Of course it's not like they can launch games half price if more people buy like that because then they move the standard lower and we'll eventually think of it the same, 30 as full price, and waiting for it to drop lower.
It's like Valve's experiments making them see that they often make more money in a given amount of time if they sell something much lower since it leads to many more sales. But would it lead to that many more sales if it wasn't labelled a special time limited offer and they just had the normal launch price that low? Probably not.
So yeah there's all sorts of thing to consider but in the end it's up to you and on a per game basis, not a rule.
 |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds while the pessimist fears this is true. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
robio said:There's another aspect worth addressing here. Part of the reason these price cuts exist is so that the publishers can compete with the secondary market. If you cut the price in half after 3 months, there's less incentive for a customer to buy a used game for $20 when the new version is only $25.
Thats the reason?
These savage price cuts seem like a modern phenomena to me, as in from this generation. I don't remember there being anything like the frequency or deep level of price cuts in any other gaming generation. It's all very good for the consumer, but tougher for publishers and devs.
gamingeek said:robio said:There's another aspect worth addressing here. Part of the reason these price cuts exist is so that the publishers can compete with the secondary market. If you cut the price in half after 3 months, there's less incentive for a customer to buy a used game for $20 when the new version is only $25.Thats the reason?
These savage price cuts seem like a modern phenomena to me, as in from this generation. I don't remember there being anything like the frequency or deep level of price cuts in any other gaming generation. It's all very good for the consumer, but tougher for publishers and devs.
I don't know if it's THE reason but it is A reason. It's not a coincidence that more and more publishers and developers are talking about how the secondary market is more and more of a problem and prices just happen to be getting slashed sooner than ever. After that first 30 to 45 days when a game stops selling so rapidly (outside of Mario games), they've come to come up with a solution to compete with used games and this is one of the only things they can do.
basically the cost of production of a game is an upfront cost (blank media and plastic cases cost nothing) so if a publisher has the choice of selling X amount of games at say $50, but would sell 4X number of games at $25, they are stupid not to do so. a lot of Wii million+ sellers didn't happen at full price. they just sell cheaply but remain in print.
personally i think i'm pretty much like gg said. it depends how badly i want a game (and have confidence in its quality) and how strongly i feel i want to support said developer/publisher. i bought a lot of Wii third party games at full price trying to show my support even though i knew i'd see them at a fraction of the price just weeks later. i guess it annoys me a little bit that the johnny come latelys get them cheaper but i don't really regret it
___
Listen to Wu-Tang and watch Kung-Fu
I don't really wait around for pricecuts myself. If a game comes out that I really want and I have the money on hand to buy it that day then I'll pick it up. I will of course also jump at the chance to get other games that I wanted to get but didn't have the money to get them at the time if I see them at at discount. I guess I'm the type of shopper that will buy what I can when I can so pricecuts just allow me to buy more games then I may normally have been able to get.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
I only pay full price if I think a game is :
1. Going to be in short supply (XSEED or Ignition game for example).
2. If I love the franchise and want to reward the publisher (Yakuza, No More Heroes etc...).
3. If it is a game I cannot wait to play and know a price drop will not come for a long time (SCE or Nintendo first party).
Otherwise the rest can wait. The prices are too high.
Ravenprose said:^ $10? Yes. $20? Maybe. $60? No. $120 Hell no!
I think that goes without saying when the games are 20 years old. 
robio said:gamingeek said:robio said:There's another aspect worth addressing here. Part of the reason these price cuts exist is so that the publishers can compete with the secondary market. If you cut the price in half after 3 months, there's less incentive for a customer to buy a used game for $20 when the new version is only $25.Thats the reason?
These savage price cuts seem like a modern phenomena to me, as in from this generation. I don't remember there being anything like the frequency or deep level of price cuts in any other gaming generation. It's all very good for the consumer, but tougher for publishers and devs.
I don't know if it's THE reason but it is A reason. It's not a coincidence that more and more publishers and developers are talking about how the secondary market is more and more of a problem and prices just happen to be getting slashed sooner than ever. After that first 30 to 45 days when a game stops selling so rapidly (outside of Mario games), they've come to come up with a solution to compete with used games and this is one of the only things they can do.
Personally I think that used game sales, some of the takings for them should go back to publishers. It's free money for stores otherwise.
Yodariquo said:If you are willing to wait for the price to drop, the publisher didn't make you want it enough. There's no moral dilemma to whether or not you decide to buy a product; it's up the seller of that product to make you want to buy it. If they aren't doing that, that's their problem.
I dunno. I mean I do want them, but I don't want them enough. That's not neccesarily a reflection on the publisher or game but me just having a high threshold before wanting a game full price. And knowledge, I have knowledge now that games will drop, so I wait. If it were like the old days where games didn't drop in price, then I would probably not be so reticent to buy them at launch.
Foolz said:Ravenprose said:^ $10? Yes. $20? Maybe. $60? No. $120 Hell no!I think that goes without saying when the games are 20 years old.
The date is wrong though. 20 years old would make it 1990, and we all know Raven's games come from the 70s and 80s.
gamingeek said:robio said:I don't know if it's THE reason but it is A reason. It's not a coincidence that more and more publishers and developers are talking about how the secondary market is more and more of a problem and prices just happen to be getting slashed sooner than ever. After that first 30 to 45 days when a game stops selling so rapidly (outside of Mario games), they've come to come up with a solution to compete with used games and this is one of the only things they can do.
Personally I think that used game sales, some of the takings for them should go back to publishers. It's free money for stores otherwise.
I've always been a proponent of secondary market retailers like Gamestop kicking back a royalty of some kind back to publishers. I truly beleive that this issue will cause the demise of that industry or force it to radically change things up. More and more publishers are starting to find legitimate ways around it. Look at that THQ article that went up yesterday. They're going to start offering one-time only DLC for the original owners of the game that secondary owners will have to pay for.
robio said:gamingeek said:robio said:I don't know if it's THE reason but it is A reason. It's not a coincidence that more and more publishers and developers are talking about how the secondary market is more and more of a problem and prices just happen to be getting slashed sooner than ever. After that first 30 to 45 days when a game stops selling so rapidly (outside of Mario games), they've come to come up with a solution to compete with used games and this is one of the only things they can do.
Personally I think that used game sales, some of the takings for them should go back to publishers. It's free money for stores otherwise.
I've always been a proponent of secondary market retailers like Gamestop kicking back a royalty of some kind back to publishers. I truly beleive that this issue will cause the demise of that industry or force it to radically change things up. More and more publishers are starting to find legitimate ways around it. Look at that THQ article that went up yesterday. They're going to start offering one-time only DLC for the original owners of the game that secondary owners will have to pay for.
isn't all DLC like that? that's what i thought. is it not linked to the system of the original owner? how is it transfered with the sale of the game disc?
edit: i think i get what you meant. publishers will offer free one time only downloads which will expire after the original owner uses them up?
___
Listen to Wu-Tang and watch Kung-Fu
bugsonglass said:isn't all DLC like that? that's what i thought. is it not linked to the system of the original owner? how is it transfered with the sale of the game disc?
edit: i think i get what you meant. publishers will offer free one time only downloads which will expire after the original owner uses them up?
Yes, THQ announced their plan (and some companies have done this to lesser extents already) to start offering up free downloads which will only work for the original owner - assuming of course that the original owner downloads it. However, they will still offer up this DLC to people who buy the game used, but it will come with a fee if they want it.
robio said:Yes, THQ announced their plan (and some companies have done this to lesser extents already) to start offering up free downloads which will only work for the original owner - assuming of course that the original owner downloads it. However, they will still offer up this DLC to people who buy the game used, but it will come with a fee if they want it.
Wow, what if someone doesn't have a broadband connection or internet service at all? I guess they are just screwed out of the content they paid for, huh? Crap like this makes me want to drop this and future game generations completely.
robio said:bugsonglass said:isn't all DLC like that? that's what i thought. is it not linked to the system of the original owner? how is it transfered with the sale of the game disc?
edit: i think i get what you meant. publishers will offer free one time only downloads which will expire after the original owner uses them up?
Yes, THQ announced their plan (and some companies have done this to lesser extents already) to start offering up free downloads which will only work for the original owner - assuming of course that the original owner downloads it. However, they will still offer up this DLC to people who buy the game used, but it will come with a fee if they want it.
They already did it with the online component of the UFC game. EA did this with the "titty" code in The Sabotuer.
In the UK, as EA have said, there is now a cuthroat culture of games having huge price cuts in a relatively shallow, savage time frame.
For instance Assasins Creed 2 came out at the end of last year and can now be bought for about a third of the original price.
I've noticed that many games have large price cuts, months, if not weeks after launch. Titles I have bought at full price have been availible a few months later for less than half the price I paid for them.
This has me seriously considering whether it's worth buying new games at launch anymore.
Of course there are games that don't come down in price, Call of Duty titles for instance, or first party Nintendo games.
Part of me wonders if waiting around like pack rats is an ethical thing to do. And if there is a chicken or the egg situation.
Competition is forcing price cuts. So many cuts that the consumer gets savvy to it and waits around.
We wait around, sitting on our hands expecting a price cut. We don't buy the game we want at full price, which almost forces a price cut, then we snap it up at hobo gamer prices.
But what is the effect of this on small developers or publishers? Are we harming them by doing this?
Seeing the cuts you've personally witnessed, have you started to ask yourself the same question? Are games worth getting at launch?
For me there are some games I will buy at launch because they are from my favourite franchises and I know they will be good. Other games I will get because I want to support a good game with a unique concept. But increasingly I find myself not caring about when I get a game, because I know that sometime in the next couple of years, I'll eventually pick it up at a price that makes the early adopters grind their teeth.