What would it take to make you accept Digital Distrubtion as THE standard?

I mean for all non-essential products. The stores will not exist unless the company choose to fund their own stores. Not just consoles. Entertainment stores in general.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']Just having a little fun with photoshop :)

PhotoshopWeeee.gif
[/quote]

That's what I'm talking about!!
 
Industry-wide DD is a long, long way off. Who is the #1 games retailer? Wal-Mart. Does anyone honestly believe that, one, the average Wal-Mart customer is going to accept buying a game without actually physically having the game? Of course not, and rightfully so. What do large portions of those customers do with those games when they're done with them? Trade them in to GameStop. Second, do you think for a moment that Wal-Mart will sell any console that is DD-only when that would immediately remove a significant revenue stream for them? Not a chance. If Wal-Mart tells you to take your product and kick rocks, you then have a very serious problem. Back to GameStop. Regardless of how you feel about them, if you prefer hard copies of your games (and most everyone should) then they are fighting on your side in this battle. Yes, their TIV's suck but at least they're working for the business model that you want to see continue. DD has two purposes; to put even more money in the publishers' poclets (which is fine, pending the means) and to take away any control you have over your personal copy of the game. What you do with a game after you buy it, short of piracy, is none of the publsiher's business. For them to try to change that is nothing but arrogance and greed of the highest order. Does Ford try to tell you that you can't sell your car after you've bought it from them? What about the company that built your house? If I want to sell my chainsaw to someone, Husqvarna doesn't try to control that. Owning what you buy is a basic tenent of our economic system and for a company to think that should change that is, like I said earlier, unbridled arrogance.

Another problem with DD. The broadband penetration in this country is nowhere near where it would have to be to make this a viable alternative for publishers. For DD to work two things would have to happen. BB penetration would have to significantly increase which is hugely expensive and time consuming. This won't happen for many years. Second, consumer attitudes would have to change about ownership of product. You'll have an easier time hoping Osama Bin Laden walks up to a U.S, military base and says "I surrender". People want to own what they buy and do with it whatever they want. That's just not going to change. Remember, games are just entertainment. Makes games too prohibitve to get or too restrictive to use and people will find something else.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']I mean for all non-essential products. The stores will not exist unless the company choose to fund their own stores. Not just consoles. Entertainment stores in general.[/quote]
And what about multi-purpose stores, like Walmart or Target.

In addition, the non-DD console is going to have an automatic price advantage at retail.

The non-DD can say to Walmart, we are going to give you this machine to sell, but you're not going to make any money off it. Instead, you will make your money off games. Walmart accepts. This is the current model.

The DD only machine cant say that to Walmart. Walmart is going to need a profit of some sort in order to carry the machine. If the DD and the non-DD machine are equal, the non-DD one gets the advantage at retail unless the manufacturer is going to pay a comission per unit so they can have price parity with their non-DD competitor.
 
Those sections of the store would become display model only with the ability to order your stuff at provided centers online for either home delivery or in store pickup.

Non-DD and DD alike would have games available to try out, but no actual stock there to purchase.
 
And why exactly would, Nintendo for example, go along with that plan, when they can stick to the classical retail model and clean the fuck up?

Where is this assumption coming from that people are going to not buy at retail or that existing outlets will vanish?
 
Like I said, they would fund their own stores, and people who like that in store thing can flock to nintendo for it. Assuming they can afford to open enough locations. Walmart and co, sick of the minimal profit they make on the bazillions of nintendo hardware units being sold, ask for a portion of profits from hardware. Nintendo says no way no way I think you need a new one.

And assumption? More like a fantasy that I am currently entertaining because it is interesting to talk and think about. I don't expect it to happen.
 
I just skimmed thru the the post and I did'nt see the biggest knock against DD, it might of been there and I missed it. Anyway DD will never ( I repeat never, as in never ever) be a viable option as long as ISP's are capping people. Cox is trying to implement a 40 gig cap on downloads per month. So if I download a couple low def movies a hi-def and some random vids, poof my cap is done. How can I download some games. Especially now that games are getting so large, hell Sacred 2 is almost 20 gigs.
 
