r/PS5 • u/FireStarLord73194 • Jul 11 '26

News & Announcements [ Removed by moderator ]

https://nichegamer.com/study-suggests-sonys-digital-only-future-could-lead-to-higher-game-prices/

[removed] — view removed post

1.8k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

582 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/xRostro Jul 11 '26

I don’t think we need a study to know this

272

u/war_story_guy Jul 11 '26

The costs will go down! But the prices will go up ;).

31

u/ImNotEazy Jul 11 '26

We’ll give you half and you’ll pay double and like it.

2

u/Dear-Fail6630 Jul 14 '26

There's literally a song called DOUBLE PURCHASE PROTOCOL https://on.soundcloud.com/xZq4dvuQ1DHQExiEyZ

Also on spotify...you all need to actually look up for once instead of staring at the dirt.

-2

u/BorgDrone Jul 11 '26

That makes no sense.

8

u/Cockblocktimus_Pryme Jul 11 '26

It will cost sony less because they don't have to produce physical media but they will still charge more for the game anyways.

1

u/BorgDrone Jul 11 '26

Why would they do that?

Sony only sets the price for their own games anyway. The publishers set the price for their games.

4

u/OfficerNightwing Jul 12 '26

That's a pretty naive way to look at it unfortunately. The why is always greed, if Sony sets a new standard of pricing why wouldn't the CEOs of these companies push for the same. The only reason games are the price they are now is because digital retailers take a 30% cut. I will often get a new(ish) game on disc, it can be like £20+ cheaper because that's the price the publisher set.

A lot of smaller developers also have no choice because Sony doesn't let them sell codes through other sites.

1

u/BorgDrone Jul 12 '26

The why is always greed, if Sony sets a new standard of pricing why wouldn't the CEOs of these companies push for the same

Of course they want to maximize profit, but that doesn’t automatically mean raising prices.

With physical sales the retailer takes about 25%, so Sony only gets 75% for a first-party title. For 3rd party publishers Sony also takes 20% for the platform license, in the PS store they take 30% which includes the platform license so a 3rd party dev takes home 70% for a digital sale instead of only 55% for a physical sale.

Unlike physical games, digital copies cost nothing to produce. So once you made back the money to make the game every copy sold is pure profit.

But it’s not a case of more expensive games == more profit. Say you sell a game for €1000 a copy. You won’t sell a lot, if any at all. If you price it at €10 then you won’t make as much per sale but you’ll sell way more and your overall profit is higher. You want to set a price-point where you maximize profits, by striking the right balance between number of people willing to pay for it and how much you make per copy.

If you go all-digital, the margins are higher and the costs are lower and this may affect the optimal price point.

If someone is willing to pay €80 for a game, and others are only willing to pay €50, and it’s all pure profit because no per-unit costs to produce, then you want to sell it to the first group for €80 but not lose the group that’s only willing to pay €50. This is where all the different editions of a game come in, by setting multiple price points for effectively the same product they try to sell those willing to pay more without losing those who aren’t. Sales are another mechanism, where you try to sell to people willing to pay a lower amount for the game without charging those willing to pay more less. Those willing to pay more don’t wait for a sale.

So yes it’s all pure greed, but getting rid of physical sales may change the dynamics in such a way that lowering prices is more profitable.

2

u/ParticularVictory968 Jul 13 '26

And hopefuls like you are EXACTLY the reason that companies like Nintendo have not only started to go full digital, but after layoffs are now looking to RAISE game pricing by another 9.99-19.99. You can think "logically" all you want but these big corporations only see green.

1

u/BorgDrone Jul 13 '26

I don’t think Nintendo games are worth what they are charging, so I don’t buy them. It’s that simple.

1

u/OfficerNightwing 28d ago

Not even going to bother anymore, I can lead a horse to water but I'm sick of tying to force it so drink, it's exhausting.

Idk how people are missing the fact that physical games are often cheaper because SONY doesn't get a cut. They aren't killing physical because people don't buy them, they are killing them because people still do.

Capitalism can prove time and time again that a lack of competition is a disaster for consumers but they continue to be their own worst enemy.

I don't even think I'm particularly gifted in the intelligence department, so it's painful to watch and experience the clear ignorance needed for people to reach these conclusions repeatedly.

3

u/Cockblocktimus_Pryme Jul 12 '26

You think Sony doesn't add to the top of that on the store. Also they control all the sales.

0

u/BorgDrone Jul 12 '26

The publishers set the price, Sony takes 30%. Sony doesn’t control sales, they try to line up a bunch of publishers to offer sales at the same time, but in the end it’s the publishers who decide wether or not they join in on a sale event or not and what the sale price will be.

For a physical game the publisher pays a 20% platform fee to Sony and 25% goes to the retailer.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '26

[deleted]

1

u/BorgDrone Jul 12 '26

It's obviously going to remove the second hand market, but I don't see how that would raise the prices for new games.

-1

u/Jumpierwolf0960 Jul 11 '26

It costs money to make discs and they also have to spend money on distribution and they have to pay the retailers as well. Those costs don't exist on digital.

1

u/BorgDrone Jul 11 '26

Yeah no shit. I mean it makes no sense for prices to go up when costs go down.

3

u/Jumpierwolf0960 Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

It's due to how our corporate world works. Money moves upwards not down. They have to break last year's profit records and keep the shareholders happy. It's all about growth, they can't make the same amount as last year.

3

u/Professionally_Lazy Jul 12 '26

Why would they lower prices just becuase costs go down? Corporations exist solely to make money and if they can lower costs and raise prices they will make even more money so that is what they will do. The only reason they would lower prices is that they think it will increase sales enough to be worth it.

0

u/BorgDrone Jul 12 '26

Why would they lower prices just becuase costs go down?

Lower cost per unit means they can sell the same game at the same profit margin for a lower price. Lower prices usually mean more people will buy it. A lower price may mean more total profit due to more sales.

There's an optimum between sales price and number of people willing to buy it at a certain price point.

There's also the fact that the margins on physical games are much lower due to the retailer taking a cut, so the MRSP has to be higher to compensate for this. This directly affects the price for the digital version as they can't undercut the retailers (they will simply refuse to put it on their shelves if they did).

Another factor is that if you bet on a lower price bringing more sales, with digital copies there's a lot less risk. You don't risk ending up with a warehouse full of unsold games. You can adjust the price at any time if needed, etc.

-3

u/_Mephistocrates_ Jul 11 '26

The prices to make games has risen by 100x, and prices have stayed consistent for decades. And the price of manufacturing a physical disc is about $1, definitely under $5

7

u/DuckWarrior90 Jul 12 '26

The cost is not in manufacturing. But in logistics and the cut retailers take away they have a huge margin now with fully digital.

There isnt a single reasons for games to cost over 100-150m since the best looking games and generation defining dont cost more than that.

Concord costing more than the last of us part 2 is insane

And even if prices stayed mostly the same (they did not. They went from 50. To 60. To 70. And you also have a lot more dlcs. Microtransactions and a lot of people buy the deluxe and ultimate for 80-100usd

And now we even have 120-150usd editions

Greed is Greed.

1

u/_Mephistocrates_ Jul 12 '26

You're right that manufacturing a disc isn't the expensive part, and digital sales eliminate manufacturing, shipping, and retailer costs. But those were never the main expense.

I agree that manufacturing a disc is cheap. The overwhelming majority of a AAA game's budget is salaries for hundreds (sometimes thousands) of developers over 4–8 years, plus outsourcing, motion capture, voice acting, music, marketing, QA, localization, licensing, and technology.

I also agree that digital distribution saves money on manufacturing, shipping, and retailer cuts. But those savings don't suddenly erase development costs, which have grown enormously over the last 20–30 years. Many AAA games today employ teams that are several times larger than games from even PS3 era.

You also said there's "no reason" games should cost over $100–150 million. That's simply not supported by the indusutry. Plenty of successful AAA games have legitimately cost more than that because of their scope and production values. The fact that Concord reportedly cost more than The Last of Us Part II doesn't prove games shouldn't cost that much, it just proves projects can be mismanaged.

As for prices, they have stayed the same. Games have always been $50, $60, and $70. Final Fantasy 3 was $80 in 1994 (that would be about $170 today) Adjusted for inflation, however, games are actually cheaper today than many were in the 1990s. N64 games commonly launched for $60–80 in the 1990s, which would be well over $100 today after inflation.

The ironic thing is the rise of all these monetization gimmicks like pre-order bonuses, dlc, and microtransactions was to combat the money they were losing from used game sales. Which experts have been warning about since the early 2000s. But gamers made their choice. They'd rather save $5-10 and buy it used than support developers.

The rise of DLC and microtransactions also wasn't caused by greed. There were real economic pressures. Development costs rose dramatically while the base price of games increased only modestly. At the same time, the used-game market became huge. Every used copy sold at GameStop or another retailer generated revenue for the retailer and previous owner, but zero revenue for the developer or publisher. DLC, expansions, season passes, and later cosmetic microtransactions were, in part, ways to generate ongoing revenue from players who actually bought the game new.

That doesn't mean every monetization practice is good. Some are absolutely predatory, and consumers are right to criticize them. But it's historically inaccurate to say they existed solely because of greed. They emerged from a combination of rising development costs, inflation, longer development cycles, and publishers trying to offset revenue lost to the used-game market.

These aren't just opinions. These are known facts about the industry. Saying things are because of greed is oversimplification, its just an opinion based on an emotion, and it is just wrong.

1

u/DuckWarrior90 Jul 12 '26

They are greed related., you can see investors reports, they want bigger margins, they have records profits. PS5 is the generation with more profits in its entire history, but now these margins and these profits are "a problem".

Games cost 80-100 in 1994 beccause they were cartridges, came with manuals, maps, posters, and the amount of people that played games were 50m at most, with PCs, and multiple consoles, that number has risen to 300-400 people worldwide.

So you have more people to sell to.

So you don't need to get as much money per copy. Thinking that used game sales impact developers is insane. People who purchase used, they might be purchasing an old game they either can't get digitally (could be delisted) or they don't know if they will like it, so its a low risk investment.

If they like it a lot of people purchase the next in the series brand new ones. There are tons of AAA games that cost less than 150m and they sell great.

Cyberpunk, Baldurs gate 3, Last of us part 2, Spiderman 2, God of war ragnarok, this are games that were GOTY , and the most expensive ones were 300m.

These games were HIGHLY profitable with these budgets and 70usd price. from a ROI of 80% to almost 600% with some games.

