If you buy VERY cheap games, you're hurting the industry.

[Murbella]

Same old argument.

Publishers/developers: Are right to look out for themselves first. They are a for profit business and their first priority is profit.

Customers: Are wrong to look out for themselves first. They should instead look out for the best interests of the publisher/developer before their own best interests.

In no other industry is this argument made, but it is pretty common in video games for some reason. You don't see people getting guilt tripped over waiting to see wrath of the titans from a rental rather than seeing it on IMAX 3D.

[Zuwadza]

Same old argument.

Publishers/developers: Are right to look out for themselves first. They are a for profit business and their first priority is profit.

Customers: Are wrong to look out for themselves first. They should instead look out for the best interests of the publisher/developer before their own best interests.

In no other industry is this argument made, but it is pretty common in video games for some reason. You don't see people getting guilt tripped over waiting to see wrath of the titans from a rental rather than seeing it on IMAX 3D.

It's made in a lot of other industries, actually; essentially it's the same argument people make when they defend supply management. The argument for upholding supply management in the Canadian dairy industry is along similar lines: consumers don't know the "true" value of what they're purchasing, therefore its in their best interest to have an organization setting the price. Consumers are too stupid or ill-informed to pay the "right" price.

[Theodore Rex DX]

It's naive to think that whatever the market value is is the right value though.

[djotefsoup]

I don't know, it seems possible to keep the price high and never enter into steep discounts if you make something large numbers of people want to buy?



It is interesting though that attempting to convince the general public to just send more money is seen as easier than making a big hit game. Which is weird given that the publishers/developers are responsible for making the game rather than being responsible for the entire population's spending habits. Seems like an abdication of the only responsibility they have in this scenario.

[WarrenM]

paying more is your duty soldiers.. why do you hate america?

Not more as a general concept just more than, you know, $5.

[Enidigm]

I think from a developer's perspective Steam takes away the Golden Ring. It's still possible to make lots of games, and possibly even do better, but Steam undoubtedly has an averaging effect on the industry; little guys doing $15 games do, on average, way better, while AAA titles, traditionally selling for 50-60$, probably do slightly less. The problem there is that suddenly it starts to make much more sense from a financial standpoint to aim at the 15$ game instead of the 60$ game, which i'm sure is depressing for those developers that don't want to make a concise game but a sprawling, high production value, epic game.

Overall though i would imagine Steam encourages more dollars be spent on games per annum per person, similar to the effect of Amazon Prime.

It's worthy pointing out that both EA and Blizzard have either withdrawn or refused to get involved with Steam. Clearly, they see Steam diminishing the perceived value of their properties over time. The idea that people should drop $200 for all the Sims 3 content only works if you've trained the market to expect to pay full price for Sims 3 expansions for the majority of the year; on Steam, everyone might wait around for it to drop to $5 or less. And Blizzard is still selling Diablo 2 for like $20 or something. They're not at all eager to jump on the Steam bandwagon. Both of these publishers actions' do seem to at least reinforce the viewpoint that "traditional" AAA games are diminished in value on Steam.

Steam probably cushions near-misses though. A game that "bombs" the market, for whatever reason, IS better off going on discount later in the year for $2.50-$5.00 and recouping some of that loss.

[Murbella]

I'd think those actions point more towards those companies wanting to remove the middle man and be their own steam/middleman, just like what valve has done. That way they get a higher share of your $60.

[gamadict]

It's worthy pointing out that both EA and Blizzard have either withdrawn or refused to get involved with Steam. Clearly, they see Steam diminishing the perceived value of their properties over time. The idea that people should drop $200 for all the Sims 3 content only works if you've trained the market to expect to pay full price for Sims 3 expansions for the majority of the year; on Steam, everyone might wait around for it to drop to $5 or less. And Blizzard is still selling Diablo 2 for like $20 or something. They're not at all eager to jump on the Steam bandwagon. Both of these publishers actions' do seem to at least reinforce the viewpoint that "traditional" AAA games are diminished in value on Steam.

I'm almost certain that the only reason they don't sell on steam is because they feel they have the market power to sell through their own digital channels and not have to give steam a cut.

[Enidigm]

I'm almost certain that the only reason they don't sell on steam is because they feel they have the market power to sell through their own digital channels and not have to give steam a cut.

Well, of course that's true, but you see them holding prices at a much higher level as well. Clearly EA is "thinking" about this though; Dragon Age 2 is the same price as Dark Spore on Origin right now, for example, and is the same price as the Sims 3 High End Loft expansion. But they very much don't seem at all in a hurry to start selling games for $5 on their own service. Which means, (imo) they're either doing the metrics wrong, or are taking a risk and seeing what pans out, or have determined to try / have discovered how the market reacts to tanking the perceived value of their products. Even the much maligned Mirror's Edge is selling for $20.

[krayzkrok]

It's not about guilt, it's about perspective. Is it possible that these early and drastic markdowns on video games have a depressing effect on the perceived value of games in general? I have no idea, but it seems like a valid point.

One big problem with the GOG guy's argument is the assumption that non-discounted AAA games are at the right price to begin with, that they're competitively priced. From my perspective, I disagree. That's why I "wait for the Steam sale" - I'll consider buying the game when it drops to something I consider more reasonable, especially when it's getting less-than-stellar reviews and word of mouth. These games are going up against a continual stream of innovative and fun indie games that are 5-10 times cheaper for me at release.

If those AAA titles never went on sale, apart from the very rare exception I'd probably never buy them because there are better, cheaper alternatives. Despite my moderate interest in the Modern Warfare games, I haven't bought a single one of them yet. The only Battlefield game I bought was 1943 because it was priced competitively with indie games.

There are too many good games around to be wasting money at the AAA full price point, if you ask me. Actually, there is one exception to this rule: Christmas time. My folks love playing games, and it's the only time I'll pay AAA retail prices for a game so I can give them as gifts. I feel like I'm being shafted though.

[Enidigm]

You're not in the AAA market, though, Krok. It makes sense for them to sell you their games at a discount. There are undoubtedly many people like you. It's like the rivet-counting propeller heads not being in the market for the latest side scrolling retro 2D SHMUP or something. At some price point they might be interested, but how many, and how low do you have to go?

It also doesn't quite invalidate the AAA label though. You might like, say, SPAZ better than MW3, but SPAZ had a staff of about 3, and MW3 had a multi million dollar budget with hundreds of employees.

[cicobuff]

And those people up in arms about the rising oil prices are just ignorant about the true value of oil.....

[FieryBalrog]

It's naive to think that whatever the market value is is the right value though.

No, naivete is thinking you know better.

[Pogue Mahone]

That is one hell of a tortured analogy, cicobuff. First, oil is a fungible good and second, relatively scarce. Steam games are neither.

[zombo77]

Well, of course that's true, but you see them holding prices at a much higher level as well. Clearly EA is "thinking" about this though; Dragon Age 2 is the same price as Dark Spore on Origin right now, for example, and is the same price as the Sims 3 High End Loft expansion. But they very much don't seem at all in a hurry to start selling games for $5 on their own service. Which means, (imo) they're either doing the metrics wrong, or are taking a risk and seeing what pans out, or have determined to try / have discovered how the market reacts to tanking the perceived value of their products. Even the much maligned Mirror's Edge is selling for $20.

I remember sales like DA2 and Bulletstorm for 10$, Mirror's Edge and BFBC2 for 5 or 7.50, ME2 and Crysis 2 for 15. They even had the 60$? BF3 for 30 a month after launch.

[Nesrie]

Not more as a general concept just more than, you know, $5.

That's very shorted sighted, and I will tell you why. For example, I spent 10 dollars on Hearts of Iron III, which I never played and had no interested, and Crusader Kings (package deal). Now, I would have NEVER picked up Crusader Kings, a series I never heard about, don't even remember the reviews for from this company called Paradox that wasn't even on my radar years ago. It was a buggy, problem laden game too, but what an interesting concept. Same company does Europa Universalis III, also picked up at some bargain bin price of maybe 7.50... so what was the result of those purchases? I pre-ordered Crusader Kings II and played it on release day, full price.

The risk of waiting years and years before releasing a sale in an industry like this, is your game is forgotten. You've grabbed the fans who were biting at the bit already to get your game earlier on, the rest aren't fans yet so give them a chance to be or just know that some people will buy games at 20 dollars later and some fans will be really upset if they miss the release day rush. I know the JCP ads make it seem like everyone is running around getting upset over a sale, but if your game was good, fun and enjoyable, most people are not going to pitch a fit because some guy bought it 2 months after you finished for less than you paid for it.

[merryprankster]

I know when I wait for a big sale it's because I am concerned the entertainment inside might not be worth the price of admission (AC5 says hi). I think it is less an argument of what a game is worth to someone, but maybe what it is worth to someone to give it a try. I'm sure almost everyone here pony's up full price for the games that are their particular poison (c'mon Capcom, where's my Monster Hunter?) It's the "hmmm, that looks kinda neat, but I'm not sure" games that go on sale.

I think the real solution is for games to figure out way to lower the cover charge so everyone can come in for a drink, without having an open bar inside. I truly believe that League of Legends has the business model of the future, not Steam sales.

For me personally the most money I have spent on games in the last six months is gotta be DCUO. MMOness aside, what got me on board was a bored weekend and a free download. My interest level as well as my financial support has been ramping up ever since. I admit that the way SOE planned the scaling of investment wasn't exactly smooth, but the principle remains. The more I play the game, the more I want the best experience possible so the more I am willing to pay for that, and to be honest pay happily.

Now compare that with AC5. I paid 60 bucks out of that gate to find out that the game wasn't my cup of tea...sweet. Guess I'll trade that sucker in and salvage what I can,(adding used games to the market). Geez I wish this had been on sale for 5 bucks when I decided I wanted to try it...I should probably wait next time.

The problem is not the "value" of the game, but rather the cost of finding out if that game is something you want to support.

[stusser]

I know some people act differently, but the very heavy discounts prices on steam have not changed my primary buying habits. I still buy games I care about on day one at full price.

If I buy a game for $5 on steam, that $5 more than the game's studio/publisher/whatever would ever get out of me under any other circumstances. If I don't even install the thing, as I usually don't, they got five bucks for literally nothing. It's found money for them. They should be amazed, incredulous, and grateful.

[Theodore Rex DX]

No, naivete is thinking you know better.

Sounds more like arrogance. Anyway, I haven't said what I think. Do you think the market value is always the right value? If not, then there is no argument and you're petulantly wasting my time. If so, you're naive.

[Kool Moe Dee]

It also doesn't quite invalidate the AAA label though. You might like, say, SPAZ better than MW3, but SPAZ had a staff of about 3, and MW3 had a multi million dollar budget with hundreds of employees.

Uh, we are at the point now where almost every console/PC game will have a multi-million dollar budget. When you have even a couple dozen people working on a modest title, salaries add up really fast.

[Kool Moe Dee]

What problem are we trying to solve here? In my 30-ish years of PC gaming, I can't remember having more choice of titles and genres, at more affordable prices, than we have had in the post-Steam era. And the industry has exploded in terms of revenue (though with slight decline last year), at the same time birthing an amazing indie scene. So how have these sales actually damaged the producers or consumers of PC games? Not trying to be flip here, just struggling to see the problem.

Mid-level developers have undergone an incredible squeeze this generation due to skyrocketing development costs. The development nirvana of PS2/Xbox/GC, where quirky/niche titles could still be profitable even at relatively low sales, is gone. Welcome to the new era of nothing but AAA dudebro shooters, and lo-fi, low budget indie games with crappy tile art -- nothing else can justify the risk/expense.

[Murbella]

Mid-level developers have undergone an incredible squeeze this generation due to skyrocketing development costs. The development nirvana of PS2/Xbox/GC, where quirky/niche titles could still be profitable even at relatively low sales, is gone. Welcome to the new era of nothing but AAA dudebro shooters, and lo-fi, low budget indie games with crappy tile art -- nothing else can justify the risk/expense.

Me buying fear for $10 doesn't change this though. Making modern warfare 25 is still going to give a big publisher more money than making something like SPAZ no matter what i do.

The only real solution is to go back in time and stop modern warfare from being made.

[Dawn Falcon]

Welcome to the new era of nothing but AAA dudebro shooters, and lo-fi, low budget indie games with crappy tile art -- nothing else can justify the risk/expense.

Right. The industry's tools are still too crude to allow mid-budget games, because they're not really in the interests of the remaining big publishers...

(Say, remember NWN? Yea)

[Giaddon]

Don't game publishers have, like, closets full of eggheads to figure out what price to put games at and when to put them there? I guarantee the publishers themselves have put more money, thought, and time into determining the appropriate pricing for their products than any of us (assuming none of us are the eggheads mentioned above).

[Dawn Falcon]

I guarantee the publishers themselves have put more money, thought, and time into determining the appropriate pricing for their products

Money and time, yes. Thought? Erm.

There's a reason that a lot of smaller devs wouldn't piss on publisher marketing if it staggered past on fire. It's more closets of MBA's than closets of eggheads.

[Mark Asher]

If you are willing to wait until after Christmas for some game to be 75% off, you don't want it that much to begin with.

You can't imagine someone having the patience to wait?

[Dawn Falcon]

You can't imagine someone having the patience to wait?

Or just a kid without much cash?
Cut out the second hand, and the number of recent games they can buy plummets.

[Mark Asher]

Publishers have been selling games at $5 for a long time. Remember the spinracks of jewel box CD games for $5-10 at CompUSA? The difference is now there are a lot more of them and distribution is much greater due to digital downloads.

[Old Man Gravy]

People buying games at low prices may hurt specific niches, or publishers, or development companies, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt the industry as a whole. Quite the contrary. New competitors finding new ways to meet customers in the marketplace is what allows an industry (and its customer base) to evolve and ultimately survive.

I'm a regional CFO for a multi-billion dollar company that provides services that just about everyone consumes, and we have to shift price points constantly to stay competitive with startups and everyone else changing their product profile to maintain market share. In our strategic meetings, the conversation is never about what we need to do to make sure our customers keep paying high prices - it's always about staying competitive. This talk about you hurting the industry of gaming by paying the lowest price possible to purchase your entertainment hours is pure horseshit.

Know what really fucks an idustry up? Conditioning the customer base so that they believe they have to pay high prices for a limited selection of very expensive products, and in the process building your infrastructure so that it can only be profitable by providing very expensive products.

In the gaming world, I'd argue it's the huge swath of the consumer base that pays full retail for every shitty, repetitive rehash of Medal of Duty: Run and Shoot Stuff In a Photorealistic Environment, Just Like Last Time that is really hurting the industry by conditioning the producers into thinking that's what they've got to do to turn a margin.

So buy those cheap games, and sleep well. You're doing yourself, and the gaming industry as a whole, a giant favor.

[FieryBalrog]

Sounds more like arrogance. Anyway, I haven't said what I think. Do you think the market value is always the right value? If not, then there is no argument and you're petulantly wasting my time. If so, you're naive.

Who determines "right" value? You?