"You can't price art"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Video games be expensive yo
Why must this be
Plight of the little man

People jump in and argue that the first is wrong
Point of arguing must be for personal satisfaction and a craving for debate
I can't take anybody seriously if they think they can change another persons mind on a web forum
Points for and against won't change the original message nor anybody's reaction to the message
Publishers continue to find new ways to rip everybody off and make generally bland videogames

Meanwhile in Africa life moves on

I.Muir:
You can't price art?

That's a piece of shit I would not buy that, no literally it's a piece of shit.

Actually, literal artist's shit is worth around 100,000

image

And apparently videogames can't be art because they lack the integrity. Bollocks.

I do get the feeling that often, when people talk of "games as art", they're talking of some standard of art that doesn't actually exist. The sort of "Art" where douchebags in Berets with goatees stand around and stroke their chin.

That's really not what it means for something to be "art".

Das Boot:

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.

I think you're high on the retail margin and low on the digital margin. You're forgetting that a game doesn't make a profit until after the cost to make it has been paid off. With digital distribution, the only cost is the retailer's cut. With physical distribution, the actual manufacture of the game comes into effect. It's possible to price a physical game so low that even after the development costs have been made back, the publisher loses money on each copy. It's literally impossible for that to happen with digital distribution; the retailer takes their (Small) cut, and 100% of what's left over is profit, after the initial investment has been made back, of course -- and with digital distribution, that initial investment is much smaller because there's no unit cost involved, each new copy is free for the publisher.

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.

That's exactly wtf they get to do. They're customers. That's how business works. The publishers don't have to accept it if they don't want to, but the customers get to demand whatever the fuck they want. That's their right, just like it's the producers right to set whatever price they want as long as they're not doing it as a cartel or something. The customer, however, rarely has anything to lose by choosing not to buy a product. The producer loses a customer, ergo it is in the producers best interest to set prices where supply and demand intersects. Sometimes the increase of sales offsets the reduction of price, generating more profit than previously. Margins are a big part of this, and just like Jim said in the Jimquisition, they have a lot to gain by selling as much as possible in digital copies.

Yopaz:

WoW Killer:

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.

???

There are laws of competition that say you can't compete or set your own prices? The hell are you on about? :S

I.Muir:
Video games be expensive yo
Why must this be
Plight of the little man

People jump in and argue that the first is wrong
Point of arguing must be for personal satisfaction and a craving for debate
I can't take anybody seriously if they think they can change another persons mind on a web forum
Points for and against won't change the original message nor anybody's reaction to the message
Publishers continue to find new ways to rip everybody off and make generally bland videogames

Meanwhile in Africa life moves on

What does Africa have to do with any of this?

Here, give this a watch. It's kinda relevant to what you said.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5653-Better-Does-Not-Mean-Good

I.Muir:
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 brick & mortar sales are still a significant portion of their business?

They don't see it as worth the increase in their digital sales at the cost of losing the console (read: what they see as most profitable) sales from the retailers that would be upset over being undercut.

Also, with your final point, there's no such thing as a "you can't sue us" clause, in any contract. You are always able to sue someone for breach of contract or whatever else happens to apply. The clause you're talking about is "no class-action lawsuits", which is an entirely different beast. I don't particularly like that they're able to use such a bullshit loophole to get out of being responsible, but it's not quite as egregious as you make it out to be. Individual suits are completely possible, just not for a whole group.

Acrisius:

???

There are laws of competition that say you can't compete or set your own prices? The hell are you on about? :S

Well, this is because if you have an online platform like Steam, that competes with retail stores like GameStop (I don't know if GameStop is selling PC games).

Now if GameStop sells Half-Life 3 for $50 and Valve figure that they can earn more by selling it for $30 then they offer a competition against GameStop that gives them an unfair advantage according to EU laws. Intel lowered the prices on their CPUs in order to gain advantage over AMD.

Owyn_Merrilin:

I think you're high on the retail margin and low on the digital margin. You're forgetting that a game doesn't make a profit until after the cost to make it has been paid off.

Oh you mean I am forgetting something that I actually fucking mentioned in my post. Wow how the fuck could I forget that right after saying that I took those costs into account.

With digital distribution, the only cost is the retailer's cut. With physical distribution, the actual manufacture of the game comes into effect. It's possible to price a physical game so low that even after the development costs have been made back, the publisher loses money on each copy. It's literally impossible for that to happen with digital distribution; the retailer takes their (Small) cut, and 100% of what's left over is profit, after the initial investment has been made back, of course -- and with digital distribution, that initial investment is much smaller because there's no unit cost involved, each new copy is free for the publisher.

