Jimquisition: Don't Charge Retail Prices For Digital Games

[Namehere]

I think Jim's dead on the money on this one. And what's more, I think there's great examples out there of how much cheaper it is to produce something digitally then it is to print off CDs/DVDs/Blue Ray games.

My friend got an electronic book thingamabob some time back - you know dem tings ya read from that are electronic - and he had the option to buy books, but didn't take it because there's tones of classic literature, all of it no longer covered by copy right protection, that's available through it for free. Alright fine, what does that have to do with making a game? Well its simple, you want to read War & Peace you can run out and fork over however much to Penguin - whom in theory your paying so they give you papers with War and Peace written on them - or get the free version on his reader. Now I'm not saying that games should be free but it seems to me if a University/group can go through the trouble of transcribing this stuff and hand it out for free, when they could never have done that on paper, there's got to be a drastic difference between putting a game on cd and selling it digitally. That cost savings - in part at least - should be passed onto the consumer. The difference isn't going to be huge probably because game storage mediums aren't terribly expensive in and of themselves as it stands. But cutting out the cost of packaging, the cost of material goods you will not receive with the game - including a printed out manual - ought to lower the price somewhat.

Oh and nothing is more fun then seeing digital distributors advertise the comic book the special edition of whatever game their selling comes with. That shits so funny its tragic.

Thank Gozer for Jim. I guess I was right, the Jim can be anything and today its Game Hitler. I wonder what form the destroyer will take tomorrow?

 

[ACman]

A) digital distribution is a widely accepted term.

But he wasn't saying "digital distribution," he was saying "digital games"!

Just look at the title of the video: "Don't Pay Retail Prices for Digital Games" - that makes absolutely zero sense, because digital games are retail products. It also doesn't make sense, because even if the studios cut the cost of downloadable games by 90%, those would still be retail prices, because downloadable games are retail sales! Whatever they are charging is the retail price.

And B) Seriously Aardvaarkman, everybody apart from you understood that Jim was commenting on the differences between digital distribution and retail but for some reason you want to turn this into semantics debate.

"But semantics are very important."


But semantics are very important. Why would you dismiss semantics as irrelevant?

OK, to put it in terms that this audience might be able to understand, it's like saying that 'Star Wars" and "Star Trek" are the same thing because they both have the word "star" in their title.

And again, what is the difference between digital distribution and retail? Digital distribution sales are retail sales. Just because something is sold online doesn't make it something other than a retail sale. It's difficult to make a good argument when you can't get basic terms straight.

He could have easily used "bricks and mortar" and "online" to distinguish the two methods of selling. But instead, he chose to use irrelevant terms that don't actually define the differences. therefore, he undermined his own argument. And I largely agree with his argument, and The Jimquisition in general. I just don't see why he weakened his position as Good Hitler by being lazy about his terms of reference.

"But semantics are very important. Why would you dismiss semantics as irrelevant?

Semantics is a study of language and MEANING. Jim made his MEANING abundantly clear for the get go:

****Don't Charge Retail Prices For Digital Games****

What is the meaning of that sentence?

A) Retail prices: it's CLEAR IN THIS CONTEXT that he means "physical media" because retailers generally sell games as physical copies.

A) I don't think anybody calls "videogames" "digital games" unless they are a 1960s computer science lecturer. Digital games is quite clearly used in comparison to retail prices.


Now if we change the headline because "you" demand 100% technical accuracy because "words must mean what they are in the dictionary" then we end up with the headline:

*****Don't Charge Physical Media Prices for Downloadable Videogames*****

Nice.

Due to your presciptivism you have destroyed what was a pithy, functional AND CLEAR headline and replaced it for a clunky mess.

 

[ACman]

snip

I'll introduce you to another concept PRAGMATICS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

"It studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on the linguistic knowledge (e.g. grammar, lexicon etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, knowledge about the status of those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and so on. In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome APPARENT AMBIGUITIY"

Something you have clearly failed to master.

 

[Dastardly]

The could also, I don't know, include a digital copy with the box copy of the game to make the transition easier. Sure, it lowers the digital price to "free" in a way, but it increases the value of the box copy, justifying the price.

