The digital age = empty pockets

[therealjaxon]

But you could have those pictures on a laptop projected onto a 100" screen .
Everything gets replaced at some point.

[Shaolin_monkey]

@Shaolin Monkey: Yeah books have had it easy so far, but even they aren't completely safe - you can buy digital versions of books to download now. How long will it be before a collection of books is worth nothing more than a place in the recycling bin?

Moving all written works to a digital format would be a very dangerous thing for any civilisation to do. All it would mean is one electromagnetic pulse over the UK, and all that digital knowledge would be worthless silicon.

Or, if our civilisation were to fall, as civilisations throughout history are wont to do, what use would all that digital information be, locked away on CDs, hardrive or other digital media? When what remains of society are scraping together enough resources just to survive, they'd probably be fashioning harddrives into spears or arrowheads.

All record of our technology, or any teachings to raise the human race out of barbarism would only be found in books. They are the most permanent media for passing on info from one generation to the next that we have.

That said, they'd probably use books for kindling too... the library of Alexandria springs to mind.

Anyway, buried in my previous ramblings was the point that all entertainment in whatever media through the ages has had the sole aim of emptying our pockets. The digital age is no different.

[mfnick]

[

Anyway, buried in my previous ramblings was the point that all entertainment in whatever media through the ages has had the sole aim of emptying our pockets. The digital age is no different.

The digital age just makes it easier to do so.

[therealjaxon]

Totally true. If it's easier though, why is it more expensive?
Why does it cost 70p to download one song when you could buy the whole album for £4 in the shops? Why are Xbox games £20 to download when their physical equivalent can be bought for half that price or less?
This leads me onto my original starting post - Why are ITV planning to charge for something that has always been free to us? All they have to do is move one of their most popular programs into the Pay per View section and they've got those viewers by the balls.
Whats next for the future? Imagine your favorite author releasing their next book as a download only, or maybe Modern Warfare 3 where you have to pay a monthly subscription for online playbility, miss a payment and your profile self deletes.......Hmm.

[Sly Reflex]

Moving programs doesn't work. They moved LOST from Channel 4 to SKY at which point I stopped watching it on TV. I just waited for it to hit rock bottom when it came out on DVD because there is no way I would be willing to give money to SKY for TV that has more bloody adverts in than normal commercial TV. So, those people that were advertising in between LOST been on lost potential revenue of me seeing and buying their products, as I didn't switch across to watching SKY, and their are no adverts like that on the DVD's. For me TV just isn't that important and I think that people who buy into things like SKY are painting themselves into a corner, simply because SKY knows they can get away with charging for this and that and every other little thing they can slap a charge on.

My last next door neighbour always complained about having to pay for SKY so he could watch the football, a complaint which I have heard quite a lot from a lot of football fans. If all these people just stuck 2 fingers up to SKY and told them to stick the football up their arse, SKY would eventually realise that they couldn't get away with charging through the nose for it. It won't happen though, because football is the only thing in these peoples lives and SKY knows it has a captive audience who it knows it can milk for all it can.

[DifferentClass]

Totally true. If it's easier though, why is it more expensive?
Why does it cost 70p to download one song when you could buy the whole album for £4 in the shops? Why are Xbox games £20 to download when their physical equivalent can be bought for half that price or less?

This attitude actually annoys me. We know why disc based games (music, films, whatever) can be very cheap, at a point they need to be shifted so they have room for the next batch of games, and that isn't a problem with downloadable games, since they don't take up physical space. We are fortunate to have cheap disc games because of the nature of the market and it's just greed to expect to have games at cheap prices, considering the work that goes in to making them. Everyone likes a bargain, myself included, but it's not something to be taken for granted.

When (or if) it comes to a full downloadable market I don't think XBLA's pricing model will be the norm, something similar to what Steam do, which regularly have pretty good deals. It's where most people will flock.

[therealjaxon]

Fair enough, but what bugs me is that you're paying more for less. You're not actually buying something physical which you can sell on to recoup some of the inital outlay.
What makes you think that when this is the norm there will be deals? If the consumer has no choice then they can charge what they want and games could be £49.99 and that's it.

[Sly Reflex]

With physical items you have a supply and demand. This knocks on to how much the item is actually worth, the lesser the item gets the more it costs. With digital media they are never going to run out of copies, they could sell singles for 1p each and still make a profit because once the product is made that is it. You are not telling me that the artist right down to the supplier couldn't cover cost and make a tidy living out of this? Especially when high street stores can sell whole albums for a few quid that cover all the production stuff, all the staff, all the rates and over heads etc, not to mention all the guys that physically worked the machine pressing the CD, and all the people that sourced materials to make CD's in the 1st place? It is just a case of major greed imho.

[michaelarby]

to throw in my two cents- i hate the tv license fees. and again- these have to be paid on top of sky subscription fees. A bit off topic but nonetheless. bbc programs dont interest me- if i could i would lock the channels out to save me a much needed 120 quid a year, but no- thats not an option. i also read on yahoo news that if you wanted to watch the world cup on the internet- you had to pay licnse fees. **** OFF BBC! how about i charge every member of this forum a fee to read my posts, just because i said so. dont like that? then ill fine you. you'd tell me to piss off right?

[The+Deleted]

Too right, look at the punctuation and utter disdain for sentence structure.

[therealjaxon]

how about i charge every member of this forum a fee to read my posts, just because i said so. dont like that? then ill fine you. you'd tell me to piss off right?

Jesus Christ! Don't give them any idea's!

Too right, look at the punctuation and utter disdain for sentence structure.

[Shaolin_monkey]

I was looking for a PC copy of Dark Void recently (I know, shit game, but the 3D is fucking awesome on it), and naturally went to Steam as my first port of call. It was £29.99, which I thought was a bit steep. After a bit of research I found it on shopto.net for £6!!! So I get the CD, case, instruction manual, and can probably sell it on (didn't come with a reg key or anything) all in for £6.

When compared to Steams £29.99 I most definitely agree this digital download malarkey can be a bloody rip-off.

[therealjaxon]

Which was my point, if 'they' want us to switch to digital downloads rather than the physical form, it should be reflected in the price. Think about how much money is being saved - no cost for the disc, case, manual, production costs, distribution costs, taxes etc.
Perhaps if the big switch did happen there would be two prices, £39.99 for just the game download or £49.99 and they send you the case, manual etc.

[mfnick]

i think they are charging those prices still so we'll be used to it once we have no other way of getting those games & they can make as much profit as possible.

People must be buying them too or they wouldnt keep them at that. I find the general public is much more willing to get shafted when paying for stuff digitally/online too as it doesnt feel like real money is being spent to them. I was a bit like that when i first got my credit card & started shopping online. Theres a big difference - psychologically - spening £40 on a credit card online & going into the shop & doing the same. Its even worse if you're actualy handing the cash over.

If they make spending that much on a game digitally seem like the norm, then they can overcharge us as much as they want really.

[Tlix]

Most games on Steam are like that with only the occasional sales making me actually buy anything off them. I think what makes them their money is the fact alot of people would rather pay the extra money and have the conveniance of downloading it and having it there and then rather then either going down the shops for it or waiting at least a day for it in the post. All depends on how money concious you are and the same formula applies to pretty much everything digital.