Originally Posted by -Apocalypse-
The elimination of physical copies is the more likely route they'll take. I'd expect it at the end of the PS4/720 lifespan unless serious setbacks have stalled the spread of broadband or caps become more common. Online only consoles are a natural progression, but broadband access in America is still lagging too far behind for it to be the right choice right now, it looks like both major consoles will have it in some degree though.
Actually, most movies are in the same budget range as AAA titles ($20-50M), and some games like SWTOR and GTAIV go into the 9-digit budgets rivaling the blockbusters as well. Remember, the gaming industry has to have competitive wages because the skillset required for most of it is in high demand elsewhere (Hollywood for animators/3D artists, Wall Street/Oil companies for programmers).
For the most part, yes. ROI on multiplayer is far higher for a few reasons, multiplayer sells DLC better, multiplayer slows used game sales so new game sales drop off slower, and word of mouth works better with multiplayer games.
The reason this "problem" persists is that the market isn't actively trying to correct it. The top selling single-player games like Bioshock Infinite and Skyrim don't even start to approach the numbers of games like COD:BO or BF3 despite often being more
expensive to create. Got a high-budget new IP that prototypes well? It better be multiplayer, preferably FPS, else you're going to need to make the elevator pitch of a lifetime to get a publisher to even try
Might be easier to just link consoles to the game, tie in security codes. It's well known that certain security sectors on the xbox 360 are hard to burn. If you do a dash update, you have to re-burn the disc. What they could do, is keep a log. If the disc cannot contain multiple versions of the new security sectors, flag and ban. Maybe not ban the console, perm ban the game from being used. Their are numerous ways to still link a physical copy to a console. That's what I was talking about, online only and digital clients aren't exactly superb.
If you went the online only route, just copy the steam model. Make physical copies but force registration online per console. Steam is pretty good at keeping games from being illegally downloaded while offering a physical medium (note: I'm talking about the Steam client, not torrenting steam games and using an "emulator").
Regardless, we have methods to disable the re-sale of video games if need be. I find it sad that developers feel they have to do that, considering games have been sold and traded for eons. The PC industry never showed any outrage towards that, nothing was drastically said until the console market got it's boom. I personally think that speaks about the motives of publishers.
The best answer was said in this article though, create good games. Bethesda makes good games, I don't know many people who argue against that. So my question would be, who's pushing the issue on eliminating used games. My guess, developers who pump out titles that fail pretty miserably. It's a cut throat market, has been for years. Early PC developers/publishers had to fight tooth and nail, when they released a bad project they either tried one last time or bombed out. Sometimes they got purchased by a larger company, sometimes not. It happens, it's a way of life in the entertainment business.
Remember Serious Sam? The first few in the series did well, somewhere along the line they screwed up. SS3 was horrible... I have purchased it, only because it was $10 on steam and has a linux version. To this day I haven't beaten the game, nor will I. It's awful, god awful. I wouldn't recommend buying it unless it's on sale, even then you probably don't want to purchase it anyways. Moral of the story? Bad games won't sell, period. People will either get them used, cheap, or not at all. That won't change, in the end it will come down to people buying them or not buying them.
Won't make them more money, at least not enough to justify the action. That's just consumerism at it's best.