Jimquisition: Videogames Are A Luxury

[Shjade]

You will most likely be able to play Diablo3 offline, just with out muliplayer functions.

Unless you can point to a source saying they plan to alter D3 in the future to make this possible, I'm going to assume you're saying this out of optimism rather than likelihood.

 

[Treblaine]

Game developers: "Games are too expensive, except for my game..."

Gaben: "Team Fortress 2 is Free, as will DOTA2, oh and here's a Steam Sale with 50% games that came out only 6 months ago."

Game Developers: "heeb heeeeb haaaay ah what now??!?"

HiRez Studios: "Hey! Check out our free to play Tribes Ascend"

Game Developers: "Well, Those are just a few rare exampl..."

League of Legends
Planetside 2
Hawken
ShootMania: Storm
Mechwarrior: Online
Dust 514
Reign of Thunder
Blacklight Retribution

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

As much as anyone here might like to think there will be a "crash", or that the greedy game publishers will suddenly come to their senses and see the err of their ways, the truth is, Diablo III just broke the record of pre-ordered sales, so NO, game sales are not in the slightest bit hurt by high prices. Maybe there haven't been as many "must-have" releases as of late compared to the Skyrim and ME3 launches, but the ones that are supposedly hype-worthy will still sell at prices deemed appropriate.

What other market environment, other than rabid fandom, would a company be daring enough to try the crazy DRM implementation, DLC bullsh!t and everything else they are doing if they had the slightest doubt in success. So, nice call guys, but I have the feeling gaming will go further into the "luxury" category rather than come out of it.

I don't think so. What we are seeing now is a larger range of price tags appearing in the market. AAA titles are down, but a large amount of smaller companies seem to be grabbing dough and making a decent profit in this new era. This is just me observing the PC market, but there has been an increase in cheaper, high quality titles on Steam and other distributors as of late. It seems that 20 dollars is the new 60, by making a decent budget game with most people are perfectly fine about, much like how movies are produced now.

AAA titles may indeed go into more of a luxary model, but I am theorizing that the rest of the market will go and appeal to a broader customer range with leaner price tags.

That's an interesting point actually, I get kind of caught up in the shitty things happening in the industry I tend to overlook some of the good, or at least hopeful. It would be good to see if they don't get steamrolled and actually make a living, starting up new genres and creative, daring ideas, instead of going into the saturated genres that already exist. And not being subjected to the crazy policies of EA, Ubisoft and the like.

Hopefully the climate doesn't force this kind of outcome, I'd like to see more evolution into great IP's such as CD Projekt, and I'd like to see more console support. That would definitely level the field a bit, but no doubt the giants will continue doing what they're doing as long as it keeps making tons of cash.

 

[Comando96]

OK... as a guy studying economics (fun, fun) I'll just leave this here.

Now, the video games industry is hedging its bets that the video games market has Inelastic Demand. This meaning that they hope they will gain more money:
Selling fewer products at higher prices - Graph on the Left
Instead of
Selling more products at lower prices - Graph on the Right

As video games have pretty much infinite supply in the long term (which is something economics breaks upon hearing as it is just an insane concept not meant to exist) they may as well fetch for as much money as they can get.

The method to do this? Sell a game at $60, and then allow that price to fall and fall and fall over the next months so that a year or two later the game is $10. Basically you are paying the higher prices in order to play the game a year in advance. However if you pick the game up a year later, then you pay a low price while the developer and publisher are still getting some money, rather than the Used games market (I'm a PC gamer and have little taste for it, possibly out of jealously).

Now in this scenario EVERYONE (but retailers) WIN! The consumer gets lower prices for older games, and the publishers make lots of money and can dent the used games market by LOWERING THEIR SELF ENTITLED PROFITS.

Sadly this won't happen as the publishers are mostly assholes

 

[williwod]

While the argument sounds convincing, I'm not sure i agree with it. Video Games Sales took little more than a miniscule dent in 2008 during the Global Financial Crisis, the one time you'd expect luxury goods to be eliminated from household budgets. I mean, sales actually increased during 2008:

http://au.gamespot.com/news/npd-2008-game-sales-reach-21-billion-wii-play-sells-528m-6203257

And as for the Decrease in Sales in the U.S during April, i doubt its due to people suddenly being unable to afford luxury goods such as games, seeing as prices haven't gone up from last year and the American Economy is relatively stable for now.

