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

[Phrozenflame500]

Let's go through this article bit by bit and analyze why he's wrong.

It kills off game launches. That thing where everyone plays the latest game doesn?t happen so much now. The game is ignored until the first 50% or 75% off sale. You don?t get that ?water cooler moment? where everyone talks about a game. That means some multiplayer games launch without the proper size of players, and the company isn?t making enough to retain support staff to patch and improve the game at launch.

Maybe if games weren't fucking broken at launch to begin with you wouldn't to retain so much staff to patch it later. And most of the time people still insist on buying Day 1 anyways, whenever a game's released they almost always top the best sellers list for the next week or so unless they're a small indie title.

It?s a step away from selling based on quality. When a game is in a one-day 75% off sale, how much research do you do before buying? Did you watch a lets play? the trailer? did you read any reviews? how many? Admit it, you have bought a game based on the name, a logo and a screenshot because it was under $5 haven?t you? If so, this is a problem. We are rewarding games with cool names & screenshots over actual quality.

Almost all of the above, not the trailer since that's always marketing bullshit. But then again I'm not retarded, so I'll concede maybe stupid people may be giving bad companies money as always.

We are handing power to people who run sales. If anyone can sell $50,000 in a day with any game just by being on the front page of a sale, then that makes the people who manage the sale webpage the kingmakers. Is that right? is it fair? is it an optimum maximization of everyone?s satisfaction and enjoyment? Or is it more likely making hits out of games who are well known (or liked) by the owners of the big portals?

I literally do not understand this point at all. Games on the front page always sell more no matter whether it's on sale or not. That's how advertising works.

We devalue games. We expect games to be $5. We don?t ?invest? money in them, so we give up and discard them at the first time we lose, or when we get confused or stuck. Some games are complex, tricky, hard to master, take a while to get to the point at which it all makes sense. We are increasingly likely to not bother with complex games, if we paid $5, we want something quick and disposable.

Ah, finally the only point worth discussing at length. The argument that sales decrease the value of a title. I don't really agree with this, <a href=http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/174587/Steam_sales_How_deep_discounts_really_affect_your_games.php> last summer sale a lot of devs game out in support of Steam sales, saying they can see "10-20 times revenue increase on games they run as a 'Daily Deal.' Some titles really take off and see as much [as a] 70-80 times increase in revenue." As the article goes on to say, and I would agree with, having sales generally attracts more customers then it does convince customers to wait. The reason, I would hypothesize, is that people who wait are generally savvy enthusiasts who are often flat out the minority among consumers and the majority are willing to purchase games they want at full price. I generally buy games I really want at full price just because I don't feel like waiting for a sale.

We don?t play beyond the first 10%. There is not a single game in my steam collection I?ve finished. Not ONE. And I almost always buy full price. There are many games I?ve played for under 30 minutes, some for under 10 minutes. They may have wonderful endings, who cares? I have another X games sat there I can experience the opening level of instead. And yet? gamers insist on 50 hours of gameplay. Cue 49 hours of back-tracking and filler, because game devs KNOW that 90%+ of buyers will never see the game ending anyway?

In general I see a game failing to hold my attention the failure of the game and not a failure of me. And he even admits this is a problem even if he buys full price, so I don't even know why this is here.

The post goes on with a strawman about how apparently we think devs not putting their games on sale is "facism", but for the most part that's the gist of the article.

 

[Cerebrawl]

Lemme put it to you this way.
DMC from Capcom at %50 off $50 on Steam is $25. Valve gets 33% of the cut. That's $17 profit.
Democracy 3 by the devs in this article at %50 off is %12.50. Their profit is $8.30.

Except they sell for anywhere from 10 to 80 times the revenue when they're up a daily deal on sale. You can't ignore volume.

Fact of the matter is that devs pretty much across the board report significantly higher income during sales.

If you're selling 100k copies at full price for $50, and then it peters out, you've sated the early adopter and hardcore fan market, and then when it's on 50% sale you might sell another 400k copies to the gamers who hold out for a little bit for a price drop and launch bugs to be ironed out, and then when it's on 75% sale you might sell 1 million copies to the more sceptical, poor, patient and frugal segments of the market, most of which is sales you wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Win-win. You also made significantly more money on the copies on sale than the full price copies.

 

[FoolKiller]

For me it boils down to this...

If its physical and offline playable I will invest more as I can play it at my leisure.

If its digital then I won't spend more than $10 on it ever. I don't want to lose access to anything that cost me more.

 

[Sanunes]

I understand where he is coming from, but I don't think the sales themselves are the problem, but the "unlimitness" of the sale itself, for when buying a end-of-season sale at a brick and mortar store they are going to probably sold out of the common sizes and have limited numbers of everything else, but what it does do is bring people into the store and buy items that are full price. If a game on Steam goes on Sale as many people that want it will be able to buy it and they aren't supporting the developer by buying another game of their's that isn't on sale.

For me I really don't care what the major publishers think on this issue because they have war chests of money to throw a game and design normally by committee. Its the indie/small team/new developer that can be hurt by this for they can't survive if people don't buy their games at full price to cover the debt they generated to make the game.

 

[Imre Csete]

Yeah, sorry, but with the awesome 1:1 EUR to USD exchange and the slow dropping in price compared to physical games (not to mention DLCs never get their base price dropped, ever), most games don't justify their asking price for the content they offer.

 

[JupiterBase]

I pay launch price for a game when i really want to play it. The Stick of Truth would be mine if i could afford it. I'm willing to pay full price for that game because i know the developer and it looks to be worth it for the amount of entertainment i would get out of it.

I buy games on sale on Steam when i'm not sure about the quality of the game. I will probably pay full price for the next Elder Scrolls game. I bought Call of Cthulhu on sale because parts of that game are just a smorgasbord of bad game play mechanics...still bought it and played it all the way to the end.

Anyway, maybe i am just a consumer who pays attention to what i want and can afford and make purchases based on how valuable that title is to me.

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

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.

The Government has hundreds of thousands of people working for it, and we are still neck deep in debt, and things aren't looking up.

Just because a AAA dev has a bloated infrastructure doesn't mean they have a game worthy of the money they paid to produce it.

Indie devs these days are doing more with less and being justly rewarded for it.

The industry is reaping what they've sewn. Taking advantage of the gamer for far too long. Many people have already said it, and I'm echoing the sentiment, but Developers need to create games worth the prices they are charging, and they also need to avoid that very sinister urge to cut content, or hold things back simply to charge for it later.

If it weren't for the sales, gaming would be in the shitter.

Watch what happens when it all goes DD and the people holding the keys don't cough up the discounts.

 

[deathzero021]

I like that they missed the big point of sales to begin with, sales dramatically increase the number of titles sold, they make tons of money and it's why they keep popping up all the time. it's financially a good move for both the publishers/distributors and gamers.

Secondly, these sales have given people with very low income a chance at a sizable gaming library. thanks to steam's sales, i have over 200+ games in my steam library, and not a single game was bought full retail price. i live off of minimum wage and pay for college, if it weren't for Steam's sales, i wouldn't have a modern gaming library. i'd still be playing Sonic the Hedgehog and Shinobi on my Sega Genesis. (well i still do that but that's not the point)

 

[DrOswald]

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.

A high cost of creation does not justify a high price point - 5-7 hours of mediocrity is not worth $60, even if you spent $100 million making it. Slim down your costs if you can't provide a product worth $60. Sell it for less. Change your model.

Because good games at a correct prince point retain their value for years - Super Meat Boy released at $15.00 3 and a half years ago and it is still selling for $15. Because it was always worth $15.00. Most AAA games were never worth $60.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

id really like every single dev complaining about sales to walk a mile in the shoes of budget gamers like me, i can easily tell you that i couldnt legally own games if it wasnt for these sales, plus not all games are worth 5 or 10 bucks, but many games ARE worth 5 or 10 bucks for certain people

for instance i wouldve never payed more than 5 bucks for the swapper, hell i regret even paying that much, there wasnt much value there

on the other hand though i played 5 bucks for antichamber i wouldve payed much mroe for it (had i know it was that freaking good), i bought fallout 3 for cheap, but since i enjoyed it so much i bought skyrim when it was 15 bucks (tough it wasnt really worth it), also since CoH1 is my favorite RTS of all time, i traded a lot and i was able to buy a pre-order for CoH 2(and that also wasnt worth it), all those games had more value for me


on top of that there are games i simply wouldnt bought otherwise, such as dust an elissian tale which i bought simply because it was on a good humble bundle, im certainly not a fan of the art style but i really like the game itself


the thing is, different games are worth different for different folks, sales help people with a tight budget get games mroe easily, cheap games help people get into different franchises and if they enjoy em they are willing to pay more for the next installment and wait less

tough its funny how the games ive paid the most money are also some of the most disappointing in my library, except portal 2, i paid a significant amount of money for it (consdiering my budget) and i enjoyed it a lot, also got a copy for my friend, ANOTHER THING I COULDNT HAVE DONE WITHOUT A SALE! i also payed good money for TF2, and hell i love that game and it even paid itself thanks to trading!

more to that, sales also benefit devs, helping them move a great volume of copies and according to valve they even help move a few more units even after the sale its over


if people are not buying your games at full price, hell, maybe your game isnt that good or its a niche title, democracy is politics simulator, i havent played it so i cant comment on its quality, but id dare say its a niche title

 

[sweetylnumb]

What a load of bunkim. I get it, you like money. But us normal people who pay rent and have student loans can't afford to pay $80-$100 for a game (in my country) so screw you and your rich white guy bullshite mr.

 

[Overquoted]

Two words: Playstation Plus.

Not only do subscribers get discounts, but we get free games. Free. FREEEEEE. That is an absolute definition of a lost sale. Now, I don't know what Sony gives them in return for that PS+ freebie. But I do know that they get additional benefit from providing it to gamers who may not have ever bought their game. And that's sales of sequels and DLC.

I was never going to buy Borderlands. Wasn't interested, couldn't be talked into it. Then it got dropped on PS+ users. Had a friend convince me to play it (and it took him a while). I ended up pre-ordering Borderlands 2 for full price and buying the Season Pass for DLC, plus one of the mini-DLCs. That lost sale of Borderlands (that was never going to happen in the first place) netted them a little over $100 in additional sales.

Another game that I wasn't even aware of, Costume Quest, was provided for free. I played it out of boredom, ended up buying the DLC. When Defiance was on sale for PS+ users, I ended up buying two copies (one for me, one for a friend who'd lost his own copy). And if their DLC wasn't account-locked, I'd drop money on that too (sadly, my account for Defiance is Australian, and my credit card is not).

The argument against discounted sales is similar to the one against piracy, but dumber. Someone who isn't going to buy your game at full price, isn't going to buy your game at full price. And if it's always full-priced, then they never buy your game. So you lose out not just on that initial sale, but future sales, too.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Two words: Playstation Plus.

Not only do subscribers get discounts, but we get free games. Free. FREEEEEE. That is an absolute definition of a lost sale. Now, I don't know what Sony gives them in return for that PS+ freebie. But I do know that they get additional benefit from providing it to gamers who may not have ever bought their game. And that's sales of sequels and DLC.

I was never going to buy Borderlands. Wasn't interested, couldn't be talked into it. Then it got dropped on PS+ users. Had a friend convince me to play it (and it took him a while). I ended up pre-ordering Borderlands 2 for full price and buying the Season Pass for DLC, plus one of the mini-DLCs. That lost sale of Borderlands (that was never going to happen in the first place) netted them a little over $100 in additional sales.

Another game that I wasn't even aware of, Costume Quest, was provided for free. I played it out of boredom, ended up buying the DLC. When Defiance was on sale for PS+ users, I ended up buying two copies (one for me, one for a friend who'd lost his own copy). And if their DLC wasn't account-locked, I'd drop money on that too (sadly, my account for Defiance is Australian, and my credit card is not).

The argument against discounted sales is similar to the one against piracy, but dumber. Someone who isn't going to buy your game at full price, isn't going to buy your game at full price. And if it's always full-priced, then they never buy your game. So you lose out not just on that initial sale, but future sales, too.

can we stop calling those games Free? or atleast put question marks around the word, "Free"

but yeah i agree with your argument, not everyone who buys your game on sale was going to buy it for full price, and hell those people who bought the game on sale might end up buying your sequel at full price or at a higher price point, just look ad paradox and their europa universalis series, or runic games and torchlight II which reached a 2 million units sold milestone last year!

Let's go through this article bit by bit and analyze why he's wrong.

It kills off game launches. That thing where everyone plays the latest game doesn?t happen so much now. The game is ignored until the first 50% or 75% off sale. You don?t get that ?water cooler moment? where everyone talks about a game. That means some multiplayer games launch without the proper size of players, and the company isn?t making enough to retain support staff to patch and improve the game at launch.

Maybe if games weren't fucking broken at launch to begin with you wouldn't to retain so much staff to patch it later. And most of the time people still insist on buying Day 1 anyways, whenever a game's released they almost always top the best sellers list for the next week or so unless they're a small indie title.

you know what? this is a pretty damn good point, i pre-ordered CoH 2 last year, my first ever, and i deeply regreted it, not only was the game significantly inferior to the first one (to be fair the first one is the best RTS of all time, so theres that) but it also was a complete balance mess, we had months of beta and relic had over a decade of RTS making and spent 7 years balancing the first game, i just couldnt believe how fucking broken it was at launch, the beta was far more balanced

and tough i usually cant afford games on day one, im pretty sure CoH 2 isnt the only case of a game being broken or unbalanced at launch, when you ask 60 bucks for a game that wont even work properly, dont be surprised if people dont buy it on day one

 

[Childe]

I can kind of understand where this guy is coming from and sometimes I personally go thru something like this but I do agree that a large part of the motivation behind this is money. So until a non developer backs this up I think ill discount it

 

[Metalrocks]

for me it depends on the game as well. if im really interested i get it at full price and day one like i did with titanfall and so far every AC game. but if i see a game i dont mind having, and its pretty cheap to get, its obvious i get it instead at full price. i got my self BF2 when it was on sale and im glad i did, because i cant play this game at all due lack of proper servers with low ping. so i get kicked out all the time because there are no asian servers what so ever. better lose 5$ then 20$.
plus, when its on sale and you are not sure about a game, you dont have that much regrets trying it. you either love it or hate it but you have wasted only an small amount. thats how i loved sanctum because it was on special and i usually dont like tower defense games much. thats how i dint regret later on to buy sanctum 2 and the season pass at full price

i can understand that he wants money for his product but he should also be more optimistic and see this as a good thing as well that his games would get more attention . just because of the reason i have mentioned above.

 

[Funyahns]

Its a pointless exercise. The reason I buy games on deep discount is because they are that cheap. If I was interested in them to begin with I would have paid the full price when it was new. A game I have little interest in is not going to be purchased for 35-45 dollars. Now, If I see something at 20 dollars I may take a closer look and if its a mediocre game or a bit of a sleeper I would give it a chance. Otherwise I would never spend a penny on it

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Bravely Default has been mentioned three times now, as a game that is absolutely worth the initial price point. Never heard of it. Is this some clever spambot action that manages to pass the Turing test, or am I missing something?

You're just missing something. It's a JRPG for the 3DS that by all accounts is a really well done return to the glory days of the genre. I haven't played it myself, but I've also heard almost nothing but good things about it. The few bad things have to do with the second half of the game supposedly not being as good as the first half.

Of course it helps that it's a 3DS game, so we're talking $40 tops instead of $60...

OT: It's not sales that are convincing people most games aren't worth more than $10. It's the other way around, people aren't willing to pay much more, and sales are finally making it possible to do it without buying used or pirating. To me (and, judging by sales figures, many others) AAA games are worth $20-$25 tops, on launch. Indie games, more like $10. And keep in mind that's on launch. If it's much over a year old, it needs to be even cheaper.

Also keep in mind, that's what I'd be willing to pay for something I was highly anticipating. If it's something I'm just mildly interested in, I'm not even paying $10. There's just too many other options to spend my limited budget on that give me better bang for the buck.

 

[gunny1993]

Hotline Miami
Any game made by freebird
Any game made by Telltale
Any Amnesia game
Any game by CD Project

Couple of examples of games that I bought on sale for next to nothing and will now buy any game they make on release for full price.

And there's isn't enough time to go through the list of games i paid some money for even though i didn't really want them ....