An era of all online gaming.

RELISCH

CAGiversary!
Feedback
10 (100%)
so there are rumors of the next gen systems (ps4, xbox 720) having all download libraries. this saddens me.

first off, sony tried that with the psp go. it sold terribly. downloadable games are cool and all, but people like their physical copies. game collectors, friends lending games to friends, gamestop. these are just some examples of people who need physical copies of games.

second off, what if you don't have internet? no gaming for you? even single player? that's bullshit. and yes i realize most everyone has a reliable internet connection, but some a lot of people who live in my area do not. so gaming in the next gen would be impossible for them.

third, there are rumors of the games being tied to one account and only available via a cloud server. so, families with multiple accounts can;t share games? friends can't lend their games to other friends? when your internet goes down you can't even continue story mode? doesn't sound like fun to me.

and not to mention what else changes in gaming if this happens. gamefly will have to change their format completely. anyone who collects will have to stop at the current generation. gamestop will be ruined (no one cares). no more midnight releases of block buster games. instead we will all get codes 2 hours early so our game can be downloaded to our consoles by 12am. and multiple accounts for one person? forget it.


well i just felt like ranting. what do you guys think of this rumored game marketplace?
 
If the always required online/one account activation comes to consoles, I will be done with them. I will be sticking to PC gaming for all of my future gaming needs if it comes to this. Console games sell well due to their convenience and their ability to be resold, and taking both of these away could kill off consoles or severely damage their profits.

As for the PSP Go, I don't feel it sold poorly due to being an all digital system. What caused it to sell poorly is the insane price on the console itself, and the lack of game availability on the PSN Store (many PSP games were released on UMD, but not PSN). If Sony would have launched the system for $129-$149, and made sure all games were available on PSN, the Go probably would have done pretty well.
 
The PSPgo was a bungled effort on Sony's part. Similar to how they screwed up the hard drive support on the PS2. In both cases there was insufficient commitment and the product lacked appeal as a result. In both cases it didn't sink an otherwise successful platform, although I'm fairly certain the PSPgo was much more costly of a failure than the PS2 hard drive.

An entirely new platform would be a very different story. Taking the points in order:

No, most people have made it abundantly clear they don't care all that much about physical copies and lending to friends, etc. They care about price. Cheap smartphone and tablet games doing terrific business but that cannot be resold have made this very clear, as have very profitable titles exclusive to XBLA, PSN, and Steam that offer no resale.

Don't have internet access? Then it's pretty likely you aren't in the market for much in the way of games. The companies are going to decide on a feature that represents their platform. As more features are reliant on an internet connection the easier it becomes to dismiss those without access as potential customers.

This may be surprising but at the dawn of commercial television there was still a good percentage of American homes that didn't have electricity. This didn't stop companies like RCA from putting lots of capital behind the implementation of the broadcast networks, studio gear, and consumer equipment to make TV into a huge business. It was just one more reason for those lacking electricity to do something about it.

To not launch a new business because a small portion of the population cannot participate is just dumb. If your product is desirable it will induce potential customers to bridge the gap. Trying to meet them halfway just creates miserable compromises, like WebTV.

"Mr. Zuckerberg, don't you realize many people still don't have internet access? How could this Facebook proposal possibly succeed?"

(Side note: I was pretty surprised in the early 90s when I found out a friend living near San Diego had to run his own generator for electrical supply. He had this A-frame he'd inherited in an undeveloped area and couldn't resist the low cost of living there while saving up money for a place he'd really like. He ended up cashing in big time from stock options when his employer was bought out, so it was a wasted effort but it was interesting how close he was to a major city but without full utilities.)

Games are already tied to specific accounts on iOS, Android, PSN, XBLA, etc. These services mostly have provisions for family accounts already, with features like parental controls. These things will gain in sophistication. But no, you aren't going to lend discs to your friends. If they have the platform they can download the demo for free.

One of the ways I used to justify my huge library was that I was the game librarian for the extended family. My nephews and nieces regarded me as the coolest adult in existence. But they're all grown now and mostly live far away. And modern platforms offer free demos for almost everything. I don't need that excuse anymore.

Gamefly has a very limited future. Everybody knows it, especially them. They are not ignorant of what happened to Hollywood Video and the way Blockbuster is a mere shadow of its former self. Things change. Business model die while new ones appear. When I got my first computer a small game company might be a couple guys selling stuff on cassette tapes in ziploc bags. Ten years ago, it was a few guys with a web site. Now those guy have their stuff on the big online stores and compete effectively with far bigger companies. It's a lot harder to tell who is a garage operation when all you see is the product and the page selling it.

Gamefly days are numbered. GameStop is structured to wind itself down gracefully. See this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-gamestop-idUSBRE8320U320120403

They, of course, don't admit to the cold hard reality but they've structured themselves in such a way to squeeze the most money out of the stores before their numbers decline and eventually the business is shifted to an entirely different focus.

