Support NeoGAF

[Sadako Yamamura]

As I said above, games for consoles already go through the console manufacturers. They already have an influence on price and already clip the ticket.

How would they drive prices higher if retailers are gone and still be successful? They still have to compete for the same consumer dollar.

Removing retailers and towards DD increases the competition by putting pricing in the hands of developers/publishers of which there are exponentially more than retailers. If you suppose that the number of retailers currently is a good level of competition, then under DD you would have increased competition and even more downwards price pressure.

But it is the retailers that decide the final price they sell the product at. If the retailers are gone and Microsoft or Sony have a monopoly on the sale or distribution, what incentive is there for them to lower the price? None I would suggest.

The pricing (as in ceiling price) is technical already in the hands of the devs/pubs. That's what MSRP is.

 

[Mario]

But it is the retailers decide the final price they sell the product at. If the retailers are gone and Microsoft or Sony have a monopoly on the sale or distribution, what incentive is there for them to lower the price? None I would suggest.

The pricing (as in ceiling price) is technical already in the hands of the devs/pubs. That's what MSRP is.

Again, MS and Sony already have a monopoly on what content goes through their platform and an influence on price. That influence exists today at retail.

Publishers are currently setting a wholesale price, and you could argue that is the lowest price a publisher could bear which would be lower than MSRP. Even further room to reduce price if you consider the cost of goods (COGs) can be subtracted without "penalty".

The incentive to avoid price increases is that all publishers/developers will have this room to move, and in a marketplace of increased competition through a much larger volume of content and a much larger number of players would not only be incented not to raise prices but there will be pressure to decrease them.

No, here you're wrong. Pricing would not only be up to publishers; it would also be at the mercy of the portal owner, or the platform manufacturer in the case of consoles. See XBLA (points only) and Steam (high prices unless there's a sale on) for examples of what I'm on about.

XBLA and Steam are not the DD only (or mostly) markets I have been referring too. I have already pointed this out multiple times in this thread. You can't use those as examples to refute my argument because the platforms they exist on are platforms are currently dominated by retail sales.

The example I point to, once again, is iPhone.

It's like I keep saying to you, mate - nothing occurs in a vacuum. Why can't you understand that?

I'll continue to argue because your viewpoint is against basic economics and real life examples, and you are arguing against comments I am not even making. Provide something substantial and based in reality, and actually in line with my comments, and I'll consider it.

 

[Brofist]

Shutting out retail would be a monumental mistake for the publishers. The best case scenario is having DD releases along side physical copies sold at retail. They can at least cut into the number of used copies out there while still giving the consumer a choice. For consumers it guarantees competitive pricing.

They can offer an incentive for the DD customers like a slightly lower price or some free DLC exclusive to make up for lack of packaging. Aww who the fuck am I kidding, lower prices and getting stuff for free... if these people had their way we'd be getting less and paying more for these games.

 

[Sadako Yamamura]

Again, MS and Sony already have a monopoly on what content goes through their platform and an influence on price. That influence exists today at retail.

Publishers are currently setting a wholesale price, and you could argue that is the lowest price a publisher could bear which would be lower than MSRP. Even further room to reduce price if you consider the cost of goods (COGs) can be subtracted without "penalty".

The incentive to avoid price increases is that all publishers/developers will have this room to move, and in a marketplace of increased competition through a much larger volume of content and a much larger number of players would not only be incented not to raise prices but there will be pressure to decrease them.

I honestly think you are living in a dream world if you think devs/pubs will decrease the price of games if there is no direct competition that forces them to. Look at the whole Games on Demand fiasco. MS have not even matched the B and M price on some games. On the Australian 360 store, Mass Effect is $99.95. RRP is $49.95. If they don't even match the price of the B and M retailers now, what chance is there of them ever lowering the price when there is no competition in the future?

I want to come and live in your world. It sounds so nice:lol

 

[faust666]

920 2010 Used card for sale just at dealers in the US already http://www.autoshopper.com/search/results.asp?sort=yeardesc&distance=4000&zipcode=08812&showadsdated=ALL&fromyear=2010&toyear=2010&condition=used&page=62

Thats a lot considering 2010 models just went on sale and considering how often people buy cars.

Used cars in the car world aren't necessarily pre-owned. Demonstrators and showroom models will also be listed as used. Mileages of 6,5 and 3 really aren't screaming pre-owned on a search of 2010s on that site. I'd bet some of those are actually new cars listed as used in order to persuade used car searchers to new vehicles with their low prices.

 

[Dambrosi]

The example I point to, once again, is iPhone.

And as I pointed out in a previous post, Apple may not control prices on their App Store, but they still have a cast-iron veto over what content is allowed to be made available on it. You're just swapping one form of anti-competitive control for another.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. As others, including kpop100 above me, have already said, a twin-track solution where retail and DD go side by side is simplest and best. Excluding retail channels completely seems like needless overkill, and a kneejerk, reactionary solution to a self-inflicted problem.

 

[Doytch]

That's nice and all, but what if Stardock had to revoke the Impulse Marketplace's resale function due to unforseen circumstances or because it's costing them too much to keep up? The consumer would have no other redress than that which Stardock or the publisher is willing to give them.

Now, you could say that this would be the same as if, say, Gamestop were to suddenly stop taking in trade-ins (...I'll just let all you publishers out there wipe the drool from your mouths), and stop selling second-hand games entirely. But then, at least you could sell/trade-in the game somewhere else, or auction it off on Ebay or Amazon. No such luck with your Goo "license". Try selling that on Craigslist without any way of securely transferring ownership.


And there never will be. Onlive has to be some sort of scam, it just has to be. No amount of wishful thinking can deflect the sheer improbability of that platform. It's unfeasible.

Actually, when it was announced, Brad Wardell (CEO Stardock) said you could do private sales. Just deauthorize your email account, and let the other person authorize the game to their own email account.

