My bad, I guess I was more tired than I thought. That said, the $17 is production costs because the cost of the digital version already contains a developer/publisher cut and the digital storefront cut (which in this case would subsidize LRG cut). Which means those cuts are already covered by the original $13.
While I messed up the numbers the point more or less stands, would people pay $90 for a physical version of a $70 game? Most people already consider $70 to be too high and wait for discounts.
Peffse@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Your thinking is a little bit backwards. The $70 price point of video games was not set by digital storefronts… it was set by physical media.
$70 is where the development cost, marketing, physical production and shipping can be sold at a profit.
So maybe you should be asking why I can buy a disc of Madden 27 at $70 while you can’t buy it at $50.
Goodeye8@piefed.social 3 days ago
There’s no point in asking that question because companies aren’t going to go “well, we no longer have to sell physical so we can reduce the price to make less money”. I’m well aware games don’t have to cost $70 (which is why I almost never buy games at $70) but it doesn’t change the fact that AAA games do cost $70. It also doesn’t change the fact that digital sales surpassed physical sales 6 years ago and have now completely taken over physical media. The profit margin of digital sales at the $70 price point is the norm for AAA. It’s why companies like Capcom are a-okay with consoles going fully digital because if the consoles can force even half of the physical media consumers into digital they’re probably going to make more money than if they kept selling physical alongside digital.
If there’s a market for AAA to sell physical media it will come with the same strategy that LRG is using where you’re paying extra $20 to get a physical version of the game.