Remedy: sooner we go digital, the better

By Fred Dutton Published 3 May, 2011

Alan Wake dev won't miss retailers.

The sooner the games industry abandons physical media and goes download-only the better, so says Alan Wake developer Remedy.

Speaking in an interview with Edge, CEO Matias Myllyrinne explained that digital distribution is opening up exciting new possibilities for developers.

"Certainly we're looking to embrace more of the digital stuff," he pledged.

"I'm really excited about PSN, [Xbox] Live and some of the stuff on Steam, because it really allows you to directly engage with your audience. All these opportunities are opened up that you couldn't do before – there wasn't a model you could work around."

Myllyrinne went on to explain that he didn't see a digital-only future as a death knell for big-budget AAA blockbusters.

"I don't think the big, huge experiences are going anywhere, but the sooner we go digital as an industry, the better for everybody. Better for consumers, better for the developers and publishers."

He admitted there would be one casualty – high street retail – but that he wouldn't mourn their passing.

"Maybe [it's] not so good for retail," he admits, "but then again if you're selling our games as used copies and incentivising people to do that, then I don't really feel sorry for you."

The Finnish developer hasn't confirmed its next project yet, though has recently been hiring motion control experts.

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 (108) Latest comment 1 year ago

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

  • StooMonster #1 1 year ago

    I'm alright jack with my 50Mb connection, but what about my mates in the countryside with their "broadband" measured in Kb per second?

  • kosigan #2 1 year ago

    Better for developers, yes. Better for publishers, yes. Better for consumers... how, exactly? No competition and full price for as long as they want doesn't sound like that good a deal to me.

  • captain_Carl #3 1 year ago

    Not better for consumers at all. Don't fancy waiting several days for my shit internet connection to download a 9GB game, and at a stupidly high price.

  • Genome #4 1 year ago

    So sayeth the man from the country where broadband is a legal right:

    [link url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/broadband/6337698/Finland-makes-fast-broadband-a-legal-right.html
    ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/br...[/link]

    This is why I hate it when devs and gamers bring this up. "We have to get rid of physical media and go download only!" Yes, because everybody has the connection to manage that. Physical media will be around for a long time to come.

  • Jolly_Armadillo #5 1 year ago

    Games will cheaper for consumer. Cos they don't need to worry about second hand sales, creating hard media, transport, retail adding there charges to the game etc.

  • login_name #6 1 year ago

    The day this industry turns digital only is the day I stop buying games, so I hope it never happens.

  • FuzzyDuck #7 1 year ago

    Matias Myllyrinne confirmed as PSPGo fanboy?!

  • coolbritannia #8 1 year ago

    Hmm, I hope the death of the 2nd market makes games cheaper. I'm listening games industry, make me an offer.

  • richyroo #9 1 year ago

    It wont be good for consumers OR developers/publishers.

    The day that games go digital only will be the day that I give them up entirely. Im sure there are others that think like me too. I am not willing to pay over the odds for digital with no resale value.

    EDIT....yep Login_name agrees with me I see so Im glad Im not the only one.
    Edited by richyroo at 03/05/11 @ 22:01

  • Bleedingplums #10 1 year ago

    The psn price of Mass Effect 2 proves this assertion to be a huge pile of horseshit.

  • subedii #11 1 year ago

    @Kosigan: Depends on the state of the market surely?

    PC-side there's plenty of competition, and that readily shows in game pricing, with competition starting to heat up between Steam and other companies like Gamersgate and D2D, making for some fairly hefty discounting even on new titles.

    The competition also extends beyond just marketplaces as well, to the actual developers and their products. Section 8: Prejudice, despite being a fully fledged sequel with more content, is a DD only title that costs far less than the original game, being a budget priced title. Going by the logic that DD is a lock-in with no competition, Prejudice SHOULD have been full price shouldn't it?

  • brod #12 1 year ago

    I don't want consoles to go all digital because I like actually owning my games, and reselling them at my discretion.

  • Dafridge #13 1 year ago

    you'll never annihilate the retail arm completely at least not for a couple of decades
    casual gamers will never switch entirely to digital distribution methods

  • tomjoadsghost #14 1 year ago

    I only bought Alan Wake because the SE seemed irresistable when it was cheap, to tell the truth apart from quite enjoying the characters i found the actual software component of the package to be quite lacklustre, i certainly wouldnt bother with a sequel (and the free DLC actually kind of ruined the end of the actual game for me).

    Unless remedy can find a way to make a rather large physical box full of stuff digital i dont think that retailers are going to be the *only* casualty of this thing.

  • Daeltaja #15 1 year ago

    What garbage. A part from anything, if the traded market died, guess what? So would the new game market. I'd hate to see the state of the market if the only way people could buy games was by handing over €50 each time.

    If the price of a digital game was half that of its boxed counterpart, then we might have an entirely different situation, considering it cuts out the middle man and cost of distribution.

    I love going into a shop and buying a game. With a box. Especially with a nice box, and for a game that I've been looking forward to for ages. I spend nearly more time gazing at the box than bloody playing the game. Lol.

  • HyperTails #16 1 year ago

    And how is it better for consumers? Look at it this way: If we went digital tomorrow, i'd have to buy Dragon Age 3 (when its released) from EA and nobody else, so if EA decided to charge £59.99, i'd have to take it or leave it. And no competition means NO PRICE WARS. There's no Amazon undercutting Play, giving you a cheaper option. Its their way or the highway.

    The industry is in for a MAJOR reality check if they think we'll be going all digital anytime soon.

  • neosalad #17 1 year ago

    untill the uk broadband companies truly embrace broadband and dont limit or cap the downloads then it will never take off properley.. in the uk at least...
    and the price needs to be cheaper and have better discounts too....

    plus what about the games shops and the rest of the people in the retail chain. more jobs on the scrapheap eh?
    we'll soon be a nation of call centre staff and supermarket staff.

    Edited by neosalad at 03/05/11 @ 22:12

  • kingz #18 1 year ago

    Being a steam user I agree with this statement, huge sales every week saves me alot of money compared to buying retail. Mount and Blade Warband £4, The Witcher £4 and Half Life 2 £2.50......
    From a console perspective where games are priced at rrp I can understand where the negative feedback is coming from.
    Edited by kingz at 03/05/11 @ 22:26

  • subedii #19 1 year ago

    @neosalad:

    Other points aside for the moment, nobody OWES business models that are out of usage their custom, or their jobs. So as market demographics change, some jobs are made, others are lost.

    Whether or not people stop buying games in store, if people DO stop, that means those people will have to find employ elsewhere, and those industries in general will adapt to changing marketplace conditions (as Gamestop is currently trying to do by entering the digital market), or they'll simply die out.

    Book, newspaper and magazine publishers face similar issues in a time when people are getting their information and entertainment increasingly online. Weeping over it is like complaining at the advent of the car for the losses to the horse whip buggy industry.

  • romelpotter #20 1 year ago

    "I'm really excited about PSN, [Xbox] Live and some of the stuff on Steam, because it really allows you to directly engage with your audience."

    I'll let you directly engage.....with my steel toe-capped boot as I swiftly bring it into contention with your digital hoop you greedy, soul sucking scrotum!

    On a more rational note... I amplify the thoughts of the other posters above me, who disagree with the benefits of the gaming industry moving into the realm of digital distribution only.

    /polishes doc martins

    Edited by romelpotter at 03/05/11 @ 22:35

  • Xeopuppy #21 1 year ago

    I agree, Bring on digital only downloads, I only buy from Steam anyway, so I already do!!!

  • bad09 #22 1 year ago

    I find it funny a company who pissed in the face of PC gamers says they're are exited about Steam! ;)

    Honestly as a DD user of 2 years I can say, outside of cheap deals on Steam, I don't want retail to die at all. My gaming has become chained to the internet enough already. If the industry went DD only DRM needs to kicked out completely if I buy into it 100% now. Think GOG not Steam.
    Edited by bad09 at 03/05/11 @ 22:53

  • uknortherner2000 #23 1 year ago

    Ah, yes. A digital-only future.

    Tell me, does this future follow the EA/BioWare path of enlightenment where a bad word on the official forums sees me locked out of my legally-purchased games, perhaps permanently?

    Does this future ensure that I pay top dollar for every new release, direct from the publisher because there is no-longer any competition?

    Does this future ensure that besides not physically "owning" any games I'm forking out a fortune for, there is nothing to stop any publisher in future from switching off their servers, therefore wiping out my games collection in one foul swoop?

    If so, they can take their digital-only future and shove it firmly up their fat arses.

  • charming_fox #24 1 year ago

    makes me think of this:
    [link url=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/212/506622777_1b9520378f.jpg
    ]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/212/50662...[/link]

  • thedriffter50 #25 1 year ago

    Nah thx m8 I'm fine with discs. The only people this will benefit is developers.

    There is no advantage for gamers whatsoever. Once we go digital only is the day I'm a retro gamer.
    Edited by thedriffter50 at 03/05/11 @ 22:53

  • Murton #26 1 year ago

    If you want to go digital only there's nobody stopping you, but you surely realise that consumers have little or no interest in a digital only future and it's inherent lack of competition and the few that genuinely want it don't actually understand the implications of such a future.

    Everyone assumes that a digital future means an end to selling games to retailers at wholesale after paying for development, physical media production, transport/logistics etc etc. Look at EA's pricing on DA:o Awakening or ME2 on PSN, the physical media version on 360 and PC were available at less than half the cost at the same time, how is that future to the benefit of consumers? Don't forget that in your digital world there's infinite stock so nothing is ever "priced to move" But hey, less overheads and more profit for you guys, less choice and less freedom for us, it's a win/win from your perspective and an epic fail from ours, fortunately most of the industry sees the need for physical media despite the commercial advantages of digital.

    Also: "Maybe it's not so good for retail, but then again if you're selling our games as used copies and incentivising people to do that, then I don't really feel sorry for you." - I have just lost all respect for this man, if I was conducting this interview I'd be on an assault charge for giving him a damn good shoe-ing. Don't expect any sympathy from gamers when your little 50 man studio hits trouble and you're facing layoffs, if it's okay for the games retail sector to completely collapse leaving hundreds of thousands unemployed worldwide then certainly nobody will miss a couple dozen guys from Remedy. Prick.

  • CaptainKid #27 1 year ago

    I like digital downloads. In theory.
    In practice it means its MORE expensive AND I can't resell it.

  • weejok #28 1 year ago

    You only have to take a quick look at the prices on Games on Demand Xbox marketplace to see this will never be better for consumers :(

  • Lexmeister #29 1 year ago

    @Murton

    I agree with you that digital stock is infinite, but it also ages, and becomes less attractive as new games come out.

    So in order to shift any of it after the honeymoon period of, say, three months being on sale, publishers will need to discount, or risk it being ignored.

  • whizzedout #30 1 year ago

    I like my game collection, not my digital game collection.

  • ic4ruz #31 1 year ago

    It already is...... Oh wait yeah the consoles are still stuck in the past.

  • sjmlondon #32 1 year ago

    The problem with digital download only is that the only likely source for the consoles would be Sony PSN and Xbox live respectively. Neither of these services are reknown for offering competitive prices on download content whether whole games or DLC.

    Alan Wake's publisher are undoubltedly keen on download content, as having served up an incomplete game at retail, to mixed reviews and sales, then went one to serve up the remaining two chapters @ 560 msp a piece. Didn't Alan Wake come out the same week as Red Dead Redemption and got lost in it's wake (sic). Who's fault is that!!!

  • miiiguel #33 1 year ago

    Humm... I used to be old-school, but now I grew up to like my digital collection as well. No problem with that. Perhaps not "all digital" but I don't mind having the option. I even bought Bully: Scholarship Editon on GoD for 14.99, which was not bad, I couldn't find the game anywhere.

  • Phantom_Dynamite #34 1 year ago

    I love Remedy but In my case I must have the precious hard copies all lined up on my shelf, followed by blu rays and dvds then my books. I love my collection I don't want digi thanx.

  • RevanNL #35 1 year ago

    Yes, well I think the whole PSN disaster makes sure that the transistion to digital distribution will be delayed. And that's perhaps the one positive thing that came out of all this.

  • trubadman #36 1 year ago

    I have a 50MB connection, and have downloaded more games on PSN (aroudn 50) than disc based games I own. 2 reasons why I'm not comfortable with physical media disappearing altogether- I like having game cases and discs, I don't why but it would feel weird without a physical collection. It's a nice feeling to get a new game in your hands. Second reason, which is probably more an issue now than for the future is how can you guarantee continuous access to the media. How can I guarantee that I will still be able to play my PSN games which i bought for my PS3 in 10-15 years time, what if my HDD gets corrupted, will I be able to redownload them etc. I'm sure this will be addressed as digital distribution evolves, but regarding the first point, nothing can be done :(

    Also, when physical media disappears it will probably be a sign that the death of consoles will be soon to come!