The entire basis of Gamefly's business is high purchase prices for games. If the market shifts to higher volumes to offer lower prices, that business model is over. Though new platforms with a pure download distribution model may offer a subscription model. You'll be dealing direct with the platform maker rather than a third party.

I am entirely confident these things will happen. The only real question is how long the transition takes. The original Xbox's download offerings never got any purchases from me. But I've bought quite a few items on the Xbox 360's choices. This went from an oddball experiment to a run of the mill experience in well under a decade. Mobile platform are almost exclusively download distribution only. Consoles and PCs offer it as an option. It isn't a huge leap for a new console to move the trend ahead.
 
Not a huge fan of going all digital, because I like collecting games, and I'm worried about what ISPs might try to do if everybody downloads every game. 1 time use registration codes for playing physical discs seems much more likely, and is the way to go.

About the "No internet, no games" thing, if you honestly don't have home internet, buying games should be a lower priority. And if you can't afford internet, you're probably buying used games anyway, and the game companies don't give a shit about used game buyers, for good reason.

As for the PSPGo, I personally didn't buy one because it didn't support UMD's. The same reason I haven't bought a Vita, and probably won't until it drops to $150 or so. Had Sony released the PSPGo at the same time as the original PSP, and had every game on the PSN, then it would have been more successful.
 
My money's on "we're still a console generation away".

That said, they definitely want it. And publishers want it. Holy shit, publishers can't god damn wait.
 
I can't wait to see what publisher's blame when the games on an all-download, unhacked console don't sell like previously.

"It's the solar flares, dammit! Next generation, let's get Sony and Microsoft to block out the sun!" And then the Wii U 2 will come with a free tanning bed.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']My money's on "we're still a console generation away".

That said, they definitely want it. And publishers want it. Holy shit, publishers can't god damn wait.[/QUOTE]

That's my take on it as well.

I think we'll see a big move toward digital distribution next generation, but I think we're a generation for that being the only way to get games.

I think they'll use next gen doing it more, getting people more used to it, and giving more time for broadband coverage to spread, bandwith cap issues to be resolved etc. before going totally download only the next go around.

Not a lot of point in beating this dead horse more though, as these arguments have been done to death in the "no more used games" thread a few posts down.
 
Sounds like an awful idea.

Not only because the overall price of gaming will drastically rise (which since I don't pirate is something I can somewhat deal with in order to get better games), but we probably WON'T get better games and even if we do the amount of cost put into them will be almost unnoticeable...

Not only because it won't change the fact that we will still be getting China quality consoles outside of the disc reading parts (which really isn't that much)...

Not only because we will be forced to directly support game companies that we don't WANT to support (Koei, Crapcom, Ubi, EA) instead of used game stores that bring atmosphere, social interaction, and sometimes lots of knowledge that I DO want to support... (keep in mind that I live in an area where they are tons of used game stores and a lot of useless and empty strip malls)

Not only because there is a chance that the service will work like the Wii or the PSN where if something completely normal happens (console quality = poop) then you may have to re-buy games because they won't make an effort to make their services work correctly...

Not only because we all know how big of a ripoff monthly plans are compared to how much it actually costs them to maintain it and we all know that this would only speed up that process (and I don't even want to get into having to get and keep new TVs just to play games)...

TL;DR: Sucks. I would be fine with all digital if the benefits outweighed the costs, and I don't trust any of the big-named companies to do that. They would rather make some extra money for a quarter instead of coming up with a full-proof consumer beneficial solution.
 
[quote name='Jodou']Thing is, you need a delivery service like Steam or Origin to be successful. If everything went DD, then developers would cut out the middleman and publishers would go bye-bye. I think you fail to realize most publishers only exist because of physical storefronts. It's the same reason why steam is so popular with the indie crowd, since it offers a cheap alternative to distribute the product without the cost of a publisher.[/QUOTE]

You still need publisher for advertising and funding. I think we learn that from iOS.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']My money's on "we're still a console generation away".

That said, they definitely want it. And publishers want it. Holy shit, publishers can't god damn wait.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I think this generation will be spent toying with a few AAA titles going digital only, or maybe premiering through digital channels in advance of B&M, to test the waters. However, it's true that the infrastructure is lagging behind, so who knows.

But yeah, it solves virtually *all* of the industry's concerns. They can't get there fast enough, they've just got to wise up a bit and resist the institutional distrust of anything related to Change.

What I enjoy in these discussions are the folks who pipe in with anecdotal "Well, dammit, *I* won't be buying consoles...WHO'S WITH ME?!" I understand this impulse as I've done some soapboxing of my own. For instance, I'm still grumbling about the 3DS not being portable and its 3D being the eyecrossing, migrane inducing gimmick of all gimmicks, yet somehow that doesn't prevent people from buying them. Nintendo's all cha-ching, and I'm all, "WTF, I thought we were rising up against this bullshit? C'mon everybody! Get mad about this, seriously guys..."
 
