Slashdot Mirror
The Downsides to Digital Distribution
The gaming industry's ongoing shift from physical media to direct downloads has made buying new titles much more convenient, and in some cases cheaper. However, as this article in The Escapist notes, there are downsides as well, such as an increased dependence on console makers and the inability to sell your used games. Quoting:
"Microsoft and Sony might end up charging publishers an arm and a leg to enable game downloads, especially as they gain more and more control over distribution. Think about it: What if, 10 years from now, 50 percent of software sales for Microsoft's latest console come through Xbox Live? Or, in an even scarier scenario for consumers, what if there is no physical media drive at all, and everything goes through Xbox Live? Sony's marriage to the Blu-ray format ensures its continued support of game discs, but Microsoft has no such restrictions. They could cut console production costs and take control over the entire supply chain in one fell swoop. There would be zero room for publishers to negotiate anything in such a de facto monopoly. The perfect comparison is Wal-Mart. As the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart is able to demand pretty much whatever it wants of suppliers because it grants access to such large numbers of consumers."
If they had an actual monopoly, do you think the prices would still be low?
Umm... no, it's not. Because of Walmart's bizarre moralizing policies, many creative endeavors end up being curtailed and censored to see the shelves at Walmart. I mean, they censor all the music in their stores! And they don't even always warn you that the album has bleeps! Meanwhile, 10 feet away you can buy the unrated version of Natural Born Killers. I don't get it...
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
As someone who bought two copies of Portal (one standalone, then as part of the Orange Box) and got pissed at the Steam for not letting me give one of the copies away, I sympathize with this. I've already decided that I won't buy stuff on Steam any more unless (like for Portal 2 and HL Episode 3) there's no other source.
With Wal Mart prices are LOWER. Maybe not for companies, but as a consumer Wal Mart's monopoly is a good thing for me.
That is a dangerously short-sighted view. Wal-Mart under charges, creating a false, diminished sense of monetary value of products. Consequently, either the product quality suffers, or the conditions under which the product is manufactured suffer (e.g., factory farms, slave labor).
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Don't game companies still need approval from Microsoft to distribute games in physical media? If so, how would moving to a downloads change that? You still need the same approval you did before.
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
Consequently, both the product quality suffers and the conditions under which the product is manufactured suffer (e.g., factory farms, slave labor).
Fixed that for you :)
Fixed that for you :)
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.
The problem with the Marxist/Capitalist debate is (IMO, of course) that both are more or less correct in assessing the weakness of the other system, but each overvalues its own strengths and refuses to acknowledge their own weaknesses.
Advocates of each system essentially base their support on two assertions:
The problem is in the second assertion, not the first.
Capitalism has a tendency towards monopoly. This was pointed out by Marx in the 19th century, and expanded upon by Lenin 95 years ago [marxists.org]. T
I have a broader theory than that. Things tend towards shit over time. The longer the period of time, the greater the likelihood all will be shit. Finally that shit hits the fan, people get mad enough to do something about it, and they put together something that isn't shit; it might even be quite good. But then they relax and time goes on and things start going to shit again.
Capitalism sucks. Marx and his buddies saw that, tried to come up with a better idea. It turned to shit. Capitalism has had a few reversals thanks to the threat of socialism/communism but now that the threat has gone away, things are sliding to shit again.
Microsoft products suck. But some hippies and computer scientists tried coming up with a better idea and Microsoft said "Oh, shit." So they were able to actually reverse the shittification process of the 9x series and came up with Win2k. Brilliant. But then the slide towards shit resumed. Some people liked XP, some people hated it, but everyone hated Vista. W7, a reversal or a further slide down the shit chute? Only time will tell.
So, to somehow get back on topic. Company makes a game machine. It's great. Company gets greedier and graspy and ends up alienating customers, turning to shit. Eventually people won't want to use their shitty products anymore and they go away. Atari exists only as a brand name used by another company. Sega is a shadow of its former self. Nintendo remains but people argue as to whether they've declined or are stronger than ever. Certainly they don't dominate the market as they did in the NES/SNES era. Sony came onto the scene out of nowhere with the PSX, reigned supreme with the PS2, and became an also-ran with the PS3.
It's hard to say what the future will hold but I do think the console makers are lusting after digital distro. The only question is whether the market would bite. I thought Circuit City's Div-X would have been more popular than it was and was pleased when it failed. Will customers make the right choice here?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
That's not how monopolies work. If Wal-Mart had an *actual* monopoly, they *could* raise their prices because no one else would be there to undercut them.
In your analogy, it would be like the villain throwing a dead hero back his sword.
However, while Wal-Mart isn't a monopoly per se, it does have some monopolistic attributes which, while probably not illegal, are at least a bit concerning from the consumer's point of view. Wal-Mart is sufficiently large to make demands of suppliers, such as the movies and CDs are (or at least, were, I haven't looked into it recently) edited from their original versions and were no labeled as such. If you're opposed to RFID (personally, I'm not terribly concerned by them, but some are), Wal-Mart is instrumental in getting them into products. Similar happened with the bar code. Wal-Mart demanded all products have a bar code, and thus they became standard everywhere.
Finally, they bully their suppliers to such an extent that they often have to provide products at a price lower than they can afford or not be carried at all. While this generally means lower prices for the consumer, it forces manufacturers to cut costs and cut corners, often by lowering the quality of their products and shipping jobs overseas (e.g., to China). To me, this is the worst thing Wal-Mart does, and is the most invisible. We get products cheaper today by sending our jobs overseas, which sends wealth from the US to China, not to bolster the US economy, but to bolster Wal-Mart's profits. I'm not against profits at all, but there comes a point where someone's right to seek profit causes too much damage to the rest of us to be allowed.