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

Forums - Gaming - Digital future is slow to transition and digital customers have to suffer.

Burek on 19 November 2014
Pemalite said:

The higher prices are because publishers are required to do so in order to keep the retailers content.
There are many back-room deals, assumptions and financial reasons in order to do so.

It's akin to the Game of Thrones issue, they don't release the show widely in Australia, you cannot legally purchase it on the day it becomes available, instead because of the (In this case "Retailer") having made back-room deals, all other legal alternatives are essentially blocked, if you wish to watch it, then you need to sign up for a pay-television package. (Which I can't get because of my particular location anyhow.)

If it was digital, all problems would be solved for everyone, but just like retail video games, the archaic business models need to be supported to maintain current status-quo.

 

i just want to point out that you are using a bad example.

Game of Thrones is a show made by HBO, a subscription-based TV channel. Therefore, in any place that HBO has its subsidiaries, GoT will not have a free public release, but is a part of the paid subscription package.

That is the case in the US, Europe (in Croatia, GoT is shown on HBO Croatia, a 6€/month channel) as well as in Australia (my research tells me that there is HBO in Australia, as a part of Warner Bros entertainment division).

That's why you have to subscribe, nothing to do with "back-room deals" or other conspiracy theories.



Around the Network
Pemalite on 19 November 2014
Burek said:
Pemalite said:

The higher prices are because publishers are required to do so in order to keep the retailers content.
There are many back-room deals, assumptions and financial reasons in order to do so.

It's akin to the Game of Thrones issue, they don't release the show widely in Australia, you cannot legally purchase it on the day it becomes available, instead because of the (In this case "Retailer") having made back-room deals, all other legal alternatives are essentially blocked, if you wish to watch it, then you need to sign up for a pay-television package. (Which I can't get because of my particular location anyhow.)

If it was digital, all problems would be solved for everyone, but just like retail video games, the archaic business models need to be supported to maintain current status-quo.

 

i just want to point out that you are using a bad example.

Game of Thrones is a show made by HBO, a subscription-based TV channel. Therefore, in any place that HBO has its subsidiaries, GoT will not have a free public release, but is a part of the paid subscription package.

That is the case in the US, Europe (in Croatia, GoT is shown on HBO Croatia, a 6€/month channel) as well as in Australia (my research tells me that there is HBO in Australia, as a part of Warner Bros entertainment division).

That's why you have to subscribe, nothing to do with "back-room deals" or other conspiracy theories.


That would be true if Foxtel wasn't a completely different company to that of HBO.

We have to use VPN's to watch it from the USA over the internet, yes really.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/box-seat/foxtel-and-hbo-get-exclusive-20121023-282gh.html
http://www.foxtel.com.au/whats-on/foxtel-insider/foxtel-signs-new-hbo-deal-203024.htm

Fact of the matter is, Foxtel made an exclusivity deal with HBO, aka. "Back-room deal".
I would *love* to pay cash for just the episodes as they air, but can't, so I don't.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Burek on 19 November 2014
Pemalite said:
Burek said:
Pemalite said:

The higher prices are because publishers are required to do so in order to keep the retailers content.
There are many back-room deals, assumptions and financial reasons in order to do so.

It's akin to the Game of Thrones issue, they don't release the show widely in Australia, you cannot legally purchase it on the day it becomes available, instead because of the (In this case "Retailer") having made back-room deals, all other legal alternatives are essentially blocked, if you wish to watch it, then you need to sign up for a pay-television package. (Which I can't get because of my particular location anyhow.)

If it was digital, all problems would be solved for everyone, but just like retail video games, the archaic business models need to be supported to maintain current status-quo.

 

i just want to point out that you are using a bad example.

Game of Thrones is a show made by HBO, a subscription-based TV channel. Therefore, in any place that HBO has its subsidiaries, GoT will not have a free public release, but is a part of the paid subscription package.

That is the case in the US, Europe (in Croatia, GoT is shown on HBO Croatia, a 6€/month channel) as well as in Australia (my research tells me that there is HBO in Australia, as a part of Warner Bros entertainment division).

That's why you have to subscribe, nothing to do with "back-room deals" or other conspiracy theories.


That would be true if Foxtel wasn't a completely different company to that of HBO.

