MS justifies Games on Demand prices

By Fred Dutton Published 17 March, 2011

£50 Reach tag covers "24/7 convenience".

Earlier this week Halo: Reach hit Xbox Live's Games on Demand service, priced at £49.99 – nearly twice the current Amazon asking price.

Many of you pegged this as being rather steep, given that Microsoft is ostensibly saving money on packaging, labour and distribution costs with Games on Demand sales. So, what gives?

"No one retailer has the lowest pricing for every product, and our program is about giving people 24 x 7 convenience and selection when shopping for Xbox 360 games," explained a Microsoft spokesperson when Eurogamer asked the platform holder to explain its pricing strategy.

"We're incredibly excited about what Games on Demand means for digital distribution, and will continue to evaluate and evolve the service to meet market and consumer demands."

Halo: Reach's £49.99 price tag is unarguably very expensive, but it's worth noting that it's hardly the norm for the service.

As way of comparison, Red Dead Redemption is currently offered for £29.99, Super Street Fighter IV is £19.99, Bayonetta is £14.99, Kane & Lynch 2 is £17.99 and Modern Warfare 2 is £39.99.

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (123) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • lucky_jim #1 1 year ago

    It's a ridiculous price, end of story.

  • Eraysor #2 1 year ago

    Get out.

  • deadduckz #3 1 year ago

    Havent they heared of 24hr shopping in the UK, tescos, asda theyre only closed like 18hrs out of the week

  • Kayin #4 1 year ago

    I saw the Legendary Edition for sale for £45 a few months back.

    I think that's... slightly better value than this shameless ripoff. It's almost as bad as the PS3 Mass Effect 2 price.

    As for convenience, order online at many retailers and you'll have it the following morning - possibly before the game even travels down your Xbox Live ethernet cable. And you can sell it on later. How's that for convenience?
    Edited by Kayin at 17/03/11 @ 20:08

  • Feanor #5 1 year ago

    They would make more money if they offered reasonable prices instead of pissing on their customers' heads and telling them it's raining.

  • Vordred #6 1 year ago

    well unless i decide i want it after the shops close, it would still be quicker to walk to the shop, as the game is probably over 6gb, that would take more than a hour for me to download. but takes me half that to walk to the shop and back

  • mowgli #7 1 year ago

    I hope this is just some sneaky way of gathering the data on those who are damaging to the gene pool.

  • beastmaster #8 1 year ago

    A bargain at half the price!

    Hang on...

  • Duchessprozac #9 1 year ago

    I can order the game from Amazon (don't have to leave the house for that.) for nearly 50% cheaper than they're selling it for and would be able to play it faster than I could if I'd bought it from GoD (nice acronym!) due to next day delivery.

    So Microsoft, what's so fucking convenient about it now?

  • madjim #10 1 year ago

    "We're incredibly excited about what Games on Demand means for digital distribution"

    With these prices, I am not.

  • dewington #11 1 year ago

    I doubt many people will so urgently need a game that's been out several months already that they won't just hike to the shop/order it online and save themselves some money. Since shops will be swarming with pre-owned copies of Halo (for example) by now, MS seem to be shooting themselves in the foot a bit...

  • lucky_jim #12 1 year ago

    I really take issue with the price they're putting on "convenience". Convenience just isn't worth that much. That's why Mr Burns is the evil billionaire, not Apu.

  • Jolly_Armadillo #13 1 year ago

    This just comes from them having zero competition within their game on demand platform because they control everything because obviously they own it.

    These platforms won't work (better for consumer) unless there is competition or a not so greedy corporation running things.

  • Murton #14 1 year ago

    "It's almost as bad as the PS3 Mass Effect 2 price."

    It's actually worse for two reasons. One being that publishers set the price on the PSN and MS sets the price on the XBLA/GoD, which means MS could have set a more reasonable price if they wished. Two being, that they are the publisher in this case and so retain 100% of the revenue themselves, so don't need a higher price to generate a profit.

    But as I pointed out in the other thread on this, retailers would go mental if they were undercut or even equalled by DD in the console market so we're highly unlikely to ever see good value there, MS/Sony/publishers simply can't afford for the retailer to throw the toys out of the pram as they can ultimately refuse to stock titles and seriously damage sales figures as a result (remember that the games industry mostly sells to retailers and not to consumers)

  • HisDudness #15 1 year ago

    They have a point. If I'm on my third joint and fifth caucasian, I don't want to have to hop over to Ralph's to pick up a new game in the middle of the night. On the other hand, this lifestyle choice means that I'm also unemployed - so I'll probably just take a bath and listen to whale song rather than drop 50 quid on a 6 month old game.
    Edited by HisDudness at 17/03/11 @ 20:17

  • weejok #16 1 year ago

    Every other game mentioned at the end of the article is also hugely overpriced compared to what they can be bought for at retail. Games on Demand is a joke and anyone who pays those prices is mental!!

