Poll: CNN: Console Gaming is Dying

[Ieyke]

Console gaming IS declining (I'd not begin to claim it's dying), but it has nothing to do with casual smart phone games that real gamers don't care about. Console gaming is declining because game tech has pretty much stalled, and consequently the average PC is catching up to being able to handle even high end gaming.
Steam has made PC gaming so massively user friendly and even cheap...

The console wars are basically over. No one is really fighting about what's more awesome.
No one cares too much about the Wii U, the PS4, or the XBOX 720. The "new exciting features" parades are leaving everyone saying "meh".

Exclusives, the bread and butter of the consoles, are slowly dying off. People are going to start playing their games on whichever platform they happen to own and like best, rather than having to buy specifics consoles to be able to play specific games.

Technological convergence is driving TVs to become computers, drive PCs to be able to watch TV, turning cell phones and e-readers into tablet computers, turning consoles into computers, etc etc etc etc.
EVERYTHING is becoming computers. We're moving inexorably towards having all-purpose computers to serve as telephone, TV, and game console as regular features, and eliminating the need for the original devices to exist.
Hell, our refrigerators are even starting to have computers. Our cars, cameras...


Console gaming isn't going to suddenly fall apart and die, but it certainly is going to be slowly phased out.
On the other hand, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with shitty games like Angry Birds.

 

[zehydra]

CNN is not an authority on these sorts of issues (if any at all).

I don't think CNN or any major news organization has ever said anything meaningful on the topic of video games.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I read the first page, then the last page. So if I missed something my bad. I was going to post that Australia's been paying $100 or more for most of the console games that have been coming out... since ever.

Someone's made that point already, and then it was pointed out that American's don't earn much compared to Australian's so by comparing our incomes the inflated prices are actually fair. To that I would like to say You're an idiot. To demonstrate my point I'll give you this example, if you go into a shop looking like a bum and buy something, but your friend walks in dressed in a suit, looking like a million dollars, and buys the same thing you would expect both of you would pay the same. Would you say its right that the guy in the suit was charged double just cause "he looks richer"?

We might have higher incomes, but we also have to pay more just to live, otherwise we'd just make our fortunes here and move to somewhere like America (which is either the free world, or somehow is in charge of everyone else, but thats another rant) where the pay is so miserable and we could live like kings with all out Australian money.

Actually, you're the idiot here. Or, rather, you're showing a severe case of ignorance, which isn't the same thing at all unless it's willful. How do you think cost of living is determined? It's based on how much it costs to buy things like a house, food, insurance, and healthcare in a given country, but a high cost of living tends to imply high costs all over. Australians have a high cost of living, balanced out by a high wage. Therefore, everything in Oz has a higher dollar value, but a roughly equivalent cost of living adjusted value. In other words, it's not about charging more because someone's richer. It's about paying higher wages because stuff is more expensive.

Edit: Oh, and by the way, if you guys are only paying $100 for games, instead of the $120 you used to hear about, you're actually paying /less/ adjusted for cost of living than Americans are, since adjusted for cost of living, Australians make 15-20% less on average than Americans do, but the unadjusted premium you pay on games is only about 60%, instead of the 75-80% more you'd need to be charged for the price to be functionally equivalent.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

To the poll, no they shouldnt stop writing, they just should get their facts together.
Put something who knows stuff about games and the industry on those articles, that's all you'd need.

And judging by all the blogs and websites on the net about these subjects, i doubt it's to hard to find someone.

 

[eternal-chaplain]

At face value, I thought it was claiming that consoles were giving way to PC gaming. That, I could understand. PC manufacturing costs are only going down and developers seem to slowly be heading towards handhelds, namely the 3DS, but consoles giving way to the iPhone is completely bunk. Some donkus at CNN doesn't seem to understand much having to do with games...

 

[The Great JT]

Topic of the Poll: No, I don't think they should. I like hearing other peoples' opinions, mostly because I have mine and I like to see what we agree on.

Thoughts on "Is Console Gaming Dying?": It's been dead for a long time, from a tech standpoint. Consoles are really just PCs with specific specs. I hear this exact same thing with PC gaming being dead. Personally, any games being played is good, regardless of machine they're getting played on, be it a console, PC, tablet, phone, what have you, but this whole dimorphism between PC and Console gaming is kind of silly, since we're basically just giving names for our gaming PCs.