We have to use VPN's to watch it from the USA over the internet, yes really.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/box-seat/foxtel-and-hbo-get-exclusive-20121023-282gh.html
http://www.foxtel.com.au/whats-on/foxtel-insider/foxtel-signs-new-hbo-deal-203024.htm

Fact of the matter is, Foxtel made an exclusivity deal with HBO, aka. "Back-room deal".
I would *love* to pay cash for just the episodes as they air, but can't, so I don't.

That's OK, HBO, Foxtel, whoever... But why call it a back-room deal? It is an exclusivity deal, as you say, to broadcast a series that is on one paid channel in the US, and it is just fair to demand the customers to pay for it.

As I read, they found a way to bring it to Australians faster, they paid enough cash to secure exclusivity, it is just business, nothing shady or back-room. Same as with any game exclusive, like let's say Sunset Overdrive or Bayonetta 2. MS and Nintendo paid for exclusivity, it is only fair and expected to have restrictions for people not using their hardware (i.e. not being available elsewhere).

And you don't even have to pay cash, just download it from the torrent site and you are set. For free. You just need to wait a couple of extra hours. Surely a one day wait can be tolerated...



Pemalite on 19 November 2014
Burek said:

But why call it a back-room deal?


Because that's exactly what it is.
"Back-Room deal" was an idiom. - Which is accurate as per the context it was written and portrayed in.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Burning Typhoon on 19 November 2014
fps_d0minat0r said:
Burning Typhoon said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Because publishers want to keep the retailers happy.

Anyway, why would you be interested in buying a license instead of a disc?


You're buying the same thing when you buy a disc? omg, people today...


Exactly... so why pay more and have to rely on a network for your games when you can just get your own copy to access from disc at any time for less?

omg, people today...

I'm not paying more.

Most of the games I buy are on sale and cost between 1-5 dollars.  Most of my PS1 games cost 1 dollar, or free.  Most of my disc retail, but digital download (Ni No Kuni, Red Dead, GTAIV) etc.  Cost 5 bucks.  I bought GTAV for PS3 just about 3 weeks ago.  30 dollars.  I'm getting stuff cheap, and it's backed up.  Even if the PS store went down, I would still have accesss to everything, and I can make copies as often as I need.

Even if I were paying more, I could justify it by saying I could have unimited back-ups as long as I had somewhere to put it.  When you get a disc.  That's all you get.  When it's scratched, oh well...

I've actually saved around 75% of costs by getting things on sale.  26 retale games on my HDD.  Didn't pay full price for a single one.

omg, people today...



Around the Network
fps_d0minat0r on 22 November 2014
Burning Typhoon said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Burning Typhoon said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Because publishers want to keep the retailers happy.

Anyway, why would you be interested in buying a license instead of a disc?


You're buying the same thing when you buy a disc? omg, people today...


Exactly... so why pay more and have to rely on a network for your games when you can just get your own copy to access from disc at any time for less?

omg, people today...

I'm not paying more.

Most of the games I buy are on sale and cost between 1-5 dollars.  Most of my PS1 games cost 1 dollar, or free.  Most of my disc retail, but digital download (Ni No Kuni, Red Dead, GTAIV) etc.  Cost 5 bucks.  I bought GTAV for PS3 just about 3 weeks ago.  30 dollars.  I'm getting stuff cheap, and it's backed up.  Even if the PS store went down, I would still have accesss to everything, and I can make copies as often as I need.

Even if I were paying more, I could justify it by saying I could have unimited back-ups as long as I had somewhere to put it.  When you get a disc.  That's all you get.  When it's scratched, oh well...

I've actually saved around 75% of costs by getting things on sale.  26 retale games on my HDD.  Didn't pay full price for a single one.

omg, people today...


Maybe in the US its different because you guys always have better deals than the EU.

Here we dont have flash sales or €1 sales and the games which are heavily discounted can still be had for cheaper on disc pre-owned.

Most of the fairly new games that gets discounted are not even cheaper than brand new physical copies you can buy in stores.

I've saved around 90+% by only keeping the discs of the games I like and flogging the shit I dont like (an option digital purchasers dont get)

omg, people today...



Burning Typhoon on 22 November 2014

I do not trade my games in. I don't buy used. Once that shrink wrap comes off. I'm keeping it. Forever. I've saved a crap ton of money by going digital. I'm not against getting physical discs, though. But, I don't care about not trading in digital games. If I got it for under 30 dollars to begin with, I've already saved plenty.

If I bought it for 60, then I'd understand.