Why rampant video game sales are bad for players • Hacker News Board

Re: Why rampant video game sales are bad for players

#21

Post by akiselev » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 12:43 AM UTC

Brashman wrote: post #13

invalidOrTaken wrote: post #9

I like the way this guy thinks. The full-price-then-sale model is industry standard---but a company looking to build a relationship of trust with its fans might be able to do so this way. There are certain game companies I love---Stardock in particular comes to mind. I like Stardock for the pretty simple reason that I read Brad Wardell's writing, and he seems like a pretty cool guy. When you factor in company-custome…

What stops people from signing up as a Patron right before a game is released? Or put another way, what's the benefit of signing up as a Patron ahead of time?

Well one way you could do it is require a three month minimum which limits how many "blockbuster" games you can play but has staged/unlimited access to the rest of the catalogue. Bigger packages/loyal customers get access to more games.

The trick here is to get the customer on the subscription for long enough to even out the volatility of financing new games, especially for more original games that aren't baggaged by the success and creative choices of prequels. I'm not sure if this can be done for games unless a platform like Steam does it at scale, or someone big like EA does it with predatory tactics (difficult to cancel subscriptions, auto-renew with all plans, etc.)

Netflix is doing this to some degree so we'll see how much success they have. Valve is in perhaps a similar position with its usage data on PC gamers.

Re: Why rampant video game sales are bad for players

#22

Post by WalterSear » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 12:45 AM UTC

jamie_ca wrote: post #3

james-skemp wrote: post #2

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.

Kerbal Space Program is (mostly) doing the same as Minecraft. As they're hitting milestones the base price has been increasing, but they're still allowing themselves to get pegged during the major Steam sales. The other potential problem with rampant Steam sales (because honestly, they've won the mindshare) is that it's affected my price sensitivity. There's so many good games out there that I've picked up for a pitt…

If there are way more games than you have the time to play, then there's little justification for higher pricing for video games.

Whether you buy them or not, time is the premium, the only difference is whether the money involved in >yourBut there's a twist: games are hit or miss. Since time is the premium, and there is no guarantee that a game will satisfy you, it makes sense that you can buy a large number of them, try them out, and only complete the ones you liked enough to commit time to.

It's hard to see how a system with fewer, more higher priced games would benefit the end user better than the current set up.

Re: Why rampant video game sales are bad for players

#23

Post by WalterSear » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 12:49 AM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #4

> 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. Stea…

I wouldn't have bought 90% of the games I have if I hadn't been introduced to them in some kind of sale or bundle.

Re: Why rampant video game sales are bad for players

#24

Post by stonemetal » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 12:55 AM UTC

chipsy wrote: post #10

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 fan…

it models the game as a magical artifact of worship that grows more valuable simply by being older,

Sounds rather similar to funding a startup. Those who get in earlier in the cycle take on more risk but usually get to invest at a lower price. If you got in on Minecraft during the beta you had no idea if it would actually make it to release. Every time the price went up it was closer to release and less of a risk. Sounds like his game follows a similar path, no one wants to play an MMO with 2 other users. Rewarding those who take a risk of being an early adopter\community builder doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Re: Why rampant video game sales are bad for players

#25

Post by mentos » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:18 AM UTC

> This waiting game is likely decimating your player base and critical mass at launch by spreading new players out over time. And your fans, who are silly enough to buy the game at launch and waste money, get to participate in a weaker, smaller player community.

It seems like part of the problem is that some of his games (MMOs?) need a player base to realize their potential. In which case I wouldn't consider these multiplayer games the same products as other single player video games which don't require a player base.

If your game requires a player base, consider a freemium model that allows you to get players in the game contributing to the community/network effect, but also allows you to generate a profit from the inevitable ~10% (of a much larger player base) that will buy extra content in your game.

Re: Why rampant video game sales are bad for players

#26

Post by whatusername » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:19 AM UTC

minimaxir wrote: post #7

jamie_ca wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kerbal Space Program is (mostly) doing the same as Minecraft. As they're hitting milestones the base price has been increasing, but they're still allowing themselves to get pegged during the major Steam sales. The other potential problem with rampant Steam sales (because honestly, they've won the mindshare) is that it's affected my price sensitivity. There's so many good games out there that I've picked up for a pitt…

What's really scary is how fast some of the AAA games drop in price. Bioshock Infinite on the PC went from $60 to $10 during Amazon/Steam sales in less than 6 months.

You should move to Australia. Steam lists it for $79.99 USD for us. http://www.steamprices.com/au/app/8870/bioshock-infinite

Re: Why rampant video game sales are bad for players

#27

Post by stefan_kendall » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:36 AM UTC

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #19

I think this misses a few key points: 1. Steam is digital, there is almost no cost associated with "selling" a game, almost everything you sell is profit. Thus, it is somewhat disconnected from standard sales where dropping price too much can hurt you. 2. Steam does not allow you to buy physical games, you can't take a game out of steam. What you are paying for is for game to be added to your digital collection. Coll…

More users is not always a good thing. Support costs increase linearly for a while with the user base, and then I'd suppose superlinearly.

Apple has departments of people dedicated only to taking phone calls.

I would rather have 10 users at $10,000 each than 100,000 users at $1 each.

Re: Why rampant video game sales are bad for players

#28

Post by mstromb » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:50 AM UTC

minimaxir wrote: post #7

jamie_ca wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kerbal Space Program is (mostly) doing the same as Minecraft. As they're hitting milestones the base price has been increasing, but they're still allowing themselves to get pegged during the major Steam sales. The other potential problem with rampant Steam sales (because honestly, they've won the mindshare) is that it's affected my price sensitivity. There's so many good games out there that I've picked up for a pitt…

What's really scary is how fast some of the AAA games drop in price. Bioshock Infinite on the PC went from $60 to $10 during Amazon/Steam sales in less than 6 months.

It's now even included in PlayStation Plus subscriptions ($50/year) on the PS3: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2014/01/13/playstation-plus-b...

Re: Why rampant video game sales are bad for players

#29

Post by lmm » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:52 AM UTC

mxfh wrote: post #20

Qworg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People were disappointed it was only 10 hours long. I see that as a selling point, but many don't.

Once they add a option to skip/autoplay the predictable-outcome fighting sequences I would buy any sequel. Seriously if you're over 30 you shouldn't have to prove to anyone anymore that you can beat scripted hoards and boss fights. Some goes for Spec Ops: The Line after playing the first two levels I preferred watching the play-through on youtube over having to kill the equivalent of whole population Staten Island on…

> Once they add a option to skip/autoplay the predictable-outcome fighting sequences I would buy any sequel. Seriously if you're over 30 you shouldn't have to prove to anyone anymore that you can beat scripted hoards and boss fights.

What? You bought an FPS (or at least a game with FPS elements). The mechanics of that, the co-ordination and the thinking, are part of the game, part of the challenge, part of the fun. If you're too old for games and would rather watch a movie, buy a movie.

Re: Why rampant video game sales are bad for players

#30

Post by wonderzombie » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 1:56 AM UTC

This is the problem with assuming humans are all rational, utility I maximizing machines. When a game like Skyrim comes out, I don't care that it'll be $45 instead of $60 in some months. My friends are playing it, the Internet is playing it, people are making memes.

I picked $45 as an example price on purpose, because games which are brand new (according to my anecdata as someone who couldn't stop refreshing Steam in Dec), newer games just aren't as deeply discounted as older ones.

So no I don't buy it. There's a lot to be said for playing the new and shiny if you can afford it and if it's great. The only time I hold off on for a Steam sale is for a game I wasn't going to buy anyway. In a sense he's committing the same fallacy as the RIAA did by presuming that, in the absence of piracy (or sales in this case) people would just pay full price. Maybe some would! But it's fallacious to ignore the difference an incentive such as a sale makes in purchasing at all vs no purchase at all.