Business Approach for Video Game Physical and Digital versions *spawn*
- Thread starter RudeCurve
- Start date
I'm looking at the British Telecom page, and it says unlimited data is 38 GBP per month, which is about $60 US. It's also a 38 Mbps connection, which is good enough for a home streaming Netflix or other steaming video to multiple devices simultaneously. Not sure what the issue is. A single user can get the 17 Mbps connection with unlimited bandwidth for 30 GBP per month. You'd have to download larger games over a period of time, but that's $46 USD. Seems very affordable.
Sure, the base package has a 40GB cap, and it's dirt cheap, but there are affordable Internet options for people who want to stream and download.
Sure, the base package has a 40GB cap, and it's dirt cheap, but there are affordable Internet options for people who want to stream and download.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
This reinforces my earlier point. Some like yourself are getting speed increases in leaps and bounds, others are stuck because their options are limited because of the topography or existing deployment of technology that is too expensive to upgrade relative to the number of customers it will advantage.
When I made enquiries about getting fibre at my home, Openreach (the infrastructure division of BT who actually deploy the network in the UK) were quite candid that because I had an exchange only line my only immediate options were to move (not kidding), get multiple telephone lines or wait for a couple of years while they work on the problem. At least they were honest!
In the UK we have a Government target to deploy superfast broad to 95% of the country by the end of 2017. And last year the target was by the end of 2016. And the year before that it was by the end of the this year. It's a nonsense target that keeps moving. A lot of people still have shit internet and "fast" is subjective.
Of course, Microsoft and Sony will (or should) know the range of broadband speeds of their connected customers and can make future product decisions based on real data. If very few customers will have problems they may decide it's worth it to drop optical but I can't see it. Bits of Europe are super modern, bits of the US and UK are, plenty of other places are not. Where console customers are relative to current or broadband infrastructure is what matters for PS5/XB4.
As mentioned, there's nothing wrong beside the base cost of broadband increasing. That is, it costs more for fibre than conventional broadband, and you don't intrinsically get anything better - 15 Mbps is good enough for a few streamed activities at once. For running a download only console where you want super fast fibre, you'll have to pay an extra £10-15 per month on top of your ordinary broadband costs which won't fetch you any other gains.
Using myself as example, I've contemplated moving to fibre and realised it's a pointless economy. There's nothing broadband is stopping me doing, so why waste another £150 a year on the service? Without reason to pay more to upgrade, I stay at broadband. And at broadband speeds, a download only future isn't so convenient.
If download games were significantly cheaper, it'd make sense to pay a premium on the service to download them, but they are also even more expensive than discs typically! So there'd be £150 a year extra cost for the download convenience, plus higher prices on the game. For people with the money who value the convenience of all there games on the HDD, it's worth investing in, but for the typical gamer I don't think the values there.
Fibre is so much more stable and you have to rely less super advanced physics/math in chips to get fibre solutions working than with DSL or Radio.
Speed is what the consumer understands, but the stability and if you compare an equally good deployed fiber, copper, coax and radio link, then fiber is so much less prone to outside interference and issues than the others.
Speed is what the consumer understands, but the stability and if you compare an equally good deployed fiber, copper, coax and radio link, then fiber is so much less prone to outside interference and issues than the others.
Makes no odds. My connection is plenty stable enough. That is, there's nothing wrong with it in use such that I want a more expensive improved service. And notably, my friend's fibre connection is complete toss and utterly unreliable! Whether it's powered by maths or pixies, it works and is the best economy by far.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Same here. BT's DSL has been rock solid for me and since I got it in the late 1990s I've had maybe 10 drop outs and most of those were when BT were upgrading my connection speed. I started out with 512kbps downstreeam (256kbsp up). 18Mbits is more than enough for almost everything I do except quick install of massive games via downoad. I also have truly unlimited data (no fair usage provision). I lost my RAID a while back (two drives went at once and it was setup for one drive redundancy) so I had to download 5Tb from a remote backup and BT didn't bat an eyelid.
As you say discs are way cheaper in the UK, £50-55 games on PSN can usually be picked up for £40 on disc whcih is batshit crazy. If digital games were significantly cheaper I would be more annoyed by the lack of fibre options.