Actually when a game gets priced that low with a physical copy its the retailer who is eating the loss not the publsiher. You seem to be ignoring everything I said and just spouting nonsense. Did you even read anything that I wrote?

Das Boot:

Owyn_Merrilin:

I think you're high on the retail margin and low on the digital margin. You're forgetting that a game doesn't make a profit until after the cost to make it has been paid off.

Oh you mean I am forgetting something that I actually fucking mentioned in my post. Wow how the fuck could I forget that right after saying that I took those costs into account.

With digital distribution, the only cost is the retailer's cut. With physical distribution, the actual manufacture of the game comes into effect. It's possible to price a physical game so low that even after the development costs have been made back, the publisher loses money on each copy. It's literally impossible for that to happen with digital distribution; the retailer takes their (Small) cut, and 100% of what's left over is profit, after the initial investment has been made back, of course -- and with digital distribution, that initial investment is much smaller because there's no unit cost involved, each new copy is free for the publisher.

Actually when a game gets priced that low with a physical copy its the retailer who is eating the loss not the publsiher. You seem to be ignoring everything I said and just spouting nonsense. Did you even read anything that I wrote?

The point is there is no loss involved in DD; every purchase is pure profit. You were talking about it as if any cut in price would be a cut in profit, and further getting the gap in profitability between DD and retail off, when you were saying it was generous. You're basically assuming that lowering the price would bring in no additional buyers, which is only true if the market is in an absolutely perfect state of equilibrium. Not only does such a state not exist in the real world, but Valve's experiments with sales on Steam have proven that we're not anywhere near it; publishers make a lot more money when they cut the price on digital copies, it's a proven fact that they more than make it up in bulk.

Yopaz:

Acrisius:

???

There are laws of competition that say you can't compete or set your own prices? The hell are you on about? :S

Well, this is because if you have an online platform like Steam, that competes with retail stores like GameStop (I don't know if GameStop is selling PC games).

Now if GameStop sells Half-Life 3 for $50 and Valve figure that they can earn more by selling it for $30 then they offer a competition against GameStop that gives them an unfair advantage according to EU laws. Intel lowered the prices on their CPUs in order to gain advantage over AMD.

That's not unfair advantage, that's good business. It's how business works. If anything, it's borderline cartel-bullshit to deliberately not compete. I can't believe that there are laws so retarded that they force people to do bad business, or do indirectly form cartels. You have to show me before I believe you, it just sounds insane.

Acrisius:

Yopaz:

Acrisius:

???

There are laws of competition that say you can't compete or set your own prices? The hell are you on about? :S

Well, this is because if you have an online platform like Steam, that competes with retail stores like GameStop (I don't know if GameStop is selling PC games).

Now if GameStop sells Half-Life 3 for $50 and Valve figure that they can earn more by selling it for $30 then they offer a competition against GameStop that gives them an unfair advantage according to EU laws. Intel lowered the prices on their CPUs in order to gain advantage over AMD.

That's not unfair advantage, that's good business. It's how business works. If anything, it's borderline cartel-bullshit to deliberately not compete. I can't believe that there are laws so retarded that they force people to do bad business, or do indirectly form cartels. You have to show me before I believe you, it just sounds insane.

Laws like that are supposed to prevent things like a big company taking a loss on their main product until their main competitor, a smaller company, goes out of business and then jacking up prices once they have a monopoly. They're not supposed to prevent companies from finding a way to get out the same product for a much lower rate while still making a profit, although I don't know the specifics of the EU laws.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Acrisius:

Yopaz:

Well, this is because if you have an online platform like Steam, that competes with retail stores like GameStop (I don't know if GameStop is selling PC games).

Now if GameStop sells Half-Life 3 for $50 and Valve figure that they can earn more by selling it for $30 then they offer a competition against GameStop that gives them an unfair advantage according to EU laws. Intel lowered the prices on their CPUs in order to gain advantage over AMD.

That's not unfair advantage, that's good business. It's how business works. If anything, it's borderline cartel-bullshit to deliberately not compete. I can't believe that there are laws so retarded that they force people to do bad business, or do indirectly form cartels. You have to show me before I believe you, it just sounds insane.

Laws like that are supposed to prevent things like a big company taking a loss on their main product until their main competitor, a smaller company, goes out of business and then jacking up prices once they have a monopoly. They're not supposed to prevent companies from finding a way to get out the same product for a much lower rate while still making a profit, although I don't know the specifics of the EU laws.

