Current sales/deals on games (steam, impulse, etc.)

[NinkobEi]

Originally Posted by Ikaruga

Wait for it when she will be 13


It's $25

edit.:
It's economics, continuous sales erodes the value of the products on the market, which leads to a quality degradation. It will end up like the movies in Hollywood, publishers will only jump into remakes and new franchise episodes with 100% success probability. Nobody will risk anything, innovation will come to end on the PC, and will only happen in some indie titles if it goes like this in the future.

It has been proven that Steam sales do not affect regular sales. The game continues to sell before and after their sales at the same rate. The difference being the huge spike in sales. It actually helps sales by a whole lot through


A: Word of Mouth
and B: people who wouldn't normally buy the game paying for it
There is virtually no overhead in videogame sales since they are all digitally distributed. It's not like they have to make a dvd and mail the game to you.

Here's a link to an article: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1...p#.UM-653czSWY

[BlackZero]

Originally Posted by Ikaruga

Wait for it when she will be 13


It's $25

edit.:
It's economics, continuous sales erodes the value of the products on the market, which leads to a quality degradation. It will end up like the movies in Hollywood, publishers will only jump into remakes and new franchise episodes with 100% success probability. Nobody will risk anything, innovation will come to end on the PC, and will only happen in some indie titles if it goes like this in the future.

More revenue does not erode quality, it's actually quite the opposite. As the return increases there is more initiative for investment and the risks are in fact reduced. As for quality, assuming the consumer demands 'quality' that is what will be supplied. 'Quality' is highly subjective anyway and would depend on the consumer, not the supplier, as there is no shortage of games.

I also do not see where you reached the conclusion that continuous sales erode the value of the product. I am guessing you meant that by reducing price the item moves towards being considered 'inferior goods'? I would imagine that would depend entirely on consumer preference, I should also add that improved sales volumes lead to economies of scale which means reduces costs without a reduction in quality.

[MT Alex]

I missed his point, entirely.

[Irony]

Originally Posted by 3870x2

FYI for anyone else: as far as I can see, GamersGate is for EU only.

At checkout you can pick euro, gbp or usd

[BlackZero]

Originally Posted by MT Alex

You missed his point, entirely.

I think I pretty much summed everything up. If you think I missed his point, then please tell me where I missed it because it seems to me like his point was extremely obvious, and I think you missed my point, entirely.

Anyway, I don't want to come out of this looking big headed and should not have jumped into this conversation in the first place. It's just that when people say it's economics and come out with reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with economics, it leads me to inadvertently reply. The last part is pretty relevant to your comments too, MT Alex.

[MT Alex]

Thanks for putting my name in bold type, it looks smashing.

[BlackZero]

You're welcome. It's something I always do to show the importance of other peoples' contribution.

[lyndonguitar]

The point is, If i understood correctly, that Steam sales do not affect regular sales. But provides them additional, would never have earned, profit. If a game is good, e.g. Skyrim, Many people would buy it at full price, this will be the regular sales and it will sell well until revenue turns into profit.

Now there are people who would never buy Skyrim at that price, never ever. maybe just pirate it. Unless it goes down in price for like 75% that may get them to finally buy the game to get the feeling of having a legit game. That's the additional sales.

The games didn't devaluate and Steam didn't lose any money. Digital Distribution is very cheap, you just need a large storage and fast upload, you don't need to make a single Disc/Labelling/Manual/Shipping per Customer.

If they don't make sales. those people that would never buy the game, will never ever get the game, and those who would buy the game at full price, will still get the game.

[BlackZero]

edited.

[MT Alex]

Originally Posted by BlackZero

I think I pretty much summed everything up. If you think I missed his point, then please tell me where I missed it because it seems to me like his point was extremely obvious, and I think you missed my point, entirely.

I stand corrected. I just went back to the OP, after skimming his quoted post, and the inference I drew has no bearing on what the heck he posted about. I had some kind of Oscar Wilde "avoid all things popular" diatribe going on in my head, and it clearly has nothing to do with his post. Sorry about that, but not about the bold type jazz.

