CMV: Used Game Sales are Legalized Piracy

[SG854]

So in your view is buying a used car immoral since the car company doesn't get any money from it?

No. I personally don’t care if people buy used games, or pirate games. I’m just arguing for the sake of arguing because it’s an interesting topic to me.

Potentially yes.



Yet if someone damages your reputation with a true rape accusation, you're SOL in most countries. By the same token, if you give someone bad advice, you're rarely on the hook for potential future livelihood. Then there's things like tortious interference. Unless you're going out of your way to be malicious, are generally reckless, make specific promises, or in some special position where you're specifically obligated in some fashion, the law and general morality is you're not responsible for another person's general livelihood.



This does lead to the obvious question, how much money is actually lost (or really, not gained)? It's an interesting thing to me, for example, that Nintendo sells a lot of its 3DS games at the same price digitally as stores sell physical carts. Furthers, stores aren't selling games at cost and depending on contract Nintendo might have to buy up unsold games and/or the stores will demand lower prices so they can offset the loses of unsold stock. There's also the opportunity cost of making an oversupply of one game and the lost sales of an undersupply of another--people might end up buying a cheeseburger if the game they want isn't available.

With all of that out of the way, if you wanted to be under your moral code and cut a check to Nintendo when you bought a used game, how much would you actually give them? Are digital sales then immoral because the price is substantially higher than that when their appropriate compensation plus costs?

I’ve was making parallels to the recent Vic Mignogna case (Dragon Ball VA) on false accusation charges, which he can sue for potential damage to his earnings. He has a law firm confirmed. And potential money lost is still enough for a lawsuit, you don’t need to calculate how much he lost in order to have a sueable case.

Here’s a video of a lawyer explaining what he can do, if your interested. And it’s one of the craziest cases i’ve seen in a while because people are tampering with evidence and making up fake stories which have been confirmed fake.

But for the used video game topic, Nintendo has their own proprietary cartridge which is a lot more expensive to produce then a blueray. Bluerays are the same size as dvd’s, which are the same size as cd’s. They can use the already many existing factories that are used to create DVD’s to create bluerays which saves them money. Nintendo Switch cartridges don’t have this and need specialized equipment to mass produce leading to more expensive production costs.

Nintendo doesn’t want to alienate physical stores and put them out of business which is likely why they are the same price. I’m guessing is why they do it.

GameStop is already doing horribly and probably makes 5 cents per copy sold. There is no denying that potential money going directly to game companies is lost with the existence of used stores and eBay. Whether or not you want to buy new to support them is up to the individual person.

 

[kuwanger]

As one would expect, your entire argument is nonsense and is unsupported by the data. Nothing interesting in your post worthy of a direct response.

Then I'm not sure why you bothered to reply.

Speaking of cars, I think I have a good car analogy*, Imagine if Ford build cars but stipulated that it was only a "genuine" Ford car if you agreed to an EULA; otherwise, driving the car around would risk punishment for having a "non-genuine" Ford car. Further, you don't buy the car directly from Ford but through a dealer. So, this EULA isn't a first-sale to you the customer from Ford. This is a Ford to dealer sale, then a dealer to customer sale. Maybe some dealers have a contract with Ford that you have to agree to the EULA before you drive it off the lot. Most don't, though, and Ford merely designed it that the first time you start the car you have to agree to the EULA for it to turn over. In that circumstance, I'd want to hotwire the car to bypass the defect that is the EULA.

* Good luck turning this into a Library of Congress reference.

Here’s a video of a lawyer explaining what he can do, if your interested. And it’s one of the craziest cases i’ve seen in a while because people are tampering with evidence and making up fake stories which have been confirmed fake.

Right, because people are being malicious. There's nothing inherently malicious about resale.

Nintendo doesn’t want to alienate physical stores and put them out of business which is likely why they are the same price.

Then Nintendo is, IMO, stupid. Being the same price, they get less profit off physical copies. Further, because they run in parallel with digital copies, less physical copies are made. However, it encourages all those who plan to resell their games to buy physical copies which means as a percentage physical copy resale is likely to go up. Ie, it encourages more competition against new copies.

GameStop is already doing horribly and probably makes 5 cents per copy sold.

The truth, though, is that Gamestop is in the same boat as used book stores--competition against the internet. Having to have stock and it being limited really undercuts any edge they have. The fact that some moved into malls was incredibly stupid--the increased foot traffic doesn't compensate for the high rental fees in the long term, at least not on resale of goods. In short, I don't know think Gamestop is a good example of comparison.

 

[SG854]

Then I'm not sure why you bothered to reply.

Speaking of cars, I think I have a good car analogy*, Imagine if Ford build cars but stipulated that it was only a "genuine" Ford car if you agreed to an EULA; otherwise, driving the car around would risk punishment for having a "non-genuine" Ford car. Further, you don't buy the car directly from Ford but through a dealer. So, this EULA isn't a first-sale to you the customer from Ford. This is a Ford to dealer sale, then a dealer to customer sale. Maybe some dealers have a contract with Ford that you have to agree to the EULA before you drive it off the lot. Most don't, though, and Ford merely designed it that the first time you start the car you have to agree to the EULA for it to turn over. In that circumstance, I'd want to hotwire the car to bypass the defect that is the EULA.

* Good luck turning this into a Library of Congress reference.



Right, because people are being malicious. There's nothing inherently malicious about resale.



Then Nintendo is, IMO, stupid. Being the same price, they get less profit off physical copies. Further, because they run in parallel with digital copies, less physical copies are made. However, it encourages all those who plan to resell their games to buy physical copies which means as a percentage physical copy resale is likely to go up. Ie, it encourages more competition against new copies.



The truth, though, is that Gamestop is in the same boat as used book stores--competition against the internet. Having to have stock and it being limited really undercuts any edge they have. The fact that some moved into malls was incredibly stupid--the increased foot traffic doesn't compensate for the high rental fees in the long term, at least not on resale of goods. In short, I don't know think Gamestop is a good example of comparison.

Economically it doesn’t make sense. With cutting the middle man out and saving on production costs they can offer a cheaper product if you go digital. They’re probably doing it to be “fair” to physical copy buyers. Also SD cards are more expensive then HDD. So maybe they are rooting for physical because of storage capacity is expensive, people will likely go physical instead.

Going digital only can actually stop used game sales if they wanted to. Someone will have to provide a source on how much they make on used and physical to see if going digital only will benefit them. And how much production costs are.

 

[the_randomizer]

It's time for these anti-used sales companies to man up and get over it and accept the fact people hate paying 60 to 70 dollars for a game. They really need to grow a pair and just accept the fact there is absolutely no stopping it, and that attempting to curtail this, or piracy is simply a lost cause. Something being crimimalized, banned, illicit, etc, will only make that act all the more desirable to do. There is no stopping it.

 

[PityOnU]

It's time for these anti-used sales companies to man up and get over it and accept the fact people hate paying 60 to 70 dollars for a game. They really need to grow a pair and just accept the fact there is absolutely no stopping it, and that attempting to curtail this, or piracy is simply a lost cause. Something being crimimalized, banned, illicit, etc, will only make that act all the more desirable to do. There is no stopping it.

The business equation has not changed. Make a product that the market wants. Make it for less cost than what you can sell it for. Do that and you earn yourself some profit.

If they can't make a product (and people still demonstrably do so, and have done under almost identical conditions (or indeed possibly worse ones -- said PS360 era also falling squarely in this little thing called the great recession)) then they need to refine their business model, make a better product or perish.

"Pls game companies, blow your massive load of paid DLC, microtransactions, and lootcrates all over my waiting face."

 

[FAST6191]

There is no denying that potential money going directly to game companies is lost with the existence of used stores and eBay.