  • zubnut #37 1 year ago

    Several people have hit the nail on the head as to why download only is bad for the consumer.
    Little to no competition on price.
    Lack of physical ownership - your download could be borked at the whim of the provider especially if they move toward licence only access to the game or while online only etc.
    No resale value - for those who can't afford to just keep buying games or who aren't fussed about keeping their games collections.
    Developers and publishers would be cutting their own noses off - parents buying games for their kids would probably not buy something they physically can't pick up in a shop. Remember those things like birthday and Xmas presents anyone?

  • beatwolf #38 1 year ago

    That fucker from Remedy can go die in a fire, I hope he gets run over by a bus. Every other entertainment industry has their products sold used and always have (movies, music, books etc). What makes these snob-nosed game developers think that games are different.
    When games go digital i will stop bying games. I wan't something sitting on my shelf im a collector dammit!

  • Sevens #39 1 year ago

    Better for consumers, I disagree. A choice would be nice. If it has to be just one of the two modes, then physical is better.
    Edited by Sevens at 04/05/11 @ 01:14

  • MrLovePump #40 1 year ago

    Yeah so i cannot ebay when i get ripped off by shit like alan wake.

  • PenguinJim #41 1 year ago

    ARGH! SO ANGRY!

    GAMES ARE DIGITAL ALREADY! THEY'RE ALL 0s AND 1s!

    What he means is when games are DOWNLOAD only! You can't just swap 'digital' and 'download'!

    Anyway, I'm just off to digital that new demo. I'm very pleased with my digital speed, it's much faster than my upload speed! :p

  • PenguinJim #42 1 year ago

    Hehe, thanks Dutch, but my comment was aimed directly at Matias (the Remedy interviewee), and only indirectly at others. ;)

  • NeverWinter78 #43 1 year ago

    What about all the gamers that don't want to join up to live or PSN ! How you gonna sell your games to them !

  • Saad92 #44 1 year ago

    How is always needing to pay full price and waiting around for the game to download "better". I'd classify that as "significantly worse".
    Edited by Saad92 at 04/05/11 @ 06:18

  • TransientBlade #45 1 year ago

    Of course they want digital only, that way they dictate everything on price and we lose out from no second hand market.

    I wonder how many people paid full price for Alan Wake?

  • jonsaan #46 1 year ago

    'The Finnish developer hasn't confirmed its next project yet, though has recently been hiring motion control experts.'

    You won't need the retail sector to see that game tank then!

    I do agree though. Retail can disappear very quickly please. Also, if things go completely digital, of course there will be competition.

  • metalangel #47 1 year ago

    Digital only would be good news for Remedy... people who bought Alan Wake only to discover it was a load of crap couldn't trade it in, thus preventing wiser/more wary consumers getting a cheap preowned copy.

  • Lexmeister #48 1 year ago

    Echoing the thoughts above concerning alan wake specifically... Are Remedy sure they want this? I'm all in favour of more download stuff, but i concede that i only bought Alan Wake because i was curious to see this hyped game, knowing full well i could get a full refund in 10 days.

    After reading the various reviews, i wouldn't have dropped download cash on it.

  • kenichi-san #49 1 year ago

    I like my videogame collection bought strictly from stores, thank you :)

    And i like having my collector's edition on a shelf ^^,

  • technotica #50 1 year ago

    Games won't become cheaper because they eliminated physical retail, why would they lower their prices if they can force people to buy the games at full price online? What would keep them from doing that? The goodness in their hearts? :p

  • Sora888 #51 1 year ago

    I think digital downloads are great idea however, I think the pricing of game titles (Including the high priced Halo reach on Games on Demand for £49.99) is way off. At the moment we pay for the development for the game, the costs to create discs and booklets etc and finally shipping costs. With digital downloads the costs of shipping and creating the tangible items are no longer present yet, we are still expected to pay full whack for a digital download. I mean come on. Wouldn't you think that a game title that cannot be traded or pirated should be competitively priced?

  • BritishBlue1 #52 1 year ago

    Personally I dread a digital only future, publishers have proven time and again that they're willing to leverage digital distribution against the consumer rather than for us.

  • kosigan #53 1 year ago

    @subedii: The PC download market isn't directly comparable to the console market. Yes, there is competition on the PC as there are multiple retailers selling the same product, so you can pick and choose where the best deal is - I have a Steam account myself and I've bought some cheap games from EA on PC. But there is no such competition on PS3 or XBox360: there is only one place from which to buy download games on each system, at whatever price the publisher wishes to charge - and we know how fond of "RRP" they are, just look at Mass Effect 2. There's also no way to trade-in a digital game in order to part-finance the purchase of a new game. The console manufacturers may argue that there's competition in as much as there are 2 (or 3, I suppose, if you count the Wii) consoles on which to buy the games, but that argument would only have any hope of holding water if all games are released on all consoles - i.e. no more exclusives - and what are the chances of that happening?

  • Toothball #54 1 year ago

    Well I'm up for a digital future. It would help if they expanded the purchasing options a bit, such as by allowing third parties to sell codes for digital content, but overall I'm not that concerned with costs going a few pounds one way or the other. I never trade in anything, so resale value isn't something I consider when I want to buy a game. And I quite frequently pay less full price for digital games by waiting for sales. It's still early days in the whole digital gaming realm so companies and gamers are still getting used to it. Given more time the digital options will likely expand and help to alleviate some of the apprehension surrounding it.

    Besides, it's not like retail is without disadvantages. Availability is frequently reliant on stock levels and the amount of display space in a given shop. Much of the time it's hard to find a new copy of a game that has fallen outside the top ten, as the secondhand market has seen many shops stock those rather than new copies. And quite often you won't see much variation in price across the high street, with most stores sticking to RRP. I used to enjoy wandering around shops to find out which had the better deal, but that's all but dried up too.

    The digital realm has worked very well for music, so there's no reason it shouldn't work for games. It seems to have moved faster than anyone expected, leaving the content distributors and consumers bewildered and struggling to catch up. One day it'll reach a happy medium.