  • Mark1412 #17 1 year ago

    £47 buys you Amazon Prime and a year of next day delivery. I'm sure we haven't got to a point where we're so impatient, the lure of instant is worth an extra £20.

    Excuses, shit price is shit.

  • weejok #18 1 year ago

    Also I could get to the shops and back in the time it takes to download anyway???

  • miseryguts #19 1 year ago

    If this doesn't doesn't wake up gamers (and i include myself), as to how the industry in general regards us (clue: SLACK-JAWED IMBECILES!) then god only knows what will, you all have a very powerful weapon called MONEY at your disposal USE IT!.. let them know how unacceptable their behaviour is by boycotting products & services, there is no stronger message you can send.
    Edited by miseryguts at 17/03/11 @ 20:24

  • Pehmu #20 1 year ago

    "Fuck!"

    "Get out."

    "you can fuck off."

    Aye. Pretty much sums this up.

  • Daeltaja #21 1 year ago

    Also the fact that it would take hours upon hours to download the bloody thing for the average consumer.

  • login_name #22 1 year ago

    "our program is about giving people the shaft when shopping for Xbox 360 games"

    "We're incredibly excited about what Games on Demand means for our profits, and will continue to evaluate and evolve the service to exploit market and consumer demands."

    Indeed.

  • Doctor_What #23 1 year ago

    My internet connect has a 10GB per month 'fair use' limit. I know what I think is going to be more convenient for me to do.

  • metallicorphan #24 1 year ago

    what dick wants to pay twice as much because they can't wait a few hours until the shops open?

    and what are their excuses when some titles are reasonably priced,like AvP or Bully for £14.99 on GoD...its bollocks,its just because its Halo and MS are trying to fuck us over

  • matseffect #25 1 year ago

    haha

  • Eldritch #26 1 year ago

    That's precisely the kind of out-of-touch statement people getting their games "off the internet" need to justify what they're doing.

    "They're ripping us off anyway, so what's wrong with stealing from them?"

  • Vortex808 #27 1 year ago

    Can EG go back to them in a few months to ask how many 24-7 GoD copies were sold?

    I'd love to hear that answer!

  • oceanmotion #28 1 year ago

    People are paying the high price, you can see the top selling games changing on GoD. Who knows what the numbers are but I've seen posts on forums from people who gladly pay for convenience. Mind boggling at those prices. I don't think a fear of a retail backlash is an excuse, I think there may be more suckers who own consoles to take advantage of than on any other platform.

  • uk-kob #29 1 year ago

    its only £17.99 at currys http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/microsoft-h... wonder how many they sell for 50 quid, what a rip off!

  • utterdrivel #30 1 year ago

    I quite like the 'convenience' of having a disc, packaging and the ability to trade in to be honest.

  • kipper #31 1 year ago

    No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.
    A fool and his money are soon parted.

    Microsoft knows this. They simple charge what the market will bear. If they weren't making money on GoD they would change strategy soon enough, but they plainly are happy with their revenues as it is.

  • BonzoBanana #32 1 year ago

    Wow just think if Microsoft didn't have competition it would be like £80 or so! Thank god Nintendo and Sony are making consoles too. Just shows if Microsoft ever win the console war we will be royally screwed with prices.

    I've never bought any downloadable content or software except for Super stardust on the ps3 twice before I realised I could have linked my accounts and only had to pay for it once.

    Even if I became a billionaire over night I still wouldn't pay that I'd feel like I'd been conned.



  • DreadedWalrus #33 1 year ago

    We're incredibly excited about what Games on Demand means for digital distribution

    Well of course they're really excited about it. Save on distribution costs and all the traditional reasons for games being so expensive and still find a way to charge more than it costs at retail!

    it's worth noting that its hardly the norm for the service.

    As way of comparison, Red Dead Redemption is currently offered for £29.99, Super Street Fighter IV is £19.99, Bayonetta is £14.99, Kane & Lynch 2 is £17.99 and Modern Warfare 2 is £39.99

    Yeah, but I bet it's still cheaper to buy those things at retail. £40 for a game that came out in 2009, with no distribution e.t.c. costs to be accounted for? Excévalue!