Laws like that obviously don't work then seeing how that's exactly what's constantly happening, in many industries.

The fact that to universally make download games cheaper would take a huge stride into obliterating physical media is reason enough to stick with a balanced pricing system.

Acrisius:

Yopaz:

Acrisius:

???

There are laws of competition that say you can't compete or set your own prices? The hell are you on about? :S

Well, this is because if you have an online platform like Steam, that competes with retail stores like GameStop (I don't know if GameStop is selling PC games).

Now if GameStop sells Half-Life 3 for $50 and Valve figure that they can earn more by selling it for $30 then they offer a competition against GameStop that gives them an unfair advantage according to EU laws. Intel lowered the prices on their CPUs in order to gain advantage over AMD.

That's not unfair advantage, that's good business. It's how business works. If anything, it's borderline cartel-bullshit to deliberately not compete. I can't believe that there are laws so retarded that they force people to do bad business, or do indirectly form cartels. You have to show me before I believe you, it just sounds insane.

Yeah, that is how good business works. Being sued by EU. It happens even though you rationalize it. The laws are real, believe it or not.

Owyn_Merrilin:

The point is there is no loss involved in DD; every purchase is pure profit. You were talking about it as if any cut in price would be a cut in profit, and further getting the gap in profitability between DD and retail off, when you were saying it was generous. You're basically assuming that lowering the price would bring in no additional buyers,

Ah your skills of deduction are most excellent. Now if only your reading skills were up to par you would have seen where I addressed the very point you are bringing up.

which is only true if the market is in an absolutely perfect state of equilibrium. Not only does such a state not exist in the real world, but Valve's experiments with sales on Steam have proven that we're not anywhere near it; publishers make a lot more money when they cut the price on digital copies, it's a proven fact that they more than make it up in bulk.

I dont think you want to be bringing up valves experiments with sales on steam. Gabe has yet to provide any evidence at all to support your argument. All that Gabe has actually said on the subject of steam sales is that the laws of supply and demand do infact actually exist.

Acrisius:

That's not unfair advantage, that's good business. It's how business works. If anything, it's borderline cartel-bullshit to deliberately not compete. I can't believe that there are laws so retarded that they force people to do bad business, or do indirectly form cartels. You have to show me before I believe you, it just sounds insane.

No its called unfair business practices. You are essentially prenting your competition from ever being able to sell your product. You are not allowed to charge other suppliers more for a product then you charge consumers. Here I will even give you an example.

Vale creates this game called half life 3. They realise that they could make more money if everybody bought the game from them instead of other people.

Valve then decides to charge $45 for it on steam.

In order to force people to buy from them they decide that if any other retailer wants to sell their game they will have to pay $45 for it. This means that no other retailer can ever compete with valves price and still make a profit off of the game.

Das Boot:

Acrisius:

That's not unfair advantage, that's good business. It's how business works. If anything, it's borderline cartel-bullshit to deliberately not compete. I can't believe that there are laws so retarded that they force people to do bad business, or do indirectly form cartels. You have to show me before I believe you, it just sounds insane.

No its called unfair business practices. You are essentially prenting your competition from ever being able to sell your product. You are not allowed to charge other suppliers more for a product then you charge consumers. Here I will even give you an example.

Vale creates this game called half life 3. They realise that they could make more money if everybody bought the game from them instead of other people.

Valve then decides to charge $45 for it on steam.

In order to force people to buy from them they decide that if any other retailer wants to sell their game they will have to pay $45 for it. This means that no other retailer can ever compete with valves price and still make a profit off of the game.

I certainly understand what you're saying, and it makes sense.

However, you're assuming that physical and digital products are the same thing. They're obviously not. It doesn't work like that.

And it sure as hell doesn't explain why you can find a physical copy cheaper 8 times out of 10.

Acrisius:

And it sure as hell doesn't explain why you can find a physical copy cheaper 8 times out of 10.

That is because the company selling the digital copy wants to mark it up more. They are also less likely to mark the game down at a later point in time. Digital stores such as steam are not effected nearly as much by things like supply and demand which drive down game prices in brick and mortar stores.

You can sell your games for as much as you want unless you are selling them at a price that prevents others from competing with you. This obviously excludes things like temporary sales.

The way I see it, a digital copy of a game should cost as much (or maybe a dollar more, to take bandwidth costs into account) than the cost at which the game is usually sold to the retailer. It only makes sense when the retailer is cut out of the loop.

That said, this rule would only really apply to self-distributed games, such as what is sold on Origin or the publisher/developer's website. Any third-party products on services like Steam, Xbox Live Arcade or PlayStation Network would of course have to take into account the service provider's cut.

