By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Ubisoft reveals profit margins for physical versus digital sales on console

superchunk said:
AlfredoTurkey said:

Of course, "easy" is subjective so, this probably won't matter to you but... how much easier is it to push a button on your console and wait for a few hours than it is for me to push a button on Amazon and then pick the game up at my door step 24 hours later? Faster, sure. Easier? Maybe... a little... tiny... bit? 

1) Not having to get my mail.

2) Even physical requires install on 2/3rds of consoles.

3) Mins to couple hours is FAR less than 24~48hrs for delivery. (also, read #2 again)

4) My statement was referring to playing and switching between games on the daily, not the 1 time cost of buying/installing.

Yes, it is easier.

Again, it's subjective. Some people think walking five feet to their console to change games is a life changing, death defying trial of physical endurance the equivalent of swimming the English Channel. I, on the other hand, think it's a piece of cake.

The way people act these days you'd think those of us who lived during the 80's were fucking terminator cyborgs. I mean, can imagine having to actually drive to the store to buy a game? And then on top of THAT? We actually had to change games every single time we wanted to play a different one! 

I don't know how we escaped with our lives. 



Around the Network
superchunk said:
Cobretti2 said:

At that point we may as well all become PC gamers and Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft release games on Steam lol.

Steam has proven itself to be the one digital platform that will probably outlive most of us haha

Steam is awesome. However, it is not a Switch (amazing form-factor and portability) or a dedicated console of any form. It is a PC game platform which requires PC architecture and associated problems as well as complexity. There is a reason consoles eclipsed PC gaming and are now the default build architecture. True plug-n-play experience on the TV (or in hand as in Switch). I build my own PCs and am a Software Developer, so please don't reply with nonsense about simplicity of PCs being the same as consoles... I'm not tech-ignorant but I have kids and family who are... guess which platform I get more questions from? Steam will never remove consoles. In fact, as consoles continue to drive more and more of the gaming business and expand their control scheme, I'd see Steam / PC gaming continue to decline.

My issue is this with consoles going all digital.

When a new console comes out and eventually the services goes down and they move onto a new design.  Those old games I had will no longer work on my switch because I will not be able to download them as the online service will shut down.

With Steam it runs on any PC so i can accept digital games because if I uninstall i know I can reinstall it on a new PC later on if i so choose.

If consoles went all digital they need to make backing up easier so 20 years from now it can be played as a retro console.

 



 

 

AlfredoTurkey said:
superchunk said:

1) Not having to get my mail.

2) Even physical requires install on 2/3rds of consoles.

3) Mins to couple hours is FAR less than 24~48hrs for delivery. (also, read #2 again)

4) My statement was referring to playing and switching between games on the daily, not the 1 time cost of buying/installing.

Yes, it is easier.

Again, it's subjective. Some people think walking five feet to their console to change games is a life changing, death defying trial of physical endurance the equivalent of swimming the English Channel. I, on the other hand, think it's a piece of cake.

The way people act these days you'd think those of us who lived during the 80's were fucking terminator cyborgs. I mean, can imagine having to actually drive to the store to buy a game? And then on top of THAT? We actually had to change games every single time we wanted to play a different one! 

I don't know how we escaped with our lives. 

It is not subjective. 

The effort to get up, walk to console, change out disc, walk back to sitting area, and start game is explicitly more complicated than going to using fingers to select the new game to launch with a controller or touch screen. 

You may consider it not a big deal to get up and you're right, comparatively speaking to other physical activities, that is easy stuff. However, it does not negate the fact that moving between games in an all digital world is a night and day difference in complexity to physical games. That's not even counting the need to store physical games, etc. 

I take it you still use cassette tapes too? After all rewinding the tape is only one button push. Or how about a more modern scenario. Do you still use CDs? I mean changing out discs while driving is a super simple with my caselogic visor disc holder.

Your only real subjective argument is preference to owning a physical game.



Cobretti2 said:
superchunk said:

Steam is awesome. However, it is not a Switch (amazing form-factor and portability) or a dedicated console of any form. It is a PC game platform which requires PC architecture and associated problems as well as complexity. There is a reason consoles eclipsed PC gaming and are now the default build architecture. True plug-n-play experience on the TV (or in hand as in Switch). I build my own PCs and am a Software Developer, so please don't reply with nonsense about simplicity of PCs being the same as consoles... I'm not tech-ignorant but I have kids and family who are... guess which platform I get more questions from? Steam will never remove consoles. In fact, as consoles continue to drive more and more of the gaming business and expand their control scheme, I'd see Steam / PC gaming continue to decline.

My issue is this with consoles going all digital.

When a new console comes out and eventually the services goes down and they move onto a new design.  Those old games I had will no longer work on my switch because I will not be able to download them as the online service will shut down.

With Steam it runs on any PC so i can accept digital games because if I uninstall i know I can reinstall it on a new PC later on if i so choose.

If consoles went all digital they need to make backing up easier so 20 years from now it can be played as a retro console.

 

In a world where consoles are following the mobile market upgrade cycle, their services won't ever go down. Instead it would be just like Steam. However, there still is a point in time where certain games just lose support, even if you kept your orig console.

