Support NeoGAF

[0neAnd0nly]

I am very sorry your mother passed away. (truely) .

Thank you. I mean that. Though we debate and argue on discussion boards, it is nice to see humanity retained - especially since I am definitely in a fighting mood.

We just agree to disagree on the rest. And that’s fine.

Have a good day, Duck.

And btw: though I was certainly being a bit of a prick, ridiculous is a word I misspelled occasionally even in college. Interestingly enough I took English courses more frequently in credit hours, took lit for electives, and was a college reading level student in 6th grade and EVEN THEN I would still occasionally misspell it. It wasn’t until I had someone tell me they didn’t know what a red iculous was that I remembered to never spell it that way again

Have a blessed one.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

GameStop functions as a pawnshop. Need to pay for crack? Sell your kids Nintendo games.

This is why they are still around: to serve a valuable service to the community.

 

[Lupin25]

I’m with GameStop, but like it’s already been said…

Eventually, devs will stop dealing with discs altogether to cut down on production costs, just like Remedy did recently.

No Disc (ie. Digital Download)
=
No need for a disc drive or a plastic case (unless it’s for BC)

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

Because people have opted for what they value more doesn’t make them correct? Lol okay

The normies and casuals dictating the market means nothing.

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

I get this guy's sentiment and he obviously has his own motives for such a thing, but it is impractical unless you also mandate that every game becomes available on disc. Even if every console had a disc drive, over time more and more publishers will decide not to sell discs and eventually that will be that. No point artificially prolonging it, instead the industry should look at other standards to support game preservation and even reselling if that is what people want.

Thats true also, gaming must be preserved. In some form or fashion.

 

[Gamer79]

I agree but not because this asshole says it.

 

[HoofHearted]

This thread is still going?

 

[Rocco Schiavone]

I’m with GameStop, but like it’s already been said…

Eventually, devs will stop dealing with discs altogether to cut down on production costs, just like Remedy did recently.

No Disc (ie. Digital Download)
=
No need for a disc drive or a plastic case (unless it’s for BC)

Do you really believe they are not selling the game because of production costs??

They are doing it because they want to kill the used games market.

Every copy that is resold is one less download. The only reason the game isn't released on physical media is simply because they're hungry for money.

Or do they offer the game cheaper on the digital stores because they don't have to press the discs and the packaging??

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

It's not for me, but I'll be truly sad in the day that all games are only available online. My critic is that physical media are useless without patches etc...

 

[Gameplay Gods Bless]

Of course he would say that. Their business is dead without them.

Yea but in this case this is massively pro consumer so we should all agree without a disc drive you're left with the platform holder monopoly on game sales because unlike PC they don't allow competition on their consoles so no Steam, no GMG no Epic etc.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I’m with GameStop, but like it’s already been said…

Eventually, devs will stop dealing with discs altogether to cut down on production costs, just like Remedy did recently.

No Disc (ie. Digital Download)
=
No need for a disc drive or a plastic case (unless it’s for BC)

I dont think the avg game maker cares. If it's a 30% cut to Best Buy or a 30% cut to an e-store it's the same thing. But for a studio it's probably better to go digital because it makes gamers itchy to buy right from their couch instead of getting off their ass to order it from Amazon or grab it from a store.

I get this guy's sentiment and he obviously has his own motives for such a thing, but it is impractical unless you also mandate that every game becomes available on disc. Even if every console had a disc drive, over time more and more publishers will decide not to sell discs and eventually that will be that. No point artificially prolonging it, instead the industry should look at other standards to support game preservation and even reselling if that is what people want.

The best preservation is actually digital. With physical media, most people who hoard discs or cartridges are just doing for collectors sake. I dont think the guy with 100 SNES carts plays his SNES often or at all. But if someone wants physical thats fine. And most companies thin out making copies at some point. Its just not worth it to do production runs. Physical copies also need working hardware to run it. Not everyone wants to keep around an old console. I dont buy old retro games often but have bought Streets of Rage 2 and Castlevania SOTN. Great games worth rebuying for $10 20 years later, but not worth the hassle of keeping a Genesis and PS1 around and pulling out an old copy..... and that assumes it even still works.

