Rumor: future $60 retail PS3 games to be sold for $40 on the PSN - Page 2

I'm on the same page as TyrantII. This is totally plausible and should be put into effect immediately. If the games are seriously only going to cost $39.99, I could not be happier! And to all the disbelievers, have you ever heard of VALVE?! Seriously!? Physical media is on the way out, so get used to it. Yes, it may not be tomorrow, but it is the future, so accept it and quit being so stubborn.

Didn't mean to upset you by wanting a physical disc. The "quit being so stubborn" is pretty strong, this was a civil conversation. Not sure if you knew this or not, but people may have other opinions. So quit being so stubborn and get used to it.

I'd hate this. Why? Because I like to get rid of some games when I am done with them. Right now I am stuck with 4 or 5 Steam games I am done playing and have no desire to pick up ever again. In the old days, I'd toss them on eBay and collect a few bucks. Now? Nope. I'm stuck. I think this is one of the primary purposes of Steam and such, actually, getting rid of first sale/the used game market.


Here's the thing.

Sony needs the retailers to push hardware. As you may or may not know, retailers don't make a lot of money off the hardware. A few bucks. The vast majority of the money they make, they get from accessories and a bit more on game sales. Videogame consoles are a classic "loss leader".

If Sony tells retailers to screw off, we are going to sell our games directly to customers for 50% off, the retailers can say, okay, well we're not gonna sell your console anymore unless we get a better cut off it. Which means that prices will have to go up, or Sony will have to take more losses. BB isn't going to work moving consoles for Sony only for Sony to soak up all game sales off PSN.

While you might not buy many games from Best Buy, you are hardly in the majority. BB, Target, Wal-Mart, EB move a tremendous amount of accessories, consoles, and games. Tons. Sony can't piss them off.

It actually isn't "your game." We don't "own" these games. We purchase the right to use someone else's property indefinitely (so long as we don't abuse it). We own the disc, but not the game. It might sound like a stupid semantic distinction, but it's a hugely important difference to devs and pubs. It's what justifies things like DRM and whatnot.


It would lower both. It might not seem intuitive, but (in theory at least) by reducing piracy and resale, devs get more secure employment, more steady projects, and so on. More reliable income leads to more projects which leads to greater effeciency and so on. Lowers costs all around (even for consumers).


Again, we don't actually "own" our games. They are licensed to us. This is what all the DRM hubbub is about.


Exactly. Everyone wins. Retail gets to keep their lines of distribution and storefront sales (discs and hardware). Publishers get to reduce (not eliminate) profit losses through used game sales. Retailers get to keep their current (generous) used disc sales lines. Consumers get an option (like with music) to buy a digital copy cheaper than a disc copy, with similar perks to each. Seems like a win-win situation to me.

Retailers aren't stupid. They know damn well 90% of people will go with the $40 game over the $60. I mean, most people will go for the $55 used over the $60 new. They get to keep their distribution and sales in name only, it will gut their business.

Based on the "I want to own the disc/I want the option to sell the disc" crowd in this thread alone, I'd say that it's going to be a while before it gets to 90% of people are buying the download over the disc.

And, it's not like it'll be all the games going forward. I don't think there's a chance there will be a MGS4, or KZ2 amongst the offerings of disc vs download.

This thread is full of AVS nerds and game nerds and hardcore people that like this stuff more. It's a biased sample that overrepresents that 10%. Even I would find it difficult to overlook the $20 price difference.

Retailers make next to nothing on the sales of new games. The profit margin is very small (particularly compared to used games). The same applies to new console sales. So I don't think there'd be some huge "uproar" over the advent of digital download titles. It will definitely not "gut" their business. The only thing game retailers are worried about is having a continued and steady stream of future used games (that come from new disc-based titles).

Notice how there's no such thing as a game retailer that sells only new games. They sell peripherals, used games, accessories, etc. More retailers will just start selling used titles (as Blockbuster and Best Buy are already starting to do) and continue pushing the sales of those things that currently turn the biggest profit for them (peripherals, cables, add-ons, and so on). Neither of those are things that can be sold as downloads, so they'll do just fine. Nothing (profit-wise) should change for them.

Besides, I highly doubt discs are going anywhere for a while. As with the music and book businesses, there'll be a long "transitional" period where both formats are available side by side and appeal to consumers for totally different reasons.

Again, win-win.

Less discs on shelves = less game sales, new or used. A major, major part of digital distribution efforts is to shut down the used game market, I am sure you have heard all the noise from publishers the past few years as GameStop has continued to make bank by expanding its pawn shop operations.

Yup... and that's why I'm all for Digital Downloadable Games. More money goes back to the developers since we won't be able to sell/trade the used games for places like GS to make their profit on.

The only hang up with this is the whole bill about Net Neutrality and caps that ISPs are imposing on consumers.

The misunderstanding here is that you think this is an either/or situation. It's not. Discs aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Game makers are definitely not trying to shut down Gamestop. Pubs and devs just want a cut of those sales (justifiably so). Since they haven't been able to negotiate any sort of royalty deal with used game retailers like GS, they're looking for ways around the problem. Game makers just want to find an alternate revenue stream that doesn't shut them out of as much of the "long tail" sales. It's in no one's best interest to "shut down the used game market." Game makers know this.