  • Scritti #55 1 year ago

    No no no no no no no!

    F*ck download-only!

    Great for Wii Ware, XBOX Live & PSN Network small-budget games but "proper" full-price games should be bought and put into a collection for keeping forever or trading-in at a later date.

    Manuals should be sniffed occasionally.

    Download-only is fine for a phone but a proper home games console deserves to have a collection of brilliant games sitting next to it.

    Bloody Remedy. Shut the f*ck up and get on with Alan Wake 2. Which better come in a box and be £17 on Amazon 4 months after it's release or it can bugger off.

  • captain_saturn #56 1 year ago

    But I swap games with my mates...

  • subedii #57 1 year ago

    @kosigan:

    The reason I'm brining this up is because pretty much every comment I'm seeing here here is blanket condemnation about how DD is inherently bad and evil and equates to "AAARRGH HIGH PRICES FOREVER OHNOES!", but DD is just a distribution method. The nature of the market is what is important. Steam actively disproves such a notion. Steam is also something he directly mentioned but for some reason everyone's ignoring that as well because they want to rage rage rage about how everything's doomed.

    The intent behind the comment was largely about cutting out middle-men to increase profit margins. With a service like Steam, developers typically get something like 70% per unit sold, compared to something like 30%-50% at standard brick and mortar retail. More importantly, digital distribution allows a tremendous amount of flexibility when pricing, and leveraging that is key to a lot of the successes devs having managed on Steam (and is probably at least part of what he meant by "directly engaging" with your audience).

    The way Valve's used this pricing flexibility is already noteworthy, but let's look at another example. You raised Mass Effect 2, and I feel the whole Dragon Age 2 / Mass Effect 2 giveaway is a really good illustrator as well. Bioware / EA literally giving away a free copy of their blockbuster game on the PC if you bought DA2. This is extremely unfeasible, if not outright impossible with B&M retail models, and hence why the same deal hasn't been extended to the consoles.

    And yet, it's a calculated move that works out really well for them. ME2 has already sold most of the copies it's ever going to sell in its lifetime, barring a pretty hefty discount Steam sale (which is still possible, heck, there's a week of EA sales going on Steam right now and I wouldn't be surprised to see ME2 at a hefty discount at some point). What they did here was use it instead as a promotional item to boost sales of their current premium title Dragon Age 2, because they're foresighted enough to realise this doesn't cost them anything to do so (They aren't really losing sales on ME2, and what's the price of a few more bits down the pipeline?). It also acts as a big advertisement for a certain new premium game coming in the near future, Mass Effect 3.

    That's the kind of power that Digital Distribution channels allow, and it's one that is impractical if not impossible to even attempt with B&M retail. A gated system with no competition may be bad. Digital Distribution however, isn't inherently bad in itself, and devs aren't inherently evil for wanting to see that flexibility and those benefits.

    What's important is the nature of the market and the competition. For years Steam was largely operating as the only really viable DD service on PC, and even now it's still the clear majority holder with other services only recently starting to come into their own. But that didn't prevent price drops on even DD exclusive, PC exclusive titles, because they were competing with other titles on the platform for people's money.

    I can't honestly say how an all DD future would affect the console market, and I wouldn't try to predict it. Whether platform holder lock-in and forced pricing wins out over competition between platforms and individual products is something that we don't really know. Everyone predicted initially that if PC games were sold purely via DD and without the middle-man of the Brick and Mortar retailer to "moderate" the market, that prices would remain permanently high. That's not what actually happened.

    In an all DD future, it's easy to envision a scenario where prices are continually forced artificially high by platform holders. It's also easy to see precisely that forced pricing model forcing people onto competing platforms instead. Basically it's not really something I'm willing to cast as outright bad in itself, even console side. I don't think anyone can really predict how it will work out, any more than anyone did with Steam the first time around.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #58 1 year ago

    Still makes me laugh when everyone said blu ray was pointless because next gen would be all download, the first console to go digital only is really going to struggle, and after PSP GO im confident Sony wont be the first to try that again.

    I think its safe to say next gen will be disk based (most likely blu ray based) and possibly even the gen after.

  • PlugMonkey #59 1 year ago

    You only have to take a quick look at the prices on Games on Demand Xbox marketplace to see this will never be better for consumers :(

    You only need to look at the 117 games in my Steam library to see that it already is. Most of those cost me a pittance.

    I don't think I've ever owned 117 games in the lifetime of a system before, even with trade ins.

    I bet I've spent less on those 117 games than it has cost me to fund my Xbox 360 / PS3 gaming habit in the same time frame, even with trade ins.

    People are so stupid about this. The sky is, in fact, not falling in. And fabulous games like SpaceChem and Magicka would not even exist without a digital distribution model.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #60 1 year ago

    @Scritti

    Sniffing manuals will be a thing of the past fairly soon i reckon, it will be sniffing the pamphlet that has a web address for your manual, this is what EA are already doing i miss the good old days when manuals were proper thick and were actually interesting to read, with back story and plot.

  • PlugMonkey #61 1 year ago

    @GamesProgrammer

    My 'next gen' console will most likely be some sort of PC based gaming box that I build myself to plug into my telly (which is actually a giant LCD monitor). It will certainly be using the internet as the main means of content delivery. If it goes well, I might even start building them and selling them on the side. The time has come when this could actually work.

    What do I actually need a closed system like the Xbox and Playstation for any more? So that I can hand one company a monopoly on providing my games? THAT'S what causes Games on Demand to be so expensive, not the distribution method.

  • canoot #62 1 year ago

    They can fuck off.

  • Sanglyon #63 1 year ago

    Disacclaimer: the following is only my opinion, which I don't claim as absolute truth.

    Competition isn't only about different resellers trying to have the lowest price on the same product, it is also between the products themselves. If you can buy, say, a Fiat Panda for 6000€, it's because there are concurrent cars like the Twingo, Aigo, Micra, and every one needs to be cheaper. If an hypothetical download-only Black Ops II was sold for 90e, maybe some people would still buy it, but most would turn to other FPS in the same vein for hal that price.

    While I'm using cars as an example, lets talk about resales.
    When someone resell his car, it's not in the same state it was when bought. The engine, the structure, the cleanliness, everything is degraded. So the buyer can either buy a brand new car from the car maker for full price, or the used car that will not last as long, will break more often and isn't as comfortable. In the second case, it could be seen as if each of those buyer only paid for a limited part of the total usability of the car.

