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

[Davrel]

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

Exactly this. The two industries are linked, sure, but thats like making Phillips stop producing DVD players because you're going to up the price of DVDs made by MGM.

Also, I buy very few console games, so they'd certainly lose money from me.

 

[8bitmaster]

What will be stopping someone from just collecting a bunch of wiis and building a toolshed out of them?

thats a good idea! Wait, are wiis cheaper than wood?

 

[Rakun Man]

You sir, need to take an economics class. Or maybe just basic math, and then try again.
It is a lose lose for console makers and gamers alike.

 

[Vladamir69]

well i think that eventually it would become more expensive for us to buy each game at a higher price, because at this moment a console is a one time investment. also video games used to be cheaper... everything used to be cheaper, but sadly i don't think anyone will ever make games less expensive.

 

[ArgoShadow]

Obviously TC never read Little Brother. Anyway, companies like MS and Sony wouldn't be earning that much money and they'd have to raise the price of games WAY above $60 to make any profit and keep the developers happy. Also, piracy would still be huge issue and would only exacerbate the problem, so no, there is no way this idea could ever work.

 

[Kurokami]

ak93]****Disclaimer****
(I am not trying to start a revolt or encourage piracy in any way. I am just a gamer that would eather like cheaper consoles or far cheaper games.
I don't mean to sound complainy or whiny I just wish someone would do something!!!)
In no way am I saying we should do this, but it makes for good conversation!!!

Consoles sholud be free. As extream as that sounds... it's true. Think about it for a minute. At $300 a PS3 Slim is not cheap (though cheper that a PS3 once was) a Wii... $220 at least Xbox arcade packs are only $200, but still! After that inicial price, come game after game after game all startin upwards of $50.00s (except for chepo Wii titles which should be illigal [I'm kidding]). This is where the free consle idea lies.... the games. If companies offer consoles for free via EB game or Best Buy pick up or mail... whatever and charged an aditional $20.00 on a game, that would pay for the console.
Say the average gamer owns 10 games (low as that is) that becomes $200.00s in console revenue.
Some people own 30 games... $600.00s additional revenue for free consoles. The only company that may get bitten by this would be Nintendo as there are A LOT of Wiis in seniors homes where all they play is Wii Sports.
To prevent multple consoles being given to the same person, they could implement a complexe registration prosess that would ensure one console per person.
There you go.... Consoles should be free (this does exclude PCs and MACs as that would be imposible to do).
Make sense? What do you think?

Sony's already losing money I understand from the price of their consoles and if they were giving them out for free I'd take 5 and wait till they realized what a stupid idea it was. Sure, in theory your idea somewhat makes sense, provided you only gave consoles to people who could afford to buy games, but otherwise people would come get their free bluray, DVD, and music players, hell they'd come get their free 60 gig (or whatever) hard drive and their free 5 kilo (dunno) paper weight.

 

[TelHybrid]

No way.

I prefer having just one large one off cost than having the concern of paying top £ for games. I buy games on a regular basis in high quantities, and to be honest because of this reason, if PC had more fighting games like Tekken, more JRPGs, more platformers, basically the genres PC gaming lacks in comparison to consoles, I would be a PC gamer.

The games are cheaper, and the hardware is more expensive. That's how I like it.

In terms of business, it would be a bit of a risk too. A lot of gamers out there tend to buy about 1 or 2 games, and just play those games to death constantly for ages. Especially RPGs like Fallout 3 and Oblivion. A gamer could play one of those games alone before buying another for absolutely ages. This would then mean the console developer would then not make back the production costs, let alone make a profit that any business really needs to do.

 

[crystalsnow]

You failed to think this through.

The companies that produce games and the companies that produce the consoles are two entirely separate things. Not to mention, what if you're a heavy gamer and buy dozens and dozens of games? The price would quickly add up to be far more expensive than paying for the console and having normal prices.

 

[himemiya1650]

Sony lost enough money from the PS3, under this business model they'd probably end up in bankruptcy protection. Also how would you ensure that people aren't hording consoles, to make like a wall of consoles, just because.

 

[Micalix]

Consoles should be free! They should not be cooped up next to TV's, chained by their A/V cords! They need to roam free... IN THE WILD!

LET THEM FORNICATE WITH OTHER CONSOLES, BREED A SUPERIOR RACE OF CONSOLES! ORGANIC IS THE WAY! NO MORE MECHANICAL INTERVENTION! NO MORE HUMAN INVOLVEMENT! CONSOLES ARE PEOPLE TOO! THEY DESERVE THEIR RIGHTS!

JUST LOOK AT THIS XBOX! THAT RED RING IS A CRY FOR HELP! FOR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!

LET MY CONSOLES GO!

Edit:

I like cheese.

 

[Khada]

im sorry but thats just stupid. the games industry would die and there would be no games at all.

 

[EBass]

This guy is crazy. I'd just get 5000000000000 XBox and ship them off to the East where everyone pirates anyway for about 2 bucks a pop.

 

[bassdrum]

This just punishes people, like me, who buy more games. As it is now, there's a $300 or so price of admission, after which you simply fork over $60 (both figures in USD, by the way). By your suggestion, more frequent gamers would be punished for their passion by having to pay for everyone else's consoles. Furthermore, cost is the only thing to keep supply in correlation with demand. If everyone was entitled to their own free console, how would companies determine who gets them (not to mention that it would be prohibitively expensive for companies like Sony and Microsoft)?

Basically, the current system works fine, and balances supply, demand, and consumer happiness quite well (in my humble opinion). To employ a rather tired cliche, why fix it if it isn't broken?

 

[kahlzun]

I can't read your writing dude.

Run a spellcheck or something, seriously.

 

[neoontime]

Sure this would be perfect
IN CRAZY LAND

 

[Steppin Razor]

As has already been said, this is a terrible idea.

To add an Australian perspective though - 60.00 USD = 64.4356 AUD. We currently pay $110 for games. Factor in an extra 20 on your price and we get 80.00 USD = 85.9126 AUD. At that rate they'll probably decide that $150 is a good amount for us to pay.

 

[sockpuppet]

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?

Uh, no.
He suggests 20 dollars per game more. Meaning the games would be 80 piece.

80 x 15 = 1200

Current PS3 cost = 300

Let's not even begin to look at current gen games, which give you about 10 hours max of single player gameplay (THAT MEANS YOU METRO 2033)

80 dollars for 7-10 hours of entertainment?

So...you totally answered his question, in the negative way e_e
If the PS3 goes from $300 to $0, you now have 300 more dollars.
15 games at $60 is $900
15 games at $80 is $1200
$1200-$900=$300...the price of the PS3
So you would have to buy 15 games before the benefits stopped working for you.

 

[Plurralbles]

This just punishes people, like me, who buy more games. As it is now, there's a $300 or so price of admission, after which you simply fork over $60 (both figures in USD, by the way). By your suggestion, more frequent gamers would be punished for their passion by having to pay for everyone else's consoles. Furthermore, cost is the only thing to keep supply in correlation with demand. If everyone was entitled to their own free console, how would companies determine who gets them (not to mention that it would be prohibitively expensive for companies like Sony and Microsoft)?

Basically, the current system works fine, and balances supply, demand, and consumer happiness quite well (in my humble opinion). To employ a rather tired cliche, why fix it if it isn't broken?

yep, nothing like good 'ol junior high level economics to punch a hole right through this idea.

 

[SgtWaffles]

Why does this poll even exist. It's like saying: BIG SCREEN TV'S SHOULD BE FREE? Sure you would like that, but it will never happen.