GOG Boss: "Heavy Discounts Are Bad for Gamers"

[Kahunaburger]

Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that Minecraft is a testament to gamers being willing to shell out $10-$15 to explore a procedurally generated world and build stuff in it, sometimes with their friends. In other words, it was fun.

See also: World of Goo, Bastion, Dredmor, etc. Games don't need huge budgets to be fun.

Are you honestly this stupid or are you trying to troll me or something? Either stick to the point or fuck off I dont feel like dealing with your bullshit.

You know, little outbursts like that don't do anything to convince anyone you're right about...whatever it is you're angry about.

Yes you can make small budgeted games that appeal to a small niche. However that is completely fucking irrelevant when you are talking about the gaming community as a whole.

>Minecraft
>Angry Birds
>small niche

You're sure that's the argument you want to make?

Yes games like angry birds can be fun but we dont want every game to be on the same level as that. They are only fun in small doses.

Unlike, say, the model of good game design that is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Who Even Cares Anymore. Now there's a game where you can see the $60 price tag reflected in gameplay depth.

It seems to sell, though, so it's clear that the emerging lower-priced games are hardly cutting into the market share of the more expensive ones. Turns out that, shockingly, there's more than one viable business model for making games.

 

[Ciarin]

Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that Minecraft is a testament to gamers being willing to shell out $10-$15 to explore a procedurally generated world and build stuff in it, sometimes with their friends. In other words, it was fun.

See also: World of Goo, Bastion, Dredmor, etc. Games don't need huge budgets to be fun.

Are you honestly this stupid or are you trying to troll me or something? Either stick to the point or fuck off I dont feel like dealing with your bullshit. Yes you can make small budgeted games that appeal to a small niche. However that is completely fucking irrelevant when you are talking about the gaming community as a whole. Yes games like angry birds can be fun but we dont want every game to be on the same level as that. They are only fun in small doses.


Besides that all the games you listed combined made less money then your average console release.

The "Gaming community as a whole" somehow being more than a collection of various niches? Games being made with a variety of tastes in mind can in no way be construed as a bad thing. Developers being able to find a way to make money without having to resort to insane development budgets would be an even better thing.

And to add a few more to that list: Jamestown, Dwarf Fortress, Starbound, Super Meat Boy, Cave Story, Bit Trip Runner ...

Yeah, you could probably take all the games in that list and combine them and not even be able to see the revenue from some console releases, but barring outliers on either side, I would confidently bet that their margins are higher.

 

[Slayer_2]

I can certainly attest to the existence of "Steam shame:" that awful sinking feeling you get when you wake up next to a less than attractive game you wouldn't have dreamed of purchasing if it hadn't been 80% off at the time.

That is a term I'm gonna pick up, ahaha, "Steam Shame"...

 

[Noble_Lance]

This from some manager at a site that had Fallout among others discounted 100% not too long ago...

Yeah but Fallout is like what 10+ years old? That's allowed at this point. He's talking about new games, like games in the last 2 years getting a 70% discount. There is still life in them at two years.

 

[ElPatron]

You missed a key bit here, Developer Logic. We understand that piracy exists on consoles, but developers often forget. I mean, think about it; when was the last time developers whined about piracy on consoles, compared to the last time they complained about PC piracy? Me personally, I haven't seen any console piracy complaints from developers.

Dreamcast and PSP, maybe?

I downloaded Fallout for free on GOG.com, not because it was free but because I was interested to play this highly praised game.

I have Fallout and Fallout 2... And Tactics... Physical. And I never played them... *embarrassed*

 

[viranimus]

They also need to stop releasing the digital copies for the full $60 price tag you'd see at the store. Frankly if I'm buying a game digitally I expect it to be somewhere in the $30-$40 price range for high profile titles (seriously, I am not paying $60 for a digital copy of Kingdoms of Amalur unless it comes with all the DLC) with it decreasing from there for niche genres and indie games.

*shoves you at the direction of brick&mortar stores*

And now you can say "Thank you for keeping the DD prices so high". Yes, stores like GAME are at fault here, not Steam and not even "just" the publisher. Those stores refuse to carry titles that you can get equal or cheaper in DD so publisher keep on insisting on such high prices when releasing a game on both distribution ways. Also, those stores are responsible that people in certain regions can't get some games on Steam.

Youve got this backwards. Its digital distribution that keeps prices high because in cases of exclusive digital distribution you rarely see prices drop. The reason is there is no reason to drop the MSRP price when there is no viable means to buy it used and thus cheaper than new. Physical copies and stores help to drive down the cost of games. You see it first with badly made games, that plumet in price because more people sell their copy because the game was shit, So as inventory of used copies increases but demand for them stays the same the only way to move them is to lower the price. By lowering the price on physical it forces digital price to follow suit. Without this mechanism in place theres no reason to drop the price because there is no fair competition to forcibly make it any cheaper.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On topic:

The more I become familiar with GoG the more I like what they are doing.

This premise presented IS true. Its called indoctrination. Its Pavlovian response to an extent.

How many of you start to get anxious at 1pm ET (10AM PT) knowing you need to check Steam to see what the daily deal (or midweek madness Or weekend deal) is? What was it yesterday? Hydrophobia for 1.24? The game is terrible. The studio ended up crashing and burning because of the poor quality of the product lead to poor sales. Now given that the studio is closing shop, should you really be rewarding them for a product that was so poorly produced it destroyed the company? Even if it had not closed and tried to sell off the IP, All that is accomplished is rewarding developers for making a bad game. Is that not reinforcing negative behavior? Its like giving a dog a treat when you see it shit on your slippers. But yet you know because it was on sale for a dollar and a quarter yesterday more copies of it were sold.

Then there is the extensive backlog issue. Which illustrates how people ARE stupid with their money. They have been taught to look for the massive sale, and in watching for it, they find things they might have not normally considered. So it gets bought and shoved into backlog to still be setting there years after purchase. So this is in essence rewarding not on merit or flaw, but rewarding pointless consumerism.

So steam users are especially indoctrinated to seek the sales, look daily like its a chore and in the process they get lulled into buying shit they did not want/need and may not ever use and in the process reward the developer regardless of their effort or merit.

So when you see steam gain more power due to more and more sales, then you look at their underlying problems like the whole license thing that they have practically made standard in the PC gaming world which is a horrible horrible thing because people are ignorantly continuing to pay the same thing for a digital copy of something that by its very nature automatically has half of the value removed upon release. Again, people are stupid with their money, but this is the sort of model people have practically made standard.

So again, Kudos for saying what needed to be said, even if your audience refuses to listen to it because they want to put their own self interest and their ability to be led by the nose before what benefits gamers, developers, the industry or all industries.

 

[Something Amyss]

I've never got the point of buying something just because it's cheap. Steam sales have, at best, convinced me to go with something I was on the fence about. 90% of the time it's really just a game I want at a price I couldn't justify.

Then again, I seem to be a dying breed of consumers who thinks money's worth something.

Didn't steam release some numbers saying profits increased often to 1200% when a game went on sale?

And with no accountability or real figure to go buy, there is no possible way to verify it.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Unlike, say, the model of good game design that is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Who Even Cares Anymore. Now there's a game where you can see the $60 price tag reflected in gameplay depth.

It seems to sell, though, so it's clear that the emerging lower-priced games are hardly cutting into the market share of the more expensive ones. Turns out that, shockingly, there's more than one viable business model for making games.

Please tell me why the fuck you are talking about the small indie business model in a discussion that has nothing to do with that. The business model of those games does not and can not be applied to blockbuster titles. Trying to compare them in any way is an effort in futility. Even bringing them up like you continue to do so just makes you sound like an idiot.

I'm not entirely sure what you think I'm saying. What I'm actually saying is that the games industry can support a variety of production costs and prices. Currently, $60 dollar pseudo-interactive graffix experiences are viable, F2P competitive games are viable, $10-$20 labors of love are viable, $5 addictive iPhone games are viable, etc., etc. It's also viable to sell your $60 pseudo-interactive graffix experience via download at a lower price after people aren't willing to buy it for $60. If these weren't viable business strategies, people would quickly realize they weren't making money and try something else.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

This idea of "eroding value" is a problem, too. To insist that selling a game for less than $60 erodes its value begs the question -- who says the game is "worth $60" to begin with?

That's sort of what he's getting at. His point is that a lower regular price is healthier for both gamers and the industry than having stupidly high regular prices and shift most of your units during during heavily discounted sales.

 

[Vhite]

Soon, buying cheap will be crime.

 

[Dastardly]

This idea of "eroding value" is a problem, too. To insist that selling a game for less than $60 erodes its value begs the question -- who says the game is "worth $60" to begin with?

That's sort of what he's getting at. His point is that a lower regular price is healthier for both gamers and the industry than having stupidly high regular prices and shift most of your units during during heavily discounted sales.

That doesn't line up with his claims that it "damages the long-term value of games."

I can easily agree that a lower price is better than the price yo-yoing. It keeps things more consistent and accessible to us lowly customers, and we all know that big sales are there push on-the-fencers into an impulse buy... but damaging the value of a game?

There's no such thing as "a game that is valued at $60 a copy." There's just whether or not the sale of a game is providing a return on the money being invested in that game. This flawed idea that the production cost of a game can be arbitrarily divided over X number of copies to provide a figure of Y dollars per copy is just an outdated model when it comes to the era of digital goods -- it costs the same amount to stock one digital copy as it does to stock a kablillion.

 

[Bonehaus]

this reeks of a man trying to desperately to excuse never putting his games on sale. if I'm reading this wrong please tell me

 

[Risingblade]

Sorry Mr GOG Boss but my wallet means a whole lot to me than the gaming industry.

 

[Something Amyss]

*shoves you at the direction of brick&mortar stores*

And now you can say "Thank you for keeping the DD prices so high". Yes, stores like GAME are at fault here, not Steam and not even "just" the publisher. Those stores refuse to carry titles that you can get equal or cheaper in DD so publisher keep on insisting on such high prices when releasing a game on both distribution ways. Also, those stores are responsible that people in certain regions can't get some games on Steam.

Ahh yes, conspiracy theories. Might I direct you to Occam's Razor?

 

[Devitol]

All this guy is trying to say that sales are bad. I don't know why he's saying video games in particular but often sales will convince people to buy stuff they don't truly want or need. I find this funny considering a capitalist market such as are own thrives on this.

 

[Epona]

That should be a hint that every game made shouldn't cost 60+ bucks. They need to learn to value games.

But the thing is that games costing $60 is not the issue. Games are cheaper to buy now then they ever have been in the past and yet the price to make them has only gone up over the years. The issue at hand is that when one company gives such large discounts it hurts the sales of all games. When you combine this with the issue that game companies cant lower prices unless they want to go out of business it creates a very serious issue.

What something costs to make does not determine it's price. It's price is determined by what people are willing to pay. I don't care if you spend 100 Million to make Halo 4, the average consumer won't pay more than $60 and even then they will feel they paid more than they wanted to. $50 was a nice spot and games were $50 for many years.

Don't tell me how people paid $80 for SNES games, those people should have shopped at Wal Mart.

 

[Epona]

Soon, buying cheap will be crime.

I know, consumers claiming "sales are bad"...I must be in the Twilight Zone.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Holy crap. A boss who isn't discussing monetary profit as an argument? Who's saying that buying 5 games on sale tends to devalue the game itself, rather than the transaction? That people who buy five games for $5 are less inclined to appreciate those games, because they were an impulse buy, a junk buy, rather than finding a game at 50-60% off of it's usual price, and therefore psychologically hold less weight to us?

I knew I liked GOG for a reason. And it's not just their awesome library, either.

they'll just accuse distributors of "not selling their games properly"!

It's piracy's fault. Damn those pirates. Damn them all to Sweden.

I hear it's a nice place to be damned, actually. Gorgeous landscapes, barely any fire and damnation, geography with interesting names, extremely attractive men and women, decent vodka...what more could one want in their damning?