I had an 18 Mbps connection up until some time this year. I've downloaded all of the games I purchased for Xbox One. No issues with doing that. For larger titles, maybe 40+ GB you queue a download some time in the evening and you can play it the next day when you get home from work. It'll finish some time during the day and it's ready for you when you get home. Games in the 15-40 GB range, can be playable the same night, depending on when you start.
Not to mention, with apps like Smartglass, I can buy a game while I'm at work, if I happen to think of it. Even a 50GB game, you'd be able to play the same evening as long as you started your download early enough in the afternoon.
Really high speed Internet definitely makes things easier, but it's not particularly hard to work around download times as long as you have a reasonable cap. Those BT prices look pretty good for unlimited. In a lot of places, they only pair high caps or unlimited with high speeds, forcing you to pay much more. Having low-speed high-bandwidth options is good.
Not to mention, with apps like Smartglass, I can buy a game while I'm at work, if I happen to think of it. Even a 50GB game, you'd be able to play the same evening as long as you started your download early enough in the afternoon.
Really high speed Internet definitely makes things easier, but it's not particularly hard to work around download times as long as you have a reasonable cap. Those BT prices look pretty good for unlimited. In a lot of places, they only pair high caps or unlimited with high speeds, forcing you to pay much more. Having low-speed high-bandwidth options is good.
Are bt really unlimited, they are famous for saying so but having
*fair usage applies
I started off with BT with an off peak package you could use the internet as much as you wanted between 6pm and 8am you would be disconected after an hour but could immediately reconnect.
The swines sent me a warning email saying I was using it more than 3 hours per day
*fair usage applies
I started off with BT with an off peak package you could use the internet as much as you wanted between 6pm and 8am you would be disconected after an hour but could immediately reconnect.
The swines sent me a warning email saying I was using it more than 3 hours per day
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It depends on your plan. I have an unlimited plan and have never had a warning like I used too get when I was on a cheaper plan. They never cut me off but I would get throttled.
@Scott. I rarely plan my gaming seven hours in advance, I get the urge to play and want to play then. Preloads mean new releases aren't a problem but unless you have more storage than content you'll need to delete something at some point. If you get the urge to play that game you deleted you'll need to download it again.
I buy a lot of games and less than two years in I have approx 1.2Tb of games (when installed). Install size will easily outpace affordable storage unless Sony let me leverage my NAS.
Last edited by a moderator:
You don't need super fast fibre. How fast your internet connection has to be is strictly dependent on your patience. What you need is a decent data cap that accommodates your buying behavior.
Super fast fibre is more for those who want to engage in remote play but are sensitive to lag. And for those that have very little patience when it comes to wanting games on demand. But for older already owned titles, storing on HDDs is the most accessible way to maintain a library as there is no installation process (other than plugging into a USB or swapping internal drives), no dependency on a data cap or internet speed, and for digital titles there is no need to physically present a license.
Last edited:
I don't really get the issue with "planning" your gaming. If you want a game, you're going to buy it. Whether you can play it two hours later, or 12 hours later, it doesnt' really matter. You don't buy a game to play it for one evening. You're planning on getting 10-100 hours out of it, depending on the game.
Storage is definitely more of an issue. If you buy a huge library of games, and want access to them at a particular moment in time, then having a slow download isn't the best option. I don't know how many people really fit into that category. Must guess is most people buy 2 to 5 games a year and rarely revisit old games, and download wouldn't be a huge barrier to playing an old game.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I replay games a lot. I'll usually replay The Last of Us every 4-6 months and that is 50Gb but I have that on disc. Likewise GTA V. I'm sure I'll replay The Witcher 3 again as well. I had the urge to play Infamous Second Son last weekend and it was a quick install from disc. I mostly buy games that have replay value for me but I rarely want to binge on any particular game for a prolonged period. I like diversity and a change of pace in my gaming, just like my music, TV and movie viewing.
Uncharted is another franchise that I get the sudden urge to play a lot but sporadically.
I'm not sure why this thread was revived, nothing changed since 2013. The existence of discs is not the reason for high DD prices. The arguments given by publishers about DD pricing sounds like pure political theater.