 

[Josh123914]

This happens every few years, before the 3DS came out they were saying handhelds were dying, then the 3DS smashed sales records, they were wrong, and if it does die out handheld gaming lives on with smartphone apps and tablets (personally I don't believe Nintendo will stop making handhelds until pokémon becomes unprofitable), they also said that this gen would fail and then the Wii happened.
Just let them have their soapbox, they're either right, in which case good for them, or history will repeat itself and in 5 years more WiiUs and PS4s will be under a house than there ever were Wiis or PS3s that existed

Captcha: Sonic Screwdriver. *I'm currently listening to the Doctor Who season 4 soundtrack....*

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I think console gaming is at a saturation point, not necessarily dying but rather becoming something other than just gaming. My PS3 for example has become more a media station than a gaming platform. I have a bunch of PS3 games that go untouched for months after release, but I watch the hell out of netflix and dvds/blurays on it. Same goes for my xbox 360.
My PC has become the dominant platform, mostly because of the games I can mod on it for fun, graphical updates (GTA4 is so much better with that beautiful gfx mod featured here and other sites, Skyrim's high res pack, Sleeping Dogs, etc.) plus I love my steam library.
And I get a lot of those games much cheaper most of the time.
But shiny graphics aren't the main reason why I chose my PC over console, I just haven't seen anything thats console exclusive in a long while that whets my appetite. Also the console market is dominated by stagnant IPs like Call of Duty... games that are made for profits sake, not for love of the game.
I think we're close to a 1980's market crash brought on by industrial fear of new IPs, which will be mitigated by the kickstarter-type market of games fueled by players not by producers. I even think the giant that is VALVe may take a giant hit if they don't release something other than new TF2 updates and sweeping HL3 under the rug and not releasing anything new and exciting.
We're in for a change in the market, and I think it will be for the better but its going to be rough.
Kingdoms of Amalur is a great example of how a decent game company is ruined by mismanagement at the highest level. The IP looked pretty damn solid but the studio just tanked anyway which is sad. I really thought more could have been done with that IP, and more could have come out of 38 Studios...
So we'll see, but I can guarantee there will be a shakeup, the dust will settle and games will rise above it. In other news, Nintendo will stay around because they're fucking Nintendo.

 

[TrevHead]

When I look at the recent history of consoles, I wonder if we will see the same as what happened to arcades.

As like consoles made the arcades redundant when 16 and 32bit consoles made it so ppl could play their arcade games at home, rather than have to travel to the arcades and pay for a credit.

Back then arcades started to decline so arcades started to move away from standard stick and button games to specialised methods of controls in more specialised cabs, IE Virtual On twinsticks, sit down racers, lightgun games and dancing machines with the cost per credit skyrocketting both because the cabinets were more costly to buy but because less ppl played them. It's around that time I stopped going to the arcades because as a kid I couldn't afford the jump from 20p to 50p & £1 per credit.

Nowadays consoles in their current state look to be made redundant by new methods of gaming. PCs in the living room, Smart TVs, cloud gaming, smart phones which while held back by the lack of a pad, companies are starting to make controllers for them, and once they are connected up to the TV, it wont take long for more traditional games to follow.

This is why MS is less bothered about gaming and more about movies and other media as everything in the living room converges together. And why they are pushing hard with their own smartphone and the changes to Win8. The BS that MS is pulling with incorporating their own propriety digital store in Win8 means that there is a good chance MS will lock down Windows for games if the 720 is MS' last console (and plenty of time for MS to slowly trojan horse themselves). Valve has a good reason to be very worried for the future since even if Linux become a viable gaming platform, most ppl will stick with Windows because they use it to do other things. Hopefully Dual Boot Windows and Linux HP / Dell PCs could become a standard in the future.

 

[Epona]

This happens every few years, before the 3DS came out they were saying handhelds were dying, then the 3DS smashed sales records, they were wrong, and if it does die out handheld gaming lives on with smartphone apps and tablets (personally I don't believe Nintendo will stop making handhelds until pokémon becomes unprofitable), they also said that this gen would fail and then the Wii happened.
Just let them have their soapbox, they're either right, in which case good for them, or history will repeat itself and in 5 years more WiiUs and PS4s will be under a house than there ever were Wiis or PS3s that existed

Captcha: Sonic Screwdriver. *I'm currently listening to the Doctor Who season 4 soundtrack....*

LOL.

