Downloadable Games vs Boxed Copies, and WTF is up with the price of downloads?

Let the record show: I prefer box editions of games over downloads. Why? Well, I like the box art. I like the extras that come with some games. I like something that I can show off on my bookshelves. If it is title near and dear to my heart, or I want something of extra collector’s value, I will get a collector’s edition, eager for the figurines, statues, art books, or other game swag. What I fail to understand is how they can rationalize charging the same price for a digital copy of a game as they do for the disk copy. Logic would dictate that without a physical disk or any packaging the cost of the game would be cheaper. Right?

Most every time I get on one of my consoles I check their online store for new downloads, etc., and I am always taken aback that they would charge the same for the downloadable version of a game has they do for the retail box copy. You’d think without the cost of packaging you would get some kind of price break. Before I go further, I should remind people that it is not the companies behind the consoles that set these prices (although they have some influence), but it is the game publishers themselves. One argument that I heard, and it makes total sense to me, that the reason for the basically equal pricing between digital vs disk copies is so that they don’t hurt the demand for disk copies. I can respect that; I want to see continued production of my disc games in their artful packaging to display on my shelves. But, seriously, if you want me to buy a digital download version, make it worth my while. Include digital copies of the things that the physical copies have: game manuals, box art, etc. Yes, some have online manuals; but, seriously, have you ever tried to reference one while playing the game? Come on, people, put it in a PDF form so we can open it on an eReader or be able to print it. Give us JPEGs or PDFs of the box art. For that matter, if they are going to charge the same price as the box copies, why not include at least the game soundtrack to make purchase of the download more economically worthwhile. That brings up the argument that if they did include these perks, the added downloads would just be taking up space on the console hard drive. That doesn’t have to be. When you make the purchase, they could send you links for the additional content with the purchase confirmation that gets emailed to you so you save it to your PC.

What logically follows with any discussion on a focus on downloadable titles is having the hard drive space to download them to. Both Sony and Microsoft have been pushing gamers to build their digital games library. At least the consoles now have much larger hard drives than they did a few years ago, but the current 320Gb drives that the top end models have right now are barely enough to hold games and DLC for the serious gamer. (Gaming PCs usually come with at least a terabyte of hard drive.) Most triple-A games released today take 10 to 15 Gb of drive space, and that doesn’t include any map packs or expansions. But I digress… back to the subject at hand.

Now let’s talk about the hidden costs of playing online games that affect both box copies and downloads. No, I am not talking about online fees or anything like that. What I am referring to are the costs of map packs and other DLC that you have to purchase to continue playing online. For gamers that want to continue playing the online component of games in the Halo franchise, Call of Duty, Gears of War, etc., just to name a few off the top of my head, you must keep current with the map packs, or else you are faced with either being booted from the game lobby or not being able to enter a game lobby. The costs of these adds up quickly. In many cases the online gamer will end up spending two to three times the purchase price of the base game in map packs alone just to be able to continue playing online. One may counter that you do not have to get the DLC, but if you don’t you will find yourself not being able to get into most game lobbies. I, myself, spent approximately $100 in map packs for Call of Duty Modern Warfare and Halo 3 each. That was just so I could continue playing online. Some publishers have gotten wise to this and have wisely offered a type of subscription for future map packs and DLC, but we are still faced with doubling the cost of our games just to continue playing online, especially for ranked online play.

In this economy it just doesn’t make sense to have to pay these kind of prices for downloads. I understand and support production costs of creating games having been involved with film and television production, and I have no problem paying for the talent and skills that go into creation of this media. When you eliminate the cost of physical packaging and physical distribution, you should pass some savings onto the consumer. That’s only good business.

Advertisements

The Absurdity of the Gamer-Led Console Wars, and How I Make My Choices of Platform

As I stated in my previous blog entry, I am a huge Sony fanboy; but that does not mean that I have any less love for my other consoles. Yes, I own all the current gen of hardware: PS3, Xbox 360, Wii (and also PS Vita, PSP, and 3DS). And, I have a huge custom gaming PC. That being said, I think the console wars is ridiculous. It is not the one-upmanship of the console makers that bothers me; that is just healthy competition that brings about evolution in the industry. What I think is really sad and is the bashing and hating perpetuated by gamers themselves. Each console has its merits. Each offers something different. So, although I am a Sony fan, I play each with equal enthusiasm. Why can’t gamers respect the choices of other gamers? These systems are not cheap. Games are not cheap. So most have to make a decision of one console over the others. Respect their choices. Each console has carved its own niche, and with good reason.

Nintendo has some of the best, most classic franchises ever! There is no debating that. I think that is one point on which most every gamer (and non-gamer) can agree. It really pisses me off to hear the inane criticism of “it’s not in 1080p” or “its online sucks.” A game doesn’t have to be in 1080p to look stunning. Resident Evil 4, the Zelda games, Epic Mickey, these all look great. As for online, that is not a deal breaker for me. I love online games, but I also enjoy the solo game or having someone over for local multiplayer. And there are some online games: Mario Kart for example. So what if you don’t have voice chat. It’s not needed to enjoy these games. As for economy, Nintendo is definitely the system to own if you are on a tight budget. The console is almost half the price of the others, and the games are $10 to $20 less in price.

Then there’s Microsoft and the 360. The one thing that I say MS has excelled with is their online capabilities from messaging to voice and video chat and how it integrates in online games and game lobbies. But, consider this: they better have excelled at this. They’ve only had two decades to experiment and tweak it to get it right. They built on their own .NET framework and have incorporated everything they learned from their Windows division. Then there’s the Kinnect. How cool is this? I feel so Minority Report every time I play a Kinnect game. They also have some great exclusive franchises: Gears of War and Halo primarily, not to mention Forza and Fable.

And for Sony and the PS3, they’ve come a long way. Great hardware from the beginning. (I still maintain that their graphical and physics capabilities are best and have not fully been exploited.) It has Blu-Ray, which holds much more data. The GUI is much less cluttered and easier to navigate. And their catalog of games, I feel, is aimed at a more mature demographic of gamer. They have some great exclusive franchises too: Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone, God of War, Gran Turismo. Also, they have PlayStation Plus, which is a huge economic boon for gamers. (See my previous blog.)

So why do gamers insist on trash-talking and bashing consoles? (Psychoanalysis is not my forte, but I surmise it is some sort of envy/jealousy akin to Freudian penis-envy, or whipping it out to see whose is bigger, but I digress.) Each offers something that the others don’t. It’s a matter of personal taste and personal economy. We need a little more tolerance and respect in this community.

This brings me to my second point of this essay, and a question that is asked of me frequently. Since I own all three consoles and a gaming PC, why do I chose certain buying multiplatform titles on one console over the other? The answer is simple: control scheme familiarity for some, graphics for others, and the demographic of the community playing an online title.

The Resident Evil series, for example, I have to play on Sony consoles. Why? I played my first Resident Evil games on the original PlayStation. I am familiar with that controller and that control scheme for those games. For me RE is at home on my PS3, as are Final Fantasy games. On the flipside, the Elder Scrolls series is at home for me on the Xbox line. When it comes to FPS, I go back and forth: I like the community on PS3 that plays Battlefield games (I also played the earlier ones on PS2). As for the COD series, I go back and forth, one installment on one the next on the other. (I have close friends that like to play it on 360, and clan buddies on the PS3.) Then there are some games which I only play on PC: the Crysis games, Portal games, and F.E.A.R. games. These games originated on PC, and I like the control and mod capabilities of PC, not to mention the supreme graphics of PC. And the game ladders and lobbies of PC reign supreme. I have not mentioned Nintendo here because Nintendo has carved it its own unique niche, and all my Nintendo games are Nintendo exclusives.

In gaming, as in other forms of entertainment, it’s about what makes you happy, what really grabs you. Let’s put this war to rest, and enjoy gaming with others (or alone) and sharing our experiences. We have enough negativity in our real world, don’t let it invade our escape.