Game On or Game Over, now 60% cheaper if you buy it in-store!

Microsoft versus Sony, Battlefield versus Call of Duty and Forza versus Gran Turismo. These are some of the rivalries that can get people talking about console wars. “Game On or Game Over” is your place to get inside the minds of Nicholas and Andy as they seek to find the true meaning of gaming and tackle some of gaming’s most controversial subjects. Both are award winning authors – although the awards haven’t been mailed or created yet — but trust them. Would they lie to you?

Andy: I want to talk about an issue this week, that seems to cycle through the news, but doesn’t really ever gain a lot of traction – which I am very surprised with. Right about two years ago when we were getting a flood of information about the new consoles one thing we kept hearing was, “digital is the future.” Publishers want gamers to buy digital copies of their games for a myriad of reasons. A digital sales means that gamer can’t trade it in, so there is one less used copy available. A digital copy means they cut out the middle man (GameStop, EB Games, Amazon etc.) from the sale. Also, a digital copy saves from having to print the game, case, cover art etc. Those are a lot of benefits to the developer and publisher, and for the gamer well it really boils down to convenience. It’s nice to be able to switch games on the fly with just your controller and a click.

One thing about this whole push towards digital games is how often those buying the digital copes get hosed be the publisher. Let me explain, a couple weeks ago Ubisoft had their post-earnings conference call with investors. One of the things that Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemont talked about was the disparity between physical copy prices and digital copy prices. Those being that digital copes are almost always more expensive than physical copies. He used the example of Far Cry 4 which is a normal price of about $24 on Amazon but still selling for $60 on PSN.

Guillemont then proceeded to talk in circles and tried to justify the difference. He even talked about how they are more aggressive on the PC side of digital sales which are very, very strong. This has long been my biggest gripe with digital copies of games. If I have two choices digital and physical and they each cost the exact same amount then I will always get physical because it will have secondary value when I am done with it. I understand digital sales should be retail price on release, that’s fine not many will gripe about that, but when I can get Far Cry 4 for $24 via a retailer or $60 for a digital copy there is no comparison.

I’m not sure if we have ever talked about digital vs physical in terms of pricing before. So, before I go to in-depth with what I think let me throw it at you. What’s your initial impression of what Guillemont had to say?

Nicholas: If I’m truly honest, I struggled to understand what he was trying to say. I read the article about three times and it was only after the third time that I started to make sense of what he was telling us. First and foremost, I think it’s a little ridiculous to say that while the PC segment of digital games is very reactive and great with discounts, etc. that we need to wait for it to start happening with consoles. Unless Ubisoft just started selling games digitally, there’s no reason why you can’t bring the same practices that you use for selling PC games as you do with console ones. As far as I can tell, it’s them just playing ignorant or at the least, placing the blame on other digital distributors as to why digital games aren’t as varied in price as their retail counterparts are.

Secondly, I think it was further ridiculous when he then acknowledged that they (being Ubisoft) are more flexible with PC games because digital is very strong. Now while I agree that consoles going digital is still relatively new and hasn’t really come into full swing, that’s only for the reason you mentioned in your initial response. That being, why would gamers choose to go digital if they get no booklet, no game box and no disc for the same price? Yes the digital market for consoles isn’t strong, but that’s only because publishers are failing to allow gamers to fully embrace it.

I was going to comment on the whole “we need to wait for physical copies to drop first” but it makes sense. The thing is, we still don’t see it happening in practice. While we see the Games for Gold or PSN+ sales offering gamers great sales offers, they are always only temporary and never permanent. My gripe with Ubisoft is that we’re not seeing games being discounted permanently, simply for once-off sales.

So yeah, to begin with, not only was what Ubisoft saying confusing, but it kind of reeked of bullsh*t to me. What are your thoughts on his statement and my assessment of it above?

Andy: It really did seem like he talked in circles didn’t it? There is no reason why a game that has been out for six months or more should be full price via digital download. If publishers truly want the future of gaming to be digital, then they have to speak to gamers via our wallets. Guillemont says that they are really aggressive with PC pricing but not console pricing. Why is that? It’s an issue many PC gamers use when saying that PC is better, and in that sense they are correct. Take the most recent “Ultimate Game Sale” Xbox had. There was nothing Earth-shattering in those deals when compared to the preceding Steam Summer sale. Would you rather save $10 on Battlefield Hardline or get the entire Bioshock series for $7.50 total? Simply put the majority of “sales” on consoles are nothing more than a couple bucks off, whereas PC sales usually see true meaningful discounts.

