| happydolphin said: That's assuming that the benefits are still possible. I asked about this in the other thread but I'm not sure how misled I am about it. I know that with Nintendo, for example, they locked the price of their retail games to the price of their digital games so as to make sure not to negatively impact retailers. Is that also true with other suppliers? (PSN, XBL) I noticed that many of the digital games offered on PSN and XBL are expensive unlike STEAM (which has regular sales). So we're assuming that we now get the best of both worlds when in reality it seems like we really don't, we're getting the shaft. It looked like MS was hoping to lower the price of their games by controlling the used games sales cycle. Didn't they say that they wanted to have a resale system in place for their all-digital solution? |
I don't know about that. Yeah, Steam sometimes has cheaper prices and is better known for its crazy sales, but (a) it is a service on an open platform and so faces direct competition in a way that closed platform holders don't, and (b) games on Steam generally cost the same as elsewhere when they're not on sale, which is most of the time.
So I don't think we're going to get the best of both worlds now, nor would we have had Microsoft not done its reversal. I do think consumers now have the power to dictate the adoption rate of digital that they find beneficial rather than having to adopt at the rate that some corporation decides they will, and those corporations will have to find ways to convince rather than to force. That is only a good thing to me.
