Digital Games sold at the same price as Retail (physical) Games

[Foolery]

I really only go digital on PC. It's the one place where digital makes sense, and it's the one place where games get regularly discounted. Physical as much as possible on console, unless it's an indie game that didn't get a physical release. Hell, I skipped Fire Emblem Fates, since I couldn't snag the special edition with all three paths on one cart. Just rubs me the wrong way for my only option to be DLC versions of the other two paths, if I want to see the rest of the story.

 

[gigastar]

The hell? The main reason why digital and retail are equal price is because the likes of Gamestop make publishers sign agreements to not undercut thier RRP's in different storefronts.

I dont doubt a higher profit margin is part of the reason, but ive seen enough cheaper digital launches to infer that its not the sole deciding factor.

Are these contracts typically for a set period of time or apply only at launch? Because things like Steam sales contradict this.

Im assuming its only at launch. Seeing as the shops will eventually want shelf space for newer stuff when it comes out, and keeping track of and communicating realative prices would add a fuckton of work for no real benefit to either side.

Also im assuming it only applies to RRP values, if the publisher wants digital to have a temporary launch discount (a launch sale) then thats up to them.

 

[Fox12]

It is because retailers won't give shelf space to games that are available online for half the price. And publishers still depend on retailers for sales.

...

Goddamn, that makes sense. I hadn't ever thought about that before. In any case, I only buy digital when I have to.

 

[MetalDooley]

What do you think about convenience stores who buy items from the grocery store on sale and the sell it for twice the price at their own store?
I mean we are essentially paying for convenience, it's in the title.

I tend not too shop at places like that unless I have no choice.I'm not a big fan of paying more for an item that's available cheaper elsewhere

With games the idea of paying more for a digital copy because you're too lazy to go to a store makes no sense particularly with online shopping so easily available.I buy most of my games online these days as I can usually find a copy cheaper than both digital and brick and mortar stores and get it delivered to my house.

 

[Luminous_Umbra]

It is because retailers won't give shelf space to games that are available online for half the price. And publishers still depend on retailers for sales.

That makes a fair amount of sense...and would probably cause there to be less sales, at least for right now. Not everyone can download games easily.

I'll be honest, I avoid digital unless it either A. Has no physical form or B. Is discounted significantly. I've heard enough cases of bad things happening to digital media to not trust any service/company.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Honestly,

Spoiler: (Content warning: trigger warning)

Spoiler: (Trigger warning: unpopular opinion)

I've been thinking that, in the US at least, AAA games have been undercosted. Early games on cartridges and such often cost significantly more after accounting for inflation, and AAA video games tend to cost much more to make these days. If nothing else, inflation alone since 2006 should put us around the $70 dollar mark. Add to the fact that most PC games might as well actually cost $30-$40 dollars considering sales instead of the full $60...

 

[go-10]

I always go for digital and I don't complaint about the price since a box that collects dust does't really add anything for me, specially considering the last time I sold a game was back in 1999... Anyways to me the price seems unfair but I understand why they have to price it as such. Developers don't set the price of the game it's an industry set base price most of the time and we also need to keep in fact that you need a console to play the game, retailers sell the console (Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo) mostly sell consoles at a lost but makeup the difference with software sales, but if you have digital games selling cheaper than physical then it becomes a problem for the stores and console makers risk the chance of being issued a monopoly claim or worse getting a retail boycott and stores stop carrying that specific console and promoting the competition.

it's all business, shake with one hand use the other to strangle them if they step out of line.

 

[Saelune]

Digital copies should be cheaper than physical, since the cost of production is less.

While this is true. Games are getting more and more expensive to make. Considering the industry isn't the strongest or most well paid anyway, I personally have no issue paying a slightly higher price to support it.

Doesn't change that digital should be cheaper. Whatever it costs for physical games, the digital copy should be less.

Plus I think locking game prices is dumb. Sure, some games come out at 50 or 40 or less, but most games go for 60$ (with too many "special" editions for often twice as much) and most games aren't worth 60$.