[quote name='Renaissance 2K']I can't wait to see what publisher's blame when the games on an all-download, unhacked console don't sell like previously.[/QUOTE]

I think, as Steam has demonstrated, the model of selling new games for $60 will go right out the window. Part of the benefit of having the game is a physical format is the flexibility it offers you. You can take it to your friend's house. You can let your friend borrow it. You can even sell it.

In a digital future, at least one defined by the video game industry, all of this goes out the window. In my mind, it is worth less because you are tying it to one account and are limited as to where you can transport it. You also can't sell it, and who knows how long you can keep it.

Personally, I have a hard enough time justifying playing $60 for a game, but for those who can beat a game in a week and still get a lot of value in trade/sale for it, it isn't such a bad deal. In this future, those people are now going to have to eat that $60, and I think there are less that are going to be willing to do that.
 
if they an pull it off like steam then im all for it. damn one i get a new pc i really have to find my old steam account info i wouldnt mind playing hl2 again.
 
If they eliminate the physical media, I can't see games starting prices at more than $40, maybe even $30, with the possible exception of AAA titles. There will be no physical media, packaging, or shipping costs and several middle men (retailers, wholesalers, etc) will be dropped out of the equation. They should be capable of making better profits at lower prices.
 
[quote name='TheLongshot']I think, as Steam has demonstrated, the model of selling new games for $60 will go right out the window.[/QUOTE]
This is... wishful thinking.

Not impossible, to be certain.

But very optimistic.
 
[quote name='watcher0']If they eliminate the physical media, I can't see games starting prices at more than $40, maybe even $30, with the possible exception of AAA titles. There will be no physical media, packaging, or shipping costs and several middle men (retailers, wholesalers, etc) will be dropped out of the equation. They should be capable of making better profits at lower prices.[/QUOTE]

Imagine the costs of all them servers. How many Gigabytes do you think all current gen games make up? We'll probably have to put all them servers in the outback after the inevitable bombing of them evil Australians.

For the record, I don't hate Australians, just the deathtrap of a continent/country it is.
 
[quote name='watcher0']If they eliminate the physical media, I can't see games starting prices at more than $40, maybe even $30, with the possible exception of AAA titles. There will be no physical media, packaging, or shipping costs and several middle men (retailers, wholesalers, etc) will be dropped out of the equation. They should be capable of making better profits at lower prices.[/QUOTE]

Unless the console makers allow their dd games to be sold by competitors like Amazon or walmart.com, you can forget about lower prices. The main reason Steam has such great sales is because there are plenty of other places to buy pc games, even steamworks games. I've gotten plenty of low-priced pc games in the last year from Gamersgate and Amazon.

Without competition from other merchants and used games, dd console games that are only available from the console makers will hold their prices for quite some time.
 
[quote name='ryuk1214']Imagine the costs of all them servers. How many Gigabytes do you think all current gen games make up? We'll probably have to put all them servers in the outback after the inevitable bombing of them evil Australians.

For the record, I don't hate Australians, just the deathtrap of a continent/country it is.[/QUOTE]

Steam manages to make it work.
 
It will be a problem getting the products to retail that is for sure, will Walmart want to sell a game console that they cannot make any money on after the initial purchase of the console and maybe a download card or 2? The only thing they would be able to make money on is the additional purchase of download cards or perhaps a controller when the one you have wears out. The margin on download cards is also next to nothing. Unless Walmart or the other retailers get a bigger cut of the profits from this mythical machine and the download cards I can't see them being too happy about it.

Gamestop will be dead, but I really don't think anyone cares about that here, but one thing is for sure I wouldn't want to be holding one of the higher positions in that company nor would I want to be a person who has been with them for some time. I know several people who work for GS here personally, one already got out and went back to school which is looking to be a better and better idea but one is still working for them as the manager of a store. These people will almost certainly lose their jobs at some point and be stuck with nothing. I know they are making money by offering digital content for cash, but a kiosk where you put money in and it spits out a download code for a game could be installed in any retail store so I don't see that being unique at all. They could turn into another phone store or a used electronics product store like with their used iPad's and iPhones but there are so many players in this area that it would be difficult to make a name for themselves. Selling retro video games wouldn't work because most people want to trade in their old games for new ones and unless they somehow take in used games for download cards for the new systems that just won't work.

