Support NeoGAF

[someguyinahat]

The market will force lower prices.

The market forces prices in whichever direction leads to the greatest profits. It will only force lower prices if sufficient numbers of gamers refuse to pay what's asked and it's determined that when prices are lowered, enough gamers will buy it to pick up the slack, i.e. it's an elastic good. If those conditions aren't met, the price stays the same or goes up. The invisible hand works both ways.

The amount of content available to consumers will be orders of magnitude above what they would otherwise have access to via retail and that means hugely increased competition.

In regards to "increased competition," you'll need to clarify. Are you referring to increased competition across media (in other words, why buy an expensive game on this console when you can get several cheaper games on iPhone?) or within the same medium (in other words, third-party developers competing for your dollars on the console?) If the latter, it's far more likely that the game developers will collude to have similar prices than compete in that respect. They'd rather try and win over buyers with the promise of quality than good price.
If you mean the former, it's very difficult to compare in this respect, but you may be right. Would people rather buy two DS games than a single game on PS3? (Not trying to incite console wars here, just using this as an example) I'm not sure. But I think different media in this regard are pretty much an apples and oranges argument...or at least two different species of apple, one of which is good for sauces and the other of which is good for pies. ...I'm not good at analogies.

 

[Dambrosi]

This is an important note. Every game console has their own little store, and so far they've all been pretty sleepy. These consoles however, are in competition with each other, and so if we start to see digital distribution stores become a battleground in this competition then we're going to see very dynamic prices and it'll be a great situation for consumers.

Right now we aren't seeing it, but digital distribution is quite new and developing. Apple's store seems to have already shaken things up slightly. It remains to be seen, but the PSP minis store could be an early indicator of competition between DD stores. If the PSP minis store takes off and puts pressure on the DSi store and Nintendo actually reacts to that then that will be a fantastic thing for consumers.

Erm...NO.

You can't purchase something on PSN and play it on your 360, can you? Or buy an iPhone app or PSP Mini and play it on your DSi? The different DD stores around at the moment aren't in any sort of "competition" with each other because all their software runs on seperate, proprietary, closed platforms.

And I don't believe we'll ever see a one-console future, or that such a thing is even desirable. Look at the PC market; a unified architecture, different OS's. Windows might be dominant, but Linux still exists, as does the proprietary Mac format. What's more, you don't see Microsoft making Windows 7 compatible with Mac or Linux software, do you? Of course not. They want to lock you into depending on Windows as your OS, and that's what works for them.

My point is, as long as platform holders maintain their pride, and as long as they can still make money by putting out their own proprietary platforms and charging licensing fees, they won't move towards a unified platform. What's in it for them?

EDIT:

The problem is that the consumers who have heretofore benefited from this legal form of piracy bitch and moan about most of those techniques used to make sure that the developers get their due. DLC codes, moving primarily to digital distribution, etc. are being decried in this very thread.

"Legal form of piracy"?! "Developers get their due" like they don't already? Are you fucking insane?

Your sense of self-righteous entitlement is rather disgusting.

 

[Christine]

legal form of piracy

You're disgusting.

 

[sonicmj1]

Show me the Gamestop of used CD sales, of used book sales, or anything else. Yes, I know companies exist that sell those things in brick and mortar stores. But none have anywhere near the marketshare Gamestop does. It's willful ignorance to claim that the percentage of books or CDs bought used are in any way close to the percentage of games bought used.

This is as disingenuous as comparing Napster to copying cassettes for your friends. The principle is the same, sure, but different circumstances have turned the practice from a gnat annoying the industry to something that significantly impacts the health of the industry.

Given that there are plenty of independently-operated used CD stores and used book stores around the country, there's no reason why a chain of such stores could not exist. For some reason, though, that hasn't happened. Yet there are enormous businesses based on film rentals (Netflix and Blockbuster), and libraries are basically government-subsidized book rental operations. Film and book publishing continue to be lucrative to some degree.

While the Napster example is disingenuous because it is illegal, it's relevant because it showed the marketplace reacting to poor practices enacted by record labels, and the rise of music piracy as the primary method of accessing music was something that could have been averted to some degree by a more proactive industry.

Just as it's nearly impossible to find a dedicated music store these days that doesn't sell used albums, it's no surprise that it's nearly impossible to find a dedicated video game store these days that doesn't sell used games.

The problem is that the consumers who have heretofore benefited from this legal form of piracy bitch and moan about most of those techniques used to make sure that the developers get their due. DLC codes, moving primarily to digital distribution, etc. are being decried in this very thread.

The ability of consumers to resell products they have purchased is a pretty well-established thing. I don't quite get your dismissive tone.

