Valve: If Steam Sales Didn't Work We Wouldn't Run Them

[Blade_125]

"Valve: If Steam Sales Didn't Work We Wouldn't Run Them"

Capitalism in a nut shell.

EA needs to stop crying. They took the same classes the valve employees did. They know how the market works, so they need to stop complaining that they can't fit their wallet in their pocket because it's too full of $100 bills and that their diamond shoes are too tight.

 

[JasonKaotic]

...Wait. EA criticized Valve's business practices? That... takes a special kind of balls I don't think anyone has ever witnessed before...

 

[Jowe]

while i agree with Valve on this id like to pont out that now Arma combined operations bundle is only 20 euros and add a free dayz mod to that and you get best survival horror game ever made. so go get that.

DayZ isn't horror, and you can (could? last week) buy it for cheaper on the bohemia interactive site £15 for me, the steam sale is for £20.

Sorry if you recently bought arma2

 

[Radoh]

I love that Valve is put into a position where they feel that they need to defend good customer relations and proper sales figures.
Truly, a bit of hilarity that is.

 

[Rednog]

And I really do think EA is correct on this point.

Except that apparently - if we are to trust Valve - it just doesn't work that way. He specifically mentioned it not cannibalizing sales, and quite frankly I'm inclined to believe him; he's got data, as opposed to the wild conjecture wielded by everyone else blathering about it.

But they don't have data on that, it is almost impossible to tell that kind of data, I mean how could you even begin to imagine how many people are forgoing buying a just released game when winter/summer sales are around the corner?

Their data is primarily from discounting their Left 4 Dead and Portal franchises, neither of those games went on a deep discount as fast as something like Max Payne 3 or Spec Ops: The Line. I would hazard a guess that it was at least a few months if not half a year or more before either one of those games was on discount. Of course the data is going to show that those games really ran their course of bringing in a slew of new sales, and it becomes the appropriate time to put in a sale, that's basic supply and demand.

The question is whether or not a game like Max Payne 3 suffered, when it was knocked down to -50% of like 3+ish weeks after launch, yes it sold a bunch of copies but you have to remember you now need to sell 2 copies to make up for that potential single full price copy. And the question remains whether or not steam is training consumers to not just wait like 5-6 months for a discount, but instead telling consumers hey why bother buying a game before our summer and winter sales, when you just have to wait a few days and the prices will be slashed immensely.

It's the same question that was brought up when a game like botinacula was released the same day on gog for $10, and thrown in an indie bundle for pay what you want. Does it teach gamers to not buy indie bundles on launch and instead just teach them to wait for bundles.

There is absolutely no data on something like this, it's all conjecture because you can't measure how much of a brand new games full price can/will be cannibalised by sales.

 

[Kargathia]

And I really do think EA is correct on this point.

Except that apparently - if we are to trust Valve - it just doesn't work that way. He specifically mentioned it not cannibalizing sales, and quite frankly I'm inclined to believe him; he's got data, as opposed to the wild conjecture wielded by everyone else blathering about it.

But they don't have data on that, it is almost impossible to tell that kind of data, I mean how could you even begin to imagine how many people are forgoing buying a just released game when winter/summer sales are around the corner?

Their data is primarily from discounting their Left 4 Dead and Portal franchises, neither of those games went on a deep discount as fast as something like Max Payne 3 or Spec Ops: The Line. I would hazard a guess that it was at least a few months if not half a year or more before either one of those games was on discount. Of course the data is going to show that those games really ran their course of bringing in a slew of new sales, and it becomes the appropriate time to put in a sale, that's basic supply and demand.

The question is whether or not a game like Max Payne 3 suffered, when it was knocked down to -50% of like 3+ish weeks after launch, yes it sold a bunch of copies but you have to remember you now need to sell 2 copies to make up for that potential single full price copy. And the question remains whether or not steam is training consumers to not just wait like 5-6 months for a discount, but instead telling consumers hey why bother buying a game before our summer and winter sales, when you just have to wait a few days and the prices will be slashed immensely.

It's the same question that was brought up when a game like botinacula was released the same day on gog for $10, and thrown in an indie bundle for pay what you want. Does it teach gamers to not buy indie bundles on launch and instead just teach them to wait for bundles.

There is absolutely no data on something like this, it's all conjecture because you can't measure how much of a brand new games full price can/will be cannibalised by sales.

I'm rather tired, so for the moment I'll keep my reply a bit on the terse side. If needs be I'll elaborate in the morning.

Anyhow, there are three holes in your theory of unpredictability: trends, different retail venues, and buying behaviour over an individual game's lifetime.

- The sales figures of a single game are not recorded in a vacuum - there is a certain expectancy as to how much a game will sell. If Steam sales cannibalised profit, then that wouldn't make a blip on the chart of an individual game, but it certainly would show up when comparing all games by all publishers for multiple years.