 

[Slayer_2]

Lower price is what encouraged me to purchase The Walking Dead, a game far better than most AAA titles these days. Many indie developers are finally realizing that lower price = more sales and less piracy. Usually enough that it balances out, and gamers are more happy, plus you have more people playing your game.

 

[Treblaine]

I do love how Jim falls into a pretty big logical fallacy here. Just because sales for 1 game is down, doesn't mean that sales for games as a whole is down.



Also: there are plenty of alternatives if you can't afford to buy a AAA game, for both console and PC. Like Diablo but can't afford it? How about Path of Exile (free to play) or Torchlight 2 (20$)? There's a swath of cheap games on the PSN and XboxLive Arcade that are well worth the modest investment.

Indeed I would make the arguement that gaming is at the cheapest it has ever been. There are so many options now if you're a gamer, that simply did not exist 10 years ago.

Uh, no. He gave a graphic example of the best selling hardcare game selling way less than one of the less successful games of last year, so it's not just the sudden dropoff of casual gamers from Nintendo basically giving up for the past 18 months.

Yes, it's great on PC, but Consoles are getting utterly shafted without lube. Almost every game has huge parts of its ready-to-go content that was supposed to be in the game gutted and sold back to you, it doesn't matter if it is on the disc or not, it was supposed to be there. Xbox Live Gold membership has gone up to $60 per year.

Here is the problem. Games didn't used to Cost $60. A relatively short time ago in the days of Playstation 2 and Original Xbox they were $50 at most and $40, there has not been significant inflation since then. The $60 price point for the "next generation" was accepted as the early adopters were generally more affluent to blow $400-600 on a new console and then even have a HDTV to use it, $60 seemed "worth it".

But that was when it was small install base. Now it has gone from about 10 Million to over 100 million current-gen console owners, only now they are asked to pay $60 at an absolute minimum for every game, new. Used games, that were supposed to be a pressure release valve has totally blown off the bolts, it was supposed to be a side business so the less affluent can get a hand in, instead it has become so well established the markdowns aren't that great but VITAL not just for those in dire straits but just those on average income. Average income has actually fallen since 2005 yet games cost 20-30% more than before.

Steam sales show how sales seem to be on an asymptomatic exponent with price. A small price cut hugely increases sales above the money lost from lower price point, while a price hike crushes sales sales nullifying the extra revenue per game.

PC has some good games for a low price but consoles do not. Sony and Microsoft won't let a game like Syndicate be released on XBLA or PSN for only $20, they say they must release it on disc where when everyone else had had their say with publishers too you know it is $60 minimum plus several dollars of DLC that should be on disc (or is and is arbitrarily locked).

It's interesting the Video Games crash in 1983 didn't really affect computer gaming, it continued along on its path of steady growth. I'm worried there may be a console gaming crash caused by all the bullshit on consoles and it being sparked by a totally botched next-generation transfer. It could get out of control very quickly and like musical chairs when the music stops a lot of people are going to find themselves without chairs.

 

[bjj hero]

Do you know what other things people keep buying that are too expensive for them? Cars and houses. There was a huge subprime mortgage crisis in the USA during the 00s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis) where lots of homeowners purchased outrageously expensive homes and then couldn't keep up the payments as the economy collapsed. But homes still sell. There are entire TV shows devoted to repo men where you can watch them repossess "luxury" cars from people who can't afford them. By now you'd think that every single American would have a vehicle and yet new cars continue to sell year after year, despite costing tens of thousands of dollars.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that current game prices are going to collapse the industry, but we'll definitely see it shrink if publishers continue to adhere to a $60 price point + DLC run wild. Gamers will focus on sure fire games that they really want and it's DLC in favour of indies, new IPs and less popular genres.

And regardless of whether or not prices have come down in relative terms, $80 for an NES game in the 80s and $60 for a PS3 game now is moot. The fact is that both prices are too high and a lot of customers have trouble or are uncomfortable paying either price. The industry was wrong then and it's wrong now. If it wants to stay healthy it's in it's own best interest to keep it's products affordable and in consumer's hands, not up on a shelf, unsold, waiting for "rich" people to buy them.

That being said, Sober Thal's comments were trollish and ignorant and I've got no problem calling out someone when they engage in such flamebaiting.

There is a difference between houses, cars and videogames. No matter how much homes and cars cost people will buy them as they are necessities. People will go into debt to own a house as they need somewhere to live, the same way you will go into debt for medical bills, food etc. Somethings you need. Games are not on that list. Houses get more and more expensive to the point where people cannot afford them and they are over priced, then prices come down.

Games are affordable, demonstrated by the millions and millions of people who buy games. As I said, the price of new titles has come down in real terms. If games were now £120 I think sales would nosedive so its hardly "moot". Games are more affordable now and interestingly more games are sold now. There is also a mix of price points for games so no one is excluded. Games are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them and they are selling pretty well at $60. You say the industry will shrink if the £60 price point doesnt change but its been there for a while and seems to be doing fine.

 

[FEichinger]

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.

Halving the price doubles the amount of sales you need. Wealth is spread hierarchically, though, so, the amount of people with a low disposable income is much larger than the amount of people with high disposable income. Thus, in theory, the lower price doesn't only yield twice the possible sales, but far more.
The thing in question here, to get this ironed out, is the demography, though. We really need to pull studies on that for once, not on the basis of people who already bought the games, but based on the people interested in the game to begin with.

That said, I'm gonna stay out of that whole "games are a luxury" thing ... Mainly because I didn't watch the video (as I really can't stand Jim sometimes, regardless of how reasonable he is).

 

[Living_Brain]

thank god, for Valve.
Giving basically two games in one for $20.
Portal 2

 

[JEBWrench]

Also: There are plenty of amazing titles on XboxLive and PSN. With some offering hundreds of hours of gameplay content

Case-in-point:

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/250137/minecraft-xbox-360-edition-sells-1-million-units-in-5-days/

Not to mention, Sniper Elite V2 sold 142,000 units in its first week alone - just on the XBox 360.

The Prototype 2 point was pretty much a shot in the dark that missed.

 

[Treblaine]

Uh, no. He gave a graphic example of the best selling hardcare game selling way less than one of the less successful games of last year, so it's not just the sudden dropoff of casual gamers from Nintendo basically giving up for the past 18 months.

Yes, it's great on PC, but Consoles are getting utterly shafted without lube. Almost every game has huge parts of its ready-to-go content that was supposed to be in the game gutted and sold back to you, it doesn't matter if it is on the disc or not, it was supposed to be there. Xbox Live Gold membership has gone up to $60 per year.

Here is the problem. Games didn't used to Cost $60. A relatively short time ago in the days of Playstation 2 and Original Xbox they were $50 at most and $40, there has not been significant inflation since then. The $60 price point for the "next generation" was accepted as the early adopters were generally more affluent to blow $400-600 on a new console and then even have a HDTV to use it, $60 seemed "worth it".

But that was when it was small install base. Now it has gone from about 10 Million to over 100 million current-gen console owners, only now they are asked to pay $60 at an absolute minimum for every game, new. Used games, that were supposed to be a pressure release valve has totally blown off the bolts, it was supposed to be a side business so the less affluent can get a hand in, instead it has become so well established the markdowns aren't that great but VITAL not just for those in dire straits but just those on average income. Average income has actually fallen since 2005 yet games cost 20-30% more than before.

Steam sales show how sales seem to be on an asymptomatic exponent with price. A small price cut hugely increases sales above the money lost from lower price point, while a price hike crushes sales sales nullifying the extra revenue per game.

PC has some good games for a low price but consoles do not. Sony and Microsoft won't let a game like Syndicate be released on XBLA or PSN for only $20, they say they must release it on disc where when everyone else had had their say with publishers too you know it is $60 minimum plus several dollars of DLC that should be on disc (or is and is arbitrarily locked).

It's interesting the Video Games crash in 1983 didn't really affect computer gaming, it continued along on its path of steady growth. I'm worried there may be a console gaming crash caused by all the bullshit on consoles and it being sparked by a totally botched next-generation transfer. It could get out of control very quickly and like musical chairs when the music stops a lot of people are going to find themselves without chairs.

Here's the fallacy: Correlation does not equal causation. Just because prototype 2 didn't sell all that well, doesn't mean that it's because games are too expensive. He also mentions that game sales for the month of April are down, but, like his other example, it's the same fallacy.

Also: There are plenty of amazing titles on XboxLive and PSN. With some offering hundreds of hours of gameplay content

That is a fallacy but it is not any that I used. I did not say that this correlation in itself IS causation, I made clear it was a small part in indicating it and it should be explained.

And I have explained it, how games are 20-30% more expensive, but average incomes have not become 20-30% higher. That is certainly a good case why they aren't selling so well, just because the $60 stuck with the relatively more affluent first-adopters doesn't mean it will still work with the wider audiences Xbox and PS3 are truing to reach to.

It is important to compare month to month as people spend different amounts at different times of the year (i.e. don't compare christmas tree sales of december with those of June)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18033328

There is a VERY significant drop that must be explained. What almost must be explained is the losses with companies like EA and THQ's dire straights, it seems Activision is making any reliable money on consoles with CoD. Everything developers and publishers are saying they are saying sales are not as high as they expect or want.

The FINANCIAL crisis hit in 2008, but a lot has been done to try to contain this but as collective debts rise slowly everyone is getting squeezed more and more. Food prices are up

Give me some examples from XBLA/PSN store that match games such as these for less than half (or even 1/3rd) the price of a console game:
-Trackmania 2: Canyon
-EYE Divine Cybermancy
-Magicka
-Hard Reset
-Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad
-Serious Sam 3

And of course not forgetting all these:
-Team Fortress 2 (free)
-Tribes Ascend (free)
-Blacklight Retribution (free)
-Global Agenda (free)
-League of Legends (free)
-Half Life 2 Deathmatch (free)
-Trackmania Nations Forever (free)
-Quake Live (free)

 

[Strazdas]

Plenty of great games exist cheaper than the newest AAA titles.

About one days worth of work, for minimal wage, can get you the money for a new AAA game. (Even in Australia)

Sales are low when 'so so' games are being released.

*yawn

Cry me a river.

I still think game prices are reasonable, and I expect them to rise in the next 5 years. I hope they will be worth it. Or perhaps... dare I say it... we have to wait until the game goes down in price before we buy them?!? OMG!!

its really funny when you use one of the most paying country (australia) as a reference to "poor people". and then claim that those, you know, 4 billion people who earn less than 500 dollars a month shuld cry you a river.

 

[Something Amyss]

You can find all kinds of glitches for NES games on the internet today but the vast majority of players never personally experienced these glitches.

And again, I have to call bull.

Use luxury cars then. It really doesn't matter. Quick search for a Jaguar XK topless car about $72 grand last year, now $84 grand this year. So about 12 grand inflation. 2010 was $65 grand, about 7 grand inflation. So, yeah, luxury items being expensive doesn't really change, even through an incredibly unstable period. There are plenty of budget games out there that are free or play as you play to be the "regular car" market in this day and age with XBLA or PSN or free-MMOs or other similar markets.

Luxury cars are supposed to be an elite item. If that was the plan the gaming industry had, they wouldn't be trying to streamline things for mass consumption. More analogy fail.

Again, I asked if he had solid proof of a working business model to keep AAA games where they are and that they'd make more money off lower prices.

No, you didn't ask, you outright dismissed him by saying he did not have one. Huge difference. In the future, keep in mind that your old posts are viewable by anyone with a clue.

So, what? Must I now state after every single sentence that this is my opinion or can I not leave that to context?

See, nobody said that. Please don't strawman me.

Could you throw some numbers around? Because books have gotten cheaper here in Canada with the parity of the dollar,

And that alone doesn't explain it?

Standard novels (paperback) only a few years ago listed at 5 or six US dollars and most ran around 400 pages. We're now paying 8-9 dollars for 300-350 page standard. There are always exceptions, especially epic fantasy or hot authors that are guaranteed to sell.

CDs & DVDs have been a stable pricing for awhile

1998-ish, when the RIAA was found guilty of price fixing and ordered to lower their prices, records averaged about 18 dollars US retail. 2008, about 22 retail. Now you can expect to pay around 25. This is why I primarily use digital or etailers. Amazon's music is usually eighteen MAX, and more often closer to 12-15 for a physical disc.

EDIT: To clarify, while Wal-Mart and the like are retailers, they heavily undercut most retail.

If you want to count Wal-Mart prices, they've still gone up steadily for the most part.

and you can only make production so efficient before you're only saving $2 off every million CDs and it's impossible to charge .0001 cent off every DVD or CD.

Yes, but since markup is the big portion and the increasing portion, that's still more or less moot.

Jeeze, what a shock.

You're the one who claimed otherwise. Please try and keep up.

Maybe because they're popular and people actually invested money into good distribution systems?

Except this is since Sony and Amazon entered the mainstream and made this a working model. Oh, and Apple. Can't forget the iTunes ebook store. But hey, blame it on infrastructure.

I know I can't really prove that, but it's food for thought.

So you're demanding facts from everyone else, but pulling arguments completely from your ass. Huh.

The point was that gamers are the only ones gripping about a digital future as unfair to them as a consumer market,

Already false.

yet music, e-books, movies and the like are all fine and dandy for some reason. So yes, actually, we are acting like a hive mind and for no damn good reason.

You mean ebooks, which offered relative freedom and a decent pricing model without attacking the used industry are okay when games which did the opposite are not? WHAT HYPOCRISY! Oh, wait.

And people STILL complain about ebooks.

Music had a fuckton of complaints until they developed a better model for it. Rather than, you know, punishing online consumers with extra hoops to jump through. That sort of demonstrates that whole model you were desperately seeking, but feel free to ignore it. People still ***** about digital music.

More importantly, the major wave of complaints didn't die down until the advent of DRM-free major distribution. iTunes going DRM free, Amazon MP3 starting up, and eMusic getting deals with the major labels for their music.

It's almost like music fans had the same problems up until they changed the model.

Movies? Just Ultraviolet alone is causing a shitstorm.

Have you ever visited an audiophile website? I'm just curious, because the bitching on one of them is proportionate to the gaming bitching on this one. Because that alone would seem to invalidate your point. There is no universal compliance outside of gaming or universal dissent within it.

 

[JEBWrench]

Music had a fuckton of complaints until they developed a better model for it. Rather than, you know, punishing online consumers with extra hoops to jump through. That sort of demonstrates that whole model you were desperately seeking, but feel free to ignore it. People still ***** about digital music.

More importantly, the major wave of complaints didn't die down until the advent of DRM-free major distribution. iTunes going DRM free, Amazon MP3 starting up, and eMusic getting deals with the major labels for their music.

It's almost like music fans had the same problems up until they changed the model.

While I generally don't side on the "games are too expensive" and the "pricing model is broken" side of things, I'm going to have to agree with this point here - newer models can be found and will be found eventually, and those are found by raising a ruckus.

Though personally I doubt there will be a change in model until the primary method of delivery is digital for AAA gaming.

 

[Treblaine]

Jesus Christ dude, try to have a reply that isn't like 4 pages long.

Just because sales for games are down, doesn't mean that it's because games are too expensive. You can cite DLC or whatever you want, there's still not enough evidence to support your claim.

oh and some XBL/PSN titles that are amazing:

-Bastion
-Minecraft
-Awesomenauts
-Castle Crashers
-Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet
-Journey
-Limbo
-The Walking Dead
-Dust 514 (free to play, coming soon)

This is just off the top of my head. It's also on top of the multitude of older games from previous generations that are available. On the PSN now there is pretty much every great playstation era game available for download.

Why? Why do you say there is no evidence game prices have a part in low sales?

There is a lot of evidence that price is a major factor, lets summarise:
-comparative game price compared to wage for this time in previous generation
-The increasing cost of living in recent years (food, fuel, etc)
-The complete consistent of $60 per game and near ubiquitous extra costs in DLC of removed content, online passes and more expensive XBL Gold

How can you so easily dismiss the problem with price? All these developers saying $60 is too much for a game, then making special pleading for their game.

As to the idea that console offers competitive games:

-Bastion, Castle Crashers, ITSP, Limbo and Awesomenauts are 2D games and quite linear. How are they comparable to Team Fortress 2?
-Minecraft: 360 has gotten the 2 year old version with so many features missing
-Journey is a full 3D game but it's hardly as varied as Tribes Ascend or Global Agenda
-The Walking dead is 400MS points ($8) for only one episode about 90 minutes long. Steam sells all the episodes together at $5 each.
-Dust 514: would be nice to see some gameplay of this game that isn't intermingled with any pre-rendered anything.

You have a very comprehensive list, I think this is as slim as the picking are. You can't do much on console without spending a lot of money or abusing the used games market to the Nth degree, in a way that is unsustainable for large parts of the user base.

If you are going to cite older console games from many years ago then the same goes doubly for PC.

For less than $5:
-Serious Sam HD
-Sega genesis classic Packs
-Team Fortress Classic
-Deathmatch Classic
-All the GOG.COM games
-Xcom Series

 

[mfeff]

It's not the same person, see above as to why.

Then you're assuming more people than the person you were quoting, which changes your sample size and thus your results considerably.

I whole heartily agree. Yet by using numbers from let's say Gamestop, which do track the number of a used game that are sold in any given interval of time, and uses the interest level to price the title accordingly it seems reasonable to "on some level" call something "hot" or "not". The hotter the unit, the quicker it cycles, the more transactions it generates is a decent metric to determine when and if the "new" version of the box should be reduced in price.

If it is reduced in price then it follows that the used game will be reduced in price as well.

So we are clear going forward in the discussion, and it's a good one, better than most I would say... is that the retailers buy the games in bulk on the front end.

1 million units, in and around 45-56 ish dollars depending on how the arrangement went. So if Gamestop or Shop-Mart or whatever wants to dump the price. They dump it right into what they paid for it. If they have blown through their inventory, maybe they rework the deal for X number of copies at a more advantageous price, although it (typically to my experience), has the reorder worked out before hand.

If we are talking Wally world, or Target... or KB, or Toys R' US, or Best-Buy with no real foothold in the used business, dropping the PP destroys the margin.

So to quickly address one issue is that a Gamestop has no real vested reward interest in reducing the PP on a new title unless it directly assist the used sales, which is where the profit margins are going to be.

The question then becomes, who "flinches first", the distributors, the publishers, the developers, or the audience?

The assumption as I see it here, is that there is in fact a pool of purchases at a lower PP just waiting to hand over some green. I tend to disagree and also posit that console purchasers, PC purchasers, used vs. new purchasers, and "expensive version" game purchasers, DLC purchasers are all in different pools which have overlap and flux considerably.

If one drops the price, how easily may the price be brought back up again? If it is a recession in market economy then supply side expectation is that the price reduction will be a temporary measure to capture demand. Chasing a PP all the way to the ground "if it is already collapsing" is contrary to any notion of "gathering all the nuts one can before the winter". If it is collapsing the one's who remain solvent survive and win, simply by not loosing.

There are still plenty of PC gamer's who feel 60 dollars is steep for a PC title. I do, and I find it curious as to why I have this attitude... considering that the water cooling setup I built cost more than the PC it sits on. Clearly, for me, it is not a "money" issue. There is something else going on... one that comes to mind.

-This comes back to another old grievance in that consoles where sold at a loss to the developer/publishers. The software was priced at around 60 dollars to recoup that loss over a unit life of 6-8 new titles sold over the course of the system (somewhere around 4-6 years.)

Clearly Acti-Blizzard has no vested interest or cost to recoup in my PC's... so why the price hike? Well because they could. I disagree certainly, and I have not bought any of their games since. People have though, so did it work? Did they make more off selling it higher than having of sold me a copy? I dunno, but I suspect at worst it broke even.

Price is a factor, no doubt. It could be lack of interest, same sameness, lower product quality, reused assets in sequels are excessive, hand held and phone market saturation. Dropping the price, and I will dip into a fallacy quickly, is to say "we do not believe that the value of our product is what it used to be".

A price drop will have to have a spin doctor to help it land. I suspect that the newer iterations of the PS3 and 360 will include larger HDD's, once digital distribution gets closer to reality for more of the audience, there will be a smooth reduction in price "at some point". That's just a guess, it's a maybe so maybe no deal. Although I feel stronger this is in response to "customer expectation" rather than a cash money on the table decision math.

Clearly Nintendo does not feel DD needs to be price adjusted to the box. So customer expectation is on the table and clearly, ignored for the most part... at the moment.

Also, the Torchlight series was created by former Blizzard developers. It's rather hard to argue that Torchlight 2 isn't an "authentic" clone of Diablo given that it's made by the people who made Diablo 2. To the contrary, it is THE Diablo clone.

Diablo III is the Diablo clone. TL2 is a clone as well, and it does share the same high contrast colors as WoW, the influence is clear. The intention as to what the target audience is also somewhat clear. In that light the offer for a year of WoW was not an accident. It was simply the smart move.

Diablo III gameplay is extremely tight, similar to that of SCII. Will Torchlight be in that same category? Comparing ArmA II to Battlefield 3, they are certainly similar but they are very different games. If we had a chance to sit down and play D3 and TL2 making a list as to which is what, and if the PP's reflect the production values I feel pretty confident that we could conclude some things. I suspect it will be that D3 is a little high, and TL2 is a little low. Then we could argue brand loyalty, system stability, online components, and other value added nuance.

For me, it is partly the price considering I would purchase a couple copies for use on multiple computers. If I am looking at 3 copies at 60 bucks that is a fairly high investment for some entertainment. Torchlight offers a similar experience (sorta) and at 20, it's one copy of D3... thing is I skipped D3 not because of the price, but because of it's always online component, and the rigmarole concerning a "pause" function. I don't like Acti-Blizzard, and come away not convinced.

20 bucks D3?... sure, but I don't see how anyone on supply side wins at that PP. Don't really like TL in general, but I am interested in Grim Dawn, as I liked the Titan Quest and expansion. Give me a pause in multiplayer, some alt-tab functionality, my Santa list is satisfied.

It's one of those cases where I couldn't shrug indifferently enough.

Will some people buy both? Sure, that always happens. But the tendency for gamers is to buy one over another, and if Torchlight 2 is offering people a smaller price window, players newer to the genre will reach for it rather than the high price of entry for Diablo 3.

Same style game does not make it the same game. If the audience is sufficiently convinced that one is better than the other, regardless of the truth of it, then the marketing works. Marketing is expensive and that cost if passed back into the price point. In this sense it is similar to how a luxury car is marketed. It's probably a little better, but not 3x better. You know that, I know that, but the general audience may or may not know that.

But players create new material for their favorite PC titles all the time. Mods are not something unique to Skyrim and I'm not entirely sure what gave you that impression.

Again, cool story. Having of been on plenty of mod teams since the Playstation was new, I would agree. That being said PC gamer wasn't running articles about these mods on a regular basis like they do now. It's not "my" impression, but the one that is carefully marketed to an audience. Steam works is an exceptionally powerful tool that makes mods very easy to work with. If I were to mention something that utilized a compiler or a values list from "back in the day", it was extremely inaccessible to the average Joe. Skyrim by it's design allows for a plug and play mod. That's important. ArmA II Day Z, in contrast is "fiddly" at best.

Also, the problem with this logic is that there are plenty of competitors that released months, even years prior to Skyrim that now sell for less than it does. Sooner or later, it has to bring the price down to stay competitive. What's uncertain is how soon.

What is the percentage of people that care though? I don't hear people saying Skyrim is "like" Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, I hear people saying Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning is "like" Skyrim. It's an important distinction. When Jim run's a video talking about how Skyrim is the "total package", he perhaps inadvertently, just made it's price higher for longer. It's interest levels, these are indirectly accessible by the very metrics I mention at the top of this post. Now that all said, a website such as this generates it's revenue through advertisement, those cost are built into the PP of the game widget, and we are back in the cycle. Is Jim willing to take less money per show? Who flinches first?

I'm not sure what other data you require. Video game sales are down. Significantly, in fact. And it's not just last month, it's starting to become a trend. Jim highlights this simple fact in his video. It's very clear that if sales are down that much, then SOMETHING needs to be changed to reverse the trend. You can argue all you like about the causes or the ways to reverse this trend, we may or may not agree. But you most certainly cannot possibly hope to argue that the trend doesn't exist at all when the evidence clearly indicates that sales have dropped.

Not going to argue with that. Clearly sales are down. I didn't come into this thinking that they weren't. Thing is if a unit such as the collectors edition of Guild Wars 2, retail $150 dollars, with an E-bay resale of $200-230, and it is sold out... CLEARLY the market will support a high price point unit, bundled with some DLC and a plastic toy. If the director of EA sports is saying 60 dollars and a 20 dollar DLC for a particular title is working, clearly it is working. Now sales are down, but how does that reflect in the earnings statement?

As Paul Tassi says in the article, it's an aging system and it is predictable, it has a pattern, no where in this article did I see it mentioned that the price gate was too high. Let's see, Micro$lop has it's system marked down... reading further... mentions DRM and DLC, I cited that as my own personal reasons... before reading this article... so spot on... nope... no price gate on game widgets... help me out here?

Heck, I'll go ahead and call it now: we'll see slightly higher sales in May, but almost entirely due to Diablo 3's release.

Get rid of the always on DRM and Pay-to-Win scheme... offer pause functionality in multiplayer, and it would of been even better... at least 3 units better. Cause I would of bought the shit...

Math teacher, actually.

-snip

As the ninja turtle once said... "nice to meet a fellow chucker"... not a teacher but a love of math all the same.

The difference between marketing approaches or even business management approaches and micro/macro economic studies are considerable. Again I approach the issue "like" a topology problem... snarky response though... I like it!

A straight question... if you and I where in business together do you think that I would do everything in my mathematical power, including consulting yourself, to maximize our earnings potential?

Our disagreement seems to be one of a decision... lower the cost or not. I do not think that cost is the problem. I think dropping the price is a band-aide to a deeper issue. I do not think that a price drop is sustainable, and could have detrimental effects in the long run. I think there are better roads to take to build products around what customers want, and not what someone wants to sell. I think sequels should add features and not delete them. So on and so forth.

I do not know the market pool. I have not the first clue as to what has skewed and what hasn't. I also posited above that price dumping a game like Skyrim may "in fact" not even be possible due to how contracts are structured. This is the data I would need to work the issue. No data, speculation land. Can't even make an informed guess.

It is the way it is because it is the way it is.

This is the sort of thinking that has led the developers to record losses in the past month, and a significant drop in overall sales. "Our model seems to work so let's keep using it". But it's *not* working if your sales are dropping, is it? Something clearly needs to be changed.

It lead to a drop in sales, not "necessarily" revenue. Reduce game development overhead, mitigate advertising cost, increase unit price. Bang, back in the cheddar. The most expensive car on the lot, is the most profitable (typically), and it sells the least number of units (typically).

I mean really, what came out in April? Name a couple games and we can discuss the merits of each one, and or any subsequent backlash they each had. Where talking new, so it of course, must be a new release.

Nope. You seem to forget that common sense isn't that common. We're in a weaker economy than we were last decade with more families in financial strains than ever before, yet the prices are higher than ever. This is obviously not a model that should work, and it won't continue to work. Or, if it does, we might get to bear witness to the next big crash.

Here's hoping the government won't bail out the video game industry too.

These are very valid observations.

The word of the day is Luxury.

This word was "art", but it has changed... even this follows a pattern.

Now, try as I might, I am reminded... daily that common sense isn't that common... and a lot of other things that you or I may take for granted are not common. We are the exception and not the rule.

Looks like inflation to me, direct inflation. That someone should have access to a particular form of entertainment at an affordable price is suspect. There are "plenty" of cheap games. Yet, it is the "speculative" games that are being discussed in the round about way. If products go into a recessive state and one is still at one with earnings power then one is making more money than ever before, in the face of reduced sales.

It's a staring contest. Best part is, software is akin to printing money. Unfortunately it tends to have the same effect as printing money.