Positech Games Boss Calls For An End To Deep-Discount Sales

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Positech Games Boss Calls For An End To Deep-Discount Sales

VGX Steam Sale

Positech Games boss Cliff Harris says deep-discount game sales are a "big psychology trick" that play gamers like pianos.

We all know how it goes. A new game comes out, you're not all that interested in it, but then it goes on sale on Steam for 80 percent off and suddenly your wallet is out and your backlog is one title bigger. It's the norm these days, something we often joke about, and it's helped get an awful lot of games out to an awful lot of people. But is it actually a good thing?

Cliff Harris doesn't think so. In a blog post, the head of the Democracy studio said that Steam sales, Humble Bundles and other big game blowouts are a bad thing that should be stopped - although he also acknowledges that's not likely to happen.

Harris cites a number of reasons for his stance but they can be boiled down in general to a belief that big price reductions devalue games in a number of ways. They create the perception that games are only worth $5 or $10, which in turn encourages gamers to ignore them at launch and walk away from them the moment they run into difficulty, rather than persevering and finishing them. They also commodify games, making purchase decisions about price rather than quality, with the knock-off effect of "handing power" to people who run the sales as opposed to those who actually make the games.

He pointed out that Positech's latest release, Democracy 3, has never been on sale for more than 50 percent off, and said he has no immediate plans to reduce it by that amount again. But discounts work, and he also admitted that the likelihood of convincing gamers that really cheap games aren't good for them is probably slim.

"I understand that varied price points to suit different gamers is good, I understand the reasons for sales being economically efficient ways to maximize global utility. But this implies utility is derived from the product," he wrote. "We are no longer selling products, we are selling discounts. The endorphin rush is now from getting a bargain, not the fun of actually *playing* the game. This is bad."

I'm inclined to agree, both that the ongoing tumult of big sales has seriously devalued all but a very few elite triple-A releases, and that there's likely nothing to be done about it. After all, devaluation may be bad for developers and publishers, but it's good, at least in the short term, for gamers. How do you convince people that they're better off spending more money, instead of less? Generally speaking, you don't; you just hope it all works out in the long run.

Source: Cliffski's Blog

Permalink

so if I want a game but cant afford it, I shouldn't wait until it goes on sale or there is a price drop?

Remind me never to buy a game from this developer.

I feel like this is one of those situations where you can safely discard the opinion of the person in question. Developers and Publishers will never be satisfied until they can assure that a game will stay it's launch price forever, and everyone will pay it. Until that happens, they'll whine and whine and whine, but that's all it is, just white noise, they don't bring up any new or interesting ideas. They want money, and they want control of their products, that's all.. what the gamer wants, that's ancillary, it's at the bottom of their list, and that's why we don't care when they bitch and moan.

"We shouldn't put our games on deep sales because people will eventually stop paying $60 for games that don't even hardly have $60 worth of content on them."

Sorry, but even games that do have that much content on them, most I still wouldn't touch if not for 75% off sales.

Believe me, I was sure I'd never touch a Borderlands game again. But when I saw it and all the xpacs for 75% off totaling something like $25? Yeah, it was mine.

I will rarely feel a game is worth the full price tag.

The only games that have done that for me lately are Southpark: TSoT, Dark Souls 2, and Bravely Default.

This guy is insane. His complaints are meaningless, as it has been proven that games in these deep sales still make the company money. Especially when they're older games that have already sold to their "base" demographic (those who will purchase day 1 no matter what)

It looks like he is offering two choices: a small audience that pays a lot, or a large audience that pays a little. It seems like every time there is a steam sale, there is a news article that some older game made more in a single day than it had in the previous 6 months or something like that.

