Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity

[UnravThreads]

The best idea for video game pricing still belongs to Shamus Young. Simply charge full retail price at first, then drop the price gradually for the next few weeks or months, rather than over the next few years. Resulting in games being around $10-$15 about six months after launch.

That's, unofficially, how pricing generally works in the UK, but not to that extreme a degree. New Vegas hit £15 on the PC (From £30) before Christmas 2010, just to give an idea of how quickly prices tend to drop. It doesn't happen all the time, and some series are exempt from the trend (Such as The Sims and Call of Duty), but many drop in price quickly over here.

 

[Alfador_VII]

If Valve go ahead with this, they don't get another penny out of me.

Even if I have to pay more for a game from a service other than Steam, I just won't go there any more.

 

[jpoon]

Sounds like a pretty BS idea to me, what if you just aren't very good at an online game and some people leave your server because of it? You pay triple or double maybe? For some reason it doesn't sound very fair for some, but maybe if it keeps assholes off of your server and doesn't punish people who aren't great at said game then it could work.

 

[Antari]

This has to be one of the worst ideas I think Valve has ever thought about. Hopefully it doesn't get anywhere.

 

[binvjoh]

Sounds good in theory, though I can't imagine it working very well.

 

[icyneesan]

This system could work. In a perfect world. Where everyone was nice. Also, I don't see why people have issues with Tea-bagging. Its like dick jokes. Childish, sure, but theres a slight humor to it.

Spoiler: lol

 

[Vrach]

You... do realise this news is like... months old? And the Escapist already reported on it? Gabe talked about this in the interview with that school you guys linked. Granted, it was a 40 minute interview or something, so can't blame you for not watching it.

edit: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107878-Gabe-Newell-Divulges-Valves-Secrets-to-High-School-Students

 

[jpblade666]

I don't like it. If I'm really good people will hate me, they'll claim I'm hacking or somthing and cause me to pay more because they're jerks, etc.

 

[drisky]

Noooooo! The kind of bullying that can occur when you let the community decide who pays more makes it not as good as it is on paper. Terrible idea, only serves to give jerks more power rather than less.

 

[Blandy Buchanan]

Besides the fact that there's no reliable way to implement this properly (unexpected drops due to connection issues, abuse of reporting systems, etc.), it's not ethically sound, either. Sure there are racist douchebags out there who love the fact that they don't have to actually confront anyone, but the same product should be given for the same price to everyone.

Get out the banhammer a little more often when the reports on these players pile up. Don't issue pricing based on personality.

 

[koroem]

I don't like it. If I'm really good people will hate me, they'll claim I'm hacking or somthing and cause me to pay more because they're jerks, etc.

Of if you are bad, or even just make a honest mistake, the "elite" players will ***** and moan than you are terrible and rate you poor to grief you.


That kind of system has so much room for abuse it is pointless and would only cause more frustration.

At this point, online gaming can barely deal with people who are openly annoying, racist, and spouting obscenities. What makes them think they will have the man power or ability to accuracy charge people based on their behavior?

I don't even like playing online much anymore because most people are too annoying. I certainly don't want to be griefed into paying more for games because douchebags will always abuse the systems.

That is why I love the Kevin guy who does the How to Annoy people series. He finally gives it back to the people who dish it out to begin with. Sadly though it just continues the terrible circle because his actions are no different, and then people copy his example.

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

*Bows to the great Valve*
No more needs to be said other than: "PERFECT!"

 

[idodo35]

thats a joke right? they cant take money from people for being jerks! that cant be legal!

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

Seriously, Valve has been just about the fairest company out there, and suddenly Gabe wants to do this? Did he go on a diet suddenly and now he is cranky because his blood sugar is low?

The ?1=/=$1 [http://steamcommunity.com/groups/1e1us] group would like a word with you.

Here's just one recent example of how Valve treats gamers in Europe, when Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit was discounted 50%, it turned out that the following prices were present around the globe.

US: $14.99
UK: £14.99 or $24.29
EU: ?24,99 or $35.26

Admittedly, most of the time the UK gets a fair price conversion, but almost invariably games on Steam are vastly more expensive on the European mainland due to Valve keeping the number of the dollar price and replacing the $ with a ?, thus effectively boosting the price by whatever the euro has over the dollar at the time of purchase (on average some 35%, at the time of writing 41%)

 

[Serfix]

First they need to narrow down what makes you a bad player. I mean there are players who aren't that good but likes to play the game and people ignores them because they are bad players. Then they need to pay more from new games etc? Or somebody likes to camp and others hate him for that, but then again it's the way he likes to play his games.

Other thing is what people have brought up here loads of times. People uses the system for their own benefits and just go trolling to bring someones "good person" raiting down. So how would they survey who is good and who is evil person?

So I'm not so keen for this idea eventhought if it would work.

 

[WanderingFool]

Interesting idea...

It will probably cause tons of rage, though.

Its settled, this system should be put into practice than.

Now if you excuse me, I have an Antagonist Anonymous meeting to attend...

*Edit*

I should also add, while I can see the system being good for decent players, it could, and if actually put into practice, would be used as the new form of griefing. So if something like this was put into play, Valve would have to take the player input completely out, as that would be the manner in which griefing will occur.

 

[Neverhoodian]

While it might have good intentions, this idea would be far too impractical and exploitable to implement. Who's going to determine if someone's nice or not? The players? That would just open up an ugly can of worms with friend-boosting and dislike-bombing. Valve? I would assume they'd base it off of multiplayer feedback. What about solo players then?

I never thought I'd say this, but just go back to spamming TF2 with hats, Valve.

 

[Jfswift]

It's a nice thought but I don't like it. A few years ago I found myself banned from a TF2 server. I didn't know why this happened so I consulted one of the admins who said I was swearing. I really, honestly didn't say or do anything that day. I was just playing the game and someone thought I broke a rule. Now apply that to this model. Someone doesn't like you or mistakes something you say for something else and now your prices skyrocket. There's no justice here. An interesting idea but how well could it be enforced?

 

[Daveman]

I wonder if this could be applied to internet magazines and forums... HINT HINT

Actually it seems like a terrible idea. So Valve wants to judge me? Fuck that. If that happens I'll never buy another game from them... and maybe send them an angry letter. Then they'll learn their lesson!

 

[Burck]

How exactly this would work (coding, algorithms, and all that kind of computer science stuff I know nothing about) seems incredibly vauge but I like the principle.

But execution is everything.