So after today's Jimquisition I posted the video on facebook for all to see, a person I went to school with decided to comment. The conversation was as follows:
Him - I don't understand this inquisition. Me - What's not to get...? Games you buy directly off your PC should be cheaper than those you get from EB. Him - But games are worth how much you pay for them. Me - What? Him - You can't price art.
Ummmm... What? Seriously? This guy goes on to say that the 'So why is game worth $80 and not $5000? The 'worth' is based on the individual."
I have to say, this is probably the reason the RRP of games in Australia is still $110.
The recent Jimquisition was absolute bullshit. Publishers and developers have every right to determine how much a licence of their game is worth. And customers get to choose how much it's worth to them. However, they don't get to make arbitrary "demands" on the price.
Scow2: The recent Jimquisition was absolute bullshit. Publishers and developers have every right to determine how much a licence of their game is worth. And customers get to choose how much it's worth to them. However, they don't get to make arbitrary "demands" on the price.
Why would I pay $100 to buy a game off Xbox Games on Demand when I then have to wait 3 hours for my shitty Australian internet to download it and know that at any time Microsoft are within their rights to blatantly take it away. At least when I buy from EB I have a physical copy I get to keep. Or I could go option 3 and buy off the interwebz and get my physical copy for $50AU.
I think what Scow is saying is they should be allowed to charge that much if they want. The thing is, no one is denying that. They're just saying it's a fucking stupid thing to do.
So I just watched that Jimthingy. Well it looks like some of you are missing what he's saying. Of course the publishers can charge what they like, but they're idiots if they do that. They have the opportunity here to take the market, and I mean completely obliterate the market. As in, the vast majority of games being sold by them, and all of the profits going to them. The one thing holding them back is the price they're setting. All they need to do is undercut the retailers. They can do this, because as a digital distributor they have less costs than a retailer. If they charge the same as a retailer, then why would I ever buy from them? If they charge more than a retailer, then I'll laugh in their faces.
I recently bought the Guild Wars 2 pre-purchase. Amazon £39.99, NCSoft digital £49.99. Now I really don't care about the box (hell, there was nothing in it anyway). If NCSoft had charged me £39.98 I'd have bought it from them. It would have been win-win, wouldn't it? Why the hell should I spend £10 more to cut out a middle man?
Sure, they're allowed to do this. But they're morons, because they lost the sale.
WoW Killer: So I just watched that Jimthingy. Well it looks like some of you are missing what he's saying. Of course the publishers can charge what they like, but they're idiots if they do that. They have the opportunity here to take the market, and I mean completely obliterate the market. As in, the vast majority of games being sold by them, and all of the profits going to them. The one thing holding them back is the price they're setting. All they need to do is undercut the retailers. They can do this, because as a digital distributor they have less costs than a retailer. If they charge the same as a retailer, then why would I ever buy from them? If they charge more than a retailer, then I'll laugh in their faces.
I recently bought the Guild Wars 2 pre-purchase. Amazon £39.99, NCSoft digital £49.99. Now I really don't care about the box (hell, there was nothing in it anyway). If NCSoft had charged me £39.98 I'd have bought it from them. It would have been win-win, wouldn't it? Why the hell should I spend £10 more to cut out a middle man?
Sure, they're allowed to do this. But they're morons, because they lost the sale.
They make more sales from people who just walk in the store. Parents, for example.
You can't price art? I do it all the time $10 000 $5 That's a piece of shit I would not buy that, no literally it's a piece of shit.
Now nobody is debating whether or not they technically have the right to price their games at whatever because they do. However games are made for profit, whilst this is important I think it crushes the art part of the game a little bit or not such a little bit if you are EA. AGAIN BECAUSE GAMES CAN BE ART DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL GAMES REALLY ARE AND NEITHER IS THIS A GOOD EXCUSE TO DEFEND THE BULLSHIT THAT GETS IN THE WAY OF OUR ENJOYMENT. Art is not made by soulless money grubbing bastards for the express purpose of nickle and dimeing you so that they can roll around in more money, cocaine and hookers. These people care even less about the people that defend them than they do the people that hate them seeing as the want the later to start eating their shit. Publishers are not struggling to make profits and until I get numbers proving otherwise (not percentages) this is what I will think.
