Support NeoGAF

[Gamer79]

This is something that has really bothered me for some time. If I buy a piece of physical media, The publisher has to print the cases, print the dvds, ship the product, have the retailer take it's cut, etc. When I buy a piece of digital media, I am already paying PSN to host the game/download on their servers. Making a digital service is cheaper for the publisher to sell their game. Why is that savings not passed on to the consumer? Does anyone have inside information on this?

By the way, An example how cheaper prices can lead to more sales just look at the Atlanta Falcons example. Instead of raping fans on concession prices like stadiums and move theaters. They made the food super cheap. The result was they became #1 in the NFL in concession sales for the year. Who would figure if you give someone a value they are more likely to buy it.

 

[Grandmaster Hash]

they don't want to undercut retailers and render them even more obsolete than they already are perhaps?

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

I could be way off but maybe because so many people are willing to pay full price? If no one bought digitally I would imagine they would have lowered it across the board, but full price for digital doesn’t seem to really stop anybody.

 

[Oddspeak]

I could be way off but maybe because so many people are willing to pay full price? If no one bought digitally I would imagine they would have lowered it across the board, but full price for digital doesn’t seem to really stop anybody.

I bet some people foolishly think it's some sort of price to pay for the convenience.

If physical media disappeared right this instant, games would still be $60 on digital storefronts, and they'd stay $60 for years, because they don't take up finite physical space that drives retailers into dropping prices themselves. There are games that are three or more years old still at $60 on Steam, PSN, and XBL, only dropping during the occasional sale, sometimes not even by much.

 

[VertigoOA]

Shadows of the Empire cost 95$

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

they don't want to undercut retailers and render them even more obsolete than they already are perhaps?

This. It's the same reason that retailers like Amazon are "allowed" to break street dates by emailing physical copies early -- if they couldn't, they'd be losing a huge chuck of trade due to their inability to get products in consumers' hands day-and-date and would refuse to stock and, more importantly, advertise new releases.

I could be way off but maybe because so many people are willing to pay full price? If no one bought digitally I would imagine they would have lowered it across the board, but full price for digital doesn’t seem to really stop anybody.

Also this. Things aren't worth what they cost, they are worth what someone else is willing to pay. People are willing to pay full price for digital copies, so that's what they charge.

 

[I Love Rock 'n' Roll]

They are likely more expensive that physical version, even at day one.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Because pay more for it (convenience and lower friction are very convincing arguments).

 

[VertigoOA]

Digital catalogs seem to make games cheaper in the long run. You can pretty much guarantee any new release to be 20$ in a PSN flash sale in less than a year from release.

 

[Investor9872]

I could be way off but maybe because so many people are willing to pay full price? If no one bought digitally I would imagine they would have lowered it across the board, but full price for digital doesn’t seem to really stop anybody.

Bingo!

 

[Woggleman]

They will charge what people are willing to pay.

 

[Vawn]

It's because they need retailers because that's how much of their potential customers even know about the product. They can't afford to piss them off.

Digital catalogs seem to make games cheaper in the long run. You can pretty much guarantee any new release to be 20$ in a PSN flash sale in less than a year from release.

And cheaper off of Amazon physically. Often even cheaper brand new.

 

[KiNeMz]

I seem to agree with the undercutting of physical will be to big an impact on physical sales. But do people seem to assume that the maintaining of such a digital network is an extraordinary cost aswell.

There is cloud server infrastructure costs in major regions in the world maintenance and storage on top. Plus the teams of IT professionals to keep the services running, making sure it's secure and not hacked, the marketing of it all, the network costs. Hosting a worldwide content delivery service is not cheap.

 

[VertigoOA]

It's because they need retailers because that's how much of their potential customers even know about the product. They can't afford to piss them off.



And cheaper off of Amazon physically. Often even cheaper brand new.

Kinda my point here. I’ve never seen games so cheaply affordable or readily available. I mean, it’s almost midnight... if I wanted a new game I can buy one now. It’s a wonderful thing.

I know collector’s fear for game preservation but ... to be honest... pirates and Roms do the best job at that.

 

[Lucumo]

Because people are dumb? They baited them towards digital back in the day, telling them it will be cheaper because of the reasons mentioned but nope, of course not, if people will pay the same price (or even more) for digital, compared to physical.

