93 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

It's not a mistake. Origin is pretty consistently the most expensive place to buy new EA games in the UK. I suppose they're just relying on the fact that some will see it as the 'official' outlet and either not bother shopping around or wrongly (but reasonably) assume that buying direct from the publisher won't be more expensive than buying from a third party.

I'd much rather buy direct, but if they'd really rather have *some* of my ~£35 via a middle man than all of my ~£35 direct then I suppose that's their business. You can kinda see how EA spent so many years hemorrhaging money though.

Yeah, it is pretty baffling. I could maybe see this blatant opportunism in countries where physical retail might be difficult and they might have the consumer over a barrel to get a physical copy... but in England? It seems silly to charge more for the digital download than the retail.

[PsychoBlonde]

Perhaps there's greater demand for the digital copy.

 

That and digital distribution requires you to have servers up 24/7 so that anyone, anywhere, can download the game again at any time.  That isn't free.  A disc is a one-time expense for manufacture and shipping.  Maintaining a digital distribution platform is a continuous expense and the viability of same depends on a lot of factors such as market share, etc.  There are MANY situations where digital downloads would be MORE expensive than just shipping someone a disc.

 

Heck, due to the ENORMOUS volume of downloads that occur during the first 2 weeks post release as people get their preorders, a digital preorder should pretty much ALWAYS be more expensive than a physical copy.  But, likewise, it would make sense for the digital price to go down faster as capacity opens up and the notion of digital copies having a higher profit margin actually becomes true.

But the price of all the server heft that goes toward digital distribution has to be amortized somehow.  Higher prices on digital preorders might be one way.

[Fast Jimmy]

That and digital distribution requires you to have servers up 24/7 so that anyone, anywhere, can download the game again at any time. That isn't free. A disc is a one-time expense for manufacture and shipping. Maintaining a digital distribution platform is a continuous expense and the viability of same depends on a lot of factors such as market share, etc. There are MANY situations where digital downloads would be MORE expensive than just shipping someone a disc.

If this was a small developer, sure. It would be silly. But the digital distribution model is for all of EA. It is the second largest digital distributor in the market. They deal with large amounts of volume across hundreds, if not thousands, of titles. Origin would still have their servers up 24/7 if DA:I was released as an all-physical good. It's a sunk cost at that point.

Manufacturing, printing, shipping, paying retail margins... these are all marginal costs applied directly to the product at hand, which would not exist with the creation (and hopeful sale) of said product.

In that light, in no world would DA:I cost more to Bioware/EA on digital distribution than a physical copy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If this was a small developer, sure. It would be silly. But the digital distribution model is for all of EA. It is the second largest digital distributor in the market. They deal with large amounts of volume across hundreds, if not thousands, of titles. Origin would still have their servers up 24/7 if DA:I was released as an all-physical good. It's a sunk cost at that point.

Assuming the Origin servers are always capable of handling their max load.

What if they're not?

Manufacturing, printing, shipping, paying retail margins... these are all marginal costs applied directly to the product at hand, which would not exist with the creation (and hopeful sale) of said product.

In that light, in no world would DA:I cost more to Bioware/EA on digital distribution than a physical copy.

How much it costs EA has literally nothing to do with the price.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Assuming the Origin servers are always capable of handling their max load.

What if they're not?

I'd say irrelevant, honeslty. Marketing psychology tells us that by be time a consumer would encounter an over-burdened server, they would be far less likely to ask for their money back and buy a retail copy than waiting an additional 1, 2, 6 or even 12 hours for their download to go through.

How much it costs EA has literally nothing to do with the price.

True. And if they can get away with charging more for the product type that already nets them the higher margins, I guess that's money in the bank for them, assuming they didn't scare away huge percentages of consumers away from digitial downloads in the process (doesn't seem like that is the case).

But, if anything, I'd say that's more of an argument for more competition in the digital distribution marketplace. That EA could potentially be looking at over 50% margins on selling their own product in their own digital store smacks of anti-capitalism.

[wolfhowwl]

Anti-capitalism? God forbid a company make money on a luxury good that no one is forced to buy!

 

The Origin storefront is already being undercut anyways. You can find DA:I for 48 bucks on GreenManGaming right now.

[Fast Jimmy]

Anti-capitalism? God forbid a company make money on a luxury good that no one is forced to buy!

 

The Origin storefront is already being undercut anyways. You can find DA:I for 48 bucks on GreenManGaming right now.

 

If Microsoft can be forced to settle an anti-trust lawsuit because they included a free web browser in Windows 95 that competed with another free web browser (Netscape), then using one's own distribution platform to charge more money for a product your own company makes definitely has legs of at least being viewed as anti-consumer by the public.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If Microsoft can be forced to settle an anti-trust lawsuit because they included a free web browser in Windows 95 that competed with another free web browser (Netscape), then using one's own distribution platform to charge more money for a product your own company makes definitely has legs of at least being viewed as anti-consumer by the public.

