Electronic Arts: All-Digital Future is "Inevitable"

[Clearing the Eye]

This also means, no used game market for them, it's going to allow EA (and any companies following them) to completely control prices upon release and years after.

The companies never control the prices--the people do. All a business can do is ask for a certain amount of money. The people decide how much they want to pay and if someone is reasonable. If this wasn't the case, there would be video games that cost ten million dollars.

Everything is dictated by the majority.

It's nice to think that, but in reality, when a company(s) have a monopoly on production and distribution, they control the prices.

That's why businesses work so hard to consolodate and become one, like when there's only one choice in your area for cable and internet... you'll pay for what they say and tolerate the download caps or you can just not use the internet. Same goes for used games. Why sell a year old game for 10 bucks when you have no competition from stores? Keep it 20 bucks and if people buy it, it's just more cash in your pocket because they've already made their money on the initial release.

No, again, the consumer is choosing to pay for that product. If you want the internet and believe it is worth the cost, you will pay for it. If you don't believe it is worth the cost or is simply too much for you to afford, you won't purchase it. For example, if I open a store tomorrow and charge $100 for tissues, no matter how much someone wants tissues, they won't pay $100. Why? They are not worth it. The reason companies charge $2 for a box of them has nothing to do with how much they cost to make and everything to do with how much we will pay for them. All they can do is set a price we are willing to pay. If they don't, they go under.

Even the strongest of monopolies is run by the public; charge too much for, say, bread and crime sky rockets and riots occur. Just look at the Great Depression. Business is a constant tug of war with the consumers and we will always have the upper hand because we don't really need them--we want them. If you tell yourself or others anything else, you're on the wrong team.

 

[digital warrior]

And they will still charge us full retail price even with little overhead cost.

 

[major_chaos]

Ok, let me rephrase that. No-one with half a brain cell uses Origin...

Realy? darn I'm gonna need to go back to the college and tell them "sorry guys, I know I aced the placement tests but I use Origin so you better put me in all remedial classes" *rolleyes*

OT: The guy is probably right and I'm not happy about it for many reasons, a big one being that apparently I'm the only person on this website who can't afford blisteringly fast internet so its always going to be faster for me to buy the game retail and install it, rather than make a digital purchase and wait no less than six hours for the game to download.

 

[johnnnny guitar]

Congratulation EA for pointing out the obvious thing dozens of other publishers, developers and business analysts have said for years.

 

[sapphireofthesea]

This also means, no used game market for them, it's going to allow EA (and any companies following them) to completely control prices upon release and years after.

The companies never control the prices--the people do. All a business can do is ask for a certain amount of money. The people decide how much they want to pay and if someone is reasonable. If this wasn't the case, there would be video games that cost ten million dollars.

Everything is dictated by the majority.

It's nice to think that, but in reality, when a company(s) have a monopoly on production and distribution, they control the prices.

That's why businesses work so hard to consolodate and become one, like when there's only one choice in your area for cable and internet... you'll pay for what they say and tolerate the download caps or you can just not use the internet. Same goes for used games. Why sell a year old game for 10 bucks when you have no competition from stores? Keep it 20 bucks and if people buy it, it's just more cash in your pocket because they've already made their money on the initial release.

No, again, the consumer is choosing to pay for that product. If you want the internet and believe it is worth the cost, you will pay for it. If you don't believe it is worth the cost or is simply too much for you to afford, you won't purchase it. For example, if I open a store tomorrow and charge $100 for tissues, no matter how much someone wants tissues, they won't pay $100. Why? They are not worth it. The reason companies charge $2 for a box of them has nothing to do with how much they cost to make and everything to do with how much we will pay for them. All they can do is set a price we are willing to pay. If they don't, they go under.

Even the strongest of monopolies is run by the public; charge too much for, say, bread and crime sky rockets and riots occur. Just look at the Great Depression. Business is a constant tug of war with the consumers and we will always have the upper hand because we don't really need them--we want them. If you tell yourself or others anything else, you're on the wrong team.

I am no economy expert but anti-monoploy laws in all countries kinda suggest that those people who are in the know don't think that view is entirely true.
My view might be wrong but Germany recently felt that Microsoft was making it hard for consumers to have an option and passed jugdement as such. I also recall a number of companies being fined for price fixing (more than one company deciding to keep a price high so no alternative is avaiable), think British Airways was involved in that. So people in the know feel that companies need to be kept in check pricing and offering wise.

So I think ultimately you have to ask, is the ideal you think is so, valid enough to stand against the opinion of many governments around the world?
I make no judgement either way, but personally, my view is for capitalisim to work there must always be a valid alterative.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

This also means, no used game market for them, it's going to allow EA (and any companies following them) to completely control prices upon release and years after.

