Microsoft Defends Games on Demand Pricing

[Andy Chalk]

Microsoft Defends Games on Demand Pricing

Microsoft says the point of its Games on Demand service for Xbox Live isn't to give gamers the lowest price but to offer them the ultimate in purchasing convenience - and that's why the prices are so damn high.

Eyebrows in the U.K. shot up - way, way up - when Halo: Reach turned up on Microsoft's Games on Demand service a Amazon [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-15-halo-reach-gets-games-on-demand-release]. The high price is particularly baffling in light of the fact that nothing is being spent on manufacturing, packaging and distribution costs, but Microsoft says that's not the point - the point is that you can go shopping in your underwear.

"No one retailer has the lowest pricing for every product, and our program is about giving people 24/7 convenience and selection when shopping for Xbox 360 games," a rep told Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-17-microsoft-justifies-games-on-demand-prices]. "We're incredibly excited about what Games on Demand means for digital distribution, and will continue to evaluate and evolve the service to meet market and consumer demands."

It's not quite so bad in the U.S., where the Games on Demand release lists for $49.99, but it's still a substantial premium for being able to buy a videogame without first having to wipe the nacho cheese off your fingers. I suppose another upside is that you can have the game right now rather than in three or four days or however long it takes the physical copy to work its way through the mail, but that's an awfully high price to pay for not having to get off the couch. I think I'll just keep holding out for Steam sales, thanks.


Permalink

 

[Danpascooch]

Who cares, if it's too high in the UK (it is) don't buy it on demand

It's that simple, if people are willing to pay that much you can't blame them for pricing it there, just stop complaining and buy physical copies instead, if enough people do that prices will go down.

 

[AngryMongoose]

/facepalm
Well played microsoft.
I'm assuming they're trying to make steam look better?

 

[omicron1]

The Real Truth: MS' point is to squeeze every red cent they can out of their customers ASAP. They know they have a monopoly; they know Steam can't threaten them on their home platform; and they're not overly concerned about the people who will buy these digital products months after the main release. It's like Sony with the PSPGo - "charging for convenience" is another way of saying "because we can."

 

[ramboondiea]

i found the comment about shopping in your underwear surprisingly funny, really iv only just been able to stop laughing enough to type.
it is a ridiculous price hike, its a shame people will actually buy it thus validating Microsoft's position, as people are to impatient to wait for a real copy to be delivered or go out and get one

 

[coldfrog]

The REAL truth behind it all is that Games on Demand has an acronym of GOD and Microsoft is using a network of XBoxes to create an artificial life form.

Seriously though, the whole point (in my opinion) of digital downloads is to CUT costs, remove physical wasteful packaging and discs from the equation of gaming, and to profit without a middleman like GameStop. This should let you SAVE money, and is why Steam gives so many deals! Come on, get a clue, Microsoft.

 

[Echo136]

Steam sales are still looking better.

 

[Palademon]

Microsoft: "We charge you high for digital distribution. This is the only way to get a game anytime you want."

Meanwhile, in the land of sane people, STEAM.

 

[InfiniteJacuzzi]

They're overestimating my urge to go shopping in my underwear. It's not worth $40.

 

[ThomW]

I really hope Games on Demand improves some day. I'd love if GoD prices were more in line with what you can buy copies of games on Amazon.com, and if it'd get releases on day one instead of months later (though I'm sure retailers would mutiny if that were the case).

You Don't Know Jack is one of those games I'd love to have playable on demand instead of having to switch discs those times when I'm sent an invite to play.

I held out on Civilization Revolution for a long time waiting for a price drop, but finally caved and paid the $30 it was listed for in Games on Demand instead of the $20 I can normally pay for the game new from Amazon.com just for the convenience of firing up the game on a whim without having to swap discs.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

Here's the real reason why they're charging so high for Games on Demand: "Because we can, bitches!"

Yeah, I'll stick with Steam.