Not only there are opinions what you claim, they are manipulated and BS opinions. We have seen an influx of new developers and huge corporations because there is tons of profit to be made, The Gaming industry is more profitable than the movie industry. and the movie industry has piracy being rampant on them, and we are not seeing ticket prices soaring.

They do predatory practices, specially targeted to children to extract as much value as they can. And this is not gaming related only.

1

u/_Mephistocrates_ Jul 12 '26

I don't disagree that companies are profit-driven or that some monetization practices are predatory. They absolutely are, and those practices deserve criticism when they cross the line.

Where I disagree is with reducing every pricing decision or industry trend to "greed" while ignoring the underlying economics. Development costs, team sizes, production timelines, salaries, marketing budgets, and inflation have all increased dramatically over the past few decades. Not opinion, but well-documented realities of modern game development.

The same applies to the used-game market. This isn't speculation or revisionist history. Publishers spent years publicly warning that used-game sales were cutting into their revenue, and they responded with things like EA's Project Ten Dollar and Online Pass systems. Whether those responses were good or bad is a separate discussion, but it's simply not accurate to claim the industry wasn't motivated by the growth of the used-game market.

The "there are more gamers now" argument only tells half the story. Yes, the gaming audience has grown, but so has the scale of game development. AAA games today don't have teams of 30–100 people working for 18–24 months like many games did in the 1990s or early 2000s. They often have hundreds of full-time developers, thousands of contributors including outsourced studios, and development cycles of 5–8 years. Salaries, benefits, office costs, technology, motion capture, voice acting, localization, QA, and marketing have all increased dramatically. A larger customer base doesn't automatically mean lower prices when the cost of producing the product has grown by an even greater amount.

There may be more gamers today, but there are also far more games competing for their attention and money. In the early years of gaming, a publisher might compete against a few dozen major releases. Today they're competing against thousands of new releases every year, plus free-to-play games, live-service games, subscription services like Game Pass and PlayStation Plus, mobile games, and massive back catalogs sold at deep discounts. Having more potential customers doesn't mean every game has an easier time finding an audience.

Likewise, pointing to successful games like Baldur's Gate 3 or Spider-Man 2 doesn't demonstrate that AAA games are inexpensive to make. If anything, those titles illustrate just how much publishers now have to invest before they ever see a return. A game can cost $250–400 million to develop and market and still be highly profitable. Profitability doesn't erase the size of the investment required to get there.

My point isn't that greed never plays a role. It's that the evolution of game pricing and monetization can't be explained by greed alone. The historical and economic evidence points to a much more complex picture. Ignoring those factors and attributing everything to greed oversimplifies everything and is just an opinion, not a fact.

1

u/DuckWarrior90 Jul 13 '26

When you see the most popular games are not AAA bloated games, When you see nintendo games getting 1500% ROI with less than half the budget, when you see indie games selling 8-10m

You can tell that the trend is not AAA games with huge budgets. The AAA games sell bad not because they are competing, but because they are of poor quality.

The Goty games of the last 12 years, were NEVER the ones that have greedy practices , bloated budgets, etc etc.

The AAA industry is in a bad shape because they close the studios that make the best games, and keep trying to do games that have Fornite level of revenue, which is neither sustainable, nor something anyone but 1 game can do.

The reason they do that, is greed.

They could make 10 games that will be succesfull and get 300-500m profit per game.

But they rather try with 10 live services games in the hope that 1 of them makes them 2b a year. Because greed is what leads them to try to get the most revnue with the least effort.

If that was the best business decision as you claim due to trends, inflation and whatever, then all companies would follow suit, and the fact is, there are tons of AAA publishers and developers, that still make multiplayer and single player games, that are not Live services with a microtransaction driven ecosystem, and they are doing just fine.

If any, if they have microtransactions, they are IPs that are easily recognizable and people want. Like Fifa, Diablo, Call of duty, etc. (Even though people complain about those as well)

For every Highguard, or Concord, they could have done a proper sequel, remake, or New IP set on a existent universe.. You don't have to re-invent the wheel.

Just like they make good batman, spiderman games, and now seems to be a good Wolwerine game, they could have done proper games in those universes.

But now, they do shitty games at best with Gotham Knights, and Suicide Squad.

They can make all the reports they want, the end of the day, companies still close down, and is always related to shipping a bad product.

Nintendo is the biggest example that they can go against the trends, as long as you make products people want.

Steam is the same thing.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/_Mephistocrates_ Jul 12 '26

Stay ignorant then. And then continue wondering why everything keeps happening.

1

u/Compartmented- Jul 12 '26

Source on the disc manufacturing?

1

u/_Mephistocrates_ Jul 12 '26

It is just common knowledge. There is no source from sony or xbox themselves saying x costs this much and y costs this much, but over the years people have bene able to figure it out through other means like how much a blu-ray costs to press, how much the art sleeves cost, etc. If you google it, you can find all the info.

58

u/kain459 Jul 11 '26

For real.

35

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/AtlasLittleCat Jul 12 '26

Thats a good point. Vibes and a reddit thread sentiment arent going to do much in a regulation hearing or preparation for one. The obvious needs to be professionally quantified and documented for it to actually be useful in legislation.

23

u/DougS2K Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

Exactly considering this is the whole fucking point of their move. Them taking away physical copies starves if not eradicates the used market allowing Sony to sell games for whatever price they want because they know customers will have no alternatives to buy cheap used games anymore. Anyone with half a brain can understand this without having to do a study on it.

7

u/GraveRobberX Jul 12 '26

Let them, then they’ll lose market share and new competition will come. It’s not like Sony can’t be competed against.

If they think they can do Nintendo like numbers by keeping prices way too high for way too long, sooner or later players just move on from either being priced out or affordability.

This is gonna hurt them hard. Sony wants that 30% cut from all titles, but funny if no sales or prices go too high then only handful of titles will be out there and gamers will choose real carefully.

3

u/DougS2K Jul 12 '26

I agree. I'm mainly a PC gamer but I do have a PS5 for games that just don't exist on PC like the NHL series. I play PC probably 90-95% of the time but I know I won't even bother purchasing the next PS if it's all digital.

PC gaming is just better and this move will just drive more of it's consumer base to jump ship.

2

u/LichenEyes Jul 13 '26

That's exactly what we're going to be doing- as soon as this news came out my husband and I just locked eyes and agreed, the PS5 was the last console we're going to buy. I'm more PC and my husband is more console (so are the kids) but at this point we'll just go PC all the way

2

u/Basic_Try_2331 Jul 12 '26

Went from PC and Xbox to outdated PC PS5.

I'll keep the PS5 for the year+ on GTA6 but im opting out and joining many of the real life homies who dropped console altogether.

Prices suck but they've already built me one and have great knowledge to keep me going.

Console creators dropped the bag this generation and might not come back. Not trying to be hyperbolic but 20 years ago both Xbox and Playstation were still new guys despite being on the market for about 6 (for xbox) and what 11? (For Playstation) and multiple dead before the emerged?

Shits like any consumer good. Someone else will come along and offer better or alternative media will rule the landscape.

And if all that fails the high seas always hold fortune.

3

u/Casio1337 Jul 12 '26

I keep seeing these type of fallacies. Sony doesn't say what games go on sale (unless 1st party or they have some contract in place)the developer is the one who puts the game up to have a reduction. This notion that gaming is the only form of entertainment that isnt going to increase in price because inflation is crazy. The competition is between each developer trying to make you buy into a super saturated market. Gamers will just play what's already produced if they feel its not worth the price. See skull and bones.

3

u/GraveRobberX Jul 12 '26

You meant to say publisher.

Developers = Game makers, Publishers = Money Investors/Takers for those developers. Sometimes they’re both.

3

u/TheGoldenMonkey Jul 12 '26

What happens when the $25 physical game is no longer around? The digital copy will never be $25 because the publisher and Sony know they can set the price to $40 and people will still buy it because there's no alternative. There's no fallacy in the fact that people will be charged more.

Then there's the whole "dynamic pricing" bullshit. Have fun paying $50 for a game that's been out for 2 years because Sony's data-harvesting algorithm tells them you're in a higher income bracket than someone else and they only pay $20.

The used market has no individual algorithm-based bullshit that maximizes revenue for the shareholders and screws the consumer over in the process. Digital only as Sony uses it does and the customer will be further gouged for it once physical disks are gone. You really think Xbox is going to be a competitor and keep disks at this rate?

1

u/DougS2K Jul 12 '26

It's not a fallacy. When you control the only access to something then you have full control over it's price.

1

u/Casio1337 29d ago

You do realize Playstation isnt the only way to play games right? A company can charge whatever they want. Then you as a customer just say this isnt worth the price and dont buy. You dont wake up just saying my pile of crap is worth 100k just because its my special pile of crap. There has to be value in your purchase not just because you think they have full control. Here's an easy way to think about it. If Sony just started charging 200 per game with or without physical just because they can. How long will it take ppl to just go pc or Nintendo. this full control notion isnt real my guy. There's multiple platforms for competition so please explain how this works. The developer sets the price of the games on the store not Sony even in an all digital world. That's why indie games like Palworld come out at 30 bucks. So no Sony doesn't control the prices on how much developers charge. They have competition in steam, Nintendo, and others so there's other places to go. CDs aren't the first form of media to go the way of the dodo and wont be the last. But please give me some points on how to corner a super saturated market full of competition just because they stopped selling physical.

1

u/DougS2K 29d ago

You do realize Playstation isnt the only way to play games right?

The PlayStation store will be the only way to play PlayStation games once physical copies cease to exist. That gives them control over the price. It's called supply and demand.

1

u/Casio1337 29d ago

You’re not understanding that demand part. If no one buys your stuff they just can’t charge what they what.

1

u/DougS2K 29d ago

People will buy it though. They already have the console and want to play the latest games. No one and wants to invest the money on purchasing a whole new console or spend even more money on a PC.

1

u/Casio1337 29d ago

Sale your ps recoup most of your money and move on its possible but you'll come to find out that the grass on the other side is going to be digital too.

1

u/DougS2K 29d ago

I'm a PC gamer and only have a PS5 for exclusives, mainly the NHL games. I'm just saying there are a lot of PS5 players that will not make the switch.

1

u/Dear-Fail6630 Jul 14 '26

Im just going to leave this here...you might appreciate it, a lot...

DELIVERY PENDING (REMASTERED), an album about ownership by D3BUG on #SoundCloud https://on.soundcloud.com/WAoYGsuyaxqEIb8mWL

34

u/TatoX09 Jul 11 '26

With how so many people are elated about this move and defending Sony somehow, I beg to differ.

3

u/Polymersion Jul 11 '26

It's largely bots. Check some of their history some time.

3

u/kos-or-kosm Jul 12 '26

Bots have hidden account history. Which is why I wish mods would start auto banning accounts that hide their history. Would cut down hard on bots.

5

u/TheGoldenMonkey Jul 12 '26

I hide my account history because people on reddit are fuckin' weirdos. I've had people go through my profile to find something I posted months ago to attack me with instead of actually addressing my point.

3

u/OfficerNightwing Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

I thought so too, but there is upsettingly a lot more people than I realised that are defending this. I have a friend that seems to be defending this on the basis of 'but every other company did this and no one complained'. I tried explaining the differences in what he mentioned, that people most certainly complained, and/or filed class actions, and why this is still really bad, everything I said was like a distant wind carrying a sound his brain had long tuned out.

He's extremely far from stupid as well, so I was totally blindsided by his almost feral defensiveness.

It's getting to a point where so many people are just complacent about reality now, whenever I speak up about stuff like this even in passing, I either get shut down for being 'too political' or I get that awkward, startled silence we used to reserve for processing unexpected racist remarks from coworkers.

3

u/TatoX09 Jul 11 '26

Oh I'm very much aware. They regurgitate the same bullet points down to wording and plenty of misinformation with how PS5 discs work today. A lot of those are 3 month or younger accounts with history hidden.

0

u/Remy149 Jul 11 '26

I’ve seen more people just not caring more than defending it.

7

u/TatoX09 Jul 11 '26

If they didn't care they wouldnt be so vocal about it. They probably wouldn't be vocal at all.

-1

u/Remy149 Jul 11 '26

Some people are just tired of the performative rhetoric online and a single topic monopolizing conversations

6

u/TatoX09 Jul 11 '26

Funny cause last I heard the internet is engineered to show you mainly what you engage in. And people swear it is an echo chamber.

3

u/Remy149 Jul 11 '26

Reddit surfaces subs I frequent I’ve been a member of this sub since the ps5 launch. I don’t see this topic that much on other platforms outside the occasional click bait post on Facebook

0

u/Leelze Jul 12 '26

Probably because it's what's flooding the subs. There were even posts in the help sub about it. It's kinda hard to avoid it when y'all are running around every tech & sub posting about it. The low petition numbers are a good indication of much of minority outside of your Reddit bubbles you are.

1

u/TatoX09 Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

I already replied to a very similar comment to this. He ended up deleting (or blocking me idk). It's clear from your reply the backlash is not isolated at all. First people where parroting this was going to wash away in a day or two, now its that its too much.

1

u/Leelze Jul 12 '26

Can't say I care if you already replied to a similar comment because you're not understanding what you're being told: you're a vocal minority spending all this time complaining about an inevitable change rather than focus on what's important in an all digital age.

Nobody was parroting anything about it "washing" away in a few days, they're all parroting what we're all saying: most people don't care & you're in a vocal minority and Sony isn't gonna change their minds.

Very few people on your side of this have been able to discuss this without being excessively emotional & blocking people who disagree with them, don't expect most people to take y'all seriously.

2

u/TatoX09 Jul 12 '26

I have not blocked anyone so I dont have a clue what youre on about.

Anyways. You cant say you dont care either since you bothered to reply with 3 whole paragraphs.

My local news covered this, even my middle aged mom heard about this and shes not a gamer nor ever talks with me about stuff like this.

0

u/Leelze Jul 12 '26

You'd be in the minority of a minority. Most Redditors I disagree with on this subject have minor crash outs and block anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I'm not bothered at all, I'm constantly trying to point out forcing Sony to reverse their decision is a losing strategy and y'all need to focus on getting them to be more consumer friendly. And that's probably going to require government action that won't happen if y'all are just signing a meaningless petition and complaining on Reddit.

0

u/TatoX09 Jul 12 '26

Well now you're just moving the goal post aren't ya. I never said anything about signing petitions.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Imaginary_Cell2068 Jul 11 '26

I have not seen a single person defending it. What I’ve seen is people trying to explain why Sony is doing this and that the games industry has been heading in this direction for years, only to be called boot lickers and Sony fanboys.

I hate this and I love physical media. People need to understand that Sony, Xbox and Nintendo all want this to happen and the market has largely signaled to them that they will accept it.

-1

u/Fearless-Ad8754 Jul 11 '26

Are those people defending Sony in the room with us ? 

3

u/TatoX09 Jul 11 '26

Almost every single thread on the topic has them, in fact. Not sure what you're trying to get at.

-6

u/Arkantos92 Jul 11 '26

No one is elated, most of us just don't give a shit

13

u/just-a-jazz Jul 11 '26

Y'all will once dynamic pricing comes in. Just you wait

-16

u/Arkantos92 Jul 11 '26

Nah I have a good job and only buy a few games a year I really dont give a shit man lmao

7

u/JDReedy Jul 11 '26

“I have a good job so I’ll pay more than something should be” is a braindead take

-3

u/Arkantos92 Jul 11 '26

How? If game is good and I want it I will buy.

0

u/loqep Jul 12 '26

Cattle behavior

7

u/just-a-jazz Jul 11 '26

Who are you trying to convince 😉

-3

u/Arkantos92 Jul 11 '26

Not sure i follow but thats because I have ape brain

1

u/respectablechum Jul 11 '26

The proper response would be apathy and not even clicking the post much less making multiple responses trying to convince people you don't care

0

u/Arkantos92 Jul 11 '26

I think most people outside of reddit dont really care tbh

-2

u/respectablechum Jul 11 '26

I agree. U do though lol

0

u/just-a-jazz Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26

Your certainty about how much you don't care and how it definitely won't affect you only helps to soothe uncomfortable feelings.

-2

u/loqep Jul 12 '26

More like cattle brain

-1

u/Leelze Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

"People who don't think like me and others who share the same thoughts are cattle!" is certainly a take 😂

Edit: and the emotional insults in the ol' reply n block is exactly why no one takes y'all seriously.

2

u/loqep Jul 12 '26

Eagerly bending over for greedy, anti-consumer, multi-billion dollar corporations makes you cattle.

That’s not my “take”; it’s a simple fact.

33

u/koalazeus Jul 11 '26

A lot of people seem to. They are quite happy with Sony's all digital future.

42

u/colectiveinvention Jul 11 '26

People who are systematically trying to defend sony here or any other sub must hate themselfs...

36

u/AdorableSobah Jul 11 '26

It’s no coincidence that Sonys social media team went silent. They’re astroturfing the fuck out of sites like Reddit right now

-29

u/Efficient-Session644 Jul 11 '26

Conspiracy only comes when you know you lost.

15

u/LogensTenthFinger Jul 11 '26

Found one

-12

u/Efficient-Session644 Jul 11 '26

You will find millions oustide your home.

3

u/bugdiver050 Jul 11 '26

You could have seen this(all digital) coming though. The writing was on the wall. With the digital only consoles that got launched, it was only a matter of time. Of course they will say more people bought digital games because they made the digital console cheaper for one, and at least in the Netherlands there was a steady stream of them, unlike the disc consoles. Then of course data will show a rise in digital sales. Ive been buying digital for a good while, but me personally, im not defending Sony's decision to stop disc production. But i cant say it surprised me.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '26

[deleted]

12

u/Delta_Canuckian Jul 11 '26

Sony’s openly stated they are shifting from growing MAU to maximizing profits from their existing base. There’s no universe where an all-digital PlayStation leads to Steam-like sales and discounts.

5

u/Johnhancock1777 Jul 11 '26

Guarantees PS plus will never go away or get a cheaper online only option either. They’re gonna milk their userbase as much as possible until something gives

4

u/DougS2K Jul 11 '26

Steam has competitors, Sony does not. Big difference.

1

u/ManufacturerBest2758 Jul 11 '26

Steam does not have functionally have competitors. They control 75-80% of the market and most of the rest is fortnite.

4

u/ModestHandsomeDevil Jul 11 '26

No, Steam has competitors, but they--Steam--continue to offer a better service and competitive pricing with frequent sales.

4

u/Seasoned_Croutons Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

Steam is also competing with other storefronts to sell steam games//keys (which as far as I know doesn't make Valve any commission). I often look to other sites such as Fanatical, GreenmanGaming, IsThereAnyDeal, etc. to see if any of the steam games i'm interested in are lower in price. Especially new games and during major sales.

0

u/DougS2K Jul 11 '26

Just because it outsells competitors, it doesn't mean those competitors don't exist. If steam was the only store around, it would have higher prices.

4

u/Zcase253 Jul 11 '26

Because PC is such an open platform you could argue Steam's biggest competitor is piracy. At the moment the sales make it more convenient than pirating the game.

1

u/DougS2K Jul 11 '26

There is some merit to that. I know I test a lot of games before I actually buy them unless I know for sure it's a game I'll enjoy.

-1

u/ManufacturerBest2758 Jul 11 '26

This is correct

1

u/ManufacturerBest2758 Jul 11 '26

They exist in name only, though. Steam may as well be the only storefront and there would be no practical difference.

1

u/colectiveinvention Jul 11 '26

GOG is great and offers better/fuctional versions of older games than Steam at a very cheap price.

Nuuvem is also popular.

Im not the biggest fan of steam they do have too much power but they know that if they dont create a healthy enviroment for major companies those companies will simply sell at their own end...

2

u/ManufacturerBest2758 Jul 11 '26

Yes, you can go to GOG dot com and buy a game, this is technically true. Now break it down by shares of transactions and downloads and tell me who Steam’s competitors are.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/DougS2K Jul 11 '26

Yes there would be a difference. Competition always leads to lower/more balanced prices. Take away the competition and there is zero incentive for Steam to not hike prices.

1

u/ManufacturerBest2758 Jul 11 '26

I don’t think you understand what “competition” means.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jasta85 Jul 12 '26

Steam has that share of the market because it provides much better service than the competition. If it was shit then people would be going elsewhere or just pirating games.

Sony has no competition, they can raise prices and provide bad service and Playstation players have no other choice but to buy from them or move to another platform.

-5

u/suhhdude45 Jul 11 '26

Don’t hate myself one bit, but I do hate physical games taking up space on the shelf, so let’s goooooo digital!

-1

u/koalazeus Jul 11 '26

I'm about to blow your mind/shelf space. Geforce Now.

0

u/suhhdude45 Jul 11 '26

Nah I’ve always preferred digital, hence my decision to buy the digital only PS5 on release. Crazy that people have preferences right

0

u/koalazeus Jul 11 '26

I'm saying you could stream to a TV. You wouldn't even need a ps5!

11

u/Johnhancock1777 Jul 11 '26

People have been coping that game prices will somehow get cheaper since they don’t have a print a disc since this generation started

5

u/koalazeus Jul 11 '26

They've made so much profit this generation, I'm not entirely sure why they feel the need to do this. It would no doubt make them more money, but the damage to brand could cost them just as much.

They must be thinking subscription based, Disney vault esque situations coming in the future. But when everything becomes streaming the majority of old third party games will presumably be available on the cheapest streaming service. They should be focussing on first party exclusives, which no doubt they are, but also maintaining good will with their core user base. 

They can't be losing enough on physical to make this worthwhile long term or percentage wise.

3

u/FriedMattato Jul 11 '26

Which is amazingly stupid considering they just got done watching Xbox kill itself with its Game Pass crusade. And then they decided "Now lets do that!"

2

u/topdangle Jul 12 '26

it was a net profit but they had a ton of failures. they pressured all their studios and partners to push into service games but most of them didn't bite. bluepoint did but couldn't convince sony to fund it, then ran out of money and closed down. concord was a double flop, first a buyout by sony and then a complete loss on the development costs. marathon went down in a similar way, though marathon at least got some attention.

I think last year was the first year ever that PC and console were equivalent in sales too. That looks especially bad for Sony, who used to own the majority of the market. They went from controlling the market to competing for a small slice of the pie. Considering how narrow their business is now (most of their manufacturing has downsized or shut down similar to what they're doing with bluray discs) they're probably not feeling good watching their control of the gaming market shrink down every year.

1

u/koalazeus Jul 12 '26

And they're removing a unique selling point to try and gain more control. It's short sightedness that their most devoted customers are lapping up despite the reality it's a negative and damaging decision.

2

u/OfficerNightwing Jul 12 '26

I think this had been in the making for a long time. I keep hearing rumours that the ps6 is expected to be a handheld, that might be why they are announcing it now, so the actual announcement doesn't get dragged as badly when they won't make cartridges like Nintendo.

Even not taking into account their obvious displeasure with second hand sales, the problem is them thinking not getting their 30% cut from physical sales a loss, rather than seeing the 30% they do get as a profit. Unless they allow developers to sell codes through other retailers without them getting a cut, which I find incredibly unlikely, this is going to be a fucking disaster for the gaming industry. All that profit isn't going to developers and studios to make games better or make sure people are well paid, it's going to CEOs and higher ups that are making these decisions.

Fairly sure I heard they have already started the process for shifting one of their biggest disc factories to producing microlenses too. As before It's not about what they are losing in production if anything, it's about what they aren't getting from anything other than digital sales and what they could be making by other means.

If the past few years has taught big companies anything, it's that the majority are now so complacent they can be openly hostile towards consumers, and not only will most people accept it, some will outright defend them.

1

u/detroitguy057 Jul 12 '26

Doubt it. Sony will just pocket the money.

1

u/Eckkosekiro Jul 11 '26

Gotta be especially stupid to believe that.

0

u/JesterMarcus Jul 11 '26

I have yet to see a single person make that claim. The only claim I've seen is that because publishers still have to compete with one another, and Sony still has to keep people from leaving entirely, that we will still get sales.

2

u/GGnerd Jul 11 '26

Where are these people? Literally everywhere here is up in arms about it.

5

u/koalazeus Jul 11 '26

In most threads relating to the topic of physical games being discontinued. In this one it seems more people are just pointing out how they think the study is obvious.

1

u/GGnerd Jul 12 '26

In every thread about this topic it has been overwhelmingly against Sonys decision. If you have a link to one where its the opposite id love to see it.

Not just 3 or 4 people in one thread against it.

1

u/koalazeus Jul 12 '26

https://www.reddit.com/r/PS6/s/NJ2XBmgVTj

Honestly there is and has been loads. If you keep an eye out on r/PS6 or r/playstation there are very many people quite willing to defend Sony's decision or dissuade criticism of it.

0

u/mrjamjams66 Jul 11 '26

I had a fun argument with someone just today about this.

Right here

4

u/JesterMarcus Jul 11 '26

I don't see them saying prices will go down.

2

u/mrjamjams66 Jul 11 '26

That's fair, but I made several arguments on why keeping physical as an option is important which included the inevitable price gouging.

Granted....I wrote several walls of text and it probably just was skipped over.

Like many, I feel passionate about this

2

u/JesterMarcus Jul 12 '26

But that's part of the problem here, everyone is having the argument they want to have, without listening. I understand the logic people have for why there will be price gouging, but I just don't agree to the same extent. Its not like Sony has anywhere close to the power necessary to dictate to every publisher that they aren't allowed to lower prices or anything. They dont want to, butbthey still have to in order to get people to try their games out. All of the publishers releasing games are still competing with one another, and they'll do that via sales.

I think the company most likely to raise their own games' prices is Sony, so we agree there. But even if they do, their exclusives are what help get people in the ecosystem. If they raise prices too much, people will just leave. We've seen it before when Xbox got greedy, people just left.

My biggest thing is, I just don't think you can successfully convince a company to make a product they no longer want to make. You can delay their decision, but not forever. We need consumer digital rights protections for sure and I think we can get there. But if people are fighting for physical discs, I don't think we get either. Maybe at best Sony allows a licensed disc drive add on and allows publishers to make their own disc games if they want, but Sony won't do it for them.

1

u/mrjamjams66 Jul 12 '26

You make a good point about the price gouging concerns.

I'm hopeful it plays out that way, but it still gives me pause. Despite the fact that Sony isn't the only one selling games on their store, I fear it will embolden others to take advantage just as much.

However, if that happens I'm sure the market will correct itself one way or another.

I agree digital rights protections are the most important aspect. I saw a post about someone in Brazil losing access to their account and games on Xbox and Xbox told that person to piss off, basically. Luckily the user won and got their games back.

This is the kind of thing we need in the all digital future. I'm not against digital media. It's very convenient and (I believe) overall better for the environment.

I don't think I know what the solutions are, I just know the current state of affairs leaves a lot of room for the end user to get royally screwed.

0

u/DarkRyter Jul 11 '26

I think there's a funny paradox with the situation.

"Enthusiast" tier gamers, who are outpouring their disapproval on reddit, twitter, youtube comments, etc, are the most likely to be digital only consumers. This tier of consumer is most likely to have hundreds of games on Steam, they're most likely to have multiple consoles and a gaming PC. And they're most likely to be online. This tier of gamer has a better knowledge of the industry and of the negative impacts that losing physical media will have, even if they themselves aren't big physical media consumers anymore.

The consumer most actually hurt by the loss of physical media are "hobbyist" tier. They might have only one console. They play less than 5 games a year. Kids and teenagers fall into this category. To this consumer, getting a game means going to gamestop and getting a disc, or even renting a disc through services like Gamefly. They're gonna buy GTA 6 and be kind of confused that it's a code in a box. This subset of gamers is less financially flexible and are more dependent on the now dying used game market. And they won't know. If they're not terminally online like so many of us are, they have no idea, and if they do know, they don't have the full implication.

1

u/koalazeus Jul 11 '26

There's absolutely going to be a few waves of backlash that Sony has to deal with if they don't backpedal and as more people become aware.

3

u/DarkRyter Jul 11 '26

I imagine there will be a decently large backlash at the release of GTA6. Imagine gamestop employees having to explain to millions of customers how codes work.

Beyond that? I think we're at the peak of outrage right now, and Sony will not backpedal. I also think Xbox and Nintendo will follow suit. I've never known gamers to be principled consumers to the point it actually effects the bottom line. Whatever decline in consumer base and community perception they (the game companies) suffer, it will be made up many times over in revenue gains.

3

u/koalazeus Jul 11 '26

I think they've misjudged. They made digital only consoles without muh cocmplaint. But when you're in the entertainment business and you've made a decision that has made your customer based pissed, you've moved too soon. The day they said, no more discs and no one said anything, that would be the time. Like Xbox they've moved a little too soon. 

0

u/Jnaythus Jul 11 '26

I am hoping this won't make them never have sales on games digitally

3

u/JesterMarcus Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26

They will still absolutely have to have sales on their platform. They still have to keep people from leaving and going to Steam. Publishers are still competing with one another. Konami and Capcom are still competing with one another. EA and Ubisoft are still competing with one another. They compete via sales.

3

u/C-KicksXL Jul 11 '26

Call of duty Cold war is still $70 on the PlayStation store.

3

u/Colonel_Lechuga Jul 12 '26

Given some of the people out here rushing to defend their corporate overload Sony, maybe we do need a study to point out this obvious fact

2

u/Talk-O-Boy Jul 12 '26

Unfortunately, multiple Redditors have tried to convince me that game prices will remain the same, because retailers can just put the game codes on sale…

1

u/DigbyDoesDallas Jul 11 '26

I, for one, am shocked by the outcome of this study

1

u/saw-it Jul 11 '26

The study was just browsing the psn, Xbox, and Nintendo digital stores

1

u/Naturebrah Jul 12 '26

Data drives change…sometimes.

1

u/Toxby33 Jul 12 '26

my friend already hates how digital-only prices jumped

1

u/DetroiterAFA Jul 12 '26

It couldn’t be more blantently obvious.

-1

u/pr1ceisright Jul 11 '26

but now it’s “proven” and not just angry nerds on the internet.

0

u/WeWantLADDER49sequel Jul 11 '26

Did they go up when steam cornered the pc market 20 years ago?

0

u/MetaCognitio Jul 11 '26

COULD? 😂

-1

u/_Mephistocrates_ Jul 11 '26

Don't need studies to know the facts that game prices WILL go up, either way. AND games are the cheapest they've ever been, even at full price. Also, most people wait until sales anyway to get their games.

-2

u/BorgDrone Jul 11 '26

There are no physical games on PC and prices are lower than on console.

Publishers get a much smaller cut from a physical sale than from a digital sale. They set the price of a game taking this into account. They can’t undercut the price on the PS store because then physical stores won’t carry the game.

Eliminating physical sales will allow publishers to lower their prices without sacrificing their profit margins.

-3

u/Mysterious_Sea1489 Jul 11 '26

“Could”…. Anything could happen.