Analyst Predicts GTA V Will Be Digital Only

[DanielBrown]

Doubtful, but if so that would leave me out as a customer. I'm all for cheaper games, but I want to have physical discs. Makes me feel a bit safer that I actually own the game, rather than purchasing air.
Though unless they fix the vehicle handling from GTA IV I won't buy it anyway. >.<

 

[Xanadu84]

Is there anyone who actually wants digital only distribution for games?

I do. Cut down the overhead for retail copies, and that will lead to lower prices, and discounts sooner. Also, it will put that fewer middlemen between developers and their consumers, meaning more of the money you spent on a game goes to making the next game, and making risky, innovative titles more financially feasible. Ill grant you that that is in an ideal world where some people don't need a retail copy because of their internet, but if DD could accommodate everyone, it would be better for everyone.

1. Yes, it will cut down on the overhead for retail copies, which are forced by retailers.
2. No, because the prices won't go down any.
3. Possibly. Of course, I can't find a copy of Starcraft 2 that isn't still 60 bucks.
4. The profit difference isn't enough for major companies(in particular EA and Activision) to make any risks. After all, if something does poorly, the stock prices reflect that. The sole purpose of the board of directors is to make as much money for the board of directors as possible. Doing something that won't print large sums of money is not good for stock prices.
5. See Jim's collection of rants about how breaking up used games is bad for business.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4568-Online-Passes-Are-Bad-For-Everybody
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4720-Used-Games-Have-A-Right-To-Exist
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4745-Fighting-The-Problem-Of-Used-Games

Frankly, I think that Jim was talking out of his ass those episode, and defends used games based purely on shortsighted personal benefit that ignores reality. Social games, free to play games, and success of Steam all show that there is a lot of money to be made in appealing to a broader audience by making games more accessible in terms of monetary investment. Without the overhead of retail, charging much less, and dropping prices much faster, become very feasible, and even amounts to more money in the long run.

Also remember this? http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107742-Gabe-Newell-The-Next-Videogame-Billionaire

Steam makes a game TWICE as profitable as a retail copy, by cutting the overhead. It stands to reason that by doing so, that money will make risky, innovative games more feasible, it will put more resources into the hands of developers, and it will give developers the opportunity to be more competitive in their pricing. Companies are greedy, they will, in time, price games more competitively if Digital Distribution lets them. The need for physical copies is unavoidable right now, but even now, Digital Distribution just serves to make the money we spend go to better games, not to making and shipping plastic circles that we can break or lose.

 

[Svenparty]

Wow looks like Mt.Chiliad is back!

"I moved here to retire...*JETPACKS* "

 

[vxicepickxv]

Is there anyone who actually wants digital only distribution for games?

I do. Cut down the overhead for retail copies, and that will lead to lower prices, and discounts sooner. Also, it will put that fewer middlemen between developers and their consumers, meaning more of the money you spent on a game goes to making the next game, and making risky, innovative titles more financially feasible. Ill grant you that that is in an ideal world where some people don't need a retail copy because of their internet, but if DD could accommodate everyone, it would be better for everyone.

1. Yes, it will cut down on the overhead for retail copies, which are forced by retailers.
2. No, because the prices won't go down any.
3. Possibly. Of course, I can't find a copy of Starcraft 2 that isn't still 60 bucks.
4. The profit difference isn't enough for major companies(in particular EA and Activision) to make any risks. After all, if something does poorly, the stock prices reflect that. The sole purpose of the board of directors is to make as much money for the board of directors as possible. Doing something that won't print large sums of money is not good for stock prices.
5. See Jim's collection of rants about how breaking up used games is bad for business.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4568-Online-Passes-Are-Bad-For-Everybody
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4720-Used-Games-Have-A-Right-To-Exist
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4745-Fighting-The-Problem-Of-Used-Games

Frankly, I think that Jim was talking out of his ass those episode, and defends used games based purely on shortsighted personal benefit that ignores reality. Social games, free to play games, and success of Steam all show that there is a lot of money to be made in appealing to a broader audience by making games more accessible in terms of monetary investment. Without the overhead of retail, charging much less, and dropping prices much faster, become very feasible, and even amounts to more money in the long run.

Also remember this? http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107742-Gabe-Newell-The-Next-Videogame-Billionaire

Steam makes a game TWICE as profitable as a retail copy, by cutting the overhead. It stands to reason that by doing so, that money will make risky, innovative games more feasible, it will put more resources into the hands of developers, and it will give developers the opportunity to be more competitive in their pricing. Companies are greedy, they will, in time, price games more competitively if Digital Distribution lets them. The need for physical copies is unavoidable right now, but even now, Digital Distribution just serves to make the money we spend go to better games, not to making and shipping plastic circles that we can break or lose.

There's a big difference between Valve and any other major publisher of games. It's called the NYSE. Valve is privately owned, and Gabe doesn't have to answer to a board of directors or shareholders. All the money that comes in is his, and after expenses he can do whatever the hell he wants with it. If he wants to buy a game studio, he can do that. If he wants to take risks, he's free to do so. If he wants to dive headfirst into a swimming pool full of gold coins, get a bit of brain injury and delay HL2:E3 another 6 months, he can do that.

If a company like EA wants to take risks, they have to go through a ton of red tape before they can either sign off on it as okay(IE they'll make more than enough to cover the loss), or they won't do it. Just because they cut retail out, doesn't mean they're going to take much more risk. Origin is a huge risk to EA. If it fails, they'll have to come crawling back to some else who holds a Digital Download Client. Someone at EA thinks they can make more than enough money on it, so they'll take the risk. They don't have to pay to ship any PC game, nor do they have to pay for another DDC to host their games, so they're okay with that. It doesn't mean they're going to change their pricing any time soon. It just means that the Board of Directors is going to pocket the money.