In that same article Ubisoft CFO Alain Martinez says “On digital we will not sell a game for a lower price compared to physical.” My response is; Why not? If you really want me, as a gamer, to embrace digital, then there has to be some carrot to get me to take the plunge. In my opinion after a game’s release the first sale should occur digitally. I’m not talking 50% or anything insane like that but $10 off and maybe a piece of previously “exclusive” content. Maybe something as simple as if you get the game digitally, then any DLC that you purchase is 10% off. Much like how EA Access does it on Xbox One. When you have EA Access anything you buy digitally from games to DLC is cheaper. It’s a little incentive to move towards the digital market.

To me when I read this article it just reads like a used car salesman telling me why I should pay full price for a car that I can get somewhere else for half of what he wants. I think we can all agree that it can’t be that hard to have digital sales, or lower the price of games that have been out for a while, just look at Steam. Their sales run across all developers and publishers so that’s not the issue. Microsoft and Sony have both said digital is the future, so then we have to ask what is the hold up for accelerating that inevitable switch? Why are we still seeing games $60 USD a year after release digitally, but half that for physical copies?

Nicholas: It seems like the most obvious answer is because they can get away with it. All this talk of the console industry still getting used to digital sales and whatnot just seems to be playing the ignorance card and maximising sales and profits by charging full price for digital games until enough people call it out. Like we’ve said though, if developers and publishers aren’t willing to really entice gamers to make the jump then we can’t realistically expect us to embrace this new form of game distribution. It’ll die out or at best, remain as it is now and not gain further traction. For me though, given that I can spend the same money and get a game, a box to add to my collection and a few other goodies, that’s perfectly fine with me.

When I think about digital distribution though I wonder about whether I’m willing to give up having physical copies of my games. I certainly want to be able to switch games on the fly (it seems half-done that we can install the entire game to our consoles but we still need discs to play them), but I also like the fact I can open my wardrobe and see 15 years of gaming history before me. Another thing I wonder about is whether gamers are willing to go digital and give up all the collector’s editions that we’ve been seeing lately. I was visiting a friend last week and in his games room he has statues and busts from every LCE of this generation on display. When we speak about going digital we need to acknowledge that we’re going to forgo all these figurines and statues that a few developers have really started embracing.

As someone who is known for collecting the odd statue, is this something you ever think about? If you could get Fallout 4 for $20USD cheaper digitally and have no real-life pipboy, would you do it? What does it say for all those companies like GameSpot and EB Games who are built around selling games and gaming products to people if we truly start to embrace digital?

Andy: First to answer your Fallout-related question, absolutely not. I want that pipboy edition. You know my love of all things Fallout, and you also know that I am a hoarder, err, collector of video game statues and collectibles. With that said, EA Access has shown me the advantages of having a digital library. The switching on the fly is really nice. You really appreciate its usefulness when you bounce between games like Battlefield 4, to Need for Speed to Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare. With that said, I too am one that likes to have physical copies of my games so for me it’s a double-edged sword.

It’s funny you bring up the idea of forgoing all the goodies that come in collector’s editions because a week or two ago 343 Studios started taking some heat for their super expensive collector’s edition of the upcoming Halo 5. For $250USD you get a Master Chief and Spartan Locke statue, Guardian model, ‘Halo the Fall’ animated series, a steelbook, dossier’s on Blue Team, 14 requisition packs and a CODE to download the game. Yes, for $250 you get all that but no physical copy of the game. It comes out a full week before the actual game is released, so that digital code allows you to download the game, but you can’t play it for another week yet. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this for a couple weeks now and still have no idea how 343 came to this decision.

They tried to spin it by saying that since they are shipping the collector’s edition early, but including the code it will give fans the chance to preinstall the game and be ready the day the game drops while having access to all the Collector’s Edition content early. Sorry, but bullsh*t. I don’t think any of those fans that pre-ordered the collector’s edition give a rats ass if they have the goodies in the box a week early or not. They’ve already waited this long, one more week won’t hurt any. Why include a steelbook if there is no actual physical game because you know… that’s what GOES in the steelbook.

I’ve already mentioned I’m a big collector, if a game I ordered the collector’s edition for (especially one I paid $250 for) didn’t have a physical copy of the game I’d be livid. For the life of me I can’t understand this decision other than it’s a cheaper way to get by, not having to print those extra copies of the game, package them, then package them into the collector’s edition. So, in your infinite wisdom can you shed some light onto it for me? How can a company justify doing that to their most enthusiastic fans, and still charge $250?

