Forums

Topic: Pre-purchase digitally - The Pros and many Cons: But I have a solution

Posts 41 to 60 of 92

luisesteban

Well, digital the game (event at full price) is $20-$30 cheaper to me, than is a order it in amazon or in a local store....(taxes, shippement, gasoline, etc)

luisesteban

skywake

DefHalan wrote:

Should we add pricing of server maintenance over X amount of years to digital prices? If we say $1 for every year the game is on the servers and we use Wii as a judgement of server time, lets do the math. Wiiware launched March 25th 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiiWare) and we are in 2015 with the shop still functional. That would be 7+ dollars added to the price

I do agree with your point about digital not needing to be the "fire sale" option. I don't think the Steam model of slash-and-burn is necessarily the best one. However the fact that you're using these numbers to justify your opinion screws both of our arguments over. Because there's no way it costs that much per title, not for retail titles and especially not for smaller indie titles. No way.

Look at it this way, with a traditional brick-and-mortar store the equation is simple. They pay rent, they pay for power, they pay the employee salaries. Then they serve a population of maybe 20,000 people. For the PS4 right now is probably around 450 potential customers for a new game. You can guess what it's probably like for the Wii U. But remember, there's no way they're going to sell all of those copies even if they have a PS4-level install base. Some people will go to a competitor, some people will go digital and some just plain-old won't buy the game. So we're talking maybe tens of sales of a particular game per store. It's obviously not all leaning on one title, it'd be spread over a large inventory for sure. But the same is true of digital.

With digital lets just start by making a few assumptions. Lets assume that there are multiple servers that are spread across the globe. For arguments sake lets say 50 servers all of them powered on and ready to go. Lets also make this estimation pretty brutal and assume the following:

  • Every Wii U game is 15GB, even indie titles (a hilarious overestimation)
  • There are a total of 450 Wii U titles (I'm ignoring future releases, VC and that they could use it for other platforms)
  • They'll sell 50mill pieces of software globally EOL (a vast underestimation but for simplicity)
  • They pay Australian prices for storage (~$0.05/GB) and bandwidth (~$0.30/GB)

So maths:

  • Simple calculation first, 15GB at 30c/GB? $4.50 per user download. So we're off with some early ridiculous
  • 450 titles at 15GB each is about 7TB. So what the hey, lets get 12TB over 4 disks. Round that up to $700AU
  • If we assume those disks need replacing after five years that's 30c/game/year for the storage
  • Lets also say that the server consumes ~300W, at $0.20/kwh. Why not. That's ~$550/year, ~$1.20/year/game
  • Lets also assume that only 10% of sales come from digital, so that 1 server out of 50? It'll sell ~100k copies

So lets add this up! First lets divide the server running costs per title (30c + $1.20) by the software sales for this one server (100k). So what's that. Hmm... $1.50/year/title divided by.... 100,000 sales... That works out to be somewhere around about.... $0/year. How did you really expect this to end guys? Even with some insane estimates like "4 drives in a server consumes 300W 24/7" it works out to be insignificant. Even with Australian server prices it's under $5, elsewhere it'd be closer to 50c. And this is for a 15GB game, how many digital sales are for 2GB games? 200MB? 50MB even? You're kidding yourself if you think this method of distribution isn't orders of magnitude cheaper.

A side note, if they put their servers in the US? It'd be more like $0.50 per 15GB download rather than the $4.50 I estimated for Australia. Also worth noting that this price follows something not too dissimilar to Moore's Law, in theory it halves every year or so. Plus if you were a company running a server? Your aim would be to reduce costs so you'd place your servers in the cheapest locations possible. You certaintly wouldn't be running all of your global servers in Australia, especially given that most of the customers are in the US and Japan. Still, I used Australian numbers as a worst case scenario to make a point.

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

LzWinky

It would be nice if Nintendo gave us cheaper and more free stuff, especially when I throw some logic at them.

My favorite is "I spent $300 on your games, gimme free stuff!" (paraphrase of a Club Nintendo complaint)

Current games: Everything on Switch

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

KryptoniteKrunch

The entitlement always makes me laugh. This isn't just a Nintendo thing either, barring some exceptions, full retail games that launch on PSN and XBL are also $60..

I guess it wouldn't hurt for the big 3 to offer some sort of small discount on all retail games on their respective e store. Cash back deal or something..

