Why nobody should be complaining about launch-day prices

[surg3n]

Ok, so in the same regard that new clothes cost more when they are first available, well I can go to the same shop, 3 months later in January, and pick up that same item for probably 70% less, maybe 50% less.
So, in 3 months, I should be able to buy Borderlands2 for instance, and get it for half price. See that's where your ideal falls over - the part where games do not reduce in price unless they are pre-owned, sell badly, or there's some additional discount offer. Games don't just cost $60 when they're first released, they cost that for the entirity of the time that the publisher can get away with that price. It's only when a game is traded in that it get's afforded it's real value, that might be £10 less than retail, or it might be in the 3 games for £10 pile.

Personaly, I prefer to view it as paying per hour of entertainment. Now if a game gives me 40 hours of gameplay, then paying $60 for it, or £40 means I'm paying £1 per hour of gameplay, a good deal IMO. Now, if that game I just paid £40 for only lasts 8 hours, then that's £5 per hour of gameplay, a complete rip off - 5 times less value for money IMO. Why should I pay the same for 8 hours of gameplay, as I do for 40 hours of gameplay?
Moreover, games that offer 40 hours of gameplay tend to give more than that... sandbox games, side quests etc.

Thing is, it would make more sense to sell us 8 hours of gameplay for like £15/$20 - I wouldn't bother much about paying that, in fact that's the way it often is with the non-AAA titles. I bought Tony Hawks HD yesterday for £9, and there's probably 10 hours of gameplay in that at the most - I didn't mind paying a tenner for a little nostalgia trip. On the other hand I buy all the Elder Scroll games, and GTA games, and they give at least 40 hours of gameplay for their £40.

It's hard to excuse the absolute shite that sits on the same shelves at the same price as games that are head and shoulders above it in terms of quality and value. Are we not entitled to complain about that? - aren't consumers entitled to complain about what we spend our money on if we think it's unfair?

Now this might just be shit and drivel to you, but to me it means that I have no qualms about stealing software that steals from me, paying £40 for 8 hours of gameplay is unacceptable to me, especially not when we can buy 8 or 9 games with that money, or less, with the Humble Bundles and Steam sales, £40 can stretch a long way and provide better entertainment. Some games do not deserve their pricetag, some games are cheap, and simply illustrate publishers greed and obtuse attitude. I've had more fun playing Black Mesa for free, than any commercial game recently. Sept maybe DayZ, paying the awkward mid-range price of £25 for ARMA2 just to play DayZ is actually worth it, I spend a lot of time on that game, I'm glad I bought it, funny how it took a downloadable mod to make ARMA2 even remotely worthwhile.

Anyway, my point is that most games are not worth £40 compared to the handful of games each year that ARE worth £40. Publishers need to stop bitching about piracy and pre-owned sales and consider that maybe their game doesn't deserve that pricetag, maybe they should reduce their pricing and see if maybe people warm to their shitty mindless FPS clone of a clone of a clone.

 

[Savagezion]

You never really explain why $60 is fair though. By your logic, there is no reason to complain if games released as of tomorrow are $200 on release.

 

[Saregon]

The whole supply and demand thing kinda falls flat when it comes to most games as digital distrubution can have infinite supply at pretty much no extra cost from the publishers.

This. You've also got it a bit simplified in the OP, as the whole supply and demand thing is circular. The higher the demand, the higher the prices, which, if too high, will make the demand go down again. Which makes the prices go down, which makes the demand go back up and so on. And prices are too high, simply because a lot of games would sell more at lower prices, and it wouldn't even need to be by much.

Here in Norway, most new console games cost about 600 NOK, that is to say, around 100$ I believe, might check the rates if you doubt that, but it's not too far off. Now, while we also have a higher average income, it's a lot of money, and you can be damn sure I won't buy most games new, however much I want to play them. If I do, they are games that I've looked forward to for a long time. The rest, I can wait for, especially with my backlog of games from Steam Sales, Humble Bundles and Gamestop used console games, which are all much, much cheaper.

 

[Pink Gregory]

I've not personally got a problem with launch day prices, but as it's probably been said before, publishers would be receiving much more of that day-1 cash they love so much if they made the prospect of buying it on release day a little more attractive; then they'd stop complaining about the used market, then DRM becomes less necessary than it already is, and then maybe sprout wings and fly to the moon lololololol.