 

[Roganzar]

"the point is you can go shopping in your underwear."
Really, thats your arguement for the cost of this service. If that were an important issue then Amazon would have been gouging prices for over a decade now.

 

[Therumancer]

It sort of shows how the increasingly corperate attitude of the gaming industry is detaching them from reality. If we see an industry-wide crash, which a lot of people predict, it's attitudes like this that are going to cause it. It also made me snicker when you consider that these guys are gouging to a ridiculous degree with digital delivery here, when they are supposed to be convincing us as consumers that it's the future, and in our own best interests.

Honestly, their logic is similar to that used by small neighborhood stores. The store on the corner can charge so much more for a stick of butter, or a quart of milk, because it saves you the time, trouble, and gas of having to travel accross town to get it.

The big differance is of course that we're dealing with an expensive entertainment product here, and a decent amount of money. Where the conveience store is charging you at most a couple of bucks more, in this case they are charging you double for a fairly expensive product to begin with, one that is worth driving out to get a decent deal on, especially when you look at this kind of alternative. "Reach" is no longer a totally new game, and honestly I doubt there are many people who are going to need to have that game right then and there that they won't be willing to travel a bit or wait a day or two for delivery to save the equivilent of forty freaking bucks.

Honestly, I kind of blame consumers for this, as well as a certain game called "Braid". I think the point where XBL got out of control was when they tried selling Braid for $15 (1200 points) and people bought it due to it being an indie game, and so revolutionary, and the developers "deserving it, so we can support them". The reasons aside, by showing we would
pay that, we saw a gradual escalation in prices on XBL to the point where 1200 or even 1600 points for one of their games is not unusual. When you consider the quality of something like "Reach" compared to what currently sells for $15 to $20 I suppose it's price being three times as much makes a certain amount of sense comparitively.

I'll also be honest, if people do give in and buy this at that price, it's going to encourage them to get even worse. With current attitudes they are going to push to the absolute breaking point. I'm still waiting for someone to try and market games for $199.99 again, like happened briefly with the Neo Geo.

 

[Zipa]

Microsoft do some really stupid shit. They might as well give up with digital distribution if they are basically trying to rip people off while steam is significently cheaper.
Your exclusive games are not that good microsoft that people will pay over the RRP for them.

 

[Catalyst6]

Is Microsoft trying to directly market to agoraphobics? I mean, seriously, this isn't business. It's price gouging.

I'll wait a day to get a physical copy one-day shipped to me. And hell, I might even sell it back afterwards. That is, if I didn't already use GameFly and get all my console games for "free".

That's not to say that my tush doesn't hurt where I recently got a tattoo reading "Property of Steam". But I would hope that people aren't so lazy that they'd pay 40$ more just to play RIGHT NOW... after three hours of downloading.

 

[Vrach]

Gotta love greed. You can shop from Amazon in your underwear too, the delivery time is the only difference really (and the UK Amazon's got some pretty decent delivery times and more often than not a free delivery option)

Microsoft should take a lesson from Valve. Steam didn't get where it is by jacking up prices.

 

[Muco5681]

do Microsoft know the Internet exist?...if i wanted a game on demand but they wanted twice the price for it i would just shop online then i would get my hand on the game within 12-24 hr and i can do that in my underwear as well

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Anyone who buys a game on demand instead of buying it online from Amazon or any similar site should have their head examined. $81 for a game that's 6 months old? Good God man.

 

[maantren]

They're slowly positioning Games on Demand to handle day 1 releases rather than be a discount/classics channel. At which point open war will have been declared on box retail. I don't think they've handled it well, but it seems obvious that's the endgame.

Cheers

Colin

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I do shop in my underwear, and it is ridiculous to say that the convenience of it is worth £50, a brand new game doesn't even cost that much. Nope, I'll stick to buying my games online and waiting 2 days for free delivery to get it here. Yeah, that's right Microsoft, there are far better services than yours and they are far cheaper too. So suck it.