    However, for a video game, a "used" game is still a full game. The buyer still enjoy the full experience, there is no fatigue in the product. It might become obsolete, but usually it might be resold quite a few time before that. I know there are some case when a used game isn't full, like a game that the previous owner registred with his own account to play online, but most of the time, there are no incentive to buy a new game over a used one. And the average consummer doesn't care that the studio that made the game goes bankrupt because GameCash (or GameStop or whatever) gets multiple times the money from selling the same used game many than the studio gets from the initial sale.

  • zubnut #64 1 year ago

    Can everyone please stop spouting Steam as a reason why download only on consoles would be fine?

    Do you seriously think that Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo will have more than one (i.e. their own) download service on their consoles?

    This is the crux of the problem, there will be ZERO competition on prices on download only console games.
    This is not about pc which is a totally and utterly different situation.
    Edited by zubnut at 04/05/11 @ 11:13

  • sega #65 1 year ago

    We need more freedom with downloadable content before people see it as a better option. I remember when music downloads you bought legitimately could only be used on a maximum of three PCs. That means after I copied my songs to my work's computer and my laptop, I'd have to re-buy my entire music collection again if I bought a new PC (assuming everything was bought legitimately) - if you have a thousand songs, that's way over half a grand just to hear your music again. On the other hand, people who downloaded music illegally had none of this problem, no restrictions and didn't even have to pay for it.

    Thankfully the music industry saw sense and stopped that but how will this work with games - and movies for that matter? Is it going to be a case of re-buying our entire game collection with every generation? What if PSN or another online system goes down again - would it mean no one can buy ANY games during this time? Will they be able to deny us the chance to re-download a game we have bought even after the company that originally offered it is no longer in business or holds the rights to it? These are all questions people ask but no answer is ever given other than "it's the future" - I'm all for digital downloads but they have to make it attractive and give us more rights to our games than what people who pirate it get. It's just not fair to pay for a title genuinely and get rewarded with a limited inferior version you're only going to have to pay for again in the future. Sort it out!

  • Mister-Wario #66 1 year ago

    I'm basically going to repeat what everyone else seems to be saying. We don't like a Digital-only future because the prices aren't proportional to the product any more. They're excessively high when compared to physical copies, and you will have the monopoly on prices: they'll only change when you feel like it. And frankly, I don't trust most companies to give you a good price when they can give you a bad one and make a bigger profit (read: Microsoft's £50 GOD).

    This also raises another question: what are games going to be worth when they're purely online? How much are they going to be? Will it be proportional, and take into account a lack of physical costs?

    And finally, on the subject of used games: Oh, boo hoo. What, you expect nobody to sell your games having played them? And you expect customers to automatically seek out a brand new copy when there's a used one for half the price? A used market exists for basically every product we have. Get used to it.

  • PlugMonkey #67 1 year ago

    @zubnut

    As I said in an earlier post, why do you need a Sony or Microsoft console? Why not have an open system instead? What is the benefit?

    @ Mister-Wario

    Name me one other media where second hand and brand new sit side by side in the same distribution channel?

    That's where this shit got nasty. 2nd hand games have been around forever, it was only when Game began to stop you at the checkout and offer you a 2nd hand game instead of a new one every single time you went to buy a game that the industry started to care. HMV don't sell 2nd hand CDs and DVDs, Waterstones don't sell 2nd hand books.

    2nd hand games was never the issue. Retailers telling you to stop buying new games was where the wheels started to fall off.

  • arcam #68 1 year ago

    People are complaining about monopolies, not about a method of distribution.

    If MS and Sony were the only ones allowed to sell game discs then you might have the same problem.

    *edit:

    HMV don't sell 2nd hand CDs and DVDs, Waterstones don't sell 2nd hand books.

    They would if the demand was there. Publishers should ask themselves why people are happy to buy their books and CDs new, but are so desperate to save a few quid when buying games.
    Edited by arcam at 04/05/11 @ 11:25

  • zubnut #69 1 year ago

    Sanglyon: ah the good old car degrading over time example.
    What about used CDs and books that their previous owners kept in good condition. Does the music or story degrade when listened to/read already?
    No they don't, but you don't see book publishers or music publishers trying to kill off the second hand Market and have complete and total control of who they allow to USE, not OWN, their products.

    However another point of view is that games, by being made for a particular system at a point in time, do in fact 'degrade' in quality over time - when compared to the gamers expectation of quality of game on the next generation of consoles etc.

  • bratmandu #70 1 year ago

    Seems people are very quick to jump on the digital download hate wagon. I think there's room for both. Would I like to have the option to download immediately on release for consoles? Yes.

    Alan Wake was a good game in my opinion. and it's episodic nature would lend itself well to dd so I get what Remedy mean. Other, open-world games would not work well as dd. I swap games though so hardcopies will always be needed. but trade in deals aren't always good value - and I now refuse to go to game or gamestop due to getting ripped off frequently.

    Anyone who says dd will definitely lead to game makers raising prices is an idiot. If the price is too high - DON'T BUY. The customers as a whole decide what they're gonna pay. The only way they'll increase prices is if people keep forkin out for it. Don't see the logic in saying there'd be no competition. Lot of hot air in this comments section from people who don't think things through. But then this is the internet.

  • UncleLou #71 1 year ago

    Personally, I am all for DD when it comes to games, to the point where I am willing to pay a little extra on Steam so I can avoid having another bloody box taking up shelf space. If it's also better for devs/publishers, all the better.

    I can see why people would want to own physical media though, I am the same with books and, to a lesser extent, music, so co-existence of phyiscal and DD is certainly the best for consumers - I am just not sure if brick and mortar stones will survive at all when DD takes off even more than it already has. I can see a future of games being available via download and in online shops like amazon, but disappear from the high street.

    edit:
    (From a selfish point of view, I wouldn't mind retail dying, at least that would stop them from meddling with DD prices).
    Edited by UncleLou at 04/05/11 @ 11:36

  • igol #72 1 year ago

    Gaming is a digital pass-time, so it seems inevitable to me that games will become download only at some point in the future. If console game pricing does become as restricted as we fear, then I will buy a PC for my gaming as the pricing on PCs seems much more competitive. Hopefully console makers and software developers will see this coming and license their games to be downloaded from online retailers, thereby opening up the market to competition. The days of trade-ins will become something we tell our grand-children about, but that won’t be so bad if there is at least a choice of where to buy our games.

