PS5

[Tulpa | 3,510]

12 minutes ago, ICrappedMyPants said:

I just hate the idea of manufacturers not providing a discount for digital distribution as their is definitely savings on their end.

They're going to price games and consoles at what people are willing to pay. The fact that they save money is irrelevant unless the vast majority of consumers stop buying stuff at that price.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Tulpa

[cartman | 195]

Is the Pro/Slim gonna have a digital version too?

1 hour ago, ICrappedMyPants said:

Yeah, my guess is less than 20% based on seeing a lot of sales without any digital in stock. I just figured 20% was a fair ceiling because that’s what I was seeing in some inventory trackers for some stores.

Maybe they're trying the waters and the Slim/Pro will increase the digital only ratio. Or The current PS5 may do it for the future batches.

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

15 minutes ago, cartman said:

Is the Pro/Slim gonna have a digital version too?

Maybe they're trying the waters and the Slim/Pro will increase the digital only ratio. Or The current PS5 may do it for the future batches.

Definitely. Digital version will become a bigger and bigger percentage of their production as time goes on. For the initial rollout, they were losing too much money on the digital console (disc drives are in the $15-20 range and they discounted that version $100), but that will change in 2 years or so.

[TDIRunner | 2,742]

30 minutes ago, DoctorEncore said:

Definitely. Digital version will become a bigger and bigger percentage of their production as time goes on. For the initial rollout, they were losing too much money on the digital console (disc drives are in the $15-20 range and they discounted that version $100), but that will change in 2 years or so.

That's an interesting strategy.  Take a small loss up front on digital consoles to get people to buy them and get used to having digital only content so fewer people revolt when they force you to go digital only by dropping the disc drive all together.  

Edited December 4, 2020 by TDIRunner

[TDIRunner | 2,742]

Just for the record, I want to add that I do not fear a digital only video game market.  To be honest, I'm pretty indifferent to it.  While I would prefer that physical media stick around forever, I won't be that upset when the inevitable happens.  I admit there are some advantages to digital only.  The biggest advantage (and probably the only advantage for me) is that it will save me a ton of money in that I will almost completely stop buying new video games.  Realistically I will still probably continue to buy some games simply because I have young kids who won't care about digital only gaming and will want to play the latest Mario game.  But with digital only, we will only buy the games we know for sure we want to play.  No more buying a game because it looks cool and I might play it sometime down the road.  With physical media, I can accept the fact that I might spend money on a game I might never play, but with digital that will never happen.  

[avatar! | 1,818]

I really don't know why people are talking about the "inevitable" digital-only era? People have been discussing a digital-only age since the PS2. Also reminds me of how books are supposed to be digital only these days, and yet that's not the case. NOPE. I don't believe it will happen. Physical games are here to stay.

[cartman | 195]

24 minutes ago, avatar! said:

I really don't know why people are talking about the "inevitable" digital-only era? People have been discussing a digital-only age since the PS2. Also reminds me of how books are supposed to be digital only these days, and yet that's not the case. NOPE. I don't believe it will happen. Physical games are here to stay.

PS2 wasn't really an internet console though. I've never been online a single time and everyone i know haven't been either while today people are online even on their phones. Today a lot of games need to be patched and have shit downloaded for them in order to run properly and things such as DLC where you won't be getting additional gameplay except if you buy it digitally are a reality. The situation is totally different.

With books the experience isn't the same it's not really a more convenient activity shifting pages on the screen than holding the book in your hands. With gaming the game and gameplay are identical.

[captmorgandrinker | 1,649]

4 hours ago, avatar! said:

I really don't know why people are talking about the "inevitable" digital-only era? People have been discussing a digital-only age since the PS2. Also reminds me of how books are supposed to be digital only these days, and yet that's not the case. NOPE. I don't believe it will happen. Physical games are here to stay.

While that may be true, all it'll take is some of the larger players to go digital only and you might see a large percentage shift on what's released on physical.   

If the next GTA were digital only, that might start a wave.   I still don't like paying full retail for digital if a physical is available, but if I don't have a choice (first GTA IV expansion on 360, Tekken Dark Resurrection on PS3) then I'll bite the bullet and do it if I'll play it enough.

EDIT- Also, a more fair comparison than books is music.   Books weren't designed with technology in mind; music is.  Take a look at Best Buy's CD section these days.   

I also think as higher internet speeds become more prevalent you'll see movies going the way of music.

[Tulpa | 3,510]

There will most likely be boutique game publishers putting out physical media for nuts like us for some time*, but as Captain said, the big boys are dying to go all digital. 

*provided that at least one console sold uses physical media in some fashion.

Edited December 5, 2020 by Tulpa

[cartman | 195]

But even now consoles aren't truly offline they still require shit to be installed for the games. I think the systems themselves require occasional updates too just like a computer or phone (from PS3/360 and onwards) but i don't really remember.

