Daverino
Platinum Member
- Mar 15, 2007
- 2,004
- 1
- 0
The big difference between Steam and DRM - and it's been said before and I'm saying it again - is that Steam adds value to the product and DRM takes value away. With Steam, you get DRM certainly. You cannot give/sell your games to others and you need Steam running to play your games. In some ways, this is worse than traditional DRM, which allows a fixed number of installs, but otherwise allows you to sell or trade the game away. However, what it adds includes:
1. Integrated store to purchase new titles. Games often go on sale.
2. Integrated platform to manage and launch your games
3. The ability to play your games from any computer you log on to.
4. Always-up-to-date software
5. Integrated community for finding and setting up games
6. Ability to back up to CD all your software
7. Stats and achievements
8. A platform for indie publishers to get their games out at lower production costs (World of Goo anyone?)
And that's just what I can think of in a few minutes. The very fact that Valve doesn't seem hell bent on screwing over its customers is reason enough alone to support it. There's always going to be some form of DRM on major published titles going forward and if I have to pick one, I'd easily pick Steam.
1. Integrated store to purchase new titles. Games often go on sale.
2. Integrated platform to manage and launch your games
3. The ability to play your games from any computer you log on to.
4. Always-up-to-date software
5. Integrated community for finding and setting up games
6. Ability to back up to CD all your software
7. Stats and achievements
8. A platform for indie publishers to get their games out at lower production costs (World of Goo anyone?)
And that's just what I can think of in a few minutes. The very fact that Valve doesn't seem hell bent on screwing over its customers is reason enough alone to support it. There's always going to be some form of DRM on major published titles going forward and if I have to pick one, I'd easily pick Steam.
Traditional game producers are right, Valve's implication is wrong unfortunately.
Whle pricing a game 75% below the normal price for a game will increase its' sales by a rather dramatic amount- it would have no impact if every other game were to already be at that price point(with limited exceptions). Most people who are active gamers are constrained by one of two things, time or money. Time is a much larger limiting element for me, games could be $5 or $100 and it wouldn't make much of a difference in how many titles I bought. This isn't that I wouldn't want to buy more games when they got cheaper, just that I wouldn't have the time to play through them. On the other end of the spectrum you have those limited by money. Yes, if you cut the price of games in half they will very likely buy twice as many- but where does that get the industry? They gain nothing that way while losing out the money they can currently demand by those of us whose time is a larger factor then cash.
The only way I can see a lower pricing model working out really well is if the gaming industry started charging less for lower content material. I won't spend $50 for a game that lasts four hours, but I would gladly for $15. That isn't so much an issue of money, just buying a game that short seems like I'm paying full price for a demo(don't know if that makes sense to people, but I hate being ripped off- had a convenience store charge me $3 for a pack of $.50 gum and it just boiled my blood). Chop up a full length game you may even be able to milk me for more money if it's good enough to keep me coming back.
Whle pricing a game 75% below the normal price for a game will increase its' sales by a rather dramatic amount- it would have no impact if every other game were to already be at that price point(with limited exceptions). Most people who are active gamers are constrained by one of two things, time or money. Time is a much larger limiting element for me, games could be $5 or $100 and it wouldn't make much of a difference in how many titles I bought. This isn't that I wouldn't want to buy more games when they got cheaper, just that I wouldn't have the time to play through them. On the other end of the spectrum you have those limited by money. Yes, if you cut the price of games in half they will very likely buy twice as many- but where does that get the industry? They gain nothing that way while losing out the money they can currently demand by those of us whose time is a larger factor then cash.
The only way I can see a lower pricing model working out really well is if the gaming industry started charging less for lower content material. I won't spend $50 for a game that lasts four hours, but I would gladly for $15. That isn't so much an issue of money, just buying a game that short seems like I'm paying full price for a demo(don't know if that makes sense to people, but I hate being ripped off- had a convenience store charge me $3 for a pack of $.50 gum and it just boiled my blood). Chop up a full length game you may even be able to milk me for more money if it's good enough to keep me coming back.
You are taking an irrelevant part of the analogy and basing your argument on it - the issue of the 'real' cost for each corvette.
I could as easily take "books" or "movies".
Say instead of the complete series "The Wire" costing from $80-$200, price it at 10 bucks, and when it sells a lot say it proves "movies cost too much".
If it sold for ten bucks, it wouldn't have the production budget - fewer series would be made, and they'd be of lower quality.
Your argument can be applied ad infinitum almost to zero. Once it's ten bucks - lower it to one buck and have even higher sales prove it was still overpriced. Then try two cents.
The PC gaming industry already has many - I've heard most - games lose money, as makers try to make one of the few 'hits'. We're lucky to get the selection we have now.
Gut the budgets further, and I don't think you're cuttng fat, but bone.
I'm in favor of the PC gaming industry - I view it as 'the art form for our times' and want to see more money in it leading to more products of higher quality and more innovation.
There are already market pressures keeping the prices balanced. The argument that selling one for far less 'proves' they're overpriced is wrong.
