Jump to content

Video Game Retailing


dumpster
 Share

Recommended Posts

100gb may be an exaggeration, but I'd be amazed if file sizes didn't increase substantially next generation. I'd argue that the main reason we haven't seen disc based game file sizes rise much is mainly due to the fact that the best selling HD console uses DVD as its format.

How do PS3 exclusives fare on the file size front? A quick Google indicates that Uncharted 2 is 25gb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem is not digital but DRM.

I agree with you by CDs. That's because I only started buying digital music when it became DRMless at iTunes and MP3s at Amazon etc. Now that's pretty much all I buy.

1) I can put the music on anything I want.

2) The only way I lose access to it is by my own idiocy

3) Music was always so cheap that resale has never REALLY been a big thing.

4) Music is a tiny download, maybe 250mb an album tops.

None of the 4 above apply to games. I bought XBLA stuff because it's cheap but the second MS decide, I can lose access to it all. If you have Xbox 1 DLC you already have lost access next time anything takes it off the 1 aging HDD in your xbox. With my music I'll just sync it straight back from the backup.

Plus games cost £40, not £8 and we've already discussed the average joe's likely issue with 40gb downloads above.

So yes, I won't miss physical too much. But unless I can keep it all safe and usable offline forever I certainly DO have an issue with it.

Are you replying to me? I'm not sure. Good point about DRM and access but I didn't say anything about cost or filesize, I was merely talking about physical and downloaded products using CDs as an example of a physical product that some people haven't missed since adopting digital distributed music.

Except that two games priced at £19.99 did not cost the shop the same amount. They could well be getting the ones in the bundles for pennies when they sell them with consoles, often funded by the platform holders.

They already DO offer you the flexibility. Buy the console on its own for RRP and then buy the games you want.

I'm not disputing that some games might be subsidised and that prices are not necessarily all they appear to be. I am however saying that when people want Fable instead of FIFA it's a bit galling for FIFA to be sat on the shelves at £40 and then be given £13 in trade (assuming that the 3 bundled titles = 1 non bundled title relationship holds up). Obviously buying the bundle with 3 games and then trading them in is cheaper than buying the system and game separately or there'd be no point in trading in at all. With that in mind, why not say "Here's an amazing deal featuring FIFA and some other things and it costs £x" OR you can build your own deal featuring 2 games at £20 or one game at £40 for £differentnumber" They know how much the games cost and how much they need to set the prices at so they can make it work, so no worries there.

It'd mean the FIFA deal would probably be seen as incredible value and could be presented as such but if you don't want it you could still get a bundle and feel like you're getting a deal instead of feeling like Game et al are trying to rip you off when you hand over 3 brand new purchased titles for one in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100gb may be an exaggeration, but I'd be amazed if file sizes didn't increase substantially next generation. I'd argue that the main reason we haven't seen disc based game file sizes rise much is mainly due to the fact that the best selling HD console uses DVD as its format.

How do PS3 exclusives fare on the file size front? A quick Google indicates that Uncharted 2 is 25gb.

I disagree, companies are spending $200 million putting out six-hour long games like Modern Warfare 2, and the number of companies that can afford to do that isn't growing. In fact many companies and developers have folded this generation because they couldn't do that. Assets are linked to game size. The biggest cap on size and assets has long been budget, not technical limitations. Companies aren't going to switch to 30-hour long games that cost $0.8 billion just because we've done away with DVD. Games next gen will be smaller, not bigger. They will have higher rez textures and higher quality audio, and higher quality cutscenes, but significantly fewer of all of them than this generation.

