AggiEE said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

I saw that which is why I said "I'll believe it when I see it."

Promises now for future behavior don't hold water for me.

They've shown repeatedly they are deceptive and completely willing to screw their consumers over. You even admit they have a monopoly and you think they'll behave?

Physical existing helps keep pricing competitive and available to a larger audience. Just go look at the difference in pricing for older games at the PlayStation store vs physical through retailers.
https://www.tomsguide.com/gaming/playstation/playstation-killing-physical-games-could-make-gaming-deals-a-thing-of-the-past-and-thats-a-major-problem

Arguing that a reduction in options is a good thing for consumers is just an absurd argument. It's comical.

---

Some gamers care more about the health of the industry than having the most consumer options.

---

Yeah, I'm not worried about a multi-billion year corporation. They are capable of deciding how to stay in business, not my responsibility.

Quote:

---

Something can be "pro consumer" but decidedly terrible for the industry. Just look at the GamePass model that is crumbling before our eyes and causing massive studio closures and layoffs at Microsoft.

GamePass, a "pro-consumer" streaming service just incentivized an entire audience to not buy games or just wait for games to come to GamePass instead where the studios only receive a fraction of the revenue.

---

I disagree that it's inherently pro consumer. It's just an extension of what these massive corporations routinely do, try to undercut the market until they dominate it and then jack up the costs to continue service or remove the service for something far more lucrative once you're in their walled garden and can more easily monopolize their consumers wallets.

Quote:

---

While some may certainly not like the fact that removing physical games essentially kills the used game and rental market, it may be better overall for the health of the business which ultimately should help support developers stay in business and develop games we all enjoy.

---

I think this is an overly simplistic take on how used games impact the gaming economy and development. Used games means more people have an opportunity to try something. Some of those people buy the game. Some of those people buy the sequel. The entire economy of video games as a mainstream hobby relies on reaching as far and wide as possible. Removing avenues for people to try things (before spending half a days salary for some of them on a single game) is going to diminish that to some degree.

Quote:

---

So yeah, I can support this initiative that will ultimately help support developers even if it means that a certain portion of the market can't gain access to the cheapest options available any longer.

---

Stating something doesn't make it a fact.

Quote:

---

This is still a market that competes amongst themselves for consumer dollars and attention, so it's not like sales are going away. And I guarantee that every major third party developer was consulted on this move and endorses it fully.

---

Kojima has publicly said he doesn't like it so not sure that's an accurate assumption.

Never mind that there is no real reason to believe Sony will allow competition in their walled ecosystem. If they wanted to open it up to competition nothing is stopping them right now. In fact they have gone the opposite direction seeing as they used to allow that competition but have since removed it. Their PR release that vaguely promises retail competition is not something I would hedge my bets on.

It always shocks me the way some people try to play PR for multi-billion dollar corporations.

hph6203 said:

---

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

I hear you, and it is a good justification....

But will they be dropping the prices of the games since they don't need to budget for physical production costs?

---

They already dropped. The transition from PS3 to PS4 had no price increases. From 2006 until 2020 there was no increase in game prices despite substantially higher game production costs. During the same period sales went from 100% physical to 15% physical. An inflation matched, ignoring game size increases, would have a 2006 $60 game cost $100 today. They're $70 now.

---

Disingenuous argument. Gaming was more expensive because it was more niche. The current gaming market dwarfs the movie market by a factor of 5. That rapid expansion is the reason pricing has not needed to go up (and still does not need to go up despite every major publisher doing their best to jack up prices), because at the end of the day the development costs are getting spread out way further than ever before in the past. There is a reason so many games can have development costs over 9 figures and yet we aren't seeing every single AAA studio be shut down.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Will they swear on their mother's graves to give you perpetual downloadable ownership of a game once you purchase it, never requiring additional licensing fees, and letting you play it offline even if you don't have a current subscription to their online membership?

---

No. Why would they guarantee something they aren't forced to do? That's why arguing and *****ing about them dropping physical games is silly and people should be demanding digital purchase rights protections.

---

The digital protection rights that the publishers go to the legislature to fight tooth and nail against? Even in the EU where something like this typically gets passed more easily, they've been unsuccessful. It's naive to expect consumers to win a fight about "digital purchase rights" against something as large as the video game publishers and their lobby the ESA.

Development timelines have extended too. Budget per game has grown. You have to be in denial to believe that a retention of an additional 25% of revenue is inconsequential to the upward pressure on prices. The greatest facilitator of revenue growth despite no game price increases was, wait for it, digital content.