In that scenario where Walmart asks for a cut of the hardware, Nintendo says no, but you can have a fat profit from games and accessories. Walmart says yes and business continues as usual.

Its the transition that is hard to imagine actually happening.
 
And to those of you who dislike the idea of a DD future, are you already downloading anything for pay? (full games as well as DLC).

If so, you are not only part of the problem, but are working against your own self-expressed interests.
 
I can honestly say I've never bought any DLC for games and only 1 mp3. I like my hard copies, both in practicality and principle.
 
One thing standing in the way, IMO, is cheap, reliable, fail-safe, solid-state storage. As flash memory gets faster, cheaper, and higher capacity, it would make much more sense to increase digital distro.

As someone who does some side work as a photographer, I can't tell you how much solid-state storage is on my mind. It would be lovely to have a RAID array with 3 Drives that don't have a single moving part, that would have such a low failure rate that I wouldn't have to worry about it for 20 years.

If I could have two 1TB SSDs for about $300 with a network enclosure, or hell, even just USB 2.0/1394, it would be beautiful...
 
The thing that bugs me about DD is the freaking downloads...

I Dl'd Counterstrike and was going to download Day of Defeat but it would take so long I couldn't handle it. My mom using the laptop at night and my brother during the day, I can't be waiting to play a game for the same price if not more than what it would cost to go pick up somewhere around here.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I will never embrace it unless there is a way to (i) sell the download (either back to where it came from or to a third party) and (ii) trade it with someone else. The pricing and access issues you mentioned are important too - I don't want to pay $60 for a year old game and I certainly want the ability to play whatever I buy 10, 20 or 30+ years from now if I'm in the mood.[/quote]

This.

None of you have ever bought a piece of downloadable content in your life. Because buying something implies ownership, and ownership implies the ability to transfer that ownership to another party. DLC is more like a long term rental, where you are subject to the terms and conditions the true owner of the content places on you.

The game industry is desperate to move to a DLC model, because it's cheaper and theres no used market. And I don't get why the game industry is soo scared of the used market. I can sell my car, or my house, and buy used cars and houses and those industries survive. OK well those industries are in the toilet right now, but it's not because of the secondary market.

Good games still sell well regardless of the used market. Look at GTA IV, Fable II, Fallout 3, etc.. they all sold millions of copies.

If your game doesn't make money it's not the used markets fault. Your game either isn't very good, or it's appeal is too niche.

I probably buy close to a hunded games a year. If everything went to DLC, that would be reduced to 10 or 20 games a year.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']This.

None of you have ever bought a piece of downloadable content in your life. Because buying something implies ownership, and ownership implies the ability to transfer that ownership to another party. DLC is more like a long term rental, where you are subject to the terms and conditions the true owner of the content places on you.

The game industry is desperate to move to a DLC model, because it's cheaper and theres no used market. And I don't get why the game industry is soo scared of the used market. I can sell my car, or my house, and buy used cars and houses and those industries survive. OK well those industries are in the toilet right now, but it's not because of the secondary market.

Good games still sell well regardless of the used market. Look at GTA IV, Fable II, Fallout 3, etc.. they all sold millions of copies.

If your game doesn't make money it's not the used markets fault. Your game either isn't very good, or it's appeal is too niche.

I probably buy close to a hunded games a year. If everything went to DLC, that would be reduced to 10 or 20 games a year.[/QUOTE]

You buy a car though and drive it for several years. You buy a CD and enjoy it for god knows how long and by then the trade in value is nil. Games meanwhile seem to have a higher turn around then other industries. I think the used game bussiness probally is doing more damage then used cars or others. Thats not to say I dont think used game sales are wrong, I buy nothing but used games....I am just saying I can understand why developers dislike used game sales more.