 

[Mario]

I honestly think you are living in a dream world if you think devs/pubs will decrease the price of games if there is no direct competition that forces them to.

There will be direct competition, because they will all be competing against each other in a much larger pool of products.

Look at the whole Games on Demand fiasco. MS have not even matched the B and M price on some games. On the Australian 360 store, Mass Effect is $99.95. RRP is $49.95. If they don't even match the price of the B and M retailers now, what chance is there of them ever lowering the price when there is no competition in the future?

Games On Demand is a fiasco. I agree. And it is partly because they are trying to offer DD games in a retail dominated world. This is in line with my comments suggesting that DD is currently hampered by retail.

Also, the lack of retailers does not equal "no competition". It equals "more competition" because their are more players and more products in the marketplace.


I will spell it out very clearly once again my position, because some people in this thread are failing to follow or are distorting my comments.

- I believe commercial used game sales (especially the aggressive Gamestop/EB approach) are having a negative impact on the publisher/developer side of the business. This is one issue amongst a range of issues that make me believe the traditional retail model of game development and distribution is fundamentally broken.

- I do not think the answer to this issue for publishers/developers is in trying to impact the tradein or used game sale practise, or trying to change laws or consumer/business rights. In order to resolve this issue and the others impacting the publisher/developer side of the industry, publishers/developers need to fundamentally change their business models.

- DD distribution and pricing is currently hampered by the existance and leverage of retailers. This will continue until DD overwhelms retail in new unit sales and revenues.

- In a DD only (or mostly) dominated marketplace where retailers have little leverage, average prices are likely to decrease due to a massively increased, always available catalogue of content, plus a large number of publishers/developers each offering their own portfolio.

- platform manufacturers currently compete with each other in a retail dominated marketplace, and will continue to compete with each other in a DD dominated marketplace. This limits the opportunity raise prices or royalties over their current levels.

- the best example for the above currently is the iPhone marketplace as it currently has no retail presence. There is a wide range of content available, with generally low prices, and the number of quality apps increasing over time.

And as I pointed out in a previous post, Apple may not control prices on their App Store, but they still have a cast-iron veto over what content is allowed to be made available on it. You're just swapping one form of anti-competitive control for another.

That has nothing to do with my comments about pricing. Once again you are arguing against comments I am not making.

In any case, Apple, Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft already have "cast-iron veto" over what content is made available on their respective platforms. So your point is irrelevant.

 

[someguyinahat]

The example I point to, once again, is iPhone.

Okay, we've heard you countless times. iPhone games are cheap and there's lots of them. What is the nature of said games? I need to do some research. One sec.

Okay, I just went to apple.com and checked. What you find there are mostly puzzle games, card games, and children's time-filler games like hangman and tic-tac-toe. I'll concede there's a small handful of exceptions, but this is a fair generalization. Frankly, I've seen better fare on the internet.

Why don't you just go all the way and say that DD will lower prices to zero, then link everyone to sites where they can play free flash games? Flash games are browser-based, so I suppose that counts as DD, doesn't it? "Hey folks, why pay $60 for a game when you can play Hedgehog Launch 2 for absolutely nothing? All these big game companies have to compete with free merchandise! Proof that prices go down!" You haven't taken production values into effect. There's lots of great games that are free and provide a good experience without frills, e.g. Nethack, but when you're talking about console fare, it's difficult to make the same argument.

If you want an example of an industry where there's lots of competition but prices seem too high across the board, look no further than gas stations. Ever notice that on the weekend, prices spike universally? You'd think that one person would lower prices enough that everyone would flock to him and he'd rake in the profit. And yet, that doesn't happen.

 

[Mario]

Okay, we've heard you countless times. iPhone games are cheap and there's lots of them. What is the nature of said games? I need to do some research. One sec.

Okay, I just went to apple.com and checked. What you find there are mostly puzzle games, card games, and children's time-filler games like hangman and tic-tac-toe. I'll concede there's a small handful of exceptions, but this is a fair generalization. Frankly, I've seen better fare on the internet.

I don't see how that invalidates the example.

If you need help with another one, the music marketplace isn't a bad one either although the two industries don't map cleanly in terms of business model.

Why don't you just go all the way and say that DD will lower prices to zero, then link everyone to sites where they can play free flash games?

Why don't I say that? Because I don't believe that to be the case and never said anything close to that, that is why.

Lets not use made up points of view to try or hyperbole if we can avoid it.

 

[GameGamer]

Okay, I just went to apple.com and checked. What you find there are mostly puzzle games, card games, and children's time-filler games like hangman and tic-tac-toe. I'll concede there's a small handful of exceptions, but this is a fair generalization. Frankly, I've seen better fare on the internet.

I think that's what the majority of gamers like.


As for your gas comment, that involves a natural resource.

 

[sonicmj1]

Consoles already exhibit these characteristics. These traits and behaviours would not prevent prices coming down overall.

As far as pricing mechanisms go for existing DD on various platforms, XBLA, PSN, WiiWare, and iPhone all have different rules from their respective platform manufacturers. However, nothing really prohibits an individual publisher or developer from pricing aggressively or at the very least pricing at a lower level than current retail once free from the additional restrictions of retailers.

The issue is that this isn't always true.

Steam is a looser platform, and allows for that sort of thing. But if you look at something like XBLM, publishers seem to have no control over pricing post-release, and deals come very rarely. Not only that, but Microsoft actively prevents publishers from pricing games and DLC below a certain level. They intentionally limit the level of free support a game can receive.

Given that the majority of the games on XBLA, PSN, and WiiWare don't compete with retail products, you'd expect their pricing to be less restrictive, but at the moment, it isn't. Judging by the success of Microsoft's Xbox Live Gold experiment, even with the existence of viable free alternatives like PSN, it's not unreasonable to think that first-party-controlled marketplaces on consoles will actively inhibit competitive pricing.