Still not making an argument about the 98% reduction in production volume of physical media.


Convincing a business to persist with a dying industry is way harder than convincing regulators that consumers need protections. You can choose the tougher battle if you want.

hph6203 said:

---

Development timelines have extended too. Budget per game has grown. You have to be in denial to believe that a retention of an additional 25% of revenue is inconsequential to the upward pressure on prices. The greatest facilitator of revenue growth despite no game price increases was, wait for it, digital content.

---

I didn't say it was inconsequential, just that stating that physical to digital transition as the reason for no price increase (and actually representing it as a cost decrease) is misleading and presumptive.

Quote:

---

The greatest facilitator of revenue growth despite no game price increases was, wait for it, digital content.

---

This seems like assuming causal inference in a couple of correlating stats. Considering the game industry has significantly outpaced what you've stated as the growing adoption rate for digital distribution vs physical I'm not particularly inclined to assume that it's the main reason without other supporting evidence.

Quote:

---

Convincing a business to persist with a dying industry is way harder than convincing regulators that consumers need protections. You can choose the tougher battle if you want.

---

I'm not really choosing any battle fwiw, I'm saying that you're delusional if you think that Sony won't take every advantage they can of consumers and that they don't already have the governments ear to cover their ass. I would love digital ownership rights, I just don't believe it will happen anytime soon. I would need to see Sony, other publishers, and the ESA not actively try to undermine literally everything you're arguing that they should be forced into regarding digital ownership rights to have any faith in any of that happening. They've been fighting it hard ever since digital became a meaningful source of game sales.

Sony is getting completely dragged through the mud these last two weeks. They deserve every bit of it too.

Cromagnum said:

---

Sony is getting completely dragged through the mud these last two weeks. They deserve every bit of it too.

---

The powers to be don't care.

4 choices, buy a PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo or PC.

16 Million PS5 systems were sold last year.

PS2 160 million console sales, attachment rate 10 games: 1.6 billion game sales x $50 = $80 billion

PS3 87 million console sales, attachment rate 11.4 games: 1 billion game sales x $60 = $60 billion

PS4 117 million console sales, attachment rate 13.9 games: 1.6 billion game sales x $60 = $96 billion

That's assuming that average sale price of PS4 games was actually higher than PS2 average sale price despite substantially more games with a starting retail price below the AAA standard price. Micro transactions are the majority of the gap.


I'm not on Sony's side. I'm just saying it's the obvious business decision given current consumption patterns, and it's not some mustache twirling villain that's going to exploit the consumer more than they rationally can. They will exploit the consumer as much as they rationally can it's just not substantially different than they did yesterday. Discounting will still occur, because they love when a person buys a game that they never play.


Gonna be another ****fit in 10 years at the end of the PS6 when they announce that they're going to cloud gaming.

It's also interesting because Sony owns the patent for Bluray discs. So, they were making money on both Playstation and Xbox games.

The majority of your argument revolves around what is best for Sony and I'm not supposed to think you're arguing on behalf of Sony? Ok, that makes sense.

They could easily show us good faith and provide some of the actual things that you're arguing they should, but they won't because they aren't forced to. They will wait the 2 years until disc production ends, enough people forget about the promise, and then people like you will happily run to message boards to explain how the worsening consumer environment is actually better and if not better, inevitable. And you think it's illogical for consumers to push back on that?

I'm saying that they're self interested in everything. You're under the impression that they're suddenly more self interested or possess more capacity to exploit than they did yesterday. I'm saying you're misunderstanding the relationships.


Price optimization is not maximizing price. It is a parabola. Sony increases prices to achieve the peak revenue (peak of the parabola). They raise it to $70, maximize quantity of customers which maximizes revenue. As customers buy, the peak of that parabola shifts leftward (lower prices) and down (fewer customers). That is the nature of the business whether they have "competitors" or not. They are not going to stop physical games and decide to raise prices to $100, because $100 is not the peak of the parabola.

Sony and Amazon are not true competitors. They are partners. Sony sells games to Amazon to sell to you. The reason why Sony has $70 games and Amazon has $40 games at the same time is because they understand if they perpetually undercut Amazon on price then Amazon will no longer be in the games selling business. Bulk buys by Amazon are good for Sony. When Amazon is selling a game for $40 Sony is happier than a pig in ****, because Amazon likely bought that game as if Sony sold it for $55 on their digital store and the clearing price for that game is now $40. Those low prices are indicative of Sony making more money.

Keeping the price at $70 also gets them the psychological exploit of dropping it to $30 and having consumers think they need to buy it now, because it's going back to $70 whereas if they perpetually held it at $30 they would acquire fewer customers, because there's no urgency at awareness of the price.


If there were no Amazon the incentive Sony has is still to drop the price, because the parabola shifts down and to the left. What you say they're going to do is not what they're going to do, because it's not in their self interest. Used games are not material competitors to Sony. The average physical game is not pushed into the used market. 15% of sales, less than half gets resold. ~5% of the market. Sony isn't materially impacted by what GameStop is listing RDR2 for. Steam does not substantially care what GOG is pricing games for, because Steam is overwhelmingly in the new game selling business.

I've lost the point we are arguing, here. There's literally nothing we can do about it other than just never buy a Playstation again.

Lathspell said:

---

I've lost the point we are arguing, here. There's literally nothing we can do about it other than just never buy a Playstation again.

---

That's not going to happen. To many loyal PS fans out there. Just like I'm a loyal Xbox fan.

I just don't see a problem unless / until Sony raises prices and even then it may not matter if the price increases are minimal.

As it stands, we've never had so many games at such low prices and various price points. I have enough unplayed games to last a lifetime and new ones come online every day.

This is literally just more Sony jerking off from you.

Quote:

---

I'm saying that they're self interested in everything. You're under the impression that they're suddenly more self interested or possess more capacity to exploit than they did yesterday. I'm saying you're misunderstanding the relationships.

---

Having more control over the entire process is literally them having more capacity to exploit. Arguing otherwise is just lying.

Quote:

---

Keeping the price at $70 also gets them the psychological exploit of dropping it to $30 and having consumers think they need to buy it now, because it's going back to $70 whereas if they perpetually held it at $30 they would acquire fewer customers, because there's no urgency at awareness of the price.

---

False dichotomy, they don't have to keep it near release day pricing to avoid having the psychological impact of a sale.

Quote:

---

If there were no Amazon the incentive Sony has is still to drop the price

---

They don't have to do anything in a situation where they 100% control access to their storefront. They'll have sales, but it's intentionally disengenuous to argue that sales from a single entity will provide consumers as many options.

Again they can prove me wrong right now by opening up their storefront, allowing a better refund policy, digital ownership rights etc as you say you want them forced to. They won't. Because they aren't interested in anything that might reduce their control over their walled garden. Same people that just tried sliding a 30 day drm online requirement in before backlash. They tried charging an upgrade fee for the PS5 version of horizon forbidden West after saying it would be free (got called out and reversed) You conveniently keep ignoring that they previously allowed and took away the ability for third parties to sell game keys.

This argument that Sony isn't going to try to take advantage of the situation is just delusional.

Sony sells 100% of games playable on their platform. All of them. They have 100% control. Have for 32 years. Why aren't games $100?

Why doesn't Sony charge you $100 to buy it on PSN and Amazon $80 for them to resell?

You say it's jerking off Sony. It's not. It's understanding that there's a relationship between Sony and the gamer. A relationship between Sony and Amazon. A relationship between Amazon and the gamer. An indirect and direct relationship between Sony and Xbox. Sony and Steam. Sony and GOG. Etc. etc. etc.

Why aren't games $100 on PSN?



You're saying to prove that it won't get worse they must behave better. Why? All I'm saying is it won't be materially worse. They don't have to be better to prove they're not worse.

Quote:

---

Somy sells 100% of games playable on their platform. All of them. They have 100% control. Have for 32 years. Why aren't games $100?

---

No they don't. They have no control over publisher pricing, especially on physical releases. Absolute nonsensical claim. They have full control over Sony published games and that's it. That competition is the biggest reason they can't just balloon prices as they wish. However the more consumer options are eroded the fewer protections consumers have from monopolistic behaviors. This is just another erosion without anything to replace what is being lost.

Quote:

---

You say it's jerking off Sony. It's not. It's understanding that there's a relationship between Sony and the gamer. A relationship between Sony and Amazon. A relationship between Amazon and the gamer. An indirect and direct relationship between Sony and Xbox. Sony and Steam. Sony and GOG. Etc. etc. etc.

---

Your entire basic premise boils down to "it's better for Sony so **** you and yeah they keep doing bull**** but no reason to assume they'll pull bull**** in the future when they have a walled garden they 100% control and constantly try to pull bull**** as it is."

Quote:

---

You're saying to prove that it won't get worse they must behave better. Why? All I'm saying is it won't be materially worse. They don't have to be better to prove they're not worse.

---

Yes I know they don't have to do anything for you to defend them and it's obvious seeing how many times you refuse to even acknowledge the laundry list of bull**** they have tried just this generation while acting like any belief they will act in ways that harm consumers is unfounded.