Also on this subject I think most of you are being extreamly unreasonable. I am probaly one of the cheapest gamers at this site. Everything I play is usually around a year old since I wait for a game to be like $20 or below to pick it up and even then pick it up used here or from amazon(or craigslist for REAL cheap). It seems insane that you expect for the price to come down on DD AND to be able to resell games. I mean seriously a $20 price drop and developers to wave the right to their content solely to you. Yes DD will elimanate the middle man....but by doing this your just making a bigger head ache for them financially. Its like saying that Blue Rays cost too much so not only should the price be lowered but you should get any blue ray for free that you paid to see in theaters.
 
Face with the prospect of game companies raising games from 60 to 70 dollars for the traditional disc based sales vs keeping games at 60 dollars, but 100% digitally distributed, I'd have to pick the former. I'd rather have the hike in price then to fully give in to DD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alternatively, game companies could just keep their fucking costs down and charge $50.

As an aside, hardcore gamers tend to be very unreasonable people :)
 
How do you propose they keep their costs down? Games used to be developed by one person and sold for 50+ dollars. Now there's the need of a 20-30 person development team and they've only raised games to 60 (except for our friends at Nintendo) In fact, factoring in inflation, games cost less than they did in the past.

I hope I didn't come off too much like a "But think of the game companies!" queer. But you were being so... hardcore... and unreasonable.
 
The things that would have to happen for me to embrace a full shift to DD:
* Lowered prices. I know dev costs are rising, but we also keep hearing how DD will reduce production costs. Fine, share that in the price.
* Resalability. No way am I going to pay 60 bucks for a game I can never sell/give away.
* Price drops. The used market, like in every other industry, helps determine the 'value' of older items via price drops and sales. Used market also helps fund the new market. One big fear I have about DD is that then MS or SOny or whoever would have sole power over the entire pricing structure, and will offer only token price drops or sales. Full price for a two year old game? No.
* Less abuse in future DLC. The community spoke up and didn't let Battlefield Bad Co get away with it, and there's some DLC quite worth it, but it would be too easy for them to sell a full price DD game then require additional purchases to make it playable.
* Full and permanent recovery rights, and permanent archiving. I can still play Crossbow on the Atari 2600 with the cart in my garage. I will not pay 40-60 bucks for a game that i can only access as long as the company stays in business--or until they decide they don't want to use that server space for my game anymore.
* Ability to play it on more than one machine (not at the same time).
* Ability to play it offline easily. I shouldn't have to be logged in so my wife can play a DD game I bought.
* Infrastructure to support it. More than one broadband ISP is throttling or limiting user downloads. If buying one DD game will take a day to download and use up my month's transfer limits, I won't be buying it.
* Improved quality of games. For every Fallout 3 that is worth full price and more, there are 10 games that are not even worth (to me) twenty bucks. The beauty of the current marketplace is that games eventually drop to a price where the price/value balance is right for me and everyone else.

Actually, the more I write, the more resistant I am to DD, and the more avidly I will support the hard copies and the used market.
Developers don't like used games because they don't get the money from it. If car dealerships or DVD
stores or CD stores or new bookstores could eliminate the used market, they would.

No matter how they spin it, a push toward full DD marketplace is 99% for the developers benefit as opposed to the consumers.

I have bought DLC and DD-content, but I've felt dirty doing it.
 
[quote name='darthbudge']Nothing.

$5-$15 is the most I will pay for any digital distribution game.[/quote]

This. If I dont have a hard copy I will pay next to nothing for it. Reason why I dont download anything thats not free on live or psn.
 
I've already accepted it, but it varies between whether I buy disc or download. I spent $40 for Siren: Blood Curse on PSN and definitely don't regret it.
 
I'd have to have a way to resell and buy cheap through an electronic version of Goozex--which will never happen.

I don't game enough to buy many games or keep them around after buying so digital distribution has little appeal for me. But I'll have even less time for gaming in the near future, so it may be a moot point anyway.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']Face with the prospect of game companies raising games from 60 to 70 dollars for the traditional disc based sales vs keeping games at 60 dollars, but 100% digitally distributed, I'd have to pick the former. I'd rather have the hike then to fully give in to DD.[/quote]

I agree. At least with physical media, the market dictates the price. A crap game drops to $20 quickly because it's already been manufactured and the publisher needs to see a return on the money they spent to make that game. DLC normally stays the same price forever, with the occasional sale, or 'greatest hits' pricing.

