Digital biting point

[chipsgravy]

I will always buy a physical copy of a game so that I can play it forever. If I so desire. Seems silly thinking about it. But I can't bear the thought of my console dying full of games that are no longer available.

[25.05.2005]

Definitely less than ?20 for me.

- no box.
- no printed manual.
- no disc.
- no resale value.
- game tied to my account (or console).
- can't lend it to a friend.
- lose the game if I can't access my account (lose login, company shuts down servers etc etc).
- don't need the internet to download and play.

Having said all that, I like I can have all my games ready to go at the click of a button, and that digital doesn't take up physical space. That's why I'm willing to pay for digital, but only <?20. The negatives far outweigh the positives. If Microsoft had gone down their DRM route, imagine the cost you'd be paying for games now. There would be no cheap deals or anything like that. Gaming as we know it...would be over.

[Guts]

If Microsoft had gone down their DRM route, imagine the cost you'd be paying for games now. There would be no cheap deals or anything like that. Gaming as we know it...would be over.

If Microsoft would have gone the way they originally planned the only thing that would be over would be the Xbox.

[Cheeseman Battitude]

If games are digital-only then I will buy them at full price if I really want them. However, those are usually Steam games, and "full price" for some of them is less than ?20. The only game I've paid full price for on launch digitally is Animal Crossing on the 3DS because I've always thought it's the sort of game that would really benefit from being built into a system or being always there.

[nonny]

I've been buying games digitally on Xbox One but mainly due to the region free nature of your profile and being able to purchase freely from the US store where prices are cheaper.

I've decided only to buy games full price that I know I'll play for a long period of time. I don't care about not having a box or packaging and the price difference of buying digitally versus a physical local copy is almost equal to the trade in price of the disc if I chose to sell it several months down the track.

Other games I've bought digitally have been bargain basement price such as Tomb Raider on Xbox One for $30 recently when it's still $69 in the shops here.

If other incentives eventuate such as significantly cheaper cost, trade-in value, friends sharing or early pre-order / download etc... Then it only sweetens the deal.

[concretesnail]

I've voted at up to 29, but it comes with a proviso. That I get to make a backup, disc or network storage. Having it anywhere is great but digital only requires that they are available to download for long periods and when titles are removed they are only archived rather than deleted.
If I can't make a backup then the price I'd pay would pay would have to be reduced as I like to go back and play again without being et the mercy of the provider.

[Deuteros]

If convenience were to be considered a reason for raising the price of ebooks, several other aspects should also be factored in as reasons for lowering their price. Being immaterial, there are no raw materials involved in their production and both storage and transportation costs are minimal if compared to their physical counterparts. I have no doubts that for any particular book that were to be published today, if the physical and digital versions were to cost the same *, the publisher would profit more from a single digital copy sold than a physical one.

* For the sake of this argument, let's ignore the moronic VAT rates levied on ebooks in the EU, which are bound to be addressed soon(ish).

[Dogg Thang]

They would but you're missing the point - it's not about production (which is the mindset that we've adopted), the article is about benefits to the consumer. CDs were cheaper to produce than tapes but we paid more for them because they offered significant benefits. Cost is certainly an important factor in setting a minimum price but not necessarily one in setting a maximum.

[wakka]

Really the cost of pressing some plastic discs and putting them in DVD boxes must be minimal compared to the cost of actually producing the software anyway. With media you are paying for the data, not the medium it's stored on. Like with books. OK so the occasional fancy hardback might be kind of expensive to produce, but when I hand over ?7.99 or whatever for a book I don't feel like I'm paying for the paper and ink, but the writer's work within.

Like many here I like to own real books, real videogames, real Blu-Rays, and have stuff to put on my shelf. It's nice. But I also own digital stuff and in particular subscribe to online streaming stuff, because it's basically vastly more convenient.

Future generations aren't going to be hung up on physical stuff like we are. Physical manifestations of data are basically not necessary any more. I wonder what we will fill our homes with!

[Deuteros]

Cost is certainly an important factor in setting a minimum price but not necessarily one in setting a maximum.

That's usually determined by how much publishers and stores think they can get away with.

I get the point of the article you linked to. Convenience is a perk and people should pay for it. My argument is what about the other, much more numerous, perks that should drive prices down while gross profit margins remained unaffected. Shouldn't a product that costs much less to produce, stock and distribute reflect that, to some extent, on what it costs the consumer?