Close
Report Comment to a Moderator Our Moderators review all comments for abusive and offensive language, and ensure comments are from Verified Users only.
Please report a comment only if you feel it requires our urgent attention.
I understand, report it. Cancel

Retail

Sales bad for players and devs, says Jason Rohrer

Sales bad for players and devs, says Jason Rohrer

Wed 15 Jan 2014 9:53pm GMT / 4:53pm EST / 1:53pm PST
RetailDevelopment

Castle Doctrine creator says a culture of sales is a culture of waiting, plans to increase price of game post-launch

Jason Rohrer doesn't like sales. In a post on the blog for new game The Castle Doctrine, Rohrer lays out the argument against game sales, and detailed a plan to make the game more expensive over time.

"To put it bluntly: sales screw your fans," Rohrer said. "Your fans love your games and eagerly await your next release. They want to get your game as soon as it comes out, at full price. But they are foolish to do that, because a sale is right around the corner...It's nice to have fans that love your work that much. And these are the fans that you kick in the teeth when you put your game on sale."

Rohrer said that sales can leave fans who just paid full price for a game feeling ripped off. And considering that there's essentially always a major sale just around the corner (Rohrer noted that Valve now runs five Steam sales annually, in addition to regular weekend and daily specials), the gaming culture has been incentivized to permanently hold off on purchasing games until they're discounted.

"This waiting game is likely decimating your player base and critical mass at launch by spreading new players out over time," Rohrer said. "And your fans, who are silly enough to buy the game at launch and waste money, get to participate in a weaker, smaller player community."

The sales also create a vicious cycle of sorts. Developers have the option to discount their games or not, but when most other developers are putting games on sale, it becomes harder to make money without matching those measures, Rohrer said. That in turn means more developers will put games on sale, which means players are more thoroughly trained to wait for sales, which only exacerbates the problem.

To break that cycle, Rohrer is trying something different with The Castle Doctrine: an "ever rising price model" inspired by Minecraft. The game as it is available right now, in alpha directly from Rohrer's own site, is $8. That's as cheap as it will ever be, rewarding diehard fans for their early adoption and assistance in testing the game before it was ready for proper sale. When it debuts on Steam, it will be $12, and a week after launch, it will rise to its permanent price point of $16.

"So, the rising price model is really just an inversion of the sales model," Rohrer said. "You get revenue spikes later in the life of the game, right before announced price hikes, which are very similar to the spikes induced by putting a game on sale. But there are no surprises, so no one feels screwed by the process."

30 Comments

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,582 1,437 0.9
They want to get your game as soon as it comes out, at full price. But they are foolish to do that, because a sale is right around the corner
Which is the reasoning behind pre-order incentives... The problem with them is that, even from well-established publishers/developers, the game quality might not be all that's hoped for. So, consumers are in a bind, that then feeds the "waiting-for-sale" cycle: Wait for reviews to see if the game is good, but reviews trickle out anytime from a day before to two/three weeks after release, at which point the consumer cares less about the game, so decides to wait for a sale. Or, the marketing drive suddenly kicks up a notch and the PR departments start talking about DLC, at which point the consumer just resigns themselves to waiting for the GoTY/Definitive Edition.

Certainly that's not the case for every game, but it is to say that, from the consumer perspective, there's more to buying a game than just waiting for it to be on sale.

Also:
Rohrer said that sales can leave fans who just paid full price for a game feeling ripped off.
We (that is, consumers, publishers and developers) need to start valuing our medium "better". Yes, sales can leave people bitter that they paid full-price for a game that is, three months after release, 50% off. But something that needs to be promoted is "Did you have X-Amount-Money's worth from this game?" If you did, then the consumer needn't feel bitter. Promoting the worth of the consumer in the early days is something that more companies ought to do - certainly for multi-player games, early-adopters are their life-blood.

Posted:9 months ago

#1

Greg Wilcox Creator, Destroy All Fanboys!