JoshGuru7
Golden Member
- Aug 18, 2001
- 1,020
- 0
- 0
The argument that Valve is making is that gamers limited by money would buy more than twice as many and drive the revenue up.
You aren't really immune to demand elasticity if you view $50 for four hours a poor value and alter your spending habits accordingly. You're willing to pay well for a "good" game like most of us but take a look at the release schedule through the end of march or so and I suspect you'll be hard pressed to isolate multiple PC games that look like they will be worth $50 to you. For every good game there are dozens of mediocre titles and I think it's reasonable to speculate that lowering prices overall would drive up revenue as a result.
JoshGuru7
Golden Member
- Aug 18, 2001
- 1,020
- 0
- 0
I'm not sure if you're being serious, but really good FPS games are amazing values through their multiplayer and are probably "worth" far more than single player only type gameplay that lasts 10-12 hours each. In retrospective, UT '99 would have easily been worth $500 to me because of the hundreds of hours I spent playing it.
RallyMaster
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2004
- 5,582
- 0
- 0
I have no real aversion to Steam because it allows me to play whatever game I feel like playing anywhere I want to play it. I've had numerous games installed on numerous computers that I've owned, and it's very convenient. Most of the games that I buy I'll want to revisit later on anyway just for nostalgia's sake but many of them are multiplayer games that have decent replayability (except CS Source and TF2, both of which I've become completely frustrated with). I paid half price for just about everything I own on Steam (TF2 is an exception-paid full price last year) so I have no opinion on the whole games are too expensive statement because I never buy anything that's not on sale anyway.
The two games that I play frequently that I would love to see on Steam: Test Drive Unlimited and Battlefield 2.
Oh yeah, one thing to note: Steam's Friend's system is very very useful. I can get a voice chat going with my friends from forums and RL and have a good time. It's like a teleconference while playing games. We can also coordinate strategies very easily if we're playing multiplayer combat games (e.g. BF2). Steam has a ton of services they offer and I'm really not surprised some of their prices are the same as the retail copy. The fact that we pay the same as the retail folks to get their game by getting ours via Steam means that we get a service like Xbox Live that is easy to use and doesn't come with a 50 dollar annual fee on top of the bloated prices of console games.
The two games that I play frequently that I would love to see on Steam: Test Drive Unlimited and Battlefield 2.
Oh yeah, one thing to note: Steam's Friend's system is very very useful. I can get a voice chat going with my friends from forums and RL and have a good time. It's like a teleconference while playing games. We can also coordinate strategies very easily if we're playing multiplayer combat games (e.g. BF2). Steam has a ton of services they offer and I'm really not surprised some of their prices are the same as the retail copy. The fact that we pay the same as the retail folks to get their game by getting ours via Steam means that we get a service like Xbox Live that is easy to use and doesn't come with a 50 dollar annual fee on top of the bloated prices of console games.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
Plenty of people are willing to pay it for Resistance and Halo and that is not counting the DLC and subscription fees to play multiplayer!
If they are limited by money, where is this extra money going to come from?
I'm a gamer, not a platform bigot- there are loads of games coming out in Q1 that I find worth the money they are asking, more then what I have time to play for certain.
My question is where is this money going to come from? You have stated that Valve's assertion is that people that don't have the money are going to be the ones spending it which is fairly, errr, interesting logic
SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 14,202
- 4,401
- 136
I thought it was understood that the entire argument is predicated on the fact that not just sales but revenue increased when they dropped the price. That is a clear indication that the price was too high. You are arguing that all we were seeing was the 'sale effect' and I'm arguing that I think that the revenue increases were too high for that to be the only explanation. I think that they were tapping into a currently underserved market, namely the secondary market and maybe even some of the pirate market. Which is pretty much the conclusion that Valve come to as well.
So your example of the TV show would not make sense. If by lowering the price of the series from $80-$200 to $10 actually saw an increase in revenue then it would actually lead to higher production values and more series would be made, and possbily a willingess to take more risks on non-traditional series since the lower price point will drive more exploratory spending on the part of consumers.
I agree , games on Steam are to expensive considering they are chained to you as soon as you install. I can't even let my son borrow my games and we can't play multiplayer unless we have two copies. I understand keeping a tight grip for online only/single player games but at least let us spawn local LAN play off of one copy.
Considering Steam cuts out the resell option for your purchased games they should cost half the price of MSRP IMHO.
, games on Steam are to expensive considering they are chained to you as soon as you install. I can't even let my son borrow my games and we can't play multiplayer unless we have two copies. I understand keeping a tight grip for online only/single player games but at least let us spawn local LAN play off of one copy. Considering Steam cuts out the resell option for your purchased games they should cost half the price of MSRP IMHO.
Regarding the topic, I think its all emotionally driven. People flip out when they think they're getting a "deal" and consume madly. Saw the same behavior at the local Circuit City with thier GOOB sale. Of course they may very well be getting a great deal, which should be taken advantage of. Seems to me the Steam deals would be hard to resist if I weren't such a dinosaur and preferred hard copies.
Think about it. When you lower the price, you pick up some revenue from those who weren't willing ot pay the higher price and will pay the lower, but you also lose all the price difference from the group who was willing to pay the higher price. This is why you see new games come out at a higher price (the strongest fans pay the early adopter cost) and weeks later the price goes down to get the secondary market.
Also, people can only spend so much time on games; there's not an unlimited appetite.
If by sale effect, you mean that discounting one of many competing products can give it artifically high sales, while discounting all products would harm the industry, then yes.
And the secondary market adjusts to price changes as well. $40 game selling for $25 secondary? Price it at $20 new, you get sales, but then secondry drops to $10.
First, you're confusing the point I was arguing. I was using the price-lowering analogy of the TV series to disprove the claim that the increased sales from a price drop 'proves' the product was overpriced, just by itself - without needing to, as you try to claim, that 'revenue increases' as well. You added the revenue assumptions, not me.
Second, you can't use a disputed and central factual issue - the one about how revenue and profits are affected by increased sales with a price drop - as an assumption in your argument, instead of backing up your assumption with something. Imagine discussing the pullout from the Iraq war by *assuming* either few or many problems resultign, instead of actually proving what the effect would be. That's useless.
If you *assume* that revenues and profits increase from every price drop, you avoid the issue being discussed - and are pretty obviously wrong simply following that simple rule (as shown when my price for the TV series dropped to two cents). There are a lot of knowledgable people who are involved in the pricing of games, and the exceptional results - meaning unusual, not great - of the Steam sales don't prove anything about the normal pricing, by themselves.
Prices can be overpriced, rightly priced, and underpriced; you need to actually have some substance in analyzing which they are, and the sale prices aren't the substance needed.
Unless you find multiplayer uninteresting* and which case $60 is way over board.
* Excluding bots, like those in UT 99.
JoshGuru7
Golden Member
- Aug 18, 2001
- 1,020
- 0
- 0
I intentionally mention PC games because it's a different audience from the console market, not because I don't own a PS3 and a 360. I'm looking forward to several console games, but whether there are PC games coming out in Q1 that you think will be worth the money is very relevant to this thread regarding PC game pricing.
Think about it some more. Rather than trying to group people into categories of "have money" and "don't have money", consider that what we are actually talking about here is the effect of game pricing on revenue. Because revenue is a product of volume and pricing, what you really need to look at is the mostly inverse relationship between pricing and volume.Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
My question is where is this money going to come from? You have stated that Valve's assertion is that people that don't have the money are going to be the ones spending it which is fairly, errr, interesting logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_of_demand
In a nutshell, the argument that Valve is making is that because demand is relatively elastic for PC games, the industry could increase revenue by lowering prices as a result.
Obviously if you don't like a genre you aren't going to find the games a very good value. The FPS genre has a pretty high potential for value, however, due to the upside of a game if it has good multiplayer and is supported by the community (custom maps, mods, etc). They won't all be gems but I'd like the chances of somebody playing a game for 40+ hours a lot more if I knew the genre was one of the multiplayer-heavy options (FPS/RTS/MMO) over say your typical RPG or platformer.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 82,854
- 17,365
- 136
Hell no. They cut costs and raised profits, which is fine for them but that means we get less product.
When they did it and gamers complained they used the excuse they were trying to keep costs down which was supposed to benefit us, but the costs skyrocketed anyway.
They spend way too much damn money making games these days. Especially on the consoles. I still recall that one game where the publisher said that every person who owned a PS3 would have to buy two copies of the game just for them to make a tiny profit.
Thats fucking stupid. Why the hell would you let production costs run so high that you cant possibly recoup. You know exactly how many PS3's were made (unless Sony beefed up the number to encourage developers, which is entirely possible given what we know about their business practices), and you could probably get some very accurate numbers about how many consoles have sold.
If you know darn well people wont pay more than 60 bucks a copy, why on earth would you let production costs run into 60 million dollars?
Do they honestly think they will sell 10 million copies?
Given the number of titles that have sold well under a million copies, I'd think thats a pretty crappy gamble.
So in this I actually feel a bit of sympathy for Windows developers, because they cant accurately predict how many sales they will get. There is no effective way to tell how many video cards have been sold up to this point. They dont know what peoples interests really are. Sometimes a big title will sell poorly, and sometimes an indie product will sell like mad.
I'm not upset when a new game comes out at 60 bucks, they have a right to recoup their expenses. But if that game isnt selling enough they darn well better drop the price and get people buying something. Especially for digital downloads.
Sorry. I'm one of those guys who remembers the days of Doom and Myst and Tie Fighter. I dont like where the industry has been the last 8 years. They put too much effort into things that have nothing to do with fun, and then piss & moan about everything under the sun when the game doesnt sell enough.
End Rant.
BassBomb
Diamond Member
- Nov 25, 2005
- 8,396
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: samduhman
I agree
Considering Steam cuts out the resell option for your purchased games they should cost half the price of MSRP IMHO.
You can let your son install on his pc and he can play so long as you aren't playing on yours.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter