Support NeoGAF

[Mr.Phoenix]

They should just do what 4k bluray did and raise the prices 100%, instead of $20 or $30 for a movie you now pay $40-60. So keep physical but just make it $120-160 a game. Then the collectors of physical can be happy and you can make enough to make it profitable.

Please don't give them ideas... if they notice even 1M people buying games at those prices, just watch digital prices mysteriously rise to match that.

What have you done to actually fight for digital rights. And what would actually need to happen that you are happy. Would be interesting?

What I can do, talk on GAF in an attempt to galvanize anyone with more know-how than I do to start a website and/or petition (not that save our games thing), and if they do I will back it with my money.

But more importantly, I have been voting with my wallet. I didn't become digital exclusive by choice; it was by circumstance. I live in a part of the world where you have to pretty much import everything, and import-related taxes hike up the price of whatever you buy by a whopping 70%. So for me, even being able to buy a game digitally at $70, was a bargain. But I do more... I do not pre-order anything, and outside games like Tekken and GT7, have never bought any game within the first 3-6 months. I usually will always wait for some sort of price drop, or in some cases, for it to become available on PS+... yes, I am very patient. Not because I can't afford it, but I simply refuse to religiously spend that much money on anything that I know means I do not really own it. That's just crazy to me. But as it will be, there is an option, and that option just requires some patience.

ANd I have said what I would need to happen to be happy or ok with this.

• if you buy a digital game, you should have a digital code that you can share or sell. Yes, every code will need to be verified online before you can download the game, and in so doing, they can limit code use to one account at a time. To make this fair, every code "permanent" transfer (so say, I sell my code to you) can come with a $5-$10 transfer fee on the platform side, so sony/ms/nintendo/devs still get money from that transaction. But sharing, would have a timer, and a one-time-use thing for both specific accounts involved. So if I sahre GOW to you and set the timer for 60 days, for those 60 days I can't play the game on my own console, and after that expires, I can't share that same game to you again.
  
  This solves the game sharing or resale issue, while also solving the exploitative practices of stores like GameStop that just sell games on and nothing gets back to the devs. It also means I can sell my games and put that money into other purchases.
• Sony/MS/Nintendo/Valve/Publishers... should be mandated by law to have the most up-to-date build of all games released, uploaded to a third-party site(s) for archiving. Any gamer can go to this site, and upon presentation of their game license code, redownload any game they have that is hosted on the site. Even if each download costs $1-$3. This way, it doesn't matter if a platform dies, or if it's 30 years from now.... as long as you have a code, you can always redownload your game. And obviously there will be ways to verify those codes.

 

[near]

Sigh..... ok.

Number of game disc printing plants globally.

• 2010 - Over 100
• 2016 - Around 30
• 2026 - Under 5.

Let's put every other argument aside.... and use a most basic understanding of demand and supply.

What does the above info tell you?

Lower demand is a reason to reduce production capacity, not necessarily a reason to eliminate it entirely. Given that physical games are still being sold in meaningful numbers, there is still a market to cater to. But the trade off Sony is making here is one that provides higher profit margins and a more controlled digital business by pushing the remaining physical buyers into PSN. Might make long term sense for Sony's margins, but I don't give a shit about that and neither should you.

 

[Rambone]

For SP AAA games split is probably around 20-40% for physical, maybe even close to 50% in some cases. Sony will sacrifice all this to kill the used market and gain total control.



I'm glad you are happy but this move will affect you as well. Sony will increase prices of everything after they kill physical games, they also won't feel any pressure to do sales very often (or at all).

I play on multiple platforms and if Sony wants to play 'games' with my wallet, then I'll just buy my titles on Steam which Valve has no problems discounting titles and do it several times a year. I can also score great discounts on new titles or pre-orders on websites like GreenManGaming, often upto 20% off. As for Sony first party titles, I'm not interested in their usual output like Marvel games, Horizon, GoW, Naughty Dog games, etc, to be too chuffed about any price increase for their slop. If I like something, I'll pay the $80 or whatever it costs these days to play a game Day 1 but the game has to be worth it otherwise it's a skip.