Isn't the bigger question: Are we going to be asked to download 50 gig files or are PS3 games going to get much smaller for this effort?

I'm always going to favor physical media because I typically sell my games after I am done with them. I usually lose about $10 in the process. There are very few games that capture my imagination enough that I want to own them indefinitely. Not only this, but the big benefit of blu-ray was increased storage space; I would not be too enthusiastic about downloading 50gb.

Looks like Sony is trying a little experiment with their retail partners. Interesting to see how it turns out. Personally I prefer the disc versions of my games. Heck I even get the disc version of DLC if I can (Shivering Isles, etc.).

So far, none of the downloadable games has been bigger than DVD size, right? Most are much, much smaller than that.

This is just one reason why most of us are saying that one medium won't replace the other for a long while. When downloadable titles start expanding on the PS Store, it'll probably be confined to multiplat titles (like Burnout Paradise) or smaller scale exclusives (like Warhawk or SOCOM). I doubt we'll see a downloadable version of MGS4 or Uncharted 1 or 2 for sale anytime soon. Hell, for most PS3 owners, that's the bulk of their HDD space right there.

But the majority of current multiplats and exclusives are no bigger than DVD capacity. It's a safe bet to assume that will be the case for most of this generation. I'm willing to sacrifice having a physical disc of most games if it saves me $20. In fact, there are very few titles that I'd think would be worth paying the extra 20 bucks just to have the disc laying around.

Haha...no kidding? Wouldn't that be the fuel that X-bots would need to flame the PS3 into it's fiery death? If all of a sudden Sony stopped releasing games on BD then what was that whole format war for? There would be NO need for a BD drive in a PS3 and the idea of making a cheaper, more modular system, wouldnt be such a joke like a lot of AVS'ers seemed to think.

So as long as it stays either/or then who cares....right?

Movies and storage.

Roger that. Time to upgrade my HDD.

I would only d/l the ones that I know 100% I will play for a long time to come..you cant trade in DLC

I'm sure a dual sales channel approach is coming, but I seriously doubt the $20 price difference. If that's true, I'm buying a big harddrive and going all download.

not when it entails a digital only copy, as you can clearly see by the split here


True, I still see problems running into ISP's, but as far as I know most games are on BD25's. I don't think most games are much more then 10-15GB's, even MGSIV is only 30GB or so from what I've read.

$ per GB has come way down too. You can get a 500Gb internal drive for $80 on sale, and even 1TB external for $99. (Converter and a little modification and you can connect a external 3.5 drive to your PS through a small pigeon hole in the cover). Upgrading is very, very simple.

So ISP's will be the issue for heavy downloaders, but I don't see Sony releasing more then one game a month, or a gamer downloading more then one game a month in the near future.

I see what you did by only copying a portion of what I said. Of course movies and storage could have more potential with a larger capacity medium. But in this hypothetical situation where Sony will transition to a bias towards downloadable content then what was the point of forcing the marginally better technology that is BD down our throats and selling the PS3 at a "loss" for a few years? All it did was make them the most expensive home entertainment/video game system on the market and put them in a distant third place (out of 3 competitors). Again, this is all hypothetical and has no impact on the real world so I guess, like me, everyone is entitled to their view on how things should have gone and will go in the future.

Well, we always knew they leveraged their game hardware against bluray winning the format war. It wasn't any secret or anything. Sony's marketing this generation has always been more "universal home entertainment" then strictly game machine.

The PS3 is also a top of the line, future proof BD Player, so can't say I'm disappointed in that aspect as I already wanted a HD player.

I could see them giving a small discount for DL games, but 33%? No way. There's no reason to cut yourself out of that much money. It doesn't cost $20 per title for manufacture, shipment, and sales. Now maybe if they were doing a retail MSRP drop to $50 per title, then $40 to download would make sense.

You all see this yet?
http://www.edge-online.com/news/npds...-prefer-retail
NPD survey about how most gamers (not just AVSers) prefer physical copies to downloads for games (75% of gamers).


Right. Which is why that's how it will probably be. Everyone wins. Besides, this helps emphasize one of the PS3's central selling points (HDD size and easy upgrades) without cutting into its push for Blu-ray adoption.


There've been rumblings in the industry (not just among gamers and journalists) about the current price point of most games being too high for consumers. So it's not as far-fetched as it might seem.

So what happens to publishers? Do you think if we went downloads only, would they would suffer too? I mean, developers need publishers to distribute and market their games right? But if there is less distribution costs and it's all distributed thru one channel (Sony) would big Publishers suffer too (i. EA, Activision, etc)

Doesn't the current policy state that you can only download a full game twice per purchase? Other than that, I would be all over downloads...

No thanks. As mentioned several times already, I like the option of being able to get rid of a game when I'm done with it i.e sell/trade. That $20 savings doesn't look so hot when you consider that the game you 'saved' money on can't be traded or sold off , and is simply using space on your HDD when you're done with it. Furthermore as a gaming hobbyist, there's something about seeing my game collection displayed on my shelf.

awesome!!!

SALLY.... "STICKWELL"!!

That only applies to movies, and word is that they've been making exceptions to that rule pretty regularly (if you call customer service).