    This will see the death of retail, but, if Sony, Microsoft and their developers do fix download prices at their current ridiculous rate, it could also be the death of console gaming as people head over to the cheaper PC market.

    If correctly implemented at the right time (i.e. when the entire world has at least a 30Mb connection) and at the right price, a download only future would be something to look forward to. In such a future, I wouldn’t miss retail or boxes. That future is a long way off though.

  • zubnut #73 1 year ago

    @plugmonkey

    Why not an open format agnostic console?

    Because that's not what Sony, Microsoft, nintendo, sega, atari, and virtually every other console maker in the history of games does. If that changes anytime soon I'm sure they will tell us and their shareholders about it. In the meantime it's not valid to this download only route the developers in this article are on about.

    Also, amazon and play let you sell used products (whatever, they may be) right next to the new.
    Edited by zubnut at 04/05/11 @ 11:51

  • arcam #74 1 year ago

    @UncleLou

    I can see the specialists closing, but supermarkets and shops like Currys will continue to sell game discs for the foreseeable future I think.

    They will still be demand for them, and they take up very little space on the shelf for a high value product, so why not?
    Edited by arcam at 04/05/11 @ 11:46

  • geeza2020 #75 1 year ago

    Publishers have proven themselves far too greedy for a DD future to ever be good for consumers, end of.

  • ISmoke #76 1 year ago

    I'm ready for DD (Infact i downloaded a 9gb game of steam in under 30minutes the other night what i think would be much quicker than me going out to the shop and buying it myself.) And 9/10 i'll opt to buy the Steam version of a game rather than have it on disk. DD, for me, is extremely convenient, but as others have said, What about those who don't have fast internet and would have to wait hours/days to play a new blockbuster?

    DD can work, look at steam, Sony and MS just need to follow suit correctly.

    Got to love the greed of some people though, it's clear why they want DD so much.
    Edited by ISmoke at 04/05/11 @ 12:06

  • zubnut #77 1 year ago

    @bratmandu

    I'm all for choice so download alongside physical product is absolutely fine with me.

    In the download only scenario though I'm betting you'll see the same full retail prices for the big games and when you knock off the costs of physical production of boxed discs, distribution, storage etc, any dev/publisher charging full standard price still should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
    Ultimately, and I totally agree with you there, the consumer will decide with their (virtual) wallet.

  • PlugMonkey #78 1 year ago

    @arcam

    "They would if the demand was there."

    You seriously think that if HMV started asking people if they would like a 2nd hand copy of the DVD they were buying for half the price people would say "No thankyou, I don't really have any demand for that." Bollocks. The movie industry would crush them. That's why they don't do it. The games industry was too new, too disorganised and too reliant on highstreet retail, and they let the genie out of the bottle.

    Why would there be no demand? Have you never bought a 2nd hand CD or DVD?

    @ zubnut

    I'm not saying you wait until Sony announce an open console, I mean why not just have a PC in a nicer box connected to your telly? This would have represented a monumental technifaff 10 years ago, before using LCD monitors as TVs became so prevalent, but now? Why not? Download games from whoever you like. Watch videos using whatever codec you choose. A truly universal entertainment centre. Spotify? Check! Prefer Grooveshark? No problem!

    I'm interested to know if people would you consider that to be a viable alternative, and what they see the drawbacks as being (apart from the fact that they're not currently available at Dixons).

  • arcam #79 1 year ago

    You seriously think that if HMV started asking people if they would like a 2nd hand copy of the DVD they were buying for half the price people would say "No thankyou, I don't really have any demand for that."

    Yes. Obviously there is some demand, because there are shops dedicated to second-hand DVDs, but generally speaking people are not interested in second hand movies because they are pretty cheap and usually part of someone's collection. Games on the other hand, cost 4-5 times as much, most people don't even finish them, and there's a new version out in a year or less anyway.

  • zubnut #80 1 year ago

    @plugmonkey

    I used to game on pc years ago but gave up with it due to having to upgrade it all the time. I just can't be arsed with doing all that again.
    Also, I found that more and more games either console exclusive or publishers releasing a shitty bugridden mess version on pc.

    I honestly prefer a fixed platform that will 99% of the time work right out of the box. I suspect I'm not alone in that.
    I'm also lucky enough to be able buy all the consoles I want so can then pick and choose my games across all the main formats whether boxed or downloaded.

    I just think some of these developers dont realise the impact download only would have on the casual gamers not having product on shelves or mummy buying little johnny his 'stop screaming I'll buy it for you' treat or Xmas presents etc.

  • arcam #81 1 year ago

    KIds these days aren't manual-sniffers, they've grown up with downloadable media. I think most would be happy with a download over a disc.

  • MrChuckles #82 1 year ago

    I think download only is better if you buy in chunks.

    E.g. think of the first mission in Halo 4 is a free demo, then each one after that is another £3 or so, giving a total price of £30 for the whole game of 10 missions.

    If you like Halo, you'll pay £30 if you like it a bit, you pay £15.

    Personally, i'd love that system. I only pay full price for games i actually lie and i get to try everything for a much cheaper amount, certainly cheaper than buying the game 2nd hand and then trading it in 2 weeks late for 30% of the price i paid.

  • uknortherner2000 #83 1 year ago

    @PlugMonkey: "You only need to look at the 117 games in my Steam library to see that it already is. Most of those cost me a pittance.

    People are so stupid about this. The sky is, in fact, not falling in. And fabulous games like SpaceChem and Magicka would not even exist without a digital distribution model."

    Ok, but what if a malicious report is filed against you on Steam? Or, your account is hacked? You are instantly locked out of your account and you can kiss those 117 games goodbye if you cannot prove your innocence.

    Some future, eh?
    Edited by uknortherner2000 at 04/05/11 @ 13:23

  • PlugMonkey #84 1 year ago

    @arcam

    I think the difference in the cost of a game and a CD has certainly been a driving factor in the development of the 2nd hand market beyond what we see with CDs, but the fact still remains that 2nd hand games existed all through the Atari/Sega/Nintendo and PS1 eras, and no-one gave a shite. Something must have changed.