I guess they dropped the price of the 3DS by $80 (almost 1/3) within the first 6 months because they were breaking so many records?

 

[Frezzato]

The lion share goes to the smaller versions of disc titles or retro titles, however. Not to mention, Microsoft seems to hate the indies.

You know, this is still fairly true. Especially since we're talking consoles. I'd give it to you if we included PC, because Steam is awesome for indie games.

Actually, I specifically omitted PC indie games because the CNN, ugh, "article" was about console gaming specifically. I think that PC indie gaming is going pretty well, considering that quite a few indie console downloadable games were available on PC first (Braid, Trine, etc.). Also, I've avoided AAA PC titles entirely (because fuck always-on DRM) and decided to throw money at The Humble Bundle every time they email me.

Also, what makes you think that Microsoft might hate indie games? I heard it's just like the Apple developer ecosystem in that they charge you $100 and you can start using your 360 as a debug platform/get onto XBox Live. Unless that comment by Tim Schafer was true. You know, the claim that a single game patch costs a developer $40K. If that's the case then it seems that Microsoft hates all developers? I'm sure they have their reasons. Maybe.

 

[MagunBFP]

I read the first page, then the last page. So if I missed something my bad. I was going to post that Australia's been paying $100 or more for most of the console games that have been coming out... since ever.

Someone's made that point already, and then it was pointed out that American's don't earn much compared to Australian's so by comparing our incomes the inflated prices are actually fair. To that I would like to say You're an idiot. To demonstrate my point I'll give you this example, if you go into a shop looking like a bum and buy something, but your friend walks in dressed in a suit, looking like a million dollars, and buys the same thing you would expect both of you would pay the same. Would you say its right that the guy in the suit was charged double just cause "he looks richer"?

We might have higher incomes, but we also have to pay more just to live, otherwise we'd just make our fortunes here and move to somewhere like America (which is either the free world, or somehow is in charge of everyone else, but thats another rant) where the pay is so miserable and we could live like kings with all out Australian money.

Actually, you're the idiot here. Or, rather, you're showing a severe case of ignorance, which isn't the same thing at all unless it's willful. How do you think cost of living is determined? It's based on how much it costs to buy things like a house, food, insurance, and healthcare in a given country, but a high cost of living tends to imply high costs all over. Australians have a high cost of living, balanced out by a high wage. Therefore, everything in Oz has a higher dollar value, but a roughly equivalent cost of living adjusted value. In other words, it's not about charging more because someone's richer. It's about paying higher wages because stuff is more expensive.

Edit: Oh, and by the way, if you guys are only paying $100 for games, instead of the $120 you used to hear about, you're actually paying /less/ adjusted for cost of living than Americans are, since adjusted for cost of living, Australians make 15-20% less on average than Americans do, but the unadjusted premium you pay on games is only about 60%, instead of the 75-80% more you'd need to be charged for the price to be functionally equivalent.

So if a digital store, based in the US charges more to Australians then to Americans whats your excuse then??? There are no additional costs for a bricks and mortar store... no extra employees you need to pay Australian wages to... (I know this has been brought up before but...) you don't even need to physically produce a product... but still in Australia I will (relatively, because this is the case for most software not just games) pay about $100 - $120 for what you in America only pay $60 for. Given that the Australian dollar is worth just as much as the US dollar I can't see a legit reason for charging me twice as much, except I'm in a suit and you're in shorts and a singlet.

When it comes to a physical store, you are correct, I was unfortunately subject to one of my occasional bouts of idiocy, mea culpa, with the additional cost of Australian staff I can see there being extra costs involved, but I still be surprised if this was equal to twice the games cost. As I see if a game would be sold to a distributor for $x and the distributor adds his staff costs ($x+y) and his desired profit making the sale price ($x+$y+$z) which is for the US $60 approx. Assuming that the original sales price ($x), and the profit ($z) stay the same then the staff cost ($y) for Australia would, (I assume) be around 4-5 times as much. If thats right then I am definately spending my money in the wrong country.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I read the first page, then the last page. So if I missed something my bad. I was going to post that Australia's been paying $100 or more for most of the console games that have been coming out... since ever.