KryptoniteKrunch

Nintendo Network ID: KryptoniteKrunch

skywake

KryptoKrunch wrote:

I guess it wouldn't hurt for the big 3 to offer some sort of small discount on all retail games on their respective e store. Cash back deal or something..

Yeah, some kind of digital promotion thing. Maybe just for the really loyal customers though, perhaps just the ones who buy the higher end hardware. The deluxe model. Perhaps they could call it the "Digital Deluxe Promotion" or something. While they're there because digital distribution is so cheap maybe they could add additional content to games to extend their life? It costs almost nothing really so why not? Create some extra content that you can download. Downloadable Content if you will.

Hell while we're here why not go further? Digital distribution costs almost nothing so why not give away bonus games sometimes? Bundles. Discounts for owning other titles. 10-20% discounts for owning the previous version. A code to download another game when you buy this title. Obviously this sort of thing doesn't happen already so.... oh, it DOES happen? It's a regular occurrence even on Nintendo's store? Well how about that!

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

KryptoniteKrunch

skywake wrote:

KryptoKrunch wrote:

I guess it wouldn't hurt for the big 3 to offer some sort of small discount on all retail games on their respective e store. Cash back deal or something..

Yeah, some kind of digital promotion thing. Maybe just for the really loyal customers though, perhaps just the ones who buy the higher end hardware. The deluxe model. Perhaps they could call it the "Digital Deluxe Promotion" or something. While they're there because digital distribution is so cheap maybe they could add additional content to games to extend their life? It costs almost nothing really so why not? Create some extra content that you can download. Downloadable Content if you will.

Hell while we're here why not go further? Digital distribution costs almost nothing so why not give away bonus games sometimes? Bundles. Discounts for owning other titles. 10-20% discounts for owning the previous version. A code to download another game when you buy this title. Obviously this sort of thing doesn't happen already so.... oh, it DOES happen? It's a regular occurrence even on Nintendo's store? Well how about that!

Derp. I don't know why I forgot the DDP(something I myself got $15 off of). lol Disregard that then. It would be cool if they made DDP permanent though.

KryptoniteKrunch

Nintendo Network ID: KryptoniteKrunch

DefHalan

@skywake
I know my "calculated" cost was exaggerated.

I just think Game Companies need to charge what a game is worth. If a game is worth $60 (like Splatoon) they why shouldn't Nintendo charge that for their content. Sure giving people a discount might sell more untils but that is what happened to the App Store, now everything is either free to play or $1. We see plenty of games release for 3DS at $30 and Smart Phones for $5, same game they just sell it for less because they won't get noticed on the app store if it cost more. I think developers need to charge what they think the game is worth and not worry about what the race to the bottom. If you expect a discount for digital then why not a expect a discount for physical, and ehy not just expect all games to be cheaper, or possibly free

wrote this on my phone, hopefully it makes sense

People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...

3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan

skywake

@DefHalan
I don't disagree on that point because at the end of the day we are getting the same product. In some instances it's arguably a better product IMO. And because of that reason and that reason alone I don't think that digital purchases should be drastically cheaper. At least not at launch. That's why I did some more realistic estimations on the cost, because being unrealistic about the prices screws over our argument. The cost is lower but I'd rather pay the same and have that money go to the platform, publisher and developer. Much better than having it go to the retailer, shopping centre and distributor. Pay the people who actually made the product.

That said, when a game is a few years old? That's when digital distribution can really shine. Usually at that stage they're not printing the game anymore and the vast majority of the copies you'll find will be pre-owned. Pre-owned from a developer/publisher perspective is the same as piracy in the sense that they get no money from it. If they price digital at the tail-end of the product's life at about the same or in a lot of cases cheaper than the used price? That's money in their pocket that would have otherwise gone straight to the retailer/reseller.

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

spizzamarozzi

skywake wrote:

The cost is lower but I'd rather pay the same and have that money go to the platform, publisher and developer. Much better than having it go to the retailer, shopping centre and distributor. Pay the people who actually made the product.

sorry but I've always found this line of thought a bit silly. I'll never get why people believe that retailers and shop owners (especially brick and mortar shops) shouldn't make a living by selling videogames, while publishers (who are usually multi-million dollar companies who are doing anything in order to milk every cent out of you) should get even MORE money.
What's your problem with videogame shops? They are not worse than UBI, Capcom or EA, are they?!

Top-10 games I played in 2017: The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild (WiiU) - Rogue Legacy (PS3) - Fallout 3 (PS3) - Red Dead Redemption (PS3) - Guns of Boom (MP) - Sky Force Reloaded (MP) - ...

