Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Is it time for Microsoft to start pushing Digital Distribution more?

Is it time for Microsoft to start pushing Digital Distribution more?

Yes, hard drives are getting larger. 18 32.14%
 
No, internet is still not ready for it. 19 33.93%
 
Yes, other reasons (discuss). 7 12.50%
 
No, other reasons (discuss). 12 21.43%
 
Total:56
nightsurge said:
aken909 said:

Digital Distrubution is just another way to raise the cost of gaming.  Take out the competition of resale and with out a doubt the game companies will start raising the cost of games.  Look at DLC's, very few of them when you look at the creation cost vs sales price are anywhere close to as cheap as the full game from the consumer point of view.

I find it sad how these days people just seem to beg to be charged more for things than they are worth case in point Blizzards new flying mount. Anyone with any common sense would say hey wait a sec there charging me 25$ for something that took someone 15 minutes to create  when I can buy a full boxed copy of the game for $9.99

Companies like EA and Activision have flat out said all they care about is the profit. And as soon as other companies see they can charge whatever they want thats exactly what they will do.  And sadly the modern consumer who has way too much money apparently will fall in line like sheep to the slaughter.

 

This is unfortunate, but MS can always restrict pricing.  They have final say on content released over their network.  As for DLC, many companies in the last few months have begun offering free DLC to their customers.  Not all companies are bad.  While there is a risk they could try to raise prices more, I feel there is more than enough to keep that from happening with this system.  But as you said, most of that responsibility rests with the consumer to vote with their dollar.  If the games are selling for too high a price, they should simply not buy them.  In which case the developers will lower the price and learn from their behavior.

 

 

Um, when has Microsoft ever restricted the cost of anything?

Microsoft is just as guilty as EA or Activision when it comes to price gouging.  I mean you still have to pay for Live which I might add has adds from major players like Mc Donalds and Toyota and Sprint ect which should be more than enough to pay for Live to be free. If you buy a controller does it come with a rechargable battery or do you have to buy that extra, how about a WiFI adapter or a hard drive both are extra and they cost WAY more than the average retail price for other 3'd party products. Most of which won't work with the Xbox by design forcing you to buy there overpriced items.

 

Just say no to digital distribution, as a consumer your protecting yourself every time you do. 



Around the Network
aken909 said:
nightsurge said:
aken909 said:

Digital Distrubution is just another way to raise the cost of gaming.  Take out the competition of resale and with out a doubt the game companies will start raising the cost of games.  Look at DLC's, very few of them when you look at the creation cost vs sales price are anywhere close to as cheap as the full game from the consumer point of view.

I find it sad how these days people just seem to beg to be charged more for things than they are worth case in point Blizzards new flying mount. Anyone with any common sense would say hey wait a sec there charging me 25$ for something that took someone 15 minutes to create  when I can buy a full boxed copy of the game for $9.99

Companies like EA and Activision have flat out said all they care about is the profit. And as soon as other companies see they can charge whatever they want thats exactly what they will do.  And sadly the modern consumer who has way too much money apparently will fall in line like sheep to the slaughter.

 

This is unfortunate, but MS can always restrict pricing.  They have final say on content released over their network.  As for DLC, many companies in the last few months have begun offering free DLC to their customers.  Not all companies are bad.  While there is a risk they could try to raise prices more, I feel there is more than enough to keep that from happening with this system.  But as you said, most of that responsibility rests with the consumer to vote with their dollar.  If the games are selling for too high a price, they should simply not buy them.  In which case the developers will lower the price and learn from their behavior.

 

 

Um, when has Microsoft ever restricted the cost of anything, Microsoft is just as guilty as EA or Activision when it comes to price gouging.  I mean you still have to pay for Live which I might add has adds from major players like Mc Donalds and Toyota and Sprint ect which should be more than enough to pay for Live to be free. If you buy a controller does it come with a rechargable battery or do you have to buy that extra, how about a WiFI adapter or a hard drive both are extra and they cost WAY more than the average retail price for other 3'd party products. Most of which won't work with the Xbox by design forcing you to buy there overpriced items.

 

Just say no to digital distribution, as a consumer your protecting yourself every time you do. 

And hindering technological advancement?  No thanks.  DD isn't so black and white.  As an intelligent consumer I will vote with my dollar should anything ever be inappropriately priced.