As I mentioned above, the reaction of certain PC devs to piracy might be an interesting way of thinking about possible publisher responses to a thriving used game industry. It's the same sort of thing. If people value owning a copy of your product, they're less likely to resell. This can be done by making resells impossible (while people swap PC games casually, and piracy exists, there isn't really a market for used PC games), but it's also done by giving products lasting value and supporting them for free for long periods of time after release.

Drak's posts were enlightening in highlighting the duplicity of Gamestop in seeming to advocate for the industry while pushing its own profits to the explicit exclusion of the publishers who supply it with new games. Yet if threats of "play ball or go home" are to have any teeth, publishers such as Sony, EA, and Ubisoft will have to stop incentivizing consumer use of Gamestop with early demos and exclusive in-game content.

If publishers resent Gamestop so deeply (and some certainly do), what do they gain by going out of their way to promote the retailer?

 

[tokkun]

Show me the Gamestop of used CD sales, of used book sales, or anything else. Yes, I know companies exist that sell those things in brick and mortar stores. But none have anywhere near the marketshare Gamestop does. It's willful ignorance to claim that the percentage of books or CDs bought used are in any way close to the percentage of games bought used.

Amazon is a pretty dominant online retailer, and it includes quick links to used copies (with prices) of pretty much all of its products directly on the item page.

And the price advantage of used games over new games is often significantly higher with Amazon than with Gamestop.

 

[Tellaerin]

The problem is that the consumers who have heretofore benefited from this legal form of piracy bitch and moan about most of those techniques used to make sure that the developers get their due. DLC codes, moving primarily to digital distribution, etc. are being decried in this very thread.

So exercising the rights that come with private ownership of property is engaging in a 'legal form of piracy' now? What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[Asmodai]

So exercising the rights that come with private ownership of property is engaging in a 'legal form of piracy' now? What the hell is wrong with you?

:lol "legal form of piracy", what's that even supposed to mean? It's a contradiction in terms. This "Ambigious Cad" has no clue what the fuck he's talking about.

 

[charlequin]

Show me the Gamestop of used CD sales, of used book sales, or anything else. Yes, I know companies exist that sell those things in brick and mortar stores. But none have anywhere near the marketshare Gamestop does.

How, exactly, is the marketshare of Gamestop relevant to whether the game industry should have the rules changed for them and only them regarding whether users can legally resell their products after purchasing them?

 

[Slavik81]

@ArtGreen U are rite. BUT the practice hurts my industry and so my industry is find ways to get around it. Gamers suffer the most n meantime

Why are we listening to this guy? "U r rite"? Really?

It makes it hard to believe that this persuasive writing has been well researched when they start writing like it's a 13-year-old girl's instant messenger conversation.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

Show me the Gamestop of used CD sales, of used book sales, or anything else. Yes, I know companies exist that sell those things in brick and mortar stores. But none have anywhere near the marketshare Gamestop does. It's willful ignorance to claim that the percentage of books or CDs bought used are in any way close to the percentage of games bought used.

Its fact. More than half of all CDs are resold within a year, more than half of books are resold within two years. The great difference with games is that they are resold within a month, and that is the big massive issue that wedges used consumers against the companies that make games.

The most obvious solution would be to stop making disposable expensive shit games that people see as one more excursion into the same identikit alien invasion narrative. But the reality is that without used games, there is no games industry. Now, the entire chain of retail games relies on them. Big publishers invented the drug of super-expensive mediocre undesigned shooter, sports and adventures games and must now live with it. It drags everything down, sadly. Most people just don't magically have a grand a year to spend on new games - that buffer of expendable income has just never existed for most people. They have money for games they will keep forever, and some rotating money for buying some games they will sell back. Thats all. Collectors, geeks and hardcore games are, you know, as has been established, not what this industry needs with the amount of mouths to feed it now has to deal with.

All these swans singing about "oh the game industry has the most creative people in the world, we should support them lalala" gimme a break. I say support the good games and resist mediocrity with equal passion and with equal voice.

 

[Kimosabae]

Why are we listening to this guy? "U r rite"? Really?

It makes it hard to believe that this persuasive writing has been well researched when they start writing like it's a 13-year-old girl's instant messenger conversation.

You do realize this is a Twitter conversation?

-Kye

 

[Slavik81]

The market forces prices in whichever direction leads to the greatest profits.

No, that's wrong. Individuals move in the direction that leads to the greatest individual profits. However, in a perfectly competative market, multiple individuals doing this causes profits to fall as they compete against each other. This is why making markets more competative is positive. It lowers prices and profits. See: The Prisoner's Dilemma and Perfect Competition.

Of course, real-world markets aren't perfectly competative, so using that principle is not always reasonable, but the sweeping generalization that the market forces prices in the direction that leads to the greatest profits is very often wrong.

