Jimquisition: Videogames Are A Luxury

[Grunt_Man11]

"Videogames are a luxury" is a valid argument against piracy, but invalid against used sales.

Thank you Jim. Thank you for understanding what it is like to live in poverty, or to be one of the "working class."

People who say, "if you can't afford to buy games new then you shouldn't be playing games" is the same childish attitude I faced in elementary school. "If you don't have Nike or Rebook shoes you're a loser and shouldn't be wearing shoes!" To those who have this attitude I say:
Grow the f*** up!

It is disturbing, yet sadly unsurprising, that even today people still think there is no such thing as "poor people" in places that aren't Africa or the Middle East.

Here's a reality check: Poor people exist in every country in the world!

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Binding of Isaac cost $5 new. So far I got 30 hours into it and I bet I'll get at least 10 more. The expansion comes out in two weeks costing $3. I'll probably get at least another 20 hours from the expansion.

Dungeons of Dredmor cost $5 new and between that and the $3 expansion I dropped maybe 140 hours.

Legend of Grimrock cost $15 which is about as much as I'll spend. So far 10 hours in and still liking it.

Torchlight 2 is $20 and I'll probably wait until december to get it on steam xmas sale for less.

Sorry big publishers, there are too many other options for me to even consider $60 and then nickle-and-dime DLC for anything. Screw all "AAA" games and the publishers they rode in on. I won't miss a damn thing in my life if I never play another game with photorealistic grass again.

That's good for you, really it is, but ever considered that some people don't like playing these cheap games?

How could anyone not like a game just because the price is low? That makes no sense.

 

[mike1921]

I wonder if someone has explained this to the game developers/publishers.

Sell games at 60 dollars, which 50 people can afford, and you make 3000 dollars.

Sell games at 40 dollars, which 100 people can afford, and you make 4000 dollars.

Sell games at 30 dollars, which 200 people can afford, and you make 6000 dollars.

Now, admittedly, this hinges on your game being able to sell enough copies to make up for the costs, but to me, at least, this seems like a better model than pricing yourself out of the market could ever be.

Sell at 60, 50 purchase, 3000.
Reduce price 3 months later 100 purchase, 4000 dollars.
Reduce price 6 months later 200 purchase, 6000 dollars.

13,000 dollars.

The trick is to know the target pool of potential purchasers on the front end, then treat that data with a first order ordinary differential to calculate the optimization. It's sorta' sad when I end up working these problems on my lunch break for the "marketing people", who couldn't find their asses with both hands and a map.

Except the 50 people who bought it at 60 won't buy it again at $40 and neither will buy it again at $30, and also does the calculation take into account people who would've otherwise bought it at launch end up never buying it because they lost interest or the idea of buying the game just left their mind over time

okay so the equation looks more like this(factoring in the people that already bought it)


60*50=3000
100-50=50 so
50*40= 2000
200-100=100
100*30=3000

In the end 8000

I like how games are priced, why because $60 dollars isn't the least a game can cost, it's the most for the most part. Yeah $60 is high but no ones forcing you to pay it, I never have and I game regularly.

Yes but the success of a game is deemed by it's slaes when it costs $60 early on. And like I said, people will lose interest and not buy the game they that would've bought if it were released at a lower price, and I feel $60 is enough to get people to pessimistically decide that they're just not getting the game period.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Yep, games are a luxury. Being a luxury item has never exempted anything from scrutiny, however.

I think the prices should come down. Take a page from Wal-Mart or McDonald's; low margin, high volume. Problem is, someone has to identify if the demand for that volume exists. If you sell games at half their current price, are twice as many people actually going to buy them?

I still disagree with the last video, about digital sales being cheaper. I think they should all be cheaper, but only making digital cheaper means anyone who can't afford the storage space or connection still aren't buying the game.

 

[Freechoice]

Great video. Only question: do I get a writing credit?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.374224-Games-are-a-luxury-item-So

I kid, but that is two weeks in a row where the topic has come straight from the forums. A special thanks line in the credits might be a good idea for videos like that.

Don't get your hopes up. In the years that I've been here, I've posted several topics hours, even days before they posted them as news and yet I've never once received credit. I even brought it up a time or two and said they have no obligation to do so etc.

I read this and then looked at your avatar. It fits very well. I think I posted in that guy's thread.

 

[Phlakes]

I've only seen that argument used against piracy, not just prices. But yeah, if people try to use it to excuse games being overpriced, that's bullshit.

 

[lord.jeff]

I wonder if someone has explained this to the game developers/publishers.

Sell games at 60 dollars, which 50 people can afford, and you make 3000 dollars.

Sell games at 40 dollars, which 100 people can afford, and you make 4000 dollars.

Sell games at 30 dollars, which 200 people can afford, and you make 6000 dollars.

Now, admittedly, this hinges on your game being able to sell enough copies to make up for the costs, but to me, at least, this seems like a better model than pricing yourself out of the market could ever be.

Sell at 60, 50 purchase, 3000.
Reduce price 3 months later 100 purchase, 4000 dollars.
Reduce price 6 months later 200 purchase, 6000 dollars.

13,000 dollars.

The trick is to know the target pool of potential purchasers on the front end, then treat that data with a first order ordinary differential to calculate the optimization. It's sorta' sad when I end up working these problems on my lunch break for the "marketing people", who couldn't find their asses with both hands and a map.

Except the 50 people who bought it at 60 won't buy it again at $40 and neither will buy it again at $30, and also does the calculation take into account people who would've otherwise bought it at launch end up never buying it because they lost interest or the idea of buying the game just left their mind over time

okay so the equation looks more like this(factoring in the people that already bought it)


60*50=3000
100-50=50 so
50*40= 2000
200-100=100
100*30=3000

In the end 8000

I like how games are priced, why because $60 dollars isn't the least a game can cost, it's the most for the most part. Yeah $60 is high but no ones forcing you to pay it, I never have and I game regularly.

Yes but the success of a game is deemed by it's slaes when it costs $60 early on. And like I said, people will lose interest and not buy the game they that would've bought if it were released at a lower price, and I feel $60 is enough to get people to pessimistically decide that they're just not getting the game period.

Some people do, that's something that's impossible to prove if enough forget about a game to lose money, so I'll stick with the fact that the current model works for the companies and the patient. Also you have to look at the other side of the open market pricing sure some games will get priced under $60 but what of games like Zelda, Call of Duty, and Elder Scroll, that have a large enough fan base to say are games worth $100+ and get away with it.

 

[maninahat]

Games pricing is part of an issue of what economists call "Economic surplus" - basically, to get the maximum profit possible, businesses have to decide how much their product should cost. It's a balancing act - too expensive and not enough people will be willing or able to pay for it, too cheap and the devs won't reap the maximum profit.

So when it comes to games, the devs pick those prices based on how much profit they expect to turn from it. That is why they can get away with charging higher prices for Skyrim or COD - because they know that there are enough people willing to part with the extra cash to justify the higher price. You can't convince a business to go cheaper unless you and everyone else stop buying the games. Then they are basically forced to.

 

[WindKnight]

One point was left out. They don't buy it, they pirate it. Down a sale. +1 to the torrent feed.

I'm poor. I have never pirated a game. Waited till the price has fallen, trawled the bargain bins, taken advantage of a sale or bought second hand, but I have never pirated a game.

 

[maninahat]

Binding of Isaac cost $5 new. So far I got 30 hours into it and I bet I'll get at least 10 more. The expansion comes out in two weeks costing $3. I'll probably get at least another 20 hours from the expansion.

Dungeons of Dredmor cost $5 new and between that and the $3 expansion I dropped maybe 140 hours.

Legend of Grimrock cost $15 which is about as much as I'll spend. So far 10 hours in and still liking it.

Torchlight 2 is $20 and I'll probably wait until december to get it on steam xmas sale for less.

Sorry big publishers, there are too many other options for me to even consider $60 and then nickle-and-dime DLC for anything. Screw all "AAA" games and the publishers they rode in on. I won't miss a damn thing in my life if I never play another game with photorealistic grass again.

That's good for you, really it is, but ever considered that some people don't like playing these cheap games?

How could anyone not like a game just because the price is low? That makes no sense.

The same reason that some people want to watch something other than cut price indie flicks and b-movies. Sometimes people want to watch big expensive films with high profile stars and glossy set pieces or special effects. Cut price games are limited a lot by their smaller budgets - which is why there are so many damn 2D, indie platformers these days. Sure, you may get some very good $5 games, but a cheap title will struggle to create something as pretty, atmospheric, and technically proficient as, say, LA Noire. Cheap titles can't deliver everything.

 

[lord.jeff]

Binding of Isaac cost $5 new. So far I got 30 hours into it and I bet I'll get at least 10 more. The expansion comes out in two weeks costing $3. I'll probably get at least another 20 hours from the expansion.

Dungeons of Dredmor cost $5 new and between that and the $3 expansion I dropped maybe 140 hours.

Legend of Grimrock cost $15 which is about as much as I'll spend. So far 10 hours in and still liking it.

Torchlight 2 is $20 and I'll probably wait until december to get it on steam xmas sale for less.

Sorry big publishers, there are too many other options for me to even consider $60 and then nickle-and-dime DLC for anything. Screw all "AAA" games and the publishers they rode in on. I won't miss a damn thing in my life if I never play another game with photorealistic grass again.

That's good for you, really it is, but ever considered that some people don't like playing these cheap games?

How could anyone not like a game just because the price is low? That makes no sense.

The same reason that some people want to watch something other than cut price indie flicks and b-movies. Sometimes people want to watch big expensive films with high profile stars and glossy set pieces or special effects. Cut price games are limited a lot by their smaller budgets - which is why there are so many damn 2D, indie platformers these days. Sure, you may get some very good $5 games, but a cheap title will struggle to create something as pretty, atmospheric, and technically proficient as, say, LA Noire. Cheap titles can't deliver everything.

Cheap games do deliver example LA Noire is 19.96 on amazon.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Trust me, I was poor my entire fucking childhood, I know what it feels like, but I never expected much more than books, pencils and paper, and toy cars off my parents, even in my teen years.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Hm, there's one thing... Most luxury goods, those that define the meaning of "luxury" goods - such as luxury cars and airplanes, designer clothing, limited editions of gadgets with gold and diamonds as decorations, jewelery etc.... This stuff usually not expected to sell many millions of copies. Now, if games were priced at at least $500-1000 and not mass produced, I would say they'd be luxury goods.
What I'm trying to tell is that games are unessential goods, but not exactly luxury. The difference is - when it comes to luxury goods price doesn't matter. Even more, the higher the price the better the good is, as they're supposed to reflect owner's wealth. So when someone buys a limited edition golden phone this person likely wouldn't care if he pays 500% the cost, it would actually be welcome - that phone will show others that this person can afford such expensive stuff. The big difference in case of the games is that being unessential yet not luxury they're being subject to scrutiny when it comes to their worth. As in, people actually consider if, say, NeverDead is worth $60 price when it comes to entertainment. They consider how it stacks against other entertainment options.
When you buy a limited edition golden watch people will say "well, you're a really wealthy man". And if you buy Bodycount for $60 people will say "wow, you're an idiot will buy any turd if someone tells him it's good".

 

[Nurb]

The game industry is too stupid and greedy to make smart decisions in favor of consumers. Basically:
>tell customers not to buy their product over legitimate complaints
>claim video games are a luxury and non-essential to avoid changing practices
>watch profits take a hit when people don't spend what's expected
>blame used games and piracy over poor sales of shitty sequels and games
>treat customers with even less regard
>use more online requirements that will make games unplabyable in 5-20 years without servers online.

They'll never get it, and they'll always blame used games and piracy because admiting problems are their own is bad for shareholders meetings and quarterly reports.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

I think going over this thread, it has become really obvious to me that what's causing so many of the troubles with modern AAA gaming is the absurd standards that publishers enact (I know that seems obvious, bear with me).

From what I can see, although publishers slowly and eventually lower the prices of new games to accommodate incrementally lower-income markets, this doesn't matter in the big picture as they consider the failure/success of a game and its developer within the first week-month of sales. Hell, entire studios have been canned due to a low number of pre-order and first week sales!

It almost creates the perception that the only way to support the developers is to pre-order or buy it within the first month at $60. This is bizarro logic by the publishers where they're considering a $20-40 new game sale to reflect the value of the game the developer made, not the fact that some people can only find the purchase financially feasible at that price point. IMHO, they could do the whole industry a favor by not acting so "do or die" on the immediate and highest initial bang and consider the figures for awhile as they reach the wider consumer base through price drops.

Concerning the video game crash of the 80s, a main contributor to the problem was the lack of widespread internet and magazines/other media dedicated solely to the medium. Back then, a game purchase was a gamble where you could only look at the box art, or see if it was a license you already enjoyed (Star Wars, E.T.). Atari and others knew this, and did a lot of their planning based on the idea of "Well, millions of people saw E.T. in the cinema, so we can expect millions to see E.T. on the game box and buy it on that premise alone". Reviewers, magazines, and websites have done a lot to mitigate that problem (for better or worse), as crap shovelware is called out on it practically before its released.

Sorry for the wall of text, I suppose I had a lot to say about this : )

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

I think the point of this week's episode has been somewhat missed. I don't think he was really banging on so much about the price of games as he was the industry's bewilderment at people waiting to buy used or looking to get things on sale. I can see how Jim can complain so much about this - I too live on trade-in credit., but today's AAA publishers only see day-one sales on new games, and are utterly baffled as to why their game isn't selling as well as it could.

Yes, games are a luxury. I have entirely too many bills and rent to even think about getting most games on release. Diablo III comes out tonight and I've been looking forward to it for years. Do you think I'll be getting it at midnight? No. I'll be finishing some games I don't mind parting with and trading them in. Today's gaming market would tell me "fuck you, poor person! You'd best stick to your basic cable and old games." If publishers had their way, I wouldn't be able to do that.

The point is, times are tough and money is tight. The game industry is suffering right now and that's exactly why they are cracking down on used sales. It frustrates me, but part of me has to see why they are doing it. But I've always utilized trade credit, and every GameStop I go to is packed full of used games, so a whole lot of other people must be doing it too. Something has got to change between publishers and consumers, but something tells me next generation's games will be priced even higher than they are now.

 

[maninahat]

Binding of Isaac cost $5 new. So far I got 30 hours into it and I bet I'll get at least 10 more. The expansion comes out in two weeks costing $3. I'll probably get at least another 20 hours from the expansion.

Dungeons of Dredmor cost $5 new and between that and the $3 expansion I dropped maybe 140 hours.

Legend of Grimrock cost $15 which is about as much as I'll spend. So far 10 hours in and still liking it.

Torchlight 2 is $20 and I'll probably wait until december to get it on steam xmas sale for less.

Sorry big publishers, there are too many other options for me to even consider $60 and then nickle-and-dime DLC for anything. Screw all "AAA" games and the publishers they rode in on. I won't miss a damn thing in my life if I never play another game with photorealistic grass again.

That's good for you, really it is, but ever considered that some people don't like playing these cheap games?

How could anyone not like a game just because the price is low? That makes no sense.

The same reason that some people want to watch something other than cut price indie flicks and b-movies. Sometimes people want to watch big expensive films with high profile stars and glossy set pieces or special effects. Cut price games are limited a lot by their smaller budgets - which is why there are so many damn 2D, indie platformers these days. Sure, you may get some very good $5 games, but a cheap title will struggle to create something as pretty, atmospheric, and technically proficient as, say, LA Noire. Cheap titles can't deliver everything.

Cheap games do deliver example LA Noire is 19.96 on amazon.

Oh, that game that came out a year ago? Games devalue pretty quickly, as soon as the buzz dies down. I didn't realise you were counting them too.