Now some games should have vastly more theoretical value than others but these ones are rare and seeing as how many are rehashes of the same formula paying more than $60 for every single one of them seems crazy. Also you can't price something like a game that can be sold unlimited times at $10000 or whatever, it's begging for piracy. The production value of movies is often much more than that of a game and I'm not sure about the time involved - grossly over payed actors but the price of a physical copy of a movie rarely exceeds $30 to own. We pay 3 to four times the usual DVD for a copy that did not cost the distributor a cent to reproduce that can even be taken away from us at a whim. Does that seem fair? I won't bother waiting for an idiot to say yes and just pre reply - you can kiss the back of my hand.
In the end id like the people that made the games to make a profit, the bad publishers to go off and die and the users to keep on enjoying quality video games.
zombieshark6666: They make more sales from people who just walk in the store. Parents, for example.
They make less money from those particular sales, because the retailer takes a cut. The more sales you get from digital, the more money the producer will make. So the producer wants as many people to buy digital as possible. Ergo, the digital price should be set lower.
zombieshark6666: They make more sales from people who just walk in the store. Parents, for example.
They make less money from those particular sales, because the retailer takes a cut. The more sales you get from digital, the more money the producer will make. So the producer wants as many people to buy digital as possible. Ergo, the digital price should be set lower.
People who don'T see it at the store will just buy something else. They won't go online.
WoW Killer: So I just watched that Jimthingy. Well it looks like some of you are missing what he's saying. Of course the publishers can charge what they like, but they're idiots if they do that. They have the opportunity here to take the market, and I mean completely obliterate the market. As in, the vast majority of games being sold by them, and all of the profits going to them. The one thing holding them back is the price they're setting. All they need to do is undercut the retailers. They can do this, because as a digital distributor they have less costs than a retailer. If they charge the same as a retailer, then why would I ever buy from them? If they charge more than a retailer, then I'll laugh in their faces.
I recently bought the Guild Wars 2 pre-purchase. Amazon £39.99, NCSoft digital £49.99. Now I really don't care about the box (hell, there was nothing in it anyway). If NCSoft had charged me £39.98 I'd have bought it from them. It would have been win-win, wouldn't it? Why the hell should I spend £10 more to cut out a middle man?
Sure, they're allowed to do this. But they're morons, because they lost the sale.
They make more sales from people who just walk in the store. Parents, for example.
This. Also, undercutting Retailers would alienate them, and that's a VERY bad thing. Getting a few extra sales from DD wouldn't make up for the significant loss of Brick+Mortar store sales.
Scow2: The recent Jimquisition was absolute bullshit. Publishers and developers have every right to determine how much a licence of their game is worth. And customers get to choose how much it's worth to them. However, they don't get to make arbitrary "demands" on the price.
Why would I pay $100 to buy a game off Xbox Games on Demand when I then have to wait 3 hours for my shitty Australian internet to download it and know that at any time Microsoft are within their rights to blatantly take it away. At least when I buy from EB I have a physical copy I get to keep. Or I could go option 3 and buy off the interwebz and get my physical copy for $50AU.
How can Microsoft "Blatantly take it away" once you have it downloaded?
I always liked Direct2Drive: You could make a hard backup of the install files and registration information, so re-installing a game was a simple task often even more reliable than buying a hard copy.
Also, while it may take 3 hours to download (Your internet is NOT shitty: It takes me 6 hours to download any major software), it can do that quietly, without you having to do a damn thing. Getting a game from a Brick+Mortar store also requires you to burn gas, take time out of your day to go to the store, hope they have it in stock, then however long it takes to install (And hope it's not one of those shitty SteamWorks games that doesn't even have the game on the disk!)
Acquiring a digital download takes 5-10 minutes total to get, and then, in your case, 3 hours where you don't have to do anything, as opposed to the hassle of getting off your ass and going to a physical store. And if you're smart, you'll make backups of the install files whenever possible.