By controlling the exclusive marketplace through which games are released, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo would each have the ability to mandate a level of pricing that would maximize their profits, even if the publishers they serve would, on their own, pursue a competitive pricing level that would reduce revenues for everyone.

As long as other alternatives like XNA remain exiled to the margins, it will be easier to maintain this sort of thing.

I can imagine a scenario where markets go DD only and prices drop across the board due to the ability of publishers to price flexibly and dynamically in response to markets, but I think it's just as probable for the controllers of those markets to prevent those sorts of things from ever occurring.

 

[DailyVacation]

What boggles me is that publishers continue to support GameStop with exclusive offers -- for preorders and the like.

And what is keeping publishers from protecting 50% of their game content via unlock key vouchers to discourage re-sale? I hope it's not merely the cost of ordering the vouchers from the platform holder.

 

[Mario]

The issue is that this isn't always true.

That is why I had a second part to the sentence.

 

[Mario]

What boggles me is that publishers continue to support GameStop with exclusive offers -- for preorders and the like.

Because retailers exchange it for prominant shelf space and Increased initial stock orders.

 

[3rdman]

- I believe used games are having a negative impact on the publisher/developer side of the business. This is one issue amongst a range of issues that make me believe the traditional retail model of game development and distribution is fundamentally broken.

This is wrong...games are a relatively prohibitive hobby and if there is one thing that is proving to be a "negative" is their price...They're just too damn expensive. They rape the hardcore gamer and hope to cash in a second time with casuals when they decide to drop pricing.

- I do not think the answer to this issue for publishers/developers is in trying to impact the tradein or used game sale practise, or trying to change laws or consumer/business rights. In order to resolve this issue and the others impacting the publisher/developer side of the industry, publishers/developers need to fundamentally change their business models.

If that's the case, what should they change? As it is, the industry is in the midst of major consolidation with many smaller dev houses being swallowed up. Should we need reminding ourselves of what EA did when NFL 2K5 launched at $20.00 brand new? The industry itself is killing off its competition and now they want to kill off competition at retail.

- DD distribution and pricing is currently hampered by the existance and leverage of retailers. This will continue until DD overwhelms retail in new unit sales and revenues.

If there is a word stronger than "WRONG", I would use it here. No matter how you may try to spin it in your head, you need to realize that the dissolution of an avenue to consumers is a step toward a monopoly. Do you really want to see the publisher with the ways and means of delivering everything? Tell me, without competition, how good is Madden nowadays?

- In a DD only (or mostly) dominated marketplace where retailers have little leverage, average prices are likely to decrease due to a massively increased, always available catalogue of content, plus a large number of publishers/developers each offering their own portfolio.

I'm sorry but whats the going rate of a single song on iTunes? Has it decreased?

- platform manufacturers currently compete with each other in a retail dominated marketplace, and will continue to compete with each other in a DD dominated marketplace. This limits the opportunity raise prices or royalties over their current levels.

What does it matter if "Doom" sells for $10.00 on XBL and for $12.00 on PSN when the vast majority of customers only have access to one or the other????

- the best example for the above currently is the iPhone marketplace as it currently has no retail presence. There is a wide range of content available, with generally low prices, and the number of quality apps increasing over time.

The App store is a wasteland of shovelware.

 

[Dambrosi]

I think that's what the majority of gamers like.

Naw, they're just the easiest types of games to make. Shovelware at its finest. As the hat guy said, there are (a few) exceptions, but the vast majority are merely souped-up mobile phone games - worthy of nothing more than a quick fumble during a boring bus trip, and mostly priced accordingly.

I'd love to see the likes of Vanguard Princess or Kenta Cho's abstract shmups (both free on PC) on DD platforms, but as long as the platforms remain closed, that won't happen. I'll wager it's the same situation for any hopes of price reduction due to competition, which would likely be stifled due to the (perhaps necessarily) closed nature of current DD platforms and the profit margins of publishers.

And what is keeping publishers from protecting 50% of their game content via unlock key vouchers to discourage re-sale?

Jeez, I really hope you're not advocating this. If you thought RE5's Versus Mode was bad...

 

[cRIPticon]

- I believe commercial used game sales (especially the aggressive Gamestop/EB approach) are having a negative impact on the publisher/developer side of the business. This is one issue amongst a range of issues that make me believe the traditional retail model of game development and distribution is fundamentally broken.

I agree with this, regarding Gamestop. The biggest issue I have with Gamestop is that they actively sell used against new at the same point of sale. Cars are often brought in to the discussion when this comes up. Yes, most dealerships sell new and used cars. However, the used sales office, while on the same physical lot, is generally separate from the new car sales office. The salesman does not get a customer revved up for a car then tell them to buy the used one.

Of course the analogy is not perfect as a car's value and usefulness diminishes, physically, over time whereas a game does not (unless scratched or so on).

You don't typically hear a game publisher going after eBay to stop people from reselling games because it is a reasonable outlet for First Sale and all of that.

The big issue is that Gamestop is the largest games only company here in the States and they are ACTIVELY selling product against the manufacturers they distribute for.

- I do not think the answer to this issue for publishers/developers is in trying to impact the tradein or used game sale practise, or trying to change laws or consumer/business rights. In order to resolve this issue and the others impacting the publisher/developer side of the industry, publishers/developers need to fundamentally change their business models.

Completely agree. This is not a consumer issue and consumers should always be seeking the best deal possible for their dollar. Seeking is the operative word and is coupled with value and/or worth. Gamestop actively competes with the manufacturers that they distribute. If there was a separation of the product, say a "Gamestop Value" store and Gamestop "proper", the issue would not be as strong. So many other companies have outlet versions of their stores, why not Gamestop?

- DD distribution and pricing is currently hampered by the existance and leverage of retailers. This will continue until DD overwhelms retail in new unit sales and revenues.

