Someone trying to kill FPShooters?

[Yoshh]

companies cant sell games online (Steam) cheaper then they do physical copies. while it may in fact be cheaper for them, if they sold online copies cheaper, people wouldnt go to brick and morter stores and more, and it would hurt them a ton. and gaming companies cant do that or they wont be sold in retail at all any more, and that would hurt sales even more.

 

Some companies actually have more digital sales compared to physical copy ones.And to be honest, the less people you have to involve in distribution, the better :P But then, you'd have a monopoly. :armscrossed:

Edited March 24, 2012 by Yoshh

[Vagrant0]

The reality is that despite some people's preference for a brick and mortar store... That business model just doesn't work any more. With a brick and mortar store you're paying rent, wages, and buying surplus stock that you will likely never sell... Whereas with a digital distribution method, or even an online retail method (Amazon), the cost overhead is a fraction of what it would normally be. As is, many of these chains are cutting back or going out of business for everything except for console games. And even with console games, about the only stores that are still living are ones which attribute most of their sales to trade-ins and resale... Something that game companies have no problems killing outright on all platforms.

[ziitch]

Actually, if there had to be compromise between brick-and-mortar and the game publishers, I think that the publisher no longer being responsible of manufacturing costs and instead selling manufacturing rights to these chains can create a form of inventory control, therefore costs can be curtailed as the chains can produce a more exact number of the product needed instead of just guessing how many they might need from the publisher after the first few weeks after release. Of course, if there are problems with the physical copies, the publisher would have to find a new way to handle this between the chain with manufacturing rights and them.

[Vagrant0]

Actually, if there had to be compromise between brick-and-mortar and the game publishers, I think that the publisher no longer being responsible of manufacturing costs and instead selling manufacturing rights to these chains can create a form of inventory control, therefore costs can be curtailed as the chains can produce a more exact number of the product needed instead of just guessing how many they might need from the publisher after the first few weeks after release. Of course, if there are problems with the physical copies, the publisher would have to find a new way to handle this between the chain with manufacturing rights and them.

That would never happen.

 

It didn't even work well when book stores tried it. Sure, it has some merit, but the ones who own the IPs aren't so willing to dish out printing rights to others. And we're talking books here... Even in cases where the store would be paying the company market price for each book they printed by means of some sort of client software, the companies didn't want to go along since it was an untested platform.

 

In the case of software... Not only are you printing the discs, but you're also handing out software keys with each sale... Something that software producers tend to be even more ridiculously protective of. This opens all sorts of supposed liability things, like the disc software being duplicated without permission, keys being passed around instead of being sold with the product, and other nightmare stuff that while not substantial to most normal people, are the sorts of things that traditional game companies wouldn't want to touch with a 50 foot pole while standing behind a blast shield.

 

Ultimately the problem is that physical copies are either too expensive to ship, and digital copies have to be DRMed to hell in order to stay true with how games were sold in the past. And since the ways things were done doesn't work so well, and companies aren't making as much money off their games (usually because they snip out stuff to sell later, scale back funding, or DRM it to hell) they are less likely to take chances in new ways of selling things. This is why many indie games have managed to out sell many AAA game projects. The indie studios tend to not have any DRM or other nonsense, come with free incentives, and aren't afraid to try new ways of getting their products out there. This will however be something which will be less likely to have an impact on consoles, since consoles have their own licensing just to make games for that console, but it will likely dictate where the market goes for both PC and console sales.

[JimboUK]

Actually, if there had to be compromise between brick-and-mortar and the game publishers, I think that the publisher no longer being responsible of manufacturing costs and instead selling manufacturing rights to these chains can create a form of inventory control, therefore costs can be curtailed as the chains can produce a more exact number of the product needed instead of just guessing how many they might need from the publisher after the first few weeks after release. Of course, if there are problems with the physical copies, the publisher would have to find a new way to handle this between the chain with manufacturing rights and them.

 

Retailers already get games from the publishers on a sale or return basis, stock control shouldn't be an issue for them, they won't be lumbered with a load of stock they can't sell. Their problems are staff costs, rents, an overreliance on used games and supermarkets that are selling AAA titles as loss leaders.

[ziitch]

Wow, that's a little old, but think about it - Video games has a lot of people to go through when delivering an end product compared to something like books. I'm pretty sure publishing companies own their print presses, whereas game publishers have to go to a disc manufacturer to make games. Not to mention the QC as well; so consider this -

 

Books

 

Publisher (with QC and printing) -> Stores -> Consumers

 

Video Games

 

Publisher -> QC -> Approved? If not, back to Publisher -> Developer -> (repeat 1-3 until approved) -> Disc manufacturer -> Store -> Consumer

 

...At this point, I'd say there's too many steps to take to get a product to customer this way! I think if we take a step back and shift some of these responsibilities around, such as tasking the publisher to do QC instead of console companies or distributors, and remove some of the parties involved, they will soon realize that used games was never causing the "money drain" problem. And look at indie games if you think about it - They don't have to go through so many steps, and as a result they are see much bigger profit percentages while being able to keep their games at low prices.

[JimboUK]

This is it, there are far too many companies who want a slice of the cake, publishers, developers, middleware companies, disk production companies, console manufacturers and stores both online and offline. At the end of this ridiculous chain is the customer, a customer that has an ever decreasing disposable income thanks to the God awful financial climate, it's no great surprise that developers are looking at alternative models. There are much better ways of doing things....

 

Books: Writer..... Amazon..... Profit

Music: Performer..... iTunes..... Profit

 

So why not....

 

Games: Developer.... Steam/iTunes/Google Play/Facebook... Profit?

[eodx9000]

Firstly, is there a source for this?

 

Secondly, I say it's about time if true.

companies cant sell games online (Steam) cheaper then they do physical copies. while it may in fact be cheaper for them, if they sold online copies cheaper, people wouldnt go to brick and morter stores and more, and it would hurt them a ton. and gaming companies cant do that or they wont be sold in retail at all any more, and that would hurt sales even more.

 

If they sold online copies cheaper, it wouldn't stop me from preferring to buying physical copies and I know I'm not the only one either.

Edited May 12, 2012 by eodx9000

[Gravatrax]

Considering the last 5 call of duty have been pretty much been reskins I could really give a s*** about them going on.

[Eddieawsome]

Sounds like a elaborate conspiracy involving the Illuminati.Who is going to stop them you ask. well it could only be the guy with his own emoticon of course  <img class="bbc_emoticon" alt="8)" src="http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/cool.gif">  

<br><br>yeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaah

 

<br><br>PS: kudos if you get the reference(s).

Edited May 13, 2012 by Eddieawsome