 

[Blond]

I could be way off but maybe because so many people are willing to pay full price? If no one bought digitally I would imagine they would have lowered it across the board, but full price for digital doesn’t seem to really stop anybody.

And it won't change either. I still remember Microsoft saying "all first party and exclusive games will be 49.99 and third party 59.99" which lasted for all of a year till Gears of War launched then 60 was the minimum.

 

[Eanox]

Retailer parity. Console maufacturer will not risk game stores to lose their business because you can buy games cheaper digitally.
Can you buy your console machine digitally?

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

So, here's the thing about businesses is, they like money.

Edit: More to the point, this is largely motivated by retailers that would throw a fit if publishers were to undercut them for a digital version, and refuse to carry their product. Physical is still a big enough share of the market that retailers have considerable sway.

 

[UltimaKilo]

they don't want to undercut retailers and render them even more obsolete than they already are perhaps?

This. It’s not difficult to figure out. Retailers matter.

 

[UsualNoise]

This is actually one of the reasons I'm still buying physical on Switch despite the convenience factor of digital. It's simply a much better deal; I can usually get physical games for 20% (or more) less than digital ... even larger discounts around Black Friday. Can usually get 4+ physical games for the price of 3 digital.

 

[KingdomHeartsFan]

Cause suckers pay for it. Its the same reason you have to pay for online, Microsoft made some suckers believe it cost them a lot to maintain the servers (LOL) and then they turn around and give it away for free to PC players.

 

[-YFC-]

Because people buy it. The disc and the case is not really expensive, maybe 5 bucks. But I think digital should remove those production cost and make the game 55 bucks if the physical copy is 60.

 

[jakinov]

This is something that has really bothered me for some time. If I buy a piece of physical media, The publisher has to print the cases, print the dvds, ship the product, have the retailer take it's cut, etc. When I buy a piece of digital media, I am already paying PSN to host the game/download on their servers. Making a digital service is cheaper for the publisher to sell their game. Why is that savings not passed on to the consumer? Does anyone have inside information on this?

By the way, An example how cheaper prices can lead to more sales just look at the Atlanta Falcons example. Instead of raping fans on concession prices like stadiums and move theaters. They made the food super cheap. The result was they became #1 in the NFL in concession sales for the year. Who would figure if you give someone a value they are more likely to buy it.

The savings from not creating the disk and shipping the box is likely very very small I remember either on Reddit on some other forums saying we're probably talking a few dollars to print discs and ship them because of the mass-volume and the using of third parties (contracted companies) that operate in a third-world countries to do it super cost-effectively.

Yes there's also no retailer now. But that doesn't mean there's no seller. The platform/store owner is now the seller and they have their own operating costs too. Which isn't exactly cheap. They might hire less people but they will hire more expensive people. Probably at the end of the day fewer expensive employees is going to be cheaper than many cheap employees. But my point is cutting out the retailer doesn't mean all that money is freed up. There's also costs involved for every download and ensuring quality of service.

There is a bit of money saved from the publisher and a bit of money the platform owner could shave off. But people are willing to pay that extra bit of money and they want to make money.

In regards to the last part. There's a balance that you have to strike. There's a limit to how many people will ever buy your product and so you may increase sales but not necessarily profits. If you sold a game for half the price, you'd need twice as many games sold just to make the same.

 

[Nitty_Grimes]

Pure profit for all the bobby koticks of this world.

 

[Boss Mog]

Because people are stupid enough to pay the same for it so why should companies lower it? You have people on this very forum constantly championing a means of delivery where they have no ownership of the product they pay for and which can be taken away from them at any moment on the whims of the service provider:

Ubisoft can now terminate your account after 6 months of inactivity in EN-GB ToS

In the terms of service, to be exact at the point 8 (8.2.), it says that besides getting your account terminated due to rules being broken, your account can also be terminated if it has been inactive for more than six months. https://legal.ubi.com/termsofuse/en-GB I don't really remember that...

www.neogaf.com

But I guess not having to get off your ass to change a disc is worth that for some people?

 

[Soltype]

Because people are stupid enough to pay the same for it so why should companies lower it? You have people on this very forum constantly championing a means of delivery where they have no ownership of the product they pay for and which can be taken away from them at any money on the whims of the service provider:

Ubisoft can now terminate your account after 6 months of inactivity in EN-GB ToS

In the terms of service, to be exact at the point 8 (8.2.), it says that besides getting your account terminated due to rules being broken, your account can also be terminated if it has been inactive for more than six months. https://legal.ubi.com/termsofuse/en-GB I don't really remember that...

www.neogaf.com

But I guess not having to get off your ass to change a disc is worth that for some people?

physical isnt always better, there are games that you can't fire up without patching or having internet.

