pre-order, why?

[MysticSlayer]

You want, or can only reasonably get, a physical copy, and the game is expected to be available in limited quantities or popular enough to sell out in some places on day one. By "reasonably get", I mostly am talking about the fact that some people don't have good enough Internet to download most modern games.

Various games and companies will also run some preorder bonuses, which provides some financial incentive to preorder.

Normally, I'd imagine people preorder if they plan on getting the game Day 1 already. Unless I'm mistaken, there's generally a way to back out if the game turns out to be awful, such as refunds (Origin, Steam, and GOG all offer them) or cancelling the preorder.

 

[NPC009]

snip

For a start, obviously in this example you'd both A - be paying the full price as a pre-order and B - Only be purchasing games you know you're going to get day 1, regardless.

But largely there seems to be a lot of confusion between budgeting and saving being expressed here. And likely a perspective where no other people are in the loop for decisions about money. In this example, I can assure you that Jim's wife has no problem with him spending that much on games staggered over 6 months. But it absolutely it isn't going to fly to spend that same amount in 1 month. And if you have any experience in the field, its not about whether it can be afforded, its whether it fits in the budget and the joint decisions they make on spending on luxuries.

You're still not making much sense. All you did was give an example of two people who aren't very smart when it comes to money.

Budgetting does not mean there's x amount a month to spend that month. It means there's x amount set aside for when it's needed. For instance, it's smart to set aside some money each month as part of a buffer fund in case your washing machine, computer or other important but expensive object needs to be suddenly replaced. This does not mean you spend $100 a month on washing machines and computers and so on.

Another example: it's smart to budget for clothes. However, setting $50 aside each month does not have to mean spending $50 each month. Some people do prefer to go clothes shopping every few weeks to check all the new collections and buy inexpensive items here and there, others rather go only a few times a year and want to have $150 to spend on an amazing winter coat.

Now, back to Jim and his wife. If Jim's wife is fine with him spending $100 a month on games, she should be fine with him spending $1200 a year on games. Atleast, that's what common sense dictates. Now, of course it would be bad for Jim to spend $1200 he doesn't have at the moment and his wife should be worried and angry if he did something like that. That's were setting money aside comes in. What Jim could do, is budget for those expensive months and spend much less during other months. If his wife is smart, she's doing the same for her hobby.

 

[Elijin]

At this point I shrug and assume you haven't ever really been ahead of your bills very far, since you don't seem to understand the difference between having an amount budgeted for luxuries on a regular basis vs saving up or setting aside money.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

I pre-order when reviews have come in at least half a week early and I am planning to get the game physically. So I really don't pre-order, more of an early day one purchase.

 

[NPC009]

At this point I shrug and assume you haven't ever really been ahead of your bills very far, since you don't seem to understand the difference between having an amount budgeted for luxuries on a regular basis vs saving up or setting aside money.

You are terrible at assuming things. Also, I'm not entirely sure you understand what budgeting actually is.

I have a irregular income and on average, I don't make all that much, but I do have a buffer fund large enough to, for instance, cover rent for an entire year. Aside from that safety cushion (which is only meant for 'needs'), I also have some money set aside for 'wants'. For instance, I go to two anime conventions a year. This is something I know and prepare for in advance. Of course, that's my way of budgeting (and I'm doing fine financially, thank you very much). Other people might prefer The 60% Solution or another guidelines. Some need to micromanage themselves, others are fine on auto-pilot.

In any case, budgeting is not something only people with a small income should do. Budgeting is a means to be aware of your income and expenses, and balance them in such a way that there's money left for a rainy day. Budgets are meant to be flexible, because life isn't always easy to predict and you will need to reallocate funds at points. Savings are a result of proper budgetting. In fact, personal budgets should include a savings category. If you have an expensive hobby or one that involves irregular spending, it may be a good idea to make a seperate savings category for it. That's what budgeting is.

 

[Elijin]

See, you say all that, yet still seem to directly contradict your understanding by....every other argument you've made.

If the theoretical person understands their income, and their lifestyle and budgets they will spend 100 on frivolous luxury goods every month, then....they can? You kept talking about how this means there isn't money when its needed for emergencies, etc etc. You got the comment you got because you were so deadest on being contrary that you argued a false point.

Also you show a poor grasp on money when you say if someone spends 1200 spaced over a year, that's not different than spending 1200 in one lump. And a lesser grasp on relationships, when you don't get why a partner might be okay with a small purchase regularly, but annoyed with a larger purchase or series of purchases in a short time.

And if you felt offended about people making judgements about your finances, perhaps you should stop going around making haughty comments about how people are bad with money, because you are failing to grasp a concept.

 

[NPC009]

See, you say all that, yet still seem to directly contradict your understanding by....every other argument you've made.

If the theoretical person understands their income, and their lifestyle and budgets they will spend 100 on frivolous luxury goods every month, then....they can? You kept talking about how this means there isn't money when its needed for emergencies, etc etc. You got the comment you got because you were so deadest on being contrary that you argued a false point.

How was my point false? Budgets are meant to be flexible and tying money down months in advance takes away some of that flexibility. You don't tie money down unless there are clear advantages. (Signicicant discounts, not being able to get object otherwise.)

Also you show a poor grasp on money when you say if someone spends 1200 spaced over a year, that's not different than spending 1200 in one lump. And a lesser grasp on relationships, when you don't get why a partner might be okay with a small purchase regularly, but annoyed with a larger purchase or series of purchases in a short time.

Can you do math? As long as you actually have it, that 1200 is 1200, whether you spread it out or not. (Actually, that 1200 may be slightly more than 1200 if you saved it up in a savings account.)

If the partner sees it differently then, I'm sorry, the partner isn't very smart when it comes to money. Of course, there may also be a trust issue or a difference in opinion, but that's not something that's actually solved by spending that 1200 slightly differently. It's solved through communication.

Also, I don't know how much you know about relationships, but it's not uncommon for one or both parties to have hobbies that involve irregular spending. For instance, maintainance of a motor cycle isn't evenly spread out over the months. Or, bringing it back to gaming, a new console or PC hardware upgrades can be expensive. Smart couples budget for that and communicate honestly about what their income allows and what they're personally okay with.

And if you felt offended about people making judgements about your finances, perhaps you should stop going around making haughty comments about how people are bad with money, because you are failing to grasp a concept.

But no matter how you look at it, your example doesn't have anything to do with being smart with money or budgeting, it's all about tricking your partner into believing you're spending less then you actually are. It's a bad example of... I don't know what you're trying to explain. Maybe I would grasp it if you illustrated your concept with a better example.

 

[wings012]

For some games, my decision is made already and if paying for it early gets me 15% off and some digital goodies - eh why not. Was going to buy it anyway. Some games also allow you to preload, so in that case buying it a day early isn't so bad. So the game is ready to play when it unlocks.

Otherwise preordering digital games is a pretty pointless thing to do. If you want a physical copy and you're afraid of limited stock, yeah sure go ahead. I pre-order figures up to half a month in advance, though I don't have to pay for those until the thing is ready to ship.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Minor bonuses for preordering when I plan to get the game anyways. What's the downside if I plan to get it D1 or close to D1 anyways?

 

[Weaver]

I'll pre-order on steam a few hours before the game releases if i plan on buying it right away anyways. Usually some early reviews will already be out, and if it's broken or i hate it i can just refund if i have less than 2 hours of play. Now-a-days it's basically a 0 risk venture on steam.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

The last game I pre-ordered was Dragon Ball: Extreme Butoden and I did this for two distinct reasons.
1 - I didn't see it as a game that many places would stock which, in hindsight, was stupid because it's a Dragon Ball Z game made by the people who did Guilty Gear and Blazblue.

2 - It came with a free digital download of Dragon Ball Z: Super Butoden 2 which hasn't otherwise been released in the US.

When it comes to pre-orders in general, I don't see the point in pre-ordering games at all. At this point, it seems like games are almost always launched as a 0.8 or 0.9 rather than a true version 1.0 and they remain that way for the first month or two on the market (unless they're really bad off at launch). Most games, especially big games, are always launched en-mass so supply is never an issue. The only time supply becomes an issue is when it comes to Nintendo games and certain games by Japanese developers (your Disgaea, your Shin Megami Tensei, etc). Niche games might be harder to find out and about but places like Amazon or playasia can generally be trusted to have what you're looking for. Finally there's digital distribution which literally have an infinite supply of what you're looking for until the publisher decides it can't stock that product anymore.

I just doing see the point in pre-ordering a game...unless of course they offer something really extraordinary.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Well, before both Steam took off and Australian internet speeds and connection stability stopped sucking big fat dicks, pre-ordering (or as I call it, lay by) was a way to confirm I would get a copy of that game since scarcity is a thing, especially with Pokemon games and the World of Warcraft collector editions. Doing so in this manner also allowed me to get a greater quantity of games since I could stagger out paying for them. Plus you know if the early reviews are shit, as they were for Aliens: Colonial Marines for example, you go in and you cancel your lay by/pre-order and get all your money back.

 

[BrawlMan]

I only pre-order if it's:

a.) a niche title.

b.) a game I know I am going to play and won't screw me over.

or

C.) Almost anything from Platinum Games.

Otherwise I wait for the reviews. And if the game does not tickle my fancy, I either won't buy it, wait for a price drop, or buy it used at a price drop.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I can understand if you want physical copy that you buy it physical, its still doesn't matter, why would you preorder it one year in advance? what the point? At worst you can preorder it a few week before it goes out to be sure you get your copy, but more than that, I just don't get why, at this point you are not even sure there not going to be delay and you spending money "now" for something in a year, isn't that kinda a waste

Budgeting? The 'Big' games come out in a flood during certain parts of the year. Some people might not be able to drop money on as many titles they'd like at once. But pre-ordering during the drought months when there isn't a lot of competition? Fits within budgets just fine.

Like, in AU a game typically cost between 80-100 bucks at launch. Lets say Joe wants 3 games that all launch in November (as is want to happen in the Christmas lead up), That's around $300. in a month/week/fortnight. That's a sum, spent on games. But Jim, Jim pre-ordered one game in July and one in August, then picked up on on the day of release. They both have the same games they wanted, but one of them has a much happier wallet.

And no 'Just get 1 game at a time' is not a rebuttal. You don't get to decide how someone else spends their leisure time and fun money.

This right here is really the only reason I see for pre-ordering any more. I'll use myself as another example.

In September-November this year here's the short list of games I'm interested in

1. Forza Horizon 3 (bought)
2. Gears of War 4 (Got an Nvidia code through a coworker)
3. Battlefield 1
4. Titanfall 2
5. Dishonored 2

Now I'm playing on PC so prices for the last 3 might be a little more flexible through key sellers, but let's say I had to spend $60 on each. $300 is a lot for some people and it might be easier for them to spend it over the year as opposed to all at once, especially with the holidays coming up and family/friends to think about budgeting for.

All that being said, I don't pre-order. Ever. I don't believe in supporting the pre-order centric market or gambling with my money for potentially broken ports. I'm only using my relevant list of games to illustrate a point. I won't be buying all these games right now not because I don't have the money, but because I don't have the kind of free time to devote to each one to feel like it was $60 well spent. I don't like having 3 or 4 games to rotate through at one time. I'd rather have 1-2 titles I play on the regular and I feel like I can sink serious time into. Right now that's Forza and Gears, and I'm trying to figure out whether BF1 or TF2 would be more worth my time.

 

[Cold Shiny]

There is no reason, people are just that dumb.