3DS Friend Code: 0104-0649-7464 | Nintendo Network ID: spizzamarozzi

Chandlero

spizzamarozzi wrote:

sorry but I've always found this line of thought a bit silly. I'll never get why people believe that retailers and shop owners (especially brick and mortar shops) shouldn't make a living by selling videogames

I agree. And therefore the digital software has to be as expensive as the retail version. Otherwise the shop owners cannot compete with these lower prices and will lose.

Edited on by Chandlero

skywake

spizzamarozzi wrote:

skywake wrote:

The cost is lower but I'd rather pay the same and have that money go to the platform, publisher and developer. Much better than having it go to the retailer, shopping centre and distributor. Pay the people who actually made the product.

sorry but I've always found this line of thought a bit silly. I'll never get why people believe that retailers and shop owners shouldn't make a living by selling videogames, while publishers should get even MORE money. What's your problem with videogame shops? They are not worse than UBI, Capcom or EA, are they?!

I don't have a problem with shops taking a cut but they're not a charity. I wouldn't be at all upset if video game retailers all went bust and the industry went to distribution directly from the publisher. Not because they're "worse", but because it would be better to be giving money to the people who make the game possible. Especially compared to a used sale where I'm literally giving them nothing. More money into the making of games rather than the selling of games means niche ideas are more likely. More profitable games would also mean that studios would be less likely to go bust as quickly. Why wouldn't I want to be giving more money to them rather than the middle-man?

Look at it this way, it's not too different to buying stuff direct from a farm vs going to a supermarket. There are quite a few orchards around where I live, these guys all sell fruit by the crate from their sheds. You can drive in and buy a box. When you do this they end up getting more money from you than they would have if you'd brought the same stuff at supermarket (well, ignoring freshness). Does me doing that mean I have "something against supermarkets"? Well no, not at all. But surely it's a good thing that I'm giving the money to the producer of that product directly? Doesn't me giving money to them directly mean that they're more likely to keep making that product? And if it was feasible to do that all the time? Surely that would be a better model for all involved.

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

ZuneTattooGuy

I think in the future Nintendo should sign exclusive DLC deals with Gamestop and the othes by stating they can have the exclusive rights to the Preorder DLC for all physical copies sold but if someone buys it digitally directly through us we have the right to give them a copy.

Gamertag: GoingTheDist

spizzamarozzi

skywake wrote:

More money into the making of games rather than the selling of games means niche ideas are more likely. More profitable games would also mean that studios would be less likely to go bust as quickly. Why wouldn't I want to be giving more money to them rather than the middle-man?

This would be so true had the industry gotten better, but it's getting worse and worse by the day, and the fact that the money you don't give to the middle man automatically goes into the production of bigger, better, more original products is just an illusion. First, you're paying some kind of distribution, believe it or not. Only nowdays the distributors are not some kind of faceless companies that deal with logistics but are recognisable companies that work in the videogame industry - Valve, Nintendo, Sony etc etc.
Apparently Valve keeps 20% to 40% for distributing other people's games through Steam. That's a lot of money. How many original games has Valve made with the money? Errrrrrr....
Have Ubisoft, EA, Konami, Capcom, Nintendo, Squaresoft etc gotten better now that you can pay them directly for their effort?!
We're basically living the dark age of videogames where prices have gotten higher and yet everything beside the bare bones comes at a price, and you're concerned with the middle-man's percentage??

Top-10 games I played in 2017: The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild (WiiU) - Rogue Legacy (PS3) - Fallout 3 (PS3) - Red Dead Redemption (PS3) - Guns of Boom (MP) - Sky Force Reloaded (MP) - ...

3DS Friend Code: 0104-0649-7464 | Nintendo Network ID: spizzamarozzi

ZuneTattooGuy

DefHalan wrote:

@skywake
I know my "calculated" cost was exaggerated.