Digital is the best option for preservation at the time because as long as a game maker wants to sell copies online it'll be there. I bought Ultima Underworld 1/2 for $2 on GOG. The game hasnt been pressed in 30 years. And even if I wanted to buy an old cardboard box of it from Ebay, how am I going to play 3.5 discs on a modern system even if I have DOSBOX installed?

If console makers had most of their games online and BC like Steam and GOG with tons of oldies (even stuff from the DOS days works as they recompile the game to work on modern systems), I think a lot more console purists at least wouldnt be so anti-digital. PC gamers started going full digital around 10-15 years ago(?). It got to a point only a small number of big hits got a boxed copy. PC gamers dont seem to care about ensuring that floppy or CD game still works as a physical copy. Probably because they can always find a way to get it to work or get a Steam/GOG copy.

 

[tr1p1ex]

.



Walmart undercuts everyone by $5 now. In store. No Pennies.

Yes the manufacturer sets the MSRP price, relatively - but there are variances as well.

There is absolutely ZERO argument that says less competition = better for consumers. Period. I’m not sure what you’re arguing.

Physical needs to survive and competition is a good thing. MS is historically anti-consumer, Sony isn’t much better.

Competition going away and then having monopolies over their digital store fronts = disgustingly bad times ahead for consumers.

On top of that, people that are “all digital”

Let’s not forget too…

Go try to buy old forza, NFS, Godzilla (ps4) digital or any of the many games taken down of digital stores due to licensing issues. Can still find them in the wild physically, good luck on the digital stores. Preservation of older games will be in heavy danger without physical as well.

The differences in pricing of new console games is a nothing burger as a rule of thumb.

And digital distribution costs are so much lower for a Nintendo or Sony that the notion that retailers are competition that lowers the prices of games on their systems is nonsense really.

 

[Lupin25]

I dont think the avg game maker cares. If it's a 30% cut to Best Buy or a 30% cut to an e-store it's the same thing. But for a studio it's probably better to go digital because it makes gamers itchy to buy right from their couch instead of getting off their ass to order it from Amazon or grab it from a store.

The best preservation is actually digital. With physical media, most people who hoard discs or cartridges are just doing for collectors sake. I dont think the guy with 100 SNES carts plays his SNES often or at all. But if someone wants physical thats fine. And most companies thin out making copies at some point. Its just not worth it to do production runs. Physical copies also need working hardware to run it. Not everyone wants to keep around an old console. I dont buy old retro games often but have bought Streets of Rage 2 and Castlevania SOTN. Great games worth rebuying for $10 20 years later, but not worth the hassle of keeping a Genesis and PS1 around and pulling out an old copy..... and that assumes it even still works.

Digital is the best option for preservation at the time because as long as a game maker wants to sell copies online it'll be there. I bought Ultima Underworld 1/2 for $2 on GOG. The game hasnt been pressed in 30 years. And even if I wanted to buy an old cardboard box of it from Ebay, how am I going to play 3.5 discs on a modern system even if I have DOSBOX installed?

If console makers had most of their games online and BC like Steam and GOG with tons of oldies (even stuff from the DOS days works as they recompile the game to work on modern systems), I think a lot more console purists at least wouldnt be so anti-digital. PC gamers started going full digital around 10-15 years ago(?). It got to a point only a small number of big hits got a boxed copy. PC gamers dont seem to care about ensuring that floppy or CD game still works as a physical copy. Probably because they can always find a way to get it to work or get a Steam/GOG copy.

I don’t believe this would happen for a long time, but a “cut” always matters in an ever-changing economy.

I’m just starting to wonder, from a specific demographic of devs, what’s the point of physical releases to publishers if 70-80% of sales are digital?

 

[0neAnd0nly]

The differences in pricing of new console games is a nothing burger as a rule of thumb.

And digital distribution costs are so much lower for a Nintendo or Sony that the notion that retailers are competition that lowers the prices of games on their systems is nonsense really.

Yeah?

So why are physical a lot of times cheaper, especially in many countries outside the US?

If their store front is so much cheaper, why are they dicking the consumer by still charging the same price?

Seems a bit… greedy… but I guess if boot licking is the game, lick away!

Also, I enjoy supporting jobs. Personally, that matters - though I get not for everybody.