My take on it is that honestly its easier for consumers if the industry goes all digital, there is a problem with ISP data caps though, but if Comcast is any indication Sony, MS and Nintendo could likely work with ISP's to make sure that the bandwidth used by their console doesn't count towards your monthly limitation. Consumers get digital only content, with iPhones abound and cell phones, what they don't get is buying a disc that you can't trade in. Having a split between physical and digital will confuse consumers and there are bound to be people who try to resell those used discs even though they will likely have no functionality whatsoever when reaching the second user. Assuming you can't use the console without connecting to the internet at all, if its gonna go this way its just better for consumers if the industry does indeed go all digital.
 
[quote name='SaraAB']It will be a problem getting the products to retail that is for sure, will Walmart want to sell a game console that they cannot make any money on after the initial purchase of the console and maybe a download card or 2?[/QUOTE]

This keeps coming up in text walls, and I don't understand why. I'd think CAG of all places would be ahead of the curve on this, but instead I read haughty bullshit like "I own my games, I don't rent them" or "Walmart/gamestop won't allow this."

The retailer argument is especially funny because, WTF, they just put the consumer and a product in the same room. Retailers aren't going to influence anything to do with the direction of the entertainment industry when that industry is shitting bricks over piracy, used market sales eating into new sales, etc.

Did the retailers say to eReader manufacturers, "Hey we won't sell those because people buy eBooks instead of books, and we don't sell eBooks, and therefore we're not selling a product that facilitates another market we're not privy to! We're putting a stop to this electronic book business, by jove!" What about Roku or any other streaming boxes, did B&M retailers have a conniption fit with Roku because they stream Netflix, and Netflix potentially cuts into B&M DVD sales?

Hell no, in those cases and countless others, the Walmarts, the Targets, or whoever slap a sticker on it and sell that shit.

Once the most lucrative segment of consumers is 1) connected and 2) comfortable with on-demand/DD, the old times of used games and whatever bullshit are gone. As others have stated, it's at least a generation away. My hope is that in the meantime people will abandon these bullshit arguments and asides that are completely ignorant of the entire direction of the entertainment industry.
 
[quote name='dothog']

The retailer argument is especially funny because, WTF, they just put the consumer and a product in the same room. Retailers aren't going to influence anything to do with the direction of the entertainment industry when that industry is shitting bricks over piracy, used market sales eating into new sales, etc.
[/QUOTE]



if you don't think gamestop has any influence, you're the one who is wholly ignorant of the industry.

The industry can't just flip a switch and go digital. There's gonna be a period where gamestop is still vital to the sales for publishers and console makers.

What do you think happens when a publisher wants gamestop to push a title and that publisher is also saying that they are going digital with all their other games?

The industry is not going to go digital until the tide has shifted and people are comfortable buying digital games. At what price point is it worth it to buy digital vs physical? For an average joe consumer who still buys triple a titles at $60, will they be willing to go digital (i.e. can't trade back to gamestop or amazon or resell it) unless they get an incentive? Will they be willing to go digital for $50? 45? Because that's about what Gamestop is paying the publishers.

I know I wouldn't even consider a digital purchase over $20. There's no way publishers can afford to drop titles at launch below what they can get from Gamestop/Walmart/Target just to switch to digital. They just can't afford it. Gamestop (as much as we all hate them) will be here for at least another generation or two.

The reason why e-readers are different is because of shipping and printing costs of books and the fact that ebooks are cheaper and it was pushed by the biggest booksellers. And the fact that there are multiple times more books than games published a year. Plus it's much cheaper to the consumer, which is the key point. Your comparison to e-readers is completely foolish.

There's no incentive to the consumer to pay for digital downloads of full games. Because the publishers can't drop the price low enough to justify it to the consumer. And if they did, they'd be biting into their own sales.

I know CAGs think nobody buys games over $20 but the majority of video games aren't sold to CAGs.

It's not my job to convince some random person on the internet that he's wrong so I won't get too much further into it but you're wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gamestop can puff themselves up with some mealy-mouthed defense about driving up new sales through trade-ins, or others can say Gamestop serves a vital function in big release sales, but if Gamestop thinks it's doing anything that couldn't be done by umpteen other retailers, they're nuts. They've got about as much say in the direction of the entertainment industry -- gaming in particular -- as Cinnabon.

Gamestop and other retailers are along for the ride.
 
:roll:

yes, gamestop's model is so easy to do that everyone is doing it successfully right?

Tons of others have done it. You are so right.

I love how people are truly ignorant of business and let their opinion of gamestop dictate their analysis. I hate GS as much as the next guy but they are absolutely KILLING IT from a business standpoint. They are the kings of the hill in the industry and therefore has considerable influence. And if you don't think a distribution network has any influence on an industry, well, there's not much I can say for you.
 
makes little difference to me. i can live without console games. i'm probably set for life with all the games i have right now assuming i can play them (steam doesn't shut down). i know a lot of people who would be upset by this, but really the game industry has been doing stupid shit for so long now that i don't expect any miracles or a renaissance. kickerstarter has a glimmer of hope, but i'm sure companies will spin some bullshit and make it illegal.

if not, where there is a will there is a way and I'm sure i'll still be able to just download them, though i also have a feeling you better get into a private group now before its too late what with tbp shenanigans and megaupload dying..
 
