EA Decries Steam Sales: "They Cheapen Intellectual Property"

[LetalisK]

EA can fuck right off. Steam sales allow titles that wouldn't be purchased otherwise to milk some extra cash out of it. If anything it benefits the developers as it brings interest and money back to games that are long past their money-making prime, especially at their regular prices.

I think I've been pretty tolerant of EA for some inexplicable reason thus far, but for some reason this pisses me off.

 

[Thoric485]

I kinda agree, I'd like a DD service where older games are 25-50% cheaper throughout the whole year rather than 75-90% cheaper for a week or two as it is on Steam.

But EA don't do that, they sell for the same prices as Steam or higher, while not having big sales. The rest of their service is a joke too, and only as popular as it is because of exclusives. They're really not one to criticize Valve.

 

[Xpheyel]

I guess they forgot about Amazon having the digital version of ME3 at 50% off? I just copy/pasted a CD key into Origin too. So I guess its ok when Amazon does it for Origin games. Maybe they can sell the CD keys on Steam, then I get the sales and Origin can keep the price at $60. Everyone wins?

 

[Fr]anc[is]

I once heard a statistic (In one of Totalbiscut's vids, I can't be bothered to go fishing for it) where a game had a 1100% increase in profits during a sale. That's profits, not number of units sold. EA needs to get their heads out of their ass. One single sale on the entirety of Sims 3 would net them more money than their microtransaction BS ever will. The price point on that game and all the expansions is way too intimidating.

 

[TrevHead]

Not that i'm been judgemental on anyone looking to save a few pennies when buying a game. However we only have a finite amount of time we can spend playing these games unless you are one of those ppl who only spends a few hours on one game before moving onto the next.

As someone who generally can't resist a bargain i've way too many games in my steam folder on XBLA and on my gaming self. That I have drastically cut back in my purchases recently in an effort to work on my backlog.

I still do try to buy the odd game for £20-£30 that I think are worthy of me supporting the devs even if it'll be a long time before I actually get around to playing it, which means I could have just waited until the game hit the bargain bin anyway.

Imo the main reason why so many devs are copying MMOs and making their games into an service in an effort to attract players and keep them is because there are simply too many games available.

I'm starting to wonder if MS and Sony will actually make it so their next consoles won't allow them to play their DL games from this generation. Sucks for us gamers but imo the fact Ninty tied all their DL games to the Wii it was bought on was a smart thing for them.

OFC much of this is the industries fault for rehashing the same old crap, but this gen is filled with great and interesting games that no one buys so the blame is partly the consumers fault for ignoring them

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

anc[is]One single sale on the entirety of Sims 3 would net them more money than their microtransaction BS ever will. The price point on that game and all the expansions is way too intimidating.

haha exactly, I picked up sims 3 a year or so ago in a steam deal, didn't touch any of the damn expansions for how expensive they were, fuck that.


Seriously EA, I'm laughing really hard right now at how horrible your pouty little argument is, It is hilariously sweet to taste your tears when the whole "vote with your wallet" is killing you, apparently.

 

[Seishisha]

I was under the impression that for a game to go on sale on a service like steam, the dev's have to give the ok, though i guess that could be wrong. But this brings another point to mind, didn't valve annouce a while back a little bit of sales statistics with games that had even ten percent of the total price showing markedly large increase in total sales? If somone could link to that it would be awesome, tried looking but i couldnt find it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114168-Witcher-2-Sold-Four-Times-Better-on-Steam

Best i could find for some kind of info basicly stating that steam sold four times the number of units for the witcher 2 than any other service at the time. Which just goes to show the customer base even for full priced titles on steam is massive.

This whole EA statment smacks to me of a public relations spin for origin, i mean reading between the lines you get the impression that EA wants people to think steam is responsible for bad things in the market because of its many sales. I admit im a little biased to steam anyway so maybe its all my imaginings.

 

[AngleWyrm]

He's kind of right. Developers work hard to make games, by just waiting for prices to drop and sales to come up, they don't get the amount of money that the developer may deserve.

I disagree. There are games that I would never buy at full price that I've bought after the price has come down. More money.

 

[370999]

A tad silly EA, unfortunately while you might dislike Steam's policies, you are in a situation where you are trying to compete with them.