Well he has somewhat of a point, stuff is worth as much as you are willing to give. Ergo you shouldn't pay the same price everywhere if it isn't worth it to you, as always the responsible consumer votes with his wallet, if you just keep buying overpriced shit then that is what they will continue to sell.
People have been pricing art for as long as there's been art. I truly believe long ago someone out there gave their biggest pile of rocks for the clay rendition of "man hurt land-cow" (translated from the original title "uggghhh...clug gur")
WoW Killer: So I just watched that Jimthingy. Well it looks like some of you are missing what he's saying. Of course the publishers can charge what they like, but they're idiots if they do that. They have the opportunity here to take the market, and I mean completely obliterate the market. As in, the vast majority of games being sold by them, and all of the profits going to them. The one thing holding them back is the price they're setting. All they need to do is undercut the retailers. They can do this, because as a digital distributor they have less costs than a retailer. If they charge the same as a retailer, then why would I ever buy from them? If they charge more than a retailer, then I'll laugh in their faces.
I recently bought the Guild Wars 2 pre-purchase. Amazon £39.99, NCSoft digital £49.99. Now I really don't care about the box (hell, there was nothing in it anyway). If NCSoft had charged me £39.98 I'd have bought it from them. It would have been win-win, wouldn't it? Why the hell should I spend £10 more to cut out a middle man?
Sure, they're allowed to do this. But they're morons, because they lost the sale.
They make more sales from people who just walk in the store. Parents, for example.
This. Also, undercutting Retailers would alienate them, and that's a VERY bad thing. Getting a few extra sales from DD wouldn't make up for the significant loss of Brick+Mortar store sales.
Scow2: The recent Jimquisition was absolute bullshit. Publishers and developers have every right to determine how much a licence of their game is worth. And customers get to choose how much it's worth to them. However, they don't get to make arbitrary "demands" on the price.
Why would I pay $100 to buy a game off Xbox Games on Demand when I then have to wait 3 hours for my shitty Australian internet to download it and know that at any time Microsoft are within their rights to blatantly take it away. At least when I buy from EB I have a physical copy I get to keep. Or I could go option 3 and buy off the interwebz and get my physical copy for $50AU.
How can Microsoft "Blatantly take it away" once you have it downloaded?
I always liked Direct2Drive: You could make a hard backup of the install files and registration information, so re-installing a game was a simple task often even more reliable than buying a hard copy.
Also, while it may take 3 hours to download (Your internet is NOT shitty: It takes me 6 hours to download any major software), it can do that quietly, without you having to do a damn thing. Getting a game from a Brick+Mortar store also requires you to burn gas, take time out of your day to go to the store, hope they have it in stock, then however long it takes to install (And hope it's not one of those shitty SteamWorks games that doesn't even have the game on the disk!)
Acquiring a digital download takes 5-10 minutes total to get, and then, in your case, 3 hours where you don't have to do anything, as opposed to the hassle of getting off your ass and going to a physical store. And if you're smart, you'll make backups of the install files whenever possible.
Why would a publisher care about the retailer unless it owned them? The way things are now, if everybody moved to digital sales paying the prices they are now the publisher would be a lot better off. If anything publishers pushing DD friggin hate retailers.
Also a game played over a program such as steam or origin can be taken away from you and there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it. Unless the game is reworked somehow to not need that program which happens to act like DRM you can't play it. You probably can't even sue them anymore because of the user agreements. After the PS3 got hacked I know they added a "you can't sue us" part to their user agreement.
zombieshark6666: People who don'T see it at the store will just buy something else. They won't go online.
I don't understand what you're saying. Some people won't buy it online; that's fine. For those people who would buy digital (were it at the right price), the publisher gets the better deal if they do so. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The publisher can get as many sales as possible through their own distribution and still leave the retailers for the mums and technophobes.
These aren't original paintings by long dead artists, these aren't even amazing reproductions of such paintings; they're pressed DVDs shat out at a few cents a pop.
If a game is 60 dollars in the store, and 60 dollars online- I will go to the store. It's still getting fucked, and it may take a little trip, but at least having a physical disc is the equivalent of receiving a reach around.
Scow2: How can Microsoft "Blatantly take it away" once you have it downloaded?
I always liked Direct2Drive: You could make a hard backup of the install files and registration information, so re-installing a game was a simple task often even more reliable than buying a hard copy.
Also, while it may take 3 hours to download (Your internet is NOT shitty: It takes me 6 hours to download any major software), it can do that quietly, without you having to do a damn thing. Getting a game from a Brick+Mortar store also requires you to burn gas, take time out of your day to go to the store, hope they have it in stock, then however long it takes to install (And hope it's not one of those shitty SteamWorks games that doesn't even have the game on the disk!)
Acquiring a digital download takes 5-10 minutes total to get, and then, in your case, 3 hours where you don't have to do anything, as opposed to the hassle of getting off your ass and going to a physical store. And if you're smart, you'll make backups of the install files whenever possible.
Ok well when I get something off XBL Games on Demand that download is linked to my account, Microsoft being the cunts they are you actually cannot truly back it up, not only this but as it is linked to said account, if I get banned, or lose my account for whatever reason I lose that game. A friend of mine had his account corrupt and he couldn't remember the password for it (neither the email password nor the controller passcode). Then the old 20B console that account was linked to died. Upon getting a new console he could not transfer all those licenses and hence as lost the ability to play about 15-20 XBLA/DLC's. Microsoft will do nothing.
I'm sorry but yes my internet is SHIT. 3 hours is a long fucking time to download 4GB FROM A SERVER. Regardless, when did getting off your arse and going down to the store get so hard? I leave my house for things like uni, work, football and to see friends anyway so it's not so much effort to stop by an EB. But in the end 90% of the games I buy these days I get off places like Dungeon Crawl or Ozgameshop where I don't have to leave my house and for $50AU I get the game delivered to my door a couple days later.
Of course you can't price art, it has no value. [/troll]
OT: you totally can price art, it's just the price tends to widely fluctuate depending on what it is. For something like a game it's very easy to make copies digitally, so it's not quite the same as buying a physical painting, and the developers tend to price it at a level that means enough players will buy it, and that it will hopefully make them a profit.
Esotera: Of course you can't price art, it has no value. [/troll]
OT: you totally can price art, it's just the price tends to widely fluctuate depending on what it is. For something like a game it's very easy to make copies digitally, so it's not quite the same as buying a physical painting, and the developers tend to price it at a level that means enough players will buy it, and that it will hopefully make them a profit.
Yeah, anything that you're selling prints of will usually have a price set according to a finite set of copies that will be made. The more copies, generally the cheaper the print, and usually the lower the number in the edition, the more expensive that individual print will be. That's not exactly the case with how games are sold, but you do see something similar with collector's and special editions.
He is right that the worth of a game is set by the individual, but that has nothing to do with the price. As for anybody to thinks games you get through DD should be cheaper needs to learn some basic economics. Making digital copies cheaper is probably one of the worst things a game company can do to itself.
Scow2: The recent Jimquisition was absolute bullshit. Publishers and developers have every right to determine how much a licence of their game is worth. And customers get to choose how much it's worth to them. However, they don't get to make arbitrary "demands" on the price.
They're not "making demands." They provide the demand, just like the publishers provide the supply. You need to brush up on economics.
OT: Long story short, gamers are some of the worst consumers on the face of the planet. They don't understand their role as consumers is to get the most product for the least money, but the publishers sure as heck understand that their role is to supply the least product for the most money. The vast majority of gamers also do not understand that the demand side is absolutely pivotal in deciding the price of a good; market equilibrium is reached at the point where the supply curve and the demand curve intersect. The market is currently not in equilibrium, and the publishers whine about it, a few gamers who know what they're talking about say "then lower the price you idiots" and then the rest of the gamers yell back "shut your mouth, only the publishers have any say in how much games cost."
Also, we have a few truly bizarre games as art snobs on this site, not to mention serious industry apologists. The guy you quoted was probably one or both of those.
Why would a publisher care about the retailer unless it owned them? The way things are now, if everybody moved to digital sales paying the prices they are now the publisher would be a lot better off. If anything publishers pushing DD friggin hate retailers.