Perhaps when developers return to making games worth my $60 without an additional $30 for DLC, I'll be more inclined to pay full price. This is especially true for digital distribution, where the overhead is so much lower and as such the cost should be lower as well. That being said, there are games I do pay full price for. As a point of fact, I usually get the collector's edition which throws off the developers assertion that sales devalue games. Getting games I'm not thrilled about (but still interested in) on sale allow me to get games I am excited about at full prices or greater. If I had to shell out 60 clams for each game I wanted to try, I'd play a lot less and be pleasantly surprised less frequently. Viva la Steam and Viva la Humble Bundle!

The real problem is that the new games RARELY have the content needed to justify the $60 (USD) price tag they want to throw on it. When they stop making check the boxes half assed products then the full price is worth paying. Example SR4 worth full price. Thief 2014, worth about less than half of its starting price.

Well, if you put all negatives together it might seem like a lot, so lets put all the positives out there as well.

-Some people don't have the money to buy it a launch.
-Some people actually do not care about the game.
-It gives older games a sales boost.
-It creates advertising.
-It creates fans that might buy your new games.

It is better to sell ten copies for ten bucks than one copy for sixty, I think.

Yeah, I totally feel manipulated when a game I wanted to buy goes on sale so I can save some money instead of spending it all on games. What a sinister plan.

The existence of flash sales doesn't prevent me from buying $50-60 games. It makes a game have to do a lot more to convince me to buy it at the higher price point instead of waiting. Half-life 3? Psychonauts 2? I'd put down $60 for those right now. For other games I'd pay that price after reading glowing reviews in the first week of release. If anything, it incentivizes devs and publishers to make quality products such that a large percentage of the audience is willing to pay the higher price to get the product on release day instead of waiting 6 months to save money.

There really aren't a lot of games I've bought for <$20 that I would've paid $50 for, even if I didn't expect their price to come down over time.

Sales are there to maximize profit. Steam quickly came to the conclusion that additional sales from discounts were more than offsetting any loss of revenue from the lower price - after all, they don't get any money from a game not sold. A long-term effect where people are less likely to buy at launch is not a far-fetched idea, although I'd like to see some actual evidence before I believe it. Pre-sales seem to be doing brisk business. Meanwhile, gamers like me have libraries with many games never even downloaded - talk about free money! I don't think they're getting less money through this approach - if they were, they wouldn't do it.

They create the perception that games are only worth $5 or $10, which in turn encourages gamers to ignore them at launch and walk away from them the moment they run into difficulty, rather than persevering and finishing them.

Ooops - button up, there, Cliffy! Your sense of privilege is showing. Your game has no right to anybody's time, at any price point. If your game, given away completely free, cannot keep players' interest, I'd say the failure is yours. Relying on people wanting to get their money's worth to drag them through your game against their own disappointment? Not good.

Depend on the game to me.

Best example I can think of is Skyrim. Why Skyrim because it was the first time I saw people upset that there was no more DLC coming out. People liked it so much they wanted more. It was not fill in the black DLC it was ok we'll add something you guys want or a whole new way to play like vampire lord. So yeah we are willing to pay full price if it's worth it to us.

Yesterday I went to our basement to pick up some apples we stored there from last fall. If you keep them dry they remain edible well over half a year. Sure, they get a bit wrinkly, but overall we can pretty much each apples from our garden all year long.

Those apples from my garden keep their value longer than the average video game these days. Half a year after a game is released, it'll be 50% off, if not more. My apples don't spoil that fast.

My apples also don't required hundreds of people to work for them or millions of dollars. That makes me think that there is some sort of point to this.

Deep discounts are not the reason games have been devalued. Games have been devalued because of the increasingly shit nature of the productions. And telling me that my enjoyment of a game comes from the feeling of getting it cheap instead of the gameplay is downright obnoxious. Last I checked, I am in complete control of my faculties and can decide why it is I enjoyed a game. Pointing out that I am more likely to buy games I would have passed over for being low quality because they are cheep is certainly true, but that does not demonstrate that I'm enjoying the sale and not the game, it demonstrates that I find the value prospect of the discounted game agreeable.