 

[Boss Mog]

physical isnt always better, there are games that you can't fire up with patching or having internet.

That is just nonsense. I'm going to assume you meant to say "without", but even so it's still nonsense. You're saying that physical versions might require an internet connection to be played so that makes them worse than digital versions which ALWAYS require an internet connection to be downloaded in the first place but also to be played because of DRM. Digital versions still are subject to patches. The first time you download the game the most current patch is downloaded automatically so it may seem like you don't have to download a patch but you're downloading the whole fucking game so it makes no sense whatsoever to bitch about having to download a patch.

As for games on disc they will always work without internet or patches, at least the offline content, obviously you won't be able to play online multiplayer and stuff like that without patching or an internet connection.

 

[Jigsaah]

This is something that has really bothered me for some time. If I buy a piece of physical media, The publisher has to print the cases, print the dvds, ship the product, have the retailer take it's cut, etc. When I buy a piece of digital media, I am already paying PSN to host the game/download on their servers. Making a digital service is cheaper for the publisher to sell their game. Why is that savings not passed on to the consumer? Does anyone have inside information on this?

By the way, An example how cheaper prices can lead to more sales just look at the Atlanta Falcons example. Instead of raping fans on concession prices like stadiums and move theaters. They made the food super cheap. The result was they became #1 in the NFL in concession sales for the year. Who would figure if you give someone a value they are more likely to buy it.

To get more profit.

Games have been $60 for 20 years. Inflation would normally mean games should go up in price, especially since production costs have gone up. Companies can't really raise the price of games because they need to keep it affordable, so they found other ways to profit. Peripherals, services, subscriptions and microtransactions all contribute to the same pot. Charging the same for digital media is just another method.

 

[phil_t98]

With digital media you are paying for 2 licences also. You can game share and both play the game at the same time with physical media you cannot do this

 

[Ar¢tos]

Retailer parity. Console maufacturer will not risk game stores to lose their business because you can buy games cheaper digitally.
Can you buy your console machine digitally?

You don't need gaming shops to sell consoles. Many big supermarkets and appliances shops already sell them.

 

[ZywyPL]

Because more money never hurts. For one side gaming is a hobby/passion, but for the other it's just a business

 

[rofif]

Probably cost of servers for download etc is even higher. I just want digital on console but it's getting harder

 

[Eanox]

You don't need gaming shops to sell consoles. Many big supermarkets and appliances shops already sell them.

And this shops also sells games and they gain a good profit out of this games more than the consoles itself.
It will be a huge blow for a console manufacturers if these shops stop selling your products.

 

[TexMex]

Never heard an answer to this that makes sense and it’s the main reason I still buy physical only when possible.

 

[sublimit]

Because they can.

And once physical goes away completely (as it is the plan of many big publishers) you better start lubbing your asses.

 

[Soltype]

That is just nonsense. I'm going to assume you meant to say "without", but even so it's still nonsense. You're saying that physical versions might require an internet connection to be played so that makes them worse than digital versions which ALWAYS require an internet connection to be downloaded in the first place but also to be played because of DRM. Digital versions still are subject to patches. The first time you download the game the most current patch is downloaded automatically so it may seem like you don't have to download a patch but you're downloading the whole fucking game so it makes no sense whatsoever to bitch about having to download a patch.

As for games on disc they will always work without internet or patches, at least the offline content, obviously you won't be able to play online multiplayer and stuff like that without patching or an internet connection.

I never said physical was worse, just that it isn't always better. Sometimes the benefits of physical media are not afforded depending on the game.

 

[Fuz]

Greed.

 

[Boss Mog]

I never said physical was worse, just that it isn't always better. Sometimes the benefits of physical media are not afforded depending on the game.

But it is always better because you actually own the game (you can do whatever you want with it including selling it) instead of paying the same price for what equates to licensing the right to play it as long as the platform holder says it's okay and as long as you have internet access.

 

[Daymos]

If you wait for sales digital media can be just as cheap or cheaper than physical media. Physical media often has a bottom price point of $20, whereas it's not that uncommon to see a 3 year old $60 game on sale for $7.49.