    @ zubnut

    Fair enough, although the points about constant upgrading and patching and compatability are rather anachronistic now. Look at the Deus Ex 3 specs article comments; lots of people saying their 4 year-old PCs are still looking pretty good. And I spend a hell of a lot less time waiting for things to update on PC than I do on PS3, which frequently takes so long faffing about I've fired up a different system while I'm waiting. And I can't remember the last time I played a PC game that didn't work right out of the gate. Even 15 year old stuff tends to just work these days.

    I suspect for a lot of people, it would just involve too much investment in terms of working out what you actually need to buy. A PS3 is a PS3 and that's that. There's no chance of you having bought an overpriced one with half the specification of the one your mate bought, as would be true with an open system.

    My main motivation really is I just want something that does what I want it to. For example, the Xbox 360 and PS3 are both billed as multimedia boxes, but neither will support the codec that all the episodes of MST3K I've downloaded require, so they're both completely useless. Add in the fact that the most exciting area of development for me at the moment is the PC indie scene that digital distribution is opening up, something that will never fully blossom on Playstation and Xbox, and I'm starting to wonder exactly what a branded console really brings me. My LCD telly means that my next PC will almost certainly live in the living room rather than the office, at which point it has essentially become my next console.

    I reckon by the end of this console cycle, that might be true of quite a lot of people.

  • nbringer #85 1 year ago

    I also fail to understand how that is better for consumers... More and more people without "manners" are going to the top of the game industry. They lie, cheat and ultimately steal from us and pun everything into nice words. Are we supposed to like them for that!? Bottom line, I don't understand why I should not be allowed to sell something that is mine? Isn't that mine? Don't worry REMEDY, I don't feel sorry for you either... whatever happens to you.By the way, once I buy your game, it's no longer yours. IT IS MINE!!!
    Edited by nbringer at 04/05/11 @ 13:38

  • PlugMonkey #86 1 year ago

    Ok, but what if a malicious report is filed against you on Steam? Or, your account is hacked? You are instantly locked out of your account and you can kiss those 117 games goodbye if you cannot prove your innocence.

    Some future, eh?

    Lol. What if your house gets burgled and your insurance company won't pay out unless you can produce a receipt for every game you own!

    What if your child/brother/gerbil plays frisbee with the discs and scratches them!

    WHAT IF SASQUATCH COMES ROUND AND STITCHES THEM ALL TOGETHER TO MAKE A HULA DRESS! WHAT THEN, HUH!

    SASQUATCH COULD BE IN YOUR HOUSE RIGHT NOW! DOING A FUCKING HULA! OH DEAR GOD NO THE GAMES!!!!!

    (That's not a very likely scenario, and at least my games are safe from roaming sasquatch)

  • cen4pgb #87 1 year ago

    For the PC DD only would be great, as long as it remains a competive market, with steam, impulse, D2D etc competing, the removal of retail strongarm tactics (retail stores refuse to carry games if DD is cheaper, and extend this to a publishers other titles and platforms).

    For consoles its tricker to see where the competion can be, as their online, and DD systems tend to be restricted. Sort that out, or allow companies to have free market driven retail stores in the proprietry systems and it may be good.

    I've never been keen on the retail second hand market, it's very dodgey. Peer to Peer style second hand where yuo sell on or swap games directly to or with other gamers is fine, fairly sure thats not where publisher and/or dev ire is here. What they hate is large retail chains getting indecent profits on second hand games.

  • Butr0sButr0s #88 1 year ago

    "Bottom line, I don't understand why I should not be allowed to sell something that is mine?!!"

    This has been the nature of digital media for a long time. I'm guessing you have MP3 music on your computer - though there's no way to sell that music even though you own it.

    I'm for digital distribution - it cuts down on materials used for disks, manuals, cases, gas to transport, gas when I go to buy it, and space in landfills. I agree it needs to be an open system - and that's where consumers need to step up and quit running their mouths. Don't buy a system or game if it doesn't follow some kind of moral standard.

    I haven't bought an activision/blizzard game since 2007 and won't do so until I see Activision make some serious internal changes. The same thing happened to me with Xbox360 - I finally got sick of their subscription service that forced me to watch advertisements, high priced DLC, and closed XBL system, so I sold my console refused to give them another dime. I've since moved to pc games which give me the option of Steam, GOG, Amazon, and other digital distribution methods. I've also been surprised how well most pc games run, even on my laptop, you don't need a desktop powerhouse to get a decent experience like you did back in the late 90's/early 00's.

  • Rack #89 1 year ago

    Better for consumers in that games either cost half as much or have double the budget allocated once you remove the retail's share and production cost from the equation. Assuming there's no price fixing then competition should redirect this in our direction. And that doubling the budget doesn't just mean yet another imperceptible layer of bling mapping added.

  • carlitoswagon #90 1 year ago

    For console users this would only signal a day when we all pay top dollar. I'd be all for it if the outcome was akin to that of Steam but my gut feeling is we would be milked sore.

    XBL sells games which are 2-3 times more expensive than a brand new hard copy from Amazon. Until there's a change in this practise/thievery, any plans like this will only be met with 2 fingers.

    Edit: Laughed hard at the sasquash shit above. Very funny. On my way home just in case...
    Edited by carlitoswagon at 04/05/11 @ 14:18

  • sourc0r #91 1 year ago

    'Better for consumers(...)'

    doubt that

  • Mister-Wario #92 1 year ago

    Plugmonkey: I never actively seek out DVDs used because the prices are normally pretty reasonable. If the film's been out for a while you'll most likely pay £5-6.00: hell, if it's NEW you'll pay about a tenner. The average game costs £30-40, on any platform except PC, and many PC games are downloadable now. The same things exists with books: unless you're buying them online they cost about £8. Games are expensive compared to other forms of entertainment. If they were cheaper I'd automatically buy them new because searching for a used copy wouldn't be worth it.

  • bratmandu #93 1 year ago

    For people who think digital download only games are a grim prospect I would say this: BF1943, Beyond Good and EvilHD, Braid, Geometry Wars, Guardian of Light, MegaMan9 +10, Monday Night Combat, N+, Shadow Complex, Super Meat Boy, TrialsHD, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Monkey Island1+2HD, Serious Sam HD, Castle Crashsers, Alien Homonid, Peggle, Limbo, RezHD, Defense Grid, and soon - Fez.

    Those are just my favourites.

  • zubnut #94 1 year ago

    @plugmonkey

    But what if that Sasquatch fired up your pc, changed all your logins/passwords, made a table lamp out of your external drive, and wiped his arse on your keyboard?

