Microsoft Defends Games on Demand Pricing

[drbarno]

actually you could go shopping in your underwear.

probably just the one time, though.

 

[GotMalkAvian]

Dear Microsoft,

I'd like you to consider the following situations very carefully and tell me which works better for you:

1. Provide the lowest retail price for a virtual game, thus making, let's say, $20 US per download of pure proft off of old games that just don't sell anymore.

2. Assume that most gamers are lazy bastards who'd plunk down new release prices for downloads of old games while in fact most of us will just head down to the local store for a dirt cheap used copy, thereby robbing you of all potential profit.

You don't have to answer right away, Microsoft, but I want you to consider the options very carefully.

 

[Something Amyss]

Who cares, if it's too high in the UK (it is) don't buy it on demand

It's that simple, if people are willing to pay that much you can't blame them for pricing it there, just stop complaining and buy physical copies instead, if enough people do that prices will go down.

Oh Lassaiz-Faire, you're the greatest asset in stamping out good consumers.

Errr...Sorry, I mean, "Who cares? Even though this has the potential to impact retail pricing and counts as price gouging, caring is bad and you're a bad person for caring."

This isn't localised to just the UK, so if you think that you're safe because you're elsewhere, you're wrong. This is actually "old news" in the states.

If you want games to remain reasonably priced at retail, you should care.

 

[Treblaine]

does that mean that if you bought a game on the PC it would be automatically unlocked on the PS3? (like HL2,L4D etc.)?

From what i hear it's the other way around. Buy a Steam supported game for PS3 then the PC version is unlocked for PC and Mac.

 

[mjc0961]

It's not quite so bad in the U.S., where the Games on Demand release lists for $49.99, but it's still a substantial premium for being able to buy a videogame without first having to wipe the nacho cheese off your fingers.

It gets better: It's only $50 for the first week, after which it's going up to $60 for us in the US.

Spoiler: big images inside

So yeah, pass Microsoft. If I want this game, I can buy it in my underwear from Amazon. Getting it for almost half of what you want is worth waiting for shipping.

 

[Motakikurushi]

This can't be real. Microsoft must be trolling everybody. They can't think that's a valid defense for overpriced digital content. My god, first the hideous Xbox Live price tag, and now the hideous price tag for the games. Do they think raising the price of every service they offer is going to increase sales? I mean, the negatives outweigh the positives by such a massive degree it's almost sad. You get a physical copy of the game to play on any console, you don't need to occupy extra space with additional files, you can trade-in the game when finished, and it costs 1/2 as much. Most £20 Games on Demand I can buy brand new for £10.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

Microsoft says that's not the point - the point is that you can go shopping in your underwear.

Just like you can go online and pre-order/order games in your underwear for half the price.. Idiots.

I wish they'd put Tales of Vesperia in the Games on Demand section. Even £50 is cheaper than the £80 - 100 it would cost to buy a physical copy online. ;A;

I got mine from Game.co.uk for like £25. I have never seen a game anywhere in the UK that costs £80-£100 apart from the legendary edition of Halo: Reach.

 

[Debirufisshu]

Isn't £49.99 the RRP of console games in the UK? Most stores sell at £39.99 at most, however.

They attempted it around the start of this generation, and (unlike in the US) it didn't stick. Hence, £40 is the standard, and has been since at least the PS1/N64 era. Ultimately, the end game is to force the price up, but they've been quite unsuccessful at it thus far in the UK.

Pretty sure ps1 games retailed at £30. I think even most ps2 games were £30, I remeber thinking 'what the fuck?' when i saw ps3 games for £50. I'm sure most british people know when the're getting ripped off, £50 for a game? fuck that.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

the point is that you can go shopping in your underwear.

Fuck that noise. I refuse to wear pants when I'm on amazon. Even when I'm at the coffee shop.

 

[Delusibeta]

Isn't £49.99 the RRP of console games in the UK? Most stores sell at £39.99 at most, however.

They attempted it around the start of this generation, and (unlike in the US) it didn't stick. Hence, £40 is the standard, and has been since at least the PS1/N64 era. Ultimately, the end game is to force the price up, but they've been quite unsuccessful at it thus far in the UK.

Pretty sure ps1 games retailed at £30. I think even most ps2 games were £30, I remeber thinking 'what the fuck?' when i saw ps3 games for £50. I'm sure most british people know when the're getting ripped off, £50 for a game? fuck that.

All right then. Certainly, GameCube and N64 releases (in my experience) tended to by no more than £40 (although I'd imagine there were quite a few games selling at £50 in the early N64 days).

 

[Tom Phoenix]

I think I'll just keep holding out for Steam sales stick to retail, thanks.

Fixed that....well, more for myself than for you.

But seriously, this is just absurd. While I personally buy at retail since I prefer hard copies, I can understand why some people opt for digital distribution. Yet, this service that Microsoft has set up goes against preety much all the reasons why some people choose such a method of distribution.

This just goes to show that platform holders and publishers are pushing digital distribution primarily for their own benefit rather than that of their customers. Its not that they are pushing it beacuse it means cheaper prices for customers; they are pushing it beacuse it means a bigger slice of profits for them.

 

[Treblaine]

Isn't £49.99 the RRP of console games in the UK? Most stores sell at £39.99 at most, however.