  • Captain_Jono #34 1 year ago

    I've got your 24/7 convenience. It's called a disk in a box!

  • Daddy-Doom-Bar #35 1 year ago

    You fucking stealing cunts. 24 hour convienience? Fuck off! They're 4gb (ish) downloads FFS! It'll take all fuckin night to download that!! I could just ring a limo, get them to take me to Asda any time of the day or night and get it quicker and cheaper! I could probably hire a fucking helicopter and go get it for that money*!!!

    ASDA - 24 hr opening £39.99 (fuckin expensive but still cheaper. And its probably cheaper in-store)
    ShopTo - order before 5pm and get it next day £19.95 (limited edition £28.85)

    24/7 convenience is bollox. I could get it faster for cheaper practically anywhere.

    *May well be a slight exaggeration.

  • TheNinkyNonk #36 1 year ago

    ""We're incredibly excited about what Games on Demand means for digital distribution, and will continue to evaluate and evolve the service to meet market and consumer demands."

    Translation:

    We're a set of cheeky mother fuckers who are trying it on. If it doesn't work, in a desperate act to claw some money out of you, we'll begrudgingly lower the price in the hope it attracts a few suckers and help us towards our bonus related targets.

    Fuck. Off.

  • Murton #37 1 year ago

    @those saying "vote with your wallet" or similar, you do realise that the main draw of digital distribution is that it is always profitable, even if boycotted right?

    If nobody, not a single person anywhere in the world bought this what would the cost to MS be? A 6gb image on a server somewhere and a few lines of code on the marketplace? There are no measurable costs associated with digital distribution until someone buys and triggers a need for bandwidth, which is covered in the price. No sales, means no bandwidth needed, which means no cost for this particular title/project.

    There really is no way to stop them while there is no competitor, that's why anti-monopoly laws exist in most countries.

  • Phantom_Dynamite #38 1 year ago

    Translation- If EA can charge shit loads for ME2 and bragg about sales we want some too.

    Either way Reach is a good game by the physical copy, Games on Demand has always been bad but never this bad.
    Edited by Phantom_Dynamite at 17/03/11 @ 20:58

  • evild_edd #39 1 year ago

    As a game. Reach is thoroughly worth £50 considering the quality of the campaign mode (just completed this on Legendary. Alone.) but the fantastic MP modes.

    Even so, why pay £50 when you can get it for £25 and wait a day...?

    Ultimately, if MS don't sell any digital copies they'll just reduce the price, so if there are a couple of weirdos out there willing to fork out £50 for a six month old game, then they deserve to pay over the odds.

    I don't understand why people are getting annoyed. Surely MS can charge what they like and consumers decide whether they want to buy the product for the price. Market forces will decide the natural price in the long run

  • SimonM7 #40 1 year ago

    Well at least it prevents me from buying games by the bucketload I'll never get around to playing. *glares at Steam sales*.

    Prices for the GOD stuff has been insulting from the word go here in sweden though. Seriously, Kameo and Perfect Dark were both like 25 quid or summat. In the US they average somewhere around 20 bucks though and that's certainly a great deal more enticing.

    You'd be hard pushed to even find retail copies that cost more than the GOD stuff here.

  • frunk #41 1 year ago

    As way of comparison, Red Dead Redemption is currently offered for £29.99, Super Street Fighter IV is £19.99, Bayonetta is £14.99, Kane & Lynch 2 is £17.99 and Modern Warfare 2 is £39.99


    Cough...
    Lets look at "New" Prices on Amazon...

    As way of comparison, Red Dead Redemption is currently offered for £16.99, Super Street Fighter IV is £15.00, Bayonetta is £10.00, Kane & Lynch 2 is £7.24 and Modern Warfare 2 is £18.00

    And I have a disc I can trade in - so knock a fiver off each for the real final cost

    Personally - I want them to keep the retail sector alive as the competition drives these prices down. As soon as their download services are the only option then they can charge £49.99 for everything and you will be able to do sweet FA about it.

  • Scopeh #42 1 year ago

    i'd love to see their sales figures for this...

  • jag10 #43 1 year ago

    blu-ray.

  • ElNino9 #44 1 year ago

    Anyone that pays £50 for it is a mug and deserves to be ripped off.

    If people don't buy it they be forced to rethink their stupid pricing strategy. Simple as.

  • bad09 #45 1 year ago

    I'd rather wait a month for a game than pay 50 notes for it!

