happydolphin said:
Okay, you make a decent point. Before I go, how would you contrast the viability of the markets (as they were, you mentioned Steam, MS's virtual market) with the Ritticello vid? I ask, since your most potent argument is "The markets were already there so why fuss now?"/ |
Well, markets are based on supply, demand, and competition. In the digital space supply and demand are controlled. Demand isn't in as much control, but after costs are covered, you're not sitting on dead stock to clear out so prices stagnat. Next is competition.
Steam's competitors aren't as popular, nor are they as robust. Steam has one other competitor, piracy. Piracy, believe it or not, keeps Steam in check. If there was no piracy, I can assure you, there'd be no sales every week on big titles.
Console space has little piracy, so for the sake of discussion we'll say it's not there (Yes it is, but Sony and Microsoft have done a very thorough job to make piracy neglible. It's also why publishers blame the used market now). So supply and demand are still in control. Prices are generally higher because piracy is not a competitor. Competition is the key difference. Microsoft and Sony are each other's competitor. Nintendo as well, but to a smaller degree due to current Wii U userbase. The Wii early on was actually a greater competitor but another discussion for another time. Back on point. Microsoft and Sony compete with each other, but publishers ultimately hold key on price. Publisher's aren't going to change prices between platforms since that competes with themselves (e.g. EA isn't going to put the price down for Battlefield 3 on PS3 vs 360 since that'll affect profits). Sony created PS + to compete with Microsoft, and that helped with prices. The other competitor is the used game market.
Used game market is more affected by supply and demand vs competition. If there's a lot of supply vs demand prices go down. Low prices on games creates competition to retail games on the digital platform (Not DLC or consumables[e.g. bullets]). Prices can go lower on the digital space because now publshers have to compete for dollars, since they see no money from used sales. Which leads to Microsoft and their DRM.
Microsoft wants control on the used market. If they control supply, demand and reduce competition, they'll get closer to getting full control of the market and they can keep prices higher. This is why they're trying their hardest to push this DRM through. This anti-consumer tactic also removes our ability to become a seller and gets rid of a large competitor, us. Now come in what this article suggests.
Sony is adding another form of competition. By giving users the right to sell (Which we should have by default and have never been giving the ability to do in the digital space), they're actually creating more competition. This actually creates competition in the DLC space now since there's very little (Most DLC sales are either marketting ploys, or used to push the sale of a retail game). This also adds more competition for retail games.
What Sony is doing, if this article is correct, is adding more freedom to the market. Supply and demand is controlled, but by adding another layer of competition this leads to a more free market, which is more than what Steam currently is, and is the exact opposite of what Microsoft is trying to do.
