Why rampant video game sales are bad for players

Wasn't sure until the end whether he realized why Minecraft's pricing made sense; it was beta. You weren't buying a finished product.

I tend to play consoles and while I pick up a few games at full price every year (3 preordered at three moment) I do tend to wait for the price drops (about $10 each time unless the game is a flop) more than sales.

> If you buy it at launch, are you going to be screwed a few weeks later by a sale? Am I going to make you wish that you waited?

Maybe I'm the odd one out, but I'd only feel that way if your game wasn't good. I happily buy games at full price, and if they are good, they are good. The reason why sales on Steam or other places work so well in attracting people like me is that those places are marketing themselves. Steam is in my face when I play games, so it's not as if I could miss the game.

Is it just the sale that increases the sales? Or is it also the in your face advertising?

If there are more sales, but at lower prices, and it balances out, it only hurts you if you thought you would get a bigger share if people hadn't spent money on other games.

If it doesn't balance out, if sales have decreased spending, then fine, maybe there's a problem. But I doubt that, give that Steam's sale frequency increased after they started.

So how can I tell that he's not just complaining because he wishes he'd gotten a larger share, that he feels he is losing out because people are spreading the money around more?

I think the low-priced beta model is a fantastic one for games/game companies that are trying to get themselves off the ground. They get constant user feedback and guidance, and get food on the table (or even rich). In return the players get to give feedback and have it mean something, and get a fun game that gets better over time.

I strongly suspect that if KSP hadn't adopted this model and instead tried to wait until it was done, it would have long since gone the way of vaporware. For an incredibly ambitious game with highly experimental gameplay, in some cases still not fully cemented in place, I think you really need continuous feedback and funding.

When Jason Rohrer says something, it's invariably couched in zero-sum sacrificial thinking. The principle is embedded deep in his games, as well as his lifestyle, and by inverting that viewpoint it's easy to find flaws in his arguments.

With respect to this idea, it models the game as a magical artifact of worship that grows more valuable simply by being older, and then reasons backwards to "this rewards the true fans." But most of the internal models used by players involve the game being some mix of disposable content(interactive stories and scenarios to experience), a pastime or hobby, or a piece of fashion - something friends are also playing. And in the majority of those instances, obsolescence can be assumed; mass piracy of our oldest video games is taken for granted.

Price can rise if the game is continually developed. Minecraft is exceptional in that it's always the same product with large, relatively frequent updates, but the same effect is much more often seen across defined sequels: The first in a breakout hit series might be a low-budget game, and then after a sequel or two it warrants a bigger budget and a $60 price.