Slashdot Mirror
Most Console Gamers Still Prefer Physical Media
arcticstoat writes "Despite the advent of online game stores on all three major consoles, most console gamers apparently still prefer hoarding collections of gaming discs to downloading games. A recent survey conducted by Ipsos in the UK revealed that 64 per cent of the 1,000 users polled would rather have games on physical discs, while only 25 per cent would prefer digital copies. In the survey, 55 per cent of those polled said price was the key factor in determining their interest in downloading games, while 27 per cent said they wanted games available online before they were in the shops. Ipsos' director Ian Bramley explained, 'Interest absolutely drops away when you get to the types of pricing that you might charge for a new physical disc. People's perceptions are that they're not prepared to pay as much for digital content — they make the connection that it's not a physical disc and therefore it should be cheaper.'"
Well that and things like ubisoft changing stores. I got an email from them earlier today that they'll be changing stores the beginning of August. Subsequently I won't be able to download those games again because they're not going to carry over those purchases. Now, fortunately I already have a copy, and am downloading again just to make sure that it's fully functioning, but this is why I don't generally buy download only games.
On my shelf is the boxed copy of Empire: Total War. Every time I want to play it I have to ask Gabe Nevell for a permission. In some ways the non-DRMed downloadable games are more real than that box.
I second that, also, i can let my friends borrow a game and try out some of their games. gaming is very social, its something we do for fun. too bad soul-sucking gaming corporations cant understand that. a game that is downloaded cant be shared, everyone has to download their own copy. so a digital game provides less value than a physical game.
This is a major consumer misconception. While I'm the first person on the "give me reliable physical media that you can't revise post-purchase a la 1984" bandwagon, I've spent a long time dealing with smaller publishers in switching to digital distribution models (and all the while explaining why DRM is evil), and I was surprised as anyone to learn that packaging costs, storage, shipping, hardware, printing, and media costs are an infintesimal part of the production cost. More than that, digital distribution comes with its own set of incredibly high costs that actually outpaces traditional distribution: data servers, drive platters, support staff, server storage location... not to mention all of the costs that remain the same - graphic design, advertising, product placement, and even physical-copy game-cards so people without/uncomfortable with using credit cards online can purchase too -- which all has to incur traditional packaging costs, warehouse storage, shipping costs, duplicating hardware, physical media, package printing, etc.
Not to mention online advertising is a total b*tch to do right. With a physical product, it has the added benefit of advertising itself (forgetting for a moment retailer practice of charging for shelf-space placement). With digital, no one knows it's there unless you're paying someone to advertise it for you, or giving them a substantial chunk of the pie. So yes, digital distribution is not only going to NOT cost less, it's probably going to cost a whole lot more. Just look at e-book pricing arguments, because the same amount of work is going into them, and that work usually costs a lot more. Web developers get paid $75-$125 / hr. industry rate; truckers get a touch over minimum wage. Why bother with digital downloads, then, if it's going to cost more? Perishability and tracking. Not only can you ensure a 1-1 purchase / use rate by destroying the secondary market, you can also research market variables by looking at the profiles of who is downloading your media and what other kinds of media they are purchasing. Hence, this is why DRM has become so attractive to publishers, because in everyone's cry for digital distribution, what everyone REALLY wanted was cheaper IP, and publishers as for-profit organizations were compelled to recoup on profits lost by the shift to digital distribution.