 

[Saelune]

Doesn't change that digital should be cheaper. Whatever it costs for physical games, the digital copy should be less.

Plus I think locking game prices is dumb. Sure, some games come out at 50 or 40 or less, but most games go for 60$ (with too many "special" editions for often twice as much) and most games aren't worth 60$.

Well... Game devs need money to live, and also to make more games. So it does change that fact.

They can't price up physical in order to price down digital, else everyone'd just buy digital and they'd make considerably less money.

They can't just price down digital without changing prices, because then it's the same again.

I agree that game prices shouldn't just be locked at $60, and should be adjustable depending on content. Personally I follow the rule of $1 = 1 hour, $60 cap. But then that rule also changes for some games, since shorter games can be godly expensive to make as well.

Price tags are arguably okay as they are. A lot of companies struggle on making profit as it is. Honestly, prices could even be higher.

Its not the cost to devs, but to production that is what I have issue with. If you aren't producing a physical product, why make us pay for it? The devs just make the software, they don't work whatever factories make them.

Plus I could argue that if games are cheaper, more people will buy them or more of them, and devs still make money.

 

[Saelune]

Its not the cost to devs, but to production that is what I have issue with. If you aren't producing a physical product, why make us pay for it? The devs just make the software, they don't work whatever factories make them.

Plus I could argue that if games are cheaper, more people will buy them or more of them, and devs still make money.

When you buy it digitally, they're not paying factories though, the money that was supposed to be paid to factories for production just gets taken as profit.

And yes, you can argue that if games are cheaper, then players can buy more games, but then that means devs need to create more games, which means less money spent on development, which lowers game quality, and it's that kind of issue which ultimately led to the industry crash years ago. Cheaper games don't create more profit. Cheaper games just forces lower quality.

Developers don't just sit there whacking off all day. Games take a long time and a lot of manpower to make. Employees do a LOT of unpaid overtime. They want to make at least SOME profit at the end of the day. They need to eat, buy things (you know.. maybe they want to buy their own videogames?), pay bills etc. They can only do this with the profit made from games.

Yes, it sucks that we pay an extra $15 per game, but it's not that big of a deal. If the industry was absolutely booming and every game dev was making millions, then I'd be in complete agreement with you. But as it stands, the industry is competitive, projects and studios are constantly getting shut down, a lot of games are constantly struggling to make profit, and people in the industry are constantly finding themselves out of a job.

Digital products have done a lot for the industry, but I don't think that they need to backpedal on profits, especially when the demands of consumers are constantly getting more and more demanding.

Besides, digital prices drop relatively quickly anyway, I'd say that when you pay $60 for a game, you're more paying for early access.

At the end of it all, I see your points and agree with a couple, but I don't believe that digital copies of games should be cheaper. I'd say that most games are priced fairly based on the amount of work which has been put into them. As I said before, I think games could even be priced higher. If you're making a huge game, I'd say it'd be totally acceptable to charge $70-80 for it.

You seem to think that all devs even deserve a job or money. They don't. Some are bad at their jobs. Too many shitty games are made, and don't deserve to be 60$ or even 20 or less. And plenty of good games worth 60 or more don't profit.

 

[Saelune]

You seem to think that all devs even deserve a job or money. They don't. Some are bad at their jobs. Too many shitty games are made, and don't deserve to be 60$ or even 20 or less. And plenty of good games worth 60 or more don't profit.

Because the vast majority do deserve their jobs. The ones that don't generally get fired.

Generally AAA games tend to be quite high quality, if issues arise, it's no fault of the actual developer.

Also, it's extremely rare that EVERY aspect of a game is bad. Usually, a game can be mechanically bad, but visually amazing. Do the artists not deserve to get paid for something that wasn't their fault?

You're over simplifying absolutely everything.

I guess I just hold gaming to a higher standard than you do. I also value the consumer more than you apparently do as well. Plus economics are far more complicated than either of us are really delving into.