You do realize this is a Twitter conversation?

-Kye

That would explain how poorly written and thought-out their conversation was.
I was under the impression it was a blog post. I realize now it was both.

 

[Asmodai]

You do realize this is a Twitter conversation?

-Kye

At least Twitter's restrictions prevent people from signing their posts. +1 to ignore list.

 

[Mario]

The market forces prices in whichever direction leads to the greatest profits.

That is not true. Publishers and developers will be forced towards business models and content that can succeed and profit in such a marketplace however.

In regards to "increased competition," you'll need to clarify. Are you referring to increased competition across media (in other words, why buy an expensive game on this console when you can get several cheaper games on iPhone?) or within the same medium (in other words, third-party developers competing for your dollars on the console?) If the latter, it's far more likely that the game developers will collude to have similar prices than compete in that respect. They'd rather try and win over buyers with the promise of quality than good price.

I mean primarily the latter - increased competition within a given platform, though there will also be greater competition between content on different platforms.

It would be both logistically impossible and illegal for hundreds of game developers/publishers to collude on price and keep prices artificially high.

 

[Dambrosi]

That is not true. Publishers and developers will be forced towards business models and content that can succeed and profit in such a marketplace however.

Isn't that sort of wishful thinking on your part? From what I've seen, big business isn't the quickest at catching on to new trends and market conditions that they haven't created themselves (see Napster and MP3 for an example). What makes you think that the woefully immature and prideful games industry will react any better towards the consumers' wishes?

I mean primarily the latter - increased competition within a given platform, though there will also be greater competition between content on different platforms.

Battlefield 1943 is available to buy on both XBLA and PSN. I own both an Xbox 360 and a PlayStation 3. Can you guess which version I bought?

I bought the PS3 version, because I don't want to have to pay an extra £40-odd a year for something that should be free - online play. Oh, and I was able to pay for it online, through the device, using my debit card, instead of having to buy points cards at a B&M store and inputting a code to be able to use them. As a result, I was able to play the game almost immediately, instead of having to wait till I had enough MicroBuck$ to get it. So there was no "competition" between the different stores in my mind, and as long as Microsoft keeps making people pay for Xbox Live Gold, there never will be.

Competition doesn't just depend on the merits of the product itself, but also on the stuff around it - the platform's features, in this case. So making a case for competition between products in isolation from their environment doesn't really work IMO.

It would be both logistically impossible and illegal for hundreds of game developers/publishers to collude on price and keep prices artificially high.

See? It's this sort of utopian thinking that is far too prevalent in discussions like this. Why should we trust publishers, who exist to make as much profit as possible from the games they publish, to "do the right thing" by consumers and compete properly without some form of price-fixing, when they haven't been able to do so for decades now? There's been price-fixing in the games industry since the NES days - why should we believe that's NOT going to continue in the DD-only future you envision?

If your conviction just comes from faith in the free market system and competition theory, then I'll point you to the western world's current financial troubles and say that I don't wanna know :lol

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

One thing I wonder about is the nature of the difference between physical products and digital distribution. My feeling is that the market could possibly treat them as distinct, and thus an industry-wide move to DD-only could be leaving a big door open for someone else to walk in with physical product and really bank off the consumers who don't feel DD is right for them.

I guess we'll see.

 

[Raist]

One thing I wonder about is the nature of the difference between physical products and digital distribution. My feeling is that the market could possibly treat them as distinct, and thus an industry-wide move to DD-only could be leaving a big door open for someone else to walk in with physical product and really bank off the consumers who don't feel DD is right for them.

I guess we'll see.

IMO we won't see a DD-only era anytime soon, for many reasons.
That said, a DD version of a game should allow a significant price cut. No retail margins, no packaging, shipping, etc. Totally random numbers, but if a retail version of a game is $60 and the DD version $35, they could sell the DD version for a bit more to increase their margin. People would get the game cheaper, those who are not happy with DD could still get a physical copy, etc.
Kind of what Sony's going to do with the PSP.

 

[Juice]

Last time I checked though, the auto industry didn't have a rampant piracy problem cutting into manufacturer's profit margins.

Haven't seen the new Kia Forte yet, huh?

 

[cartman414]

and again, what is wrong with gamestop trying to make more money?

If you are about to drop 60 bucks on a game, it makes sense for them to tell you "Hey, you can save 5-10 dollars if you buy it used".