    Steam offers 24/7 convenience but you don't see them charging 50 notes, sorry but at the prices you see on PSN and GOD DD on consoles is for complete fools only. If DD is indeed the future of gaming, the future is very bright for the good old PC and quite bleak for consoles.

  • Anciegher #46 1 year ago

    You are out of your mind MS.

  • White_Westie #47 1 year ago

    And this is one key reason why digital distribution should never take off as if it did the platform holder such as ms or ea could seriously rip the consumer off even more than they do now....

  • phAge #48 1 year ago

    I wonder what focus group told MS that this was a good idea...

  • Bulbatron #49 1 year ago

    There's no way this sort of price can be justified. They can fuck off.

    I bought the original Dead Space on Games on Demand recently, because it was £14.99, which was very nearly as cheap as the disc version was going for at the time. Didn't take it all that long to download, which surprised me. So I was really happy with my experience buying a downloaded game on that occasion, but bloody hell, I can't imagine anybody would fork out for Halo Reach at that price - even for the convenience.
    Edited by Bulbatron at 17/03/11 @ 21:19

  • ThePissartist #50 1 year ago

    Anyone that pays £50 because they can't be arsed to go to the shop needs their head checking.

    Actually these people need checking on. I'm worried.

    (sarcasm)

  • matpsp #51 1 year ago

    And people say digital is the future, fuck off!

  • secombe #52 1 year ago

    I actually bought Lego Star Wars over Games on Demand a few weeks ago, one of the few games reasonably priced (£19.99), I wanted it for that weekend and it's pretty hard to find in specialist games stores let alone supermarkets.

    I get the convenience thing, but the price has got to be the same or at most a few quid more than an average-ish store or onlne price to be considered as an impulse purchase.

  • oceanmotion #53 1 year ago

    Another thing, put up GOTY versions. Always wanting to charge for extras, give us something free for once and especially by that time.

    One thing I can't understand is people buying Bad Company 2 through GoD, it doesn't come with the free DLC code so your have to fork out more. Crazy.

  • FireMonkey #54 1 year ago

    If it's too expensive for you don't buy it or just buy it elsewhere. We have the choice, so there is very little point bitching about it.
    If MS do not sell many at this price then they are less likely to have such a high price again on other products.

    Even Steam which everyone seems to love has overpriced games compared to places like Amazon, but people quite often wait till there is a sale or stump up the cash for the convenience of it.

    Personally, I still like having physical copies of things I own and the only way I will be tempted away from that is if the prices for digital eventually come considerably lower than the physical copies.

  • The-Jack-Burton #55 1 year ago

    It's called this: we think our customers are stupid. Lets put it at an unjustifiably high price just to see how many suckers will buy it. They did same thing with Kinect, which they can easily sell for under $99, but since everybody purchased one, MS isn't so inclined to bargain with you, they think you are idiots.

  • carrotcake #56 1 year ago

    If they went download only on a future console I doubt they would charge disagreeable prices for very long though, because nobody would buy anything, so they would lower the prices.

  • AmethystSword #57 1 year ago

    lols.

  • FireMonkey #58 1 year ago

    Digital Distribution is also in a bit of an awkward position at the moment, because as soon as one of the services starts offering games for a lower price than the retail market can afford, the retail market will basically hold the publishers to ransom over it and refuse to stock copies of those cheap games. As most games are still purchased in the physical form this would be devastating for the publishers and so they would have to pull the game from the digital distribution service or get it's price increased to a level where the stores are happier (which would be higher than they currently sell at). If that doesn't work then the stores will start moaning about anti-competitive practices and say that they have no way of competing and threaten to take it to court.

    Basically DD services need to take baby steps. Once they have about 50% share of the market, then they would be able to start offering games at a lower price to the shops without too much fear. The only problem for us is that by that time they would have proven they can still sell games at that price and not need to drop much. However, I feel there will be more than one service offering the games and so there will still be competition and so prices will not be stupidly high like some on here have indicated.
    Edited by FireMonkey at 17/03/11 @ 22:14

  • Negotiator #59 1 year ago

    Pay it or don't, but don't talk shit about Microsoft, Bill gates is a wonderful man he has given 22 Billion to charitable causes.

  • dsmx #60 1 year ago

    I wish to god the publishers would just call the game shops bluff and just start charging less for the digital copies, they aren't going to stop stocking your game if you all do it as they won't have anything to sell, grow some fucking balls.

  • omniscient #61 1 year ago

    So if you have a silver account in order to enjoy the game it will cost you around £60. No thanks.