I just think Game Companies need to charge what a game is worth. If a game is worth $60 (like Splatoon) they why shouldn't Nintendo charge that for their content. Sure giving people a discount might sell more untils but that is what happened to the App Store, now everything is either free to play or $1. We see plenty of games release for 3DS at $30 and Smart Phones for $5, same game they just sell it for less because they won't get noticed on the app store if it cost more. I think developers need to charge what they think the game is worth and not worry about what the race to the bottom. If you expect a discount for digital then why not a expect a discount for physical, and ehy not just expect all games to be cheaper, or possibly free

wrote this on my phone, hopefully it makes sense

My original post said 10% off if you buy it digitally ($5 to 6), yet you keep harping on a weird point I never made or wanted, make the games 50% or more off. I simply think that digital games should be slightly cheaper than the retail versions, and it should include some if not all of the pre-sale DLC

Gamertag: GoingTheDist

skywake

spizzamarozzi wrote:

Apparently Valve keeps 20% to 40% for distributing other people's games through Steam. That's a lot of money. How many original games has Valve made with the money? Errrrrrr....

Well with a little bit of googling I found an article. One that shows that when you buy a game:

  • 45% goes to the devs
  • 23% goes to the publisher/marketing/distribution
  • 20% goes to the retailer
  • 12% goes to the platform owner (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft)

Take away distribution and the retailers cut? Something along the lines of 25% of those costs just go entirely. Which means that if the price is the same as it as retail then a digital-only "platform owner" can take around 35% before the publishers/devs would be getting less. Most of these digital platforms take around 30%. Plus remember that when you buy a Nintendo game on a Nintendo platform via Nintendo's online distribution platform? Nintendo's getting all of that vs the 75% they'll get at retail (after tax)

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

ZuneTattooGuy

skywake wrote:

Well with a little bit of googling I found an article. One that shows that when you buy a game:

  • 45% goes to the devs
  • 23% goes to the publisher/marketing/distribution
  • 20% goes to the retailer
  • 12% goes to the platform owner (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft)

Take away distribution and the retailers cut? Something along the lines of 25% of those costs just go entirely. Which means that if the price is the same as it as retail then a digital-only "platform owner" can take around 35% before the publishers/devs would be getting less. Most of these digital platforms take around 30%. Plus remember that when you buy a Nintendo game on a Nintendo platform via Nintendo's online distribution platform? Nintendo's getting all of that vs the 75% they'll get at retail (after tax)

Exactly if its a Nintendo 1st Party title they don't have to pay the 20% to Gamestop at the very least, and I am asking they pass on 10% of the savings onto the digital customer.

Gamertag: GoingTheDist

skywake

Quinnsdaddy11 wrote:

Exactly if its a Nintendo 1st Party title they don't have to pay the 20% to Gamestop at the very least, and I am asking they pass on 10% of the savings onto the digital customer.

If that argument made any sense then they should also give us discounts when they self publish. Or when they're making first party titles. Which is ridiculous really. The prices of games are as they are because that's the price people are willing to pay. The end user doesn't see any difference at all in terms of the end product because it's literally the same product. The only difference is that with a retail copy it'll always be the retailer who gets the squeeze if the game doesn't sell. When they sell it for $10 under the RRP at launch they're doing that by making $10 less profit. With a digital copy? The platform holder IS the retailer... and sometimes publisher... and sometimes developer...

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

Sean_Aaron

The fundamental problem with the idea that digital should be cheaper than physical is that when the company prices either one of these they aren't trying to recoup the cost of packaging or server storage, they're trying to recoup the cost of MAKING THE GAME and make a profit so they can pay staff, etc. to continue functioning as a business. The fact that they get to keep more of the money from a digital sale doesn't mean it should be cheaper, it means they can afford to sell less units and still be profitable.

And they already give back to the fans - like I said earlier they've been doing cross-buy and VC promotions for ages as well as launch-window discounts. And indeed you can often get discounted rates by buying codes from retailers as I've done with the majority of my first-party retail downloads. Nintendo isn't a charity, but I also don't think it's fair to say they're greedy so-and-sos.

Edited on by Sean_Aaron

BLOG, mail: [email protected]
Nintendo ID: sean.aaron

skywake

Sean_Aaron wrote:

The fundamental problem with the idea that digital should be cheaper than physical is that when the company prices either one of these they aren't trying to recoup the cost of packaging or server storage, they're trying to recoup the cost of MAKING THE GAME and make a profit so they can pay staff, etc. to continue functioning as a business. The fact that they get to keep more of the money from a digital sale doesn't mean it should be cheaper, it means they can afford to sell less units and still be profitable

Well that was more to the point than I was

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

ZuneTattooGuy

I never once said they were greedy but fir instance:

If you lively people in the UK take place in the Splatoon Testfire you get 10% off the full digital game. We in the States so far get nothing....

Gamertag: GoingTheDist

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.