I work in a camera shop, due to the net and bulk sellers we make anything between £2 and £10 if we're lucky on a £200 digital camera, that's why it's so important for us to sell extras like memory cards and batts (it's not like we're selling them because were greedy, you need them!)
I have to agree with opinions on the price of games, it's a joke, £35 for a game that costs no more than £2 to manufacture (not inc. dev), I just don't agree with the profit the publishers make.
On the subject of suprnova, how long did it take for mirrors and alternative sites to pop up after their closure? 10 hours? The Warez scene will never die, if it's back to IRC then so be it.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not a thief, if it's worth buying then I'll buy it, but I just won't be ripped off . . .
IMHO, there are plenty of review sites out there to look at games first. And theres also something called a choice. You arent getting ripped off if you choose not to buy it. Its YOUR fault, not the publishers/developers fault if you allow yourself to get duped by marketing ploys. If you see a game you dont think you will enjoy, then dont buy it. Dont twist a wrong into a right by pointing out another wrong.. just doesnt work that way.
I dont see people running into a store and stealing the latest intel chip to test its new beefed up features to make sure they dont "get ripped off"..... I dont see people stealing the latest AMD, Nvidia, ATI or various other hardwares. Give me a break.
Dont get me wrong. Ive done plenty of downloading in my time in college. Hell.. I still do from time to time. Yes, I'm a **************. Yes I steal and do somethign that is wrong. I admit it. See the difference is I wont sit here and try to justify what cant be justified. I agree that piracy will always be around. I think the industry knows this. I dont think they CARE if its on IRC because the average person doesnt have the time/patience or knowledge to be able to find and download things from IRC. With sites liek Suprnova and the like, it makes it simple for joe-smoe over yonder to open a browser, click a link in his/her favorites, click another quick link and walk away. Come back 6-48 horus later depending on the size of the download and they're done.
Anyway, Point of the post.. its wrong. Admit its wrong. Say "yes.. I'm doing something wrong, but I'm a cheap ************** just like you are sometiems Asphix.. its there.. i can do it.. so I will.. " and thats fine. Ive said it many times before. But dont glamorize it and try to justify it.
No one forces you to buy games you dont like. Theres plenty of resoruces out there to check up on games, and anyone competent enough to download something through IRC is also copetent enough to do research on a game before buying/playing it and know if it is good or not. The price of games arent that bad. Even if you get 10 hours of gameplay out of it, when compared to the rest of the entertainment industry and its standard releases, the current price model is right on point.
Course its all just my opinion, and your welcome to disagree.. on the pricing issue anyway.
p.s. I will agree that 20% of 49.99 is decent. but its not fabulous either considering the publisher gets the largest chunk just for fronting the money for development/distribution/advertizing.
Asphix, I do agree with you in some regard. Yes, it's wrong. No, it's not the best pursuit to point out one wrong with another. But unfortunately, a little civil disobedience seems to be the only thing that is listened to anymore. The record companies did not lower CD prices until online file swapping...now you can buy a track for $0.88 at walmart.com. A wrong is a wrong, but there are always degrees, and the black and white on this issue isn't as clear-cut as it may seem.
But I can't trust a review to be unbiased, or to be one focused on issues I care about. What if the reviewer looks at different things than I do? I can and DO preview hardware before I buy it. I wait until I can actually sit down and see it in action, in front of me. If I can't do that, I have to spend TONS of work getting a proper opinion from other users, sort through fanboyism, etc. I'm willing to do that for the hardware that I need to spend hundreds of dollars on...I get lots of use out of that hardware, over many types of programs, both productivity and games. But truth is, I'm not going to do it for every single game that has one purpose, which is to entertain. It is not entertaining for me to invest hours and hours into whether my $50 is going to be used well.
And hardware at least has numbers to back it. Speeds, settings, what it will or won't do. A graphics card will run this type of game this fast, with these settings, and has this much memory. A chip runs this speed. It has little to no aesthetic prowess. The idea of a game, however, is largely artistic and nebulous. They cannot be compared. You do not hold a copyright on a piece of hardware, you hold a patent. It is an invention, not a piece of art. A game, however, is by its very definition unable to suit everyone's taste or vision. So what's wrong with letting me see if it IS what *I* want it to be, before I drop my money on the table?
I just do not see what's so wrong with the concept of bringing back shareware...let me see how it runs on my computer...let me see if it looks the way that I envision it. Let me see if I want the damn game, as opposed to hyping 6 screenshots and a video as a "teaser," then when I buy it the retailer tells me there's a "No Return" policy.
But, to make you feel better and because you really are at least a bit right about it, I am a cheap ************** just like you are somtimes. :)
Originally Posted by Asphix Admit its wrong. Say "yes.. I'm doing something wrong, but I'm a cheap ************** just like you are sometiems Asphix.. its there.. i can do it.. so I will.. " and thats fine.
I totally agree with that, however...
When was the last time reading a review actually gave you the same idea of a game's features as playing the game for yourself? Personally, it's never happened. I don't think I've ever gotten what I expected out of a game after reading a review. Hell, even some demos do the same thing. IMO, we need 30 day, full featured sharewares of games, before we buy them. That way, you can try EVERYTHING, instead of 10 mins on one stage, and you get to play it for a month. Now that will kick the pants out of any review I've ever read, I don't care how good it's written, or how hardcore of a gamer the guy who wrote it is. As far as downloading goes, I've done it. It's wrong, but I have. And you know what? It was worth it. I've saved myself lots of cash, and also found some good products (which I bought) that I never would have known about otherwise. That's the other bad thing about the gaming scene these days. The only thing you ever hear about is the big giant uber-studio games, most of which are utter crap. We need something like IFC (Independant Film Chanel) for games, where no-name dev's can show off what they're working on. Sheesh.
</rant>
Originally Posted by kiljoi As far as downloading goes, I've done it. It's wrong, but I have. And you know what? It was worth it. I've saved myself lots of cash, and also found some good products (which I bought) that I never would have known about otherwise. That's the other bad thing about the gaming scene these days. The only thing you ever hear about is the big giant uber-studio games, most of which are utter crap. We need something like IFC (Independant Film Chanel) for games, where no-name dev's can show off what they're working on. Sheesh.
</rant>
OOOH...I LIKE that idea for an IFC for games. :)
And I will agree...I actually *found* some games by downloading...like Neverwinter nights. Started playing it, didn't think I'd like it because of the single-player limitations. But once I started, I got hooked. Went out and bought the game, plus its expansions. Had I never tried it, I can assure I'd have never bought it.
/Edit: By the way, don't you all love these new (ha...as in a couple months new, I suppose, but you get the idea) articles/discussions? This is really some great content that the site didn't feature before its revamp that I'm REALLY enjoying.
Originally Posted by Da Dego By the way, don't you all love these new (ha...as in a couple months new, I suppose, but you get the idea) articles/discussions? This is really some great content that the site didn't feature before its revamp that I'm REALLY enjoying.
Totally agree. I hope the site continues in this fashion. There's also been some really good columns lately.
Not sure if it'd be a good idea, but just thinking....
What do you think would happen if developers/publishers and ISP's got together, to offer "gaming" plans, with higher d/u and more bandwidth allowed. Sign up for a higher price, get discounts on downloaded games or something. Meh, maybe I need another cup of coffee.
Sorry, I just realised that I forgot to put in that those numbers are not profit, they are simply how much approximatly each bit of the chain gets back for one game.
Quote:
considering the publisher gets the largest chunk just for fronting the money for development/distribution/advertizing.
The word "just" there doesnt belong there. Do you realise how much risk a publisher takes for fronting money to make a game? Non indie games cost in the region of £2 million upwards. Thats not an insignificant amount.
If the game flops, that could be the end of the publisher (and the developer!). And 3 in 4 games will probably lose the publisher money. For every "hit" that a publisher has, they will probably have had 3 that make a loss or break even. They have to take a huge risk, hoping that they hit the jackpot with the one game so that they can make a profit overall.
Oh, and if you really want to try before you buy, download, or buy covermounted demos, not a pirated full game. ;)
hey, I agree game demos and hands on experience is the optimal way of choosing a game that you will enjoy. I'm also not saying that a review will ever match that sort of hands on trial experience. Just saying, dont try to justify piracy. Ive done it, we've all done it. Just about anyone who knows more than just how to use word and send e-mails on a computer has done it. I mean who woudlnt?????? Its right there.. and there used to be virtually no way to stop anyone from doing it.
I would love to see shareware and demos hit a more mainstream role. They sort of are coming back in a sense. Ive seen tons of demos around for upcoming games, both on consoles and PC. I only hope that as the gaming industry achieves a more central entertainment focus (on par with movie/music industry) the quality of games, productions scales, etc etc etc will rise.
And I'll have to add I love these articles too. To be completely honest its what I look forward to most out of all the content on the site now. Reviews are great and all, but they dont really get you thinking, or spark controversal discussions.
"yes.. I'm doing something wrong, but I'm a cheap **************"
Woot I am...
Yes I am wrong... maybe I should just... ehh no
Anyways I think that games are not pverpriced. Like someone (maybe BlackViper) explained that if you compare hours of enterntainment and the price of games and movies you get a damn good deal with games. I also understand how much developers have to sacrifice for games. They have to forget the hot ch.... well ehhmmm. Sry not all of them are nerds, but hey they have to learn so damn much in order to make a game. And then the actual making.... My problem is that many games nowadays make you want to go and shove the purchased copy of a game up the developers **il*ox. Then there are games that make you not want for them to end. Demo's these days can help a lot, however they do not show the gameplay part of a game, you don't know how will you feel doing the same thing over and over again from a demo, or maybe it will not be repetitive, maybe it will surprise you. Maybe I should...just...
I also think that if companies would aim less for selling XXX amount of copies by Quarter 3 and more one creating dead hard fans who would not only buy fanware but also actually purchase game copies too. I think we (gamers) and big reviewers (like gamespot) are quite responsible for a situation of many game companies not caring about quality games nor players, just about profits. Game reviewers hardly give 5.5 mediocre scores for worst of the games just incase some fans will get offended and not visit the website again, or maybe the game company will not send a free copy of a game next time. Also gamers sometimes are too naive when buying games, and many don't bother letting the developers know how they feel about their game. These aspects lead to game companies being able to make quite low quality games but due to good marketing sell similar amounts of copies as great games with less marketing. Sure no one will buy the sequel of a bad game, but while a good game's sequal is being created, the other guys make ANOTHER HIGHLY ANTI-CIPATED 1st person shooter. IT IS REVOLUTION OF GAMING... FAST VEHICLES, POWERFULL WEAPONS... Everyone died, only you remain. Everyone's bullets ended, only your's remain. And they make a lot of money with their "The best game ever". Baaaah
Well I've downloaded games myself. The one's I've liked I bought, quite few were not even worth bandwith. Damn I would have felt so damn angry if I would have paid $40 for Star Wars Battlefront...
I think the cheapest price-to-playtime games that I have ever played in my life are Starcraft ($50 new, and yes, i bought it when it first came out), Starcraft: Brood War (i believe it was always $20), and Counter-Strike ($40, bought the value pack a few years ago), and i have put well over 200 days into these games, and I only spent $110! And I still continue to play them (not to mention the number of times that I've played Half-Life)!
Oh well, i guess it was a pointless post, but I also wanted to comment on the fact that you can pretty much take the Packaging and Retail off of the roster if you're going to digitally distribute the software. I won't need boxes and cds and i certainly wont need stores (unless you want to count websites, which would probably be closer to like $.50/hit).
There are a few reasons why the pricing structure isn't as bad as it seems. Theoretically:
- you're paying for fixes and upgrades and new features released by the developersw
- you're paying for support if you ever need it
- you can recoup some of your costs by selling the game after you're done with it
As well, packaging makes up less than $2 of a game's cost so that's barely an argument. You get way more value out of a game after the initial play than a lot of movies; how many times after the first was The Usual Suspects surprising?
So are games overpriced? You receive everything that's included in the price, so no, I don't think they are. However, they are way too expensive, and those two ideas should be kept separate. Going to a movie theater and paying $13 to watch 15 minutes of advertisements beforehand, then 15 minutes of trailers, then listening to crying babies and cellphones for 2 hours is overpriced, because you are paying for an experience that you are not receiving. Theaters here realized that and started lowering the prices, but only because they clearly started to lose customers. The bottom line is that if you think games are too expensive, you can complain and cry and write letters and do whatever you want, but there is only one thing that will force publishers to sit up and take notice: stop buying games.
The "evil" publishers aren't in the business to delight fans, they're in it to make money. If they stop making money, they will have to re-think their strategies, and one of those strategies might be cutting back on development costs in order to make the game cheaper. So they don't sign 50 Cent to rap on Need 4 Sp33d Super-Pimp Edition, and you can't count every individual droplet when you drive through a puddle, and you can't quite make out the digital nipples on the girl who drops the kerchief a la Grease. But now the game is $5 cheaper, and their business goes up. But if that's all it takes, why haven't they done it already?
Because we, as gamers, told developers that we want those flashy graphics and sound and are willing to pay for them. Ever since the NES, consoles (still the primary gaming market) have focused more and more towards advanced graphics production than any other part of the game. It has now gotten to the point where developers for the next-gen platforms will have to make choices between AI that doesn't get stuck behind walls, or the ability to make out the serial numbers on the bullets you shoot. And while computer gamers like us would want the better AI, we're not the ones who drive the market; the console gamers are.
If you owned a game publisher and wanted to make a lot of money, which customers would you listen to? Computer gamers are from all generations, have more complex interfaces and more computing power, and demand games that remind them why they bought a 3Ghz processor in the first place. Computer gamers also have less money due to more expenses and upgrade costs. Console gamers, on the other hand, are mostly teenagers or young adults (under 25) with LOTS of disposable income, and won't think anything of dropping $70-$80 on a game purely based on the graphics seen in ads. You can't afford to develop two versions of the game that focus on different aspects of the demand, so you pick the one that will be bought by more people and port it to the rest of the platforms. That's why Halo 2 sold so much better on Xbox than on PC, but why Starcraft was the exact opposite.
I'm ranting now and I have to get back to work, so I'll end with this. Games are expensive. And the only way to make them less expensive is to stop buying games and tell publishers "I will not buy your games until you lower the prices." So you have to ask yourself: does the price of games bother you enough that you are willing to change your behaviour? Unfortunately, I believe most people don't care enough to make that personal sacrifice, so I still have to put up with cell phones in movie theaters.
I would buy my PC games via digital distribution but I wouldn't be comfortable to do the same with console games. I've tried to think of a logical reason for this but have none other than a big case of game boxes looks cool. As for whether I'd like to see a different pricing model for games well, the idea of having premium prices wouldn't make a heck of a lot of difference. I don't waste money on crappy games now and wouldn't waste money on crappy games if they were £20 new. And yes, as Wil mentioned, big publishers would push mediocre games in to the limelight anyway.
Ritualistic have a great idea with the SiN Episodes, it certainly seems to make sense for them as developers and for consumers at least financially. I can't shake the idea that I'm not really getting a game if I bought digitally though, perhaps it's just a feeling the 80's generation of gamers have. I'm pretty certain future gamers will consider it natural to receive their games digitally.
Comments 26 to 42 of 42
I work in a camera shop, due to the net and bulk sellers we make anything between £2 and £10 if we're lucky on a £200 digital camera, that's why it's so important for us to sell extras like memory cards and batts (it's not like we're selling them because were greedy, you need them!)
I have to agree with opinions on the price of games, it's a joke, £35 for a game that costs no more than £2 to manufacture (not inc. dev), I just don't agree with the profit the publishers make.
On the subject of suprnova, how long did it take for mirrors and alternative sites to pop up after their closure? 10 hours? The Warez scene will never die, if it's back to IRC then so be it.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not a thief, if it's worth buying then I'll buy it, but I just won't be ripped off . . .
I dont see people running into a store and stealing the latest intel chip to test its new beefed up features to make sure they dont "get ripped off"..... I dont see people stealing the latest AMD, Nvidia, ATI or various other hardwares. Give me a break.
Dont get me wrong. Ive done plenty of downloading in my time in college. Hell.. I still do from time to time. Yes, I'm a **************. Yes I steal and do somethign that is wrong. I admit it. See the difference is I wont sit here and try to justify what cant be justified. I agree that piracy will always be around. I think the industry knows this. I dont think they CARE if its on IRC because the average person doesnt have the time/patience or knowledge to be able to find and download things from IRC. With sites liek Suprnova and the like, it makes it simple for joe-smoe over yonder to open a browser, click a link in his/her favorites, click another quick link and walk away. Come back 6-48 horus later depending on the size of the download and they're done.
Anyway, Point of the post.. its wrong. Admit its wrong. Say "yes.. I'm doing something wrong, but I'm a cheap ************** just like you are sometiems Asphix.. its there.. i can do it.. so I will.. " and thats fine. Ive said it many times before. But dont glamorize it and try to justify it.
No one forces you to buy games you dont like. Theres plenty of resoruces out there to check up on games, and anyone competent enough to download something through IRC is also copetent enough to do research on a game before buying/playing it and know if it is good or not. The price of games arent that bad. Even if you get 10 hours of gameplay out of it, when compared to the rest of the entertainment industry and its standard releases, the current price model is right on point.
Course its all just my opinion, and your welcome to disagree.. on the pricing issue anyway.
p.s. I will agree that 20% of 49.99 is decent. but its not fabulous either considering the publisher gets the largest chunk just for fronting the money for development/distribution/advertizing.
But I can't trust a review to be unbiased, or to be one focused on issues I care about. What if the reviewer looks at different things than I do? I can and DO preview hardware before I buy it. I wait until I can actually sit down and see it in action, in front of me. If I can't do that, I have to spend TONS of work getting a proper opinion from other users, sort through fanboyism, etc. I'm willing to do that for the hardware that I need to spend hundreds of dollars on...I get lots of use out of that hardware, over many types of programs, both productivity and games. But truth is, I'm not going to do it for every single game that has one purpose, which is to entertain. It is not entertaining for me to invest hours and hours into whether my $50 is going to be used well.
And hardware at least has numbers to back it. Speeds, settings, what it will or won't do. A graphics card will run this type of game this fast, with these settings, and has this much memory. A chip runs this speed. It has little to no aesthetic prowess. The idea of a game, however, is largely artistic and nebulous. They cannot be compared. You do not hold a copyright on a piece of hardware, you hold a patent. It is an invention, not a piece of art. A game, however, is by its very definition unable to suit everyone's taste or vision. So what's wrong with letting me see if it IS what *I* want it to be, before I drop my money on the table?
I just do not see what's so wrong with the concept of bringing back shareware...let me see how it runs on my computer...let me see if it looks the way that I envision it. Let me see if I want the damn game, as opposed to hyping 6 screenshots and a video as a "teaser," then when I buy it the retailer tells me there's a "No Return" policy.
But, to make you feel better and because you really are at least a bit right about it, I am a cheap ************** just like you are somtimes. :)
When was the last time reading a review actually gave you the same idea of a game's features as playing the game for yourself? Personally, it's never happened. I don't think I've ever gotten what I expected out of a game after reading a review. Hell, even some demos do the same thing. IMO, we need 30 day, full featured sharewares of games, before we buy them. That way, you can try EVERYTHING, instead of 10 mins on one stage, and you get to play it for a month. Now that will kick the pants out of any review I've ever read, I don't care how good it's written, or how hardcore of a gamer the guy who wrote it is. As far as downloading goes, I've done it. It's wrong, but I have. And you know what? It was worth it. I've saved myself lots of cash, and also found some good products (which I bought) that I never would have known about otherwise. That's the other bad thing about the gaming scene these days. The only thing you ever hear about is the big giant uber-studio games, most of which are utter crap. We need something like IFC (Independant Film Chanel) for games, where no-name dev's can show off what they're working on. Sheesh.
</rant>
And I will agree...I actually *found* some games by downloading...like Neverwinter nights. Started playing it, didn't think I'd like it because of the single-player limitations. But once I started, I got hooked. Went out and bought the game, plus its expansions. Had I never tried it, I can assure I'd have never bought it.
/Edit: By the way, don't you all love these new (ha...as in a couple months new, I suppose, but you get the idea) articles/discussions? This is really some great content that the site didn't feature before its revamp that I'm REALLY enjoying.
What do you think would happen if developers/publishers and ISP's got together, to offer "gaming" plans, with higher d/u and more bandwidth allowed. Sign up for a higher price, get discounts on downloaded games or something. Meh, maybe I need another cup of coffee.
The word "just" there doesnt belong there. Do you realise how much risk a publisher takes for fronting money to make a game? Non indie games cost in the region of £2 million upwards. Thats not an insignificant amount.
If the game flops, that could be the end of the publisher (and the developer!). And 3 in 4 games will probably lose the publisher money. For every "hit" that a publisher has, they will probably have had 3 that make a loss or break even. They have to take a huge risk, hoping that they hit the jackpot with the one game so that they can make a profit overall.
Oh, and if you really want to try before you buy, download, or buy covermounted demos, not a pirated full game. ;)
-wolfman
I would love to see shareware and demos hit a more mainstream role. They sort of are coming back in a sense. Ive seen tons of demos around for upcoming games, both on consoles and PC. I only hope that as the gaming industry achieves a more central entertainment focus (on par with movie/music industry) the quality of games, productions scales, etc etc etc will rise.
And I'll have to add I love these articles too. To be completely honest its what I look forward to most out of all the content on the site now. Reviews are great and all, but they dont really get you thinking, or spark controversal discussions.
Woot I am...
Yes I am wrong... maybe I should just... ehh no
Anyways I think that games are not pverpriced. Like someone (maybe BlackViper) explained that if you compare hours of enterntainment and the price of games and movies you get a damn good deal with games. I also understand how much developers have to sacrifice for games. They have to forget the hot ch.... well ehhmmm. Sry not all of them are nerds, but hey they have to learn so damn much in order to make a game. And then the actual making.... My problem is that many games nowadays make you want to go and shove the purchased copy of a game up the developers **il*ox. Then there are games that make you not want for them to end. Demo's these days can help a lot, however they do not show the gameplay part of a game, you don't know how will you feel doing the same thing over and over again from a demo, or maybe it will not be repetitive, maybe it will surprise you. Maybe I should...just...
I also think that if companies would aim less for selling XXX amount of copies by Quarter 3 and more one creating dead hard fans who would not only buy fanware but also actually purchase game copies too. I think we (gamers) and big reviewers (like gamespot) are quite responsible for a situation of many game companies not caring about quality games nor players, just about profits. Game reviewers hardly give 5.5 mediocre scores for worst of the games just incase some fans will get offended and not visit the website again, or maybe the game company will not send a free copy of a game next time. Also gamers sometimes are too naive when buying games, and many don't bother letting the developers know how they feel about their game. These aspects lead to game companies being able to make quite low quality games but due to good marketing sell similar amounts of copies as great games with less marketing. Sure no one will buy the sequel of a bad game, but while a good game's sequal is being created, the other guys make ANOTHER HIGHLY ANTI-CIPATED 1st person shooter. IT IS REVOLUTION OF GAMING... FAST VEHICLES, POWERFULL WEAPONS... Everyone died, only you remain. Everyone's bullets ended, only your's remain. And they make a lot of money with their "The best game ever". Baaaah
Well I've downloaded games myself. The one's I've liked I bought, quite few were not even worth bandwith. Damn I would have felt so damn angry if I would have paid $40 for Star Wars Battlefront...
maybe...well yeah I will
*goes to turn off shareaza on his Celeron 550MHz"
Oh well, i guess it was a pointless post, but I also wanted to comment on the fact that you can pretty much take the Packaging and Retail off of the roster if you're going to digitally distribute the software. I won't need boxes and cds and i certainly wont need stores (unless you want to count websites, which would probably be closer to like $.50/hit).
-Rob
- you're paying for fixes and upgrades and new features released by the developersw
- you're paying for support if you ever need it
- you can recoup some of your costs by selling the game after you're done with it
As well, packaging makes up less than $2 of a game's cost so that's barely an argument. You get way more value out of a game after the initial play than a lot of movies; how many times after the first was The Usual Suspects surprising?
So are games overpriced? You receive everything that's included in the price, so no, I don't think they are. However, they are way too expensive, and those two ideas should be kept separate. Going to a movie theater and paying $13 to watch 15 minutes of advertisements beforehand, then 15 minutes of trailers, then listening to crying babies and cellphones for 2 hours is overpriced, because you are paying for an experience that you are not receiving. Theaters here realized that and started lowering the prices, but only because they clearly started to lose customers. The bottom line is that if you think games are too expensive, you can complain and cry and write letters and do whatever you want, but there is only one thing that will force publishers to sit up and take notice: stop buying games.
The "evil" publishers aren't in the business to delight fans, they're in it to make money. If they stop making money, they will have to re-think their strategies, and one of those strategies might be cutting back on development costs in order to make the game cheaper. So they don't sign 50 Cent to rap on Need 4 Sp33d Super-Pimp Edition, and you can't count every individual droplet when you drive through a puddle, and you can't quite make out the digital nipples on the girl who drops the kerchief a la Grease. But now the game is $5 cheaper, and their business goes up. But if that's all it takes, why haven't they done it already?
Because we, as gamers, told developers that we want those flashy graphics and sound and are willing to pay for them. Ever since the NES, consoles (still the primary gaming market) have focused more and more towards advanced graphics production than any other part of the game. It has now gotten to the point where developers for the next-gen platforms will have to make choices between AI that doesn't get stuck behind walls, or the ability to make out the serial numbers on the bullets you shoot. And while computer gamers like us would want the better AI, we're not the ones who drive the market; the console gamers are.
If you owned a game publisher and wanted to make a lot of money, which customers would you listen to? Computer gamers are from all generations, have more complex interfaces and more computing power, and demand games that remind them why they bought a 3Ghz processor in the first place. Computer gamers also have less money due to more expenses and upgrade costs. Console gamers, on the other hand, are mostly teenagers or young adults (under 25) with LOTS of disposable income, and won't think anything of dropping $70-$80 on a game purely based on the graphics seen in ads. You can't afford to develop two versions of the game that focus on different aspects of the demand, so you pick the one that will be bought by more people and port it to the rest of the platforms. That's why Halo 2 sold so much better on Xbox than on PC, but why Starcraft was the exact opposite.
I'm ranting now and I have to get back to work, so I'll end with this. Games are expensive. And the only way to make them less expensive is to stop buying games and tell publishers "I will not buy your games until you lower the prices." So you have to ask yourself: does the price of games bother you enough that you are willing to change your behaviour? Unfortunately, I believe most people don't care enough to make that personal sacrifice, so I still have to put up with cell phones in movie theaters.
Ritualistic have a great idea with the SiN Episodes, it certainly seems to make sense for them as developers and for consumers at least financially. I can't shake the idea that I'm not really getting a game if I bought digitally though, perhaps it's just a feeling the 80's generation of gamers have. I'm pretty certain future gamers will consider it natural to receive their games digitally.