Don't agree. The things that continue to hamper DD are perceived value, accessibility and permanence. People expect the pricing online to be different, you may not have consistent access to the content you want (iPhone game too large across 3G? I may not download it when I get home because the impulse has passed.), and permanence. If Sony stopped making PS3 tomorrow, I can still play every single physical copy of a game I have purchased until my PS3 finally gives up the ghost. If I had to reformat the drive in the same unit and went to download the digital apps I have purchased, I am out of luck. See PKollar's experience in trying to go back and play DD3 on XBox 360.

Fundamentally. digital copies are always viewed differently than physical copies. This will, however, change over time as our kids grow up in an increasingly digital and connected world.

- In a DD only (or mostly) dominated marketplace where retailers have little leverage, average prices are likely to decrease due to a massively increased, always available catalogue of content, plus a large number of publishers/developers each offering their own portfolio.

Not entirely true. The prices decline based on the expectation of the consumer in a competitive market. As more content floods into the market, competition forces pricing down and sets an expectation for the consumer. I think this is, actually, a dangerous environment for content creators. When is costs $100K to make a game that retails for .99 on iPhone, what happens when the cost of development goes up 3,4,5x? Will people be willing to spend more? Nope.

As well, when games are so cheap, at .99, they, by and large, become throwaway or commodity. I have tried a ton of .99 games on the iPhone and have only ever gone back to handful of them. Yea for consumers (me)! Bad for business trying to compete in that landscape.

EDIT: Another interesting expectation that has been set for the consumer is that all updates to the .99 game they purchased are free. At what point does a developer cut that tie and release a new game based on the same property. The intertubes seemed to go bat-shit crazy when Valve announced L4D2 as a new product instead of an upgrade or add-on pack for L4D1.

- the best example for the above currently is the iPhone marketplace as it currently has no retail presence. There is a wide range of content available, with generally low prices, and the number of quality apps increasing over time.

That can only sustain itself for so long. Masses of content, making relatively little money in an increasingly competitive marketplace. As a consumer, that is not my issue. As a developer, it is troubling.

HOWEVER, if there is one constant, it is change. Developers who can effectively manage the change will rise in the storm. Valve seems to have found an amazingly good balance between physical and digital distribution.

So, back to the original discussion. The real issue is not that Gamestop sells used games, it is precisely in the manner in which they do so. Again, eBay does not come under fire for the resale of used games, even though they make money on each transaction.

 

[DailyVacation]

Jeez, I really hope you're not advocating this. If you thought RE5's Versus Mode was bad...

I don't advocate the sale of stuff already baked into the code -- rather have a free single use voucher included in the packaging that unlocks the rest of the game.

But upon further thought, this will actually hurt the consumer beyond game resale prevention. Unfortunately this will also prevent visibility of the title via game rentals, and prohibit multiple accounts on a single console from playing the game, though that depends on DRM implementation.

 

[someguyinahat]

The real issue is not that Gamestop sells used games, it is precisely in the manner in which they do so.

Thought experiment:

You go to Gamestop looking to buy x game which costs $60 new.
Gamestop says, "You can get it used for $50. How about it?"
The guy behind you in line says, "What a coincidence. I was just about to trade that game in. I'll sell it to you right now for $40. That's more than Gamestop would give me."

What would happen?

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Thought experiment:

You go to Gamestop looking to buy x game which costs $60 new.
Gamestop says, "You can get it used for $50. How about it?"
The guy behind you in line says, "What a coincidence. I was just about to trade that game in. I'll sell it to you right now for $40. That's more than Gamestop would give me."

What would happen?

Well sir, I believe those fellows would be asked to leave the store.

 

[Dambrosi]

Well sir, I believe those fellows would be asked to leave the store.

And they could then continue their transaction outside. There, everyone's happy.

Remember, Mr. Hat Guy, nobody is forcing the customer to shop at Gamestop. That's the great thing about a free market - choice.

 

[cRIPticon]

Thought experiment:

You go to Gamestop looking to buy x game which costs $60 new.
Gamestop says, "You can get it used for $50. How about it?"
The guy behind you in line says, "What a coincidence. I was just about to trade that game in. I'll sell it to you right now for $40. That's more than Gamestop would give me."

What would happen?

This was discussed on Retronauts awhile ago when Sharkey or Chris Kohler was talking, I believe, about a used game system trade-in.

What would most likely happen? The Gamestop employee would request that the guy selling the game leave the store, and would be right to do so, as it is a form of solicitation. They could also ban you from coming into their store based on that action.

In this HIGHLY improbable scenario, I imagine that there are very few people in the industry that would have a problem with the first customer buying the second in a private transaction and save $20. It is a completely different situation. The person selling their used copy is not also a distribution point for new product for the manufacturer of that game.

 

[CultureClearance]

My god this thread is full of people that have NO clue what the hell they're talking about.


Here's some clues from "an insider" -

No, retailers do NOT create more competition and lesser prices than DD. Look at steam. They're one of the few DDers out there that have gotten a good grasp of what they're doing...and still it isn't completely established and is still nubile. Right now, Steam is a "booster" of sales and most publishers still haven't figured out how to work things. When they do figure it out it will become essentially the ULTIMATE retailer of sorts in which EVERYTHING is for sale. Devs and Publishers will have to maintain competitive pricing and support just as they do now to stay afloat. However, pricing would go down when necessary and not when forced to by the parasitic used game market. There is nothing wrong with not having an inverse exponential sale chart for a game. You people feel entitled to get your games cheap after the game has been released for a month and that's the problem. Everything has gotten front loaded in a time when, in order to make profits, you need fully loaded.
If sales were a healthy slow linear drop (like nintendo wii games) that would make the game industry healthy again. But that's not the case, so game prices drop too soon to try to salvage what is inevitable.