I'm not completely anti-DLC though. There's DLC that's done right, and there's DLC that's done wrong.

The Wrong way: XBLA, Virtual Console, PS3 Store. - Games are overpriced imo, as once development is done, the remaining costs associated with the games are zero. And in the case of classic virtual console games, even development costs are next to nothing. $5 for a NES game? Really? I can get most of those carts for $1 at flea markets or ebay. At $5, I purchaed ONE VC NES game. If they were $1 each, I'd probably have purchased 20 or more by now. I will give you more money if you give me more for my money. XBLA games are tied to the console you bought them on, and not your gamertag. Internet down and your on your second or third 360? fuck you you can't play.

The Right way: STEAM. You setup an account and download your games to as many PC's as you want, over and over again. Piracy is prevented by only allowing you to log onto one PC at a time. Steam has frequent sales and discounts of it's games. And crappy games are cheaper than the better games. STEAM could be better, cos I don' think you can play without an active internet connection, but it's still light years ahead of console DLC solutions.

The REALLY WRONG WAY: Physical media games that 'nickel and dime' you for DLC that should have been on there to begin with. Is there DLC for a store bought game available on release day? That should have been on the disc. And the worst is when you buy DLC and it is simply a code that unlocks the content thats already on the disc. That's like a kick in the balls. I also hate DLC that give you in game advantage over people who don't, won't or can't pay for it. Costumes are fine, but buying better guns for use in a multiplayer FPS? Richass gamers then have an advantage over college kids and other cag's, it's bullshit.
 
No tangible value, so it has to be extremely cheap. $5 or less. Not a cent more because it's $5 down the toilet when the console dies and most likely I would guess have draconian DRM. So, basically it's a rental.
 
I want the physical copy. I don't need their license to play my on my machine. I like buying games used and as a consumer I enjoy the second hand market and the competition in that drives prices down for me. Getting a few bucks out of a game I have enjoyed is a nice thing that we would all lose with digital downloads. With DD you would get the standard disclaimer saying they are beholden to nothing and your rights are non-existent. DD is a Trojan horse that will never be welcome in my living room, except for maybe video rental if the prices ever get to $1.
 
I don't see myself ever accepting digital distribution as the default method to get my entertainment. I want to actually OWN what I paid for. And with ownership comes the ability to transfer that ownership. I would need the ability to lend/trade/sell my game to whomever I damn well please.

Also, I don't want any DRM whatsoever. I don't want my ability to play my game that I paid for to be contingent on someone else. I don't care that your activation server is no longer running, I had damn well better be able to play my game.

If digital distribution doesn't give me all of the benefits of actually owning a physical copy, I'm not interested. I'd rather wash my hands of new games and play exclusively retro games than give up my rights of ownership.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']How do you propose they keep their costs down? Games used to be developed by one person and sold for 50+ dollars. Now there's the need of a 20-30 person development team and they've only raised games to 60 (except for our friends at Nintendo) In fact, factoring in inflation, games cost less than they did in the past.

I hope I didn't come off too much like a "But think of the game companies!" queer. But you were being so... hardcore... and unreasonable.[/QUOTE]

1 word. Atlus! Look at Atlus they have made a success of themselves without releasing games at $60 a pop. Instead of trying to make big bright flashy jaw dropping epics they have focused on the DS and last gen systems and released games that look simple but have a lot of depth.

These companies dont have to make multi million dollar games....they choose to.

Edit - Again think im kind of done arguing on the DD side......people as per usual are being completely unreasonable and illogical about this.
 
Shutting out the used/2nd-hand game market by going all digital would be a blow to the economy as a whole. Gamestop has how many thousands of stores? Put all those people out of work, reduce rental income on the properties where GS has a store, etc. Same goes for other chains and independent shops. No more game rentals either means probably more closures of places like Hollywood Video, Family Video, and Blockbuster so that's even more people out of work.

I like digital distribution as another option for buying games--more choices for the consumer are never a bad thing. But I don't see it shifting 100% digital anytime soon.
 