And you can quote disc sizes all you want, but there's no knowing how much of that is actually game data. Resistance: Fall of Man, was an early high profile game that was using "the power of Blu-Ray TM" with 18GB of data. But only 3.5 GB of that was game data that they just replicated 5 times to make up for the poor seek speeds on Blu-Ray. If that was a download game run from a hard drive rather than a disk, then the size of the game would be a tiny fraction of what it is, not bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current infrastructure could just about support download only, certainly Steam and the App Store makes a reasonable fist of it. Once fibre rolls out over the next few years it will be perfectly feasible, it's a matter of when - not if. The biggest obstacle to a download only non-portable console is the question of hardware distribution without dedicated retail support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right that's this country (although I think you;re being ridiculously optimistic if you think the entire UK will have fibre in a "few years"). What about all those other countries that Sony, MS and Nintendo sell their consoles in? What's the broadband penetration like in Mexico for instance (here's where someone makes me look daft and points out that they all have 100mb broadband as standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Games retail will still exist, albeit in a form more closely resembling Apple Stores. People still need hardware, and they're far more comfortable purchasing from a fixed, physical, accountable location than an online retailer whose quality of after-sales care is entirely dependent on whoever is on the other end of the phone.

In the immediate future, I expect you'll see Nintendo reps in Gamestation stores demoing 3DS. Further down the road, I wouldn't be surprised to see retail staff being given incentives for selling LIVE and PSN subscriptions - because nobody else will do the hard sell if they don't.

So I think it's fair to say that while pre-owned's days are numbered, games retail as a whole still has potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Force Unleashed is a 22gb download on steam.

30GB actually. This doesn't prove much other than "sometimes ports can be so shoddy they don't bother to remove the padding" though. The actual game data fits on a DVD fine.

I'll put it this way: If there was a new generation of consoles coming out next year, and say theoretically in this world, the capability of BluRay topped out at the current 50GB or whatever, there'd be no chance of anyone launching a console with higher storage disc media than that. Looking ahead six years, and back over the past five, they'd realise it wouldn't change significantly enough to be a necessary new feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With that in mind, why not say "Here's an amazing deal featuring FIFA and some other things and it costs £x" OR you can build your own deal featuring 2 games at £20 or one game at £40 for £differentnumber" They know how much the games cost and how much they need to set the prices at so they can make it work, so no worries there.

That's exactly what they DO do. You can always just buy a console and whatever you want to go with it. They're not saying you have to take Fifa or else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting points here, enjoying reading how the thread evolves.

One thing about downloading full products with the current broadband infrastructure - Surely if the next generation of consoles were download only, then the way in which a game downloads could be changed to allow this to work better.

For example, anyone who preorders a game could in theory have the game downloaded to their console even when the power is apparently off, over a period of a week before the release date. That way, the game is ready to go from midnight on the day of launch with no waiting.

Or what about having the games downloading to the console over a period of time from the launch? The load on the servers could be considerably reduced if all you received at first was the main menu screens and first game levels, with the rest downloading throughout the week whenever possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the Warcraft trial let you start playing once you've downloaded only a portion of the game and then carries on downloading while you play?

Couldn't a similar model be used for console downloads too?

Something like this could be interesting. WoW includes the basic gameplay stuff and the starting zones as "core" data, and then downloads the other zone assets in level ascending order, knowing it'll take you longer to play through them than it will take to download them.

In a linear action game where they tend to use all their assets once, they could do the same thing, take Uncharted 2 as an example, download the gameplay stuff and train and museum levels as core, and download the jungle next, and so on. Although the speed at which you progress through the game might make this depend a bit more on download speed. That could probably be fixed by testing your Internet connection speed and changing the amount of data that's considered "Core" to match, so if you have a slow Internet you'll need to download 80% of the game to avoid catching up to the downloading content, or a minimum for a fast connection, etc.

In a sandbox game like Fallout 3, there's more asset re-use, so downloading common assets, textures, models, etc first would take priority, along with the heightmap for the world. Although it would be a bit harder because it's more freedom, natural difficulty and the direction of the plot still direct the player some. In WoW Lv 80 people who went and explored while it was downloading, found areas blocked by big glowy walls that slowly retreated.

And of course, if the idea bothers anyone, they could always wait until the whole thing downloaded, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paying for shelf space was true. EA used to pay GAME to have the top two shelves of PS2 games, the main "eye level" shelves. I know as I had to get all the EA stuff placed there every night, during my hated time there as an assistant ages ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I can't be bothered either way.

No.

My point is they can't offer bundles with anything that they're not being subsidised by a publisher or hardware maker because again, games console hardware makes no money.

So unless it's the specific games they have on bundle, they couldn't offer you a discount anyway, so it wouldn't be better than what you can ALREADY do now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30GB actually. This doesn't prove much other than "sometimes ports can be so shoddy they don't bother to remove the padding" though. The actual game data fits on a DVD fine.

25.4gb to be precise.

But, totally. I was just chucking it out there. It is a really shitty port. With tones of waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then you'd go out of business. Console hardware sales make almost literally no money. The reason they give away the games they do is they get them very, very cheap due to deals for this purpose. Your alter purchase at HMV WOULD have been a loss for that company.

While I know it's still the same now, let me gie you an example where I have numbers.

The PS2 was £159.99. GAME were offering a free platinum labelled game with it. The profit on that? 50p. If you'd swapped for literally anything with the same selling price they were losing money on the deal.

They started bundling a GAME brand controller with it for £10 more. Profit then? Literally 14 times as much (£7) on the bundle.

The only way to justify it is on hoping for customer loyalty and that they'd come back and buy games from you. These days, in this market that seems a fools errand to me.

Was the SRP of the PS2 £159.99 at the time? How did you get to the 50P margin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're really not going to have 100GB games anytime soon. Blu-Ray was designed because they expected the size of game assets to continue rising exponentially, but this trend hasn't happened the way they've expected.

No, it was designed because game assets were expected to continue to grow to fill practically available space. Which they have. It's fun to dig out old threads from a few years ago with people huffing indignantly at the scandalous idea of multi-GB installs. PC game installs are routinely 10-15GB+ now. Storage is effectively free. The only thing keeping multiplatform games in check size-wise is the need to support the archaic 360 requirement for games to run from a single DVD.

If MS had killed the HDD-less 360 with the redesign instead of offering the new flash memory model as a sop to retailers, average install sizes would have exploded.

"I'd say 100GB games are 15 years off, if at all." - Oh my god :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were to look at total game sales versus each games size in gigabytes I'd guess that the average is smaller per game this gen then last. Particularly when you factor in downloadable games. Size limits aren't the worst thing to impose on developers in the first place, you would hope it focuses their attention on fundamentals like game mechanics rather than filling blurays with cut-scenes and 7.1 audio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the SRP of the PS2 £159.99 at the time? How did you get to the 50P margin?

Largely by being told by national management. The PS2 plus the game cost game £159.50. A controller sold for £9.99 cost £3.50.

A rough calculation puts the margin on a console at 7-10%, smaller than virtually anything in retail with the possible exception of cigarettes. Games on their own at the time had a margin of 35-40%.

As a more practical example, why do you think GAME send staff out covertly to buy consoles when Sainsburys (and back in the day, Woolies) do discounts? That 10-15% discount (i.e - the 360 Aracde for £99 when it was £119 at best anywhere else) actually means it's worth staff time to do that and resell it compared to buying them from suppliers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Largely by being told by national management. The PS2 plus the game cost game £159.50. A controller sold for £9.99 cost £3.50.

A rough calculation puts the margin on a console at 7-10%, smaller than virtually anything in retail with the possible exception of cigarettes. Games on their own at the time had a margin of 35-40%.

As a more practical example, why do you think GAME send staff out covertly to buy consoles when Sainsburys (and back in the day, Woolies) do discounts? That 10-15% discount (i.e - the 360 Aracde for £99 when it was £119 at best anywhere else) actually means it's worth staff time to do that and resell it compared to buying them from suppliers.

You've been lied too, in fact not really all they did was convince the person that told you that is was the truth. Console margin is about 5 to 10 quid. Those Platinum games can cost a minumum of under 5 quid. They are not always brought from Sony directly.

Secondly those unnoficial controllers no way cost them 3.50. More like 2 quid at most depending on the quantity ordered. I work with consumer products in China so I've seen the real BOM's.

Chain Retailers may cry about the margin they are making, when in fact it's a case of "we're not making as much profit as in the late 90's"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's blindly accept your figures.

Then they still can't bundle a game with a console unless it's hesvily subsidised so my original point you just completely confirmed.

If they substituted Fifa forooh.. let's say Fallout NV in a bundle, even using your figures selling that console will lose them £15 or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's blindly accept your figures.

Then they still can't bundle a game with a console unless it's hesvily subsidised so my original point you just completely confirmed.

If they substituted Fifa forooh.. let's say Fallout NV in a bundle, even using your figures selling that console will lose them £15 or so.

Stalemate. I'm not going to post my CV just to win an internet discussion. Suffice to say, I'm behind the curtain and I've worked behind the counter in the past. Based on the experiance you have and information you have been told you are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stalemate. I'm not going to post my CV just to win an internet discussion. Suffice to say, I'm behind the curtain and I've worked behind the counter in the past. Based on the experiance you have and information you have been told you are right.

It isn't really a stalemate at all, is it? His figures might have been inaccurate but the spine of his argument was correct - that the people in Gamestation can't change the deals they offer on new stock because the bundles they offer are of products with margins that either scrape a small profit or reduce their losses to a minimum, and if they were to change them for items that appear to have a comparable cost to the customer, they'd lose money in the long run because the costs at which they sell items don't always reflect the cost they obtained the stock for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, mamy years ago, we did a PS1 pack with 3 games. 2 of these were very old and not worth discussing, but the third was Supersonic Racers which was a brand new release at the time. However, Toys R Us were doing many different bundles around that time which included maybe 8 different extra items for maybe an extra £50 or so. When you consider that back then, a new PS1 game was £40, 8 items extra in a bundle was perceived by many people as a great deal, and we would often be asked if we would price match.

When you looked closer into the items that came with the TRU deal, there was no sense or logic. You got a dance mat, a steering wheel, but no music or racing games to go with them. The software titles were just rubbish, and after explaining this stuff to the customer, they would usually come around to buying our supersonic racers package.

However, rumour was that if you negotiated with TRU, sometimes the member of staff would allow you to bring back the items from the bundle to exchange them for anything else in store. This was a real game changer because the wheel scanned at £50, the dance mat at £20 etc. You could get back far more than the overall price of the bundle in the first place this way, and the general opinion was to just let them do it - it would be costing them a fortune every time they did this.

However, this practice lead to some managers at Game doing the same thing with Supersonic Racers. This meant that those stores had a significantly better deal than other branches, so their sales were higher. Other managers found out why they were being outsold and started doing the same thing. So the customer would buy the package, then bring back SR in the 10 day return policy, and get £39.99 off another brand new release.

However, this lead to far bigger problems than you could imagine. The titles that people actually wanted were the big releases, and the store would easily sell far more copies of Gran Turismo, Fifa etc, than they ever would have hoped to sell Supersonic Racers.

The end result was that many branches had loads of Supersonic Racers in stock and also didn't have enough stock of the big titles because they'd all been given away with the bundles. But the biggest issue was that the company was paying about £28 for a new release, but had paid only a fiver for SR. So managers were massively improving sales of the PS1 in their store far higher than expected, but were losing about £25 on each one, whilst also giving away all their new release stock so they couldn't sell it to anyone else. And also, they were lumbered with loads and loads of copies of Supersonic Racers that sat on the shelves at £39.99, and didn't sell.

So that's why they shouldn't be giving flexibility in the packages - the consoles themselves are practically a loss leader and if you sweeten the deal it costs money. Multiply that money by 400 stores, all significantly exceeding sales expectations with these better deals, and the company loses a shitload of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.