The companies never control the prices--the people do. All a business can do is ask for a certain amount of money. The people decide how much they want to pay and if someone is reasonable. If this wasn't the case, there would be video games that cost ten million dollars.

Everything is dictated by the majority.

It's nice to think that, but in reality, when a company(s) have a monopoly on production and distribution, they control the prices.

That's why businesses work so hard to consolodate and become one, like when there's only one choice in your area for cable and internet... you'll pay for what they say and tolerate the download caps or you can just not use the internet. Same goes for used games. Why sell a year old game for 10 bucks when you have no competition from stores? Keep it 20 bucks and if people buy it, it's just more cash in your pocket because they've already made their money on the initial release.

No, again, the consumer is choosing to pay for that product. If you want the internet and believe it is worth the cost, you will pay for it. If you don't believe it is worth the cost or is simply too much for you to afford, you won't purchase it. For example, if I open a store tomorrow and charge $100 for tissues, no matter how much someone wants tissues, they won't pay $100. Why? They are not worth it. The reason companies charge $2 for a box of them has nothing to do with how much they cost to make and everything to do with how much we will pay for them. All they can do is set a price we are willing to pay. If they don't, they go under.

Even the strongest of monopolies is run by the public; charge too much for, say, bread and crime sky rockets and riots occur. Just look at the Great Depression. Business is a constant tug of war with the consumers and we will always have the upper hand because we don't really need them--we want them. If you tell yourself or others anything else, you're on the wrong team.

I am no economy expert but anti-monoploy laws in all countries kinda suggest that those people who are in the know don't think that view is entirely true.
My view might be wrong but Germany recently felt that Microsoft was making it hard for consumers to have an option and passed jugdement as such. I also recall a number of companies being fined for price fixing (more than one company deciding to keep a price high so no alternative is avaiable), think British Airways was involved in that. So people in the know feel that companies need to be kept in check pricing and offering wise.

So I think ultimately you have to ask, is the ideal you think is so, valid enough to stand against the opinion of many governments around the world?
I make no judgement either way, but personally, my view is for capitalisim to work there must always be a valid alterative.

You are right--monopolies are a bad thing for consumers and there are laws in many developed countries to prevent them. But I'm not arguing that monopolies are a good thing or that they don't exist. My argument is that a company can only operate if people are willing and able to pay their prices.

The person I was discussing this with was making the argument that a business decides the price. If that were the case, they would charge a million dollars for an apple--an extreme example. I don't want to reduce this too far and make it a debate of semantics, but the spirit of my comment was that the community is the controlling factor in pricing. For example, video games in the U.S. are cheaper than here, in Australia (including exchange rates). Why? Because, on average, Australians earn more than Americans and are thus willing and able to spend more.

Hopefully I've made my opinion clear. It's difficult to argue something as complex and massive as bushiness economics, lol.

 

[malestrithe]

Wow, EA once again takes a position on something and it causes gamer outrage from the we hate EA crowd.

 

[Metalrocks]

WOW, really???? i so dint know that. ?A, you just know how to amaze me.
hey ?A, how about you start treating customers correctly, fix the problems in your games and stop thinking how much money you can make. then we can talk about your digital service.

 

[-|-]

Congratulation EA for pointing out the obvious thing dozens of other publishers, developers and business analysts have said for years.

Again... this was EA's answer to a question asked by somebody at the gamesindustry website. What is it with people not being able to read around here?

 

[Teshi]

I lived in the developed US and there's still no actual high-speed internet here. There is third-rate DSL if you live right in town. If you live more than 5 miles out from the town center, your only internet options are dial-up and satellite, and satellite isn't fast enough to download a game the size of a typical triple-A title in a reasonable length of time, even when you don't consider bandwidth caps. There just isn't a large enough customer base here to make it worthwhile for a telecom company to go to the trouble and expense of bringing physical high-speed connections to the area.

I'd guess this situation isn't unusual for the parts of the US that are at least a few hours out from major cities and the associated infrastructure. And that's not even thinking of the rest of the world.

If EA switches to purely digital distribution anytime soon, they'll be cutting out a significant customer base. The question for them is whether benefits of a purely digital distribution model make that sacrifice worth it.

 

[Metalrocks]

I lived in the developed US and there's still no actual high-speed internet here. There is third-rate DSL if you live right in town. If you live more than 5 miles out from the town center, your only internet options are dial-up and satellite, and satellite isn't fast enough to download a game the size of a typical triple-A title in a reasonable length of time, even when you don't consider bandwidth caps. There just isn't a large enough customer base here to make it worthwhile for a telecom company to go to the trouble and expense of bringing physical high-speed connections to the area.

I'd guess this situation isn't unusual for the parts of the US that are at least a few hours out from major cities and the associated infrastructure. And that's not even thinking of the rest of the world.