 

[StereoVsn]

85% of PlayStation game sales are digital.
Apparently.

That figure is being widely quoted as a simple one-liner rationale for the end of PlayStation disc production. It would be easy to accept it uncritically as just common sense, a fait accompli. Why support physical if gamers don't want it?
...but is that what it means?

The figure came from a Sony financial report, where for one single quarter, specifically FY25Q4, the ratio of digital to physical full game sales was 85%. It was a new high. The average over the two year period in that report is 77%, but what the figure really represents is worth considering.

You could be forgiven for misinterpreting the 85% as meaning for every 100 copies of GoW Ragnarok, AstroBot or GT7 sold that quarter only 15 were purchased on disc. Or you might assume it meant Sony made 85% of their software sales revenue from digital games. None of that is true.

The truth is that the vast majority of PS5 games are digital only. Less than 2000 PS5 games have been pressed on disc. How many PS5 games are for sale (not F2P) on the PSN Store? About 7,500.

That's where this percentage figure is misleading. It counts every sale as equal. If you bought Death Stranding 2 on disc and somebody else bought Anime Fantasy Uni 3 for $0.99, the percentage figure considers these as wholly equivalent.

To put it another way, let's say I spend $100 on games this month. I buy one physical AAA game for $69.99 and spend the rest on six little $5 digital only games. What percentage of my game purchases were digital? More than 85%.

The 85% figure does not truly represent 'consumer preference' and cannot in good faith be used to justify the end of PlayStation physical game distribution.

Don't be fooled. The push to a digital only market has nothing to do with what gamers want. It's only about maximizing profit through market control.

Also Sony, MS and Publishers have been on purpose limiting print runs. So in a year or two post launch physical isn't even an option at all for a lot of games.

So between the BS of what sales they are talking about AND limited availability, of course they can push their BS narrative.

By all reports AAA games at launch have much closer sales to 50-50.

 

[lughnasadh123]

Even though a place like this likely leans more heavily towards physical, it would be interesting to have a thread where people list their own physical/digital split.

 

[Minsc]

in 33% away from $40. That's not "pretty close"

You were wrong. Oh well.

Also, if you bought it 4k digitally, you really didn't buy it 4k. If you got it physically, good on you for getting a deal. That's what physical media affords you, a fantastic deal if you wait it out.

Yes, if you are waiting the deals out, I agree. I don't agree with the numbers you gave when it comes to pre-orders, which is mainly what my 4k purchases are these days, very few releases still exist I am interested in I don't already own (and those which do mostly are not in print / easily available anymore, ie never in stock at Amazon). So almost all my new purchases are from pre-orders and I 100% expect the MSRP pricing to be $40-50 or higher sometimes on pre-orders, compared to standard bluray where I felt it was more like $20 +/- (could regularly find them $5 and under if not new).

And it is, based on my own purchase history. Sometimes is for something like Mortal Kombat Kollection, where I'm getting the movie I want for $70, and they put in a movie I don't want as well. Other times it's for a new Disney bluray like Alice in Wonderland (1951) which had a $45 MSRP (nearly $50 with tax). It did discount to $35 (but kept the $45 MSRP). Basically if I look at the new pre-order section on blu-ray.com and see something I like coming out in 4k, I'm absolutely not expecting $20-30, but $40+. Even if it's 50/50, it doesn't feel like it to me!

Physical does save money for sure, if you're not pre-ordering lol, but 4k prices still feel like they hit a bump and got higher at some point, compared to before 4k. I've seen quite a bunch of price complaining on 4k media on blu-ray forums in the threads you would expect it (expensive releases).

 

[StereoVsn]

If digital games went down in price by $10-20 because no physical, would you still be mad? is the question.

Do you really think with Xbox almost dead, Nintendo doing its own thing and Sony killing off physical disks… that game prices will actually lower??? lol.

Hell, even with lower prices don't forget if Sony locks you out of your account you lose everything. We have had enough reports of that happening.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Lower demand is a reason to reduce production capacity, not necessarily a reason to eliminate it entirely. Given that physical games are still being sold in meaningful numbers, there is still a market to cater to. But the trade off Sony is making here is one that provides higher profit margins and a more controlled digital business by pushing the remaining physical buyers into PSN. Might make long term sense for Sony's margins, but I don't give a shit about that and neither should you.

I don't care about Sony's margins either. But here is the thing: I have previously suggested numerous ways I felt that this shift to digital would happen eventually. None of them involved what Sony chose to do, because if you ask me, there are smarter ways to arrive at the same outcome. Examples of stuff I previously said on these forums..

• Release digital first, like 3-6 months before physical. (Some publishers have done that)
• Make physical more expensive than digital, make the drive to play physical optional, so those that want it pay for it. But make sure there is significant value to owning physical. (they partly did this by making the drive an add on). I personally have never understood why physical games and digital were priced similarly.
• Make physical strictly be based on orders or direct sales.

I never suggested they totally kill it off, even though I knew it could be an option. Albeit the nuclear one. And I was saying all that stuff since like 2020. And I am sorry, going from 100 plants to under 5... isn't just lower demand, its stagnation.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

It's already been revealed that the alleged 85% figure is just doctored data and lies from PlayStation; they want you to believe that a DLC pack or a tiny micro-DLC counts as a full game purchase—it's all manipulated data.

On top of that, PlayStation has the brazen audacity to still blame the customer.

What is wrong with them?

 

[Fabieter]

if you buy a digital game, you should have a digital code that you can share or sell. Yes, every code will need to be verified online before you can download the game, and in so doing, they can limit code use to one account at a time. To make this fair, every code "permanent" transfer (so say, I sell my code to you) can come with a $5-$10 transfer fee on the platform side, so sony/ms/nintendo/devs still get money from that transaction. But sharing, would have a timer, and a one-time-use thing for both specific accounts involved. So if I sahre GOW to you and set the timer for 60 days, for those 60 days I can't play the game on my own console, and after that expires, I can't share that same game to you again.

The general idea isnt to bad besides why would I have to pay platform holders to sell my own stuff. Do you give Toyota a share if you sell your car? And one time use for sharing, why?

I also would add full refund system and full support for key stores like valve is doing.

 

[Boss Mog]

How can you point this out and still be mad at Sony? Double? They'd be violating their fiduciary duty to shareholders if they didn't at least think about ending physical.

That's bad reasoning because it assumes that all physical buyers would suddenly buy everything digitally when the vast majority won't. It's also extremely short-sighted since those physical buyers didn't just buy physical games, they also bought, digital games, DLC, peripherals and possibly had subscriptions to PS+. So if those players ditch PlayStation completely, you're not just losing out on their physical sales but on everything those people would have bought within the PS ecosystem.

 

[Topher]

Even at 85%.....that's a big chunk of revenue. More importantly, that's a big chunk of PlayStation gamer directly affected by this decision. I'm sure Sony factored in all this and decided that they were willing to lose customers in order to achieve higher profitability and margins on behalf of the stock holders. The problem is stock holders are short-sighted. They welcome short term decisions that make them more money sooner, than later. I firmly believe this will negatively impact the PlayStation brand long term, long after these precious stock holders have cashed out.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

The general idea isnt to bad besides why would I have to pay platform holders to sell my own stuff. Do you give Toyota a share if you sell your car? And one time use for sharing, why?

I also would add full refund system and full support for key stores like valve is doing.

Nope, but its just about being realistic. If the platform holders can't in any way benefit from this, then they would NEVER do it. That's just the way the world works.

Its not like GameStop bought games from people for peanuts and resold them at exorbitant prices outta the goodness of their hearts. Hell, at times resellers like those only allow you get in-store credit. Ensuring you spend the money they just "gave" you in their store. So ts not like you are paying the platform holder for selling your stuff, you are paying for a transfer of ownership, which is the only way they ensure its not just some form of piracy, and it also allows them hold the value of their IPs. Or not what stops you from just selling a game to someone else for $1. and that person selling to someone else for $1....etc.

And the one-time share thing, its on a game-by-game basis, so I can only share a specific game to you once, and say like once a year. This is because no money changes hands when it comes to sharing, so if there aren't restrictions, what stops ppl from just sharing the stuff indefinitely to circumvent the transfer fees for permanent transfers?

All this is just in the spirit of being fair to all involved. We can scream and shout about how we want things to be, but if said things can't be controlled and can't in any way make them money, they would never be implemented.

Oh... and yes, a full refund system... as long as your account doesnt show you have lredy sunk 30hrs into the game lol. And I don't know about the key stores thing, but I would like to think that everywhere that currently sells discs, will be allowed to sell, physical game cards with codes under a scratch pad or something. So they are just replacing the discs with a game card... think a credit card about the size of a BR disc case. Hell, stores can print out those cards in store with their own marketing/branding/promotions if they wanted.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Even at 85%.....that's a big chunk of revenue. More importantly, that's a big chunk of PlayStation gamer directly affected by this decision. I'm sure Sony factored in all this and decided that they were willing to lose customers in order to achieve higher profitability and margins on behalf of the stock holders. The problem is stock holders are short-sighted. They welcome short term decisions that make them more money sooner, than later. I firmly believe this will negatively impact the PlayStation brand long term, long after these precious stock holders have cashed out.

You are right, but I don't agree with the long-term thing. Short term maybe, but in 10 years, people will think back at the time games used to come on discs with nostalgia... it would be forgotten. There would be gamers then that would never have even seen a disc, nor can imagine a world where you had to go to a store to buy a physical disc. Even worse in 20 years.

Technology and time is funny like that.

It's already been revealed that the alleged 85% figure is just doctored data and lies from PlayStation; they want you to believe that a DLC pack or a tiny micro-DLC counts as a full game purchase—it's all manipulated data.

On top of that, PlayStation has the brazen audacity to still blame the customer.

What is wrong with them?

Is this doctored too? Or some sort of 16-year-old conspiracy?

 

[Fabieter]

Nope, but its just about being realistic. If the platform holders can't in any way benefit from this, then they would NEVER do it. That's just the way the world works.

Its not like GameStop bought games from people for peanuts and resold them at exorbitant prices outta the goodness of their hearts. Hell, at times resellers like those only allow you get in-store credit. Ensuring you spend the money they just "gave" you in their store. So ts not like you are paying the platform holder for selling your stuff, you are paying for a transfer of ownership, which is the only way they ensure its not just some form of piracy, and it also allows them hold the value of their IPs. Or not what stops you from just selling a game to someone else for $1. and that person selling to someone else for $1....etc.

And the one-time share thing, its on a game-by-game basis, so I can only share a specific game to you once, and say like once a year. This is because no money changes hands when it comes to sharing, so if there aren't restrictions, what stops ppl from just sharing the stuff indefinitely to circumvent the transfer fees for permanent transfers?

All this is just in the spirit of being fair to all involved. We can scream and shout about how we want things to be, but if said things can't be controlled and can't in any way make them money, they would never be implemented.

Oh... and yes, a full refund system... as long as your account doesnt show you have lredy sunk 30hrs into the game lol. And I don't know about the key stores thing, but I would like to think that everywhere that currently sells discs, will be allowed to sell, physical game cards with codes under a scratch pad or something. So they are just replacing the discs with a game card... think a credit card about the size of a BR disc case. Hell, stores can print out those cards in store with their own marketing/branding/promotions if they wanted.

I dont know man. It's is definitely a step into the right direction but you are a little bit pro cooperation for my likings.

Make it block chain based with full ownership, free unlimited sharing, selling without a cut to platformholders, refund system like valve (playing below 2 hours) and key stores for price competition has to happen all in my book.

If the reason ithe change is just because of spending trends is true than this shouldn't be a problem.

But we both know its greed and they want delete kur rights.

Fighting for less than what we have today is soo stupid.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

I dont know man. It's is definitely a step into the right direction but you are a little bit pro cooperation for my likings.

Make it block chain based with full ownership, free unlimited sharing, selling without a cut to platformholders, refund system like valve (playing below 2 hours) and key stores for price competition has to happen all in my book.

If the reason ithe change is just because of spending trends is true than this shouldn't be a problem.

But we both know its greed and they want delete kur rights.

Fighting for less than what we have today is soo stupid.

I know it may seem that way, but I just know how corps think. If there is no upside for them, they will not do it. And nothing stops them from not doing anything at all and just fuck us forever. So this is as close to a win win as we gonna get.

 

[calico]

Might make long term sense for Sony's margins, but I don't give a shit about that and neither should you.

What if it makes the difference between PS6 being viable or not viable?

 

[Topher]

You are right, but I don't agree with the long-term thing. Short term maybe, but in 10 years, people will think back at the time games used to come on discs with nostalgia... it would be forgotten. There would be gamers then that would never have even seen a disc, nor can imagine a world where you had to go to a store to buy a physical disc. Even worse in 20 years.

Technology and time is funny like that.

We will see. It's speculation on my part, obviously. I think a strong retail presence is important for consoles and this is going to greatly diminish that. Wasn't that long ago that folks were pointing to the demise of Xbox at retail and laughing about it. Now PlayStation will be going down that same road, except forced by Sony's decision.

 

[near]

What if it makes the difference between PS6 being viable or not viable?

Viable in what sense? Like retail price?

 

[Fabieter]

I know it may seem that way, but I just know how corps think. If there is no upside for them, they will not do it. And nothing stops them from not doing anything at all and just fuck us forever. So this is as close to a win win as we gonna get.

Oof no wonder everything gets worse year over year if people have a mindet like this.

But it is not true there are instances where companys change everything if it hurts their bottom line but that doesnr happen if customers suck everything up.

Yeah so are actually aint even fighting for consumer rights.

 

[FoxMcChief]

Why would that matter in a unit comparison?

Because I'm curious.

 

[Three]

Yeah it is not about winning it is about showing sonys framing.

The framing isn't exactly accurate how you're doing it either though. It discounts first party share on digital but includes it on physical to reach 28/72.

 

[calico]

Viable in what sense? Like retail price?

Yeah, as in the only way they can put it out at a reasonable enough price that they don't tank their install base acquisition (ie. by subsidising the console), is if they believe they can then make significantly more per user over the lifetime to offset the subsidy.

I believe they may be looking at the ~$1000 cost for a PS6 and thinking the entire model is doomed unless they can get lifetime spending up enough (or their cut of it up enough) to get the console price down.

 

[Fabieter]

The framing isn't exactly accurate how you're doing it either though. It discounts first party share on digital but includes it on physical to reach 28/72.

Yeah the truth might be somewhere in between my numbers and Sony's.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

You are right, but I don't agree with the long-term thing. Short term maybe, but in 10 years, people will think back at the time games used to come on discs with nostalgia... it would be forgotten. There would be gamers then that would never have even seen a disc, nor can imagine a world where you had to go to a store to buy a physical disc. Even worse in 20 years.

Technology and time is funny like that.


Is this doctored too? Or some sort of 16-year-old conspiracy?

They want to pass off DLC as a full game...

That's the con.

 

[Zephyranthes]

It does reflect consumer preference, however it should be noted that the industry (and not just Sony) has helped steer that preference: digital games often being cheaper, disc-less console options which are also cheaper, under-production of physical copies for some games leading to shortages....all have contributed in making digital the more attractive option for the majority of gamers.

 

[RCX]

They want to protect their margins in a market that has stopped growing.

I don't think kids want consoles and Sony knows it. Therefore they've decided to milk their existing captive audience for all they're worth.

Enjoy.

 

[Bojji]

They want to protect their margins in a market that has stopped growing.

I don't think kids want consoles and Sony knows it. Therefore they've decided to milk their existing captive audience for all they're worth.

Enjoy.

PS fans right now

 

[Prodyhig]

Review the matched title data and digital vs physical revenue data also provided by Sony and reevaluate your argument.

The amount of misinformation being spread online by certain users is disgraceful.

The official data from Sony's quarterly reports is right there, after all.

Stop deluding yourselves; the current situation is due to the erratic behavior of ignorant, stupid consumers.

 

[Bojji]

The amount of misinformation being spread online by certain users is disgraceful.

The official data from Sony's quarterly reports is right there, after all.

Stop deluding yourselves; the current situation is due to the erratic behavior of ignorant, stupid consumers.

Those reports use creative numbers.

Sony and game pubs were pushing in this directions for years, it's not only on consumers. Millions of people are still buying physical games (unless they make 100 copies and there is nothing to buy on launch day).

You know what dark patterns are?

 

[near]

Yeah, as in the only way they can put it out at a reasonable enough price that they don't tank their install base acquisition (ie. by subsidising the console), is if they believe they can then make significantly more per user over the lifetime to offset the subsidy.

I believe they may be looking at the ~$1000 cost for a PS6 and thinking the entire model is doomed unless they can get lifetime spending up enough (or their cut of it up enough) to get the console price down.

That would be understandable, but I'm not convinced Sony would be able to subsidise the PS6 enough to make the entry point feasible for most consumers. If ending the production of discs actually leads to meaningful hardware subsidisation and a more affordable console, then fair play, at least there is a consumer trade off there.

But if the PS6 still launches at an absurd price point, then all Sony has done is remove consumer choice and make the cost of producing expensive hardware work for themselves. We'd still lose physical ownership, the used game market, retail pricing, and get tied to a shitty refund policy and variable PSN pricing, while still being asked to pay a premium entry price for it.

 

[calico]

That would be understandable, but I'm not convinced Sony would be able to subsidise the PS6 enough to make the entry point feasible for most consumers. If ending the production of discs actually leads to meaningful hardware subsidisation and a more affordable console, then fair play, at least there is a consumer trade off there.

But if the PS6 still launches at an absurd price point, then all Sony has done is remove consumer choice and make the cost of producing expensive hardware work for themselves. We'd still lose physical ownership, the used game market, retail pricing, and get tied to a shitty refund policy and variable PSN pricing, while still being asked to pay a premium entry price for it.

PS6 users are going to get gouged beyond belief I have no doubt of that.

I think people might be underestimating just how tricky a situation these hardware prices are putting Sony (and MS if they compete next gen) in however. If they launch absurdly high and have no way to reduce them for the foreseeable future, I don't see how the install base acquisition doesn't get wrecked, which is no good for Sony and also bad for PS users in the long run.

They may still launch absurdly high (to grab the very early adopters who will pay whatever), but I think they need room to reduce price pretty quickly once those sales dry up or install base acquisition will grind to a halt. I think this move gives them room to do that.

The official data from Sony's quarterly reports is right there, after all.

The revenue data is there, but there are plenty of questions it doesn't answer if we're interested in comparing the PS physical software market to the digital software market.

 

[Prodyhig]

PS6 users are going to get gouged beyond belief I have no doubt of that.

I think people might be underestimating just how tricky a situation these hardware prices are putting Sony (and MS if they compete next gen) in however. If they launch absurdly high and have no way to reduce them for the foreseeable future, I don't see how the install base acquisition doesn't get wrecked, which is no good for Sony and also bad for PS users in the long run.

They may still launch absurdly high (to grab the very early adopters who will pay whatever), but I think they need room to reduce price pretty quickly once those sales dry up or install base acquisition will grind to a halt. I think this move gives them room to do that.



The revenue data is there, but there are plenty of questions it doesn't answer if we're interested in comparing the PS physical software market to the digital software market.

We've been seeing the same news for years about digital games surpassing physical ones.

What do you think Game Pass has done to the Xbox ecosystem?

Well, it's made its customers stop buying games altogether.

(Look at Xbox's current situation because of that.)

We're losing the enemy, and it's not Sony.

It's a huge number of consumers who have been supporting everything digital on consoles, and now they're tearing their hair out.

I've never supported digital games; 98% of my purchases have always been physical.

Of course, now I'm going to have to go digital, but the money's going to Valve.