Someone's made that point already, and then it was pointed out that American's don't earn much compared to Australian's so by comparing our incomes the inflated prices are actually fair. To that I would like to say You're an idiot. To demonstrate my point I'll give you this example, if you go into a shop looking like a bum and buy something, but your friend walks in dressed in a suit, looking like a million dollars, and buys the same thing you would expect both of you would pay the same. Would you say its right that the guy in the suit was charged double just cause "he looks richer"?

We might have higher incomes, but we also have to pay more just to live, otherwise we'd just make our fortunes here and move to somewhere like America (which is either the free world, or somehow is in charge of everyone else, but thats another rant) where the pay is so miserable and we could live like kings with all out Australian money.

Actually, you're the idiot here. Or, rather, you're showing a severe case of ignorance, which isn't the same thing at all unless it's willful. How do you think cost of living is determined? It's based on how much it costs to buy things like a house, food, insurance, and healthcare in a given country, but a high cost of living tends to imply high costs all over. Australians have a high cost of living, balanced out by a high wage. Therefore, everything in Oz has a higher dollar value, but a roughly equivalent cost of living adjusted value. In other words, it's not about charging more because someone's richer. It's about paying higher wages because stuff is more expensive.

Edit: Oh, and by the way, if you guys are only paying $100 for games, instead of the $120 you used to hear about, you're actually paying /less/ adjusted for cost of living than Americans are, since adjusted for cost of living, Australians make 15-20% less on average than Americans do, but the unadjusted premium you pay on games is only about 60%, instead of the 75-80% more you'd need to be charged for the price to be functionally equivalent.

So if a digital store, based in the US charges more to Australians then to Americans whats your excuse then??? There are no additional costs for a bricks and mortar store... no extra employees you need to pay Australian wages to... (I know this has been brought up before but...) you don't even need to physically produce a product... but still in Australia I will (relatively, because this is the case for most software not just games) pay about $100 - $120 for what you in America only pay $60 for. Given that the Australian dollar is worth just as much as the US dollar I can't see a legit reason for charging me twice as much, except I'm in a suit and you're in shorts and a singlet.

When it comes to a physical store, you are correct, I was unfortunately subject to one of my occasional bouts of idiocy, mea culpa, with the additional cost of Australian staff I can see there being extra costs involved, but I still be surprised if this was equal to twice the games cost. As I see if a game would be sold to a distributor for $x and the distributor adds his staff costs ($x+y) and his desired profit making the sale price ($x+$y+$z) which is for the US $60 approx. Assuming that the original sales price ($x), and the profit ($z) stay the same then the staff cost ($y) for Australia would, (I assume) be around 4-5 times as much. If thats right then I am definately spending my money in the wrong country.

Let me put it this way: It's messed up no matter what. But you're complaining about paying a smaller chunk of your income than we pay as if you were paying double. As for the online stuff: ever look up what Steam games cost in Russia? By both your standards and mine, they're dirt cheap, but by Russian standards they're reasonable. You price stuff for the market. I'm not saying it's not bad all over, but seriously, dude, quit acting like Australians have it so much worse than everyone else.

And it has nothing to do with the cost of importing games. It's just what the market will bear -- you guys have significantly higher wages in raw dollar amounts than we do, roughly 75-80% higher. However, the cost of living (read: how much stuff costs to buy) is roughly twice as high, meaning adjusted for cost of living, your take home pay is about 15-20% less than ours. Your videogames, however, apparently cost $40 more than ours, or roughly 66% more. Matched up to your income levels, that means you're paying a good 4-12% less for videogames than we are, and actually you're paying even less than that, because VAT is a part of the stated price for you guys, while sales tax is an added extra (about 7-10%, depending on where you live) in the US on top of the stated $60 price tag.