As for some of your other arguments:  360 controller is already $10-15 cheaper than a PS3 controller.  That's more than enough to buy a good set of rechargable NiMH batteries that will have about 2 times the battery life of the PS3 built in LiIon battery.  No one's perfect.  Sure if you buy a 360 arcade you will have to pay more for that hard drive, but the purpose of the arcade is for those that don't need a hard drive.  Having choices is a good thing.  The ads only exist on one "blade" of the 360 dashboard and are in no way obtrusive.  Until we actually know how much it costs for LIVE to be maintained we cannot make generalizations about Ad revenue paying for it all.  I am more inclined to think the service of LIVE and PSN costs a lot more than any of us may think considering even Sony will be introducing a subscription service soon to try and make up costs.



nightsurge said:
kitler53 said:
there are a ton of reasons the psp go fails so hard but digital only is probably the biggest. being able to the connect to the internet, internet speeds, and peoples just general willingness to buy things online all seem to be pretty significant barriers today. and psp games are an order of magnitude smaller in size to boot.

exploring digital outlets isn't a bad idea but i don't think the download-only is a viable market for large budget games atm.

This is a good point.  I am not suggesting that they move to DD only for all games, but rather only for their top budget, largest games that need that extra space.  Some games are fine as they are and can fit well into the current 6.8GB size limit.  I just feel that for their biggest exclusives to push the performance barrier they need this increase in data size.

yeah but the biggest exclusives that push performance and need the extra space is just another way to say expensive development cycle.  there is not way to validate this but i'd put money down that if halo:reach was released as digital only it would sell at least a couple million less units than as a disc release.

no, if the game needs the extra space i think a better tact would be to sell it physically on two discs and have a install like forza did.  installs seem to be increasinly fairly common this gen and apparently accepted well enough by the market.



kitler53 said:
nightsurge said:
kitler53 said:
there are a ton of reasons the psp go fails so hard but digital only is probably the biggest. being able to the connect to the internet, internet speeds, and peoples just general willingness to buy things online all seem to be pretty significant barriers today. and psp games are an order of magnitude smaller in size to boot.

exploring digital outlets isn't a bad idea but i don't think the download-only is a viable market for large budget games atm.

This is a good point.  I am not suggesting that they move to DD only for all games, but rather only for their top budget, largest games that need that extra space.  Some games are fine as they are and can fit well into the current 6.8GB size limit.  I just feel that for their biggest exclusives to push the performance barrier they need this increase in data size.

yeah but the biggest exclusives that push performance and need the extra space is just another way to say expensive development cycle.  there is not way to validate this but i'd put money down that if halo:reach was released as digital only it would sell at least a couple million less units than as a disc release.

no, if the game needs the extra space i think a better tact would be to sell it physically on two discs and have a install like forza did.  installs seem to be increasinly fairly common this gen and apparently accepted well enough by the market.

If they want to enable us to install all the discs to a game (like FF13 for instance) and then only have to use the first disc to play the full game, I would be more than happy for them to use this alternative.



Well, you have the right to spend your money however you want. I'll do the same which is why I haven't bought a single Xbox game or paid for live since I got my PS3. For every year of live you pay for I buy an extra game.

But that said this wasn't supposed to be another Xbox vs PS3 conversation.

So I will just say I own 0 Digi. Dist. games and I don't plan on buying any in the near future thats how I vote with my dollar.



Around the Network

I think bandwidth caps are a way bigger disadvantage than you've accounted for. Here (Ireland), most internet packages only give a 30gb monthly transfer limit, which would probably only allow for 1-2 DD titles (proper, big budget, not little arcade-y ones), assuming you don't surf the net, play online etc at all.



They'd be better of allowing games that require installs to be released, then they could get more than 6.8GB on a disc, better than digital download



GreyianStorm said:
I think bandwidth caps are a way bigger disadvantage than you've accounted for. Here (Ireland), most internet packages only give a 30gb monthly transfer limit, which would probably only allow for 1-2 DD titles (proper, big budget, not little arcade-y ones), assuming you don't surf the net, play online etc at all.

I had no idea it was that low over there.  I can go over 30GB just doing normal browsing with like some youtube and song streaming involved.

@Shorty

Yes, Kitler mentioned that and I agree that would make a better solution.  I hope MS just does something to raise the small 6.8GB limit without making me have to swap discs all the time and whatnot.



Father: Merry Christmas son!
Son: Where's my present I dont see it anywhere?
Father: Ill download you whatever game onto your PS3 or 360!
Son: Ok, the game i want is 30gb big and i dont have enough space so we'll have to buy a new HDD and stores are closed today so we'll have to wait and buy it tomorrow.
(The next day....)
Father: Ok i just bought you a new HDD now lets download your new game!
Son: Yea thanks dad! We only have a 2 GB bandwidth and its an extra $2 per GB that exceeds it.
Father: um...no problem son its still your Christmas present!
Son: Since we cant afford the fastest internet its going to take 5 days to finish downloading it.
Father: um.....Happy New Years!!!

A situation that can easily happen, and could've been easier just by having the game on disc.




Nicely put together. there are benefits to call a move like this, but would it be worth it?