Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Avernum 2 reboot on GOG is 50% off 19.99. On Steam iit's 70% off... wait for it.... 44.99. What a deal. Buy now while supplies last!

Huh, the Steam option sounds a lot worse but it's actually just $13.50 vs GOG's $10.00.  But definitely a better deal on GOG yeah, especially since it's DRM free.

[BigD145]

Humble book bundle is Jim Henson stuff.

[Toaster]

Poor servers.  While I couldn't do anything about it, I at one point saw GTAV for $20 and some other game for 178% off.

[nenjin]

The goal of a business is to make money. Why would steam invest money in policing small price hikes prior to sales? It will do nothing but cost the money. You can say it might get them good PR but I'm sure they've done a cost/benefit analysis and if that analysis showed that the positive PR from doing this would outweigh the money invested they would have done so already.

Why would government invest money in providing social projects for homeless and poor people? Costs them money, has a "small to negligible" PR return and in the "cost/benefit analysis" it makes no sense.

And yet if they didn't do that, we'd say government is (more) horrible. They do it because it's the right thing to do, the social contract. Yet we give business a pass because, I guess, we're so well trained as free market consumers we're actually willing to argue for businesses making more money, at our expense, despite the laws and rules set forth that tell them not to exploit either people or the system.

I guess the expectation is, if you make money, you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into not being a piece of shit and that's ok.

[forsaken1111]

The goal of a business is to make money. Why would steam invest money in policing small price hikes prior to sales? It will do nothing but cost the money. You can say it might get them good PR but I'm sure they've done a cost/benefit analysis and if that analysis showed that the positive PR from doing this would outweigh the money invested they would have done so already.

Why would government invest money in providing social projects for homeless and poor people? Costs them money, has a "small to negligible" PR return and in the "cost/benefit analysis" it makes no sense.

And yet if they didn't do that, we'd say government is (more) horrible. They do it because it's the right thing to do, the social contract. Yet we give business a pass because, I guess, we're so well trained as free market consumers we're actually willing to argue for businesses making more money, at our expense, despite the laws and rules set forth that tell them not to exploit either people or the system.

Because the primary goal of a government isn't (or at least shouldn't be) to make money. You're comparing organizations with different goals. I can do that too, but it doesn't help the discussion any. "Charities give stuff away for free to poor people! Why would they do that? It costs so much and the publicity they get is negligible! They'd make a lot more if they invested donations into new products and sold them."

Bottom line is that it's not Steam's place to police anything beyond their control. The most they could do is blacklist specific vendors and report them, and doing that would just damage their reputation with vendors and shrink their service catalog.

[BigD145]

The goal of a business is to make money. Why would steam invest money in policing small price hikes prior to sales? It will do nothing but cost the money. You can say it might get them good PR but I'm sure they've done a cost/benefit analysis and if that analysis showed that the positive PR from doing this would outweigh the money invested they would have done so already.

Why would government invest money in providing social projects for homeless and poor people? Costs them money, has a "small to negligible" PR return and in the "cost/benefit analysis" it makes no sense.

And yet if they didn't do that, we'd say government is (more) horrible. They do it because it's the right thing to do, the social contract. Yet we give business a pass because, I guess, we're so well trained as free market consumers we're actually willing to argue for businesses making more money, at our expense, despite the laws and rules set forth that tell them not to exploit either people or the system.

I guess the expectation is, if you make money, you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into not being a piece of shit and that's ok.

Certain social projects are cheaper than others with longer lasting benefits that lead to more tax revenue to support such projects. Gov't still can't turn a profit.

[Darkmere]

So are there any bay12 teams on this promotional game thing dealio? I see a few people on my list started a game, and I'd rather join a group from here than random pugs on the interweb at large.

[forsaken1111]

So are there any bay12 teams on this promotional game thing dealio? I see a few people on my list started a game, and I'd rather join a group from here than random pugs on the interweb at large.

I'd love to join a bay12 effort.

[My Name is Immaterial]

As would I, if the game worked properly.

[nenjin]

Bottom line is that it's not Steam's place to police anything beyond their control.

But it's not beyond their control. They are the best positioned, in fact the only people positioned, to do anything about it!

The most they could do is blacklist specific vendors and report them, and doing that would just damage their reputation with vendors and shrink their service catalog.

A simple function that evaluates whether a price a game has held for months mysteriously increased 100 fold right before a sale would be a good start. Having actual rules and guidelines for their vendors, and having punishments for not following them, would be another good step. Treating their #1 game vendor site in the world like what they say and do actually matters to the overall climate of business (and not just in the "oh no, can't make the game companies mad!" sense) would be a good step.

There is plenty Steam could do, if it didn't put money at the absolute pinnacle of ethics. No argument works when you say money is more important than anything else, ever and always.

[nenjin]

Alright alright, I'm done.

[Persus13]

Are the games that got boosted prices before the sale cheaper still on sale than they were off sale, or are they the same or more expensive?

[nenjin]

Are the games that got boosted prices before the sale cheaper still on sale than they were off sale, or are they the same or more expensive?

Usually they will be cheaper than the normal price. So they will raise the price 40% then give it a 50% discount, assuming the buyer will only see "50% off!" and not realize the base price shot up 40%. So they're calling a 10% off or w/e discount a 50% of discount.

[BigD145]

Are the games that got boosted prices before the sale cheaper still on sale than they were off sale, or are they the same or more expensive?

You can probably find them cheaper with Steam codes elsewhere. Steam is enormous so publishers can afford to pull the wool over the eyes of morons. Not so at smaller sites.

[puke]

40% hike + 50% discount is a 30% discount.  some of those hikes are over 100% (some over 200%) though, so they break even with 50-75% discounts.

Douchebag move, either way you cut it.

They can probably only prove it is unethical pricing if they lower the price again after the sale, or if they have a history of doing it. 

If someone threatens legal action, they need to 1) be able to expect enough in damages to make the suit worthwhile and 2) not have them just leave the price high and claim that it was a regularly scheduled reaction to market forces.

Plausible deniability is pretty high.  Steam might take up the issue, but they'll be pissing off their vendors and business partners if they do.  Sort of sucks to be them, right?  They can either make their fans mad or make the people providing their product mad.

No one else has a real percentage in it, and thats probably what the software publishers are counting on.