P.S.: In a sense, you are buying stuff from the wrong country. Assuming you can import stuff without import tax and shipping making it cost too much to be worth it, the international exchange rate(which is separate from the PPP value, which is cost of living adjusted) combined with the higher wages you guys make to cover the higher cost of living makes it so that you can buy more stuff in America for the same money. Just like Americans can buy more stuff in, say, South Korea with their money than they can in the US, even though South Korea is a well developed country with a strong middle class.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

So if a digital store

Geo-blocking and regional price discrimination in digital sales are a seperate issue.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Assuming you can import stuff without import tax and shipping making it cost too much to be worth it, the international exchange rate(which is separate from the PPP value, which is cost of living adjusted) combined with the higher wages you guys make to cover the higher cost of living makes it so that you can buy more stuff in America for the same money. Just like Americans can buy more stuff in, say, South Korea with their money than they can in the US, even though South Korea is a well developed country with a strong middle class.

Yeah, see, this is where geo-blocking and RPD (regional price discrimination) come into play for digital sales. There are numerous digital retail sites that ping your IP and if your IP comes back as being one of a listed group of nations you get redirected to a different sub-site that has all the prices adjusted upward to conform closer to that nation's usual pricing schemes. So the retailer ends up taking most of the advantage of the consumer's strong local currency instead of the consumer themselves.

The physical equivalent would be those Americans in South Korea suddenly finding the South Korean store owners suddenly jacking up all their prices for the Americans despite the fact that the Americans can see locals coming in and paying the regular price... and when questioned on it, being told that it's what Americans are used to paying so they shouldn't complain.

Also, it should be noted that Steam's 'Russia Experiment' is an exception to the rule, as most digital retail sites never go below their own 'local standard pricing' when selling to weaker economies.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

STEAM has answered this question.

Its the publishers that requested the prices. STEAM doesn't have the ability to set prices in its contracts, its the people putting the game onto the store.

STEAM support did not want to name names though. Because that would be calling publishers out.

Yeah and Valve don't want to call the publishers out because making nice with those pricks the publishers is a big part of what's allowed Steam to grow as large as it has.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Assuming you can import stuff without import tax and shipping making it cost too much to be worth it, the international exchange rate(which is separate from the PPP value, which is cost of living adjusted) combined with the higher wages you guys make to cover the higher cost of living makes it so that you can buy more stuff in America for the same money. Just like Americans can buy more stuff in, say, South Korea with their money than they can in the US, even though South Korea is a well developed country with a strong middle class.

Yeah, see, this is where geo-blocking and RPD (regional price discrimination) come into play for digital sales. There are numerous digital retail sites that ping your IP and if your IP comes back as being one of a listed group of nations you get redirected to a different sub-site that has all the prices adjusted upward to conform closer to that nation's usual pricing schemes. So the retailer ends up taking most of the advantage of the consumer's strong local currency instead of the consumer themselves.

The physical equivalent would be those Americans in South Korea suddenly finding the South Korean store owners suddenly jacking up all their prices for the Americans despite the fact that the Americans can see locals coming in and paying the regular price... and when questioned on it, being told that it's what Americans are used to paying so they shouldn't complain.

Also, it should be noted that Steam's 'Russia Experiment' is an exception to the rule, as most digital retail sites never go below their own 'local standard pricing' when selling to weaker economies.

I actually agree with you on this to an extent -- I think it's a complicated subject because you really do have to tailor the prices to the region you're selling in unless you just want the poorer parts of the world to pirate everything and pay for nothing, but I also think it's a crazy artificial block that gets into some of the same problems I have with DRM in general. My beef with the other guy, though, is that he's still acting like Aussies are getting /severely/ screwed over compared to Americans. It just gets really old seeing people go "hah, $60? Quit whining, we pay $100!", when $100 is actually less money to the average Australian than $60 is to the average American. What's worse, I always thought games launched at $120 down under, which would mean Aussies pay (slightly) more than Americans, but apparently that's not the case.

By the way, isn't the stated reason that games cost so much on the Australian steam store is that brick and mortar retailers threatened not to stock boxed copies if Digital Distribution undercut them to that extent? You get into some economic considerations for the publishers, at that point. I'd imagine that for the time being, they'd be better off losing all DD sales in a country than losing the brick and mortar sales. As DD gets more popular, this will be less of an issue. I mean, it's popular right now, but in my experience gamers on the internet tend to overestimate how far broadband connections with no (or large) data caps have spread. I live in one of the most well connected states in the country, and there's rural areas a few hours drive from my house that are still stuck on dial up. Now the US has shitty internet by international standards, but I'm sure there's other problems in the rest of the world. The data caps are a big one, since they're not a big problem in the US. Some of the greedier providers have them, but they're a lot less restrictive on average than the ones I've heard of from outside the country.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Assuming you can import stuff without import tax and shipping making it cost too much to be worth it, the international exchange rate(which is separate from the PPP value, which is cost of living adjusted) combined with the higher wages you guys make to cover the higher cost of living makes it so that you can buy more stuff in America for the same money. Just like Americans can buy more stuff in, say, South Korea with their money than they can in the US, even though South Korea is a well developed country with a strong middle class.