For true offlineness to be a thing the game would have to be sold fully complete with all the patches, DLC's and other fuckery sorted out on the disc itself. Whenever an aspect requires connectivity be it on the hardware or software - that is not an offline object anymore.

Technically a person could still bring his console to a friend or some venue that has free wi-fi, download the shit needed and go home. Perhaps he would still qualify as an offline player. But just how many people do that? In reality you're either having constant internet at your home or you're not experiencing new consoles.

Edited December 5, 2020 by cartman

[TDIRunner | 2,742]

7 hours ago, avatar! said:

I really don't know why people are talking about the "inevitable" digital-only era? People have been discussing a digital-only age since the PS2. Also reminds me of how books are supposed to be digital only these days, and yet that's not the case. NOPE. I don't believe it will happen. Physical games are here to stay.

That's not a far comparison because all it takes is three gaming companies to decide to go all digital and it's done. Books will always be physical because they don't require a console to play on. The only thing that's keep digital only gaming from becoming a reality is internet speeds. As high speed internet becomes more widespread we will get closer to the inevitable digital only gaming. 

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,013]

48 minutes ago, TDIRunner said:

That's not a far comparison because all it takes is three gaming companies to decide to go all digital and it's done. Books will always be physical because they don't require a console to play on. The only thing that's keep digital only gaming from becoming a reality is internet speeds. As high speed internet becomes more widespread we will get closer to the inevitable digital only gaming. 

I don't see much incentive for all digital gaming considering what gaming companies make most money on is skins and subscriptions. I truly don't think Sony or Microsoft give a single shit about how ppl want to buy their games.

Also, PS4 had over 1500 physical games while PS3 had just over 1000. The trend for total media being physically published is on the rise, not the down trend. The market is clearly reacting to the consumers desire for physical media, not the lack there of. 

All digital is a pipe dream. 

[TDIRunner | 2,742]

You are making the argument that we wont go all digital because too many people want physical,  but we have no say in it. Going digital only is a perfect example of an industry telling us what we want instead of giving us what we want. PS5 has more physical games because of all the small limited print publishers that have sprung up. They are filling a void that has sufficient demand. But all Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have to do is drop the physical consoles and it's all over. There is no risk in going all digital for the console makers because the people who will stop gaming all together make up too small of a percentage to even matter. 

[avatar! | 1,818]

https://www.technologyreview.com/2010/08/23/26114/predicting-the-death-of-print/

...the physical book is dead in 5 years.

-August 23, 2010

Same old story. I think it's perfectly fair to compare the doomsayers for books, movies, games... they all have predicted the apocalypse for their respective domain for numerous years now. I do believe (and hope) that physical sales will continue to be a factor for this generation and the next one.

Edited December 5, 2020 by avatar!

[Brickman | 3,990]

I’m sure digital will come one day, but considering the outrage of the Xbox one locking discs to a console and then Sony mocking them, I can’t see it happening for at least two more gens after this one.

Internet speed is also a big factor. For a lot of the world downloading a 15gb+ game takes forever.

Even if younger generations embrace digital games the older gamers will want the physical. Just like how Vinyl is still huge for music.

It will be interesting to see in a year or two what the console sales for PS5/Xbox are for the digital vs disc systems. I think it will be largely towards disc.

[TDIRunner | 2,742]

Again, comparing to books doesn't work because they are too different.  Physical gaming could last forever with companies like LRG, but Sony Microsoft and Nintendo can stop them any time by simply stopping the production of disc drives. End of story. Books don't have that issue. As long as one book publishing company wants to print books they will be around forever. 

The ONLY way physical gaming lasts forever is if companies like LRG publish games for consoles that can't play the media. That's the only possible scenario where physical gaming doesn't die. With the number of people who don't open and play their games, maybe that could work. 

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,013]

1 hour ago, TDIRunner said:

Going digital only is a perfect example of an industry telling us what we want instead of giving us what we want.

That is the complete opposite of economics though... Demand for physical is at a recent high this the supply for physical has been matching it. Again, the money in the industry doesn't come from game sales, it comes from skins, loot boxes, etc.

[TDIRunner | 2,742]

2 minutes ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

That is the complete opposite of economics though... Demand for physical is at a recent high this the supply for physical has been matching it. Again, the money in the industry doesn't come from game sales, it comes from skins, loot boxes, etc.

Your are assuming that the demand for gaming will go away if physical goes away. Many people might bitch and complain when it happens, but they are still going to buy the latest Call of Duty no matter how it's sold. If going digital will make them more money, and it will, then it's going to happen. Lack of world wide high speed internet is the only thing that has kept it from happening already. 

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,013]

8 minutes ago, TDIRunner said:

Your are assuming that the demand for gaming will go away if physical goes away. Many people might bitch and complain when it happens, but they are still going to buy the latest Call of Duty no matter how it's sold. If going digital will make them more money, and it will, then it's going to happen. Lack of world wide high speed internet is the only thing that has kept it from happening already. 

That's not how companies work. If there is money to be made from selling blu rays that cost $0.02 make and $1.25 to ship for $60+ you better believe they'll be selling them til the end of time. It's how economics work. It's just too cheap of a revenue source that is largely accepted and already engrained in the majority of buyers. 

Looks, I'm not saying it doesn't sound good but it's going against the trend. It would be like shorting tesla. It's just better to recognize the trend and bet with it and try to figure out the motive behind the move later. And right now the move is not away from physical, not even kind of. Just look at LRG making an absolute killing for producing physical at any cost. 

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,013]

1 hour ago, ChickenTendas said:

Why continue to sell physical when you can simply cut out the middle man? Chances are that the profit gains will be much greater than any losses from people who refuse to go digital.

How could it be greater if it is contributing to their bottom line. And do you think that if manufacturing a single game for $2 to get it into the hands of the buyer and selling it for $40 or $80 makes a lick of difference to game companies? They're more likely to give the games away for free or for a subscription before taking away physical. 

Idk if you guys play video games but they're literally only about skins and cosmetics. 80% of the revenue generated is from whales. Gaming companies don't care about how the whales get their mitts on the game, they just want them to spend $150 a week on content and $300 to play as Jordan.

Also, game companies don't make a new game every other year, at least not the successful ones. Ubisoft sold 65M units of Six Siege in what 5 years and made $6.5B. let's say the average person paid $40 for the game (which is ludacris but just for example). That means $4.9B was made off of digital content. 

What does it matter how the content is distributed when the $$ is in selling the content? I would assume game companies literally give games away before making them digital only. 

[Tulpa | 3,510]

1 hour ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

And do you think that if manufacturing a single game for $2 to get it into the hands of the buyer and selling it for $40 or $80 makes a lick of difference to game companies?

Sure.  Saving an extra $2 per unit sold, when you're selling millions of units, is absolutely something they'd consider, especially if they can distribute the game from an inhouse server farm, when they want, where they want, 24/7/365 instead of relying on pressing companies, packaging, distribution, and taking numbers from retail outlets.

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,013]

15 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Sure.  Saving an extra $2 per unit sold, when you're selling millions of units, is absolutely something they'd consider, especially if they can distribute the game from an inhouse server farm, when they want, where they want, 24/7/365 instead of relying on pressing companies, packaging, distribution, and taking numbers from retail outlets.

Ok so for 6 siege they would save potentially $135M to potentially miss out on $4.9B? For references, thats 40 times more. 

Again, it's an economic decision. Game companies JUST WANT THE GAME IN THE CONSUMERS HANDS. It's not 2008. They're not banking on game sales to determine profits.

It's not a thing unless it's a single player campaign. Every single game that pulls big money pulls it's from content not game sales. It's not a debate. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot to miss out on $2-10 a week from even small users (that's up to $350 a fuckin year) what's it matter if they lose $2 in distributing and manufacturing.

 

[TDIRunner | 2,742]

They make more money off a digital sale then a physical sale. The fact that they make more money off skins and other DIGITAL ONLY DLC supports this fact. 

 

As soon as the internet can support it, they are going all digital because they will make a lot more money. The fact that you don't like it isn't going to change anything. As you put it, that's how companies work. 

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,013]

13 hours ago, TDIRunner said:

The fact that you don't like it isn't going to change anything. As you put it, that's how companies work. 

Why would a company marginalize a user base if it isn't profitable? Like if +50% of customers buy physical why would they switch? If 5-50x the revenue of physical games is generated by content that is DLC, then why would companies focus on distribution of games over distribution of DLC? 

I still feel like you're using talking points from 2008. Fortnite is free, PoGo is free and both generate more revenue than any gaming franchise yearly that puts out games that require large purchases ($20+)

The argument for all games will be free or part of a subscription is the reality most gaming companies are facing. The step towards that is what Microsoft is doing with their subscription based gaming. Even then, when the games rotate, why would the publishers care if you buy physical or digital at thst point just as long as you make a small initial investment and then they sell you dlc for x4-50 the original purchase price over the course of 5+10 years?

The world where all games are download only is a fantasy future world existence that has hover boards and self tying laces. 

Edited December 6, 2020 by RegularGuyGamer

[a3quit4s | 4,102]

Digital games do not cost less to make, they cost less to distribute

Games are mostly not even games anymore, they are full length movies with games included. So much dialogue and cinematics. 
 

I’d really like to pay one price and get the entire game with no add ons to purchase. But I never play a game for more than a month so getting the base edition usually works for me

Edited December 6, 2020 by a3quit4s