PTE41: Restricted Access

[Neon Ignition]

Let us say, for a moment, that as part of either some sort of drive towards digital only delivery or to cease the second hand market all three console makers made it so that their systems only ran new software.

Basically, you bought a game and were permanently stuck with it. Now, also, we'll set it that rrp's remain unaffected and that most games release between ?40 and ?50.

First, based on first, second and third party typical support, in the poll select which of the three console makers you would be most likely to stick with assuming you became more picky about what you bought.

Secondly, tell us what effects if any it would have on your game related spending and what types of games or specific existing series you would be willing to shell out full price for.

[Colin]

Needs a 'none of the above' option CTN.

[Paddy]

It exposes my alligence but if they were to continue with well established and fresh new game releases, exclusives, PS+ incentives and free online play, I can still get behind SONY.

I'd be willing to give Microsoft a chance but they need to make consumers feel valuable again and not just things that give the corporation money non-stop for entertainment FCS!

[MartyG]

Needs a 'none of the above' option CTN.

This ^^

[Neon Ignition]

Aah, the absence of a none of the above option is intentional. At a time when several posters are tempted by going down the PC or Retro only route due to disillusion with the big 3 or modern games that option would allow too easy an out.

Not including slightly forces peoples hand to think which one, if every purchase meant sinking full price into their purchases, would represent best value to them typically.

[Mr Ono]

I'd go with PC gaming but would chose Nintendo since most of their good games don't appear on PC.

[Brad]

Cod, bf, gta fifa (?) will all be on pc. It's the exclusives that I'll miss out on and oddly enough it's the wiiu exclusives that most interest me and not even the Nintendo ones. W101 and bayonetta 2.

[teddymeow]

Sony because at some point Naughty Dog will announce Uncharted 4 or a new Jak & Daxter and I'll absolutely need to play it.

[ETC]

Very tough call between Nintendo and Sony. Naughty dog just about sways it to Sony.

[Colin]

Sony because at some point Naughty Dog will announce Uncharted 4 or a new Jak & Daxter and I'll absolutely need to play it.

This would be the killer for me too, but my nephew will probably buy one so I'll just borrow his for the weekend.

[MartyG]

Aah, the absence of a none of the above option is intentional. At a time when several posters are tempted by going down the PC or Retro only route due to disillusion with the big 3 or modern games that option would allow too easy an out.

Not including slightly forces peoples hand to think which one, if every purchase meant sinking full price into their purchases, would represent best value to them typically.

Then it would be Sony because of the exclusives and mostly Disgaea (yes I know there have been handheld versions), no chance I'd be looking at a game collection similar in size to this gen though. Moot point though, given it's something I'd never support.

[Neon Ignition]

Due to the frequency of releases and the diversity of exclusives it would have to be Sony for me. I'd mourn the loss of Nintendos exclusives but they don't come often enough and MS's exclusives are neither here nor there in comparison to the other two for me.

The biggest impact though would easily be the difference in the number of games I'd buy. Series like Uncharted and Metal Gear I would feel compelled to buy whilst things like GTA offer enough length to justify the cost. I'd feel no remorse about buying games like CoD which can easily be played all year round but most new ip's and games like either GoW wouldn't be a consideration anymore. Most racers and fighters would be out too and the niche titles lile Deadly Premonition and EDF would have been a lot less likely to have been originally bought.

In short it would preserve half the AAA ip's at the expense of newer titles because at full price the risk is too high to justify the cost.

[Paddy]

Is there a general fear that Microsoft's new measures are helping to kill off middle-level development studios and titles, making room only for the large publsihers to prosper which will no doubt turn away a bigger share of the gaming market than I think they are aware of?

I dunno. I don't work for a major electronics entertainment corporation but if a regular member of the public could see this as a potential outcome, what do the specialists think?

Finally, changing a consumer market that is used to reduced prices and making them pay full price will not work. Just my two cents.