Over at 1up.com, writer Chris Pereira looks at digital distribution and what players can expect to pay with these new models:
If content really does determine the price, then many games shouldn't even cost as much as they do because more often than not their content is either lacking or grotesquely unplayable (as in the case of Homefront).
In fact, digital distribution should be the very avenue through which publishers escape having to charge the standard $59.99 for the bad content as well as the good content. Trying to straddle both forms of distribution simultaneously, publishers will face a problem similar to most magazines and national newspapers: How do you convince consumers they should pay more for less?
A digital copy is not yours. You don't own it. You can't resell it, trade it, or lend it. And yet publishers expect you to pay as much for their digital content as the physical,"own-able," copy that comes complete with a booklet (hopefully), and that sweet smell of plastic and ink.
One way to bridge this divide? Charge gamers the same price for both digital and physical copies of the game, but make up for what the digital copy lacks with free DLC content in the future (where as store copy purchasers would face the traditional costs associated with new content). This might seem unfair to gamers, but publishers at least would have an incentive to keep physical copies rare so as not to get destroyed by the second hand resale market.
What do you think?
"Talking about digital distribution in a Forbes interview, Farrell explained its benefits from the publisher's side: The distributor's fee (what's charged by Microsoft on the Xbox Live Marketplace, Apple on the App Store, etc.) is less than what would be paid to retailers and first-parties with a traditional, disc-based release, not to mention the money that is saved on inventory. It saves the company money, to put it simply, though that doesn't mean those savings will be passed along to customers. 'With respect to pricing, we evaluate the appropriate price for the games we are delivering, whether digitally or through traditional retail, based on the type and depth of the content,' he said. In other words, should THQ feel Homefront is worth $60 on disc, it will cost $60 to download even if costs less to distribute."Does anyone outside the finance department at game publishers feel this is fair though?
If content really does determine the price, then many games shouldn't even cost as much as they do because more often than not their content is either lacking or grotesquely unplayable (as in the case of Homefront).
In fact, digital distribution should be the very avenue through which publishers escape having to charge the standard $59.99 for the bad content as well as the good content. Trying to straddle both forms of distribution simultaneously, publishers will face a problem similar to most magazines and national newspapers: How do you convince consumers they should pay more for less?
A digital copy is not yours. You don't own it. You can't resell it, trade it, or lend it. And yet publishers expect you to pay as much for their digital content as the physical,"own-able," copy that comes complete with a booklet (hopefully), and that sweet smell of plastic and ink.
One way to bridge this divide? Charge gamers the same price for both digital and physical copies of the game, but make up for what the digital copy lacks with free DLC content in the future (where as store copy purchasers would face the traditional costs associated with new content). This might seem unfair to gamers, but publishers at least would have an incentive to keep physical copies rare so as not to get destroyed by the second hand resale market.
What do you think?