1) It saves the consumer money
2) It makes gamestop a shitload more money.
3) If the consumer doesn't want to do it, it's as hard as saying "No, I want a new copy"

Here's the problem: the person that traded in what becomes that used copy got a fraction of the cost of the game in store credit. That's what's unfair.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

IMO we won't see a DD-only era anytime soon, for many reasons.
That said, a DD version of a game should allow a significant price cut. No retail margins, no packaging, shipping, etc. Totally random numbers, but if a retail version of a game is $60 and the DD version $35, they could sell the DD version for a bit more to increase their margin. People would get the game cheaper, those who are not happy with DD could still get a physical copy, etc.
Kind of what Sony's going to do with the PSP.

Are the DD versions of PSP games going to be cheaper?

 

[Kimosabae]

Haven't seen the new Kia Forte yet, huh?

Explain.

-Kye

 

[RedNumberFive]

Here's the problem: the person that traded in what becomes that used copy got a fraction of the cost of the game in store credit. That's what's unfair.

No it's perfectly fair. No one is pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to sell your game back to Gamestop. Don't like what they offer? Go elsewhere.

 

[Tellaerin]

Here's the problem: the person that traded in what becomes that used copy got a fraction of the cost of the game in store credit. That's what's unfair.

Buy low, sell high. It's the first rule of business.

And to be fair (which a lot of people here aren't, whether it's from lack of familiarity or just the depth of their irrational RRAAAAAGE wherever Gamestop is concerned), they do offer incentives (extra credit if you trade in towards particular new releases, promotions where you receive more credit for trading in several titles at once, etc.) and promos on the used titles they sell. It's usually possible to get a pretty decent deal if you actually, you know, shop there and familiarize yourself with the promos and such. But it's easier for people here to bitch about stickers on game boxes and stupid sales clerks and go on and on about how evil Gamestop is and how happy they'd be if they would just go out of business, even though most of them don't shop there anyway. FFS, people.

But I digress.

I don't have a problem with what they offer in trade-in credit. Sure, I might be able to get more from Craigslist or eBay, but I don't want to waste time dealing with that crap. If I'm trading in a game, it's not worth much to me anymore anyway. If it was, I wouldn't be trading it. So I hardly feel they're 'bending me over' or whatever colorful metaphor you want to use. And in the rare cases where they're offering so little that I feel I might as well just hold onto the game instead, I do. No big deal there.

 

[Tellaerin]

Explain.

-Kye

You don't need to sign your posts here. Your name's displayed next to every one you make. >.>

 

[Dambrosi]

Are the DD versions of PSP games going to be cheaper?

Unfortunately not, and they'll probably keep their price for longer too :lol

As a solution to developers' woes, from another thread:

Just remember in this era of huge budgets and hundred-person development teams:

Ikaruga was made by a total of 5 people.

The development community's problem is that there are too many "star" developers that are or used to be gamers themselves, and so they want to make games that they themselves want to play. Nothing wrong with that, but then the dev's ego comes into play. They want their game to be the biggest mega-epic possible with the best graphics possible - or rather, they want their game to be bigger and prettier than anyone else's.

So these hundred-man teams put all this money and effort into making what they believe will be THE GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME, and the publishers give them the money to do so, out of the assumption that BIGGER AND PRETTIER is what the average consumer (as in, NOT NEOGAF :lol) wants. And, when the game is done, they spend three times the game's development cost on advertising it, pushing it onto the consumer and going BUY BUY BUY, not even giving a single thought as to whether the consumer really wants it or not.

And, as the success of Wii has shown, the average consumer is happy with that level of performance. Iwata was right; there needs to be a sea change in the way games are made, and devs like David Jaffe can start by abstaining from making big-budget blockbuster epics with woeful longevity, and starting to make cheaper, longer games with smaller teams. That, not stuff like DD or ZOMG GRAFIX, is the real future, IMO.

 

[Kimosabae]

And, as the success of Wii has shown, the average consumer is happy with that level of performance. Iwata was right; there needs to be a sea change in the way games are made, and devs like David Jaffe can start by abstaining from making big-budget blockbuster epics with woeful longevity, and starting to make cheaper, longer games with smaller teams. That, not stuff like DD or ZOMG GRAFIX, is the real future, IMO.

Umm... didn't Jaffe leave Sony Santa Monica to do just that?

*edit*

Or I guess, something similar to that.

-Kye

 

[kilongs]

No it's perfectly fair. No one is pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to sell your game back to Gamestop. Don't like what they offer? Go elsewhere.

Exactly.

Its the customer that is willing to sell their used $60 game for $25 at Gamestop.
Its the customer that is willing to buy a used $60 game for $55 at Gamestop.

Their are many other avenues that offer better deals for buying/selling used games. Most people however seem to be either oblivious of them or too lazy.

 

[Dambrosi]

Umm... didn't Jaffe leave Sony Santa Monica to do just that?