- Not everyone uses Steam, and even fewer buy exclusively from Steam. If sales cannibalised in a meaningful way, then one would expect to see significant dips in sales figures for specfic games during Steam sales. Also do keep in mind that of the major retailers Steam is by far the most hushed about its result, as it has no share-holders.

- The Steam guy brought up another - very interesting - point: they don't see a valley next to the hill. When even giving a popular game away during the day doesn't adjust the following day's sales to anything but "more", it is a pretty clear signal. If the sale cannibalised, then one would see a dip in sales immediately after the discount, as everyone who was waiting for it picked it up then.

Edit: and even taken cannibalising for granted, the sheer volume increase of units sold degrades it to a minor side-note at best. After all we're not talking about increases of 50%-100%, but literally in the thousands of percents. That would make for a very noticeable decline in overall sales.

 

[oldtaku]

...It's a steam key from amazon.
There is no other gaming client or physical media.

Well then, I lost out because I had no idea Amazon had it on sale, I guess. All my previous games from Amazon involved using their custom downloader. If they're just using Steam now then I'll start checking them again.

 

[Vigormortis]

Spec Ops: The Line hit $33 today... sold!

Well another $33 to Valve and 2K!

I honestly lost faith in the steam community when Spec Ops hit like #5 of top sellers on the North American client. Amazon had it for $25 and no one bought it. People are head of heals for steam that they'll willingly pay more to buy it directly from them than save a handful of money.

Amazon had a few copies of Spec Ops The Line for a few bucks cheaper than Steam did, and the entire Steam community didn't flock to Amazon for their purchase?

Oh man, the Steam community is so stupid!!

. . . . . . . .

Or maybe, Amazon had a few extra copies they were trying to clear out of inventory and, if no one was buying, they dropped the price that low in the hopes people would buy them.

By the way, I've looked at Amazon several times during the Steam Summer Sale. For the most part, many of the games (that I was looking for) from Amazon were the same price as, if not more expensive than, the ones on Steam. Even Spec Ops The Line. At this exact moment the only cheaper copy of Spec Ops, when compared to Steams version, is 3 copies of the ones printed to disc, each five dollars cheaper. Once again, indicating to me they're trying to clear inventory.

I've always laughed when someone says, "I found this one game temporarily on sale on <place/service> for cheaper than the listed price on Steam. Therefore, Steam is clearly not cheaper for any game."

Besides the obvious flawed logic, it's a statement that has almost unanimously never been true for me nor most people I know who use Steam.

I'm what one might call a "frugal" gamer. I, by choice not necessity, game on a budget. As such, I make it a point to look for places wherein I can get my gaming needs for the cheapest prices.

The one place that consistently has the lowest prices? Steam. I've saved far more money buying through Steam than I ever have from Amazon, GoG, or Gamestop.

I'm not saying Steam is always cheaper, but it is more often than not.

 

[Rednog]

Or maybe, Amazon had a few extra copies they were trying to clear out of inventory and, if no one was buying, they dropped the price that low in the hopes people would buy them.

Yea, that game that was out for a whole 5 days before the amazon sale, they were clearing their inventory for that game...uh huh.
And I'm sure their digital inventory really filled up those storage warehouses.

By the way, I've looked at Amazon several times during the Steam Summer Sale. For the most part, many of the games (that I was looking for) from Amazon were the same price as, if not more expensive than, the ones on Steam. Even Spec Ops The Line. At this exact moment the only cheaper copy of Spec Ops, when compared to Steams version, is 3 copies of the ones printed to disc, each five dollars cheaper. Once again, indicating to me they're trying to clear inventory.

Once again this was a sale for their digital distribution. Sales have a limited time, just like sales on steam. Amazon had it on sale for 2 weeks. So once again no they weren't clearing inventory they are just having a massive digital sale just like steam.

I've always laughed when someone says, "I found this one game temporarily on sale on <place/service> for cheaper than the listed price on Steam. Therefore, Steam is clearly not cheaper for any game."

Besides the obvious flawed logic, it's a statement that has almost unanimously never been true for me nor most people I know who use Steam.

I'm what one might call a "frugal" gamer. I, by choice not necessity, game on a budget. As such, I make it a point to look for places wherein I can get my gaming needs for the cheapest prices.

The one place that consistently has the lowest prices? Steam. I've saved far more money buying through Steam than I ever have from Amazon, GoG, or Gamestop.

I'm not saying Steam is always cheaper, but it is more often than not.

First of all I absolutely did not say anything along the lines of "I found this one game temporarily on sale on <place/service> for cheaper than the listed price on Steam. Therefore, Steam is clearly not cheaper for any game." So don't put words in my mouth.

Second, you're absolutely missing the point. You're praising steam because of it's sales, which just like you said are temporary; just like any other retailer. Because let's face hard facts, their every day price of games not on sale is pretty much the same damn price as everyone else because the developer/publisher set the price, not steam.

The point of my initial quote to the other guys was that it doesn't make sense that Spec Ops the line sold so many copies on steam when it was on a bigger discount just before on amazon. If you're a frugal gamer hunting down those sales you wouldn't be cheering because you paid more on steam than another place.

Also I'm curious if you can rattle off a few of these guys you claim that while on sale on Amazon were more expensive than the steam sale. Because off the top of my head I've seen Binary Domain cheaper at $9.99, ARMA II: CO for $19.99 and Saints Row 3 for $9.99 .

 

[FalloutJack]

"Valve: If Steam Sales Didn't Work We Wouldn't Run Them"

Capitalism in a nut shell.

EA needs to stop crying. They took the same classes the valve employees did. They know how the market works, so they need to stop complaining that they can't fit their wallet in their pocket because it's too full of $100 bills and that their diamond shoes are too tight.

Whoa whoa WHOA

Clearly, my friend, if EA had gone to the same classes as Steam, they wouldn't be IN this predicament.

Or rather, if they had attempted to pay attention to what business economics actually MEANS instead of screwing around with pencils, falling asleep in class, and generally making class tomfoolery, this wouldn't have happened. As it is, the evidence lies before us. They chose stinky business practices and are wetting their pants over it.

.....

Somebody go get the mop, please...

 

[Nantucket_v1legacy]

If its cheap and I have expressed an interest for it in the past - I will buy it.
I can't promise I will play every game I purchased in the Sale but one day... maybe when I retire or take long sick leave of work.

 

[Blade_125]

"Valve: If Steam Sales Didn't Work We Wouldn't Run Them"

Capitalism in a nut shell.

EA needs to stop crying. They took the same classes the valve employees did. They know how the market works, so they need to stop complaining that they can't fit their wallet in their pocket because it's too full of $100 bills and that their diamond shoes are too tight.

Whoa whoa WHOA

Clearly, my friend, if EA had gone to the same classes as Steam, they wouldn't be IN this predicament.

Or rather, if they had attempted to pay attention to what business economics actually MEANS instead of screwing around with pencils, falling asleep in class, and generally making class tomfoolery, this wouldn't have happened. As it is, the evidence lies before us. They chose stinky business practices and are wetting their pants over it.

.....

Somebody go get the mop, please...

Ha. That is a good arguement. Maybe EA went to the chicago school of business. This has Freidman economics written all over it. Espouse no government intervention and then make the government make sure that competition doesn't exist.

 

[4173]

All that said, while sales are good, I wonder how much money Valve cost themselves by running such a boring sale this year. I've spent much less this year, in part because there's no prize incentives (and so many flash deals being repeats of daily deals doesn't help either).

 

[artstsym]

I've seen this kind of behavior before actually...

Working in a garden center, you get used to having to put certain plants on sale (because live plants do not last very long, especially not in 100 degree heat), but there are several companies which we have contracts with which do not allow us to put their products on sale. In fact, come a certain date, we are contractually bound to pitch all of their remaining stock, whether or not it's perfectly sellable.

The companies with these contracts are all major, name brand labels. No one else "has as much to lose" (nor could they get away with such nonsense). This kind of backwards thinking is really everywhere.

 

[Atmos Duality]

"Valve: If Steam Sales Didn't Work We Wouldn't Run Them"

Capitalism in a nut shell.

Economics, not Capitalism.
There are many ways to be a Capitalist, and this is just a case of two different Capitalists trying two different strategies.

Keep in mind: 5 years ago EA had a positively enormous stock price and market share even compared to their biggest competitors. They think that their strategy of milking their customer for as hard as they can will still work now.

But more specifically, they refuse to acknowledge how economics is beating them at their own game. Steam periodically offers better prices (arguably the best legal prices), and their success can be primarily attributed to pricing closer to the marginal cost.

Well, that and their service doesn't suck.

EDIT: Huh. FalloutJack actually responded like this first.
Ninja'd.

 

[dnazeri]

EA = joke. Seriously the only thing keeping them alive is a dim-witted fan base that is content with buying the same game every year.

 

[Goofguy]

EA is just upset they didn't think of it first. They would also have executed such a thing poorly and claimed success regardless.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

I'm not a fan of Origin, but fuck Steam.

The day it was required to run hardcopies of games like Fallout: New Vegas is the day I began to lose faith that I can continue using my computer as my main video gaming platform.

 

[Britisheagle]

So EA is more money orientated than Steam, I'm not really surprised by this data. Personally I love Steam sales, my bank account does't.