Edit: if you save $5 a game at Walmart in store on release, and you buy 12 games a year, that equals out to $60 saved per year. You know, what Sony formerly charged someone to play online… which costs them virtually nothing, but is now $80.

I don’t think $60 is insignificant for many families, so be careful about your privilege. I say this as someone who has lived a pretty blessed life. You should still care about all consumers.

 

[THE DUCK]

Thank you. I mean that. Though we debate and argue on discussion boards, it is nice to see humanity retained - especially since I am definitely in a fighting mood.

We just agree to disagree on the rest. And that’s fine.

Have a good day, Duck.

And btw: though I was certainly being a bit of a prick, ridiculous is a word I misspelled occasionally even in college. Interestingly enough I took English courses more frequently in credit hours, took lit for electives, and was a college reading level student in 6th grade and EVEN THEN I would still occasionally misspell it. It wasn’t until I had someone tell me they didn’t know what a red iculous was that I remembered to never spell it that way again

Have a blessed one.

Thank you, you too.

 

[tr1p1ex]

Yeah?

So why are physical a lot of times cheaper, especially in many countries outside the US?

If their store front is so much cheaper, why are they dicking the consumer by still charging the same price?

Seems a bit… greedy… but I guess if boot licking is the game, lick away!

Also, I enjoy supporting jobs. Personally, that matters - though I get not for everybody.

Edit: if you save $5 a game at Walmart in store on release, and you buy 12 games a year, that equals out to $60 saved per year. You know, what Sony formerly charged someone to play online… which costs them virtually nothing, but is now $80.

I don’t think $60 is insignificant for many families, so be careful about your privilege. I say this as someone who has lived a pretty blessed life. You should still care about all consumers.

outside the US?!??! That's a different discussion. Prices outside the US depend on currency exchange rates. And aren't directly comparable.

they can't undercut their retailer partners is one reason prices of eshop games aren't automatically lower than physical retail.

You don't save $5 per game though at Walmart. STarfield is $69.88. SMB Wonder is $59.99 pre-order. ...

REtailers have done various experiments on using games as loss leaders or experimenting with pricing to some degree. I think these have to be done with permission of the manufacturer. They are basically temporary.

With older games the pricing at retail can vary due to too much inventory or experiments to increases total sales by decreasing price. There's a lot of leeway on older games given they have a fixed cost to develop the game. The cost of additional units might as well be zero. Nintendo keeps their prices high on their 1st party games as they age. While on other systems, and/or with many other publishers, the game prices tend to go to under $20 pretty quickly. Retail isn't the competition that lowers these prices. IT's the publisher.

Where your point makes sense is in the case of Steam. Steam is taking a 30% cut on other people's games for doing nothing relatively speaking.

The console makers are taking a big risk with hardware every generation. STeam just takes 30% for nada and that's a pretty outrageous cut for a pure digital retailer.

 

[0neAnd0nly]

outside the US?!??! That's a different discussion. Prices outside the US depend on currency exchange rates. And aren't directly comparable.

they can't undercut their retailer partners is one reason prices of eshop games aren't automatically lower than physical retail.

You don't save $5 per game though at Walmart. STarfield is $69.88. SMB Wonder is $59.99 pre-order. ...

REtailers have done various experiments on using games as loss leaders or experimenting with pricing to some degree. I think these have to be done with permission of the manufacturer. They are basically temporary.

With older games the pricing at retail can vary due to too much inventory or experiments to increases total sales by decreasing price. There's a lot of leeway on older games given they have a fixed cost to develop the game. The cost of additional units might as well be zero. Nintendo keeps their prices high on their 1st party games as they age. While on other systems, and/or with many other publishers, the game prices tend to go to under $20 pretty quickly. Retail isn't the competition that lowers these prices. IT's the publisher.

Where your point makes sense is in the case of Steam. Steam is taking a 30% cut on other people's games for doing nothing relatively speaking.

The console makers are taking a big risk with hardware every generation. STeam just takes 30% for nada and that's a pretty outrageous cut for a pure digital retailer.

I disagree with much of what you say, and yes you do save $5 IN STORE. The prices aren’t reflected online, this has been going on for a few years at Walmart, known thing. Feel free to research it.

