Steam sales "cheapen intellectual property" says EA Origin boss

[darkewaffle]

The example that you learned about in economics class is all fine and dandy, but a pair of sunglasses on a store rack is not the same as a video game that you can purchase through Steam. Scroll down a bit in Steam and you see Metacritic scores, do a google search and you can find out anything about that video game, most importantly, the copious amount of user reviews.

These days and age, I can see how pricing will affect perception in superficial/glamour/fashion products, but it does not ring true at all for video games, which is more about demand than perception. Look at COD, these games stay pretty high in price for years because people keep buying them. Why do developers lower prices? Because they know with a lowered price, they could get additional sales when their games are not selling as well.

You say people enjoy more expensive things, that's complete bullshit if you're talking about video games. LOL. I'm guessing you didn't do too well in your economics class.

Sure it does, have you never seen the video games for sale on the front rack of Big Lots or ValuCity or other such establishments? I don't know a thing about those games and I've probably never heard of any of them, but I assume they're lousy because of where they're being sold and how much they cost. I actually found a PC copy of Psychonauts on one of those shelves once, which is an incredible game, but because of where it was and how it was priced, you would never think that without prior knowledge.

Take those same games, put them on a shelf at Gamestop or on the front page of Steam or Origin and I'm going to be much more inclined to look into them. I'm going to assume that, because they're not abnormally cheap or abnormally located, that they are not predestined to be bad and I'm much more likely to pick them up, look at screenshots, see what people have to say about them, etc.

Price influences perception, but perception is mitigated by knowledge. So the more you know about a game, the less the price affects your judgment of the product itself, yes. The catch is relatively few people 'know' about games and plenty end up making buying decisions based off impressions.

Most people who spend even an hour or two a week playing games know enough by now to research games through critic reviews, user reviews, forum opinions, etc. It seems to me the only market for this "Nordstrom of gaming" crowd are dunces who've never bought a game in their life.

You presumably wear clothes every day of the week for hours on end; does that mean you read reviews and research brands and materials?

Researched consumption is generally the niche case, not the norm.

 

[sigurros81]

Sure it does, have you never seen the video games for sale on the front rack of Big Lots or ValuCity or other such establishments? I don't know a thing about those games and I've probably never heard of any of them, but I assume they're lousy because of where they're being sold and how much they cost. I actually found a PC copy of Psychonauts on one of those shelves once, which is an incredible game, but because of where it was and how it was priced, you would never think that without prior knowledge.

Take those same games, put them on a shelf at Gamestop or on the front page of Steam or Origin and I'm going to be much more inclined to look into them. I'm going to assume that, because they're not abnormally cheap or abnormally located, that they are not predestined to be bad and I'm much more likely to pick them up, look at screenshots, see what people have to say about them, etc.

Price influences perception, but perception is mitigated by knowledge. So the more you know about a game, the less the price affects your judgment of the product itself, yes. The catch is relatively few people 'know' about games and plenty end up making buying decisions based off impressions.



You presumably wear clothes every day of the week for hours on end; does that mean you read reviews and research brands and materials?

Researched consumption is generally the niche case, not the norm.

LOL, I have zero interest in buying RedNeck Bass Fishing Extreme or Truckin' USA, whether it's priced $60 or free. Trust me, I see your point, it's just a bad one.

As to your example of wearing clothes, that's another horrible example if you are to relate it back to video games, but I'll let Wardawg address that.

 

[Jeffg010]

I know everyone is arguing about the price and not having big sales and all that but I think this guy is smoking crack when he says they are going to be the hub for PS3, PC, Xbox, and mobile. Does he really think MS is going to let them come along and take over what live is already doing and then take over for PS3 which is direct computation to each other?

Also he reads reddit to know what people want then he must know everyone thinks EA suck donkey balls.

 

[shortylickens]

FUCK EA UP THE ASS!

 

[Gordon Freemen]

FUCK EA UP THE ASS!

+1 ^ and will add no lube for them.

 

[thespyder]

Steam understands that in order to make sales, you need to get your product out there. if they randomly deep cut prices for a product for a period of time, more product goes out the door. More word of mouth is generated (assuming the game is worth it) and that brings more consumers to the table at the higher price.