[quote name='confoosious']:roll:

yes, gamestop's model is so easy to do that everyone is doing it successfully right?

Tons of others have done it. You are so right.

I love how people are truly ignorant of business and let their opinion of gamestop dictate their analysis. I hate GS as much as the next guy but they are absolutely KILLING IT from a business standpoint. They are the kings of the hill in the industry and therefore has considerable influence. And if you don't think a distribution network has any influence on an industry, well, there's not much I can say for you.[/QUOTE]
Keep rolling your eyes and ignoring the content of the thread.

You're giving way too much credit to distribution channels, and you're continuing to ignore the larger point. Gamestop has no influence on the direction of the industry. I'm not saying they'll go out of business tomorrow, but they're at the mercy of the whims of the industry. They're in no position to dictate terms to anyone on product, as the market is varied enough so that other retailers *can* fill the void (in spite of distribution, or some "special" relationship with the consumer, or whatever else.)

The idea that Gamestop has any say is as silly as claiming 30 years ago that theaters had a say in the home video market when VCR got big. Or 15 years ago when DVD sales picked up. Or that they do now over on-demand video. The theaters are left there holding popcorn and reminding people about "movie magic," the same way Gamestop invents their simple arguments, such as the one about how the used game market somehow boosts new sales and doesn't cut into industry profits at all.

Again, everyone's repeating the same tired reasons, like Gamestop or Retailer X matters, and they don't. DD, or always-on connections, would happen NOW if infrastructure and consumer habits supported it. The industry is licking their chops. They're not slowing up because of convoluted arguments by some games retailer about their overlooked role in distribution, or slightly increasing big title sales, or how they saved the industry that one time and no one noticed. They're slowing up because they're waiting on consumers.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']This is... wishful thinking.

Not impossible, to be certain.

But very optimistic.[/QUOTE]

Maybe I'm overestimating the intelligence of the average consumer, but in general it seems to prove out that people don't want to pay as much for a product that has no physical component. Maybe they will follow the book publishing industry and dictate the price, but many think that won't last.

[quote name='dothog']You're giving way too much credit to distribution channels, and you're continuing to ignore the larger point. Gamestop has no influence on the direction of the industry. I'm not saying they'll go out of business tomorrow, but they're at the mercy of the whims of the industry. They're in no position to dictate terms to anyone on product, as the market is varied enough so that other retailers *can* fill the void (in spite of distribution, or some "special" relationship with the consumer, or whatever else.)[/quote]

As long as the consumer prefers to buy physical product and trade in their product when they are done with it, Gamestop still will have considerable influence. Given that other retailers have gotten on the game trading bandwagon and the relative failure of the PSPGo, I don't think retailer influence will decrease all that much anytime soon.
 
[quote name='confoosious']
The reason why e-readers are different is because of shipping and printing costs of books and the fact that ebooks are cheaper and it was pushed by the biggest booksellers. And the fact that there are multiple times more books than games published a year. Plus it's much cheaper to the consumer, which is the key point. Your comparison to e-readers is completely foolish.[/QUOTE]

Ebooks aren't cheaper than their paperback counterparts most of the time. They're cheaper than hardcovers usually, but they usually cost the same or more as the paperback. Especially the past couple of years after agency pricing came into play and let publishers set prices. That will likely change with this current federal law suit of apple and the big publishers--but a few of them already settled out of court and the settlement still says Amazon can't sell e-books at an overall loss (i.e. they can mark some books down below cost, but would have to sell others above cost to make up the difference).

Now if you just meant that books are cheaper than games, then I guess that is fair. I buy e-books because they're more convenient than paperbooks, and the DRM doesn't affect me as I have no desire to resell them like I do games. But part of that is the lower price I suppose as I don't mind paying $5-10 to read a book once. But I don't like games enough to pay more than $20, maybe $30 if it's a long game, for something I'll only play once and can't sell off. For books, don't mind paying the same as for a paperback as it's a more convenient reading experience, and I'm not stuck with a paperbook I'll never read again and just end up donating somewhere anyway.

Personally, as I said in the other thread, it's moot to me. I'm at a point that I spend more time bitching about games online than playing them. So I'm not buying another game console period. I just don't have enough interest in gaming any more and other things I'd rather spend my time on. The possibility of going digital just makes it easier to quit as I definitely don't like gaming enough to invest in games I can't sell or trade.
 