  • omniscient #62 1 year ago

    So if you have a silver account in order to enjoy the game it will cost you around £60. No thanks.

  • Tryhard #63 1 year ago

    "and our program is about giving people 24 x 7 convenience and selection"

    No it is about screwing people with more money than sense.

  • MizzouGaming #64 1 year ago

    Its kind of sad that people still don't get why the GoD are priced like this. My parents own part of a company that sells retail games and related stuff. If they start offering games digitally distributed equal or less than suggested retail then we will stop carrying and promoting their games.

    We don't mind the Games on Demand pricing because it caters to a tiny, tiny segment of the population. In certain situations people will pay the extra for the convience of it being available right there to download. Not everything is made for everyone. Like many of you say, why would you pay for it at that price when you can go to GameStop and buy it cheaper? Now if MS eliminated those channels you normally use, or regulated them in a way that established a minimum ad price, then let those tears flow.

    Steam isn't the same type of service because Steam COMPETES with these retail stores, MS is actually their retail partner.
    Edited by MizzouGaming at 17/03/11 @ 22:47

  • metalangel #65 1 year ago

    Yes folks, digital distribution is going to fuck you up the wrong'un until your entire digestive system falls out, and you'll be told to like it.

  • timewarp87 #66 1 year ago

    I think its a new drugs test maybe?

  • TheHammerite #67 1 year ago

    Why should mugs and fools be punished so!

  • omniscient #68 1 year ago

    @MizzouGaming you have missed the point which is that it £60 is too much just look at prices for RDR, CoD, and the other examples which are obviously more expensive than the average retail price but within reason.

  • MizzouGaming #69 1 year ago

    No I get it, when a game has been out long enough these prices are going to get closer, but what's that do? Helps move used copies.

  • king26 #70 1 year ago

    It isn't even that good, I just bought the Battlefield Vietnam expansion for £10, much better game

  • levitate #71 1 year ago

    Convinience my hairy arse. Fuck off.

  • Spunkweazle #72 1 year ago

    £50 is a reasonble price for the convinience of a game delivered direct to your machine, but only if it is there waiting to be played on the day of release.
    This just seems like MS want us to pay a premium for less than premium service

  • BAZ1307 #73 1 year ago

    Not only would the Games On Demand service rob my wallet, it would also squeeze out the last remains of my 20GB HDD space, which is actually only 13GB in reality...

    Another thing, I could buy a bus ticket there and back to the shops, buy Halo: Reach and have myself a nice meal while I'm at it, for a cheaper price than a virtual download of the same thing on my defunct stone-age 360.

    But thank you, Microsoft, thank you for the free meal.

  • King_of_Hyrule #74 1 year ago

    I'm willing to pay slightly more for Games on Demand games, because then I don't have to change disks all the time (yups I'm that lazy), especially useful for games you can't "finish" in a week, like a good multiplayer game. I bought Borderlands via GoD for that reason. This price is ridiculous though.

  • FortysixterUK #75 1 year ago

    Microsoft may be doing the following:......
    Pushing operating system technology forwards.
    Maintaining a gaming platform that see's mutliple new and interesting titles released for it ( PC, Xbox).
    Investing in future tech.
    I applaud them for this.

    What Microsoft are not:.....

    MS are not your friend. They only want your money.

    Anyone that pays 50 quid for 6 month old game that is in digital download format deserves what they get. Ripped off.

  • superdelphinus #76 1 year ago

    How are they 'ostensibly' saving money on packaging etc? Surely they actually are?

  • Honey_Badger #77 1 year ago

    The only good idea ever to come out of Robert Kotick's mouth was his statement of intent to strongly push for TV-friendly PCs in order to bring the personal computing experience into the living room and further intimidate the console. With Steam blatantly ambivalent about making us pay through the nose for "24/7 convenience" I would be delighted to see the platform come to televisions, because it means I will either witness a frantic slashing of prices by Sony Microsoft and Nintendo, or I can simply switch platform.

    Having said that, Modern Warfare 2 on Steam still sits at an outrageous £40. Damn you Kotick.

  • deano2099 #78 1 year ago

    It's silly.

    But what would have been interesting is putting it on Games On Demand at this price at midnight on launch day. Wonder how it would have sold then?

  • chasejamie #79 1 year ago

    That pricing is unjustifiable. No need for it at all. Then again you can make your own pizza for about a quid fifty, yet people pay a tenner from Pizza Hut while waiting for it to get delivered. I don't know what I'm trying to say. Now I'm hungry. I'll stop.