Except EA faces lots of competition. There are many games made, and the largest digital distributor is actually Steam.

And personally, I think that anti-trust suit against Microsoft was silly, as the subsequent success of Firefox and Chrome demonstrate. MS still bundles IE with Windows, but other browsers still thrive.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If Microsoft can be forced to settle an anti-trust lawsuit because they included a free web browser in Windows 95 that competed with another free web browser (Netscape), then using one's own distribution platform to charge more money for a product your own company makes definitely has legs of at least being viewed as anti-consumer by the public.

I don’t care what the public thinks.

[Fast Jimmy]

Except EA faces lots of competition. There are many games made, and the largest digital distributor is actually Steam.

And personally, I think that anti-trust suit against Microsoft was silly, as the subsequent success of Firefox and Chrome demonstrate. MS still bundles IE with Windows, but other browsers still thrive.

 

But EA games don't come out on Steam, so there is zero competition. If that were to change, I highly doubt Origin would list a download price of $80 when they clearly are selling units to other retailers at a much lower cost.

 

That's all I'm saying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But EA games don't come out on Steam, so there is zero competition. If that were to change, I highly doubt Origin would list a download price of $80 when they clearly are selling units to other retailers at a much lower cost.

 

That's all I'm saying.

Which is partly why it's not on Steam.

[Fast Jimmy]

Which is partly why it's not on Steam.

True, but even if there were a hundred other distributors all larger than Origin, it wouldn't matter - there would be zero competition.

As you and I have talked in the past - I agree the cost of games is unhealthy low for the industry and would be fine to pay more. But the only gross skewing of retail price vs. digital that I would ever abide is retail being more, not the other way around. To me, it defies the entire premise of digital distribution in the first place.

[Sylvius the Mad]

To me, it defies the entire premise of digital distribution in the first place.

And I reject that premise.

[Pen-N-Paper]

 I guess that's money in the bank for them, assuming they didn't scare away huge percentages of consumers away

 

I do not know about other consumers' taste - seems many on this forum treat video games like a heroin addict treats heroin - but, for me, I am "scared away" from a product I do not need when I do not want it. In marketing it is not so much the need as it is the want that must be created. That is the rationale for the budget expense. That is why the multiple distribution channels - and they have nothing to do with break even on units sold calculations. That is why the marketing communications focus on "innovation" "flash"  and basically a lot of developer back patting videos.... while touting, without demonstrating, the role-playing aspects (which is very suspect for this game).  

 

 

 

Creating the want is why DA2 sold so well on release. And that is why so much buyer remorse still remains.

 

As far as pricing goes, the price a consumer is willing to pay for the game/product he or she wants is "elasticity." If the marketing communications messages are doing their job, they can increase that elasticity to a certain degree. I am not sure to what extent the "shut up and take my money" crowd of voices assist in setting price point.

[Swagger7]

You think that's expensive? Try 90 freaken Australian dollars.

 

Bah, that's like $11.95 US.

 

I kid of course.  It's roughly $78.90, so you still have it slightly cheaper than our UK friends at $79.90 USD.

 

Anyone have to pay more than $79.90 USD equivalent?  Who has it worse?  On the other hand, who gets it the cheapest?

 

USD, GBP, AUD, it doesn't matter the unit.  In any currency you're getting 2-2.5 hours of entertainment per monetary unit, and that's just on one playthrough.  Where else can you get entertainment that cheap?

[Swagger7]

Our Canadian friends are paying $69.99 Canadian for the physical standard edition, which comes out to $62.50 US.  So far the United States is in the lead with the cheapest purchase of DAI.  Anyone else want to cough up prices?

[Swagger7]

Amazon.fr has DAI physical edition for PC for 49.90 Euros.  That's $62.86 US.  The USA is still in the lead for cheapest DAI purchase....

[Pen-N-Paper]

I would include delivery costs within the calculation of consumer cost (albeit this is separate from the cost of price).  

[Swagger7]

I would include delivery costs within the calculation of consumer cost (albeit this is separate from the cost of price).  

 

Those don't matter if you pick it up at the store though, and the store price is usually the same as Amazon (at least in the US, can't speak for elsewhere).

[Fast Jimmy]

I do not know about other consumers' taste - seems many on this forum treat video games like a heroin addict treats heroin - but, for me, I am "scared away" from a product I do not need when I do not want it. In marketing it is not so much the need as it is the want that must be created. That is the rationale for the budget expense. That is why the multiple distribution channels - and they have nothing to do with break even on units sold calculations. That is why the marketing communications focus on "innovation" "flash"  and basically a lot of developer back patting videos.... while touting, without demonstrating, the role-playing aspects (which is very suspect for this game).  

