Gamestop Threatening not to Sell Next Xbox

[Twigg4075]

But in reality, how much are they putting out for the disc and case? It is probably a minuscule amount, and they are probably paying for the disc and case with the amount of money saved by not including manuals anymore.

I read an article not long ago about companies like Ubisoft and EA who no longer include manuals in their games. It's only like a penny per game but they have saved millions of dollars because of it. If they cut out the disc and box they could save exponentially more.

The problem is that, like Spiker has been saying, I just don't see M$ passing on these savings to anyone. They've been known to gouge developers in publishers and create all kinds of bullshit policies just so that companies have the "honor" of selling games that play on their system. Plus, as I've mentioned before, look at their Games on Demand. Those prices are laughable. That's what I would be concerned about. If a console went all digital and the games were a lot cheaper and they had sales constantly, then I would be on board. But this is M$ people, that shit just isn't going to happen. Just like others have said M$ will have the "We're the only next gen game in town, so pay up or get out of my backyard" mentality. Mark my words, if they go all digital we'll still be paying $60 per game and that's bullshit. This is a company that charges you money to play games online after all.

So please don'tr try to compare M$ to a company like Valve with Steam. Valve isn't as great as they once where ever since they partnered with EA but they still have loads more integrity as a company than M$ does. If you think MS will adopt a Steam like policy to digital distribution you guys are delusional.

Sony has taken a small step towards this already. Look at the Vita. All of their games are available both digitally or physically, and the digital versions are discounted. It's only like 10-20% but it's still something. Because it's still so new they haven't offered and significant sales on the digital stuff on the PSN Store but I can see that coming. They are trying to offer consumers a choice but they also want to keep retailers happy because the retailers are the ones selling their systems and accessories.

[leaffan]

There's a lot of bad business fundamentals being tossed around in this thread.

Digital distribution gives game companies full control over how much you pay and who you buy your game from (and even if you get to continue to own the game or not - another potential issue with full digital). The game companies having full control is what's important here because you have no alternatives at all. You are at their mercy. When you have no options about where you are going to buy your game, why do you think prices are going to go down? Save your examples of one day sales because those are one off examples. Skyrim is still normally $60 right now on Steam.

It's like Sethmode's example about his cable company. He was getting gouged on shitty service and there was nothing he could do until he found a new provider.

Or even look at EA and their gay ass licensing bull shit with Madden and NCAA. Lack of competition has given us some shit football games for the last 7 years and basically, there's no incentive for them to get any better as long as they are the only dog on the block. If you want to play a 2012 NFL football game, then there's only game you can buy.

One business having total control over the market is always, always, always bad for the consumer. That has been true since the beginning of time.

This is wrong btw.

I know I've said in the this thread that with digital gaming prices "could" drop (and I've been careful to use could and should because I obviously don't know) but that is not the main reason why I feel the move to all digital titles or at the very minimum we have the option to do so is better.

It's like people just arn't reading whats out there about it and just jumping to conclusions like spiker here.

[leaffan]

I've seen some posts in here worrying about piracy on the PC. The best anti-piracy tool is a better user experience (i.e. Steam) that allows people to buy a product in an easy and cost affordable way. At the end of the day, the physical cost of the good becomes zero. Piracy should act as a market signal that you're pricing out your fanbase (I liked this Gamasutra article: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LarsD...currencies.php)

If you look at the music business, piracy in places like Sweden has plummeted after the introduction of services like Spotify. Perhaps that model has a place in the gaming world as well. $20-30 a month and you get all the games you can handle. I'm sure there will be some that will cry 'WAH, you don't actually own the game'. That same cry as gone up as products turn digital, be it vinyl owners, CD owners, DVD owners, etc.

I'm actually suprised that that pricing model hasn't been jumped on more outside of the renting games over mail companies.

For the people that just buy games play them and return them for credit back it would be perfect for them.

[spiker]

This is wrong btw.

I know I've said in the this thread that with digital gaming prices "could" drop (and I've been careful to use could and should because I obviously don't know) but that is not the main reason why I feel the move to all digital titles or at the very minimum we have the option to do so is better.

It's like people just arn't reading whats out there about it and just jumping to conclusions like spiker here.

What is wrong? That the game companies won't have total control of the market? If the new XBox goes full digital, where are you going to get your games for that system?

[leaffan]

What is wrong? That the game companies won't have total control of the market? If the new XBox goes full digital, where are you going to get your games for that system?

I would not be surprised that microsoft themselves would have almost all of the say in that. They would probably host it themselves and set the pricing and everything. Game companies would most likely just make a % of the sales while microsoft would retain another % to cover the cost of the hosting and bandwidth among other things.

It would be cool if they had a marketplace similar to android where you can choose to go through the amazon marketplace for apps instead of google but I don't think MS would be that happy about being so "open" as it were.

Where this kinda goes screwy is with EA who has taken it upon themselves to go the route you said and have pretty much said f you to other services such as steam when it comes to new games. I'm still sour as hell at BF3 and the fact I have to have that piece of shit origin running the background just so I can play a game I actually bought on disk because they didn't offer it on steam.

[spiker]

That's more of a question of leverage between game publisher and the console maker. If Microsoft allows EA to do their own e-shop but still demands the same % cut from EA, then what's the point of EA setting up their own download service? It's not in either of their interests to stone wall EA from releasing games on the new XBox so EA's going to have to buck up if they want a seat at the table, exactly like they do now. And the customer is at the mercy of what agreement is worked out between EA and M$.