if we thought that older games are worth more than we currently do. |
|
0
"And without meaning to be insulting, your argument about Apple is a result of the EG/internet mentality "
No offense taken. I just used Apple's example because I need to buy several Apple items in order to score major points, every now and then. Living with a fashion-victim has its issues. On the pricing issue, I'm not sure how it works but are the prices completly up to MS? They solely decide without consulting EA, for example, how much NFS should cost ? I mean we are not dealing with tangible items here, they're basily selling IP licenses which they do not own. Unlike retailers who have their copies, which they already paid for (I think).
Edited 3 times,
most recently on 09/09/09 @ 16:24
|
|
Bravestinsane
09/09/09 @ 15:28
-1
In defence of Microsoft the most recent "unlawful" suit against the browser was stupid and pathetic. It is MS software and they should be allowed to include what they want. Apple include Safari with theirs.
I tried this out on my mum, i installed FireFox and she got all pissed off with me because it looked different and wanted to use the old one. Everyday people don't give a shit about browsers as long as they work, the extra few mili seconds faster wont make a difference to them. For me i use firefox does IE affect me in anyway no, im not forced to use it and it never pops up asking me to switch back. EU has ball shit rules. Will game stores go the way of music stores, no not any time soon that is frankly a stupid comment especially if you from the UK. Speeds here are no where near fast enough, and the governments plan to give everyone 2MB is pathetic as that is also a very poor speed compared to every other developed country in the world. Yes i think i GoD are too expensive and myself will never buy them. But this isn't microsoft this if fucking politics. If you look at companies such as BT they are not allowed to sell their broadband cheeply, they could easily undercut any other ISP and still offer better internet but they are not allowed because that is a monopaly. Have you considered that MS may not be allowed to undercut stores, because they would put them out of business and cause the loss of many jobs. This would be bad for the economy and therefore not allowed. |
|
-1
@miiiguel
Heh, I had edited that bit out because reading it back it sounded patronising and dickish towards you, but glad you didn't take it that way :) Re: pricing - it's interesting to compare it to Steam, as that has been going for some time, and it's widely accepted that it's the publishers who set the prices, not Valve. There are big differences of course, and retailers can hardly put pressure on publishers when they barely sell any PC games to start with ;) Though regarding bravestinsane's point, Valve have regularly been "allowed" (by who? the government?) to undercut retailers for their own games, although admittedly these are usually temporary drops. |
|
actionfitz
09/09/09 @ 18:18
+1
Blame the retailers, fearing their stranglehold on games distribution erroding they are not above petty threats and 'dick moves' if any publisher were brave enough to sell downloadable copies of games factoring in the cost benefits non physical media.
While they laugh all the way to the bank over the Pre-owned games situation giving not a penny to delevopers. We arent yet at a stage were digital distribution can stand alone from highstreet retail, but the day will come when we can all say 'Fuck you Game, Gamestop, HMV etc!' until then, outlets like Steam/ G. O. D. etc will have to continue to prey on the lazy and stupid. |
|
EvilBob_leeds
09/09/09 @ 20:50
+1
While I agree it would cost jobs if high street stores where priced out of the Video game market, it seems kind of mental that we're forced to pay a higher price to keep an obselete industry running. And I wonder who they're going to sell Bioshock to for £20? Maybe they're just testing the water?
I'm sorry, but MS bundling IE with Windows is leveraging a monopoly. Part of it is the mindset that Internet Explorer is some intrinsic part of Windows. It isn't. Windows is just windows, you don't have a choice about buying Internet Explorer and Media player bundled with it. Once upon a time Netscape was the dominant browser, and bundling is what MS used to force Netscape out of the game. Today they're still employing dodgy anti competitive practices , on a number of different fronts Not that any console maker has ever been whiter than white. Especially Sony. And MS's entertainment division have so far played fair with the XBox. But for gods sake don't mistake MS for a friendly but misunderstood giant. They're despised by many in the IT community for fucking good reason. They earnt their image problem. |
|
muscleblade
10/09/09 @ 08:52
0
I bet they have a plan regarding these prices. Maybe they are set high so it will be possible to introduce them at 50% reduction for gold members as the deal of the week further down the line.
|
Comments: 1-39 of 39 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