2,193 1,170 0.5
@Morville:
We (that is, consumers, publishers and developers) need to start valuing our medium "better".
NEEDS to be a new consumer mantra.

I think most games (well, most of the ones I buy) are worth the money charged for them provided the meter in each gamers head is turned off and they just enjoy the damn trip. Granted, a buggy two hours is not going to be praised as much as a solid ten plus or however long it takes someone to complete without a walk-through experience.

I find it hilarious to read complaints from gamers who say they have no time to play through an entire game, so they get a walk-through or beg for tips online and that ride that SHOULD take a week or so is done in a fortnight and the complaints begin about how short it was because they decided to shortcut and shortchange themselves...

Call me crazy, but I just love seeing what developers come up with and enjoy what's on my plate without a clock running. It's rare that I get pissy about how much something cost versus how lengthy it was when I'm done exploring every nook and cranny (which usually adds to the game time unless it's something super linear).

Posted:9 months ago

#2

Robin Clarke Producer, AppyNation Ltd

26 50 1.9
Popular Comment
Yeah, I often find the true fans of a game are the ones that resent having to pay for it, and go on to resent other people for being able to share the experience for less money later. Those are definitely the traits of reasonable, reliable customers that developers should pay attention to.

Posted:9 months ago

#3

Alfonso Sexto Lead Tester, Ubisoft Germany

820 653 0.8
I agree with the guy a lot in fact! Take for example some franchises like "Dead Space". They got a lot of loyal fans with the first and second iteration but then, by pure greed (I don't find any other reason) they wanted to sell it to more people by making it "more accessible", then they added micro-transactions and the final result we see what it was; a sequel that all time fans did not like for being "too easy" and "too generic" and that the newcomers they wanted to attract had no interest into because all they saw was "The second sequel of a horror game we know nothing about"

That is a big problem, as much as all those quick cash-ins that you can see in various DLC's, cheap movie licenses, and in a very big percentage of the Mobile phones market (which is a shame, because sometimes you see talent in this last one, but in most of cases the equilibrium between "Quality" and "profit" seems to be ignored).

Posted:9 months ago

#4

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,582 1,437 0.9
Popular Comment
From his blog post:
If just half of the players who buy the game during a 50%-off sale would have bought the game at full price if that was their only option, we'd already have a wash. What fraction of sale-waiting players fall into this category? I suspect way more than half. The picture gets even worse for 75%-off sales.
The problem is, the whole paragraph (and the bolded part especially) can be seen as financial elitism: The assumption that your target audience (or the people who aren't your target, but are interested in your game) can afford your game. What if they can't? Unemployed, part-time workers, single-parents, families where both parents work menial minimum wage jobs. For all these groups, gaming is a luxury. Certainly, nothing says that these groups have to game, but equally, nothing says these groups have to give developers cash.

Pricing-out the poorer parts of the gaming demographic on the assumption that they can afford to pay more, they just don't want to, is, I think, short-sighted, and (however vaguely) misrepresents the economics of people who enjoy gaming.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 16th January 2014 8:11am

Posted:9 months ago

#5

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,582 1,437 0.9
@ Greg
I think most games (well, most of the ones I buy) are worth the money charged for them provided the meter in each gamers head is turned off and they just enjoy the damn trip


Late edit:

Unrelated to the above, but related to the issue of early-buyers feeling screwed over. There's a simple (in-concept) solution:

Have every developer and publisher sign-up to a pro-consumer code-of-conduct statement. Insert a paragraph stipulating that no game shall go on publisher-approved sale without having been sold at full-price for at least X number of months. The consumer can then decide if the game is worth buying, safe in the knowledge that it won't be officially deep-discounted until X date.

The code-of-conduct could also have an entry for refunds on broken/defective games, and a general refund clause for digital purchases.