Cynicism is undercutting your argument.

 

[Ballthyrm]

A lot of the retailers commanded a large number of copies of the games with price parity imperative.
IE: can't sell your product in wallmart if the digital version isn't at the same price.

As a lot of games where still sold physically the big publishers couldn't easily take the loss.
So as long as a big chunk of the money was coming from physical they obeyed.

All the while the publishers tried their hardest to cut the middleman as the value they added is poor.
Most if not all the value in a game is the piece of software, not the bits of plastic attached to it.

So they developed their own platforms to cut every middleman (Uplay, Origin, etc.)
And they also struck deal with platform owners so at least so they don't have to deal with resellers.

All digital is better for the platform and the publishers by a lot.
They don't have to deal with used copies with generated zero revenue and cost them in server costs, etc.
They also get a bigger piece of the pie.


TBH i think physical is hampering the medium and distribution, look at what Steam has accomplished compared to say Gamestop and you get the idea.
Humble bundle did a lot of cool stuff too, Most of the innovative idea for game distribution are happening digitally.
This is good for the medium, the price have come down, don't let the AAA pricing give you false ideas.

 

[Fuz]

Because they can.

Because gamers allow it.

 

[ROMhack]

Retailers, including online stores, do a lot of advertising for games. It's important to keep them happy.

 

[sublimit]

If you wait for sales digital media can be just as cheap or cheaper than physical media. Physical media often has a bottom price point of $20, whereas it's not that uncommon to see a 3 year old $60 game on sale for $7.49.

Cynicism is undercutting your argument.

Not true. Currently at where i live i can find the physical version of Shadow of the TR (complete edition) for 14 euros. Pretty sure that in a few months from now it will drop bellow 10 euros.Same goes for many other physical games.

 

[Birdo]

I have no problem with Digital games being full price at launch.

But games like Breath of The Wild being sold for £60 three years after they released is just nuts.

Sony and MS seem to be a bit better with this. But Nintendo just refuse to lower the price of old games.

 

[darkinstinct]

You can cut the perhaps, that was exactly the deal retailers made in order to keep selling consoles. Selling consoles is barely profitable, they need game sales to actually make money. And the platform holders wanted their consoles and games as advertisements in stores when digital was at 10 % at the beginning of the current gen. Now we are at over 50 % digital. It's time we see changes.

they don't want to undercut retailers and render them even more obsolete than they already are perhaps?

 

[ROMhack]

I have no problem with Digital games being full price at launch.

But games like Breath of The Wild being sold for £60 three years after they released is just nuts.

Sony and MS seem to be a bit better with this. But Nintendo just refuse to lower the price of old games.

I've no issue with games keeping their value if they're worth it. I also highly suspect it makes people appreciate games more.

Edit: Oh, you mean digital. Yeah I kinda agree lol. There's no long-term value in digital compared to physical - only convenience.

 

[Hendrick's]

They do not want to undervalue their games and piss off retail partners. I do think that the move to all digital could perhaps keep prices from increasing for a time, but even that is unlikely. I'm actually amazed that games have remained at $60 for so long.

 

[Optimistic Gamer]

Are there really people out there that think if tomorrow physical discs would no longer exist they would lower the prices because now the retail partners are gone?

Most of you guys are old enough to better understand how this world works.

 

[Starlight Lotice]

Probably because being present in shops gets the game sold better than on a Digital Store where competition is high.

To be honest, Digital and Physical need to be the same price at launch as the Developers still get 70% of the revenue without any additional overheads except paying the Platform holder 30%.

Physical is better for us to resell the game but the Publishers lose a lot of money from all the overheads/retail costs, in additon to the Games reducing to their Net Realisable Value rather than the Cost Price that the Publishers agreed on to sell them at.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Digital catalogs seem to make games cheaper in the long run. You can pretty much guarantee any new release to be 20$ in a PSN flash sale in less than a year from release.

I think that depends on the games. Seems like Japanese games sometimes take longer to drop in price compared to non-Japanese games. Nintendo is a great example. Those Altlier games as well. Hello Sekiro. Also, I don’t think Blue Reflection ever dropped below $40?

Honestly though, I feel that digital pricing is generally a joke compared to physical. Sure, it’s convenient, but that’s really it’s primary advantage. No collector’s stuff, no reselling, no trading, higher prices, no borrowing, installs are longer, etc.