I wonder how Portal 2 did with that model - to bring PS owners into steam.

I'd be curious about those numbers, too. There are plenty of people to whom "free digital copy" doesn't hold much weight... unless they're planning on giving it to a friend. That kind of thing goes a long way toward advertising the game, but I'm not sure it does a whole lot to promote digital sales per se.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Is this 2007? Nice of you to weigh in on an issue that's been around for some five years.

This just in: retail is dying. About time.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

All problems are solved by applying steam.

Steam is great, but their new game prices don't compete with the likes of amazon. Skyrim is still £35 on steam, £25 on amazon.

That is influential in my decision making, especially considering that Skyrim has steamworks so ends up tied to the platform either way you buy it. I would much rather buy the download and not have yet another dvd case littering my home, the £10 difference is plenty enough to stop me doing so.

 

[Denamic]

About the price point: I don't have an issue with both retail and digital copies both costing $60.

Why?
Games cost a lot, not just because of the profit margin, but because of the cost of the disc, the cost of printing the cover, the case, the shipping, overhead, etc.
With digital distribution, you only need to cover the hosting fees, which is far, FAR less that the cost of selling physical copies, and also less risky, because it's impossible to ship too many or too few copies.
Charging the same price for digital copies is charging you more money for no good reason.
Basically, it's ripping you off just because they can.

 

[Chad Brumfield]

Jesus Christ, Jim, I'm trying to listen to what you're saying while I'm eating a fucking sandwich and all I see is dildo Photoshop action that distracts me from your message, nearly choke on my food and have to go back so I can actually pay attention to what you were saying. Which was probably your entire aim from the beginning. Well played, sir, well played.

 

[Something Amyss]

Basically, it's ripping you off just because they can.

It's not ripping you off if you willingly pay.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Jim could have made some solid points here, but his misuse of words ruins it.

But the points were still made. Literally everybody except you got them, whether they agreed or not.

I got what he was going for, but he failed to deliver it properly. I'm not sure why you think I don't understand what he was trying to say.

Normally this would not be such a big problem, but the parameters for debate have already been crippled. Since the discussion has been started on false terms of art, it is doomed. It could have been possible for this to be a fertile ground for a meaningful dialog, but being based on factual inaccuracies means it won't go anywhere.

It doesn't matter if people "get it" - being accurate actually matters in the bigger picture. I'm not sure if Jim cares about being taken seriously, or if the people who comment do. But if you actually want change, then it's important to be accurate. I would assume people are debating these things because they want things to change, but I could be wrong. It might just be pointless pontification. But if you don't care, then why comment in the first place?

You're arguing semantics, ostensibly. The point was made, and gotten, while you claim it was lost. Clearly it wasn't. YOU knew what was being said, so why are you acting like the point was lost?

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Jim fails to understand (or maybe never took) the first rule of economics.

Everything is worth what the buyer is willing to pay.

He has valid points, but I can promise you that a company does not continue with a bad practice that loses them money. If digitally priced games are put at that level, its because enough people buy them at release to make it profitable.

Personally, I think eventually people will wake up and stop paying these prices. There are so many games to chose from that many people will wait for a sale. Look at the crazy deals that pop up on steam. I see fairly big releases going for $20 less within a few months of release. It is a pretty rare game for me to buy on release now (last one was Arkham city). I wait for a sale on steam, or at bestbuy for a console game. If publishers want to cut out the middle man they need to price accordingly if they want to see their sales increase.

I understand it perfectly, but part of the point of these videos is to highlight to consumers that they *should* demand better and not be so willing to pay. I don't think that's a failure on my part, more like a plea for long-term common sense.

You said yourself that people will wake up and not pay. I am trying to help that move alone, while also appealing to the industry to secure against that long-term eventuality by being competitive NOW. They want digital to take off, but the market demonstrates that you only really beat a rival when you offer better. Right now, the publishers aren't offering better.

 

[Sande45]

Jim fails to understand (or maybe never took) the first rule of economics.