If everybody suddenly decided to purchase only new copies tomorrow then sure they would get more money.

The chances of that happening though, either by law or general coincidence, is so ridiculously low that billionaire sugar daddy suddenly appearing to bankroll things is equally plausible (it too being quite possible, indeed the art world is full of examples of such people doing the whole patronage bit).

If they have no way to expense it on an account somewhere or fire someone for poor business choices by seeing it happen (if I return 1 million profit when I could demonstrably have brought back 10, all within company mission statements and whatever, there would be a decent chance of my polishing up my CV in the near future -- I might have made a profit but I theoretically denied them that much more revenue) then I struggle to see why I should pay it any mind over other idle daydreams like the billionaire patron thing.

"Pls game companies, blow your massive load of paid DLC, microtransactions, and lootcrates all over my waiting face."

They can try. However as I have never paid for a microtransaction and don't plan to any time soon, ditto lootcrates (if I can't unlock it reasonably then it might speak to a badly designed game). DLC wise then actually not that either since I got that Heroes of Might and Magic 2 expansion pack, or maybe it was the age of empires one, however many years ago that was. I did get the GTA 4 Double Pack (second hand of course) because I wanted to play Lost and Damned but that was standalone, as would be anything like that I really go in for (save perhaps mods for PC games -- Arma 2 to play DayZ sort of thing). If I am not there to take it then they will just end up spattering their shoes.

 

[kuwanger]

They’re probably doing it to be “fair” to physical copy buyers. Also SD cards are more expensive then HDD. So maybe they are rooting for physical because of storage capacity is expensive, people will likely go physical instead.

Not sure what "SD cards are more expensive [than] HDD" relates, but you can buy 256GB cards for $45. Going by these numbers that translates to holding between 16-32 games or an average cost of $1.40-$2.80/game (presuming you buy around 16-32 games). Just charging $10 less for digital games would mean after 5 games you're already better off financially. Or they could conversely charge $10 more for physical copies. The point is, to claim to be fair to physical copy owners they're being unfair to digital copy owners--which is even worse if you factor in being able to sell physical copies.

Going digital only can actually stop used game sales if they wanted to. Someone will have to provide a source on how much they make on used and physical to see if going digital only will benefit them. And how much production costs are.

Well, if it's a moral argument against used games, then going digital which precludes resale would be done regardless of whether it's more profitable or not. The only way I see digital being somehow inferior to physical in sales is if (1) people refuse to buy digital regardless of price, (2) people can't buy digital (that's much less of a issue with the prevalence of online store point cards that can be bought in retail stores, and region locking already combats a lot of grey market sales), (3) long tail sales (the wii shop ran for over 10 years so for the most part that's not a thing), and/or (4) restricted access through digital sales (which varies by platform and usually is as or more prevalent for physical copies).

Having said all that, yes, actual sales figures would be interesting. If anything, used game sales might increase new game sales because people who otherwise would never buy new buy used and the people who sale collect their money to buy new. The ratio though of used sale prices vs new prices though makes me think it'd tend to go the other way overall.

 

[SG854]

Not sure what "SD cards are more expensive [than] HDD" relates, but you can buy 256GB cards for $45. Going by these numbers that translates to holding between 16-32 games or an average cost of $1.40-$2.80/game (presuming you buy around 16-32 games). Just charging $10 less for digital games would mean after 5 games you're already better off financially. Or they could conversely charge $10 more for physical copies. The point is, to claim to be fair to physical copy owners they're being unfair to digital copy owners--which is even worse if you factor in being able to sell physical copies.



Well, if it's a moral argument against used games, then going digital which precludes resale would be done regardless of whether it's more profitable or not. The only way I see digital being somehow inferior to physical in sales is if (1) people refuse to buy digital regardless of price, (2) people can't buy digital (that's much less of a issue with the prevalence of online store point cards that can be bought in retail stores, and region locking already combats a lot of grey market sales), (3) long tail sales (the wii shop ran for over 10 years so for the most part that's not a thing), and/or (4) restricted access through digital sales (which varies by platform and usually is as or more prevalent for physical copies).

Having said all that, yes, actual sales figures would be interesting. If anything, used game sales might increase new game sales because people who otherwise would never buy new buy used and the people who sale collect their money to buy new. The ratio though of used sale prices vs new prices though makes me think it'd tend to go the other way overall.

Well I mention storage drives because if a storage is expensive people would go physical rather then digital. PSVita memcards were really expensive and it was cheaper to buy physical.

I seen terabyte sd cards being very expensive. And if you go for smaller sizes you would have to buy multiple. people like carrying around just one for convenience. Nintendo’s competition uses HDD and they are cheaper so it’s more viable to go digital for those consoles rather then on Nintendo.

The Switch is region free isn’t it.

 

[osm70]

Let's look at it this way:

First, we have to define a few things, just to make sure we agree on the important parts. Let's say that the developer getting money is a good thing because they worked on it and deserved to be paid. And let's say that getting the game for free is a good thing because honestly, who wants to pay?

You have 3 ways of getting the game:

Buy new - you pay, the developer gets money - 1 good thing, 1 bad thing

You pirate - you get it free, the developer gets nothing - 1 good thing, 1 bad thing

You buy used - you pay, the developer gets nothing - 0 good things, 2 bad things

 

[AkikoKumagara]

Let's look at it this way:

First, we have to define a few things, just to make sure we agree on the important parts. Let's say that the developer getting money is a good thing because they worked on it and deserved to be paid. And let's say that getting the game for free is a good thing because honestly, who wants to pay?

You have 3 ways of getting the game:

Buy new - you pay, the developer gets money - 1 good thing, 1 bad thing

You pirate - you get it free, the developer gets nothing - 1 good thing, 1 bad thing

You buy used - you pay, the developer gets nothing - 0 good things, 2 bad things

Buy used - Developer already was paid. You get the game cheaper than buying it new.

 

[Xzi]

Largely ignored is the fact that tons of physical games can only be bought used now. Two plus console generations back, you'll find maybe 1 in 100 copies of any given game is new, and vastly overpriced to boot. I think the truth is that publishers like the long-term effects of used game sales, they inflate the value of their games (at least the good ones). It's the short-term effects they dislike, because they want that money fast to show off to shareholders, instead of the retailers/individual resellers getting it.

 

[MasterJ360]

"Legalized Piracy" is a contradiction. Piracy is illegal no matter how you slice it. Used games are second handed you are still paying for it while piracy you don't pay a dime to anyone.

 

[kuwanger]

Well I mention storage drives because if a storage is expensive people would go physical rather then digital. PSVita memcards were really expensive and it was cheaper to buy physical.

Well, yea, but that's an example of Sony being generally assholes when it comes to memory storage in portable devices.

I seen terabyte sd cards being very expensive. And if you go for smaller sizes you would have to buy multiple. people like carrying around just one for convenience. Nintendo’s competition uses HDD and they are cheaper so it’s more viable to go digital for those consoles rather then on Nintendo.

Ah, yea. Was stuck thinking about 3DS/Switch (don't have a PS3/4/Xbox 360/One or Switch). In all cases but PSP/Vita, the storage price vs the game size has been mostly reasonable--smaller handheld games are on SD and larger consoles/PC games are on HDD. IIRC, the Wii which used internal storage and then SD limited games to ~40MB (and is part of the reason various games never appeared on the platform).

As for carrying around just one SD for convenience? Yea, that's another reason to go that route over physical because even if you were to buy multiple SD because you did buy a ton of games incrementally, you'd be able to leave one in 50% of the time (you'd probably just transfer your most played games onto one card and leave it in 95% of the time). Having said that, the N3DS put the microSD slot in a terrible location--they pulled a N-Gage but too a lower offense live.

The Switch is region free isn’t it.

True. Nintendo can't seem to make up its mind if it wants to region lock systems, but everyone else heavily pushes region lock. That region lock exists on some PC games is actually particularly repulsive to me. Not sure how common such is outside of Steam. :/

 

[Xzi]

True. Nintendo can't seem to make up its mind if it wants to region lock systems, but everyone else heavily pushes region lock. That region lock exists on some PC games is actually particularly repulsive to me. Not sure how common such is outside of Steam. :/

Outside of Steam it's perhaps even more common. I've heard the Epic launcher and Origin simply don't sell games in a lot of countries. Region locks tend to be for the purpose of complying with specific local laws, like the overbearing ones in Australia or Germany, but none of the other launchers has been around long enough to set up that kind of infrastructure.

 

[blahblah]

Then I'm not sure why you bothered to reply.

Speaking of cars, I think I have a good car analogy*, Imagine if Ford build cars but stipulated that it was only a "genuine" Ford car if you agreed to an EULA; otherwise, driving the car around would risk punishment for having a "non-genuine" Ford car. Further, you don't buy the car directly from Ford but through a dealer. So, this EULA isn't a first-sale to you the customer from Ford. This is a Ford to dealer sale, then a dealer to customer sale. Maybe some dealers have a contract with Ford that you have to agree to the EULA before you drive it off the lot. Most don't, though, and Ford merely designed it that the first time you start the car you have to agree to the EULA for it to turn over. In that circumstance, I'd want to hotwire the car to bypass the defect that is the EULA.

* Good luck turning this into a Library of Congress reference.



Right, because people are being malicious. There's nothing inherently malicious about resale.



Then Nintendo is, IMO, stupid. Being the same price, they get less profit off physical copies. Further, because they run in parallel with digital copies, less physical copies are made. However, it encourages all those who plan to resell their games to buy physical copies which means as a percentage physical copy resale is likely to go up. Ie, it encourages more competition against new copies.



The truth, though, is that Gamestop is in the same boat as used book stores--competition against the internet. Having to have stock and it being limited really undercuts any edge they have. The fact that some moved into malls was incredibly stupid--the increased foot traffic doesn't compensate for the high rental fees in the long term, at least not on resale of goods. In short, I don't know think Gamestop is a good example of comparison.

There is no valid car analogy. The issue at hand is one of economic models, and cars are completely different. There is no valid analogy. Your post is nonsense, as was your post earlier.

 

[SG854]

Well, yea, but that's an example of Sony being generally assholes when it comes to memory storage in portable devices.



Ah, yea. Was stuck thinking about 3DS/Switch (don't have a PS3/4/Xbox 360/One or Switch). In all cases but PSP/Vita, the storage price vs the game size has been mostly reasonable--smaller handheld games are on SD and larger consoles/PC games are on HDD. IIRC, the Wii which used internal storage and then SD limited games to ~40MB (and is part of the reason various games never appeared on the platform).

As for carrying around just one SD for convenience? Yea, that's another reason to go that route over physical because even if you were to buy multiple SD because you did buy a ton of games incrementally, you'd be able to leave one in 50% of the time (you'd probably just transfer your most played games onto one card and leave it in 95% of the time). Having said that, the N3DS put the microSD slot in a terrible location--they pulled a N-Gage but too a lower offense live.



True. Nintendo can't seem to make up its mind if it wants to region lock systems, but everyone else heavily pushes region lock. That region lock exists on some PC games is actually particularly repulsive to me. Not sure how common such is outside of Steam. :/

We are barely starting to get terabyte SD cards, and HDD have been selling higher then 1 terabytes for years. They just announced a 1 terabyte SD card a while back and it’ll be $450. You can get a 1 terabyte HDD for around $40 or less. The price difference is huge. It’s cheaper to go physical on Switch.

The digital and physical price is the same on competative consoles too. Nintendo isn’t much different in this. But with price drops it’s physical that does it first.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ubisoft-explains-why-digital-games-stay-more-expen/1100-6428760/

 

[FAST6191]

There is no valid car analogy. The issue at hand is one of economic models, and cars are completely different. There is no valid analogy. Your post is nonsense, as was your post earlier.

Why would we be beholden to a given model?

 

[tbb043]

yeah, right, and buying a used car is literally the same as carjacking.

buying a used house, also theft. I mean you aren't paying the builder for that! UNFAIR!

 

[kuwanger]

We are barely starting to get terabyte SD cards, and HDD have been selling higher then 1 terabytes for years. They just announced a 1 terabyte SD card a while back and it’ll be $450. You can get a 1 terabyte HDD for around $40 or less. The price difference is huge.

I know, but again the point of comparison being made is cost of physical game vs cost of digital game. One terabyte SD cards are an outlier on price, so I think reasonably most people would buy multi 256GB or 512GB--on Amazon at least that sweet spot is about 60% the cost per GB compare to 1024GB. So, HDDs tend to be $40/TB vs SD $255/TB. So long as HDD bound games tend to be ~6.4x larger on average than SD bound games then the per game cost is about the same. Of course, given the opportunity plenty of people would undoubtedly love to shove an HDD into their Switch and save $215.

It’s cheaper to go physical on Switch.

Because Nintendo, as copyright holder, has distorted the market to make the cheaper to make digital copies cost more. And the market corrects by having a used market that undercuts their new physical prices. Otherwise, if you could actually resell digital copies those too would undercut new digital copies and likely it'd be cheaper to go digital on Switch. Also of note is just how many physical games on Switch have huge SD requirements.

The digital and physical price is the same on competative consoles too. Nintendo isn’t much different in this. But with price drops it’s physical that does it first.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ubisoft-explains-why-digital-games-stay-more-expen/1100-6428760/

Aha, "Also, one thing to consider is related to stocks; if we have stock in stores, we tend to make sure we decrease the quantity of units in stores before going digital with lower prices." Ie, because they've invested in physical copies, they're willing to undercut their own digital sales to get rid of stock. Which in other parlance amounts to digital sales subsidize physical sales. More and more, this isn't about being "fair" to physical copies. This is all about fucking over digital sales.

What I have to ask is, why are they doing this? They're literally paying more to sell at a lower price. Even if I believed one company, like Nintendo, was striving for fair, I don't think businesses as a whole strive for "fair". Perhaps it has something to do with: "We are actually more aggressive on the PC side where digital is very, very strong. We tend to be more conservative on the digital side for more console and more flexible on PC."

The "we" in this likely is "Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft and I". Ubisoft likely literally can't be more flexible with pricing on console because of contracts. This makes me believe the answer is obvious: Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are getting paid for every physical copy made. My guess is, Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft are paid more per unit on physical copies and require a certain number of physical copies made for many publishers. Even if that were true, it wouldn't explain why Nintendo pushes a good many physical copies of games.

It makes me believe another thing is probably true: physical presence in a story is critical for console sales which is critical for game sales. Digital sales can't be verified, but physical production has side effects like used game sales that can be used to some degree to verify numbers. There's also, various people arguing the resell value or simply "When it comes to any Nintendo game I always get a hard copy." so my presumption early about some people never buying digital seems at least anecdotally true. I don't think nearly as many people feel the same way about Ubisoft, though.

PS - And thinking of it more, perhaps it's the exact opposite. Perhaps digital copies actual make more for Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft and the point of physical copies is to force the publisher to sell out the physical copy stock first, which they'll be reluctant to do at substantial price cuts too quickly Ergo, console digital store prices stay inflated for third party sales. However you slice it, there's clearly something rather fishy about there being substantial amounts of physical copies made. It actually makes me wonder, also, if companies are conspiring to have large day one downloads to mitigate much of the advantage of a physical copy and further encourage digital sales. It'd be really informative to actually get some more insider information to understand why things are how they are.

 

[SG854]

I know, but again the point of comparison being made is cost of physical game vs cost of digital game. One terabyte SD cards are an outlier on price, so I think reasonably most people would buy multi 256GB or 512GB--on Amazon at least that sweet spot is about 60% the cost per GB compare to 1024GB. So, HDDs tend to be $40/TB vs SD $255/TB. So long as HDD bound games tend to be ~6.4x larger on average than SD bound games then the per game cost is about the same. Of course, given the opportunity plenty of people would undoubtedly love to shove an HDD into their Switch and save $215.



Because Nintendo, as copyright holder, has distorted the market to make the cheaper to make digital copies cost more. And the market corrects by having a used market that undercuts their new physical prices. Otherwise, if you could actually resell digital copies those too would undercut new digital copies and likely it'd be cheaper to go digital on Switch. Also of note is just how many physical games on Switch have huge SD requirements.



Aha, "Also, one thing to consider is related to stocks; if we have stock in stores, we tend to make sure we decrease the quantity of units in stores before going digital with lower prices." Ie, because they've invested in physical copies, they're willing to undercut their own digital sales to get rid of stock. Which in other parlance amounts to digital sales subsidize physical sales. More and more, this isn't about being "fair" to physical copies. This is all about fucking over digital sales.

What I have to ask is, why are they doing this? They're literally paying more to sell at a lower price. Even if I believed one company, like Nintendo, was striving for fair, I don't think businesses as a whole strive for "fair". Perhaps it has something to do with: "We are actually more aggressive on the PC side where digital is very, very strong. We tend to be more conservative on the digital side for more console and more flexible on PC."

The "we" in this likely is "Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft and I". Ubisoft likely literally can't be more flexible with pricing on console because of contracts. This makes me believe the answer is obvious: Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are getting paid for every physical copy made. My guess is, Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft are paid more per unit on physical copies and require a certain number of physical copies made for many publishers. Even if that were true, it wouldn't explain why Nintendo pushes a good many physical copies of games.

It makes me believe another thing is probably true: physical presence in a story is critical for console sales which is critical for game sales. Digital sales can't be verified, but physical production has side effects like used game sales that can be used to some degree to verify numbers. There's also, various people arguing the resell value or simply "When it comes to any Nintendo game I always get a hard copy." so my presumption early about some people never buying digital seems at least anecdotally true. I don't think nearly as many people feel the same way about Ubisoft, though.

PS - And thinking of it more, perhaps it's the exact opposite. Perhaps digital copies actual make more for Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft and the point of physical copies is to force the publisher to sell out the physical copy stock first, which they'll be reluctant to do at substantial price cuts too quickly Ergo, console digital store prices stay inflated for third party sales. However you slice it, there's clearly something rather fishy about there being substantial amounts of physical copies made. It actually makes me wonder, also, if companies are conspiring to have large day one downloads to mitigate much of the advantage of a physical copy and further encourage digital sales. It'd be really informative to actually get some more insider information to understand why things are how they are.

This is an old article but it explains why Nintendo charges the same price for both digital and physical.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/n...al-games-are-not-less-expensive/1100-6415997/

It’s basically not to devalue Digital copies. You pay premium and feel like you’re getting premium. It’s like Apple charging high for their products to make it feel premium. They are playing into psychology here. And it’s actually not a dumb strategy because they have strong physical and digital sales.

It’s like people that pirate a bunch of games but ends up not playing any because there’s too many games, and being free, they value them less, not caring for them.

Where as when you work a long days work, make money, and purchase a game with hard earned cash, you tend to value the game more, because you worked for it, and gave up money for it, at premium price. The game has more value and you tend to play it or else it’s a waste of money if you don’t. They are probably playing into this psychology.

And it’s the people that are buying into it and determining the market. If people just stopped buying digital and only focus on physical, this would force Nintendo to rethink their strategy and lower digital prices.