 

[Muffdraul]

The only reason physical media software was ever a thing was because it used to be the only way to get the bits inside the machine.

"I like to own physical copies because that way I really OWN it forever!"

In the past, I would agree with that. As in, way back when a video game was finished and completed before it was encoded onto physical media. Those days are looooong gone. For the past couple of generations, physical copies are nothing but broken beta versions that desperately need patches which can only be downloaded, so even though you bought physical, the actual complete game itself is essentially digital.

"I like to sell my used games and loan them to friends and family and shit!"

I can't argue with that one. Personally I haven't bought or sold a used game in almost 30 freaking years now, and the last game I remember loaning one out was MGS3, before the Subsistence version released. The last game I remember borrowing was Call of Duty 3 on PS3. And I didn't even want it, my friend sort of forced it on me.

I have literally no reason to not be 100% digital. The only thing holding me back was my 3mbps connection I was stuck with for so many years because of where I lived. I finally moved and upgraded to 50mbps last year. Glorious.

It does irk me that physical copies drop in price relatively quickly while digital storefronts charge full MSRP for infinity. But when you're old and make a good living and sleep on a big pile of gold coins like I do, it doesn't matter that much. I mean, even if I do already own a PS4 or Xbone game physically, I'll often just double dip digitally if I want to play it now. So much more convenient than having to root through my huge collection of old physical copies trying to find it. If there's one thing I'm happy to pay for, it's convenience.

Anyway, I've loathed Gamestop for about 15 years, ever since they started trying to sell me opened used games at brand new MSRP. Fucking scummy ass company, they can go to hell. =P

 

[tr1p1ex]

I disagree with much of what you say, and yes you do save $5 IN STORE. The prices aren’t reflected online, this has been going on for a few years at Walmart, known thing. Feel free to research it.

I was at walmart yesterday. lol.

But ok I forget what the games were priced at even though i stared at the Switch section for half a minute.

Anyway yes of course Walmart is massive and can put some pressure on pricing. I know they were selling NIntendo 1st party games in store for $50 for awhile instead of $60. It was a deliberate experiment that lasted maybe 1 year. And that was within the last 3 years iirc. But then it was disappeared. So must not have resulted in either higher enough sales overall for games or for Walmart through add-on purchases.

But a few points to that. Let's start with it isn't a huge difference even if we say the discount is $5 in store. You have to go in store. You have to drag yourself over to Walmart. Pay gas and put mileage on your car probably. Walk to the back. Find a clerk to open the door. To save $5. Well that's not a huge motivation. It also isn't resulting in the other retailers lowering their game prices. Hasn't stopped people from buying digitally. Even Nintendo now is reporting ~50% of game sales these days are digital purchases. And for Walmart it is probably more of a loss leader type of thing than anything.

This bleeding heart example of yours that $5 is a big savings for a family who buys 12 $60 games doesn't add up because your (example of a) "poor" family is buying 12 $60 games! Poor families are buying cheap used games at Gamestop for the previous gen system.

Next, Nintendo has plenty of every day discounts on eshop games. I'm pretty sure you get 10% back in points for every digital purchase on the eshop and have since day 1. And those points can be used to buy more games. That's $6 off a $60 game.

Next, Nintendo introduced the game pass vouchers this year which is any 2 games for $100. ONly open to Switch online members (membership fee.) Switch online can be had for pretty cheap if you put some friends/family members together. Max cost for minimum online package at list price is under $2/mo or $20/yr. If you can split the base family package ($35/yr) 8 ways with others, your cost is under $5/yr or under 50 cents/mo. (I use Nintendo examples because I am familiar with them.)

Third, eshop cards are routinely discounted. Frequent sales. At Costco, albeit behind that membership fee again, they are 10% off every day. And as much as 25% off 1-2 times/yr. Maybe that is a retailer benefit again. . (Although typical pricing strategy where the direct channel is list price most of the time. But other channels routinely have discounts. )

Fourth, there are sales on the eshop frequently. Nintendo seemingly discounts each of their games at least once a year and probably more frequently. And the sale prices roughly match what I see in stores. Generally get down into the $40ish range for a 1st party $60 game. Not lower.

 

[TheBTL]

Dinosaurs shouting at asteroids.

Underrated post.