EA Decries Steam Sales: "They Cheapen Intellectual Property"
- Thread starter BloatedGuppy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Uhm, no offense, but nobody intelligent goes through a bargain bin thinking "this is going to be all bad crap".ThriKreen said:
If so, they wouldn't bother. You do so to find good stuff that is discounted for various reasons. I found some pretty good games in bargain bins.
I don't know anyone that'd think games are bad because they are on sale. Nobody remotely sane thinks so.
Because psychology. Seriously. If they are sold at that price all the time, the entire reason behind sales pushing is gone, and the sales would not rise.
Well that's just a silly thing to say. The strength of an IP doesn't depend on how much it costs to buy a game but by total sales figures, income from the property, and the ability to make new games/merc/whatever based on that IP. In fact the only "real" value an IP has is based on how much you sell it for. If someone sold me the rights to Batman for $1 he would be worth $1. Obviously no one would do this because Batman is highly marketable, so obviously his perceived IP value is much higher.
If you're just talking about the public's perception of the IP's worth then how much it costs to buy a game factors very little into the game. If I see something in a bargain bin then yes I'm going to think it's worthless if that is all the information I have about it. But if I see a game like Psychonauts in that same bargain bin I don't care that it's in the bargain bin, I know what the game is, I know it's good. I know how much personal value Psychonauts has to me, so it doesn't matter how much I pay to get it, I know it will be good either way.
The value of an IP in this sense is more largely based on word of mouth of the consumers. So if more people can get it on the cheap, and people enjoy it then the public's perception of the IP increases. In that case Steam Sales have the upper hand.
If you're just talking about the public's perception of the IP's worth then how much it costs to buy a game factors very little into the game. If I see something in a bargain bin then yes I'm going to think it's worthless if that is all the information I have about it. But if I see a game like Psychonauts in that same bargain bin I don't care that it's in the bargain bin, I know what the game is, I know it's good. I know how much personal value Psychonauts has to me, so it doesn't matter how much I pay to get it, I know it will be good either way.
The value of an IP in this sense is more largely based on word of mouth of the consumers. So if more people can get it on the cheap, and people enjoy it then the public's perception of the IP increases. In that case Steam Sales have the upper hand.
Why don't they just charge the amount that makes them the most money like companies always have? Or am I missing something?
And it's not like they have to charge a certain amount per unit considering digital copies aren't on discs.
And it's not like they have to charge a certain amount per unit considering digital copies aren't on discs.
Uh... wouldn't they just view it as an old game sold at a heavy discount because it's old, just like any reasonable human being would?ThriKreen said:
you guys dont understand, if it helps Steam and harms origin then its bad for the ENTIRE industry. Why you may ask? Because if it doesnt make EA money then obviously the world will end because ponies!
In fact, Steam has saved several. Including Introversion. All due to increased profits from Steam Sales.distortedreality said:
EA = buying up and shutting down any and every small developer they can find; implying Valve is destroying the industry
Valve = saving failing developers and boosting profit margins for everyone
Yep. Valve really are the bad guys, aren't they Mr. DeMartini?
[sidenote]
But you know, Mr. DeMartini, I bought Borderlands GOTY for $7.50, thanks to a Steam Sale. And, after a few community mods and patches to make it playable, I rather enjoyed it. As a result, I'm seriously considering buying Borderlands 2 at full price.
So tell me again how cheap sales diminish the value of intellectual properties?
Now you know how I felt last year when EAs primary selling point for Origin was a smear campaign against everyone else. Especially Activision and Valve.LetalisK said:
I'm with you. EA can go fuck itself.
It works out for them just fine.Terminate421 said:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/24/less-is-more-gabe-newell-on-game-pricing/
That kind of attitude is approaching victim blaming: "how dare consumers be clever consumers!".
What you're looking for above, I think.Rainmaker77 said:
OT: The Escapist already did an article on this and I've commented on it a number of times, but yeah, it's fucking hilarious.
I think my favourite bit is that he thinks that by charging more for the exact same product, it will gain his distribution store more prestige.
And because EA made a position concerning this issue, there are gamers beating down the door to put their 2 cents into it.
I know that it's because EA said something that will cause people to hate it.
I know that it's because EA said something that will cause people to hate it.
I thought this too, although I'm not that knowledgeable on how all this online distribution stuff works, I'd assume that the developers would have to at least have some input on when their game would go on sale and how much they would be reduced by. I doubt steam would have as many games on it as it does if devs had to sign something saying "WE CAN PUT YOUR GAMES ON SALE AT ANY TIME WE LIKE FOR WHATEVER PRICE WE LIKE".Seishisha said:
So surely if the devs are ok with it, and don't feel like its "harming their IP", Valve should feel entirely justified in putting steam sales up?
if this were coming from a company that wasnt in direct competition with steam, their point would probably seem much more valid. maybe i havent been paying enough attention but i havent heard any other companies complaining that their games were being sold too low. saints row the 3rd, a relatively recent game, was being sold on steam for $15 last week and i never heard the devs complain the steam was doing them an injustice. also, im not one of those "everything that comes from EA is evil," kind of people, but it seems ironic for EA to be questioning how moral the business practices of another game company are
You're not very familiar with the way mass marketing works, are you? Not saying Valve does that, but it wouldn't exactly be a new thing.Midgeamoo said:
No but with digital distribution, steam hasn't already bought all of the copies of the game, it has the right to sell as many as it wants. With brick and mortar retailers/selling disc copies online, the distributor has already bought it's stock of games for a certain price, so it can price them however the hell it wants without affecting the developer's income, just their own. That's why they need to be a lot more co-operative with the devs in digital distribution when it comes to sales (or thats how i'd assume it works anyway)Zachary Amaranth said:
Oh hell this again... no it's not because EA said it that gamers are saying it's really stupid idea, it's because it's a fucking stupid idea that gamers are saying it's a stupid idea. Just because EA has made some very stupid mistakes in the past and has angered a lot of gamers doesn't mean they won't make stupid mistakes in the future.malestrithe said:
Argue the point, don't just think people are jaded over the EA logo, if you feel EA is correct in this then argue why they are correct, don't blame the smart people for disliking a company that has pretty much said "It's wrong to put things on sale".
The more EA talks to the community, the more they make it obvious they are so far out of touch they are essentially alien. There may be SOME merit to their claims, but they are hardly one to take the high horse. This reeks of EAs typical dick swinging. However this is the first time in a long time they are financially out of their debt. Valve is the Big Boy in the DD domain.BloatedGuppy said:
Valve doesn't even need to respond, EA shot themselves in the foot with this.
Except steam isn't just a bargain bin. Their sales come with LARGE EASILY READ BANNERS, that state who it's made by, along with ratings and other eye catchers that draw attention.ThriKreen said:
It's not just dump of material which people rummage to indescriminately, they are deliberate advertisements of a product and the makers of the product.
Just look at steam now:
If that banner doesn't show just go to http://www.steampowered.com
That banner is just plastered there up on top of the steam stores homepage. Not only do the developers get some money back, they get free advertisement to boot. What's more, I got an unobtrusive set of ads after quitting out of a game, which included info on this sale.
If anything is apparent in this day and age, and by virtue of the successes of the CoD franchise, is that people follow brands pretty closely. A good sale might draw the attention of folks who wouldn't have bothered otherwise.
kDon't confuse developers with publishers.
Developers make the games and are paid an hourly salary by publishers. They actually often work 16 hr days meeting unrealistic deadlines, too, but thats another topic.
Publishers incur the risk of the project and are the guys who will take the hit if a game flops. They don't actually make games in most cases, they fund the project and take care of marketing the product.
Putting a game on sale doesn't affect developer's pay one bit. It only cuts into the individual unit profit for publishers, but as any person with basic knowledge of economics can tell you, sometimes you make more money with lower per unit profit but higher volume.
Obviously for indie developers this isnt true, since they are essentially their own publishers. But they benefit from sales like this, too, as more customers will take a risk for cheap games and word of mouth will spread.
Developers make the games and are paid an hourly salary by publishers. They actually often work 16 hr days meeting unrealistic deadlines, too, but thats another topic.
Publishers incur the risk of the project and are the guys who will take the hit if a game flops. They don't actually make games in most cases, they fund the project and take care of marketing the product.
Putting a game on sale doesn't affect developer's pay one bit. It only cuts into the individual unit profit for publishers, but as any person with basic knowledge of economics can tell you, sometimes you make more money with lower per unit profit but higher volume.
Obviously for indie developers this isnt true, since they are essentially their own publishers. But they benefit from sales like this, too, as more customers will take a risk for cheap games and word of mouth will spread.
You misunderstand me.Midgeamoo said:
I am not talking RETAIL, I am talking mass media.
As an example, Amazon's Kindle program for independent authors drew flak for various things very similar to this, as has Apple for exercising creative control over the books in question. That has nothing to do with retail as neither are actually purchased by stores for dirtibution to a physical locale. These ARE purely digital items distributed digitally. So yes, they are digital distribution. This isn't a retail issue but a rights issue.