DD costs more and gives less, because it provides convenience. They will price it as high as they can. Some gamers accept to pay more for that convenience (or didn't yet figure out the value proposition), the majority of console gamers did not accept the compromises:
- No lending/borrowing
- No ownership (i.e. no control)
- No used market nor bargain bin to get it for less (natural tiered pricing)
- No residual value to sell it used, if the gamer didn't like it, or if the game has little replay value
- Planned obsolescence with online DRM on installation
- You need access to (and pay for) a more expensive broadband plan (if not, you were paying for a plan you didn't need)
- You need to pay more for local storage, which will keep increasing
Last time I read about it, the big titles on consoles were still around 80% bluray to 20% DD. PC is almost 100% DD because all the advantages of discs have been removed. There's zero reason to get a disc on PC as you get no value out of it.
If you want a bargain, you can buy it used or borrow it from a friend. If you want convenience and/or day 1, you pay for it. That's why we have natural pricing tiers with discs, and DD pricing is not readjusted based of the availability of used discs or people lending their copy, they want to sell you the convenience. With DD only, the used tier pricing would disappear. No more tiers. (cue in Ozzy Osborne)
DD costs more and gives less, because it provides convenience. They will price it as high as they can. Some gamers accept to pay more for that convenience (or didn't yet figure out the value proposition), the majority of console gamers did not accept the compromises:
- No lending/borrowing
- No ownership (i.e. no control)
- No used market nor bargain bin to get it for less (natural tiered pricing)
- No residual value to sell it used, if the gamer didn't like it, or if the game has little replay value
- Planned obsolescence with online DRM on installation
- You need access to (and pay for) a more expensive broadband plan (if not, you were paying for a plan you didn't need)
- You need to pay more for local storage, which will keep increasing
Last time I read about it, the big titles on consoles were still around 80% bluray to 20% DD. PC is almost 100% DD because all the advantages of discs have been removed. There's zero reason to get a disc on PC as you get no value out of it.
If you want a bargain, you can buy it used or borrow it from a friend. If you want convenience and/or day 1, you pay for it. That's why we have natural pricing tiers with discs, and DD pricing is not readjusted based of the availability of used discs or people lending their copy, they want to sell you the convenience. With DD only, the used tier pricing would disappear. No more tiers. (cue in Ozzy Osborne)
Persistantthug
Newcomer
Well, that's somewhat true......but Sony and MS set the cap. They're the ones who make sure games don't go over $60......at least in America
http://venturebeat.com/2015/07/09/u...-prices-stay-so-high-for-so-long-on-consoles/
Ubisoft laid out why DD is more expensive than physical. Its simply due to wanting to keep retailers happy.
The PC transition from physical to a DD dominated method of distribution was a lot easier because retailers had basically abandoned selling physical PC games well before DD became a big thing. Consoles don't have that luxury as console disc sales of games are a big part of the revenue that retailers generated through supporting the console market.
I hear people mention all the time how used games are a big reason why DD hasn't taken off in the console space. But I never ever hear people mention the lack of physical distribution as an obstacle for entering the PC market.
Until MS and Sony take the leash off DD, DD will continue to be a fraction of physical sales. But once the hardware manufacturers start offering richer margins on hardware, accessories and gift cards and retailers become used to ideal of software not being a driver of revenue, DD will become the dominate form of distribution.
Last edited:
.. which is just political theater. It's the same game being sold whether it's DD (with some markup going to the digital store like Sony, MS, Apple), or bluray retail (with some markup going to the retailer).
Anytime they want to "make the retailers happy" all they have to do is reimburse the unsold inventory to reflect the change in markup to match retail to online store. The publisher controls that. Retailers will be happy to sell the game at a lower price while still having a markup similar to the online store. Instead, they wait for the unsold inventory gets dumped for bargain bin prices. They already got the money. If they screw them over and refuse to take back the unsold inventory, the retailer will make a loss and stop carrying that publisher's games.
The bargain bin prices exist to dump stock, and it's a tier that can't exist for DD.
Not the same thing because there's no stock being dumped. No limited supply.
The bargain bin prices, however, are a fluke caused by retailers ordering too much, which in the end is still more profitable than ordering too little. The publishers want them to continue ordering too much. The retailer loses a bit of his profit for the amount of stock that he couldn't sell. But the publisher needs to price all the real and virtual channels in a way that the retailers remains confident enough to order a lot of copies. This wouldn't happen if they would reimburse unsold copies.
If they drop the price online, a retailer will be unable to sell the over stock that he paid full price to the publisher. However if the publisher accepts the overstock to be reimbursed, it's the publisher loosing profit.
Similar threads