*edit*

Or I guess, something similar to that.

-Kye

He's still responsible for God Of War 1 and 2, two of the biggest, most expensive, and maybe consequently, shortest games made for PS2 (not that I didn't love them, of course - I actually finished them, which, knowing me, is something). I don't know if he's involved with GOW3 or not, but I do remember that he did express an interest in being involved in some capacity. So he knows the big-budget ropes, at least.

Actually, what are Jaffe and Eat Sleep Play doing now? I forget.

And may I ask why you're signing your posts? It's unnecessary and slightly annoying tbh. Could it be that there's multiple people using this account to post?

 

[Tellaerin]

So these hundred-man teams put all this money and effort into making what they believe will be THE GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME, and the publishers give them the money to do so, out of the assumption that BIGGER AND PRETTIER is what the average consumer (as in, NOT NEOGAF :lol) wants. And, when the game is done, they spend three times the game's development cost on advertising it, pushing it onto the consumer and going BUY BUY BUY, not even giving a single thought as to whether the consumer really wants it or not.

Personally, I'm still content with PS2/Xbox 1/GC-era 3D and SNES-ish 2D, which is one reason why stuff for the PSP and DS appeals to me so much. I'm happy with traditional controls, so I don't need motion sensing or anything to keep me interested in gaming. A system like the Wii (twice as powerful as the Cube and non-HD-oriented), with games designed around the typical dual analog stick and taking advantage of the hardware, would have been entirely satisfactory for me this gen. I don't need every game to look like Crysis in order to have fun. Unfortunately, I think that the handhelds are the only viable platforms left for games like that nowadays. To me, that's a shame.

 

[Kimosabae]

He's still responsible for God Of War 1 and 2, two of the biggest, most expensive, and maybe consequently, shortest games made for PS2 (not that I didn't love them, of course - I actually finished them, which, knowing me, is something). I don't know if he's involved with GOW3 or not, but I do remember that he did express an interest in being involved in some capacity. So he knows the big-budget ropes, at least.

Actually, what are Jaffe and Eat Sleep Play doing now? I forget.

And may I ask why you're signing your posts? It's unnecessary and slightly annoying tbh. Could it be that there's multiple people using this account to post?

Jaffe left Sony after GoW II with the desire to avoid persistent big budget game development. From what I understand, Jaffe's only marginally and unofficially involved with the third game (read: not on any payroll accounts regarding the game).

I don't think the length criticism your attributing to these games are as ubiquitous as you seem to think (I personally don't like long games, for the simple fact that I lack time).

Last thing Eat Sleep and Play did was Calling All Cars and fail at developing a game that evokes tears.

I sign my posts because it's habitual, I find it fun to do, and keeps my presence ubiquitous throughout the forums I frequent. It's not something I'm willing to curtail due to some people's unreasonable fascination with it. It's not against the rules and it enhances my forum experience.

I usually just put people on my ignore list when they mention it, but you mentioned it more reasonably than most. It's quite silly to see a good thread derailed over something so trivial.


-Sabae

 

[Mario]

What makes you think that the woefully immature and prideful games industry will react any better towards the consumers' wishes?

An economics degree and over a decade in the industry, along with a prior stint working as a management consultant.

Competition doesn't just depend on the merits of the product itself, but also on the stuff around it - the platform's features, in this case. So making a case for competition between products in isolation from their environment doesn't really work IMO.

I don't deny this, but I do see that as an unnecessary thing to bring into the discussion at this time. It doesn't really change much of what is being talked about.

See? It's this sort of utopian thinking that is far too prevalent in discussions like this. Why should we trust publishers, who exist to make as much profit as possible from the games they publish, to "do the right thing" by consumers and compete properly without some form of price-fixing, when they haven't been able to do so for decades now? There's been price-fixing in the games industry since the NES days - why should we believe that's NOT going to continue in the DD-only future you envision?

As I said, collusion is neither practical nor legal.

If you need an example of what happens when you have a free for all DD only market, then look at iPhone.

 

[Dambrosi]

I sign my posts because it's habitual, I find it fun to do, and keeps my presence ubiquitous throughout the forums I frequent. It's not something I'm willing to curtail due to some people's unreasonable fascination with it. It's not against the rules and it enhances my forum experience.

Well, when you put it like that, I guess I don't really mind it. Not that you should care.

If you need an example of what happens when you have a free for all DD only market, then look at iPhone.

You call that a "free-for-all"? When Apple can take any apps off the App Store any time they want for no valid reason? I remember a thread on GAF last week about an app from Google being revoked because AT&T didn't like it, and put pressure on Apple to take it off the Store. Now Google have to relaunch the app as a webpage, all because of Apple/AT&T's power of veto.

