Steam doesn't work solely on the premise that one copy = one user, although it certainly helps in crunching numbers. It works largely in part by giving developers extreme control over their games on the service. Assuming Microsoft was gearing up for a similar scheme is totally incongruous to what they've been showing of their hand thus far, with lack of self-publishing and their general disregard for the people who make - or even like - games.
Furthermore, digital sales sting retail, and Microsoft has a vested interest in not doing that - despite some evidence to the contrary in what they tried to do to Gamestop's model. If digital downloads dominate, hard copies will dry up on shelves as soon as someone at Best Buy realizes that they're totally outmatched. They've already got their shipments down to some insane science of ordering as few copies as possible. The change would happen overnight.
Digital and discs do not co-exist well, and if Microsoft truly want their feet in both, that means neither can have an advantage lest the other die out. They can't allow one to outstrip the other for at least a few years in order to accommodate the average user's expectations and understanding of how to buy games for their video-game box. The PC platform is the Wild West - nobody has to care about these things as long as it makes money for their own damn selves. It's not even comparable.
Even beyond a possible danger in breaking that status quo, the fact remains that Microsoft has an absolute monopoly on their digital marketplace, obviously. It does not behoove them to lower prices, because then they get lower dollars.The reason above all else that Steam's and GMG's prices are so low is because they are actively attempting to undercut each other and everyone else in order to induct consumers into their own special brand of PC gaming. They don't sell you NBA 2K13 for $0.99 because they don't want to charge you more. The idea that crazy cheap sales eventually equals more money is just not true when you compare to a highly profitable precedent of $60 like the consoles enjoy. They're working on an entirely different, markedly higher price scale that would make Newell salivate. Nobody wants to jeopardize that. Not the publishers, not the developers, not Microsoft. The idea that they'll "pass the savings on to you, the consumer" is never correct.
So given all this, I don't understand the disappointment some have had over this reversal. Yes, it's a bummer that publishers won't be able to make a bit more money off each hard copy of a game, it's mildly annoying for those who want their games digital, but all this wild conjecture around price points cannot be proven, is actively counter-intuitive, and thus was not lost today.
Log in to comment