Also a game played over a program such as steam or origin can be taken away from you and there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it. Unless the game is reworked somehow to not need that program which happens to act like DRM you can't play it. You probably can't even sue them anymore because of the user agreements. After the PS3 got hacked I know they added a "you can't sue us" part to their user agreement.
Because they sell their product mate.
They have staff, buildings, contacts, networks and they are making use of those to sell their product.
If they piss them off the publishers will sell less product. And that upsets them :C
zombieshark6666: People who don'T see it at the store will just buy something else. They won't go online.
I don't understand what you're saying. Some people won't buy it online; that's fine. For those people who would buy digital (were it at the right price), the publisher gets the better deal if they do so. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The publisher can get as many sales as possible through their own distribution and still leave the retailers for the mums and technophobes.
Oh, I just don't think they would stock the game at all if they knew the publisher would be charging less online.
zombieshark6666: Oh, I just don't think they would stock the game at all if they knew the publisher would be charging less online.
As you said, there are mums still wishing to buy from a retailer. The retailer would be foolish not to stock the game.
The HMV in my town hasn't stopped stocking albums now that itunes sells them cheaper.
I think they would at least threaten to do so or do a deal with a competing publisher for a similar product. If they start accepting that, their fall would be even quicker.
Das Boot: Making digital copies cheaper is probably one of the worst things a game company can do to itself.
Please explain why. I do not see how this would be so.
The thing is they really would not gain anything by lowering the price. By lowering the price of digital you are not magically going to get tons of people switching from physical to digital. No instead you will get a few people who switch and loose more money because you are now selling the product cheaper. Most people buy physical for a reason and most people buy digital for a reason. Yes there are some who will switch over but its really an insignifigant amount of people.
They would also be pissing off retailers which again is not a very bright idea. You never deliberatly try and piss off the person who moves the majority of your product.
You also alienate the people who like physical media. This could very well cause them to refuse to buy your product new and instead get used copies.
-Now lets do some quick math here. Lets say the profit off a physical copy is $30 and digital is $50. Reduceing the digital price by $10 brings it down to $40.
-Lets assume three million digital sales and seven million physical.
-At full price you have 210 mil from physical and 150 mil fron digital totaling 360 mil.
-Now with the reduced price lets say you get four million physical and six million digital.
-So there you have 240 mil from digital and 120 mil physical totaling 360 mil. So in this case you had three million people switch from physical to digital and you made zero extra profit. In order to actually make more money you an influx of new customers.
Also I should point out that it is extremely unlikely that the difference in profit margins between digital and physical is anywhere near as large as the example I used. I also used a much higher number for people who would switch over to make a point. The less who switch the more new customers you are going to need just to break even.
zombieshark6666: They make more sales from people who just walk in the store. Parents, for example.
No, thats actually not true. The vast majority of gamers are over 18 and buy their games themselves. A good portion of those gamers do not make impulse buys. And then on the PC platform, you have something like 52% of gamers not walking into a store at all, instead choosing to purchase games on Steam. That figure is growing at a rate which will see physical copies be all but dead in 2 years time.
OT: See, I always think this is funny. I cant think of a single worthwhile artist who was money hungry and got away with it.
Companies like EA can call themselves a business or they can call themselves artists, but not both. As in, they can, but I wont take them seriously and neither should anyone else. Just my 2 cents.
They make more sales from people who just walk in the store. Parents, for example.
This. Also, undercutting Retailers would alienate them, and that's a VERY bad thing. Getting a few extra sales from DD wouldn't make up for the significant loss of Brick+Mortar store sales.
Why would I pay $100 to buy a game off Xbox Games on Demand when I then have to wait 3 hours for my shitty Australian internet to download it and know that at any time Microsoft are within their rights to blatantly take it away. At least when I buy from EB I have a physical copy I get to keep. Or I could go option 3 and buy off the interwebz and get my physical copy for $50AU.
How can Microsoft "Blatantly take it away" once you have it downloaded?
I always liked Direct2Drive: You could make a hard backup of the install files and registration information, so re-installing a game was a simple task often even more reliable than buying a hard copy.