Is that really your idea of a "free market"?

And price-fixing of video games has been happening for DECADES. Whether it's impractical or illegal or not, what makes you think they're just suddenly going to drop the habit of a lifetime?

 

[Mario]

You call that a "free-for-all"? When Apple can take any apps off the App Store any time they want for no valid reason?

I call the market a free for all in the sense that it is like the Wild West for content developers. It is the behaviour of publishers and developers that I have been discussing and theorising about.

I have not yet offered my opinions on the likely evolution and behaviours of platform holders and portal owners in this thread, so I'm not sure how you are rebuting arguments I haven't even made.

Is that really your idea of a "free market"?

I haven't used the phrase "free market" at all in this thread.

And price-fixing of video games has been happening for DECADES. Whether it's impractical or illegal or not, what makes you think they're just suddenly going to drop the habit of a lifetime?

Like I said, look to iPhone. It is the closest thing we have to a DD only console market, and the price of content is generally ridiculously cheap.

I suggest you shy away from borderline conspiracy theories and apply some economic principles instead as well as looking at existing real world examples which happen to support my position.

 

[Josh7289]

Yeah, selling used games is one of the rights of customers and retailers.

That said, seeing someone walk up to the cashier at GameStop to buy Fallout 3, being told they can get it used for $54.99, and then the customer actually buying the used game instead of new is kind... yucky.

That little bit more would have actually supported the people that made the game, and not just GameStop.

On the other hand, I can understand how to the customer buying used like that is basically the same as "get $5 off".

 

[Brofist]

Here's the problem: the person that traded in what becomes that used copy got a fraction of the cost of the game in store credit. That's what's unfair.

Apparently it's not that much of a problem seeing how people keep doing it. There are other alternatives for selling used games, but most people still choose to sell em through GS.

 

[vesp]

Isn't that sort of wishful thinking on your part? From what I've seen, big business isn't the quickest at catching on to new trends and market conditions that they haven't created themselves (see Napster and MP3 for an example). What makes you think that the woefully immature and prideful games industry will react any better towards the consumers' wishes?


Battlefield 1943 is available to buy on both XBLA and PSN. I own both an Xbox 360 and a PlayStation 3. Can you guess which version I bought?

I bought the PS3 version, because I don't want to have to pay an extra £40-odd a year for something that should be free - online play. Oh, and I was able to pay for it online, through the device, using my debit card, instead of having to buy points cards at a B&M store and inputting a code to be able to use them. As a result, I was able to play the game almost immediately, instead of having to wait till I had enough MicroBuck$ to get it. So there was no "competition" between the different stores in my mind, and as long as Microsoft keeps making people pay for Xbox Live Gold, there never will be.

Competition doesn't just depend on the merits of the product itself, but also on the stuff around it - the platform's features, in this case. So making a case for competition between products in isolation from their environment doesn't really work IMO.


See? It's this sort of utopian thinking that is far too prevalent in discussions like this. Why should we trust publishers, who exist to make as much profit as possible from the games they publish, to "do the right thing" by consumers and compete properly without some form of price-fixing, when they haven't been able to do so for decades now? There's been price-fixing in the games industry since the NES days - why should we believe that's NOT going to continue in the DD-only future you envision?

If your conviction just comes from faith in the free market system and competition theory, then I'll point you to the western world's current financial troubles and say that I don't wanna know :lol

While PS3Ss checkout method for digitial download games is far more consumer friendly, you dont need to go to the store to buy microsoft points, theyre readily availalable through the dashboard (of in different increments at zune.com). Its no less instant than ps3 is, and for most games it's possible to buy the right amount of points for purchase. It all goes out the window when you are talking about themes, avatar shit, and gamer pics though.

I will also say on a personal level, I'd rather pay double the current price of live for it, than use psn as my primary console online gaming method for free, but that's a subjective opinion and many people are more willing to take lesser quality for a smaller price tag, and that's understandable in many ways.

 

[Dambrosi]

I call the market a free for all in the sense that it is like the Wild West for content developers. It is the behaviour of publishers and developers that I have been discussing and theorising about.

I have not yet offered my opinions on the likely evolution and behaviours of platform holders and portal owners in this thread, so I'm not sure how you are rebuting arguments I haven't even made.

Don't you think you'd better? As I said before, nothing exists in a vacuum. This whole thread started because David Jaffe said that he wanted devs/pubs to get a slice of Gamestop's second-hand business vis-a-vis games that they made. Then the thread turned into a huge argument between games industry dudes who want their slice and consumers who don't think they're entitled to that slice/are worried about getting ripped off if devs/pubs get their way re: DD (which, thankfully, they won't). Guess which side I'm on.