[DaC]

Well... I personally have spent more than $100 in the last month on games on steam.... I really refused the steam idea, because I'm old school ( have been into gaming since mid 80's) and I don't like clouds (although it's a pretty nice stuff as I can see now).

Ask me how much I've spent on gaming on the last 10 years ? Well... just a clue... around $100... I actually had stopped gaming for around 3 years because prices were non sense to me and because I'm too old to go through all the piracy roads hassle......

Nowadays I actually don't bother to wait a year or a little less to get sweet games for around $5.... or $10 bucks.... rather than downloading from places all of us know... and I'm not alone on this boat... many friends of mine think alike.... I can see these sales saving rather than killing this industry.... indie games are there to show how it must be done...

[1ceTr0n]

Hey Alex, what part of the Big Sky you from? Missoula here

[BlackZero]

Originally Posted by MT Alex

I stand corrected. I just went back to the OP, after skimming his quoted post, and the inference I drew has no bearing on what the heck he posted about. I had some kind of Oscar Wilde "avoid all things popular" diatribe going on in my head, and it clearly has nothing to do with his post. Sorry about that, but not about the bold type jazz.

That's fine, no hard feelings. Though, I would suggest being a little more considerate about other peoples' views and thoughts as even when you disagree about something it's both thoughtful and mature to give a reason for it rather than simply dismiss other people's views, regardless of how wrong they may be.

Also, regarding the bolding. You'll notice that the forum also bolds people's user names in quotes. There's really no reason to be offended (assuming you were), it's just a way of highlighting and giving importance to certain parts i.e user names. I can understand why you misunderstood that, in context. However, it's clear that it was in good faith and I am assuming things get a little heated around here, hence the apprehension.

Anyway, thank you for the apology.

[Ikaruga]

Originally Posted by NinkobEi

It has been proven that Steam sales do not affect regular sales. The game continues to sell before and after their sales at the same rate. The difference being the huge spike in sales. It actually helps sales by a whole lot through


A: Word of Mouth
and B: people who wouldn't normally buy the game paying for it
There is virtually no overhead in videogame sales since they are all digitally distributed. It's not like they have to make a dvd and mail the game to you.

Here's a link to an article: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1...p#.UM-653czSWY

http://steam.nanoaugur.net/gaben_m.jpg

I read sites like gamasutra from the very beginning, and I aware of that article as well, but I don't agree that it will stay like that for long. I'm willing to accept defeat in this argument instead of writing a book here about my views, because it's just not possible to do it on a forum.

Originally Posted by BlackZero

I also do not see where you reached the conclusion that continuous sales erode the value of the product. I am guessing you meant that by reducing price the item moves towards being considered 'inferior goods'? I would imagine that would depend entirely on consumer preference, I should also add that improved sales volumes lead to economies of scale which means reduces costs without a reduction in quality.

No, no they are not considered inferior, they just simply fail to give the same level of satisfaction anymore. The problem is that it's not an open healthy market, but a closed one, because people mostly buy games for full price at release times or wait for sales, which usually happen in every few months. People buying games on Steam for $5-10 3-4 times a year don't value there product as much as people who buy it with the old fashioned way. It's a well-known statistics that most people not even finish their games on Steam anymore, they just buy it because it was 5$, (there are also hard core gamers of course, but they are the minority).
This is the phenomenon which erodes the quality, it's not the actual quality of the products, but the perceived quality by the consumers because of the too many choices they are “forced” to choose from because of the insanely low prices. This combined with a the paradox of choice what kills the system on the long run in my opinion (it's a very complex subject, perhaps this old video sums up a little portion of it).
The bottom line is that if consumer satisfaction is going down, revenue will follow on the long run, which leads to reduced income in a closed system. And publishers will eventually invest less into innovation if they keep receiving less money from it, and at the end, imho they will only do COD-14, Mass Effect 9 or Diablo 6 instead, because there is no risk, since no doubt that it will sell well for the full price.

But this is all just my humble opinion, and I'm also secretly hope that I'm wrong tbh because I also like Steam of course, only time will tell.

[lyndonguitar]

Okay guys lets get back on topic now, any more current deals?

[Ikaruga]

Originally Posted by lyndonguitar

Okay guys lets get back on topic now, any more current deals?

Amazon is selling everything now

[BlackZero]

Originally Posted by Ikaruga

No, no they are not considered inferior, they just simply fail to give the same level of satisfaction anymore. The problem is that it's not an open healthy market, but a closed one, because people mostly buy games for full price at release times or wait for sales, which usually happen in every few months. People buying games on Steam for $5-10 3-4 times a year don't value there product as much as people who buy it with the old fashioned way. It's a well-known statistics that most people not even finish their games on Steams anymore, they just buy it because it was 5$, (there are also hard core gamers of course, but they are the minority).
This is the phenomenon which erodes the quality, it's not the actual quality of the products, but the perceived quality by the consumers because of the too many choices they are “forced” to choose from because of the insanely low prices. This combined with a the paradox of choice what kills the system on the long run in my opinion (it's a very complex subject, perhaps this old video sums up a little portion of it).
The bottom line is that if consumer satisfaction is going down, revenue will follow on the long run, which leads to reduced income in a closed system. And if publishers will eventually invest less into innovation if they keep receiving less money from it, and at the end, imho they will only do COD-14, Mass Effect 9 or Diablo 6 instead, because there is no risk, since no doubt that it will sell well for the full price.

But this is all just my humble opinion, and I'm also secretly hope that I'm wrong tbh because I also like Steam of course, only time will tell.

I see what you are getting at now, I'll try to answer to the best of my understanding.

Originally Posted by Ikaruga

they just simply fail to give the same level of satisfaction anymore

That's very subjective, quite true, but subjective none the less as even though you may stop purchasing it does not mean others will as the publishers are also doing a certain amount of market analysis and know who their target audience is. There's lots of young people who are experiencing gaming for the first time, then there's other parts of the world which are becoming more and more developed and starting to become part of the target market.

In reality, well my opinion, as the market is increasing the publishers are seeing that by reducing prices they are able to tap into a much larger market and in fact their revenue goes up on the whole. Having said that, you are assuming that a less expensive per unit value may mean lower quality or less dedication from the designers. This isn't entirely necessary as the new demographic being introduced is going to be the lower income/less developed market and therefore the lower value should be considered just as valuable to said segment when seen relatively so they will not give up that money that easily either.

I believe what is really happening is that as the market matures the cost per unit has fallen, especially in regards to digital downloads. Meaning publishers can charge less without noticing any drop in revenue, though I understand that this was not your point as such, what you are getting at is that the market is leading to a more standardised, almost monotonous, product that simply will not appeal to you. The key word being you.

I actually completely agree with you on that, though I do not believe the standardisation of the gaming industry in terms of the annual cod and battlefield games is down to the price being charged. That aspect of the market, in my view, is actually quite separate from the economic reality i.e the cods games are what people want and the prices being charged are due to the equilibrium of market conditions, product quality is also important, but it is market forces that dictate price, not just game designers.

Regarding the paradox of choice. Again, as explained above, that dilemma, if I may call it that, is a luxury only a small number of the target market will enjoy. Most people will not be buying games just for the sake of it but only a very small number. Also, in the long run, choice is good as it leads to competition and a such an improvement in perceived quality. What you are arguing is similar to the argument of free markets vs closed markets, it's a step backwards to take away choice.

Lastly, perceived value. Value is extremely subjective, and in many ways the whole basis of this conversation. Your idea of value is based on your current disposable income, and how you saw the world when you were younger, and felt about games. You see the world has changed, when we were younger gaming was more of a niche and a luxury good, hence the higher prices. What I'm trying to say is that just because we have more choice, more products, doesn't mean the products are any worse, but just that we have to make better choices.

It's actually good for the average gamer that there's more choice, it's also true that this means that much more generic dumbed down games are effecting the population, and it would be accurate to say this is a negative outcome, but in the end it's down to our choices and we just have to choose the correct games, and they'll even cost us less. It's a simple matter of making the right choices and giving people the opportunity to improve themselves with their own free will.


Edit:

And to sum up where the market is leading in terms of quality when buying the usual 'franchise'. I actually do indeed hold a similar view in regards to declining quality, however, there are times where I feel that view is not justified. For e.g. I have owned battlefield 3 since it was released and I was so dead set on the view that the single player component will be the usual generic campaign that I never even tried playing past the first section of the game. That was until yesterday, then I saw (and played) the following. When I was younger, and games cost more, I did not play or see anything that came anywhere near this level of quality. I might not be paying as much per game but when I see quality I sure do value it.


Battlefield 3 PC DX11 (Max Settings) Jet Fighter Mission HD 1200p

[Crap Daddy]

Originally Posted by BlackZero

When I was younger, and games cost more, I did not play or see anything that came anywhere near this level of quality.

Very true. Just got Aftermath from Gamefly. Oddly enough Origin still not showing availability.

[Ikaruga]

Originally Posted by BlackZero

I see what you are getting at now, I'll try to answer to the best of my understanding.



That's very subjective, quite true, but subjective none the less as even though you may stop purchasing it does not mean others will as the publishers are also doing a certain amount of market analysis and know who their target audience is. There's lots of young people who are experiencing gaming for the first time, then there's other parts of the world which are becoming more and more developed and starting to become part of the target market.

In reality, well my opinion, as the market is increasing the publishers are seeing that by reducing prices they are able to tap into a much larger market and in fact their revenue goes up on the whole. Having said that, you are assuming that a less expensive per unit value may mean lower quality or less dedication from the designers. This isn't entirely necessary as the new demographic being introduced is going to be the lower income/less developed market and therefore the lower value should be considered just as valuable to said segment when seen relatively so they will not give up that money that easily either.

I believe what is really happening is that as the market matures the cost per unit has fallen, especially in regards to digital downloads. Meaning publishers can charge less without noticing any drop in revenue, though I understand that this was not your point as such, what you are getting at is that the market is leading to a more standardised, almost monotonous, product that simply will not appeal to you. The key word being you.

I actually completely agree with you on that, though I do not believe the standardisation of the gaming industry in terms of the annual cod and battlefield games is down to the price being charged. That aspect of the market, in my view, is actually quite separate from the economic reality i.e the cods games are what people want and the prices being charged are due to the equilibrium of market conditions, product quality is also important, but it is market forces that dictate price, not just game designers.

Regarding the paradox of choice. Again, as explained above, that dilemma, if I may call it that, is a luxury only a small number of the target market will enjoy. Most people will not be buying games just for the sake of it but only a very small number. Also, in the long run, choice is good as it leads to competition and a such an improvement in perceived quality. What you are arguing is similar to the argument of free markets vs closed markets, it's a step backwards to take away choice.

Lastly, reprieved value. Value is extremely subjective, and in many ways the whole basis of this conversation. Your idea of value is based on your current disposable income, and how you saw the world when you were younger, and felt about games. You see the world has changed, when we were younger gaming was more of a niche and a luxury good, hence the higher prices. What I'm trying to say is that just because we have more choice, more products, doesn't mean the products are any worse, but just that we have to make better choices and it'll cost us less.

It's actually good for the average gamer as there's more choice, it's also true that this means that much more generic dumbed down games effecting the population, and it would be accurate to say this is a negative outcome, but in the end it's down to our choices and we just have to choose the correct games and they'll even cost us less. It's a simple matter of making the right choices and giving people the opportunity to improve themselves with their own free will.


Edit:

And to sum up where the market is leading in terms of quality when buying the usual 'franchise'. I actually do indeed hold a similar view in regards to declining quality, however, there are times where I feel that view is not justified. For e.g. I have owned battlefield 3 since it was released and I was so dead set on the view that the single player component will be the usual generic campaign that I never even tried playing past the first section of the game. That was until yesterday, then I saw (and played) the following. When I was younger, and games cost more, I did not play or see anything that came anywhere near this level of quality. I might not be paying as much per game but when I see quality I sure do value it.


Battlefield 3 PC DX11 (Max Settings) Jet Fighter Mission HD 1200p

http://s5.postimage.org/wv6j8wa6v/bf3_yt.jpg

First of all, Thank you for your reply (and please excuse my English).
I understand your view (which mostly same as my personal view on the subject btw), but I think I was not pressing enough that I examining the economics aspect of the issue and not how I see things because of my earlier personal experience.

But there are some differences in our opinions as well, because there are other important factors in the "equation" here.

• You are mentioning the developers several times, but the devs are hopeless when it comes to the will of the publishers, it's irrelevant what they want or how they want it. The sad reality nowadays is that you go indie style or go big, but then the publisher will dictate the ways and hows.
• There was a talk with some analyst from Valve about how the majority of the Steam users never finish their games (I'm unable to find a citation about this, I spent almost 30 mins looking everywhere, but I have no idea where I red or saw it, sorry:/), and this is a big shift compared to the early gaming days, when the majority of people finished most of the AAA games they owned. I think it was like that because the expectations were lower that time, and it was easier to achieve satisfaction and/or catharsis. And the majority is always mostly casuals not the 5% enthusiasts.
• In my opinion, Steam steps over the threshold when the availability of too many games actually hurt business- (and as a honest side-note: I'm also frightened about the possibility that we are looking forward times when we will only able to get applications and games on services like Steam and only run them on Steam approved hardware on the TV in our living rooms or on our mobiles/handhelds, because there is a level of standardization which makes things worse and not better.)
• Also don't forget that Steam is indeed a very restricted market from the developers point of view, you have to agree with things like you will only publish your add-ons and DLC's via Steam and many other "not really nice" things happening there (probably the reason why EA and the others started their own similar solutions), so these restrictions almost force you to compete with the other publishers like how music bands or movies compete in the media or in the movies, which was my point.
• I think that they are actually noticing a drop in revenue (except in the cases of blockbusters like COD ofc) because the cost of developing an AAA title increases as well. If you watch the credits of a new AAA game now, you will see that an insane amount of people were working on it, a population of a small town, even the sum of the salaries alone is a probably quite a big number let alone the (larger) rest of the costs (running costs, marketing, support, etc).

The above being said, I do love Steam, I love how awesome games Valve are making, the team they hired there is truly remarkable in terms of talent and dedication, I love that they going towards Linux now, and all the other things they gave to the PC-gaming community, but - in my opinion - Miracles like Minecraft could never have happened on Steam, and we are all worship the "evil of future" here

The bottom line is that I truly understand your views, which is the view of the majority of the Internet and the gaming industry, and I also understand that I'm the minority here and my view is probably flawed, but this is how I see things atm, can't really help it now.

ps.: I agree about your enthusiast comment on the graphics of Bf3, luckily some PC engines are indeed still better (for now) compared to their console counterparts.

[Ahhzz]

Tl;Dr. Need more deals!!!!

[3870x2]

GoG is having some good sales. If that is your thing (it is mine) then check them out.

You can never get enough of baulders gate / IWD / NWN.

[RCoon]

Originally Posted by 3870x2

GoG is having some good sales. If that is your thing (it is mine) then check them out.

You can never get enough of baulders gate / IWD / NWN.

NWN, Plantinum and 2, dare i say thousands of hours of gameplay

[BlackZero]

Originally Posted by Crap Daddy

Very true. Just got Aftermath from Gamefly. Oddly enough Origin still not showing availability.

I did see them on the origin launcher app, but it was showing them all wrong as I already own back to karkand yet it was giving me the option to re-buy it while logged in. It all needs fixing.

Aftermath also reminds me that I should have picked up the premier deal on GMG a month or so ago.

Originally Posted by Ikaruga

First of all, Thank you for your reply (and please excuse my English).
I understand your view (which mostly same as my personal view on the subject btw), but I think I was not pressing enough that I examining the economics aspect of the issue and not how I see things because of my earlier personal experience.

But there are some differences in our opinions as well, because there are other important factors in the "equation" here.

• You are mentioning the developers several times, but the devs are hopeless when it comes to the will of the publishers, it's irrelevant what they want or how they want it. The sad reality nowadays is that you go indie style or go big, but then the publisher will dictate the ways and hows.
• There was a talk with some analyst from Valve about how the majority of the Steam users never finish their games (I'm unable to find a citation about this, I spent almost 30 mins looking everywhere, but I have no idea where I red or saw it, sorry:/), and this is a big shift compared to the early gaming days, when the majority of people finished most of the AAA games they owned. I think it was like that because the expectations were lower that time, and it was easier to achieve satisfaction and/or catharsis. And the majority is always mostly casuals not the 5% enthusiasts.
• In my opinion, Steam steps over the threshold when the availability of too many games actually hurt business- (and as a honest side-note: I'm also frightened about the possibility that we are looking forward times when we will only able to get applications and games on services like Steam and only run them on Steam approved hardware on the TV in our living rooms or on our mobiles/handhelds, because there is a level of standardization which makes things worse and not better.)
• Also don't forget that Steam is indeed a very restricted market from the developers point of view, you have to agree with things like you will only publish your add-ons and DLC's via Steam and many other "not really nice" things happening there (probably the reason why EA and the others started their own similar solutions), so these restrictions almost force you to compete with the other publishers like how music bands or movies compete in the media or in the movies, which was my point.
• I think that they are actually noticing a drop in revenue (except in the cases of blockbusters like COD ofc) because the cost of developing an AAA title increases as well. If you watch the credits of a new AAA game now, you will see that an insane amount of people were working on it, a population of a small town, even the sum of the salaries alone is a probably quite a big number let alone the (larger) rest of the costs (running costs, marketing, support, etc).

The above being said, I do love Steam, I love how awesome games Valve are making, the team they hired there is truly remarkable in terms of talent and dedication, I love that they going towards Linux now, and all the other things they gave to the PC-gaming community, but - in my opinion - Miracles like Minecraft could never have happened on Steam, and we are all worship the "evil of future" here

The bottom line is that I truly understand your views, which is the view of the majority of the Internet and the gaming industry, and I also understand that I'm the minority here and my view is probably flawed, but this is how I see things atm, can't really help it now.

ps.: I agree about your enthusiast comment on the graphics of Bf3, luckily some PC engines are indeed still better (for now) compared to their console counterparts.

I'm going to try to be really brief here , just so we can get back on topic.

Regarding the publishers. I agree they are too big for the developers but that isn't necessarily a bad thing as it's give and take as even the publishers want to make money and that requires a certain level of perceived quality.

Regarding people not finishing games, this is true. Though it's because games are no longer a luxury item. So we can buy more and finish less, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on the person in question. End of the day the nature of the product has changed.

Again, steam does not hurt business. This has already been covered. The gaming market is larger and more robust than ever. Steam is itself a product of the maturing market using data transfers and the internet to reduce costs and maximise distribution. It's a actually a major win for game related enterprises. The second part is interesting, a future controlled by steam like entities. This in itself is possible, but it is also happening already and if it does happen it will be a progression of the market and our on-line experiences in general, it's not really related to games as such.

The steam being restrictive part you are correct about, that is precisely why we need competition in the form of things like origin. I personally do not mind buying EA games on origin, in fact from your own thoughts it's clear that it's a good thing, competition is a good thing.

There is no drop in revenue, yes you can speculate that smaller developers aren't as well off, but that's to be expected. It's a free market, if indie developers can't produce good games then they will die out. Yes we can provide assistance where possible, but we can not hold their hands either, as otherwise we are limiting progression and market evolution. Let nature take it's course and only step in where it's necessary. This is the basis of a free market. And from what I can see it's doing perfectly well.

[brandonwh64]

Blackzero and lyndonguitar, PLEASE take this debate to PM's cause it is completely derailing this thread and we need this thread for good deal announcements.

[Crap Daddy]

Originally Posted by BlackZero

Aftermath also reminds me that I should have picked up the premier deal on GMG a month or so ago

GMG was showing release date 20.12 so I was a bit worried. Decided to go with Gamefly and play right away today.