  • zubnut #80 1 year ago

    Fuck me that makes those famale goods sound like a bargain!

  • atomised #81 1 year ago

    1. this is why shops are better for the consumer and the physical media empowers the owner.
    2. this is why the companies keep on bleating on about shops, as they can't rip the consumer off as easily.
    3. glad i stopped paying microsoft for the 'gold service' and went for the free playstation.
    4. the only full current gen game i've bought was on the PS network as it was cheaper than importing...note the word 'cheaper'.

  • Chakitty #82 1 year ago

    Raising prices for the convenience? How about lowering them for the lower overheads?

    If Digital Downloads are the future, it can fuck right off at that price!

  • 32768Colours #83 1 year ago

    As way of comparison, Red Dead Redemption is currently offered for £29.99, Super Street Fighter IV is £19.99, Bayonetta is £14.99, Kane & Lynch 2 is £17.99 and Modern Warfare 2 is £39.99.

    You can get hard copies of all those games for far far less. 2 weeks back I picked up a limited edition of Kane and Lynch 2 from Tesco for £6! I bought MW2 for £32 on release day, only to trade it in for £30 at CEX a week later! As for the other games, like I say, you can get them cheaper elsewhere also, and have the advantage of being able to trade them in or sell them at a later date.

    Downloadable games are really only good if its priced in the budget range or the game is really hard to get hold of on disc (I downloaded Wipeout HD Fury and Earth Defence Force 2017 recently because after much hunting around I couldn't find them anywhere). But £50? MS are clearly just trying not to tread on retailer's toes, which is ironic really, considering how much they usually - allegedly - enjoy anti-competitive practices!

  • HugePS3Fan #84 1 year ago

    *is a Microsoft exec*

    *fuckin uploads Reach to Xbox Live and charges over full-price for it with literally no additional overhead*

    *goes to sleep on a bed made of money while people on the internet complain well into the night*

  • dfooster #85 1 year ago

    I wanted battlefield 2 the other day. Looked on games on demand £30 thought sod that drove to asda and got a second hand copy for £16. If I trade this back in in a few weeks time I might get £12 for it. That means I have bought a game for £4. so £4 versus £30 for a download I can't trade.

    The only people who would opt for download are those rich enough not to care or those stupid enough not to realise that there are much better and cheaper alternatives.

    Microsoft needs to be selling games on demand at the second hand retail price and stop pretending the second hand Market doesn't exist. It does and it is here to stay.

  • TRUTH #86 1 year ago

    Never buy DL games - your console breaks, your HDD screwa up, you can't resell, you can't lend, you can't exchange, you can't swap, you overpay for physically nothing - no cd/case/instructions, you also pay more!

    Sooner or later the next gen console will come, all those overpriced games you bought will be wasted - acn't do anything with them!

  • ThePissartist #87 1 year ago

    Let's hope this is not a tester for the next Xbox. Microsoft can piss right off if this is their strategy.

  • ThePissartist #88 1 year ago

    How much does PS3 cost these days?

  • lucky_jim #89 1 year ago

    I would have respected the decision a lot more if they'd come out and said "you know it's a Stupid Tax. We know it's a Stupid Tax. It's a Stupid Tax."

  • Spekingur #90 1 year ago

    So, what stupid marketing guy thought up this little speech?

  • hazelam #91 1 year ago

    i think i missed the part where "MS justifies Games on Demand prices"

  • Daddy-Doom-Bar #92 1 year ago

    The only GoD game I've ever got is Fable 2, and that was only because it was when it was free for a time!!

  • Xboxfanuk #93 1 year ago

    Why price Halo Reach above the retail standard of £40.00? Especially given that they delay the release of the games on the service for months and sometimes years of launch. I know they don't want to compete with retail, but come on!

  • twyford #94 1 year ago

    Whenever I use the Games on Demand service I always think it's expensive. Sure there's the convenience of getting the game without going to the shop, but where's the convenience in never being able to take that game to a mates house. That rather large inconvenience should be reflected in the prices.

    Also, given the gap between initial shop release of a game and the time they eventually appear on Games on Demand I've always felt the pricing should perhaps be more towards the pre-owned pricing scale.

  • Xboxfanuk #95 1 year ago

    The real "convenience" they are refering to is not getting off the sofa and putting the disk in the tray.

  • kentmonkey #96 1 year ago

    I really can't understand the line of "but it's worth noting that it's hardly the norm for the service". I've just spent no more than five minutes checking approx 50 of the games on the GOD system and the ONLY one that came out cheaper than you can buy it elsewhere new for was Bully. By £2.