Forcing pro-consumer ethics on pubs and devs? It's madness, isn't it. *sigh*

Edited 4 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 16th January 2014 2:35pm

Posted:9 months ago

#6

Eyal Teler Programmer

87 85 1.0
I think that there's some truth to sales making some people more resistant to buying at full price. However, I don't think they decimate the player base, quite the contrary. People have a price they're willing to pay for a game. If it drops to that price they'd buy it and you'd have more players, and if your game is any good, some of them will become fans. These fans will then be willing to pay a higher price than before for your games.

Posted:9 months ago

#7

Justin Shuard J - E translator

45 176 3.9
Surely people are wary of paying full price at launch, not because there's a chance they might save a few bob in a few months' time, but because most games are rushed out full of bugs with a "we'll patch it later" attitude.

Posted:9 months ago

#8

Jakub Mikyska CEO, Grip Digital

202 1,107 5.5
Popular Comment
The problem is not the sales, the problem is pricing. When I look at most new game releases, they are simply not worth that price to me. But when the price drops, the proposition is better. There are tons of AAA games that I would never ever buy for $50, but happily buy them at $20.
As for the smaller, indie games... 18.90 EUR for Gone Home? 11.99 EUR for Stanley Parable? $14,99 for Terraria? No, thank you! But at about half the price, I will buy them without hesitation. I will rather buy 5 AAA games at 20$, than one AAA game at $50.

There is a major discrepancy between what the game developers feel is the right price and what the customers feel is the right price. And sales is where those expectations meet.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jakub Mikyska on 16th January 2014 12:58pm

Posted:9 months ago

#9

Anthony Gowland Lead Designer, Outplay Entertainment

198 658 3.3
If just half of the players who buy the game during a 50%-off sale would have bought the game at full price if that was their only option, we'd already have a wash. What fraction of sale-waiting players fall into this category? I suspect way more than half.
I suspect your gut feeling on this is wrong by quite a large amount. I'd guess somewhere south of 20%.
Forcing pro-consumer ethics on pubs and devs? It's madness, isn't it. *sigh*
In the UK there already exist laws around what can be labeled as a sale - from memory (so probably wrong) the item has to be sold at the regular price for a longer amount of time than than it is available at the sale price.

Posted:9 months ago

#10

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

888 1,323 1.5
Small developers have to go with short-termism as without it they can't see a long term. Unless you hit the jackpot right away, you're about done.

Everything else is a natural progression from that core fact.

Posted:9 months ago

#11

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,582 1,437 0.9
In the UK there already exist laws around what can be labeled as a sale - from memory (so probably wrong) the item has to be sold at the regular price for a longer amount of time than than it is available at the sale price.
Yeah, I was actually thinking of this when I wrote that edit. :) I'm fairly certain there's something in UK Trading Standards/Sales of Goods Law that says that an item must have been sold at what the store labels as "Full Price" for more than 30 days. I honestly don't see what's wrong with extending that for the games industry, to, say, 90 days. If your game isn't selling at full-price after 3 months, then either it needs more marketing (and we all know how much indies have to spend on marketing), or it just might need the cost lowering to what people think it's worth.

Posted:9 months ago

#12

Eyal Teler Programmer

87 85 1.0
@Jakub Mikyska, but isn't the value you put on games a result of what you can get games for? Ask yourself it the worth you assign to games has changed over time, with the introduction of deep discounts, indie bundles and free to play games. It certainly has for me, because I know that I can get hundreds of hours of enjoyable play for $5, or even for nothing, so unless I'm offered something I think is really great, there's no point to pay a lot for it.

By the way, having now read the full blog post, it's a little more interesting than the excerpt here, but I still ended up feeling the same thing: it's not really an every rising price, and I have a feeling it won't last. It's an experiment, going the other way, staying with a fixed price, but would it work well?

I had thoughts about a similar pricing model once, but it was more along the line of: add new content to the game over time, give it for free to existing players, but sell previous content as DLC to new players, or raise the price. Still, that wouldn't mean not running sales. Just keep them to 25% off or so. I think that the concept it okay, I just think that there's need for a lot of experimentation to find out what works best, and I imagine it'd vary by game. Still, it's a good experiment to run, and I'll be waiting to see how the Castle Doctrine fares with it.