Theres nothing illogical or unreasonable about not wanting something under any circumstances. If someone doesnt like liquorish, it would be a waste of time to ask, 'so what do we have to do in order to get you to like liquorish?"

We dont want digital distribution.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Theres nothing illogical or unreasonable about not wanting something under any circumstances. If someone doesnt like liquorish, it would be a waste of time to ask, 'so what do we have to do in order to get you to like liquorish?"

We dont want digital distribution.[/QUOTE]

1. Its fine and dandy if you dont want it but you must accept its coming. The people who were never real gamers like yourself will just quit playing games. But to any real gamer the choice again becomes how to make this transition in the best possible way.

2. Most of the people I am saying are being illogical are the people that say they will accept DD but only if they get price drops and the abilty to resell their product. This is NOT going to happen and its compltly unreasonable. I understand that we have the abilty to do this now but if a developer gave both of these things to gamers with a DD format it would cost them insane amounts of money. Lets say they make an extra $30 on every game they sell via DD but they have to drop the price the $20 it seems people here demand. Then their only making $10 more....if people then turn around and sell their copy to others which DD if anything would make easier it would mean it would ruin even the $10 profit. They cant do both....
 
You have to accept digital distribution to be a real gamer? Really?

I play an awful amount of games for someone who isnt a gamer (25-30 single player titles cleared per year). I also won $1500 in 2008 playing (not)game tournaments.

Then again, I consider online gaming to be nearly false gaming, so I guess we're even. Technically gaming, but super casual. Or as I like to say, hardly core.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']You have to accept digital distribution to be a real gamer? Really?

I play an awful amount of games for someone who isnt a gamer (25-30 single player titles cleared per year). I also won $1500 in 2008 playing (not)game tournaments.

Then again, I consider online gaming to be nearly false gaming, so I guess we're even. Technically gaming, but super casual. Or as I like to say, hardly core.[/quote]

WTH are you trying to say here.
Ive read it like 15 times, and the only thing you come off as is.
Iwingames-imkindahardcore-ihatenextgen-imnotcasual-butireallykindaam-onlinegaming is fake-itswhathardcorecareaboutbutitscasual- Core.

What are you trying to say that Hardcores are really casuals, that you secretly own a Pinoneer Plasma and love HD games.
HRRM?
HRMMMMMMMM?
HRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']three main groups
-hardcore
-casual
-online gamers (casuals who parade around as hardcore)[/quote]

So you are saying people who play over 40 hours a week of WoW, and organize tons of stuff for guilds and run endgame stuff arent hardcore?

You sir have no idea what you are talking about.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']:whistle2:s
That's a simple way to look at it.[/quote]

I mean my steam games are held server side forever, and if something ever happens to steam they said all they have to do is hit a switch and all the games become DRM free.

This way I never have to put a disc into my drive, I never have to find room for the stupidly large pc game boxes, and all my games stay updated all the time.

Its win win.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']You have to accept digital distribution to be a real gamer? Really?

I play an awful amount of games for someone who isnt a gamer (25-30 single player titles cleared per year). I also won $1500 in 2008 playing (not)game tournaments.

Then again, I consider online gaming to be nearly false gaming, so I guess we're even. Technically gaming, but super casual. Or as I like to say, hardly core.[/QUOTE]

I saw some dice-rollin' dragon-slayin' drool-nerds passing by, and they told me to tell you you can go fuck yourself with +3 INT. Or somethin' like that.

I know you like to be...unique...or something to that effect. But let's be real: any sort of "this is NOT a game and this IS" is pithy semantic silliness. When we see "Wii Balance Our Checkbook With Our Miis!" then I'll revisit this issue; but not until then.

As for what will make me accept digital distribution as the standard? Who am I kidding? The same as it will for you: as long as it takes them to adopt it as the standard. They may drag us kicking and screaming and pissing and moaning, but don't act like you'll give up gaming. :lol:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']They may drag us kicking and screaming and pissing and moaning, but don't act like you'll give up gaming. :lol:[/quote]


Are you kidding? DMK already has a Unabomber-style shack in MT filled with electric generators, canned beans, toilet paper, and SDTVs.