 

[kpopSuperstar]

No, it represents that it's easier to fool people with sales in digital stores than physical.

People spend more on digital because the sales are tailor made to discount the specific amounts that people are willing to spend.

It's how Steam works as well, it's consumer manipulation.

 

[Prodyhig]

Those reports use creative numbers.

Sony and game pubs were pushing in this directions for years, it's not only on consumers. Millions of people are still buying physical games (unless they make 100 copies and there is nothing to buy on launch day).

You know what dark patterns are?

Reports are reports.

Unless you have an internal source proving otherwise, I'm honestly not interested in your UFO conspiracy theories.

 

[SportsFan581]

Not researched enough yet (PENDING), but I've seen murmurs those digital figures could have some Hollywood Counting?

1) There are a LOT of products that are digital only (indies, back compat, DLC, addons) that pumps digital numbers/revenue way up
2) First party/AAA releases have more balanced physical vs digital splits
3) Physical second hand market figures are obviously absent
4) Sony forced normies to go digital only by making bluray drive cost more, suggesting "everyone is digital now bro", when 2022 leaks showed otherwise. Trickery afoot
5) Arrogant Sony wants you to believe you're an edge case clinging to physical so they can force you into their walled garden and profit

Not saying these are facts, I'm just posting what I've seen. Someone else might be able to elaborate more.

Do not blind believe any corpo PR if its endgame benefits them.

I'm also curious about what the split is on day one $70 or $80 software.

I haven't looked at the report myself. Does the digital software number include DLC and MTX or just game sales?

 

[SportsFan581]

Reports are reports.

Unless you have an internal source proving otherwise, I'm honestly not interested in your UFO conspiracy theories.

That's the thing about numbers, with the right selective omissions, they can paint whatever picture you want to see.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Oof no wonder everything gets worse year over year if people have a mindet like this.

But it is not true there are instances where companys change everything if it hurts their bottom line but that doesnr happen if customers suck everything up.

Yeah so are actually aint even fighting for consumer rights.

This has nothing to do with my mindset. I am just being practical... and this is what being practical looks like.

Here are the facts as they stand... Sony is ending support for physical media. And as things currently stand, it's all pure upside for them; they are not losing anything. And will likely even make more money, simply because there are way more people that don't care about physical media than there are those that do. That's the calculated risk they must have considered before doing this.

So as it stands, Sony can continue down this path, and make no mistake, Microsoft and Nintendo will follow them eventually; that's just how these things play out. What are you proposing? They will NEVER do, and aren't required to do, by law. What I am proposing, at least, has a chance of happening, because there is a possibility for them to make money from at least giving us more ownership than what the present digital landscape represents.

Know thine enemy.

 

[Bojji]

Reports are reports.

Unless you have an internal source proving otherwise, I'm honestly not interested in your UFO conspiracy theories.

You will just gladly get owned by a corporation? You think Sony is your BFF?

 

[DryvBy]

 

[StereoVsn]

No, it represents that it's easier to fool people with sales in digital stores than physical.

People spend more on digital because the sales are tailor made to discount the specific amounts that people are willing to spend.

It's how Steam works as well, it's consumer manipulation.

Steam does not have dynamic pricing based on individual customers. They just have sales as any other storefront.

 

[calico]

We've been seeing the same news for years about digital games surpassing physical ones.

I'm sure digital has surpassed, but it's difficult to discern by how much in unit or gross revenue terms once we exclude digital-only games. The accounting does somewhat skew the picture if we're more interested in comparing the respective markets, which is the thrust of the OPs argument.

Of course, now I'm going to have to go digital, but the money's going to Valve.

Good choice tbh.

 

[PlayStaytion]

85% of PlayStation game sales are digital.
Apparently.

That figure is being widely quoted as a simple one-liner rationale for the end of PlayStation disc production. It would be easy to accept it uncritically as just common sense, a fait accompli. Why support physical if gamers don't want it?
...but is that what it means?

The figure came from a Sony financial report, where for one single quarter, specifically FY25Q4, the ratio of digital to physical full game sales was 85%. It was a new high. The average over the two year period in that report is 77%, but what the figure really represents is worth considering.

