Perhaps I missed it. Cos I genuinely don't believe ive seen it.
Why does everyone think it would be pretty much guaranteed cheaper games?
I do keep seeing people say oh the dev could pocket more money making it cheaper.
But they don't do it now and they've been selling games on XBL for ages. Always more then my store sells them at.
Online games is nothing new. So why expect different? I've no idea and just wanted someone to give me the reason. Everywhere I look now theres just too many comments to sift through.
There's a few ways this could happen.
For one thing, downscaling the amount of physical copies created (the theory being that digital copies make up the shortfall) would mean less overhead. You aren't paying as much for factories to run, for materials to make the games (discs, cases, paper to print on, ink, etc.), you aren't paying for your shipping trucks, warehouse space or whathaveyou, etc. You're paying for server space and...uh....bank transfer fees? It's cheaper overhead, anyway.
For another, theoretically, you can increase your total volume of sales if the prices are cut. So, if you sold 100 units at $60 a piece, and you cut the price, you might sell 150 units at $45 a piece. That's $750 more sales. Just to give very basic estimates. You charge less, but you sell more, and make more money in the process.
Then you start factoring in profit margins, too. Instead of carrying expenses -- like all that overhead from the factory -- you end up pocketing more money. So, when you're selling games at $60 per game, but dealing with the costs of producing a physical copy, you might keep $6 from the sale. Why? Because you're spending the other $54 on other stuff, some of which includes the cost associated with physical copies. When you have a digital copy, you might be able to cut the cost of it to $35, but pocket $10.
Now, the likely question in response to this would be "But why not just leave the price at $60 and pocket $35 instead of $10?" The answer is simple: the market (theoretically) won't bear that price for digital downloads. Oh, sure, some will buy, but you still have to entice others via things like periodic sales. That's basically how Steam operates. They sell games to you (mostly made by other publishers), and normally they ask around $50 for a newly releasing game. (Example: Saints Row 4 is selling for $49.99 -- $45.99 if you already own Saints Row 3.) But then they'll have sales which drop that price to $30, or sometimes less, depending on the sale. Sometimes they have huge full-catalog sales for publishers (e.g. "Buy the entire Bethesda catalog for $100!"), other times it's just a weekend or mid-week sale for this or that game.
The end result, though, is that if you're a patient customer, you can effectively end up NEVER paying more than about $30. So, yeah, Steam can "ask" me to pay $50 for a new game, but I almost never do (once in a blue moon, sure). When they do, they also usually include other freebies like a new gun for Team Fortress 2 or whatever (which may or may not be valuable to someone, but hey, they're offering SOME incentive to buy new at full price). But in the end, if you only ever buy when they put stuff on sale for $30 or less...your price for games is always $30 or less.
MS may not have done this yet, but I think they'd kind of have to if they were that heavily invested in digital downloads. Otherwise, people would just jump ship to some other provider.
Also... Even if you could share with friends..... Wouldn't they have to download the WHOLE GAME to borrow it? I know superfast and all that but surely loads of people have caps? Not that I'd be affected...
I can't help but keep thinking it was almost mainly to combat piracy. And they made a bad job of selling a bad idea. Of course unless someone lectures me on the points above. And I prefer x + y = b. Not x + y could = b in 5 years. But ill take any backed reason.
Some of it is about piracy, but in all honesty, I find it hard to believe that someone wouldn't eventually figure out how to "download" a streamed game and play it offline or whatever, or create firmware flashes or whathaveyou. I think it's less about piracy, though, and far far more about increasing profit margins, centralizing control, creating a "Microsoft Ecosystem" the way Apple has, etc. So, yeah, it's about money but not in the "Damn you, consumers and your piracy!" sense, and more in the "Let's try to get everyone to buy ALL the MS devices." It's not a stretch to think that what might start with a platform like XboxOne would eventually expand to Win8 phones, Win8 tablets, and so on. If you have a single ecosystem that covers multiple devices, you can sell to those devices from a single portal and make bank.
Ill just add one more point here. And the above id rather get an answer to if anyone can enlighten me but here.
You say make games cheaper if they were all online. But 40$ isn't cheaper. Here:
Say I buy brand new game at 60$. And then trade it in at even 20$(Were talking mainly solo games that id finish quickly, cos you probably wouldn't get rid of your CODs and what not anyway. Also take note that depending if I finish it in a couple of week I could easily get 30+). Then that game Has only cost me 40$/30$. So why take a leap of faith in something that may or may not be as cheap in a couple of years? I can bet my bottom dollar they aren't going to sell them at 20$ brand new.
Or is the main factor that some people don't trade in so just don't care?
J
I, for one, don't trade in hardly ever. Instead, I buy used in the first place, and usually at a much deeper discount than $20. Usually, I'm PAYING $20 at most for a game. Granted, it's usually also at least a year old, but still. Here in the States, I think most people only get around, what, $10 for a trade-in? I honestly don't know. But there's another question to pose back to you. If you trade in the game for $30-40 (and that's $30-40 spread out over time, with there being a period of time where you're out $60), what's the difference between trading in an old game and getting $20 off your next $60 purchase....and just paying $40 for a game up front, no trade-in required? You get to keep your game, AND you get to keep $20 that would otherwise be sitting in someone else's bank account, no? So, where's the objection to a digital copy at a lower starting price?