When DD becomes standard, he'll write bizarre letters signed with "HDTV LAG!"
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] They may drag us kicking and screaming and pissing and moaning, but don't act like you'll give up gaming. :lol:[/quote]

Well at best I may just stop buying new games and play the ones I already have, but I think I could give up playing games.

I could easily find something else to do with my time. I sometimes think the Music, Movie and Games industies think DD is some utopia where they can hold people to ransome, perhaps forgetting their goods are luxuary items which can easily be given up, or just stolen (which I don't condone).

When air, water and food are digitally distributed, then I'll start to worry about it.
 
It would take a few things for me to accept the loss of physical media in favor of DD.

-A significant drop in price since the manufacture process has been cut out.(which is why i actually do buy from Steam sometimes).

-Complete transferrability of the product. This means being able to access it anywhere on anyone's computer or device, and the ability to transfer Ownership if i should decide to gift or sell what i have purchased.

-Some garuntee of product availability in the event that the provider goes out of business. Either through the transfer of the service to another provider, or a legacy server of somekind, or a distribution of a physical media version of the products purchased.

-A quicker easier to access compatibility checker that will ensure 100% compatibility of the products PRIOR to purchase/download.(i know some companies have them, but they're cumbersome, and not always accurate i have found.)

-Expasions or DLC included at a discount rate or free if the original product is purchased at full retail, or as a preorder. (wishful thinking, i know lol)



Honestly though, I'm a gamer who doesn't really give a crap what format the game comes in, so long as it's completely playable, has full content, and I can enjoy it. I liked Braid, despite being DD, i liked Fallout3 , even without the upcoming DLC, and no online, I liked Team Fortress 2, portal, and the rest of orange box. Really, i like the way things currently are with a blend of DLC, DD, and physical media. I suppose i'm just a random gamer.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']You have to accept digital distribution to be a real gamer? Really?

I play an awful amount of games for someone who isnt a gamer (25-30 single player titles cleared per year). I also won $1500 in 2008 playing (not)game tournaments.

Then again, I consider online gaming to be nearly false gaming, so I guess we're even. Technically gaming, but super casual. Or as I like to say, hardly core.[/QUOTE]

All a gamer is is a person who loves playing games. So if you will quit gaming all together not playing them anymore just because they do not head down the format road you want them to....then ya you aint much of a gamer.

And Floods I wouldnt waste your time on him. He loves the Wii and thinks its the best system and has the brightest future.....yet doesnt consider MMOs real games.......that should say it all. There are plenty of genres I hate, but that doesnt mean I say o those arnt real games.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I know you like to be...unique...or something to that effect. But let's be real: any sort of "this is NOT a game and this IS" is pithy semantic silliness. When we see "Wii Balance Our Checkbook With Our Miis!" then I'll revisit this issue; but not until then.
[/QUOTE]
:lol: Funniest thing I've read all morning.

But, Floods, you still haven't addressed the major flaw of not being able to sell the games we supposedly possess if DD takes over.
 
[quote name='munkapotamus']-Some garuntee of product availability in the event that the provider goes out of business.[/quote]
Well, what happens right now when the companies who run servers for online multiplayer games and MMOs are unable/unwilling to support them any longer (not exactly the same situation, but at least partly analogous)? This has already happened for practically all PS2/Xbox/GameCube games with online components. Is it considered okay for the online component to only work temporarily as long as there's also a single-player component that can't be disabled? And for MMOs that have to shut down and disable all functionality associated with the purchased game, is this just an accepted risk of buying/playing this kind of game?

It seems to me that there's a certain level of acceptance in these situations and not a lot of outcry that gamers who paid for the game shouldn't be denied all or part of the functionality that they originally paid for.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']All a gamer is is a person who loves playing games. So if you will quit gaming all together not playing them anymore just because they do not head down the format road you want them to....then ya you aint much of a gamer.
[/quote]
I'll always be playing games. I just wont be playing the newest games. I'll be a retro-gamer. Unless retro-gamers arent gamers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top