Posted:9 months ago

#13

John Bye Senior Game Designer, Future Games of London

480 451 0.9
Popular Comment
This is hardly unique to our industry. You could just as well look at movies and say "why buy the blu-ray at launch when I can pick it up for under a tenner in a sale in six months time", or even "why go to the cinema to watch the film when it will be on free to view TV in a couple of years".

Different people are willing to pay different amounts of money for the same item, and have differing levels of patience. Some people have to have the game on day one whatever the price, others don't mind waiting a few months to get it for half the price, others will wait however long it takes for it to show up in an extreme sale or bundle (or even free on PS+). It's a fact of life, and by flying in the face of that all you're doing is reducing the tail of your product so less people buy it in the long run. That in turn reduces the number of people likely to buy your next game.

Posted:9 months ago

#14

Shane Sweeney Academic

396 407 1.0
I understand why a game designer would look at the pricing roadmap and say it's broken.

As the rumour goes, when Blizzard was testing World of Warcraft they had a penalty to encourage people to log out by after several hours decreasing the amount of exp a player earns. This of course caused an internet uproar. Blizzard altered the game design to give a login bonus which was the same mechanic just counting exp penalties upwards instead of downwards.

With that in mind, I can see why a (great) game designer sees the user experience of a huge fan being penalized from an early purchase as being a poorly designed game, why not count the other way says game design 101. I can also see why a business person see's this as the best outcome as a hardcore fan will be the most forgiving with paying more for early adopting.

I guess we could gamify it? Every week you don't buy it, the price goes up? This of course will produce a greater incentive to pirate..... the current model makes sense for hardware as it gets cheaper to make.... but for software? It is definitely just lowering the bar of entry so more people will pay *something* at the expense of the value felt from earlier adopters.

I don't know the solution. But I very much understand why Roher feels as he does. It is broken game design.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Shane Sweeney on 16th January 2014 2:26pm

Posted:9 months ago

#15

Mariusz Szlanta Producer, SEGA Europe

31 27 0.9
People buying full price are usually quite aware of sales around the corner and do it to support developer or because they simply love the product.

If they love product enough to shell full price on it, they should be offered something unique that will never be available for late comers, be it content, badge, game status, etc.

Instead, there will be pressure applied "buy or suffer later" and further punishment with community limited by rising price.

Not the best idea I've heard of to put it lightly but well, let's wait and see.

Posted:9 months ago

#16

Aaron Johnson

23 34 1.5
While I understand his frustration at training customers to wait for a sale, I disagree with his solution.

The vast majority of sales are going to be within the first few weeks of launch - bought by your eager fans. To offer your game at $12 to fans who would gladly pay $16 is just leaving money on the table. A lot of money. You may entice some people who were on the fence to instead buy at launch, but their numbers are lower and will it be enough to cover that $4 hit in margin? Raising the price later just encourages late adopters to look for other, shinier $12 games.

As Mariusz said, reward your day-one buyers with content, unique items, etc.

Posted:9 months ago

#17

Jim Huntley

6 13 2.2
Good idea, Morville! Hell, we're down to so few publishers and brick and mortar as well as online retailers of import, that it wouldn't take much time to pull that off!

Posted:9 months ago

#18
Welcome to the big bad world of retail. Retailers want sales to drive volume, they want price differentials so that consumers buy from them not their competitors. Given Steams position in the market and the positive take up of the Playstation plus service consumers want this too. If you want to have a non discounted price self publish and accept the drop in volume and lack of marketing support.

Most early adopters pay excessive prices for the pleasure of being at the start of a product lifecycle, the value proposition of many ganes only hits the sweet spot after discounting.

Posted:9 months ago

#19

Edward Buffery Pre-production Manager

149 96 0.6
Popular Comment
I think the main point he missed is that a large proportion of games bought during digital sales are titles the buyers would NEVER in consider paying full price for, even if that were the only option. At least half of the games I buy online at a heavy discount are titles I'll never put more than 5-10 hours of gameplay into because I only wanted to check them briefly before going back to something I really love, only plan to load up if particular friends come round or want to play online with me. At least 25% of the games I buy on Steam I'll never even get round to installing because something else better comes along before I get round to it. Why on earth would I pay full price for something that low on my priority list? I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way either.

I DO buy some games at full price, perhaps 2 or 3 titles for over $40 each year (often including collector's editions for games I've been really looking forward to), 4 or 5 indie games for around the $10-$15 mark, I play a bunch of F2P titles, and browser based flash games with no monetisation at all. That lot accounts for 75% of my playtime, and while I may also buy 20 discounted digital games a year, if none of them had been on sale then I would have bought maybe 1 or 2 of them max, and definitely spent less money in total. If I wait for a game to be on sale before buying it, it doesn't mean I'm holding back money that should really go to the developers, it means I'm just not that interested. There should be an equivalent book for 'Maybe he's just not that into you', but for people who rant about Steam sales being bad for business.

Posted:9 months ago

#20

Hugo Trepanier Senior UI Designer, Hibernum

156 144 0.9
There's a noble idea here but the thinking is flawed.

Reducing prices over time makes your title more enticing for all the players who had a bit of initial doubt. Oftentimes these people wouldn't touch your game at full price, but suddenly it seems a lot more attractive at $20 than 6 months ago when it was 3x that. It is more appealing now because it makes the customer feel like it's a much better value than before, whereas increasing the price will void that sentiment completely.

People who buy a game on launch don't do it to support a developer with more money out of pure generosity - they're simply willing to pay more to play immediately while it's fresh and new.

Posted:9 months ago

#21

Edward Buffery Pre-production Manager

149 96 0.6
Exactly! It's better business to sell a game at full price to 500k 'loyal fans', then 500k people who were on the fence about it and buy it at 25% off, then another 500k people even later who never considered buying it before but get it on a whim at 75% off, than to sell 600k copies at full price in total.

Posted:9 months ago

#22

Craig Page Programmer

384 220 0.6
There's really no incentive to pay full price to get a game right away. Take Battlefield 4 for example, it's unstable, it's missing very important features for a multiplayer game. And it's incomplete! A quarter of the game is sold as Day 1 DLC.

By waiting until the day after Christmas the following year, you can get a stable finished version of the game, with all the DLC, for $40 instead of the $60-$120 it would cost to buy every part as it comes out.

Games from Bethesda are also not worth buying on day one, because they're always packed with game breaking bugs. But I don't mind paying full price for them four months later.

Posted:9 months ago

#23

Rick Lopez Illustrator, Graphic Designer

1,269 942 0.7
Im sorry, its not that i dont value the games. Its that if the prices keep climbing they simply wont be affordable to buy or even make. They are great they are cool, but if priced anywhere over $60 Im gonna have to find a new way to spend my time simple as that.

And quite frankly games cost alot more than 60$ when you add DLC, in game transactions and monthly fee's for MMO's, special editions on launch day, season passes.

And they still dont make money?

You fucking kidding me? Raising the price on games isnt going to change jackshit. Buy BorderLands 2 and every piece of DLC individually. How much does that come out to? Im gonna say $120 at least. I love borderLands, But I had to skip it when it was released, now the game is free on PSN and the Game of the year edition is out. Ill simply wait till the price comes down on it. Is it worth 120+ dollars if you purchase each individual DLC too? Yeah of course... but will I buy it?... NOOOOOO. Got too many other games to think about as well, and all equally as good and its either 1 game for $120 or 3-6 games for the same price.

Raising the price isnt the answer to the gaming inustries "whoa's". They have to find more effcient way to make games period, and make better design and business choices. Every body is going crazy at how beyond 2 souls sold 1 million, yet tomb raider sells upwards of 4 million and its a failure? With so many ways to advertise a game through the web for practically free, is it prudent to spend 100million in advertising alone?

Like dont make an open world game if people arent really going to use half the map, or find ways to get the same visual results using differant graphic technics like in Xenoblade or The Last Story. Both games look pretty impressive on the Wii.

If you have a development team of 600 people and expect to sell 12 million games... then you simply open yourself up for failure. Keep your team a reasonable size, budget your development on realistic sales expectations.

Finally I want to say that Im more likely to pay full price for a game if it offers vasts amounts of content. If I can exhaust the content of the game in 1 or 2 sittings it is not worth 60$ to me.

Dragon Dogma: Dark Arisen was a game I bought new at 40$ when released. best damn 40 dollars I EVER SPENT. Still playing the game for a second time, exploring the nicks and nooks I missed the first time through.

But then we have a game like Beyond 2 souls. It sold relatively well, and its a game I want, but to me its more of an interactive film. So I will wait for a price drop, I wouldnt pay $60 for it. So thats a game Im waiting on. But thats just me.

Finally I am sorry but I dont agree with this statement...
"To put it bluntly: sales screw your fans," Rohrer said. "Your fans love your games and eagerly await your next release. They want to get your game as soon as it comes out, at full price. But they are foolish to do that, because a sale is right around the corner...It's nice to have fans that love your work that much. And these are the fans that you kick in the teeth when you put your game on sale."
Fans do want your game as soon as it comes out, but not everyone is able to pay the premium price. If your game was the only game franchise in the world, fine. But the industry is very competitive. Peoples buying habits are differant, me I buy lots a games, Ill occasional spend 60$ on one game, but I cant do it all the time. I know people who are just happy buying 1 game every one or 2 months. But for people who buy more than that they rely on sales. And to me the magical price point for a game is between $20 and $40 I find those price points easier to swallow depending on the game and with $3 and $15 for digital games and $3 to $7 for DLC.

It doesnt matter how much fans love your work, I wish I can buy those sideshow collectible hot toys Batman figures like this one...

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/06/sideshow-and-hot-toys-unveil-the-dark-knight-armory-and-figurines

Really cool right? I bet Batman has alot of fans who want it... but who can afford it? I sure cant. And I would hate for video games to be something like this. Like when the Neo Geo came out... $200 for a game... yeah lets keep raising prices, because raising prices will fix things and everyone will be happy... load a crap if you ask me.

I mean this guy plans to sell his game at $16 at most so he's probably speaking on a differant point of view. i dont know what his game is about, but for an indie downloadable game it needs to be very good for me to pay $16

At the end of the day, sales may be of strategic benefit, lowering the price may be offset in more units sold. And at times, like with the 3DS lower prices can get a product to sell more. In fact I think a lower price should be given to people who pre-order the game and have it at regular price aftwerwards.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Rick Lopez on 17th January 2014 4:38pm

Posted:9 months ago

#24

Jed Ashforth Senior Game Designer, Immersive Technology Group, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe

111 198 1.8
'Buy pre-release for $8, or $12 on release' just smacks to me of trying to sell a turkey, however Jason may look at it. I'm sure it won't be, the man has the pedigree, but even so, discounting for pre-orders sends a confusing message IMO.

I haven't liked all of his stuff I've tried enough to pay full price for his new title sight unseen. Castle Doctrine is already carrying some controversy, so I'd prefer to read reviews first... but I'm unlikely to then pay more for it than it had previously been offered for - that's insane. Unless it reviews spectacularly that extra $4 charge (and rising) will probably seal the deal for me. I wish him luck, of course; this is a bold sales tactic, and that's always welcome.

Posted:9 months ago

#25

David Serrano Freelancer

300 272 0.9
In his 2011 Montreal International Games Summit speech, Jason lamented the medium was "losing its best, most thoughtful players". Ironically, the fatal flaw in his logic about sales is he believes the "fans" who buy full priced games immediately after release are the best, most thoughtful players in the audience. This may have been true a decade ago, but it's not true today.

Today, the people who make full price purchases purely based on astro-turfed hype, non-objective fan boy reviews and or peer pressure are forcing the best, most thoughtful players out of the core and indie market. Because the types of games developers and publishers have been making to appeal to the "fans" have been steadily eroding the level of confidence and trust the majority of players (including Jason's best and most thoughtful) have in the market. And in the development community.

So pricing alone is not the issue or problem. Because if the majority of players in a target audience have had consistently positive or memorable experiences with other titles from a developer or publisher (or within a specific genre), they'll place a higher value on new titles and they'll be more likely to buy. But if they've had consistently negative or disappointing experiences, or if they don't trust the developer or publisher to actually deliver on advertised claims and promises, they won't buy new titles until they believe the price reflects the actual value. And sales model gimmicks will not change this.

For the record, I think Jason is an intelligent guy and based on what I've read, he usually provides useful insights into development and industry problems. But for reasons I can't comprehend, his proposed solutions to those problems are usually the equivalent of throwing fuel on a fire.

Posted:9 months ago

#26

Eyal Teler Programmer

87 85 1.0
I think it makes sense to sell at a lower price early on and then increase it to a stable price as a way to compensate early adopters for the bugginess they encounters.

@Edward Buffery and others who think he missed having sales gain more customers, I imagine that you didn't read the blog post, only the excerpt here. The reason Jason Rohrer is trying this new pricing scheme is because he feels that the sales method didn't do well for Inside a Star-filled Sky (the full details are in the blog). He's trying the Minecraft way, hoping it will work out better.

I feel that he just put the wrong twist on it. If he just said that he'd sell at a fixed price and only offer discounts for early buyers, that would have sounded fine to most people. Phrasing it as an "ever rising price" where in fact it will stay fixed after the first week (from what he says) is simply a way to confuse people and raise controversy. Perhaps that's what he meant to do, but I think it's rather silly to contradict yourself this way.

Posted:9 months ago

#27

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,582 1,437 0.9
I think it makes sense to sell at a lower price early on and then increase it to a stable price as a way to compensate early adopters for the bugginess they encounters.
I like this idea... Let's spread it to the whole industry. D3 and the latest SimCity would've cost, what... $20 max on day one? :D

At least it would force pubs/devs to iron out all but the most obscure bugs and crashes before release.

Posted:9 months ago

#28

Adam Jordan Community Management/Moderation

113 65 0.6
Sorry but coming from a retail background, only consumers within the games industry seems to feel this anguish.

What I mean is that for years, retailers will put sales up to entice people to shop at their store. I worked for NEXT, a UK clothing retailer that had 4 sales a year, each sale was manic, they were held on the same day each year meaning yes people could wait, however did that stop people from entering the shop upon a daily basis? Not at all. In fact there were several regular faces I would see almost every day and on sales days.

I've never understood as to why gamers act so different to this. Generally the full price of a game these days is jaw dropping, especially since economies are still being rebuilt even today. As a matter of fact, the UK is having issues currently where the cost of living is MUCH higher than the national minimum wage, which means many households don't even have much money to cover their bills, let alone luxuries.

As for me, I do like the idea of "pre-orders" being cheap at the start and then gradually growing higher the closer the release. Unfortunately I could see the likes of Hammerpoint (Infestation/War Z) exploiting this situation.

Overall, if people are resenting paying full price before a sale then that's their problem, a true fan would be happy to support their beloved developer/publisher, especially if they are getting their money's worth. Such as, I'm more than happy to slap money down on any Bethesda and Ubisoft title without even thinking about it because I enjoy their games and I get my money's worth out of them.

Posted:9 months ago

#29

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,582 1,437 0.9


This is from the Suare-Enix website:
Hitman: Contracts
PC Download
Square Enix
Action
NOW ONLY

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 1st February 2014 8:14am

Posted:8 months ago

#30

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now