Michael Comeau said:
Pandalisk said:
I like direct downloads, its just so much more easier for me, and it cuts out the costs of delivery to stores, though if this were to happen worldwide there would be alot of jobs lost in retailers, hmmm, though im not sure if its true, but Disks seem to work better than Direct downloads for me, in terms of speed and quality.
Yes, it cuts costs of delivery to stores, but does anyone think that the cost savings will be passed along to consumers? I'm talking about the days when brand new games are available for download from day one. Microsoft charges $150 for a small hard drive - they're not afraid to stiff us!
As a PC gamer... I can't really see how I'm disadvantaged. All my hardware comes from OCUK/Amazon/Play.com etc, so the whole "Physical retailers will take down the hardware element of sales" thing doesn't work. The few "computer" shops over here have low-medium components (I upgraded last easter- The best graphics card they had was an AGP 7600 GS, and I put one of those in my machine 3 years ago).
Any monopoly will cause prices to jump, that's why I can get a Terabyte hard-drive for my PC for £80, but it costs the earth to buy Xbox hard-drives. Your stipulated "ramping of prices" would lead to a downturn in people buying games, a downturn in profits, and so a downturn in prices. Rinse and repeat until the companies find out that selling a £40 game for £55 isn't acceptable.
The whole "trading in" thing struck me as odd as well... How does not being able to take my games back to the shop affect me as a PC gamer? I don't know ANYWHERE that buys used PC games, so that flies out the window too.
In short, I think that the protest against digital downloads is skewed in the first place. By buying into one side of gaming (that is, by buying a console), you essentially buy into a monopoly. Everyone kicks up to Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft in the console market, and here's why.
Imagine gaming is a football. Microsoft, Bungee, Naughty Dog and Activision are having a kick-about (a casual game of football, non-official), and it's all fine. Bungee tries to tackle Microsoft to get the ball, and accidentally trips him in the process. Microsoft goes down like a sack of spuds, and starts yelling for a free kick. The others carry on playing, so Microsoft gets up,
takes his ball and goes home. The others are unable to play unless they do as Microsoft says, so they have to play by his rules. Microsoft can do what he wants, and everyone has to put up with it.
Put that same situation onto anyone you like. The point is, if Microsoft says to an Xbox exclusive game "you will charge $50 squillion for this game", Xbox game has to do that. If Microsoft says that to a PC game (remember, although it runs on the OS, you don't have to ask Microsoft for the right to run it.) or a non-exclusive console game, the game can put the proverbial two fingers up and tell Microsoft to get stuffed, they'll just release it with Sony instead.
In conclusion, I guess I'm trying to pull at the main problem with "online sales becoming a monopoly". The gaming industry is ALREADY a monopoly, and has been since the very first exclusive. More online purchases won't affect that. If prices get hiked, gamers will reach a "saturation point", where they refuse to buy your game, no matter how brilliant it may be, simply because of the massive setup costs.