Like I said, look to iPhone. It is the closest thing we have to a DD only console market, and the price of content is generally ridiculously cheap.

I suggest you shy away from borderline conspiracy theories and apply some economic principles instead as well as looking at existing real world examples which happen to support my position.

Like what? You still can't prove that any such examples mean that, left to their own devices, the publishers/platform holders/portal owners won't use the opportunity to rip us all off for whatever they can get. I can't prove that they definitely will, I'll give you that, but since these are huge multinational corporations designed to make as much profit as possible, I'm erring on the side of "they'll rip us off given half a chance", and of protecting my wallet.

And why the hell should I go looking for real-life examples that support YOUR viewpoint? That's your job, genius!

You dont need to go to the store to buy Microsoft points, they're readily available through the dashboard (and in different increments at zune.com).

Ah, I didn't know this. Thanks for correcting my mistake.

Oh, and do you have a PS3? I find the online experience on PSN to be perfectly acceptable for the games I play. The same as when I had Live Gold, in fact. What makes you prefer Live over PSN so much that you'd pay double the going rate for it?

 

[Night_Trekker]

Here's the problem: the person that traded in what becomes that used copy got a fraction of the cost of the game in store credit. That's what's unfair.

There's nothing unfair about that. That person could have done the smart thing and sold the game online, or traded it to a friend, or something.

GameStop is taking advantage of ignorant and/or lazy people. Nobody is to blame in that situation but the idiot who traded in his game for 1/5 of the price he paid for it.

Like what? You still can't prove that any such examples mean that, left to their own devices, the publishers/platform holders/portal owners won't use the opportunity to rip us all off for whatever they can get. I can't prove that they definitely will, I'll give you that, but since these are huge multinational corporations designed to make as much profit as possible, I'm erring on the side of "they'll rip us off given half a chance", and of protecting my wallet.

And why the hell should I go looking for real-life examples that support YOUR viewpoint? That's your job, genius!

"Downloadable" content contained on the disc itself!

 

[Mario]

Don't you think you'd better?

Not really. The conversation doesn't need the added complexity of something which is related but isn't at the core of the discussion.

Like what? You still can't prove that any such examples mean that, left to their own devices, the publishers/platform holders/portal owners won't use the opportunity to rip us all off for whatever they can get. I can't prove that they definitely will, I'll give you that, but since these are huge multinational corporations designed to make as much profit as possible, I'm erring on the side of "they'll rip us off given half a chance", and of protecting my wallet.

In the case of the example I provided, prices have fallen in the face of increased competition and wide choice. That is my position on a likely outcome for any DD only (or mostly) platform.

When there is a large number of content providers, and broad choice, the ability for any individual to rip off anybody is limited and any behaviour along such lines would swiftly result in them being marginalised.

In such a marktetplace, it is also impossible to collude given the large number of players, any of whom could undermine any attempted collusion at any time even if it were possible to organise something on such a large scale and remain undetected by the authorities. Your suggestion that they will do this because they may have done in the past (which isn't substantiated by yourself BTW) is without merit on this basis alone.

And why the hell should I go looking for real-life examples that support YOUR viewpoint? That's your job, genius!

I should have phrased that "as well as looking at existing real world examples (which will happen to support my position anyway)."

However, I provided an example already anyway. You are yet to provide an example with an outcome which doesn't agree with my prediction.

In any case, your argument reduces to "publishers can be bad, so they probably will be in the future". Frankly, that doesn't hold water, so until you can come up with something more substantial than that or a counter example to the one I have provided I suggest you return to the drawing board.

 

[tokkun]

In the case of the example I provided, prices have fallen in the face of increased competition and wide choice. That is my position on a likely outcome for any DD only (or mostly) platform.

Steam doesn't seem to have reached this outcome. I took a brief sample with ten popular games a few months ago, and found that I could buy a new copy of the physical boxed product at a cheaper price than Steam 10/10 times. Despite significantly higher margins, publishers still keep the Steam versions at MSRP, whereas you can almost always find a new copy from Amazon or an aftermarket reseller for less. Do you think that if we took away the option to buy retail copies so as to make the market DD only that the prices would actually fall (with less competition from resellers of boxed copies)?

 

[Dambrosi]

Words.

Three words.

Activision's Bobby Kotick.

As long as slea--er, fine gentlemen like this one are in positions of power within the games industry, and continue to think like they do, I will continue to have serious doubts about your optimistic view of a DD-only future. Sorry.

