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."

Comments

Re:But with WalMart

[oneirophrenos]

If they had an actual monopoly, do you think the prices would still be low?

Steam too

[EvanED]

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.

Tendency toward monopoly

[br00tus]

Capitalism has a tendency towards monopoly. This was pointed out by Marx in the 19th century, and expanded upon by Lenin 95 years ago. The Monthly Review crowd and others have written about this tendency in the modern day - nowadays finance capital is a big thing, but according to Marxist theory is very volatile. You can look at the markets nowadays, with Citigroup staying solvent only due to government subsidies to decide on the truth of this.

Of course people can say Marxist theory is insane, but the predominant economic theory is that everything is fine, markets correct themselves and all of that nonsense. So what is really more off-the-wall, the Marxists or the Panglossian head-in-the-sand economists of today who say everything is fine? This is from someone who has seen the US economy stagnating since 2000 (other than some slight growth in the mid-decade with the real estate bubble, which is currently popping).

meh

[jollyreaper]

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?