Everything is worth what the buyer is willing to pay.

He has valid points, but I can promise you that a company does not continue with a bad practice that loses them money. If digitally priced games are put at that level, its because enough people buy them at release to make it profitable.

Jim didn't say their current digital distribution system isn't profitable. It just would be about bazillion times more profitable if they lowered the prices by five bucks or so, you know, to give ANY incentive to buy digitally.

Here's the 386th rule of economics: You don't just find a price point where it is profitable, you find the price point where it's the most profitable.

 

[Epona]

Publishers are going the other way. Instead of lowering the price of digital games, they are lowering the value of physical games by including only a disc and a case and requiring that you activate it via Steam or Origin. Even the DVD cases have gotten cheaper. Soon, you'll get a disc and a sleeve.

In the end, the idea is to convince consumers that buying physical is a waste of effort since you don't get any benefit anyway.

 

[Eric the Orange]

Jim fails to understand (or maybe never took) the first rule of economics.

Everything is worth what the buyer is willing to pay.

He has valid points, but I can promise you that a company does not continue with a bad practice that loses them money. If digitally priced games are put at that level, its because enough people buy them at release to make it profitable.

Personally, I think eventually people will wake up and stop paying these prices. There are so many games to chose from that many people will wait for a sale. Look at the crazy deals that pop up on steam. I see fairly big releases going for $20 less within a few months of release. It is a pretty rare game for me to buy on release now (last one was Arkham city). I wait for a sale on steam, or at bestbuy for a console game. If publishers want to cut out the middle man they need to price accordingly if they want to see their sales increase.

Ah but the crux of the argument here is that by lowering the digital price, they will paradoxically make more money in the long run. What it boils down to is that digital releases cannot be sold back. Thus digital games get rid of the "used game problem". Which by the developer accounts is costing them tons of money.

 

[godofallu]

Prices are based on Value.

The ability to download a product instantly at any time without needing a drive creates a lot of value.

Frankly Retail and Digital produce very similar amounts of value, so they should be priced about the same.

Now if a developer could find a way to price discriminate based on a rural vs urban they could charge rural customers more for digital, and urban customers less for digital. Getting the best of both worlds and maximizing profit.

 

[Eric the Orange]

Basically, it's ripping you off just because they can.

It's not ripping you off if you willingly pay.

Well the term "ripping you off" is subjective. It's how the consumer feels about the price. So if you pay $100 for a game and love it enough for it to feel worth that price then you are not ripped off.

On the other hand you can feel ripped off on something you were willing to pay in certain circumstances. For example if the product you bought is not performing as you thought it should. For games this would be a game that feels unfinished or buggy, like it's a beta build. A more real world example would be buying a car that you thought was new but it breaks down after a week.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

It's not ripping you off if you willingly pay.

So true and i will never understand people who support this kind of shit. I´ve to admit i stepped in a few DLC traps myself but throwing out 60 bucks is on a whole different level.

I hope that retail versions won`t extinct anytime soon. As long as people are stupid enough to pay this much money for digital copies nothing will change. The way things are going it`s a matter of time, then it`s "bye, bye console...hello pc" which comes with a whole different world of trouble, yay.


Ah, enough whining in this thread from me, i`m going back to enjoy games (as long as i can...).


@Jimothy Sterling
Don´t do the Hitler, man. He lost in the end. Comparing yourself with a Looser isn`t such a good idea even if you want to be a "good" one.

side note:
Saying "Ich danke Gott für den Führer" sounds fucking funny in this context but it would give me a big bleeding in my country.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, again I'm going to address you directly Jim.

I think your criticisms overlook the truth of the matter, which is simply that gaming has become a cartel. Basically the game industry coordinates prices, and sets the $60 price range regardless of the cost to make a game in order to kill competition. That way everyone gets to make huge amounts of money, and the whole principle of American business.. competition forcing companies to release the best possible product at the lowest possible price, is undermined. This price setting, combined with market coordination (changing release dates so big titles tend to not go head to head.. the release of a Modern Warfare for example will see other games be pushed forward or back), as well as contributing to the industry being able to release buggy messes and fix them later, since coordination means everyone is doing the same basic thing so you can't really say "this guy charges less money, and produces a better product".