 

[Mario]

Steam doesn't seem to have reached this outcome. I took a brief sample with ten popular games a few months ago, and found that I could buy a new copy of the physical boxed product at a cheaper price than Steam 10/10 times. Despite significantly higher margins, publishers still keep the Steam versions at MSRP, whereas you can almost always find a new copy from Amazon or an aftermarket reseller for less. Do you think that if we took away the option to buy retail copies so as to make the market DD only that the prices would actually fall (with less competition from resellers of boxed copies)?

I don't consider the Windows PC as a DD only (or mostly) platform yet. As you note there are retail versions of all the top games which creates issues with pricing of the DD versions through something like Steam (note the distinction between platform and portal here).

If PC retail was significantly superseded by DD so much so that retailers had less leverage over content providers to maintain price parity or that retail versions weren't available at all, then I expect average prices would come down as the amount of content available increased.

 

[Asmodai]

Three words.

Activision's Bobby Kotick.

As long as slea--er, fine gentlemen like this one are in positions of power within the games industry, and continue to think like they do, I will continue to have serious doubts about your optimistic view of a DD-only future. Sorry.

Publishers that used DD right could make more revenue per sale than they would through retail. Printing games, making the packaging, shipping them to the retailer, and of course giving the retailer a nice big cut of each sale all chip away at the publisher's profit.

Digital distribution gets rid of all of those. It's in the publisher's own interests to make DD work, because it will make them more money. And we all know how much Kotick and the other CEOs like money, right?:lol

 

[Gorgon]

How, exactly, is the marketshare of Gamestop relevant to whether the game industry should have the rules changed for them and only them regarding whether users can legally resell their products after purchasing them?

This point by charlequin is very important because it hits the nail right on its head. Someone here pointed to GS actively promoting the sales of used over new to increase reveniew. Although this is legal it's obviously not a pretty practice and I can understand that pubs get pissed over it.

HOWEVER, the fact that GS makes a shit ton of money from reselling games in itself gives no right whatsoever to pubs to demand a piece of the pie. We're dealing with basic rights and principles here that cannot be subverted just because you see someone making a lot of money from a legitimate and aceptable business. The only point open to criticism is the active promotion of used over new by GS, but that's far from beying the main argument on the devs/pubs part.

 

[Dambrosi]

Publishers that used DD right could make more revenue per sale than they would through retail. Printing games, making the packaging, shipping them to the retailer, and of course giving the retailer a nice big cut of each sale all chip away at the publisher's profit.

Digital distribution gets rid of all of those. It's in the publisher's own interests to make DD work, because it will make them more money. And we all know how much Kotick and the other CEOs like money, right?:lol

But I and most other consumers like my games on an actual disc. It's the whole "ownership" thing - another thing that makes me leery on the whole DD-only concept.

Actually, there's another thing. As long as BluRay exists, Sony will never go DD-only. They have too much pride for that.

"ONLY POSSIBLE on PLAYSTATION 3", anyone? :lol

 

[rainking187]

I will also say on a personal level, I'd rather pay double the current price of live for it, than use psn as my primary console online gaming method for free, but that's a subjective opinion and many people are more willing to take lesser quality for a smaller price tag, and that's understandable in many ways.

Don't want to derail the thread, but could you explain this? I've asked this a lot, and honestly I've yet to get a decent answer about what makes Xbox Live worth so much money. I use my PS3 primarily for my online gaming and while I'm aware that Live does offer more features then the PSN I haven't heard anything to make me think it's worth the $50 a year, and certainly not double that.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

I don't consider the Windows PC as a DD only (or mostly) platform yet. As you note there are retail versions of all the top games which creates issues with pricing of the DD versions through something like Steam (note the distinction between platform and portal here).

If PC retail was significantly superseded by DD so much so that retailers had less leverage over content providers to maintain price parity or that retail versions weren't available at all, then I expect average prices would come down as the amount of content available increased.

Well, we could also look at XBLA, PSN, and WW/VC, none of which have been shining examples of prices being reduced over time and/or low, reasonable pricing.

 

[Metal Gear?!]

If they don't want Gamestop selling used games they should buy them back themselves.

It would also help if they bought back unsold inventory too.

But hey they don't and so things continue as they are.

Well, we could also look at XBLA, PSN, and WW/VC, none of which have been shining examples of prices being reduced over time and/or low, reasonable pricing.

Yep only on the PC where multiple services offer overlapping libraries do we get frequent, reasonable sales. And that's only after one of them started the whole weekly sales business, which, after all, is how things are supposed to work in the free market.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

That dude is a petty dickwad, and fuck twitter.

 

[infinityBCRT]

I really disagree with the non-Jaffe guy.
Jaffe's comments on the second hand market are fairly typical and are even conservative compared to many.

Game prices will be more flexible when retail is gone.

Xbox Live says hi. They should be selling Games On Demand for the same or cheaper price than retail or used but they are far more expensive.