    And no I don't want to buy a 2nd hand pc thanks !
    Edited by zubnut at 04/05/11 @ 15:14

  • chrisjm #95 1 year ago

    imagine the lack of reaction of n64 kid had that machine been digital only... christmas will never be the same in a digital only world.

  • PlugMonkey #96 1 year ago

    @Mister-Wario

    Maybe you're right. Maybe it is the higher price leading to higher demand that has driven it into the primary retail channels. The point still stands that 2nd hand sales were never an issue until that happened, and remain a non-issue for other media where that hasn't happened. The fact that HMV doesn't sell 2nd hand DVDs, whatever the reason for that is, still makes DVDs and games incomparable.

    I still don't think the movie industry would have stood for it, because it has a long history of staring down the other links in the chain and making them blink first. Try being a cinema chain and dictating your terms and percentages to the studios like videogame retailers do. You'd find the latest films weren't getting to you any more.

    Odeon tried it last year over a dispute about the now short delay before films come out on DVD. They threatened not to screen Alice in Wonderland. Disney's response? See if we care. People will just go to another cinema.

    Film studios are used to being enormously powerful. If games studios had the same level of ego, they could have got the retailers to back down. I bet if 2nd hand sales were only just becoming an issue now, Bobby Kotick would be telling retailers that any of them selling 2nd hand games won't be getting any copies of COD5.

    @ zubnut

    Fortunately my house is fitted with a comprehensive anti-sasquatch system, and my sasquatch insurance is fully up to date. But how many people can say the same?

    EG should probably run a feature on this. How sasquatch proof is YOUR games collection? Ignore the hidden Bigfoot threat at your peril!
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 04/05/11 @ 15:26

  • kongzi #97 1 year ago

    Too bad Remedy that the sooner they go digital, the sooner I'll stop buying their products.. no product in hand, no deal. sorry.... great game or no great game.

  • Chazmeister #98 1 year ago

    I recently bought Alan Wake, which is I suppose nearly a year after it's intial release now, for £10 brand new and sealed. Had it been digital they would still probably be charging £20-£30 for it. You only have to look at the disparity between pricing at retail and services like Games on Demand on XBL, where the digital price is often 2-3 times more expensive than a new retail copy, to know that a digtal only model would not benifit consumers.

  • Muggshotter #99 1 year ago

    Damn, I am starting to get ticked at the fact I live in the same country as this dude.

    I like digital downloads. I've spent over 200 € on PSN store alone but I cannot let go of the physical media, they both work great hand in hand. Got a cool game physically? If the digital download is available, just download it if you fear for the disc (or UMD, which is totally understandable) and have the physical one shine in the collection. Feels good man.

  • Darth_Flibble #100 1 year ago

    People forget the dragon age: origins DLC add on Awakenings was "exclusive" to Euro PSN for something like £32, while the 360 got a disc that dropped as low as £10, the PSN price never changed. Can't use the excuse "oh retail shops made as price that much etc"

    Also XBLA and PSN games never really drop in price unless the company is in trouble or fucked up. I'm not against DD titles for arcade titles like Costume quest but its been out for a while and is the same price as brand new release. (luckily I got it half price for the few days it was half price) Same with Old DLC, it would be a good way of getting people playing old games via cheap dlc.

    I get the damage caused by Game/gamestop saying "by a 2nd hand copy" but really think its the developers/publishers view NO ONE ever should sell their game or even lend their games to friends. Its becoming more common to see devs comparing lending (or selling games privately) as "piracy" as in their view they don't get any money. those who do are tossers

    Alan wake is on games on demand, £24.99! i bet you don't even get the free dlc for purchasing it

  • Rack #101 1 year ago

    Why not use that excuse? I mean it is true after all. Or do you think they'd rather do without all the extra money they can get by exploiting price discrimination?

  • TrevSkyline #102 1 year ago

    Good timing this....considering the PSN has been down for over a week!!!

    Imagine the loss of revenue they would face if you couldn't actually download the games!

    Idiots, I'll stick to buying a copy from the shops thanks.

  • Soton4084 #103 1 year ago

    HOW exactly is it better for consumers? Retailers competing with each other will always be cheaper than digital download over PSN/XBL (which would effectively be a monopoly). You only have to look at the failure of the PSPGO to see just how bad an idea digital download only is.

  • Windsong #104 1 year ago

    "but then again if you're selling our games as used copies and incentivising people to do that, then I don't really feel sorry for you."

    Sharp as an orange.

  • kongzi #105 1 year ago

    the big problem is not the new price of the game, at 60 euros. It's that it drops so fast. Why is that? Well, basic economics tells you that the market is saturated, so unless you open up a new one with a new kind of product, you'll see that discounting happen. Either do that, or stop flooding the market with identikit titles that don't push boundaries. Altough that last criticism could hardly be levelled at Remedy, obviously.

  • kongzi #106 1 year ago

    the big problem is not the new price of the game, at 60 euros. It's that it drops so fast. Why is that? Well, basic economics tells you that the market is saturated, so unless you open up a new one with a new kind of product, you'll see that discounting happen. Either do that, or stop flooding the market with identikit titles that don't push boundaries. Altough that last criticism could hardly be levelled at Remedy, obviously.

  • Corben_Dallas #107 1 year ago

    Maybe [it's] not so good for retail," he admits, "but then again if you're selling our games as used copies and incentivising people to do that, then I don't really feel sorry for you."

    What a cock. Translation for the whole article>>>> we want to cut out middle men(retailers) and deal directly with customers because it makes more money for us.

    These bastards cant see further than the end of their own nose, and what ppl dont realise is that if it goes digital only u will never be able to sell yur DL'ed games, they will make it this way. Plus these cunts will still be flogging their DL game at full retail cost €60 a go with the consumer never being able to sell on the game 'second hand'. Bad deal all round.

    Disapointed this is coming from Alan Wake Publisher. :(
    Edited by Corben_Dallas at 05/05/11 @ 10:27

  • PlugMonkey #108 1 year ago

    What a cock. Translation for the whole article>>>> we want to cut out middle men(retailers) and deal directly with customers because it makes more money for us.

    And more money for the developers is bad because...?

    When your favourite studio goes bust (again) I'd like you to think back to this comment and then punch yourself on the nose.

    Deal?