I don't take the physical production costs into account because they're minimal on a copy by copy basis. They'd only really save any significant amount of money there if they ceased physical production altogether.

EDIT: And, yes, I realize that conflict could occur if EA sold their games much cheaper on Origin than they could for the same profits on Steam. When you both self-publish online and use a third-party service you will simply have to find some sort of compromise.

To put it simply: nothing has any objective worth--as worth and money are both creations of man. It is the job of the consumer to pay as little as possible and the job of the seller to get as much as possible from us.

Das Boot:

Acrisius:

That's not unfair advantage, that's good business. It's how business works. If anything, it's borderline cartel-bullshit to deliberately not compete. I can't believe that there are laws so retarded that they force people to do bad business, or do indirectly form cartels. You have to show me before I believe you, it just sounds insane.

No its called unfair business practices. You are essentially prenting your competition from ever being able to sell your product. You are not allowed to charge other suppliers more for a product then you charge consumers. Here I will even give you an example.

Vale creates this game called half life 3. They realise that they could make more money if everybody bought the game from them instead of other people.

Valve then decides to charge $45 for it on steam.

In order to force people to buy from them they decide that if any other retailer wants to sell their game they will have to pay $45 for it. This means that no other retailer can ever compete with valves price and still make a profit off of the game.

Your example is wrong. Valve doesn't have to allow anyone to sell their product. You're assuming they are obligated to allow retailers to sell their game.

Grey Day for Elcia:
Your example is wrong. Valve doesn't have to allow anyone to sell their product. You're assuming they are obligated to allow retailers to sell their game.

You are right they dont have to let anybody else sell their game. But if they do they are not allowed to undercut that person in order to force them to sell at a loss in order to be competetive.

Call your friend a pretentious twat for trying to say that all games are art that is equivalent to each other.

They're not. Shadow of the Colossus is a much better piece of art than Cawadoody and yet it was never priced the same and for however long CoD stays at 60 dollars. As well, considering that physical media requires the expenditure of money to make and distribute, they are effectively charging less for their games because they're making less due to overhead. Why then gouge for PC ports that are notoriously inferior to their console counterparts? Because they're greedy fucks.

And sadly, most gamers are fucking stupid and buy shit anyway because they're fiends that need their fix. If they actually showed some solidarity and didn't buy the game at launch price (60 on digital), developers might actually charge less.

Yeah, that is how good business works. Being sued by EU. It happens even though you rationalize it. The laws are real, believe it or not.

Here in the US, we have base price laws that work in a similar fashion. Companies are able to price goods lower than others as long as it does not go under the base amount. With that being said, companies could lower the prices of digital copies in the US if they so choose. I am not sure about how stores are in the European Union, but in the US, I see different brands of the same product at different prices. Of course, laws are mostly pretty flexable, so they might consider digital copies distinct from physical ones.

Das Boot:

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.

Nope :3 Digital copy is more expensive XD
https://www.ebgames.com.au/search?title=Deus+Ex%3a+Human+Revolution

For those too lazy, Deus ex is worth $49.40 in store and $49.99 on steam

Lol when did this happen?

I think a they are afraid of low prices for a good reason.

At $60, people can only buy a few games and adopt a "value for money" mindset. AAA games, with their massive budgets, can easily win this contest. At $10, people are far more forgiving of low production values if the game is fun. If you can make profitable games on low budgets, then you don't need to beg large publishers for the money.

Hero in a half shell:

I.Muir:
You can't price art?

That's a piece of shit I would not buy that, no literally it's a piece of shit.

Actually, literal artist's shit is worth around 100,000

image

And apparently videogames can't be art because they lack the integrity. Bollocks.

It shouldn't be, that's just absurd and I wouldn't buy that. Assuming you were in control of all your faculties and were not stark raving mad then neither would anybody else. I worship this persons shit as he must be a god amongst men because he did these things which are so very impressive. Looks like he need more roughage in his diet.

This image is art is it? The stuff the near 7 billion people on the planet make replicas of every day. This isn't just the greatest con pulled off in the entire history of mankind? I'm not even mad, I'm impressed.