Also, most games are NOT in competition with each other. Yes, EA and 2k sports are exceptions, but most games just like most movies aren't in competition. If people just bought one game of many great titles a month then christmas season would be just another season. Instead they get all or most of the games that interest them at once. Then spring season wouldn't be the weak season either, but it is mostly because there are no games of interest. If there are 2 games somebody wants, they get both. If there are none, they get none. It isn't like the car industry at all. People don't need games, people want games and 1 doesn't have a value or "mileage."

And people whining about game prices are just embarrassing themselves. If you account for inflation and how much games give you these days, it's amazing how people's forget how small and simple games used to be at 30-40 bucks a pop back in the early 90's and 80's. No online multiplayer, no 10-15 hour campaigns, no co-op, amazing set pieces, sound, voice acting, challenge settings, etc.
And I have to repeat that the used game market doesn't care what the price is. They'll buy at half and sell at retail - $5 all day long and most people will go ahead and buy a $40 dollar game at $35, a $20 dollar game at $15, and a $2000 dollar game at $1995.

 

[Sadako Yamamura]

My god this thread is full of people that have NO clue what the hell they're talking about.


Here's some clues from "an insider" -

No, retailers do NOT create more competition and lesser prices than DD.

And people whining about game prices are just embarrassing themselves. If you account for inflation and how much games give you these days, it's amazing how people's forget how small and simple games used to be at 30-40 bucks a pop back in the early 90's and 80's. No online multiplayer, no 10-15 hour campaigns, no co-op, amazing set pieces, sound, voice acting, challenge settings, etc.

Seven years as an area manager with a large video game retail chain taught me that more retailers does equal more competition and lower than retail prices. Sorry if that does not make me an "insider" like you. How do I join your gang?

Also, I didn't complain or whine about the price of games. I merely stated that I believe DD would make for reduced competition on price. Value for dollar, video games are best form of entertainment you can get. This is what I told the people who were complaining about the cost of games when they came into my store.

 

[smenden18]

While there would still be competition in a DD-only world, I think we can all agree that there would at the very least be less competition. And less competition is not better for the consumer. I don't presume to know how game prices would be different, but I do know that without competition from places like Amazon marketplace and eBay (forget Gamestop), why would publishers have any incentive to lower game prices on older current-gen/previous gen games (And I'm speaking to future generations)?

 

[Dambrosi]

When they do figure it out it will become essentially the ULTIMATE retailer of sorts in which EVERYTHING is for sale. Devs and Publishers will have to maintain competitive pricing and support just as they do now to stay afloat. However, pricing would go down when necessary and not when forced to by the parasitic used game market.

You people feel entitled to get your games cheap after the game has been released for a month and that's the problem

What. How DARE you presume to tell us consumers what is "necessary" or not? And how dare you presume to know what we are entitled to better than we do, you pompous little asswipe? God damn you and your attitude.

If sales were a healthy slow linear drop (like nintendo wii games) that would make the game industry healthy again. But that's not the case, so game prices drop too soon to try to salvage what is inevitable.

Make better games for cheaper, and stop whining. Simple. Nintendo can do it, so why can't you?

And you say times are tough? Well, if it ain't shithouse all around for everyone. Suck it up.

Also, most games are NOT in competition with each other.

You could've fucking fooled me, mac.

Self-entitled whining about game price inflation since the 90s, as if it's actually relevant

Yawn. Who cares, inflation, not our problem, deal with it, etc.

Here's some clues from "an insider" -

No, the word you're looking for is "embarrassment". Please GTFO.

 

[cRIPticon]

While there would still be competition in a DD-only world, I think we can all agree that there would at the very least be less competition. And less competition is not better for the consumer. I don't presume to know how game prices would be different, but I do know that without competition from places like Amazon marketplace and eBay (forget Gamestop), why would publishers have any incentive to lower game prices on older current-gen/previous gen games?

We would not all agree. In fact, your statement is 100% incorrect. Don't confuse competition of games based on their merits as games vs. competition of distribution. We already have an example of single point of distribution with massive competition: iPhone.

How many fart machine, tower defense, twin stick, solitaire games are already available for download? Loads. The competitive landscape has already caused publishers like ngmoco to drop prices, and even give some games away for free, which are things they said they would not do. There is plenty of competition in the value of content to drive price direction, not just distribution avenues.

 

[Sadako Yamamura]

What. How DARE you presume to tell us consumers what is "necessary" or not? And how dare you presume to know what we are entitled to better than we do, you pompous little asswipe? God damn you and your attitude.


Make better games for cheaper, and stop whining. Simple. Nintendo can do it, so why can't you?

And you say times are tough? Well, if it ain't shithouse all around for everyone. Suck it up.


You could've fucking fooled me, mac.


Yawn. Who cares, inflation, not our problem, deal with it, etc.


No, the word you're looking for is "embarrassment". Please GTFO.

Whoa.:lol

 

[smenden18]

We would not all agree. In fact, your statement is 100% incorrect. Don't confuse competition of games based on their merits as a game vs. competition of distribution. We already have an example of single point of distribution with massive competition: iPhone.

How many fart machine, tower defense, twin stick, solitaire games are already available for download? Loads. The competitive landscape has already caused publishers like ngmoco to drop prices, and even give some games away for free, which are things they said they would not do. There is plenty of competition in the value of content to drive price direction, not just distribution avenues.

Yes, but to counter that argument, if the iPhone was also able to run physical media and not just digital media, the there would be more competition. Then, users who purchased physical copies of games could in turn resell them at prices lower than the developers were charging. How can you not see this?

 

[Brofist]

Thought experiment:

You go to Gamestop looking to buy x game which costs $60 new.
Gamestop says, "You can get it used for $50. How about it?"
The guy behind you in line says, "What a coincidence. I was just about to trade that game in. I'll sell it to you right now for $40. That's more than Gamestop would give me."

What would happen?

I've seen it happen before, and when I used to work at an EB a long time ago it happened sometimes. We would simply tell them to take care of business outside of the store, not like there were any hard feelings. Although when the occasional person would hang out in front of the store intentionally waiting to sell a game to a customer it was treated more seriously.

 

[Dambrosi]

Whoa.:lol

He...he got me angry. It all just flowed out of me, like a tidal wave of indignation. By the time I caught myself, I'd already clicked Submit.

At least now he knows how I post when ME HULK MAD.

 

[Brofist]

My god this thread is full of people that have NO clue what the hell they're talking about.


Here's some clues from "an insider" -

No, retailers do NOT create more competition and lesser prices than DD. Look at steam. They're one of the few DDers out there that have gotten a good grasp of what they're doing...and still it isn't completely established and is still nubile. Right now, Steam is a "booster" of sales and most publishers still haven't figured out how to work things. When they do figure it out it will become essentially the ULTIMATE retailer of sorts in which EVERYTHING is for sale. Devs and Publishers will have to maintain competitive pricing and support just as they do now to stay afloat.

Are there any major game release that you can buy off of Steam that you can't buy in
disc form? If not then you really aren't making a good point here.

 

[cRIPticon]

My god this thread is full of people that have NO clue what the hell they're talking about.


Here's some clues from "an insider" -

How are you a qualified insider? Don't need to divulge your name or anything, just what do you do to claim to be an "insider"?

No, retailers do NOT create more competition and lesser prices than DD. Look at steam. They're one of the few DDers out there that have gotten a good grasp of what they're doing...and still it isn't completely established and is still nubile. Right now, Steam is a "booster" of sales and most publishers still haven't figured out how to work things. When they do figure it out it will become essentially the ULTIMATE retailer of sorts in which EVERYTHING is for sale.

Not exactly on the mark, but ok.

Devs and Publishers will have to maintain competitive pricing and support just as they do now to stay afloat. However, pricing would go down when necessary and not when forced to by the parasitic used game market.

What conditions make a price drop necessary? The ONLY condition is lack of adoption (eg: sales slow down). Who cares what is forcing the slow down, it is the only condition that matters.

There is nothing wrong with not having an inverse exponential sale chart for a game. You people feel entitled to get your games cheap after the game has been released for a month and that's the problem. Everything has gotten front loaded in a time when, in order to make profits, you need fully loaded.

Who said anything about entitlement? If Gametop did not OFFER the used games one month after release, at a reduced price, there would be no set expectation for this in their store.

If sales were a healthy slow linear drop (like nintendo wii games) that would make the game industry healthy again. But that's not the case, so game prices drop too soon to try to salvage what is inevitable.

And the sheer amount of entertainment choice the average consumer has, across a variety of vectors, has nothing to do with this?

Also, most games are NOT in competition with each other. Yes, EA and 2k sports are exceptions, but most games just like most movies aren't in competition.

Bullshit.

Games, just like movies, are in competition for your attention. GI Joe, Transformers 2 and Harry Potter films are all in competition for your $10. Period. As for competition within genres, yes, all games are in competition with their genres. I have no idea how you could make such a statement and be serious about it.

If people just bought one game of many great titles a month then christmas season would be just another season. Instead they get all or most of the games that interest them at once.

Ummm...perhaps it's because the end of year holidays are socially acknowledged, mass gift giving periods?

Then spring season wouldn't be the weak season either, but it is mostly because there are no games of interest. If there are 2 games somebody wants, they get both. If there are none, they get none. It isn't like the car industry at all. People don't need games, people want games and 1 doesn't have a value or "mileage."

Who says the Spring season is weak just because the blockbusters don't all release during that period? There are great games being released throughout the year.

And, there are many people that don't need a car either. As well, with regard to wants, they typically have stronger irrational and impulse sales pull than needs. Another discussion with a much longer thread.

And people whining about game prices are just embarrassing themselves. If you account for inflation and how much games give you these days, it's amazing how people's forget how small and simple games used to be at 30-40 bucks a pop back in the early 90's and 80's. No online multiplayer, no 10-15 hour campaigns, no co-op, amazing set pieces, sound, voice acting, challenge settings, etc.

So the technology for the things you described did not exist on the consumer level to even create a market for such games to exist and that justifies...what? People whine about prices for everything. Tell us something we don't know.

And I have to repeat that the used game market doesn't care what the price is. They'll buy at half and sell at retail - $5 all day long and most people will go ahead and buy a $40 dollar game at $35, a $20 dollar game at $15, and a $2000 dollar game at $1995.

And I have no problem personally with people doing this for themselves. However, that is not the discussion here. The discussion is about used game sales as it relates to the distribution practices of entities that ALSO provide new game sales. Gamestop actively sells against the manufacturers they distribute for. They are, in effect, competing directly with them.

This won't stop until the game companies stop distributing through them. This is not a consumer issue and no one is blaming consumers for this (again, look at eBay). This is an issue that sits squarely between Gamestop and it's B-to-B customers.

 

[cRIPticon]

Yes, but to counter that argument, if the iPhone was also able to run physical media and not just digital media, the there would be more competition. Then, users who purchased physical copies of games could in turn resell them at prices lower than the developers were charging. How can you not see this?

But the iPhone is not capable of running physical media so your point is moot. If my car would be run on gumdrops and elf farts, imagine what the fuel station industry would look like?

 

[Dambrosi]

But the iPhone is not capable of running physical media so your point is moot. If my car would be run on gumdrops and elf farts, imagine what the fuel station industry would look like?

But you also have to admit that most iPhone games are little more than throwaway Flash apps, only slightly better than mobile phone games you'd find on your old Nokia. They're "games" that can barely be called games, so your point is also moot.

 

[McNum]

From where I'm standing, this whole used games debate shows something interesting. That there is an underserved market for older lower price games. I'm not thinking about the week old $5 off sales. I'm thinking of the year old half price or lower games. Or the games that you more or less have no other option than to get used because they're out of print. This is one lesson from the movie industry that the games industry could learn. Multiple income sources.

I mean take the standard decent movie. It's released in theaters, then on DVD (maybe with a special edition), then on cable broadcast, then basic broadcast, then a reprint or compilation DVD. Each release getting the publisher more money. Games are usually released once and then forgotten. Even good games can be hard to find only a year later. Try to find a last-gen launch title and you're out of luck. Why? This makes no sense to me. Especially with all the sequels in this industry. If I liked MGS4, why is it such a pain to track down 1, 2, and 3? If the publishers want more money out of a single game, this is where to strike.

Just for fun, I've made this tiered list of how I'd mercilessly farm a decent game, were I a publisher.

Tier 0: Before home release. This is mostly for arcade releases such as fighting games and shooters. You can play Tekken 6 now if you want. In the arcades. Not applicable to most games, but it's here for completeness sake.

Tier 1: Console release. This is the big Gamestop style game launch. $50, with a more expensive collectors edition with some fluff added. This one is for the gamers, the ones who want it day one. We'll pay the premium rate because we want the game now. Most games never get further than this.

Tier 2: Digital release. Maybe it's day one, maybe it's delayed, but the game becomes available online, some times at a discount. Maybe it's Steam, maybe it's Impulse or any of the console stores. Basic point, you can buy the game online with no physical media involved. Burnout Paradise and anything Valve comes to mind as good examples.

Tier 3: Retail re-release. The game is now a year old, but had some decent success. Now we sell it to the supermarkets and other general stores. Like movies, there'll be a few shelves of older games at a reasonable price. This is a slow burn, but it's still more money than not re-releasing it. This step is entirely missing from the games industry. Why?

Tier 4: Compilation release. So the game has been out for a few years and had a few decent sequels. Let's release them all at once in a single package. Maybe with a few updates so even those with all the games in the collection will want to double dip. The Metroid Prime Trilogy and Street Fighter Anniversary Collection approach.

Tier 5: Digital re-release. The game is now old enough to play on the nostalgia factor. Milk it! Release the game digitally on the current generation hardware at a low price to entice old fans of the game to buy it again for convenience sake. All the consoles do this now, which is nice.

Of course this is all ramblings from someone outside the industry, but I just don't understand why the publishers are holding back. It's possible to sell the same game several times to the same customer, if they play their cards right. The customer who sold the game is a great target for the lower price re-release a few years later. That's your cut of the used sale right there. Selling the same game twice. I mean look at Sega. I want to play Sonic 2. Count the ways I can do that now. (The answer is that it's available on 11 different formats.) They understand the point. Nintendo is catching on as well, although they've more or less mastered the slow burn on their titles now. Mario Kart Wii is just crazy, not to mention Wii Fit and Play. Now say I want to play Rogue Leader for GameCube on my Wii? How do I get that game, if not used? In fact, where did all the GameCube games go? I might be lucky to find some used at a Gamestop, but other than that, nothing. Way to hand Gamestop your after-market, guys.

 

[smenden18]

But the iPhone is not capable of running physical media so your point is moot. If my car would be run on gumdrops and elf farts, imagine what the fuel station industry would look like?

No, my point is not moot. I am arguing that a DD-only model (as in the PSP/PS3/PC format, which do run physical media) for video game distribution results in less competition (it doesn't eliminate it) and is therefore not as good for the consumer.

As an aside, a car that runs on gumdrops and elf farts would be awesome :lol

Though gumdrops are possibly more expensive than gasoline and I hear elf farts are notoriously difficult to harvest...

 

[cRIPticon]

But you also have to admit that most iPhone games are little more than throwaway Flash apps, only slightly better than mobile phone games you'd find on your old Nokia. They're "games" that can barely be called games, so your point is also moot.

Actually it's not. In another post on this page I stated:

As well, when games are so cheap, at .99, they, by and large, become throwaway or commodity. I have tried a ton of .99 games on the iPhone and have only ever gone back to handful of them. Yea for consumers (me)! Bad for business trying to compete in that landscape.

As someone who has been involved in tech for mobile games since the beginning of mobile phone games, I would say that many iPhone games are more than "slightly" better than old Nokia phone games.

 

[cRIPticon]

No, my point is not moot. I am arguing that a DD-only model (as in the PSP/PS3/PC format, which do run physical media) for video game distribution results in less competition (it doesn't eliminate it) and is therefore not as good for the consumer.

As an aside, a car that runs on gumdrops and elf farts would be awesome :lol

Though gumdrops are possibly more expensive than gasoline and I hear elf farts are notoriously difficult to harvest...

Less competition for what? Sorry, but I don't understand your argument here. A DD only model would provide the greatest breadth of "retail shelf space" but almost unmanageable with current sorting/sifting/discovery models. And well, the platform holder can choose what to promote, so that can have a stifling effect, sure. In the same way that BestBuy chooses what to promote based on marketing dollars from the manufacturers.

As for the gumdrop to elf fart fuel ratios, it would be a blood bath! Those gumdrop farmers are a nasty bunch!

 

[someguyinahat]

Tier 3: Retail re-release. The game is now a year old, but had some decent success. Now we sell it to the supermarkets and other general stores. Like movies, there'll be a few shelves of older games at a reasonable price. This is a slow burn, but it's still more money than not re-releasing it. This step is entirely missing from the games industry. Why?

There are some instances of retail re-releases. Was this not the point of "Platinum Greatest Hits" or whatever it was called for the original Xbox? Perhaps they don't do this anymore, and your "Why?" is justified. But from a historical perspective, no, it's not "entirely missing," just underused.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

As a consumer I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with buying used games. I do however think that there's not enough competition for Gamestop which is why they're able to turn such a profit on used games. They buy them for chump change and sell them for twice as much. Some would call this price gouging, but it's the same practice used at any neighborhood pawn shop. Gamestop should be renamed Gamepawn in all reality

This is why for me personally I never sell games to Gamestop, but if the price is right I will definitely buy them.