Also, while it may take 3 hours to download (Your internet is NOT shitty: It takes me 6 hours to download any major software), it can do that quietly, without you having to do a damn thing. Getting a game from a Brick+Mortar store also requires you to burn gas, take time out of your day to go to the store, hope they have it in stock, then however long it takes to install (And hope it's not one of those shitty SteamWorks games that doesn't even have the game on the disk!)
Acquiring a digital download takes 5-10 minutes total to get, and then, in your case, 3 hours where you don't have to do anything, as opposed to the hassle of getting off your ass and going to a physical store. And if you're smart, you'll make backups of the install files whenever possible.
Why would a publisher care about the retailer unless it owned them? The way things are now, if everybody moved to digital sales paying the prices they are now the publisher would be a lot better off. If anything publishers pushing DD friggin hate retailers.
Also a game played over a program such as steam or origin can be taken away from you and there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it. Unless the game is reworked somehow to not need that program which happens to act like DRM you can't play it. You probably can't even sue them anymore because of the user agreements. After the PS3 got hacked I know they added a "you can't sue us" part to their user agreement.
Publishers care about retailers because that's where the VAST bulk of sales and advertising are. Digitial distribution's growing, but hasn't taken over yet. Also, NOBODY gives a damn or pays any attention to Online Banner Ads. However, if something's signficicant enough to be advertized in realspace, then people are a lot more likely to take a look at it.
And your internet's not as "shitty" as mine, which takes two hours to download 1 GB from a server. Also, why the hell are you buying from retailers with offensive business practices?
xDarc: These aren't original paintings by long dead artists, these aren't even amazing reproductions of such paintings; they're pressed DVDs shat out at a few cents a pop.
If a game is 60 dollars in the store, and 60 dollars online- I will go to the store. It's still getting fucked, and it may take a little trip, but at least having a physical disc is the equivalent of receiving a reach around.
Do you honestly believe the production of art died out years ago? There are lots of living artists that have distribution plans not unlike VG distribution. It doesn't cost much to create each copy of the work, but that's the only way to pay off the cost of creating the original work.
Das Boot: The thing is they really would not gain anything by lowering the price. By lowering the price of digital you are not magically going to get tons of people switching from physical to digital. No instead you will get a few people who switch and loose more money because you are now selling the product cheaper. Most people buy physical for a reason and most people buy digital for a reason. Yes there are some who will switch over but its really an insignifigant amount of people.
They would also be pissing off retailers which again is not a very bright idea. You never deliberatly try and piss off the person who moves the majority of your product.
You also alienate the people who like physical media. This could very well cause them to refuse to buy your product new and instead get used copies.
-Now lets do some quick math here. Lets say the profit off a physical copy is $30 and digital is $50. Reduceing the digital price by $10 brings it down to $40.
-Lets assume three million digital sales and seven million physical.
-At full price you have 210 mil from physical and 150 mil fron digital totaling 360 mil.
-Now with the reduced price lets say you get four million physical and six million digital.
-So there you have 240 mil from digital and 120 mil physical totaling 360 mil. So in this case you had three million people switch from physical to digital and you made zero extra profit. In order to actually make more money you an influx of new customers.
Also I should point out that it is extremely unlikely that the difference in profit margins between digital and physical is anywhere near as large as the example I used. I also used a much higher number for people who would switch over to make a point. The less who switch the more new customers you are going to need just to break even.
The numbers don't reflect reality though. If the retailer is less expensive than digital to begin with then you're never going to see 30% of the sales coming from digital. I am simply not going to buy a digital copy when I can get a physical copy substantially cheaper, and I am certain the vast majority of consumers are with me on that. Plus, I'm pretty sure the publisher doesn't get 60% of a retail sale. Call it 40% and try the figures again.
Scow2: The recent Jimquisition was absolute bullshit. Publishers and developers have every right to determine how much a licence of their game is worth. And customers get to choose how much it's worth to them. However, they don't get to make arbitrary "demands" on the price.
Sure they do. And publishers get to refuse those demands. The point is, it's in their best interest to supply a product at equilibrium price.