[quote name='TheLongshot']As long as the consumer prefers to buy physical product and trade in their product when they are done with it, Gamestop still will have considerable influence. Given that other retailers have gotten on the game trading bandwagon and the relative failure of the PSPGo, I don't think retailer influence will decrease all that much anytime soon.[/QUOTE]
How does Best Buy entering what was previously a nearly exclusive racket for Gamestop have anything to do with retailer influence? If anything, it makes the used games market even more visible and deplorable to the industry. You're giving us Gamestop's desperate talking points, yet there are so many more meaningful examples of where Gamestop is headed that it's ridiculous. Nobody's mentioned the music industry yet. Did they buckle under the pressure of specialized retailers like Sam Goody, Tower Records, etc. when it came to MP3 sales via iTunes or Amazon?

The suits in the music industry knew that if they didn't change along with MAJOR changes in consumer habits, they were leaving money on table. All listening to B&M assholes would do was keep things static, and that's exactly what they had to avoid. Steve Jobs was screaming this at them, and eventually they wised up.

If you think the music store bidness is one you want to jump into, go for it. It's not a growth industry. There's still a considerable market for music, and somehow it managed to get by without the influence and/or distribution network of Sam Goody or whatever other B&M retailer. Do B&M stores still retail CDs? Sure they do. All that happened is the specialized assholes died off and the bigger retailers took over. The music industry didn't care in the same way the games industry won't care how the product gets there -- ultimately their concern is the consumer.

I'm not saying Games circa 2012 is Music circa 2004. But things are changing for Gaming, and one reason is that the games industry has learned from the music industry, and even more so, they're trying to do things to guide consumer habits (e.g. protections to eliminate the used game market) rather than react to them.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Personally, as I said in the other thread, it's moot to me.[/QUOTE]
I'm at a similar place, but only because I have access to a PC for what gaming I do. The 360 and Wii just sit there, looking stupid.

What makes this thread, and others like it, interesting to me is that people -- more importantly, informed gamers -- are talking about this like they have a dog in this fight. The direction is so overwhelmingly clear to anyone who's experienced Steam, or Netflix, or iTunes, or whatever else. It's bewildering yet funny to see CAGs pretend like some B&M retailer can stand up, point and finger, and say, "Now wait just a minute, mister!"
 
no, dothog, retailers have no influence over anything. You're right. I've never heard of walmart influencing anything.

I knew you would bring up itunes sooner or later. There's an even bigger difference between the success of itunes and your lousy comparison to the gaming industry. Itunes came at a perfect time because of the desire of consumers towards singles purchases. Why buy an album or $17 when you can get the one song you like for 99 cents? Or the whole album for 9.99.

This is the part you fail to grasp. Unless you give the consumer an incentive (i.e. savings) for going digital, they won't go digital. Game publishers (of real games, not iphone games) can't afford right now to give the consumer that incentive.

So what you have is a mexican standoff. publishers hate gamestop but they need gamestop. hence gamestop has considerable influence. When publishers figure out how to get consumers to pay $60 for a digital download and can cut out gamestop, then they win and GS goes the way of Tower. But they won't be able to any time soon. Because consumers don't buy big titles the way they buy music. You can't buy 1/10th the game.
 
Music is different though, since you can still by a CD if you want. And I still do for the most part.

That's how I think gaming will go next gen--just an expansion of the games on demand stuff we have this gen to where every full game is available to download, with most still being available on disc. They'll use next gen to get more people buying download games, maybe make a few big games download only or offer some incentives for getting the download version (free dlc you have to buy if you get the disc version etc.) to help ease the switch to going fully digital for the next generation.


As for retailer influence, they don't have much say in it honestly. They can bitch and not carry the hardware I suppose. But how cares in this era when many people prefer shopping online. Other than groceries, toiletries and clothing, I hardly every buy anything locally. I'd rather not hassle with finding time to deal with fighting traffic to go to a Best Buy or Target, deal with rude shoppers and incompetent employs etc. to buy a game or movie or game console etc. when I can just order it from Amazon and have it in a day or two with Prime shipping.

And I think that would be particularly applicable to gaming since it hits a younger crowd who are more apt to be into shopping online. Even for today's kids, their parents are young enough to be online shoppers. So I don't see retailers having much sway over this if publishers and console makers want to go fully digital. They'll tell them to sell the console, or don't and they'll just sell them online.

B&M retail stores are going to be the next industry in the US to see a huge decline in the coming decades as demand for them outside of things like food, clothing, toiletries and niche ships for enthusiasts are going to dwindle as older generations die off and us younger generations do most of our shopping online.
 
[quote name='confoosious']no, dothog, retailers have no influence over anything. You're right. I've never heard of walmart influencing anything.[/QUOTE]

I've got to let this one go, but this is a personal note: your argument by sarcasm and omission of detail is not convincing. I guess the idea is that you hope someone else comes along and argues your point for you?

Usually I don't mind wiseass stuff if it doesn't contribute anything provided that it's funny or diverting somehow. But in failing to contribute in yet another thread, you do neither of those things. This is a bad habit.