As for Jaffe, I completely see where he is coming from, but to say that devs should get a cut of GS profits is just unrealistic. Digital distribution will be the only real way to combat this.

 

[Always-honest]

My greatgrandpa used to breed horses. Cars got him out of bussiness.

Bye bye Jaffe

so what's replacing games?

 

[smenden18]

Less competition for what? Sorry, but I don't understand your argument here. A DD only model would provide the greatest breadth of "retail shelf space" but almost unmanageable with current sorting/sifting/discovery models. And well, the platform holder can choose what to promote, so that can have a stifling effect, sure. In the same way that BestBuy chooses what to promote based on marketing dollars from the manufacturers.

My point is that with places like Amazon Marketplace, eBay, local game stores, Gamestop, etc, I can buy a game used at up 50% or more off MSRP. While DD discounts are a certainty, I like having the other option as well.

Also, as a collector I like having physical media. It's nice to know I'll be able to play my copies in 10 or 20 years if I want when they may or may not still be offered for download via developers. I truly belive DD can coexist with retail, I just don't want to see one completely replace the other. I guess my argument may be a little OT...

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

so what's replacing games?

Beer, pot, and hookers.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

so what's replacing games?

That was a bad analogy. DD will start to replace Game discs within the next 5 years I think.

 

[Woodsy]

so what's replacing games?

nothing is replacing games - downloads are replacing discs. Both provide a gaming experience just as both a horse and car provide transportation.

 

[cRIPticon]

My point is that with places like Amazon Marketplace, eBay, local game stores, Gamestop, etc, I can buy a game used at up 50% or more off MSRP. While DD discounts are a certainty, I like having the other option as well.

Also, as a collector I like having physical media. It's nice to know I'll be able to play my copies in 10 or 20 years if I want when they may or may not still be offered for download via developers. I truly belive DD can coexist with retail, I just don't want to see one completely replace the other. I guess my argument may be a little OT...

Thanks for the clarification of your position. I agree that more places to acquire content is a "good thing". And, for the record, I don't believe that DD will completely replace physical media, not for a very long time. and there are very human reasons behind this.

You know, we were discussing this at the Game Executives Conference back in 2000. The industry is still trying to, and will be for some time, trying to strike the balance between downloads and physical media.

 

[Dambrosi]

That was a bad analogy. DD will start to replace Game discs within the next 5 years I think.

Nothing is replacing games - downloads are replacing discs.

Not going to happen. You're fools if you really believe that console makers will abandon physical media anytime in the foreseeable future (especially Sony and Nintendo), and discs are almost guaranteed to continue to be the primary storage and delivery format for games. And as long as that is true, publishers will have no choice but to deal with it.

Complimentary B&M and DD markets in balance with each other is the most elegant solution IMO - just look at Burnout Paradise for an example.

 

[charlequin]

Yes, but 360, PS3, and Wii all have the majority of their content and unit sales provided via retail.

But all three also have a significant library of download-only content, all of which is scarcely discounted (if ever.) Which feeds back into my earlier point: the closed-platform nature of these systems ensures that no meaningful competition can arise that would drive them to compete on price.

Thus, you end up with an oligopoly of walled gardens, each acting like mini-monopolies. It would be nice if competition between platform holders were enough to negate these effects, but I don't think it'll be enough.

Exactly. We already see this effect in practice with the platforms as they stand now, with lots of areas in which platform lock-in is used as an excuse to implement consumer-unfriendly policies and prices, but there's clearly even more room to do so in terms of downloadable software than there currently is with hardware accessories, SKU features, etc.

Consoles already exhibit these characteristics. These traits and behaviours would not prevent prices coming down overall.

Right now, pressure for pricedrops comes almost entirely from external forces outside publishers' control: retail looking to dump excess new stock by pricedropping it, or threatening to sell used copies at a steep discount, or rental places liquidating their now-unneeded rental stock. Bringing all sales inside a walled garden reduces those pressures.

What I don't get is the faux anger at Gamestop -- if Gamestop is really perceived to be such a threat, the logical response would be to stop treating them as a retail partner and let them become more like the Funcoland stores that so many of them used to be: game stores selling only used games. If a company really felt that Gamestop was that threatening, simply shift all your marketing and sales focus over to Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, and the other "big box" sorts of stores.

Well, the dirty little secret is that Gamestop is actually still more valuable to big game publishers than they are harmful. The jeremiads against used game sales would indeed be more convincing if EA and Activision were to tell Gamestop to FOAD, but that's clearly not actually in their best interests.

And people whining about game prices are just embarrassing themselves. If you account for inflation and how much games give you these days

The problem with pricing has been addressed repeatedly: a $60 price makes it almost impossible for a normal consumer to take a risk on an unknown property (since the chance is high that they'll pay $60 for a bad game, i.e. something that's worth $0 to them.)

And I highly question the "how much games give you these days" concept. The scope of single-player modes has come consistently downwards as the cost of content has increased, and we've increasingly seen content that would be included by default in last generation's $50 games split off into paid DLC for this generation's $60 games.

When you compare directly to other content-driven entertainment media (i.e. movies, music, and books that retail consistently at <$20 apiece, or even TV seasons that sell for $30-50), most single-player games come off looking quite economically inefficient.

(Or, for that matter, when one compares the "flashy" but often content-starved experiences one can pay $60 for on the HD consoles to the equally entertaining titles available on DS and PSP for $30, or the games on the DLC services and iPhone.)

I find it ironic that you whine about people being "entitled" in the midst of a rant about how games should sell their entire lives at $60, not because they're good enough to demand that price, but simply because competitive options should be removed in order to force their prices artificially up.