If the developers and publishers want me to buy a game for sixty bucks upon release, then convince me that the game you've made is worth that much. I won't wait for a 75% off sale if your game is worth what you're actually asking for it. This whole thing sounds like someone complaining that publishers are having to take the financial risks involved with making a game instead of consumers having to take a financial risk when buying something that might be crap. Boo fucking hoo. Change and adapt to the new environment.

Kalezian:
so if I want a game but cant afford it, I shouldn't wait until it goes on sale or there is a price drop?

Remind me never to buy a game from this developer.

He's not saying sales are bad at all. It is even pointed out they've gone up to 50% off, but not any lower. He's not talking about all discounts - he specifically targets DEEP discounts.

He's got a solid point, though. I always say that sales don't devalue games, but I fit squarely into the realm of people he's talking about. There have been a bunch of games that I was stoked for, but specifically waited a year before buying because I knew they'd all go on a 50-75% off Steam sale. My thoughts don't devalue the games, but my actions do. I've found myself wondering why on earth I waited forever to buy/play the games, as they would have been worth every penny at full price. Many of my favorite publishers and studios have gone bankrupt because people like me buy their games too little, too late, and often through a used game dealer that doesn't give them a penny.

Andy Chalk:
I'm inclined to agree, both that the ongoing tumult of big sales has seriously devalued all but a very few elite triple-A releases, and that there's likely nothing to be done about it. After all, devaluation may be bad for developers and publishers, but it's good, at least in the short term, for gamers.

This I think is the heart of the matter. Deep sales, above all else, give a game exposure. Small or indie studios benefit greatly from this, as most of the sale income is pure profit. Bigger AAA publishers have almost absolutely no need for that sort of exposure, and very little of the sale income is profit - most of it gets thrown to licensing and keeping the lights on.

It's healthy to recognize that sales aren't black/white good/bad, but that it all depends. It IS a great short term thing for buyers, but there are too many pieces that too few people are willing to recognize, and that hopefully will change. This knowledge is important, so people should really stop screaming one way or the other, about how holy or evil sales are.

It's a bad thing (and I argue this point primarily as devil's advocate) because it hollows out the industry: You have major triple-A launches like Titanfall on one end, and low-budget indie stuff on the other, with no sustainable middle ground. Indie devs are effectively forced to sell their games at sub-$10 prices almost from the day they launch, and while some of them have done quite well for themselves that way, it's not entirely clear what the long-term effect will be. But it's not unreasonable to suggest that at some point, when these prices become the de facto norm, they'll no longer have the impact they do now. And then what? Free-to-play everything? That's where we're headed already, and it's not a future many people care for. So what's the alternative? What happens to indie devs when gamers finally decide that nobody is worth more than 99 cents?

Sorry, most games aren't worth $60+ these days. There are very few I'll buy at full price. The last one I think was probably FFXIV. And Banished, if you count $20. My personal mindset is I'll wait six month to a year and then buy the game - I don't like paying over $20 for a game - it's pretty much my limit. Which is why I'm eagerly waiting for the summer sales, because there are games I want to play, but can never justify spending more than an hour's worth of salary on them. I also only buy 3-4 games a year, though, so I'm not really a heavy consumer. If I spend $200

Money has been tight for the general populace for... well, forever, but I'll say the majority of people are more discerning with their purchasing these days. Yeah, there are the idiots that see "Ooh, a AAA title for $5, let's buy it and then never play it!" or "Hey, indie games for 99cents! Let's get ten!", but that's their own responsibility of not being educated or informed consumers... or they just want to spend their money their own way.

If someone buys a game for $5 instead of $60 and likes it, then says "Hey, maybe I'll get the DLC because it's still not that expensive", then the companies have won and were very savvy. Deep sale prices are not going to go away. And I'm fine with it.

How many Triple A games go golden now a days even before their launch? A good chunk of games are already sold before the product is even printed in a physical manner. A deep discount only gives incentive to lower income individuals to buy the game, and/or gives people who were on the fence an incentive to purchase the game.

