EA Decries Steam Sales: "They Cheapen Intellectual Property"

[Darkmantle]

So they are trying to justify not giving nice sales by saying they are Pro-IP?

that is some mega spin going on there, did EA hire a slightly better marketing team?

 

[Fr]anc[is]

It's made even funnier by the fact that Origin is currently running a big 50% off sale.

On what? All I'm seeing is a lolz worthy 'hidden gem' section containing Kingdoms of Amalallama and Risen 2

 

[Racecarlock]

Oh yeah. God forbid people on lower incomes than usual get to play some fucking video games. I actually called this back when the anti used games bullshit started up. Now all of you PC gamers going "I'm a PC gamer so ha ha this doesn't effect me" know how it feels, huh? Not that great, is it?

And people are still taking the publisher's side? If this was coming from some starving indie developer, then it might of been a stronger point. But this is fucking EA we're talking about here. You know, the company that just released battlefield 3 premium in an attempt to get you to buy the game twice?

Seriously, now sales are bad too? I'm starting to think that the only way we'll be able to afford games in the future is if we all either get high income jobs or start growing money trees in our back yard. You wanted proof that they're fucking greedy? Here's your proof. Right here, out in the open. Not even trying to hide anymore.

 

[Windcaler]

My thought is this person doesnt understand the economic principle of charging what the market can bare. Then again very few EA executives seem to understand simple economic principles. Which makes me wonder what they teach in business school these days if people with tens of thousands of dollars worth of education cant retain simple economic practices that I learned in high school

That doesnt even touch on the idea of Origin trying to compete with other digital distribution providers which I believe its failing at rather miserably.

Now to be fair, Im fairly sure that every time a steam sale comes up the games developer has to be ok with their product being sold for cheaper. If a developer thinks its fine to temporarily reduce the price on their product to encourage more sales then Im fine with that but I fail to see how it cheapens an IP when the maker of that game says a sale is ok.

 

[UltraPic]

I'm not sure I understand. EA doesn't want to have sales as extravagant as steam because it "cheapens your intelectual property"?

Am I missing something here? Isn't that the point? That its cheaper? Because its on SALE?

What your missing is that the "cheapens your intellectual property" has nothing to do with prices, but with the way people perceive a product when being sold.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Experienced Points columnist had it right here when he spoke of pricing and Origin in particular. Origin sucks because it simply offers a handful of AAA EA-only titles at full prices, end of. Steam does not suck because it offers everything from full price (or more expensive!) AAA titles and Day 1 releases from all publishers, indie games, middle-of-the-road fare and sale items.

Here is the thing. A new game comes out at full price of £30. Everyone who eagerly awaited it (and is willing to pay full price) buys it immediately on release and for a month or two after. After this initial period, when it is no longer a new release, the £30 can't necessarily be justified any more. Anyone who wanted it immediately and/or was willing to pay the £30 price tag already has done. So either the game stops selling, or they can lower the price.

The price is lowered to £20 and more people buy it now that it's cheaper, keeping momentum, units selling and people playing. After these sales start to peter out, maybe 6 months-ish after release, it can be said everyone who was willing to buy this game for £20 has done by now and any other sales should be at a lower price point, like £10, again attracting new customers who a) wouldn't have otherwise played it b) might have otherwise pirated it c) were never going to buy it for £20 or even £30.

Borderlands GOTY is on sale at Amazon right now for less than the cost of two of its four DLCs on Steam alone. Is Amazon devaluing Gearbox's IP? Steam is over-valuing it I should say. Was a time when games several years old were a fraction of their release price. Now publishers, particularly Activision rarely drop prices.

 

[NiPah]

I'm not sure I understand. EA doesn't want to have sales as extravagant as steam because it "cheapens your intelectual property"?

Am I missing something here? Isn't that the point? That its cheaper? Because its on SALE?

What your missing is that the "cheapens your intellectual property" has nothing to do with prices, but with the way people perceive a product when being sold.

Which is ironic, maybe EA didn't notice that just stamping the EA logo on a product cheapens it's intellectual, just like the Squire/Enix logo can ruin a game before it even comes out. Few people will complain that a game was later made cheaper if it was an actual good game, hell just look at Skyrim, but if you feel cheated by the price you paid it's made all the more sour by an additional perceived injustice of others getting a better deal by waiting a few weeks.

 

[Blunderboy]

Oh EA, you cad.
What can I say that hasn't already been said?

Sales are not going to affect people who are buying the game when it comes out. It's only going to affect those people sitting on the fence. If the price drops, many of them will risk buying it. If the price stays static, they won't.
Which one will bring you more profits?

 

[Vrach]

Bullshit. If a developer cares about what they've made, they'll want as many people as possible to play their game. And Steam's not doing this because it's not profitable, if it means profit for Steam, it means profit for the developer.

So getting more money and their game is played by more people. Oh the horror of cheapened intellectual property >.>

Also, heads up EA, there's more to world than NA. Not every country can afford 50 euro titles every time a game comes out and while you motherfuckers are happy to raise prices in places with a higher standard like Australia, I don't really see you doing the opposite for countries that aren't as well off.

 

[Monsterfurby]

EA is quite noticeably stuck in a 1980s view of marketing and value creation. Especially with video games in the 21st century, you don't just sell a customer the product like you would sell them a bag of apples. The value chain does not just consist of "making" and "selling".

Value creation is about relationship building. Why are people using Steam? Because of the sales. Why is Steam more successful than many other comparable services, even those that have been around almost as long? Because more people are using it.

More pointedly: The only reason some of these Steam games (especially indies) grew from "somewhat successful" to "massive and legendary success" is because of the sales. Those are not limited to their timeframe: get more players and you will gain more players due to recommendations etc.

It may seem tautological, but really: EA sucks at marketing and they should better keep quiet about areas they don't understand. Then again, their strategy is not about value creation, it's about market domination. "Screw the customer, we own all the franchises you care about, anyway."

 

[Rainmaker77]

Seems EA are talking out of their arse. Valve actually released some info a while ago (I can't for the life of me find it now) showing that the more they decreased the cost of a game in a sale, the more money they made.

75% discount actually generated huge sales and profit, far more than 50% and 25%, and more importantly, every discount increased sales AND profit above the 'base' price.

So actually EA, far from cheapening your games, Steam's sales give your IP much needed growth, as they vastly increase the sales AND profit of them.

 

[Khazoth]

The Games Industry: Where its perfectly okay to charge 60 dollars for an incomplete product and then 15 a pop for each thing you should've sold with the game. I'll continue to use steam as long as this is a practice, DLC is fine and all but I remember the days of Expansion Packs being quite a glorious golden age. Don't believe me? Civilization 5 is an example of how you can sell a complete game, still sell DLC, and even sell expansions. Stop selling incomplete games and i'll start buying them at 50 dollars.

 

[Avalanche91]

The devaluing of IP's is true, if it was the same IP on sale constantly. Then said IP would indeed decrease in value, that's how brand economics work (either that or I just flunked my finals)

Steam however tends to rotate the incredible amount of IP's it has on sale, while I only see EA and a few lost Capcom or Casual games on Origin.

In conclusion; it isn't that Steam sales devalue IP's, but that EA would be forced to devalue it's IP's in order to compete with the constant Steam Sales.

 

[jmesch04]

The sales are just such a good way to get me to spit out $60 Dollars. When a game comes out for $30+ I won't buy it unless I know the name. However when I see a game at 75% then I just can't pass it up and will buy it if it has like at least 70+ on metacritic.

That's how I just bought the dungeon series. I read bad reviews but it was like $8 and I started playing it. Now I think it's really really fun. That money would never have made it's way to kalypso any other way without a discount.

 

[The Human Torch]

It's not like they are selling brand new games with a 75% discount on day 1 of release. For a game to get that massive 75% discount, it usually has to be on the market for a year or so. EA cuts it's game prices 6 months after release, for the brick & mortar stores. I can know, I used to work as a manager of a gaming department in a huge electronics retail store.

Appearantly slashing a game by 50% after 6 months is okay, but 75% after a year? Nooooooo.

A value of a game is relative anyway. Rare cartridges of old NES/SNES/Megadrive games might fetch a fair penny, but that's because only physical copies exist. In this day and age, with every game being digitally available, there is no such thing as "value". The only thing that counts is selling enough in the first weeks after release to make good for the development costs, and maybe some extra profit on top. Any other sales that happen in the years afterwards, whether full price or at a discount, is a bonus.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

we're not trying to be Target. We're trying to be Nordstrom.

Yeah just like I'm not paying $85 for a t-shirt I'm not paying $15 for the original Max Payne. Their logic is flawed, games that normally wouldn't get bought get bought because of the discounts. They don't seem to grasp this concept. Its not like these games actually cost money to be produced they are digital downloads. All you need to do is pay the ridiculously cheap royalty fees. So that game that everyone buys because they were always curious about it and now its the price of a king size Hershey bar buy it.

and it turns to profit.


Side Bar: Considering EA is losing millions of dollars a year they really don't have the right to voice their opinion so defiantly in the first place.

 

[Palademon]

I see what they did there. They're using wordplay to say it "cheapens".

They've managed to try to find an argument for "No, we will not stop charging you full price, but it's not because we like money."

 

[Deadyawn]

I'm not sure I understand. EA doesn't want to have sales as extravagant as steam because it "cheapens your intelectual property"?

Am I missing something here? Isn't that the point? That its cheaper? Because its on SALE?

What your missing is that the "cheapens your intellectual property" has nothing to do with prices, but with the way people perceive a product when being sold.

Alright, I can accept that conceit. What I don't get know is why that matters, especially if they already bought it. After having played a game I form an opinion on it based on the game and the price tag is sort of an afterthought, either it was worth it or I would have been better off spending this money elsewhere. If anything a lower price would probably endear me to a game because I parted with less money to aquire it.

The only way that argument has wieght is if we are referring to people who haven't played it as seeing it go for cheap may in some way make them think its a worse game because it costs less which is completely irrelevant because if said person doesn't want to buy it, even at 75% off then they wouldn't get it anyway.

Sorry, I'm ranting a bit here but basically all I'm saying is that it doesn't make whole lot of sense to me.