Fenrir said:

---

Quote:

---

Somy sells 100% of games playable on their platform. All of them. They have 100% control. Have for 32 years. Why aren't games $100?

---

No they don't. They have no control over publisher pricing, especially on physical releases. Absolute nonsensical claim. They have full control over Sony published games and that's it. That competition is the biggest reason they can't just balloon prices as they wish. However the more consumer options are eroded the fewer protections consumers have from monopolistic behaviors. This is just another erosion without anything to replace what is being lost.

---

If Sony doesn't set prices then why are you worried about Sony setting prices?

You're wrong, but you're contradicting your worry so you can make an argument. Sony allows leeway, but they are still the gatekeeper to access to their platform. The reason they don't dictate prices to publishers is because it's bad business, not because they can't. Same reason they don't sell games for $100. Same reason why they don't perpetually maintain $70 game prices with no discounts.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You say it's jerking off Sony. It's not. It's understanding that there's a relationship between Sony and the gamer. A relationship between Sony and Amazon. A relationship between Amazon and the gamer. An indirect and direct relationship between Sony and Xbox. Sony and Steam. Sony and GOG. Etc. etc. etc.

---

Your entire basic premise boils down to "it's better for Sony so **** you and yeah they keep doing bull**** but no reason to assume they'll pull bull**** in the future when they have a walled garden they 100% control and constantly try to pull bull**** as it is."

---

My basic premise is there is a limit to the degree that Sony can disregard consumer desires for self interest and the balance of upset over the loss of physical media is exceeded by the benefit to Sony. Whatever is best for Sony is a balance between what's good for Sony and what the consumer will tolerate. You're solely focused on what's good for you, which is adolescent bratty mentality.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You're saying to prove that it won't get worse they must behave better. Why? All I'm saying is it won't be materially worse. They don't have to be better to prove they're not worse.

---

Yes I know they don't have to do anything for you to defend them and it's obvious seeing how many times you refuse to even acknowledge the laundry list of bull**** they have tried just this generation while acting like any belief they will act in ways that harm consumers is unfounded.

---

Not defending them. Refuting your Reddit brain understanding of what power they gain from this. It's not "Sony is good" it's your understanding is delusional.

You portray yourself as a hapless victim incapable of making a decision not to engage with a brand when they make a decision that harms you sufficient enough to end the relationship. That you must continue to engage regardless of the extent of that harm. I'm saying you and the broader consumer are not wusses incapable of deciding not to buy their products and that the total net effect of ending physical games is not going to result in the level of exploitation you claim it will result in, because you and every other consumer are not a bunch of hapless wusses.

Maybe I'm wrong (I'm not). Maybe you do lack agency (You don't).

So, bringing this somewhat back on topic... I'm guessing it was no coincidence that Sony broke the No Disc news shortly after GTA said the same.

I'm curious if this was discussed ahead of time or if Sony quickly decided to finish ripping off the band aid after the biggest game in the world started it.

jr15aggie said:

---

So, bringing this somewhat back on topic... I'm guessing it was no coincidence that Sony broke the No Disc news shortly after GTA said the same.

I'm curious if this was discussed ahead of time or if Sony quickly decided to finish ripping off the band aid after the biggest game in the world started it.

---

Who knows but you can be assured Sony supported Take Two's decision, at a minimum. Discs are obsolete tech regardless of anyone's opinion on using them.

I think I read somewhere that the Discman is now officially in one/some of the "history" museums.

Yes, Discs are indeed "old tech" now and that hurts a little... it's a good thing I'm use to things constantly hurting!



I'm neither agreeing / disagreeing with any of the TLDR posts above... but generally speaking, the dominant forms of media over the past 50 years all lasted around 20-ish years before being considered obsolete. 8-tracks, Cassette tapes, and CDs/DVDs... all ran for a couple decades.

The novelty is never gone... vinyl records are still very much a treasured thing, but generally speaking, all physical media has been replaced. It use to be for a diffferent form of physical media, now it's just been replaced all together.

This thread sucks now

V8Aggie said:

---

This thread sucks now

---

Agreed, but it will revert back to GTA stuff when there is something new to talk about or when the game launches.

GTA VI discs would require months to manufacture. They would have to give Sony advance notice so they had time to manufacture GTA VI and all the other publisher's games. The initial release was Fall of last year, and unless it was a recent decision Sony probably knew they weren't doing a disc edition last year. Rockstar probably knew Sony wasn't doing a disc drive on PS6 long before their own announcement. Rockstar had to announce pre-orders by August at the latest, at which point they had to announce no disc. Sony didn't have to announce the end of discs by August.

YouBet said:

---

V8Aggie said:

---

This thread sucks now

---

GTA offseason.

---

hph6203 said:

---

My basic premise is there is a limit to the degree that Sony can disregard consumer desires for self interest and the balance of upset over the loss of physical media is exceeded by the benefit to Sony. Whatever is best for Sony is a balance between what's good for Sony and what the consumer will tolerate. You're solely focused on what's good for you, which is adolescent bratty mentality.

---

More absolute nonsense from someone bending over backwards to be an apologist for a multi-billion dollar company. No consumer is required or obliged to care about what is good for a multi-billion dollar company. They are responsible for providing a product or service that consumers want and if consumers don't want it they have the right to voice their displeasure or cease buying said products/service. This idea that consumers are responsible for caring about the wellbeing of a massive corporation in any meaningful way is absolutely delusional. They aren't a charity case.

Quote:

---

Not defending them. Refuting your Reddit brain understanding of what power they gain from this. It's not "Sony is good" it's your understanding is delusional.

---

You're absolutely defending them. It's an absolute basic fact that as consumer options are reduced their ability to abuse their position grows...and you still continue to absolutely ignore all of their attempts to abuse their power and pretend that believing they will do so in the future is delusional.

Quote:

---

You portray yourself as a hapless victim incapable of making a decision not to engage with a brand when they make a decision that harms you sufficient enough to end the relationship. That you must continue to engage regardless of the extent of that harm. I'm saying you and the broader consumer are not wusses incapable of deciding not to buy their products and that the total net effect of ending physical games is not going to result in the level of exploitation you claim it will result in, because you and every other consumer are not a bunch of hapless wusses.

---

Never once portrayed myself as a hapless victim. I'll see what options present themselves and make the best decision for myself. That certainly appears to mean that I have purchased my last Sony console and it absolutely doesn't mean I can't voice my displeasure with their path forward despite your objections on behalf of poor little Sony.

V8Aggie said:

---

This thread sucks now

---

Someone post gta V screen captures of strip club so staff nukes it

First place I'm heading to in GTA 6, is the strip club. Gotta help out the virtual women, who are only dancing to help pay for college tuition.

Right now your options would be an even more expensive Steam product or go full PC Master Race. Or buy a long in the tooth Xbox?

V8Aggie said:

---

This thread sucks now

---

Should probably go read something fun like the Odyssey thread instead

At least the Odyssey thread is still talking about the Odyssey, though it may be tangent many don't like. This one has completely changed subjects, lol.

Lathspell said:

---

At least the Odyssey thread is still talking about the Odyssey, though it may be tangent many don't like. This one has completely changed subjects, lol.

---

Who knew Sony was going to break so many people. Talk about first world problems.

It's not that you shouldn't be upset. It's that your upset and self interest is causing you to draw silly conclusions. That's what the critique of your self interest was about.

Amazon is not Sony's true competitor. They are partners. Suggesting that retail going away (if it does, indications are it isn't) will cause Sony to exert pricing that abuses customers is silly. By your own admission publishers set pricing. It's like saying Ford dealerships keep Ford from raising prices. Or that Tesla abuses customers more than Ford, because they don't sell to dealers. Ford keeps Tesla in line, Tesla keeps Ford in line.

The controls on Sony were/still are you, Steam, Xbox, and Nintendo. Not Amazon. The risk of losing you as a customer keeps them from abusing customers.

The only change in the level of Sony's control is the loss of the used game market. A market share of current gen games of <5%. That market was already losing their supply side volume at a rate of 10% per year, because the new physical game market was dying.

80+% of games released on PlayStation don't get a physical release. Those games still get deeply discounted despite Sony being the only way to buy a digital game on their platform.

When you say Sony can now abuse customers on pricing you are saying the customer has no choice, no options. They do. Leave Playstation.


You can call me a corporate shill or whatever Reddit style drivel you respond with on the linked thread. Feel free to quote my post so anyone that agrees with you can be enraged by my flawless, yet inconvenient to your meltdown, logic.

https://texags.com/forums/30/topics/3613866/replies/72595977#72595977

This sorta reminds me of the Xbox One debates (always online and you had to have the Kinect plugged in). People lost their minds over privacy concerns even though those same people had ZERO issues carrying a smart phone with them everywhere they went.

Feels like a similar thing here... all digital gaming consoles shouldn't be an issue when 99% of our other devices use digital only content.