If EA switches to purely digital distribution anytime soon, they'll be cutting out a significant customer base. The question for them is whether benefits of a purely digital distribution model make that sacrifice worth it.

i know the feeling. i also lived outside of town and my connection was really slow in downloading stuff. 100mb took me (if i was lucky even)40min to download. i also had only 5gb a month available.
of course i have moved so now i have a far better connection as before. but i still got my self retail games since downloading does take time. i even got my self max payne 3 because downloading it would have taken days.

 

[I.Muir]

Will they bring down the prices of their digital games?
No?... then they can piss off

 

[Frostbyte666]

EA has "great relationships" with its retail partners, he said, but added that "the ultimate relationship is the connection that we have with the gamer."

He also claimed that NPD sales figures, which have painted a rather dismal picture of the industry in recent months, are "totally irrelevant" these days because they focus solely on retail numbers. "We don't even really look at [NPD sales figures] internally anymore. We're more focused on our services and how we're connected with consumers," he said. "[The industry is] growing. It's booming. It's big. Things are good. If cloud and streaming come on line at scale, we'll be in the position to do it and we're excited about it."

Permalink

Don't those 2 points show contradicting statements? He says they have a great relationship with retail but then says NPD figures are irrelevant because they focus on retail. Yeah I could see you being well liked by retailers for that slap in the face.

I then have to say I hate the idea of streaming games, it's 1 thing where you streaming tv shows mives etc, and possibly having it stop to buffer every so often. For games that would be exceedingly annoying especially for games that rerquire a certain degree of quick reactions.

Now I do have a digital library of games but I still prefer having a physical product and guess what EA I don't have a single 1 of your games digitally, guess that means if you go purely digital I'll never buy a game from you again.

Capchta: have an inkling. Heh

 

[bimon_1234567]

"It's in the near future. It's coming. We have a clear line of sight on it and we're excited about it,"

Hah, of course they are excited. Since they will have cut out the middleman (and the middleman's employees), they will be able to keep all the juicy profits for themselves. Prices will be the same of course.
Corporate mouthpieces saying that they are "excited" gives me the creeps!

"[...]we're going to be a 100 percent digital company, period. It's going to be there some day. It's inevitable."

So the whole company is going to be digital, not just the products? How does that work?

 

[everythingbeeps]

I can't tell whether that guy is like 50 or 15.

 

[chadachada123]

All-Digital Future is "Inevitable."

In other news, my sticking my foot up EA's ass is "inevitable."

Goddamn this is a dumb idea. The only reason Origin is doing so well is because they're cornering the market for EA games.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Digital distribution can work, but it needs some basic oversight and common securities for both parties.
Otherwise, you end up with this:

Spoiler: Image

Mistrust is mutual. DRM is proof you don't trust me, the paying consumer. (the only sort of person playing your game who has to put up with your bullshit)

And I am already inherently distrustful of services precisely because their providers have every reason to want to saddle me (the paying consumer) with even more extraneous bullshit.

Spoiler: The List

Spoiler: Full-Nelson DRM and the potential for Service Blackouts

-Full-Nelson DRM/Service Blackouts

Can't play what you paid for? Too fucking bad.
It's YOUR fault for clicking "I Agree". Deal with it.

Ah, but the Totalitarian Control the Publisher retains over your experience opens the doors for Planned Obsolescence. No Used Market. No choice for the customer. Deal with it.

And people thought Day 1 DLC was bad...

Spoiler: Awful Customer Service on Overburdened Systems

-Awful Customer Service on Overburdened Systems

When shit breaks on a central system; EVERYONE chimes in about it, and it slows down the repair process considerably. If you haven't figured out why, then you're really in no position to comment here. (Also, welcome to the Information Age.)

You can hand-wave this away as mere inconvenience, but the fact that it's creating a central point of failure means it will always be worse off than as a product.
There is no way to objectively argue against this unless the nature of the game demands a central server (and I hate to break this to you, but most games absolutely DO NOT require that to function).
It's just the technical virtue of "More Complicated = More likely to fail" at work.

Making matters worse, the support might be outsourced to save money. Because why provide the customer with the service they paid for when you can enrich their lives by helping them "build character" or maybe encourage them to learn a foreign language?

I suspect anyone who dealt with most ISPs and Cell Phone Service branches in the United States has contemplated learning Hindi at least once.

Spoiler: Marketing Data Mining

-Marketing Data Mining

Speaks for itself. Origin already does this, and it's a legal goldmine waiting to be exploited. Like the with the next point.

Spoiler: In game Advertisements that Cannot be Worked Around

-In Game Ads

The tech is already here.
It's just waiting to be abused, but nobody wants to trigger that particular PR bomb yet.

Spoiler: No modding or user-created-content

-No User Mods

This competes with price-gouging DLC. So...GONE!

All just to play a VIDEO GAME.