The mainstream game industry is in shit shape right now. The publishers can blame it on piracy or used game sales all they want, but the fact is, people aren't willing to pay what they're asking. Companies that don't adapt to the market are going to fail, and I'm perfectly okay with that. Indies are putting out better products at better prices. Why would I spend $60 on some shitty AAA rehash when I could spend $5 - $15 on something new and fun?
Why would a publisher care about the retailer unless it owned them? The way things are now, if everybody moved to digital sales paying the prices they are now the publisher would be a lot better off. If anything publishers pushing DD friggin hate retailers.
Also a game played over a program such as steam or origin can be taken away from you and there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it. Unless the game is reworked somehow to not need that program which happens to act like DRM you can't play it. You probably can't even sue them anymore because of the user agreements. After the PS3 got hacked I know they added a "you can't sue us" part to their user agreement.
Publishers care about retailers because that's where the VAST bulk of sales and advertising are. Digitial distribution's growing, but hasn't taken over yet. Also, NOBODY gives a damn or pays any attention to Online Banner Ads. However, if something's signficicant enough to be advertized in realspace, then people are a lot more likely to take a look at it.
And your internet's not as "shitty" as mine, which takes two hours to download 1 GB from a server. Also, why the hell are you buying from retailers with offensive business practices?
The internet bit your getting confused with somebody else
Ads advertised in 'realspace' seem to be missing a must buy in stores component rather than just buy this friggin game I don't care where
Some games bought from store with a disk force you to use the drm program in this case steam to activate your game with a cd key effectively doing the same thing as having bought it online in the first place. To play it you need to use that account, I think the orange box did this. Also as for the we can take your games away, well they would have to be mad to do so but it's the kind of power and control that people are trying to gain which is intimidating is all.
Another thing is that publishers will reduce prices as soon as a tiger goes without teeth. I always have assumed this was the case even though they may have more people switch to digital if they chop of whatever they save from physical distribution which they do. Their primarily goal being to fleece you of your hard earned cash and will make you pay as much for as little as possible if they can.
The beauty of digital distribution however is that small devs can find a way to get their game out in the open without going through a publisher like mine craft. That's if they can fund their project in the first place and big games won't get produced this way.
zombieshark6666: They make more sales from people who just walk in the store. Parents, for example.
They make less money from those particular sales, because the retailer takes a cut. The more sales you get from digital, the more money the producer will make. So the producer wants as many people to buy digital as possible. Ergo, the digital price should be set lower.
Lowering the prices like that is a great way of breaking EU laws causing mass lawsuits over violation of competition laws. Sad, but true.
WoW Killer: The numbers don't reflect reality though. If the retailer is less expensive than digital to begin with then you're never going to see 30% of the sales coming from digital. I am simply not going to buy a digital copy when I can get a physical copy substantially cheaper, and I am certain the vast majority of consumers are with me on that. Plus, I'm pretty sure the publisher doesn't get 60% of a retail sale. Call it 40% and try the figures again.
You are right they dont reflect reality. I was exagurating them in your favour to help make a point. Currently retail and digital are generally the same price. As a game gets older its true that the digital copy often does not drop in price.
You are right though nobody will buy a digital copy if the physical copy is cheaper, unless of course they are a PC gamer. PC gamers will often buy the digital regardless of how much more expensive it is then the physical. Console gamers as a whole will buy the physical copy over the digital regardless of price.
I was actually using 50% profit margin for retail and 80% profit margin for digital to take into account costs such as shipping, packaging, commissions, etc. The retailers markup on new games is actually an insignifigant amount. If they are selling the game for $60 it cost them over $50 for it. Once again though I was lowballing the retail numbers to try and give you an advantage.
So after today's Jimquisition I posted the video on facebook for all to see, a person I went to school with decided to comment. The conversation was as follows:
Him - I don't understand this inquisition.
Me - What's not to get...? Games you buy directly off your PC should be cheaper than those you get from EB.
Him - But games are worth how much you pay for them.
Me - What?
Him - You can't price art.
Ummmm... What? Seriously? This guy goes on to say that the 'So why is game worth $80 and not $5000? The 'worth' is based on the individual."
I have to say, this is probably the reason the RRP of games in Australia is still $110.
Umm yeah... Thoughts?