    Not only that, but none of the others were within £5 of the new release you can purchase elsewhere and have the manual/48 hour live code freebie (in some cases) with it. And not only that but 17 of them were either twice as expensive or in some cases nearly three times as expensive than you could buy a new copy for.

    Just because something doesn't cost £50 doesn't actually mean that they're still not over-charging for the product, which therefore invalidates your comment.

    What we could really do is for people within your position of relative power within the industry to put pressure on these people by calling it as it is, which is essentially wallet buggery, not powdering their noses for them with a positive throw-away comment such as the one I highlighted above.

  • bliprunner #97 1 year ago

    As someone who lives thousands of miles from a decent shop I would definitely have ponied up lots of cash if games were available for reasonable prices (even a few pounds more) in reasonable time.

    MS know that £50 is way over the impulse threshold so clearly the strategy is just to cream money from the richest consumers. I don't believe they give a damn about retailers, especially ones selling 2nd hand games. Their wet dream is to cut out the retailer and take maximum % of profits with no resale possible.

    In their defence, if they had released Halo Reach for £40 on release day, XBL would probably have fallen over, so maybe the strategy is to keep large downloads at a manageable level. I dunno, I'm just chucking this out there...

  • Inmediasress #98 1 year ago

    MS is out of tuch with reality for years now. Seeing as they make bad decisions one after the other. Idon't know what's affecting the mind of the executives but maybe too much money makes you brain dead. I really don't know and honestly they baffle me.
    I read somewhere that an alegedly MS employe or fired one I don't remember said that there is total chaos in MS the right hand dosen't know what the left hand does and they should replace the old dinosaurs with some fresh blood cause they don't know shit about what's happening around them.
    You know I start to believe them.

  • irve77 #99 1 year ago

    And yet people will still buy it !

    Digital distribution is the future .. and high prices are part of that future.

    On a side note i think a closed Full Digital Distribution system for future consoles would come under fire from regulatory bodies.
    it's not like itunes where you can still buy mp3's from amazon etc but it's less convinient.

  • Nephirion #100 1 year ago

    The Harrods of Gaming

  • subedii #101 1 year ago

    Not too surprising I suppose. Their GFWL store is pretty overpriced as well, most of the titles are at RRP regardless of age.

    They have the occasional sale where they discount a few titles (or mega discount a single one), but that's only out of some half-hearted attempt at competing with Steam.

    Basically unless the deals on PSN start giving Microsoft a real run for their money (so to speak), I don't really see them finding any pressing desire to discount on older titles.

    And yes, the reasoning they give is pretty much tripe.
    Edited by subedii at 18/03/11 @ 10:09

  • Rack #102 1 year ago

    "With our next day delivery you can order from Amazon and we'll deliver it to your door for less than half the price!"

    The door? But that's miles away!

    *Gets from GoD*

  • aniki Verified Web Developer, YoYo Games Ltd #103 1 year ago

    "No one retailer has the lowest pricing for every product - but we're going to make damn sure we have the highest pricing!"
    Edited by aniki at 18/03/11 @ 10:32

  • SomaticSense #104 1 year ago

    They are still throwing the "convenience" argument out there?

    So, a MASSIVE mark up as I can d/l it straight away? Oh, does it appear in full magically on my hard drive within seconds? No, it takes over six HOURS to d/l.

    Fuck off is it more convenient. Game - packaging - distribution + convenience (if there is any...) = at the very least the same price as current retail prices. Not the fuck loads more they are actually charging.

    Rip-off merchants.

    It's about time EG started to get all Paxman or Panorama on their arses. Rather than give publishers and manufacturers a podium to 'justify' their actions on various gaming related issues, how about some quality investigative journalism?
    Edited by SomaticSense at 18/03/11 @ 10:41

  • Toothball #105 1 year ago

    I have been getting to like Games on Demand a bit more, although I wouldn't pay £50 for Reach. That's mostly because I hold litter interest in the Halo series, although I would consider paying that much for a game I particularly wanted. I have grown to appreciate the convenience of not having to get up to change discs after trying a few of them.

    I was pleased to see the Deals menu appear on the Spotlight panel, which seemed to imply that they would be using it to promote permanent and temporary price cuts. Red Dead Redemption is £30 now, but the other week it was £40 for example. If they continue with price depreciation over time then digital prices may eventually prove as enticing as a physical prices.