EDIT: That was a nice ninja edit to your post, which was originally entirely composed of the quote above. You're learning confoo. Still done with this one on the advice of my legal team, Crotch & Crotch, Attys at Law.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Music is different though, since you can still by a CD if you want. And I still do for the most part.[/QUOTE]
My point wasn't that the situations are identical, but they're certainly analogous. The gaming industry won't make the mistake the music industry made, the insinuation of Steam into PC gaming is evidence of that. And in both the music and games industries, the point remains: B&M retailers aren't making the terms. At all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
even without the sarcasm, you've still lost the argument.

ereaders and itunes are not $60 games. You claim retailers have no influence, yet apparently walmart does.

what incentive do people have to download full titles they can't resell or trade in? Tell me that.
 
It's okay, dothog.

Stop._He%27s_Not_Worth_It.jpg
5VcZH.jpg


He's not worth it, bro.
 
The incentive is some people like gaming enough to keep playing even if paying $50-60 for games they can't trade/resell. Many serious gamers are hoarders/collectors who don't sell/trade anything anyway currently.

Publishers probably think they can make more money from a smaller customer base if that's the only option people have to get games. They don't want people buying used, trading games etc. as that's just taking potential sales away from them.

Time will tell if they're right on that. They probably are, other than prices probably will need to come down some. But they'd probably make more money from not losing any sales to used games, trades, people borrowing games from friends, even if that means a lot of people quit gaming. As it means at least serious gamers are buying all their games new and giving the publishers money.


Also, you can't really compare pricing. People aren't willing to pay $60 for a physical book they can trade/resell either. But many are willing to pay $60 for a game they can resell as the market perceives more value in a game than a book--more potential hours of entertainment, understanding of the big budgets games have etc.

In the digital realm, people (myself included) have proved willing to pay paperback prices for e-books that have DRM and can't be sold and most have very limited lending abilities (some books can't be lent legally at all, those that can usually can only be lent once etc.). Time will tell if enough people are willing to pay regular game prices for digital games with similar restrictions. Maybe you're right and the higher entry price will make it different than for e-books. But maybe that won't matter and publishers can just make enough money off a smaller market of serious gamers who pay full price and don't care about selling/trading games after beating them. Maybe it will be a middle ground where prices have to come down $10-20 for new releases. We'll just have to see how the market reacts.
 
Did you just use hoarders and collectors as an example of people who would be willing to do away with physical goods?

Again, we're not talking 99 cent songs or $6 paperbacks.

What financial incentive is there to switch to digital games.

There are 3 major reasons for the success of any distribution: convenience, price, and porn.

I know Microsoft is touting the convenience of games on demand but is the covenience of downloading 8-10gbs at full pice better than getting a disc?

Now, where is the price incentive?

Remember, you have to take CAGs out of the equation. Games take too much to develop these days to sell it at a cut rate from the jump. You absolutely need lots of week 1 purchases at full price to have a success.

And finally, here is where GameStop comes into play: there are only a handful of games that would sell at full price download: cod and madden come to mind.

You can't go download only because some people just won't have it. So you gotta go hybrid. You think GameStop is gonna promote your other titles that aren't cash cows if you're actively trying to kill them?

The industry needs GameStop right now, which means they have influence, which is the argument I'm having with dot hog.

I'm not saying we wont go full digital in the future, I'm just saying his dismissal of gs is narrow minded and completely wrong.

He can make flippant remarks about Cinnabon all he wants but the truth is that the heavy hitters of retail have considerable influence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='confoosious']Now, where is the price incentive?[/QUOTE]
i downloaded WO3 off of PSN for $50. the disc copy was $60. it took me 5 days to dl but whatever.

i can easily see them passing some of the cost savings to consumers.
 
[quote name='kainzero']i downloaded WO3 off of PSN for $50. the disc copy was $60. it took me 5 days to dl but whatever.

i can easily see them passing some of the cost savings to consumers.[/QUOTE]

Ok that's about $5 in savings to the publisher. Is that worth alienating and losing legions of GameStop clerks pushing customers to preorder the "gonna be hard to find" Cash Cow 14?
 
[quote name='confoosious']Ok that's about $5 in savings to the publisher. Is that worth alienating and losing legions of GameStop clerks pushing customers to preorder the "gonna be hard to find" Cash Cow 14?[/QUOTE]

$5 in savings per copy is a very large amount of money when we talk about the numbers of copies that games typically sell (even ones that aren't huge releases), lets just imagine a company sells 100,000 copies of their game (not really an impressive number of copies) they just saved half a million dollars.

Of course the actual saving really depends on how much the digital distributor charges to host the game, but just getting rid of the physical aspects will probably save a bunch of money too, I mean even if we imagine that large publishers get insane discounts on manual printing, disc, and cases we can probably assume it costs maybe around $1 per copy created, that is a $100,000 savings on that previously discussed imaginary game (doesn't surprise me at all that so many publishers are already dropping manuals and replacing them with in-game ones).
 
