[QUOTE="garland51"]No, I don't think so. But what would really kill the gaming industry is if all three companies were to go full DD next gen. That's right, you'll be looking at the repeat of the video game crash of '83 & '84 all over again.
subrosian
Not to be rude, but were you even *alive* during the videogame crash of 1983 ~ 1984? The crash of '83 and '84 happened because of how brick-n-mortar retailers work, the complete breakdown of quality controls on consoles, a low barrier to entry for non-gaming companies, and a lack of consumer information. Aka: 1. The publishers were all poor, and were replacing "old" product with rushed, low-quality "new" product as per their agreements with retailers. Precisely because they were issuing new games as "credit" for unsold old titles (something that can never happen in a digital marketplace - since no physical product needs to be moved) they were treading water, and often bankrupting. When these pubs went bankrupt, retailers were left with unsold, poor quality product, which they would bargain bin, uniquely taking dollars away from better games. - 2. Legal battles completely removed constraints on publication on the existing consoles, meaning *anyone* could shove out games. Without the modern licensing system in place, this meant you could see someone like Sears making a videogame - and you can only imagine how badly that turned out. - 3. Games were far less expensive to make. With modern games wielding complex (read - expensive) 3D graphics, it's much harder for a "nobody" to pump out a title. The modern licensing fees also make it difficult for studios to publish. These two, combined, result in a high barrier to entry for full games. While things like "indie games" and "XBLA" provide lower barriers, they are clearly divided from the "full price" marketplace, and have restrictions that prevent them from competing with "full" games. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have clearly segmented their marketplace, so that even if they were to go fully digital, they control the price points, and prevent flooding. - 4. Consumers have more information than ever - reviews, blogs, videos, magazines, etc. In fact, the 360 marketplace just got a *rating system* - so that gamers can instantly see where a game stands in the community. I can't imagine Nintendo or Sony being too far behind with their own versions of this. STEAM already displays the metascore of every game in the digital catalog - publisher's can't escape the community feedback on their games. Unlike the 1980s marketplace, or even the *physical* marketplace of today (notice games don't have ratings on them at Target or GameStop), in the digital markeplace, every game must suffer it's public image. - - Reality - the digital marketplace is actually BETTER for preventing a crash than the physical one. Retailer's in the digital marketplace won't bargain-bin excess stock (since they have no physical stock ), meaning they don't flood the channel with cheap product (hurting the sales of new games). The digital marketplace removes used games, meaning the *billions* stolen from developers by GameStop every year will instead go back to the people who make games. Even if the price were to go *down*, the removal of the used games marketplace would *increase* profits. AND - the coup de grace here - the digital markeplace allows perfect channel control. Games are released exactly when intended, can be removed exactly as intended, and the price changes, sales, and promotions can happen precisely when they need to. Perfect channel control is what prevents a crash - you can adjust pricing, availability, bundles, and add-ons instantly. During the slow summer months, you can offer tons of games sales to move older titles - then instantly bring the prices back up for the Fall season, when you want people to buy your new games. You can offer "bundles" of popular titles to make money over the holidays, then remove those bundles in January to ensure you maximize your giftcard dollars. - Frankly, the attacks on digital distribution are simply prosophobia. An old generation of gamers who grew up with discs have become ludites, lashing out irrationally against a superior method of receiving games.As usual, a very comprehensive and deep post on a heavily debated subject.
I do agree with many of your points, that DD can streamline the distribution process getting the games into the hands of gamers faster, and how it helps get the revenue where it belongs.
And I'm also a long time gamer who forms no attachment to plastic cases or feels the need to gaze upon my book shelf with longing affection. The game is the game which is what matters most. This particular defense of hard copy I feel is a weak one.
But even so, I wonder how you respond to the other arguments I heard against DD, which is what you pointed out. That control of the distribution will ensure the funds go to the developers. It's that control itself, which makes some feel the game will never truly belong to them. That the distributer holds titleship to it at all times. You can't lend a digital game or basically share it with a friend, which is a value I myself still hold true to.
And yes, what Gamestop has done with their used game practice has robbed the developers, but that's mainly because they push the sales of used games, doing all they can to prevent someone from bying new, as well as (from what I heard) allowing employess to borrow a game and then selling it used. But I gotta play devils advocate here, I think the used market should be defended. Yes, I have bought used before, not out of any spite for a developer, but simply because I like to save money. To me, $20 is a better price than $60, and now most new releases are priced at $70 here in Canada. I also think people have the right to sell something (anything) they no longer want to keep, to recoup just a portion of the money they spent on it in the first place.
Like i said, I like the idea of a more efficient and streamlined distribution process, especially if the elimination of packaging and retail shipping would bring the cost of games down. But I also wonder if we actually would see a drop in game costs, or if they would simply keep prices the same and use the loss in overhead to raise their own profits. Yeah, i usually am this cynical with most things ;P
Log in to comment