You could be forgiven for misinterpreting the 85% as meaning for every 100 copies of GoW Ragnarok, AstroBot or GT7 sold that quarter only 15 were purchased on disc. Or you might assume it meant Sony made 85% of their software sales revenue from digital games. None of that is true.

The truth is that the vast majority of PS5 games are digital only. Less than 2000 PS5 games have been pressed on disc. How many PS5 games are for sale (not F2P) on the PSN Store? About 7,500.

That's where this percentage figure is misleading. It counts every sale as equal. If you bought Death Stranding 2 on disc and somebody else bought Anime Fantasy Uni 3 for $0.99, the percentage figure considers these as wholly equivalent.

To put it another way, let's say I spend $100 on games this month. I buy one physical AAA game for $69.99 and spend the rest on six little $5 digital only games. What percentage of my game purchases were digital? More than 85%.

The 85% figure does not truly represent 'consumer preference' and cannot in good faith be used to justify the end of PlayStation physical game distribution.

Don't be fooled. The push to a digital only market has nothing to do with what gamers want. It's only about maximizing profit through market control.

I like physical more but time to me equals profit and I rely on YTers like Happy Console Gamer and Adam Koralik to fill my desires.

 

[ResilientBanana]

I would have to say that the proof of preference is in the 85% number.

 

[Fabieter]

So as it stands, Sony can continue down this path, and make no mistake, Microsoft and Nintendo will follow them eventually; that's just how these things play out. What are you proposing? They will NEVER do, and aren't required to do, by law. What I am proposing, at least, has a chance of happening, because there is a possibility for them to make money from at least giving us more ownership than what the present digital landscape represents.

You are definitely not coming from europe if you think company cant be forced to do shit. It is possible.

Well i would rather stop playing video games than participate in a digital platform like you are drawing here.

 

[kpopSuperstar]

Steam does not have dynamic pricing based on individual customers. They just have sales as any other storefront.

I am not talking about dynamic pricing, I am talking about putting 60% off in your face on a daily basis on hundreds of games.

Steam has mastered the art of selling worthless cheap keys you assume you gonna try, but never will.

 

[freemandos]

 

[StereoVsn]

I am not talking about dynamic pricing, I am talking about putting 60% off in your face on a daily basis on hundreds of games.

Steam has mastered the art of selling worthless cheap keys you assume you gonna try, but never will.

This is purely up to devs and publishers. The reason Steam doesn't have curation is that everyone was complaining about it.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

You are definitely not coming from europe if you think company cant be forced to do shit. It is possible.

Well i would rather stop playing video games than participate in a digital platform like you are drawing here.

As I said before... I am talking with my money. The difference between you and me, however, is that I believe they are all dirty.

This is why I do not buy games at launch; I wait for at least the second discount, sometimes the third. Or in other cases, I just get them off PS+ Extra. I will still hand them money, because it does cost money to make games, and if they do not make any money, we stop getting games, but I decide how much of my money I am willing to part with for something I don't actually own.

The digital platform I am referring to that you refuse to participate in is a thousand times better than the digital platform that Sony/Valve/MS/Nintendo, Google/Amazon have all pushed since digital distribution became a thing. Like, are we going to just pretend that even after over 20 years of operation, Steam still does not allow you sell or transfer your digital license? And you guys act like they are somehow better... I mean what happens to our digital library on Steam if Valve, for whatever reason, shuts down tomorrow? We hold onto their trust me bro contingency plan to release patches for everything in our libraries, removing DRM so we can play them offline forever? You believe that, right?

Lets be real here... most of you talking right now are being hypocritical. This shit didn't just start.

 

[kpopSuperstar]

This is purely up to devs and publishers. The reason Steam doesn't have curation is that everyone was complaining about it.

I know it's publishers who price, but it doesn't negate the fact that Steam are the ones who present and sell it. Their entire platform is built around it, it's how they cash in. Every part of digital sales, from storefront to publishers, and making bank on teasing and selling cheap.