An example: Lets say I'm working a minimum wage job to pay for an apartment. I have an apartment and college loan payments to make. Thus, my entertainment bill takes a hit in the knees. Some hyped up game releases, and I really want to play it, but its just not in the cards this month.

I can either wait till the game goes on sale and pick it up cheap, or I can hit whatever piracy hub I want to and get it for free.

Now, imagine if you eliminate the first option. The game doesn't go on sale. Now the chances that the developer will get a cut from me just shot down significantly. If I can't afford the $60 model, but I still want it, a good chunk of people will just take it anyways - especially given that it does no direct harm to anyone. It's not like stealing a copy from Walmart, where a physical copy is gone, and Walmart has to cover the difference.

Now, example two - some new game comes out, and I kind of want it, but meh. I'm just not sure. $60 on a concept I'm not 100% on is kind of much. But... hmm... 50% off? $30 isn't that bad. Or ooh, the game is on sale for $15. Ya know, that's not bad at all. I may give it a shot. Now, if the price was still $60, I probably wouldn't sink the cash. But as soon as that price is cut, the likelihood of me buying it skyrockets.

I could go on with theoretical examples. Not everyone is keen on waiting - just like not everyone is sold on a day one purchase. There are cases where this model has burnt developers - they were stating their game didn't sell unless it was at a discount, and that undermined profits, but as a consumer, I have to ask - why should I care? Why should the consumer give up a practice that's always beneficial for them in favor of a system that's perfectly fine price gouging?

And more over, some games AREN'T worth the $60 price tag. I remember when $60 would get you a game that lasted on the upwards of 10-20 hours of gameplay, with replayability. Now the average is 6-8. Just because you slap a $60 tag on it doesn't mean that its worth the $60 price to me.

The last 4 games I bought were near full price: FFXIV, Titanfall, Thief, and bravely default.

I buy games that interest me but I am uncertain on at discount, or on impulse/

Most games aren't worth $60 of content. They MIGHT be worth $60 of work, but you can put all the work you want into shiny graphics and high price voice actors, but that won't make the game worth it automatically. Some games are really short. Anything under 8-10 hours definitely isn't getting my $60. I'm sure they poured a lot of money in it, but it's not my problem that they didn't bother to use that money to make the game fun to play for an acceptable length of time.

Also, I'm not paying $50-60 for a game that's been out for a year. EA used to do that a lot (more often). Hell, I think they tried to sell the original Crysis at near full price on Origin even when it was 5 or 6 years old. (maybe it was something else). After a year, most of the hype has died down and most people who were willing to pay full price already have. I'm then buying an older product, when there are obviously much newer ones I could buy. Even if it's new and unopened, if it's almost a year old, I'm not paying that much. Other products discount items after some time because they know eventually something newer than it will come out, and bringing down the price is the only way to stay relevant.

The last game I bought full price was Titanfall, and that's because it has the potential to be infinite play time (or at least until servers are gone...), or until I get bored of it. They also knew how to market the game. Is there really anything else that combines all the aspects like Titanfall does? No, not really.

But then there's something like Thief. Am I interested in it? Yes (despite what some reviews say), but I'm not paying full price. Why? Because I already have tons of other stealth games I could buy, and chances are a lot cheaper too.

Discounts like steam sales and others give me a choice, games that barely interest me and I wouldn't on a cold day in hell drop 40 to 50 quid on, I would try if they were reduced to around a tenner, that is also protection for me if it turned out I didn't like the game and/or the developer did not put enough effort into it and its full of bugs or just crap. In the end I would have only lost a tenner or so. In no case would it be better to remove that choice and protection for the customer, if your game is worth it people will pay full price for it.

Eh, I can see where he's coming from, but as a consumer, I'm going to try and save money wherever possible.

Also, I wager that thanks to sales I've been able to play a lot more games (and found a fair few unexpected gems in the process) than I ever would paying full price for them.

You know, I was really interested in that Democracy game. I'm not anymore.
First and foremost, thanks to these sales I bought games I would NEVER buy for full price because I just can't afford to spend so much on a single game.
Second, in my opinion digital games are NEVER worth the full price just because they don't even have a bloody box with manual and everything.
Third, when second-hand games cost a measly fracture of the original price because the game was out for years, paying a sixty for digital version is just silly.

I'm inclined to agree, both that the ongoing tumult of big sales has seriously devalued all but a very few elite triple-A releases, and that there's likely nothing to be done about it. After all, devaluation may be bad for developers and publishers, but it's good, at least in the short term, for gamers. How do you convince people that they're better off spending more money, instead of less? Generally speaking, you don't; you just hope it all works out in the long run.

Lol! Have the releases been devalued or is it that gamers now have a choice? Or perhaps the recent trend of AAA games in that they aren't that good. Well not when weighed against the metrics. I can buy 1 $60 game that might be good or 3 $20 games that have been proven to be good.

Also Sales are always good because in the end.. I may not be able to afford your game at $40 but I can certainly afford it at $10... sure you're getting 30 less than what you wanted but you're getting 10 more than you'd have gotten if I bought nothing at all.

See in this age of digital distribution there are no packaging or shipping fees per, or disc duplication costs. It's the ultimate ideal of the 'Just Enough' Mode of sales and inventory. Since there is always just enough. Also the devs and publishers are thinking strictly short term. Let's peek over at GoG... some of those games are older than people reading this article. .. they are still bringing in money for their publishers...wrap your head around that.

I'm highly conflicted.

I love steam sales as a way to pad out my library. I do buy games on release, and I do support indie developers. I usually only go for deep discounts on AAA titles that are past their prime; for instance, I might actually play bioshock games next christmas.

What worries me is games like Project Zomboid (which if you havn't heard about, click here. Its at a 15 buck pricepoint and contains a shitload of content. However, hit the ridiculous steam forums, and you have people bitching that its too expensive. "psh dis 3 dollar gaem"

I see two distinct markets: General, and niche. Niche gamers want their interests tailored to, and when that happens, they will often and of their own volition dump money into it. For a game like PZ, this is exactly what they're catering to, and those players tend toward voracious support.

The general market though, has more trouble with niche titles. Thats the market where the discounts have the big effect.

Last time I bought a game full price... I don't even remember, I've bought a few at almost-full price on small preorder discounts, like XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and Bioshock Infinite.

They're just not worth the money. When they drop down to $30 I'll get the ones that really interest me, like blow me away. $15 and I'll induldge in something I know I'll like but wasn't super thrilled for. $10 or less and I'll grab most decent AAAs in genres I like.

Indies are such a mixed bag, I get plenty from bundles, but occasionally I'll pay upwards of $20-30 for something that interests me enough(I got blackguards for about $20 or so during a sale while it was still in early access), usually though they're around $5.

I can't even remember what game I last paid truly full price for. Probably Baten Kaitos for the gamecube... PC though... err drawing a blank. Oh wait maybe XCOM: Apocalypse, back in '97. Hmm nah, I think I may have bought Half-life 2 at full price actually, retail in 2004, partially because I really wanted Counter-Strike: Source as well since I was an avid CS player back then. Yeah so 10 years since my last full price purchase for the PC.

BigTuk:
Also Sales are always good because in the end.. I may not be able to afford your game at $40 but I can certainly afford it at $10... sure you're getting 30 less than what you wanted but you're getting 10 more than you'd have gotten if I bought nothing at all.

The problem with that perspective is that I *can* afford your game at $40, but I'm not going to pay it because I know that in a month or two it'll be $10. And like it or not, game development costs money and game developers need to make money on it. The big publishers will be fine with Call of Duty and Titanfall, and the one-man indie operations will continue to survive because they have no budget, no employees and no expectations; but the mid-range, where lesser-known devs with unknown IPs need to sell a decent amount of games at a decent price in order to keep the lights on, is going to suffer. And in the long term, that's bad for us.

AnthrSolidSnake:
Anything under 8-10 hours definitely isn't getting my $60. I'm sure they poured a lot of money in it, but it's not my problem that they didn't bother to use that money to make the game fun to play for an acceptable length of time.

But isn't that a very arbitrary definition of value? Alan Wake (to use a game I actually just finished a few days ago) was twice as long as Max Payne, and half as good. I paid $60 for Max Payne 2, $20 for Alan Wake, and there's no question in my mind that MP2 was far and away the better value.

Cerebrawl:
They're just not worth the money. When they drop down to $30 I'll get the ones that really interest me, like blow me away. $15 and I'll induldge in something I know I'll like but wasn't super thrilled for. $10 or less and I'll grab most decent AAAs in genres I like.

Isn't this just obvious evidence of the devaluation of games? You can't get into any kind of movie theater these days for less than $10 and for that you get 90 minutes of Michael Bay's latest horseshit. And a decent triple-A game in a genre you like is worth less than that?

I see a lot of people talking about what games are and aren't worth. It just makes me curious about what the common consensus says a $60 game should be to be worth that price. I think that should be the focus of the conversation first and foremost. Just what are people expecting a $60 to provide them in order to justify the price.

I don't really agree with him on this for a few different reasons but the biggest one is that people are going to spend money based on how much they think something is worth and how much additional funds they have. This is something developers need to keep in mind when budgeting their titles and deciding on who the target audience is going to be. If you're not delivering enough in a package to get people excited and wanting to pick it up at release or shortly after then you shouldn't be pricing your game and basing your business model around that kind of success.

This is why we've seen a number of studios go down in flames over this past gaming generations and why some studios are currently struggling to find the balance between budget and target audience. Take Capcom for example who can't seem to figure this out for the life of them. They threw millions upon millions of dollars at Resident Evil 6, it moved over five million copies, and still was a sales flop to them because they didn't budget appropriately and greatly overestimated the appeal of the Resident Evil franchise.

Developers and publishers also need to realize that just because a console is touting a 50 million user install base doesn't mean each and every one of those console owners are a potential customer nor does it mean they are an active member in the gaming world.

When creating a niche title like Democracy 3 this mindset of "We're not gonna drop below a certain price for a long time" actually closes off the title from potential customers. I personally have no experience with the franchise at all and I'm not about to spend $20, $30, $40, or more on a title in hopes that it will be what I'm looking for. Countless franchises I've been curious about and picked up a title while it was heavily discounted, loved it to death, then turned around and bought the rest of the series generating more sales for the developer than if they had just stuck to their guns on price.

There are far too many options out there to have this "We're better than heavily discounting our games" mentality because if you're not willing to do it someone else will and that someone else will happily eat up those customers. Developers also need to realize that the sales figures aren't always about the current title being sold but rather future purchases. More than a few developers have come onto my radar and have received quite a bit of support from me after I picked up a game on a Steam sale and loved it. This is about creating fans who will be exposed to your work when they might not have been.

I find this mindset to be incredibly foolish and self defeating in the long run. No not every game needs to be in the $5 to $10 range either, but the longer a game stays at a higher price the more likely it'll be competing with newer titles that have received more attention at the same price point in the minds of consumers. It boils down to "I can spend $30 on a game which came out six months ago or I can spend $30 on this new title I've been seeing plenty of."

Andy Chalk:

Cerebrawl:
They're just not worth the money. When they drop down to $30 I'll get the ones that really interest me, like blow me away. $15 and I'll induldge in something I know I'll like but wasn't super thrilled for. $10 or less and I'll grab most decent AAAs in genres I like.

Isn't this just obvious evidence of the devaluation of games? You can't get into any kind of movie theater these days for less than $10 and for that you get 90 minutes of Michael Bay's latest horseshit. And a decent triple-A game in a genre you like is worth less than that?

Yeah unless it's awesome. Just decent isn't enough to justify more than that, I can find indies that are as good or better at that price, even without being discounted.

I've had more fun with $5(or less) roguelikes than I've had with merely decent triple As.

I seriously got more out of (individually) Dungeons of Dredmor and Sword of the Stars: The Pit than I did out of Tomb Raider.

I got all 3 of those games in the $5-10 pricerange. Oh and Tomb Raider actually gave me a physical neck pain from the subconscious strain against the camera.

Andy Chalk:
The problem with that perspective is that I *can* afford your game at $40, but I'm not going to pay it because I know that in a month or two it'll be $10. And like it or not, game development costs money and game developers need to make money on it. The big publishers will be fine with Call of Duty and Titanfall, and the one-man indie operations will continue to survive because they have no budget, no employees and no expectations; but the mid-range, where lesser-known devs with unknown IPs need to sell a decent amount of games at a decent price in order to keep the lights on, is going to suffer. And in the long term, that's bad for us.

That is a problem - If it's happening on a large enough scale. But without access to the numbers, it's hard to say if there really is a mass of people who actually would have bought at launch day but aren't anymore, and more importantly if those customers would spend more cumulatively than the ones who buy it on sale after launch.

That pre-launch hype train is still huge, and I still buy a number of big titles at (or even before) launch either to support the devs or just because I really want to play them. As for those indie games you fear for - If I've never heard of a game, I'm unlikely to risk $20+ on it, especially with the incredible saturation of the indie market. There are plenty of games I've bought on sale that I'd never heard of until they went 50-75% off. I'm not sure lesser-known devs with unknown IPs actually benefit from not going on sale if nobody knows they exist. If everybody who hears about your game buys it but only three people hear about it, it doesn't matter if you're selling for $15 instead of $5.

Andy Chalk:

BigTuk:
Also Sales are always good because in the end.. I may not be able to afford your game at $40 but I can certainly afford it at $10... sure you're getting 30 less than what you wanted but you're getting 10 more than you'd have gotten if I bought nothing at all.

The problem with that perspective is that I *can* afford your game at $40, but I'm not going to pay it because I know that in a month or two it'll be $10.

But devs aren't entitled to money that I'm not willing to fork over for whatever reason I want. As much as you may not like it, consumers aren't going to care for anything short of their concerns over how well they think their money is spent.

Personally, I go for discounts now because of how absurd the industry is for the most part. AAA games get blander and blander, costing $60 for amounts to a mediocre experience. Why pay full price for a game with pre-order DLC and a season pass when I can just wait a year for GOTY version that includes everything released thus far for the game at a much chepaer price? Consumers will always go for what's cheapest, and why shouldn't they?

Don't bash my Humble Bundles. I've been so broke lately thats where most of my new games are coming from (and wonderful, wonderful PS Plus)

If the game is quality then we will buy it. I'm going nuts at the recent flood of AAA games that I want that I won't be able to get until I've crawled out of my current financial hole, but when I'm in the black I buy about 1 or 2 games a month at retail.

We live in a world where digital distribution has chopped off the costs for developers who no longer have to worry about dealing with oh so many middle men, and preventing losses through used games. Maybe if the gaming world based its initial prices to reflect the money saved there, then there wouldn't be so much room for these CRAZY price cuts and the market would find a stable middle ground for both creators and gamers.

If more games were like the Divinity Series or quality things like Terraria and MC, I would buy more at full price. Most are not and few and fewer AAA games like Titanfall, Guild Wars 2, Company of Heroes 2 and Skyrim that are actually worth the price are coming out means I'm going to wait. Especially in regards to shitty stability at launch. Ridiculously short games due have gutted game value not these sales.

Also just from a quick look around this Dev's games Democracy 2 and 3 are within €4 of each other which in my opinion is not fine for a game about 6 years older than the other. The first one is a much more reasonable €10. Although, I'd agree their latest game at normal price of €22 and at most 50% sale is perfectly fine, just not their Democracy 2 price.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here