Not everyone needs price incentive. I don't bargain shop much anymore now that I make good money. If I want to buy something I generally just go on Amazon and buy it. Games are one exception as I'm not that into them anymore. But for a movie, book or other random thing I want, I just tend to buy it without checking around for deals.

And publishers and stores could care less if people like CAGs all died in a fire. Remember the Best Buy exec who talked about "demon shoppers" or whatever he called those that were just coming in for loss leader items, coupons, price matches etc.--and thus were customers they lost money on and wanted to find ways to keep them away?

Publishers, retailers etc. are increasingly trying to find ways to just profit off people willing to pay full retail, or close to it, and don't care about shopping around for bargains. The CAG/Slickdeals/Fatwallet people are customers they really don't want. Same with people who buy used, trade in games etc. as they aren't making much profit off them anyway.

In a perfect world for them, they will find a way to make profits the same or larger as what they make now by just selling games to people willing to buy new at whatever price they're charging, and they hope they can do that by getting enough of the used game buyers to still buy games in a digital setting.

Again, time will tell if they can do it, what prices the market will accept for digital only games etc.
 
[quote name='icebeast']$5 in savings per copy is a very large amount of money when we talk about the numbers of copies that games typically sell (even ones that aren't huge releases), lets just imagine a company sells 100,000 copies of their game (not really an impressive number of copies) they just saved half a million dollars.[/QUOTE]

It's not the $500k, or even $5m as a straight cost savings, it's the selling that GameStop people do.


Look, I know that we know the games and what's new and good. But spend 20 minutes inside a GameStop an you'll realize how many customers have zero clue what to get.

How many times have you been in GS and heard the clerk tell a customer that they totally need to preorder Mario party?

How much is that worth?

Also how many people are willing to forego physical copies for a $10 savings? (again not cags who hardly even pay $30 for a physical copy).

Remember music was sold at 99 cents. A huge pop album has 4 hit songs? That's $13 savings over a Sam goody cd. That's the reason for that switch. Plus the convenience of buying it and loading it onto your iPod quickly.

@dmaul - amazon isn't a price incentive? They generally are cheaper than everyone else. How can you say you shop at amazon and don't care about price.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And publishers and stores could care less if people like CAGs all died in a fire.[/QUOTE]

Aww, so they do care!
 
[quote name='confoosious']How many times have you been in GS and heard the clerk tell a customer that they totally need to preorder Mario party?

How much is that worth?[/QUOTE]
It's worth less than the clerks who tell their customers that they can save eight dollars by buying used.

Publishers fucking hate Gamestop.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']It's worth less than the clerks who tell their customers that they can save eight dollars by buying used.

Publishers fucking hate Gamestop.[/QUOTE]

And yet GameStop sells more games for them than anyone else.

Again, you act like that's something people don't know. Of course they hate them.

They hate them but they need them. And we come full circle: Gs has significant influence in the industry.
 
[quote name='confoosious']It's not the $500k, or even $5m as a straight cost savings, it's the selling that GameStop people do.

How many times have you been in GS and heard the clerk tell a customer that they totally need to preorder Mario party?

How much is that worth?[/QUOTE]

But it is $500k, or whatever the actual savings they get actually is from not creating physical copies, you can't argue that they are saving money on every copy sold.

In regards to Gamestop generating interest in titles you don't really need that either if you can create a social aspect to a digital store front, Steam is already doing it, I can see what my friends are playing, they can provide reviews for me, I can see the metacritic score on the store page for the game. It isn't too hard to get a lot of data about what I want to buy off Steam, if console digital store fronts go a similar route then you don't really need a physical store assuming you have at least a couple of friends who can recommend games, and don't mind looking at aggregate review scores to get a general sense of what critics think about the game.

[quote name='confoosious']Also how many people are willing to forego physical copies for a $10 savings? (again not cags who hardly even pay $30 for a physical copy).[/QUOTE]

I think the only digital game I've purchased off Steam in the past year that was over $30 was Skyrim and I think I only payed $35 for it. And part of that money went directly to the company that made the game.
 
I don't disagree that they would love to go full digital and will get there eventually. Its good cost savings.

I'm just saying its not enough savings *yet* to justify alienating their retail partners.

By the way, I'm thinking printing and distribution is only a couple dollars per unit.

Also are you saying $35 is the most you personally would pay or that's how much the download would be? Cause it'll never be below $45.
 
[quote name='confoosious']And yet GameStop sells more games for them than anyone else.

Again, you act like that's something people don't know. Of course they hate them.

They hate them but they need them. And we come full circle: Gs has significant influence in the industry.[/QUOTE]
gJVtO.gif
 
bread's done
Back
Top