Honestly, I only ever see one legitimate argument against digital and that revolves around long-term ownership. In any game that has a completely off-line gameplay, you could technically play it for as long as you owned a working console. Whereas in an all digital console (even with Steam) there may come a point in time where there have been enough OS or hardware changes that the older game simply cannot function. (or they remove the game from the digital library for some licensing reason and you delete your local copy)

But, frankly, I consider those low risk concerns. Bigger opportunity / benefit is the simplicity of daily usage and no physical storage required of an all-digital library.



superchunk said: Or how about a more modern scenario. Do you still use CDs? I mean changing out discs while driving is a super simple with my caselogic visor disc holder.

 

Actually, yes... I do use CDs. And do you know why I do? Because 1411>320 and 256... that's why. 

See, for me, it's a simple case of prioritizing quality of convenience. I could pay Apple $9.99 a month and get all the music I could want at the push of a virtual button on my phone. I could then plug or bluetooth said phone up to a receiver in my home or car and listen to is through either audio system without so much as having to sniff at fumbling with an actual album. But, that's not my concern with music. My concern is resolution. I'm not going to pay money to listen to MP3's on Spotify and I'm not going to pay money to listen to AAC's on Apple Music. I'd rather buy the damn album, even if in the end it costs more money, and even if in the end it ends up meaning I have to *gasp*... put a physical disc into a player to listen to it... if it means my ears are spared from the rape of lossy music. And don't try to sell me on high resolution downloads either because there isn't a smartphone on earth with a DAC as good as the one inside my high end CD player. Not to mention, again, having the full resolution disc means I can listen to it as is, rip it to WAV... do anything I want to etc. 

See? This is why it's subjective. You only focus on convenience. I focus on consumer freedom and quality. What is right for you is wrong for me and visa versa. 



Around the Network
AlfredoTurkey said:
superchunk said: Or how about a more modern scenario. Do you still use CDs? I mean changing out discs while driving is a super simple with my caselogic visor disc holder.

 

Actually, yes... I do use CDs. And do you know why I do? Because 1411>320 and 256... that's why. 

See, for me, it's a simple case of prioritizing quality of convenience. I could pay Apple $9.99 a month and get all the music I could want at the push of a virtual button on my phone. I could then plug or bluetooth said phone up to a receiver in my home or car and listen to is through either audio system without so much as having to sniff at fumbling with an actual album. But, that's not my concern with music. My concern is resolution. I'm not going to pay money to listen to MP3's on Spotify and I'm not going to pay money to listen to AAC's on Apple Music. I'd rather buy the damn album, even if in the end it costs more money, and even if in the end it ends up meaning I have to *gasp*... put a physical disc into a player to listen to it... if it means my ears are spared from the rape of lossy music. And don't try to sell me on high resolution downloads either because there isn't a smartphone on earth with a DAC as good as the one inside my high end CD player. Not to mention, again, having the full resolution disc means I can listen to it as is, rip it to WAV... do anything I want to etc. 

See? This is why it's subjective. You only focus on convenience. I focus on consumer freedom and quality. What is right for you is wrong for me and visa versa. 

I'll give you the quality difference in the CD example. Granted, I'm no audiophile and love my Amazon Music Unlimited, but hey, to each their own. Though the continuous drop in physical sales and decrease in albums going platinum, etc, demonstrates where the market is going because for the greater majority of people... it all sounds the same and its just easier to go all digital.

However, in terms of games, quality is no different. My term was that it was "easier". You say I'm only focusing on convenience, which is true and exactly what easier means. That is not subjective which is my point. It is physically easier and/or more convenient to go all digital.

Your opinion is based not on what is easier, but that the cost to convenience is worth its price for your perceived ownership and consumer freedom. I can agree with that opinion being subjective.



superchunk said:
AlfredoTurkey said:

Actually, yes... I do use CDs. And do you know why I do? Because 1411>320 and 256... that's why. 

See, for me, it's a simple case of prioritizing quality of convenience. I could pay Apple $9.99 a month and get all the music I could want at the push of a virtual button on my phone. I could then plug or bluetooth said phone up to a receiver in my home or car and listen to is through either audio system without so much as having to sniff at fumbling with an actual album. But, that's not my concern with music. My concern is resolution. I'm not going to pay money to listen to MP3's on Spotify and I'm not going to pay money to listen to AAC's on Apple Music. I'd rather buy the damn album, even if in the end it costs more money, and even if in the end it ends up meaning I have to *gasp*... put a physical disc into a player to listen to it... if it means my ears are spared from the rape of lossy music. And don't try to sell me on high resolution downloads either because there isn't a smartphone on earth with a DAC as good as the one inside my high end CD player. Not to mention, again, having the full resolution disc means I can listen to it as is, rip it to WAV... do anything I want to etc. 

See? This is why it's subjective. You only focus on convenience. I focus on consumer freedom and quality. What is right for you is wrong for me and visa versa. 

I'll give you the quality difference in the CD example. Granted, I'm no audiophile and love my Amazon Music Unlimited, but hey, to each their own. Though the continuous drop in physical sales and decrease in albums going platinum, etc, demonstrates where the market is going because for the greater majority of people... it all sounds the same and its just easier to go all digital.

However, in terms of games, quality is no different. My term was that it was "easier". You say I'm only focusing on convenience, which is true and exactly what easier means. That is not subjective which is my point. It is physically easier and/or more convenient to go all digital.

Your opinion is based not on what is easier, but that the cost to convenience is worth its price for your perceived ownership and consumer freedom. I can agree with that opinion being subjective.

Yes, the average person only seems to care about ease of use. It is king of the day for sure.