Price fixing is price fixing, the whole idea is to prevent anyone from undercutting anyone else, which is why the $60 price tag remains on digital games. The industry as a whole basically figures that if they stick with the $60 price tag, they can pocket all the money they save on packaging and distribution as pure profit. They figure retail is doomed all on it's own due to their other schemes (retail copies actually being digital copies that install through steam, DLC, etc..) and all they have to do is stick to their guns on the price and they can keep the same model in force.

The promise of lowering prices through digital distribution is simply BS to us rubes to sell the new system.

The reason why those who want to break this system, or claim to, typically do not do so, is because they have to worry about the pressure from the rest of the industry, which is what makes it a cartel.

On a lot of levels it's the same exact thing that oil companies and other big businesses do, even if they aren't supposed to, it's just that the games industry has yet to get govermental attention.

Now, you and others are probably sitting there going "Wow Theru, that is a borked conspiricy theory" but understand that when it comes to pricing we've seen many cases where people have spoken for what the entire industry is thinking. We also saw annoucements of the price of games raising $10, which happened universally (as opposed to with a few companies) which itself shows coordination. In addition things like the GDC (Game Developer's Conferance) and other meetings also seem to be where publishers and executives get together to discuss and set industry wide policy that is going to benefit everyone in the business. It seems to be after meetings like that, that we see annoucements like "games are going to be hiked another $10".

I've been of the opinion for a while that we won't see anything close to industry reform as far as prices go, unless some major goverments with anti-cartel policies drop the punk hammer on these guys. In the case of the game's industry they aren't even subtle, they wouldn't even need to do the kinds of investigations you see being made on oil companies. Some of the annoucements about 'what the industry is discussing' is pretty much the wet dream of what some investigators wish Oil or Drug companies would do.

A Cartel is more or less the same thing as a Monopoly in the final equasion, the differance being that in a Monopoly one person totally controls something, with a Cartel all the people in a given business coordinate to achieve the same kinds of results. In the games industry you even see the behavior of the big companies snapping up all the independants who could compete with the Cartel. While unrelated to cartel behavior directly, we even have violence and strong arm tactics being employed, looking at what happened when Activision closed Infinity Ward for it's own purposes (ie a security raid).

Agree or disagree on the specifics, the bottom line is that unless the industry starts competing and we start seeing big titles going head to head more often instead of release dates being adjusted, and publishers trying to release better products for less money, nothing is going to change, and really the industry has no interest in doing this on it's
own since people will pay those prices when given no choice. It's not like the heavy hitters like EA and Activision actually have any motivation to change the system, after all they both make millions and billions of dollars each year with the prices set the way they are, their rivalry being mostly words, they don't do much against each other as far as prices or anything, they just shuffle release dates around, and make enough money where guys like Bobby Kotick can have a private jet, and could probably roll cigarettes in $100 bills if he wanted to.

 

[Blade_125]

I understand it perfectly, but part of the point of these videos is to highlight to consumers that they *should* demand better and not be so willing to pay. I don't think that's a failure on my part, more like a plea for long-term common sense.

You said yourself that people will wake up and not pay. I am trying to help that move alone, while also appealing to the industry to secure against that long-term eventuality by being competitive NOW. They want digital to take off, but the market demonstrates that you only really beat a rival when you offer better. Right now, the publishers aren't offering better.

Well I think this is the first time I have seen an author read comments, which I think is fantastic.

I also think I slightly misunderstood some of your video Jim, as your comment here sums up my thoughts completely. Customers do need to wake up and realize they have the power to dictate what a corporation does, but it isn't with protests or cupcakes. It's with their wallets.

I think trying to convince companies to change before sales start falling is a waste of breath, but hopefully there will be some visonary in the future who sees the advantage theyc an gain by being first on the bus.

Also I wanted to mention I really enjoy your shows. The past 4-5 have been fantastic. It's nice to have something to look forward to on the Escapist.