 

[frizzlebyte]

Here's the biggest problem with their argument. If I can't afford the game at full price, isn't it kind of bad to keep the price jacked up just because you can, denying me getting to play it? Doesn't that *overvalue* your product?

I mean, I'm all for the developers getting the money for the work of their hands, but denying lower-income or cash-strapped people the ability to experience your game is just unfair.

Even the theaters of Europe saved the ground in front of the stage for the destitute to be able see plays.

Discounts, to me, are the modern equivalent of that.

 

[Eamar]

So, if they're not going to compete with Steam how on earth is Origin going to survi... oh. I see. They'll just make their games unavailable on other platforms, thus forcing Origin on anyone who wants to play an EA game.

Fuck off, EA. That is not how you market a service.

 

[Alexnader]

It raises the question: how they they intend to compete with steam without actually giving better or equal deals?

The product is the basicly the same and arguably inferior because Steam allows modding and such, while Origin will ban users over such trivial things.
Actual competitors like Gamer's Gate and D2D do offer advantages over Steam and even they operate in the margin.
It's like EA is not even trying. Even false promises about huge upcoming discounts would have been smarter than this.

Simple, EA doesn't intend to compete with steam. Look at some of the massive releases they've had for PC. Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3. Both large franchises with a huge fanbase and both aren't on steam. They'll force these fans and fans of other franchises to use Origin and build it up that way, without having to do anything as shocking as actually offering prices lower than the what you'd see at brick and mortar stores.

 

[3asytarg3t]

Time is on my side, I've no obligation to buy products from EA, and I don't.

Meanwhile, at some point, perhaps not in the too distant future, the people actually making the games we play will wake up and realize the publisher model is dead.

I can wait for that. I've got quite a few things to do besides playing games made by publishers like EA I refuse to do business with.

Borrowing a flawed funding model from the other entertainment industries is hardly the only stupid thing the gaming business has done lately, and it certainly won't be the last.

 

[BreakfastMan]

So, how do you plan to compete with Steam, EA? They are providing the same service as you, except with better selection and better prices. What are you going to do to make your service more attractive?

Honestly, it does not matter if it "devalues" IPs. It attracts customers, which is what EA really needs for Origin.

 

[Scrustle]

Translation:

"Our games are better because they cost more."

 

[Rednog]

anc[is]I once heard a statistic (In one of Totalbiscut's vids, I can't be bothered to go fishing for it) where a game had a 1100% increase in profits during a sale. That's profits, not number of units sold. EA needs to get their heads out of their ass. One single sale on the entirety of Sims 3 would net them more money than their microtransaction BS ever will. The price point on that game and all the expansions is way too intimidating.

But at the same time TB argues that sales/bundles are supposed to be where games "go to die".There is a big difference when steam throws a game up for sale that has been out for years than a game that has been our for like 3 or so months.
It really does promote gamers to think twice about buying games at full price. For example say you bought Dungeon Defenders on release date, then two weeks later you see it on sale on steam for like 50% off, that much of a depreciation in so little time essentially is a kick in the nuts to you, the early adopter. It basically tells you the consumer that their game wasn't worth their initial asking price.
Another example was with Botinacula, it was thrown in an indie bundle the day it came out, had gog not thrown in a bunch of free stuff from their own inventory how would you feel having prepaid $10 for it when people could get it for like a dollar the exact same day? They've pretty much sold the game (at a ludicrously low price) to everyone who would be interested in the game off the bat. Good luck seeing any decent number of sales at $10 on steam or any other distributor since then.

The same thing goes for Steam's winter and summer sales, if a game comes out a month or two before those sales you shouldn't bother to buy them because you're almost guaranteed to get at least 33%+ off.

And while yes some sales can come in with huge profits, you always have to question how many full price sales did you lose by putting the game on sale so early as oppose to if you had waited like a year and then had the huge sale.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

He's kind of right. Developers work hard to make games, by just waiting for prices to drop and sales to come up, they don't get the amount of money that the developer may deserve. I'd personally aim to sell games at $30-40 online (For the AAA budget title), this allows developers to get the amount that they are shooting for, while still providing cheap enough value for consumers.

Apparently Valve noted an uptick in interest in a product after a sale, even after the sale had ended. I'm guess that's why they keep doing these sales. If all they were doing was driving their profit margin down into the dirt, they'd likely stop doing it.

And while I don't want to jump on the anti-EA bandwagon (even though I was a charter member from many, many years ago), this particular message coming from them of all people is high comedy.

The thing with valve though is its very rarely their games that go on sale. Its a lot easier to put stuff on sale when your not really cutting into your own margin but instead somebody elses. If EA were to do similar sales they would be cutting into their own margin instead of somebody elses. EA also does not have the same quantity of games to allow them to take the loss just to bring in more customers.

anc[is]I once heard a statistic (In one of Totalbiscut's vids, I can't be bothered to go fishing for it) where a game had a 1100% increase in profits during a sale. That's profits, not number of units sold. EA needs to get their heads out of their ass. One single sale on the entirety of Sims 3 would net them more money than their microtransaction BS ever will. The price point on that game and all the expansions is way too intimidating.

But at the same time TB argues that sales/bundles are supposed to be where games "go to die".There is a big difference when steam throws a game up for sale that has been out for years than a game that has been our for like 3 or so months.
It really does promote gamers to think twice about buying games at full price. For example say you bought Dungeon Defenders on release date, then two weeks later you see it on sale on steam for like 50% off, that much of a depreciation in so little time essentially is a kick in the nuts to you, the early adopter. It basically tells you the consumer that their game wasn't worth their initial asking price.

The same thing goes for Steam's winter and summer sales, if a game comes out a month or two before those sales you shouldn't bother to buy them because you're almost guaranteed to get at least 33%+ off.

And while yes some sales can come in with huge profits, you always have to question how many full price sales did you lose by putting the game on sale so early as oppose to if you had waited like a year and then had the huge sale.

You also have to take into consideration how old the game was before it went on sale and how many copies it was selling. Its not hard to bring your profits up 1100% by putting a game that nobody was buying up for 75% off.

True, but what about 400% on a major, relatively recent release? Because if I remember correctly, that's what Gabe Newell said about the time they put the Left 4 Dead games on sale for $5 each.

OT: EA is crazy, and once again they're showing just how rich they mistakenly think the average gamer is. Seriously, Nordstrom? For most people, Target /is/ the upscale store, when compared with Walmart and K-Mart. Nordstrom is for people with more money than sense, and apparently so is Origin.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

True, but what about 400% on a major, relatively recent release? Because if I remember correctly, that's what Gabe Newell said about the time they put the Left 4 Dead games on sale for $5 each.

OT: EA is crazy, and once again they're showing just how rich they mistakenly think the average gamer is. Seriously, Nordstrom? For most people, Target /is/ the upscale store, when compared with Walmart and K-Mart. Nordstrom is for people with more money than sense, and apparently so is Origin.

I think what they meant by that was that stores like target can afford to have those sales because they have such a large quantity of different products and they are just a retailer and not producing it themselves. Places like target and steam can throw a dozen games on sale at a loss because it brings in customers who will make up that loss by buying other products. Its an extremely common practice used by big box stores. Its also been proven to be extremely bad for all of their competition. Origin is simply does not have a big enough selection to be able to do that.

I agree that they could have used a better example then target.

Eh, it's still pretty ridiculous. If they wanted an example like that, they should have gone with JC Penny's or something -- still a department store, but not one frequented exclusively by the rich. I guess it wouldn't work as well as they want, though, since Penny's, Dillards, Sears, and all the rest have sales pretty frequently too. Granted, those have at least as much to do with getting old products off the shelves as they do with getting people in the door.

The current example translated into individuals is pretty much "We're not Gabe Newell, he's poor. We're Bill Gates."

Edit: If it's not clear, I meant Penny's instead of Nordstroms. Nordstroms is one of those places where, if it's an anchor store and you don't make at least six figures a year, you probably don't even bother to go to that mall, let alone that store.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Why didn't EA just come out and say "I want to wipe my ass with $100 bills"? I do think its true that some games should be worth more or less than others but this is fucking stupid. Every game you make isn't worth $60. I will spend $60 on a game that can last me more than a month like fallout 3, not a decent game like Crysis that might last 2 weeks. Your game isn't worth $60 for download. There was no cost for retail, no cost for manufacturing disks, and no cost for import and export. Its just silly because all it would take to get costumers would be for EA to take 10 fucking bucks off their price tag