 

 

 

Creating the want is why DA2 sold so well on release. And that is why so much buyer remorse still remains.

 

As far as pricing goes, the price a consumer is willing to pay for the game/product he or she wants is "elasticity." If the marketing communications messages are doing their job, they can increase that elasticity to a certain degree. I am not sure to what extent the "shut up and take my money" crowd of voices assist in setting price point.

 

This is all true... but ultimately not the topic at hand.

 

Marketing drums up desire among the market. However, I have seen zero marketing angled at digital distribution. If anything, retail is slanted this way, with pre-order bonuses from Gamestop and the like. 

So if they aren't using Marketing efforts to drive up sales on digital distribution means, I can't imagine a higher digital distribution price would be the reason for the higher price point ON ONE PARTICULAR form of distribution.

 

 

If the game cost $90 across the board, because the drums of Marketing beat their tune, that would be one thing. I just don't see how the pricing point of making digital distribution the most expensive version makes any sense, other than someone saying "we can charge whatever we want and large numbers of people will just accept that as the price, download it and not check to see if it is cheaper anywhere else." Which is not, in my eyes, the framework for any sort of healthy capitalism.

[Fast Jimmy]

I just want to point out.. Holy crap my DAI download was 40 gigs. 

 

I might have to agree on the bandwidth argument made earlier. Maybe that's the reason for the pricing.

 

40 Gigs? I'm tempted to blame that on poor compression work. Geez. Put it in a zip file, if anything.

[Fast Jimmy]

And I reject that premise.

 

That's fair, but it still seems silly to me. In today's market, company's should be actively encouraging digital, not tricking consumers into paying a higher price for it. It runs the risk of regressing buying behaviors to outdated and largely wasteful models.

[berrieh]

As you and I have talked in the past - I agree the cost of games is unhealthy low for the industry and would be fine to pay more. But the only gross skewing of retail price vs. digital that I would ever abide is retail being more, not the other way around. To me, it defies the entire premise of digital distribution in the first place. 

 

 

Why does it defy the premise? Just because Steam offers low prices (generally) doesn't mean digital = low prices. Now if consumers buy less digital goods because of price differentials and if that is unappealing to developers, then prices on digital will lower. But the idea that digital prices should be lower assumes 1) devs want people to buy digital (perhaps they don't), 2) people would buy more digital games if prices were lower or had parity with retail (may or may not be true - it's been proven deep sales, like the Steam Summer/Winter sales style drops, sell more copies, but minor sales or price parity, I'm not sure if we have data to show it). 

 

Your assumption that more digital sales is more beneficial to developers may be 100% wrong, as may your assumption that digital sales have less value to the consumer (some people prefer and will clearly pay more for a digital product). These are based on your own assumptions and not market forces. There is no proven reason why people *should* be actively encouraging digital sales. I suppose there is a minor environmental cost associated with physical discs, so I mean if you're hardcore environmentalist I get that aspect of it, maybe, but otherwise, why would anyone think to dictate which practices were most profitable. Presumably, companies act in their own best interest, profit-wise. 

 

If you can get the retail copy for less, then why not just buy the retail copy? Why fuss about it? If it's not an issue of pricing per se, but rather the pricing being lower somewhere else, why is that a problem for you? Just because it challenges your own assumptions about digital's place in the market? 

[dch2404]

Unless people here have inside knowledge of Origin's accounting, nobody here can say how much it costs exactly to digitally distribute. The cost of the servers is not borne by DAI alone. Titanfall, Battlefield, The Sims, etc, all utilise the same servers.

 

If digital distribution was not cheap, do you think Steam would sell AAA games like Skyrim, Tomb Raider, XCOM, etc, for £2.49 during their sales (which happens a few times per year)? Do you think indie developers can sell their games for a few dollars on Steam and still be profitable? Do you think BW, Bethesda or Monolith would bother releasing ~3 GB HD texture DLC packs for free? Do you think Bethesda or 2K would release modding tools for free? Do you think GOG can operate selling ancient games for £6 each? I mean, for goodness sake, Bioshock Infinite is 41 GB and is being sold for £5 inc tax right now.

 

Anyway it's not really the point I was getting at originally. If you are a console user, you are fine with the price, games weres $60 a decade ago and they are still $60 today. If you are a PC user, it was £30 a decade ago and for many games it is still £30 today (e.g. Civ, SOM, Borderlands, etc). The exceptions being the AAA PC titles like DAI which are selling for £40 on Amazon or £50 on Origin.