Additionally, the more units that go out the door, the better investors feel about a product and the more likely that the product will be seen as a success, which in itself generates more sales.

that guy clearly doesn't understand basic marketing concepts. Either that or he is thinking "if I sell something for less than the full price, I might not be able to buy my second JET."

Of course he might be thinking "Hey, we are EA. WE don't discount our stuff."

 

[you2]

Not sure about the publising houses; but my understanding is indie developers are making a killing off of steam (please correct me if I am mistaken).

 

[Wardawg1001]

You presumably wear clothes every day of the week for hours on end; does that mean you read reviews and research brands and materials?

Researched consumption is generally the niche case, not the norm.

Your comparisons of other markets to the gaming market is misleading. Each type of good has its own market. No I don't spend time online researching clothing brands, but thats because I don't care that much about clothes. But then I also don't spend time online researching gasoline, another product I use every day. You cannot draw a comparison to the way consumers purchase games to just any old other market you want. It sounds like you are intentionally trying to mislead people.

Games have their own market. Price tags on games do not affect the buyers perception in the same way that they do for other goods. The price tag on a diamond ring means a lot. Largely because there are intangible reasons for it (a diamond from a certain jeweler may be more expensive than one from another jeweler for no other reason than the brand name associated with it). There are many good like this - designer clothes, designer watches, etc. Games do not have these traits. Most of these types of goods serve no other purpose than as status icons - they don't REALLY have any value over their cheaper counterparts, people CHOOSE to give them value. It simply doesn't work that way with games. Good games are good, bad games are bad, theres a large gray area of course where some people like different games than others, but none of it has to do with the price tag.

 

[irishScott]

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=...n;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

I'm not surprised. EA needs to die.

 

[irishScott]

Not sure about the publising houses; but my understanding is indie developers are making a killing off of steam (please correct me if I am mistaken).

Indie's kind of a special case. Most indie developers don't have nearly the marketing clout of the big guys (if they have any at all). If you see a $30 indie game that you've never heard of, it could be the best game of the century and you still wouldn't buy it. But if you see it for $9 on a digital sale, you're more likely to go "hey, why not?" and buy it/recommend it to other people who will buy it, hence the spring-up effect the article talked about.

The severe price slashing only hurts the big AAA titles that don't need the publicity or sales volume.

Bottom line is that the policy outlined in that article is fucking stupid. EA has control over their games, but they're far from the only game in town. If I can get the new X-Com game for $60 on Origin or wait for it to drop to $30 on a Steam holiday sale, I'm going to wait and buy it from Steam. If EA keeps that "no discount" policy going I imagine we'll see a classic case of capitalist Darwinism.

 

[wuliheron]

EA just got voted worst company in America for 2012 and this guy is merely trying to deflect attention away from the fact nobody likes them and the pressure is on to change. I mean really, you have to suck in the worst way to beat out all the companies in the US and get labeled the worst for selling video games of all things. Denial isn't a river in Egypt.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

EA just got voted worst company in America for 2012 and this guy is merely trying to deflect attention away from the fact nobody likes them and the pressure is on to change. I mean really, you have to suck in the worst way to beat out all the companies in the US and get labeled the worst for selling video games of all things. Denial isn't a river in Egypt.

Defiantly many many other comapnies that are far more evil than EA games but they defiantly are not getting any of my dollars.

 

[akahoovy]

Defiantly many many other comapnies that are far more evil than EA games but they defiantly are not getting any of my dollars.

I think you mean definitely.

 

[shortylickens]

I think Defiance was on his mind.
:sneaky:

 

[wuliheron]

Defiantly many many other comapnies that are far more evil than EA games but they defiantly are not getting any of my dollars.

They might as well literally be stealing candy from babies raising the price of video games to $60.oo and then charging $10.oo or more for DLCs. Getting voted worst company in America is an indication of just how fed up people are with their cutthroat corporate culture constantly gouging customers and abusing the industry.

 

[crownjules]

They might as well literally be stealing candy from babies raising the price of video games to $60.oo and then charging $10.oo or more for DLCs. Getting voted worst company in America is an indication of just how fed up people are with their cutthroat corporate culture constantly gouging customers and abusing the industry.

It's just a sign that it was mostly internet nerds voting in that online Consumerist competition. Bank of America should have won that hand over fist. Their corporate culture and sense of entitlement to make money ("why are you mad we are instituting fees???? WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WE NEED MORE MONEY" and "Oh we'll just cover our trillions in Greek debt bets with the money we have on deposit from customers, thanks to us influencing the FDIC to let this happen") has been a detriment to our entire economy.

 

[Chiropteran]

Price influences perception, but perception is mitigated by knowledge. So the more you know about a game, the less the price affects your judgment of the product itself, yes. The catch is relatively few people 'know' about games and plenty end up making buying decisions based off impressions.

I disagree. If I know little about a game, I really have no idea what the correct price is.

If I have read reviews and/or heard a lot of details by word of mouth I can really determine just how much I value a game, and if the price comes under that value I will likely buy it.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

I think you mean definitely.

I think you mean you are a dink.

 

[darkewaffle]

Your comparisons of other markets to the gaming market is misleading. Each type of good has its own market. No I don't spend time online researching clothing brands, but thats because I don't care that much about clothes. But then I also don't spend time online researching gasoline, another product I use every day. You cannot draw a comparison to the way consumers purchase games to just any old other market you want. It sounds like you are intentionally trying to mislead people.

Games have their own market. Price tags on games do not affect the buyers perception in the same way that they do for other goods. The price tag on a diamond ring means a lot. Largely because there are intangible reasons for it (a diamond from a certain jeweler may be more expensive than one from another jeweler for no other reason than the brand name associated with it). There are many good like this - designer clothes, designer watches, etc. Games do not have these traits. Most of these types of goods serve no other purpose than as status icons - they don't REALLY have any value over their cheaper counterparts, people CHOOSE to give them value. It simply doesn't work that way with games. Good games are good, bad games are bad, theres a large gray area of course where some people like different games than others, but none of it has to do with the price tag.

Why is gaming a different market? Do you really think a blanket statement such as "all buyers care/know about the games they buy" is true? That's ignoring vast segments of the market (and any market); people who buy as gifts, people who impulse buy, people who are looking for something new/unknown, people who don't do research, people who "don't care that much" to use your own words. People who buy games are not some special breed of super savvy consumers; they're normal consumers.

People here specifically are not so influenced by price because they do read reviews, they do research and learn about a purchase, because they give a crap. That's why they're on a forum to talk about something in the first place. But so do the people on clothing forums. And flashlight forums. And car forums. And stereo forums. And gun forums. And fitness forums. These are enthusiastic niches, and as such they do not necessarily reflect normal buying patterns and behaviors; regardless of market.

As I said, price is a more powerful indicator of quality in absence of knowledge. It affects the untrained eye, which I think makes up a significant portion of any market simply because a lot of people just don't want to put in the effort. You are part of that group when it comes to clothes and gas and probably plenty of other things (as are we all really), and conversely other people are part of that group when it comes to games.

 

[EDUSAN]

EA should release a new game...both in ORIGIN using their way of marketing/selling and in STEAM using steam way of deep sales

wait 6 months and check where the title made more profit

 

[Gordon Freemen]

They might as well literally be stealing candy from babies raising the price of video games to $60.oo and then charging $10.oo or more for DLCs. Getting voted worst company in America is an indication of just how fed up people are with their cutthroat corporate culture constantly gouging customers and abusing the industry.

Holy cow Americans are more upset with EA games than they are with Congress and dirt bags corps like Halliburton, JP Morgan & Chase, the Military Industrial complex no wonder the American Empire has fallen & my god are people ever dumb talk about backasswards priorities.

 

[akahoovy]

I think Defiance was on his mind.
:sneaky:

I agree.

 

[akahoovy]

I think you mean you are a dink.

Chill dude, just helping a guy out.

 

[sigurros81]

Holy cow Americans are more upset with EA games than they are with Congress and dirt bags corps like Halliburton, JP Morgan & Chase, the Military Industrial complex no wonder the American Empire has fallen & my god are people ever dumb talk about backasswards priorities.

This is a PC video game forums, I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of people bitching about greedy corporations besides EA in politics or off topic forums. But greed is greed, what is the difference if a person bitches more about EA than Halliburton or JP Morgan?

 

[ImpulsE69]

This is a PC video game forums, I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of people bitching about greedy corporations besides EA in politics or off topic forums. But greed is greed, what is the difference if a person bitches more about EA than Halliburton or JP Morgan?

Pretty much this. I'm not a fan of the oil companies either, but I'm in a PC gaming forum....