They attempted it around the start of this generation, and (unlike in the US) it didn't stick. Hence, £40 is the standard, and has been since at least the PS1/N64 era. Ultimately, the end game is to force the price up, but they've been quite unsuccessful at it thus far in the UK.

Pretty sure ps1 games retailed at £30. I think even most ps2 games were £30, I remeber thinking 'what the fuck?' when i saw ps3 games for £50. I'm sure most british people know when the're getting ripped off, £50 for a game? fuck that.

All right then. Certainly, GameCube and N64 releases (in my experience) tended to by no more than £40 (although I'd imagine there were quite a few games selling at £50 in the early N64 days).

I think the confusion here is N64 cartridges were actually very expensive (£50 in the late 90's) while PS1 undercut hugely with their CD based medium at around £29.99.

It seems to be PS1's £29.99 price point stuck right through the PS2 era and went up to £39.99 this generation though a few games can get away with charging £49.99 like CoD in some high-street stores like HMV, but still you could find it for closer to £40 in most places. It seems really that retail games can be HUGELY variable in price and it depends greatly on both when you buy and where you buy.

I really have no idea about what PC games cost in the 90's nor early 2000's, I was too young and then from 2000-2005 I didn't live in the UK.

Does anyone know how much game like Half Life, System Shock 2 and Quake Arena cost when they first released?

 

[Xanthious]

This is why it's so easy for pirates in general to justify themselves, and why paying customers decide not to pay when being treated like this more and more. Being a paying customer means being treated like a theif, then grabbed and shaken upside down for every nickle and dime. This is why I shed no tears for large companies who are targets of piracy.

Exactly! I have a ermm "friend" that shamelessly pirates console games. The way my "friend" looks at it is this. It's painfully obvious both M$ and Sony and all the large video game companies for the most part are doing very little these days with all the zero day DLC, jacked up prices, yearly sequels, etc to hide the fact they want as much of our money as they can get all while giving us as little of their product as they can get away with. Fair enough. However, the flip side (as my "friend" sees it) is that the reverse is also true. As long as they try to get as much of our money while giving us as little of their product as they can get away with then it's fair game we should be able to get as much of their product as we can for as little money as we can get away with. Sadly for them my "friend" and his ilk come out waaaaay ahead in this game.

 

[teethofymir]

Lessee. For 81$, I can drive the 8 or so miles to the nearest Gamestop (call it $3 for gas, yay for Priuses) go buy a brand spanking new copy of Shogun 2: Total War ($49.99), and still have enough money left over for lunch, dinner, and a movie.

Way to go Microsoft.

 

[goldenheart323]

MS's next strategy: Charging triple the cost for a new release for the privilege of getting it 1 week early. However, playing it online before the release date will still crash your 360. Of course the "no refunds" policy will still be in place.



All I can think of is they'd have to majorly upgrade their servers if G.o.D. really took off, and they don't want the expense. Insanely high prices are the only way their left hand can meet their corporate goal of offering games online while their right hand meets their goal of minimizing hardware costs.

 

[Valanthe]

Reading this gave me the urge to go out and buy a copy of Halo Reach in my underwear in protest. That poor cashier would never recover.

 

[Danpascooch]

Who cares, if it's too high in the UK (it is) don't buy it on demand

It's that simple, if people are willing to pay that much you can't blame them for pricing it there, just stop complaining and buy physical copies instead, if enough people do that prices will go down.

Oh Lassaiz-Faire, you're the greatest asset in stamping out good consumers.

Errr...Sorry, I mean, "Who cares? Even though this has the potential to impact retail pricing and counts as price gouging, caring is bad and you're a bad person for caring."

This isn't localised to just the UK, so if you think that you're safe because you're elsewhere, you're wrong. This is actually "old news" in the states.

If you want games to remain reasonably priced at retail, you should care.

I'll start caring when there are no longer competitors offering the same game for cheaper, seriously, as long as there are physical and online stores such as Gamestop, Amazon, Ebay and others offering the game cheaper, why does anyone care if Microsoft is stupid enough to price it this high? Tell them to fuck off by not buying it, that's the most effective way to get the message across.

 

[frago roc]

Life is like a hurricane here in Duckburg
Race cars, lasers, aeroplanes - it's a duck blur
You might solve a mystery or rewrite history

Duck Tales, Oo-oo
Tales of derring-do, bad and good luck tales, oo-oo

 

[DrWilhelm]

So Microsoft is claiming that the ten quid mark-up over the games RRP is a convenience charge?

I live in England. A few days ago I got a Kindle. After opening the box I spent about an hour reading through the start up guide and connecting it to the internet. I then bought Before They Are Hanged by Joe Abercrombie for £4.99 from Amazon's Kindle store, compared to the £5.00 it would have cost me to order a physical copy from Amazon. The novel took less than 10 seconds to download. All in all, it was very simple, hassle free and pretty darned convenient. Oh, and I wasn't wearing any trousers at the time.

That sort of pricing seems to be pretty consistent across the board for the Kindle - either slightly cheaper or slightly more expensive but never too far either way. I guess Amazon must just be taking the convenience charge out of my bank account without telling me. That, or Microsoft is leaping on any flimsy excuse to gouge the crap out of the British.