ecurb7

I once heard rumours of someone actually buying an Xbox, but when I assembled a crack team to investigate, it turned out to be just another wild goose chase. Time to go back to hunting yetis or the Loch Ness monster, more chance of a real sighting!

@DaniPooo OK, I'm slightly bored now, so final comment ... I just think you don't understand how this all works, but have a nice rest of your day!

@DaniPooo OK, now I see your misunderstanding. Buying digital may bypass the 5% or so of the physical costs, but it doesn't bypass the seller's markup! It's either Gamestop or Sony who add that extra 25% (in truth, Sony adds 30%, I don't know the exact figure for GameStop, I simply used this for illustration).

@DaniPooo With physical, it is GameStop (or whoever) taking their percentage ... with digital it is Sony (or whoever) taking their percentage. In both cases, the rest is taken by the game's publisher (who will get most of the price). Not sure who you mean is the 'reseller' - either Sony or GameStop is the seller.

As I indicated, both Sony and GameStop add a percentage, that's where their profits come from. Physical or digital doesn't fundamentally alter how capitalism works.

@DaniPooo And ...? You know how capitalism works, right? A retailer stocks items from a manufacturer, adds their own markup (let's say ... 25%) and that's where they get their profits, minus costs. I just don't know how more simply I could explain this.

@chrichtonsworld All I can suggest is that you Google the cost of physical games media - you'll soon see that discs, packaging etc. represent only a small % of a game's sticker price. In the days of CDs and DVDs, this was obviously more significant for music and movies, since they were relatively cheaper items. But for a game that is £60-£70 (in the UK, or whatever your equivalent is), it is only going to be 5, at most 10, percent.

@chrichtonsworld Denial about what? 95% of an average game's costs come from development, overheads, marketing etc. Digital is a little cheaper, sure, I never denied this - but the mode of delivery (physical or digital) really has very little to do with why you pay the price you do for a game.

@DaniPooo Now you've completely lost me. I never said anyone produces physical games for free - physical discs and packaging cost very little, but the bulk of the cost of a game is from its development (and marketing etc.). But I have no idea what any of this has to do with GameStop, they don't make games, they sell them

@bluesylvanite OK... you know it's not my lawsuit? Tell all that to the complainants!

@DaniPooo Probably, but that's true regardless of whether individual games are sold physically or digitally. My point stands, which is that digital gaming is not inherently significantly cheaper - most of the cost of games is from development, salaries etc. not the means of delivery.

@bluesylvanite Yes, I think that's all true as well. But the lawsuit is aimed at Sony specifically, so it is presumably trying to hold them responsible for all pricing on the PS Store. Regardless, there's nothing illegal about how Sony, or other publishers, price their games - we (including me) may not like paying up to £70, but that's a different matter.

@DaniPooo Well, even running a digital storefront, hosting downloads etc. costs Sony some money. So, maybe they should be giving us, I don't know, a 3% discount? That would be nice, I guess, but people are still simply wrong to assume that digital automatically means much cheaper.

@DaniPooo OK, but the whole cost of physical v digital is a bit of a red herring. Manufacturing and distribution of physical discs accounts for only about 5% of a game's costs - so about £3.50 of a £70 game. In other words, it doesn't really make much of a difference.

An utterly absurd and frivolous lawsuit.
Here's the point: the price of video games is not a legal, or even a moral, issue. If Sony decided to charge £1000 for a game, that is their right as the service provider - and it is my right as a consumer to decide whether or not to pay this; which, obviously, I would not.
What next, suing Cartier because their watches cost tens of thousands of pounds, which most people can't afford? Or Rolls Royce, etc. etc.?
Personally, I can't afford to spend £60-70 on new games, which is why I never do. But if I started suing every company whose products I couldn't afford, I'd never be out of court.