"look at him, they think his shit's made of gold"

Yep EA really sets out the send a message, to bare their collective soul to the audience, to connect on levels emotional and psychological through shared human experience and to leave us thinking. NOW BUY OUR DLC YOU SHEEPLE, MUHAHAHAA. Real pure art bro.

anthony87:

I.Muir:
Video games be expensive yo
Why must this be
Plight of the little man

People jump in and argue that the first is wrong
Point of arguing must be for personal satisfaction and a craving for debate
I can't take anybody seriously if they think they can change another persons mind on a web forum
Points for and against won't change the original message nor anybody's reaction to the message
Publishers continue to find new ways to rip everybody off and make generally bland videogames

Meanwhile in Africa life moves on

What does Africa have to do with any of this?

Here, give this a watch. It's kinda relevant to what you said.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5653-Better-Does-Not-Mean-Good

It's a saying I sometimes use, never really caught on

Agayek:

I.Muir:
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 brick & mortar sales are still a significant portion of their business?

They don't see it as worth the increase in their digital sales at the cost of losing the console (read: what they see as most profitable) sales from the retailers that would be upset over being undercut.

Also, with your final point, there's no such thing as a "you can't sue us" clause, in any contract. You are always able to sue someone for breach of contract or whatever else happens to apply. The clause you're talking about is "no class-action lawsuits", which is an entirely different beast. I don't particularly like that they're able to use such a bullshit loophole to get out of being responsible, but it's not quite as egregious as you make it out to be. Individual suits are completely possible, just not for a whole group.

Why a question mark, are you not sure?

Class action right.... was confused. Still not a great thing that they have done that.

Yopaz:
Lowering the prices like that is a great way of breaking EU laws causing mass lawsuits over violation of competition laws. Sad, but true.

Point me to which EU laws forbid you from selling your own product at a lower price to the consumer.

Das Boot:
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.

I understood your initial argument, that reducing the price results in a decreased revenue for the same sales (obviously true) and that you're going to get a portion of the profit even from retail sales (though not as big a margin as you suggested). On the idea that gamers are somehow irrational buyers, you might be right on that, but that would put the argument more towards sociology than economics. Look again at your statement that "anybody to thinks games you get through DD should be cheaper needs to learn some basic economics". If we're looking from a strict economic perspective then a producer selling an inferior product at a higher price gets no sales at all. A reduction in price that results in more sales is better for the producer and better for the consumer.

Moreover, the point of Jims podcast is that many of these digital distribution networks have been complete and utter flops. If they were gaining 30% of the market selling such overpriced products then you'd be right (though it would also mean profound things for the gaming community as consumers). But they're not.

Any origin games I buy keys for from CDKEYHOUSE who undercut their prices by 3x to 4x for some of the big games. I then download the game using origin so id say that they had failed and should have been selling their prices at what I ended up buying them for in the first place. They were selling battlefield 3 for about $80 at the time and I bought it for $20 for some crazy Russian version easily patched to English.

I have bought digital distribution games for less than retail price and origins own DD prices. Have I set in motion cataclysmic events that will cause the downfall of all video games or as I stated above will life just move on?

Keoul:

Das Boot:

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.

Nope :3 Digital copy is more expensive XD
https://www.ebgames.com.au/search?title=Deus+Ex%3a+Human+Revolution

For those too lazy, Deus ex is worth $49.40 in store and $49.99 on steam

Lol when did this happen?

You know you should probably read the sentence directly after the one you bolded. Also what the hell is up with those prices. I just saw Deus Ex for $30 brand new last week.

WoW Killer:

Moreover, the point of Jims podcast is that many of these digital distribution networks have been complete and utter flops. If they were gaining 30% of the market selling such overpriced products then you'd be right (though it would also mean profound things for the gaming community as consumers). But they're not.

You are right the digital market right now is crap. That is all the more reason that reducing the price on digital products would lose the company money.

Das Boot:

Keoul:

Das Boot:

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.

Nope :3 Digital copy is more expensive XD
https://www.ebgames.com.au/search?title=Deus+Ex%3a+Human+Revolution

For those too lazy, Deus ex is worth $49.40 in store and $49.99 on steam

Lol when did this happen?

You know you should probably read the sentence directly after the one you bolded. Also what the hell is up with those prices. I just saw Deus Ex for $30 brand new last week.

WoW Killer:

Moreover, the point of Jims podcast is that many of these digital distribution networks have been complete and utter flops. If they were gaining 30% of the market selling such overpriced products then you'd be right (though it would also mean profound things for the gaming community as consumers). But they're not.

You are right the digital market right now is crap. That is all the more reason that reducing the price on digital products would lose the company money.

Id say they stand to lose a lot more if they don't get their act together.

Zappanale:
We have a little system called the market for determining these answers.

.
The company that will come in and break the AAA market will come in, the moment after the Messiah says hello and saves us.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked