Print

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

[Micro102]

Secondary sales do give back money to the first owner of the game, meaning he has more money to spend on new games.

Well when I buy groceries at the store they get money which is paid to their workers who can then buy video games so BUYING HAM SUPPORTS THE GAME INDUSTRY.

Yeah it's called "the economy."

But we are talking about profits for developers here, not the overall healthiness of the economy.

It is far more likely for the person who is going to buy the game to well, buy the game, and such support the developer. Leading back to my post earlier.

The ability to sell the game itself again already increases the value and likelihood of that game being purchased. This is calculated by the shopper *in advance* when buying the game, since they know they can sell it later for 20% or whatever, to them that's tangible enough that the game may as well cost 20% less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/technology/28scene.html
Reading Between the Lines of Used Book Sales - NY Times

Same thing applies to games.

True, but your going to have to prove that the number of people who think that way outnumber the people who would buy it at full price because they want to play it (which isn't likely).

[Strange guy]

You forgot "Use the old price while making production cheaper and reducing secondary sales and hoping no one complains" part.

What do you think full price is? It's a number based off the cost of the game materials (disk/packaging/storage/ect) and the loss of profits that the company will incure from secondary selling and surplus. Steam came later and got rid of all that. The "full price" should be lower.

Hasn't there been pressure by retailers on publishers when it comes to steam, resulting in games, even steamworks games, being unavailable in some regions on steam? Imagine the problems it would cause if steam started charging less than bricks and mortar retailers. Prices on non-retail games, like various indie games, tend to be pretty low even on release anyway.

[Micro102]

You forgot "Use the old price while making production cheaper and reducing secondary sales and hoping no one complains" part.

What do you think full price is? It's a number based off the cost of the game materials (disk/packaging/storage/ect) and the loss of profits that the company will incure from secondary selling and surplus. Steam came later and got rid of all that. The "full price" should be lower.

Hasn't there been pressure by retailers on publishers when it comes to steam, resulting in games, even steamworks games, being unavailable in some regions on steam? Imagine the problems it would cause if steam started charging less than bricks and mortar retailers. Prices on non-retail games, like various indie games, tend to be pretty low even on release anyway.

I don't know about where you buy games, but none of the game shops near me sell PC games. PC games are sold by stores with a lot of other merchandise.

As for indie games, are you saying that you buy indie games because they are a % lower price then normal games, or because they were worth the cost? They were never sold physically so there is no previous price to compare them too.

[Knight of Fools]

Well when I buy groceries at the store they get money which is paid to their workers who can then buy video games so BUYING HAM SUPPORTS THE GAME INDUSTRY.

DEAR GOD

WE MUST BUY MOAR HAM

That's very sigable, right there.

[Scaraban]

I don't know about where you buy games, but none of the game shops near me sell PC games. PC games are sold by stores with a lot of other merchandise.

Every game store near me has at least one floor rack for just PC games.

[Micro102]

The shops here used to, but stopped due to the fear that all returned games were pirated first.

[alway]

What do you think full price is? It's a number based off the cost of the game materials (disk/packaging/storage/ect) and the loss of profits that the company will incure from secondary selling and surplus. Steam came later and got rid of all that. The "full price" should be lower.

Full price is whatever they can get away with charging their fans. That price used to be about $40, but was then raised by $10 to 50 and then today's 60 by big title releases, the companies behind which figuring they could charge a higher price than was previously acceptable due to how awesome their fans thought their game was. This price setting moment by a big release is then followed by other game releases since, as shown by the success of the price setting moment, it becomes clear fans are willing to pay such prices for a game; and since such a price was paid in the past, fans become more willing to pay it. 'Full price' is essentially determined based on the publisher's comparison of the game and its features to other games on the market and the prices at which they sold for. For big releases, that number is now $60, for medium sized indie titles it's usually 20 or 30 depending on how large/polished the game is. They are sold at those prices because they sell at those prices. It's got nothing to do with costs and everything to do with maximizing revenue.

Let me say that again. It's got nothing to do with costs and everything to do with maximizing revenue. As it should; it's a business, and as such maximizing ROI is kinda the point.

[Fikes]

I think there is a general steam thread somewhere on the forums. Maybe that would be a better place to discuss the merits of the system or the pricing of the games.

A day with no good sales gives me mixed emotions. On one hand I am sad that I don't get anything "new" on the other I am happy because I have too much "new" stuff already.

[Rakuhn]

If steam had stronger competition from other distribution services like gamersgate and gog, the cost savings that steam gets from digital distribution would be passed on to customers.

Of course, the digital distribution market is just now coming to life, so don't be surprised if other companies start competing services.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Can I 2nd or 3rd the "get the offtopic ranting the hell away from here I'm just looking for cheap games".

Dirt3 is half off, $25.

[Matz05]

Yeah, digital distribution:

Pros:
Convenience
Temporary sales/infinite stock (old games available instead of abandoned, mid-aged ones available cheaper)

Cons:
No resale
Arguably more risk of loss (You can burn a copy of a CD to play with and seal the original in an airless vault underground. Once Steam goes out...)

Final verdict:
It costs them less, and gives me less control. They should pass a fraction of the savings on. Bandwidth is cheaper than manufacturing and retail contracts. It is still a good option as-is though, as it opens up niches like GOG.com.

[Scaraban]

Yeah, digital distribution:

Pros:
Convenience
Temporary sales/infinite stock (old games available instead of abandoned, mid-aged ones available cheaper)

Cons:
No resale
Arguably more risk of loss (You can burn a copy of a CD to play with and seal the original in an airless vault underground. Once Steam goes out...)

Final verdict:
It costs them less, and gives me less control. They should pass a fraction of the savings on. Bandwidth is cheaper than manufacturing and retail contracts. It is still a good option as-is though, as it opens up niches like GOG.com.

I read that Steam has a fail-safe that if, for some reason, they shut down the service you can still play all your games.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Once again, please take general discussion elsewhere, this is the sale thread.

[Micro102]

I would say the motives behind the pricing of steam games is pretty on topic for a sales thread.

What do you think full price is? It's a number based off the cost of the game materials (disk/packaging/storage/ect) and the loss of profits that the company will incure from secondary selling and surplus. Steam came later and got rid of all that. The "full price" should be lower.

Full price is whatever they can get away with charging their fans. That price used to be about $40, but was then raised by $10 to 50 and then today's 60 by big title releases, the companies behind which figuring they could charge a higher price than was previously acceptable due to how awesome their fans thought their game was. This price setting moment by a big release is then followed by other game releases since, as shown by the success of the price setting moment, it becomes clear fans are willing to pay such prices for a game; and since such a price was paid in the past, fans become more willing to pay it. 'Full price' is essentially determined based on the publisher's comparison of the game and its features to other games on the market and the prices at which they sold for. For big releases, that number is now $60, for medium sized indie titles it's usually 20 or 30 depending on how large/polished the game is. They are sold at those prices because they sell at those prices. It's got nothing to do with costs and everything to do with maximizing revenue.

Let me say that again. It's got nothing to do with costs and everything to do with maximizing revenue. As it should; it's a business, and as such maximizing ROI is kinda the point.

They can get away with charging $70 too. Saying the words "get away with" means that the customers have to object to an unfair price. And logically, the price is unfair.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Except people come here to hear about Steam sales, not about rants about how steam prices their games. Either way, bring it to the steam general discussion thread or start your own thread for it. It's really tiresome here.