Nicholas: When I first read that I too thought it was pretty ridiculous that they’d offer everything except the game disc itself, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. For starters, at $250USD, while its exceptionally expensive for a game you’re still getting quite a bit of content. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t spend that much on a game, but from what I recall the statue wasn’t exactly miniature and you’re still getting everything else you’d expect from an LCE minus the actual disc. I know it sounds ridiculous initially, but by having the steelbook but not the disc, you can still open your cupboard and see the game box but you have the convenience of being able to switch games on the fly.

How often do you ever gaze upon your gaming collection, see your game boxes and think, “aren’t all the discs inside that I can’t see, that I only ever see for a matter of seconds between when I open the case and when the disc goes into the console, so awesome”? Doing what 343 is doing seems to satisfy both worlds of having the physical contents but providing the full functionality of digital gaming. For me, the only thing that’s really ridiculous is the fact I have the game, have downloaded it but need to wait a week to play it. For that price I’m paying why not reward your fans in that regard?

To put it back to you I’d like to ask – why is having the actual disc so important? If you have everything else that makes up the game, including the game on your console, is having a physical medium from which to play it that necessary? For me, whenever I spoke about not wanting to go digital and always having a physical copy was because I wanted a backup to play off if I needed to. If companies like Microsoft and Sony could ensure that you could download your games and play them whenever you wanted, do you think we’d start to wane off our need to have those discs – assuming we still had the other physical components of a game bundle?

Andy: For me, when I buy a physical edition of a game whether it be a normal retail release or a collector’s edition with a bunch of collectibles, I expect a disc. Maybe it’s old fashioned but when I make the choice to buy it in that manner I expect certain things. If I wanted a digital edition I’d purchase it digitally. If 343 wanted to they could easily have made those statues and other goodies available separately. I get that we are shifting towards a digital age but the way to do that is not removing something from a collector’s edition. No matter how 343 wants to spin it, and try to make it sound like they are doing gamers a favour, that is exactly what they are doing – they are removing something from a very expensive edition of their game.

It just seems to me that there are better ways to get gamers to start embracing the shift towards a digital model. There are some games out there right now that have the game box and a code to download the game. With those they are right around the $20 price point and have in big letters “includes a digital voucher code” or something similar. That’s fine, they are being up-front about it and  it’s certainly not costing $250. We haven’t even talked about the most obvious thing, that being internet speed. Those who have embraced the digital trend have pretty good internet speeds. It’s another reason not to force digital on people. I mean we really do have to take into account someone who is a huge Halo fan, but has a 10GB data cap for the month, you and I both know that Halo 5 will be more than 10GB. Heck, the Master Chief Collection had a Day 1 patch of over 20GB itself… and that’s just the patch.

To wrap things up for this week, we started talking this week’s article by talking about the price point difference between a game in stores and the stagnant prices of games on the digital stores for consoles. We then shifted to talking about the price of a physical edition of a game, but with a digital game. It seems the common denominator here is the price of digital games. Gamers have debated this over and over again so I am offering you the final word here. What is your opinion on the million dollar question of should digital games be inherently cheaper than physical games? Should a new release game be $60 in a brick and mortar store and $60 via digital? If publishers truly want gamers to embrace digital is it up to them to offer gamers incentives to get us to jump into going digital?

Nicholas: The consumer in me is saying no – a game that is sold digitally should not be sold at the same price as a game in a physical store. For me, it all ties back to the point you made earlier on in the article – I’m not getting a physical product and I therefore expect less production costs – which should flow through to the consumer. All those points being made by Ubisoft are irrelevant if it’s costing the publisher less to bring the game to the people – we should see some of that benefit.

Ultimately, if the industry is going to want gamers to go digital then they’ll need to be the ones to make the switch worthwhile. I think the first (and most effective) reason will be making it cheaper to do so, and then from there, it’s going to be convenience. I know you and I disagreed, but I don’t mind what 343 are doing with Halo 5. I think it’s a little expensive, but they are offering a lot of what gamers are attracted to with those LCEs (statues, game boxes, etc.). I won’t lie, I might not love not having those game discs anymore, but if I can still open my cupboard and see all the game boxes and then have the convenience of being able to switch between games on the fly, then I’ll probably be fine.

The move to completely digital isn’t going to happen overnight, but I think we’re starting to see it slowly take speed. We just need persuasion from publishers to make it happen, but from Ubisoft’s take on it all, I think we’re still a while out.

Tune in next time for the next instalment of Game On or Game Over. If you have any ideas for our next article, feel free to contact Andy or Nicholas on Twitter.