  • bodhi85uk #106 1 year ago

    i literally live a 60 second drive from a Best Buy, Sainsburys, PCW/Currys and a Tesco - all of which sell those games for the same or less.

    They talk about convenience of downloading it like a 6-10gb download is no big thing, that would take me a day or more to download. I could probably get shopto.net to deliver it by the next day if i ordered first thing in the morning.

  • stepleftstepright #107 1 year ago

    Only way you can teach Microsoft on this topic is not to waste your money on the ridiculous price.

  • Xinch #108 1 year ago

    incredibly excited = cunt speak

  • Collymilad #109 1 year ago

    How about NO, MS?

    Seriously. Get. A. Fucking. Grip.

    Are these people delusional or do they think the general public has an IQ of 12?

  • Marshall2008 #110 1 year ago

    Games on demand would be fine if they were cheap but I would argue against the 'convenience' of them, unless of course your a fat cunt who can't get out of the chair to load the game disc into the xbox.

    I would say that its more of an inconvenience as you have to download it on all of your xbox consoles to play it. Its signed only to your account so when the kids play they have to take your account to their xbox or play on yours etc. Discs are much more convenient.

    An while we are on about digital distribution, EA need to cut the fucking shit out with single use codes to play online. I got need for speed at christmas and now when my kids want to play online they have to take my account otherwise they would need to but an online pass. EA are a bunch of price gouging cunts and wont be getting a fucking penny more from me for any future games that do this. Its a case of double dipping, I already pay for a gold sub to play online, the cheeky fucks.
    Edited by Marshall2008 at 18/03/11 @ 14:16

  • number3son #111 1 year ago

    Just wait till the physical stores are gone and fronts like GoD are all we have, £50 is going to seem like one hell of a fucking bargain.

  • Tyronne #112 1 year ago

    IF this is their argument for the ridiculous amount they are charging for this then they are more out step with the gamer than I ever thought possible.
    Utterly stupid price point and arguement for it being so bloody high,anyone who buys it at this price needs their head examined.

  • midnight_walker #113 1 year ago

    how about some quality investigative journalism?

    It's so much easier to Ctrl+C & Ctrl+V.

  • geeza2020 #114 1 year ago

    disgraceful pricing really. And MW2 is still £39.99??? Fuck off, it wasnt worth that when I bought it a year and a half ago.

  • tinyspark #115 1 year ago

    To anybody who bought this at that price: You are officially a fucking idiot.

  • azic #116 1 year ago

    Game has it's name written all over this.... Fuck off MS... Stop bowing to game et al

  • pmamba45 #117 1 year ago

    One word for the price Tag.... Rape!

  • TRUTH #118 1 year ago

    Stupid people pay this price!

  • Murton #119 1 year ago

    "I wish to god the publishers would just call the game shops bluff and just start charging less for the digital copies, they aren't going to stop stocking your game if you all do it as they won't have anything to sell, grow some fucking balls."

    I had to go back to this from dsmx. It's a good idea but it's a bit like the banks, you'd need a concerted effort so that if they follow up on their bluff you're not the one who gets screwed. If EA, Acti, Ubi, MS and Sony all together decided that DD should be cheaper it'd work, retailers couldn't possibly hold a gun to the heads of the five largest publishers on the planet at the same time or they'd have no stock and no profits for themselves. If just one publisher does it though, you can bet money that GAME at the very least will refuse stock (they've done it before over a fight with Activision regarding GH stock) and their refusing to stock just one big game will snap the other publishers back into line, even if they pretend to buckle at the last minute and stock it anyway, the mere threat is more than enough given the cost of games development these days.

    The Retailers are a strange beast, they're like the gunner on the Star Destroyer in A New Hope, he was a non-character who didn't really matter, but if he did shoot that "empty" escape pod, that would have been that. Retailers have no say in what direction the industry takes, but they could bring the entire industry to its knees with no effort whatsoever.

  • GoingPostal13 #120 1 year ago

    Bollocks Microsoft.

  • GoingPostal13 #121 1 year ago

    "I saw the Legendary Edition for sale for £45 a few months back. "

    It was £27 on Amazon last week

  • Retroid #122 1 year ago

    There's arguing that they have to toe the RRP line and then there's blatant profiteering on a very popular franchise.

    £50? Christ.

  • Morph4471 #123 1 year ago

    I used to occasionally look at the games on demand but never bought any due to the massively over inflated costs. The pricing of this service just serves as a negative sales advertisement. I dont even bother looking at them anymore, so if ever there was a deal I still wouldnt be even see it to buy it.