Sony already tried the rental route with PS Now. They probably still offer it.
I could be mistaken, but it didn't seem like much of a hit.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Microsoft testing Gaming Rentals over the store?
- Thread starter Lukas Taves
- Start date
Sony already tried the rental route with PS Now. They probably still offer it.
I could be mistaken, but it didn't seem like much of a hit.
Some do usually your open world games which have longer playtime than games Dishonored and Wolfenstein. However you mentioned making more money upfront with rental but seem to be not be taking into account the money you would loss from those willing to pay full price. I believe price isn't the limiting factor with some of these games but the product itself.
huh?
full game is 200 reais, 70 reais for a 3 month rental. doesn't look too good to be true, no
Nice. At least we know the next Xbox will launch with very solid features right out the box. Live just keeps getting better.
Hell yeah! I'm all for more options. $20 for 3 months seems really reasonable compared to paying $60 if you can beat the game within that amount of time. A nice alternative for folks who might buy games and trade them shortly after beating.
Is that $21 for 3 months or $21 per month for 3 months? I'm assuming that it's $21 for 3 months. Not bad but seems like it be counterproductive to their Game Pass.
A key difference here could be the availability of titles (new vs old) and being able to download said titles vs. streaming them.
OP
OP
$21 (likely $20, as 21 is just a direct conversion from the price in reais) for 3 months.
Yeah, you're right. I hadn't considered that. If they can make it work then why not!
Renting from PSN or XBL digitally would be massively more convenient than having to futz around posting discs back to the store you rented them from.
I guess I was speculating at a very worst case scenario. As the poster I quoted above pointed out, there are ways to make it work without perturbing the current model too much.
I think the used games market is in the billions of dollars. It's the only reason why stores like Gamestop still exist.
I'm not sure if the prices or rental period in the OP are final, provided they're testing it. But I think $20 or so for 3 months is very generous.
This is pretty much the only way I can see third party publishers getting on board with something like this, tbh. I don't see why they'd want to risk their current revenue model for SP only or SP-focused games.
Having an option like that whether its $10 game or a $60 game is great, regardless of the price.
Ok I read it as $21 a month for up to three months initially, which is why I guess people were talking about owning it after three months (having misread it as well).
Yeah I don't see how this makes any sense for any of the companies. There'd be no need for most people to buy single player games at all. I find myself revisiting most of my games months later whether due to DLC or liking a game enough to replay it, but I'd think in general people would be perfectly happy to be able to play through a game at no rush for 1/3 of the price.
Edit: Therefore I'd like people to elaborate on why they think this is such a horrible deal. For multiplayer games I think it's bad. Anything I will be playing for an extended period of time I'd rather buy, and I assume this is what people are referring to. But for a pure single player experience? This seems like a bad deal for those making money on the games. This is unless there is a belief that it brings in at least two renters who otherwise would not spend a dollar on the game for every would-be buyer who instead becomes a one time renter. I suppose they would actually only need an even lower ratio when considering the profit margin for game sales are far less than $60 USD when the middle man (retailer) is involved, so there would be a greater chance of the math working in favor of the publisher.
Yeah I don't see how this makes any sense for any of the companies. There'd be no need for most people to buy single player games at all. I find myself revisiting most of my games months later whether due to DLC or liking a game enough to replay it, but I'd think in general people would be perfectly happy to be able to play through a game at no rush for 1/3 of the price.
Edit: Therefore I'd like people to elaborate on why they think this is such a horrible deal. For multiplayer games I think it's bad. Anything I will be playing for an extended period of time I'd rather buy, and I assume this is what people are referring to. But for a pure single player experience? This seems like a bad deal for those making money on the games. This is unless there is a belief that it brings in at least two renters who otherwise would not spend a dollar on the game for every would-be buyer who instead becomes a one time renter. I suppose they would actually only need an even lower ratio when considering the profit margin for game sales are far less than $60 USD when the middle man (retailer) is involved, so there would be a greater chance of the math working in favor of the publisher.
Last edited:
Watch how it is ignored and the discussion will shift to rentals! :)
Going through the thread, I feel like some people will start to mention that MS is offering game rentals now! Jesus people this is clearly for Brazil and the option to pay in installments!
As VirtuaRacer mentioned earlier:
As VirtuaRacer mentioned earlier: