A $100 price point has been pretty much assumed industry wide for weeks now, this is no stretch -look at the XBox One discless model launched a couple years back. It's nothing new.
Here's the thing though -it's only "irresistible" if you refuse to look at the long game, period.
A $100 difference is less than the release price of two typical games today (and with looming rumors that the next generation may actually jump another ten bucks, the contrast is marginalized even further).
So sure, save enough to grab a couple extra games up front... But then keep in mind how often big triple A titles go on sale on CONSOLE ESHOPS. Oh, hey, that frequency drops a lot, doesn't it? Unless something hits Greatest Hits status, it basically never decreases in digital price. That sports game that's a year or two old now? Yeah, still full price (thanks EA), want to play the COD title that came out two years ago? Full price good sir. Sure, these go on sale in the digital storefronts once or twice a year, for maybe 30-40% off once they're a couple years old... But in the physical market, you can grab a used copy for less than half the original price when the next one launches -hell, don't like "used"? You can often get a sealed copy for nearly the same price then too.
Do you like using those pre-order discounts through some of the big gaming retailers? Well, kiss em goodbye, because they can't offer those on digital versions -they make pennies per digital copy sold, so taking 5-10 bucks off for your pre-order ain't something they'll be able to do for you.
Here's my favorite part though: the folks who really want to get into the next gen, but are tight for cash -the gamers who are probably going to see this as the most appetizing... They're the ones who are going to be screwed the hardest, when they can't swap games with friends or even trade them in toward the next big title.
This, of course, affects everybody... Even if YOU don't buy the discless system, you're at the mercy of the larger market. If enough idiots buy the discless version, it becomes unprofitable for big retailers to carry the physical games anymore. Love em or hate em, we've all traded something in at GameStop to get that new game for less because we were tight on cash, at some point or another. If the physical market dwindles, there won't be a sustainable business model for big chains like that, and especially a lot of the mom and pop shops.
In the grand scheme of things, if enough people grab the cheaper option without thinking it through, this even hurts the industry itself. Some of the more narrow-minded executive level folks will often decry used game sales as hurting their business model... But a larger part of the industry understands that those trade-ins fuel more sales of their newer products, and whether a customer pays $60 in cash, or less because of trade-ins, the devs and publishers are still getting the same royalties and payouts -and that older game that was traded in? Yeah, by that time, it's probably not going to be selling at full price anymore anyways, so it's not like they're actually losing anything there either.
What the industry DOES lose though, is sales of their newer games. That guy who needed to trade in his older game to afford the newer one? Yeah, he can't get the newer game now. Sure, some people will scrounge, but after doing that a couple times, most people are just going to back off buying new games... Especially after they get burned with a couple full price games that turn out to be disappointing, that they can't return, re-sell, or trade in. So within a year or less, those gamers are buying less, devs and publishers are generating less income, and have to start re-assessing what kind of investment risks they can make. In simple terms: that means far fewer games will be made as studios have to tighten their budget. You'll see many publishers retract their budget for anything but yearly sequels and tired franchises, because anything else is too great a risk at that point. Nobody wins here.
The thing of it is, part of the industry seems to THINK that by cutting out the middle market, they'll make more money. But they fail to realize the basic economic concept that in order for a market to thrive, you need to keep products/services/income flowing from as many directions as possible. Shutting down arguably the biggest part of that market might mean that publishers can refuse to lower prices as games age, and get to take a higher cut of the sales that exist, but if those overall sales dwindle because people can't afford it... Then they're just making a bigger cut of what is now jack $π1+.
Some people will say "Oh, they'll figure that out. They're smart." They're not. How many times have studio executives made it publicly clear that they learned the WRONG lesson from a games failure, or from disappointing sales? Executives don't accept their mistakes, it's always someone else's fault. The devs didn't make the game exciting enough, the game concept wasn't interesting enough to players... That HAS to be it, because it couldn't possibly be that people hate how they've diluted the entire experience with microtransactions, or how they've priced a game that takes two whole hours to beat, has no replay value, and no multiplayer, for $60 instead of $30. They'll just choke out anything but what they see as the "safest" of bets, income will dwindle, and studios will face tough decisions to fold or merge with conglomerates that will have them working on nothing but Madden for the next decade.
This isn't an extremist perspective, it's the logical path we face, given what these companies have consistently shown us for the last three decades.
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
Magyar