Yeah, see, this is where geo-blocking and RPD (regional price discrimination) come into play for digital sales. There are numerous digital retail sites that ping your IP and if your IP comes back as being one of a listed group of nations you get redirected to a different sub-site that has all the prices adjusted upward to conform closer to that nation's usual pricing schemes. So the retailer ends up taking most of the advantage of the consumer's strong local currency instead of the consumer themselves.

The physical equivalent would be those Americans in South Korea suddenly finding the South Korean store owners suddenly jacking up all their prices for the Americans despite the fact that the Americans can see locals coming in and paying the regular price... and when questioned on it, being told that it's what Americans are used to paying so they shouldn't complain.

Also, it should be noted that Steam's 'Russia Experiment' is an exception to the rule, as most digital retail sites never go below their own 'local standard pricing' when selling to weaker economies.

I actually agree with you on this to an extent -- I think it's a complicated subject because you really do have to tailor the prices to the region you're selling in unless you just want the poorer parts of the world to pirate everything and pay for nothing, but I also think it's a crazy artificial block that gets into some of the same problems I have with DRM in general.

Yeah but as I mentioned, with the notable exception of Steam (and only in certain nations at that), poor countries don't get prices that reflect the local economy or adjust for low PPP. In the overwhelming majority of cases it's only strong economies with high PPP that get fucked with the rough end of the pineapple.

My beef with the other guy, though, is that he's still acting like Aussies are getting /severely/ screwed over compared to Americans. It just gets really old seeing people go "hah, $60? Quit whining, we pay $100!", when $100 is actually less money to the average Australian than $60 is to the average American. What's worse, I always thought games launched at $120 down under, which would mean Aussies pay (slightly) more than Americans, but apparently that's not the case.

I dunno about console releases in Oz... but a $50 PC game will run anywhere from 80 to 100 dollarydoos. Which is a variation from 60 to 100%... and most run at 90 dollarydoos which is spot on the +80% mark, which is to say equal when everything is taken into consideration.

What no one has been able to answer, though, is what would be so terrible about Aussies being able to buy games on the cheap?

By the way, isn't the stated reason that games cost so much on the Australian steam store is that brick and mortar retailers threatened not to stock boxed copies if Digital Distribution undercut them to that extent?

Not that I'm aware of (sounds more like one of GAME UK's stunts)... but as a PC gamer, I say "fuck the retailers' whinging". Their reducing of their PC game inventory forced digital distribution as a necessity for many so it's a bit late to cry foul on it.

You get into some economic considerations for the publishers, at that point.

Indeed, but as a PC gamer you'll have to excuse me for not cutting myself in sympathy with their plight.

I mean, yeah, economic interdependencies affect all businesses but I'd be far more sympathetic if most publishers weren't such dicks about it and so determined to pass on even the smallest cost onto the consumer.

broadband connections

Oh jesus, ANOTHER thing most Aussies love to have a good long ***** about. Don't go there.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Spoiler: spoiler snip

Assuming you can import stuff without import tax and shipping making it cost too much to be worth it, the international exchange rate(which is separate from the PPP value, which is cost of living adjusted) combined with the higher wages you guys make to cover the higher cost of living makes it so that you can buy more stuff in America for the same money. Just like Americans can buy more stuff in, say, South Korea with their money than they can in the US, even though South Korea is a well developed country with a strong middle class.

Yeah, see, this is where geo-blocking and RPD (regional price discrimination) come into play for digital sales. There are numerous digital retail sites that ping your IP and if your IP comes back as being one of a listed group of nations you get redirected to a different sub-site that has all the prices adjusted upward to conform closer to that nation's usual pricing schemes. So the retailer ends up taking most of the advantage of the consumer's strong local currency instead of the consumer themselves.

The physical equivalent would be those Americans in South Korea suddenly finding the South Korean store owners suddenly jacking up all their prices for the Americans despite the fact that the Americans can see locals coming in and paying the regular price... and when questioned on it, being told that it's what Americans are used to paying so they shouldn't complain.

Also, it should be noted that Steam's 'Russia Experiment' is an exception to the rule, as most digital retail sites never go below their own 'local standard pricing' when selling to weaker economies.

I actually agree with you on this to an extent -- I think it's a complicated subject because you really do have to tailor the prices to the region you're selling in unless you just want the poorer parts of the world to pirate everything and pay for nothing, but I also think it's a crazy artificial block that gets into some of the same problems I have with DRM in general.

Yeah but as I mentioned, with the notable exception of Steam (and only in certain nations at that), poor countries don't get prices that reflect the local economy or adjust for low PPP. In the overwhelming majority of cases it's only strong economies with high PPP that get fucked with the rough end of the pineapple.

My beef with the other guy, though, is that he's still acting like Aussies are getting /severely/ screwed over compared to Americans. It just gets really old seeing people go "hah, $60? Quit whining, we pay $100!", when $100 is actually less money to the average Australian than $60 is to the average American. What's worse, I always thought games launched at $120 down under, which would mean Aussies pay (slightly) more than Americans, but apparently that's not the case.

I dunno about console releases in Oz... but a $50 PC game will run anywhere from 80 to 100 dollarydoos. Which is a variation from 60 to 100%... and most run at 90 dollarydoos which is spot on the +80% mark, which is to say equal when everything is taken into consideration.

What no one has been able to answer, though, is what would be so terrible about Aussies being able to buy games on the cheap?

By the way, isn't the stated reason that games cost so much on the Australian steam store is that brick and mortar retailers threatened not to stock boxed copies if Digital Distribution undercut them to that extent?

Not that I'm aware of (sounds more like one of GAME UK's stunts)... but as a PC gamer, I say "fuck the retailers' whinging". Their reducing of their PC game inventory forced digital distribution as a necessity for many so it's a bit late to cry foul on it.

You get into some economic considerations for the publishers, at that point.

Indeed, but as a PC gamer you'll have to excuse me for not cutting myself in sympathy with their plight.

I mean, yeah, economic interdependencies affect all businesses but I'd be far more sympathetic if most publishers weren't such dicks about it and so determined to pass on even the smallest cost onto the consumer.

broadband connections

Oh jesus, ANOTHER thing most Aussies love to have a good long ***** about. Don't go there.

I have absolutely nothing against Aussies getting cheap games... in fact, I think games should be cheaper for everyone. In America, I think they should be about $40 cheaper (to match up to the cost of a new DVD release, which is $20-$25). My only problem with complaints from Australia is when Australians act like Americans pay next to nothing for games and tell us to quit whining about it, because we don't and it's not really whining.

As for broadband: you actually agreed with me. My point was it's not great in the US, and while we're pretty low on the list of countries with good internet, even the ones that have great internet have /got/ to have issues that keep full digital distribution for everything being economically feasible at the moment. Considering that one of the biggest problems in the US is that we've got people living out in the middle of nowhere where it's not worth it to the ISPs to run a line to, and Australia's rural areas are even more rural, it's not surprising Aussies love to complain about it. I mean, I guess maybe South Korea is well enough wired to make the jump to pure DD for all consumers right now, and maybe Japan, too, but I'd be surprised if any other country was there just yet.

 

[Vault101]

In the real world, "winners" are supposed to get 5 hours of sleep, sit at a desk for 8 hours doing pointless bullshit that doesnt matter, then spend the rest of their time doing their taxes, filling out shitty forms, going to the therapist/doctor, writing shitty emails, getting a sad, emotionless hand job from their cold wives, then get 5 hours of sleep. Theres no time for anything more than angry birds.

....eh? 5 hours of sleep is pathetic
as people get more responsibilites they find less time for all kinds of things, I think youll fnd some people do make time for gaming...anyway my point still stands the "core" market doesnt go away because "gamers' decided casual games are better for whatever reason

[quote/]Also, mass effect and assassins creed are not engaging experiences, they are in the same category of mindless nonsense as angry birds[/quote]
weather you like thease games or not is beside the point, there are certain experiences core games give that casual games do not