I lost my job at Gamestop cause Star Wars Battlefield sold poorly. Ironic since before I got the job, I called that it would be a bad game. Certainly opened my eyes to the greater reach of things. That said, I don't think people should have bought into a bad game, just so I could keep that job. Hey, if games were cheaper, I could be buying more of them on my currently limited income than I am now. Certainly itching to get DOOM.

 

[Saelune]

I guess I just hold gaming to a higher standard than you do. I also value the consumer more than you apparently do as well. Plus economics are far more complicated than either of us are really delving into.

I lost my job at Gamestop cause Star Wars Battlefield sold poorly. Ironic since before I got the job, I called that it would be a bad game. Certainly opened my eyes to the greater reach of things. That said, I don't think people should have bought into a bad game, just so I could keep that job. Hey, if games were cheaper, I could be buying more of them on my currently limited income than I am now. Certainly itching to get DOOM.

Actually, it's quite the contrary. I'm quite critical of a lot of games, but I also have a large appreciation for individuals within the industry, the individual work they do, and the industry as a whole.

And while I do appreciate consumers. Game prices drop over a couple of months anyway, hundreds of artists, designers, animators, programmers etc shouldn't go under/unpaid for the sake of you paying an extra $15. Especially considering the sheer amount of work which they put in.

Just because a game is bad doesn't mean that every developer who worked on the game was shitty. Usually issues in games are caused by people higher up than the game developers. Some of the best artists and animators I know worked on games like Ride to Hell Retribution, Kinectimals, Godus, etc.

Like.. Let's take Fable Legends as an example. Look at this guy's artwork. https://www.artstation.com/artwork/exdo3 his artwork is objectively fantastic quality. If Fable Legends ended up being a terrible game, you're arguing that this particular artist doesn't deserve to get paid, because of issues which were absolutely NOT related to him AT ALL.

Pick better employers then. Plus they do get paid. They just don't get paid more. I'm pretty sure a lot of the "cost" of games comes from ya know, paying the people to make the game while they make it. Its not an all or nothing job.

Game development is a creative field. The thing about creative fields, is if you are talented, you can keep working. If the Fable Legends art guy is so good, then he can take his artistic abilities to others. Its not like more menial jobs like factory work or fixing things where there likely no personal value added from you.

 

[Saelune]

Pick better employers then. Plus they do get paid. They just don't get paid more. I'm pretty sure a lot of the "cost" of games comes from ya know, paying the people to make the game while they make it. Its not an all or nothing job.

Game development is a creative field. The thing about creative fields, is if you are talented, you can keep working. If the Fable Legends art guy is so good, then he can take his artistic abilities to others. Its not like more menial jobs like factory work or fixing things where there likely no personal value added from you.

I can't believe i have to reiterate this. But usually, when you get a shit game. IT IS NO FAULT OF THE DEVELOPERS. Look at Colonial Marines. Yes, it was a terrible game, but that was literally only due to the embezzlement from Gearbox. I'm sure most of the employees who worked on Colonial Marines were absolutely great artists who simply didn't have the funds nor manpower to make a decent game.

You evidently have a huge lack of understanding of the games industry and what it entails. And a few forum posts is not going to rectify that. You blindly stating "get better employees" is about the densest thing I have heard this year.

And yes, employees get paid through the game development. But a games development cycle is around two years, usually. What do you think happens after? Want to know how developers keep their jobs? Profit. Do you know how they make profit? People paying $X for games. If a game doesn't make profit, then they get fired. And making profit isn't always tied to how popular a game is. Fire Emblem was almost completely axed as an IP, yet the titles prior to Awakening are quite good quality.

At first, you made a couple of legitimate points, but now you've just descended to blanket statements, like "X is shit". Half of what you say is pretty insulting, while the other half is just completely false.

What it comes to, is you are trying to make me feel bad for people I don't feel bad for. And sure, a game can fail for reasons other than the developers, and I am infact super critical of publisher meddleing, and hate EA and Activision for constantly doing that, but even so, I'm willing to bet MOST bad games are cause of bad developers. You criticize me for making false, dense, blanket statements, yet open with one yourself.