 

[AngleWyrm]

...most games cost $60.

FTL: Faster Than Light
Torchlight II
Warlock:Master of the Arcane
Dungeons of Dredmor

...No, most games do not cost $60. Take yer sales pitch and cram it.

 

[Jhooud]

I've not personally got a problem with launch day prices, but as it's probably been said before, publishers would be receiving much more of that day-1 cash they love so much if they made the prospect of buying it on release day a little more attractive; then they'd stop complaining about the used market, then DRM becomes less necessary than it already is, and then maybe sprout wings and fly to the moon lololololol.

But it seems to me that some publishers have started to do this. Take Darksiders 2 for example, they added all sorts of fun loot for folks who preordered, picked up the "limited edition" new, registered on their Facebook page, etc etc etc. Borderlands 2 threw in some extra weapons for folks who pre-ordered. Battlefield 3 had some extra map packs (Back to Karkand), and Call of Duty is doing the same (Nuketown 2025).

Perfect? No, but it does seem like some publishers are trying to make that day-one purchase a little more attractive.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

I remember my parents buying me an SNES game (I think it was Yoshi's Safari) back in 1995, sans Super Scope, and seeing them pay $70 for it. For a cartridge game.

It's true about supply and demand. Publisher ethics are where I have a problem, but that's another discussion altogether.

To be fair, cartridges were a lot more expensive to manufacture

You never really explain why $60 is fair though. By your logic, there is no reason to complain if games released as of tomorrow are $200 on release.

Because very few would spend that kind of money. $60 is a lot, but not so much as to discourage a significant number of people from buying the game if they really want it at launch

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Console games are too expensive. Hence why most people only buy a few games a year and make those really conservative choices like CoD or FIFA. Every time I buy a new heavily hyped game at launch I feel ripped off.

 

[evilneko]

Well, I think you are somehow deluded publishers are necessary in gaming anymore. There is no reason to have publishers around anymore. Sure, what they offer to developers is something that is hard to pass up, but in reality, they are obsolete. As more and more developers go their own way, more and more publishers die out. Eventually, the obsolete middle man will be gone, and prices will reflect that.

We are just at the crossroads, that is all. Many people don't realize how close we are to developers taking over the publisher's role completely. And this whole "extra demand" on launch day and close to launch day is an artificial bubble created by impatient people in the first place. Too many spend money without thinking what kind of message they are sending with that money. I think more and more game consumers and gamers have become gradually more aware of that in recent years, and the percentage of people buying launch day games is shrinking, not growing.

Besides, your whole attitude is messed up. Nothing good can ever come from telling someone "you shouldn't complain". All the great things that have happened and will ever happen in entertainment and arts is because of great ideas or many complaints.

Publishers exist because marketing (including getting a game to the market) is a whole other skillset from making it in the first place. Same reason staffing companies, janitorial companies, accounting firms, IT outsourcing, and law firms exist: to provide services other companies don't have the resources to do internally. You might cry "digital distribution!" but you're still leaving out that you need the infrastructure to take orders, process them, and deliver the goods.

Also, you say "most people don't realize how close we are to developers taking over the publisher's role completely" and then fail to explain it. Come now, enlighten us.

captcha: just in time. How apropos.

 

[Lilani]

...most games cost $60.

FTL: Faster Than Light
Torchlight II
Warlock:Master of the Arcane
Dungeons of Dredmor

...No, most games do not cost $60. Take yer sales pitch and cram it.

Okay, here is the version of that sentence for the chronically pedantic:

Most AAA games that people ***** and moan about the prices of during the times of the year AAA games are coming out in force cost $60.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

But when you buy a shirt, there are other shirts you can buy, it will be the same shirt for the same purpose when you do buy it, and there is virtually no chance of being compelled to buy it because of a previous shirt you've worn. Games on the other hand, differ dramatically in at least some aspects between each other, cannot be substituted for other games in most cases, have an online community that in some games is crucial and will really kill it for you if you get it late (I do not envy people playing Dragon's Dogma in 6 months trying to take down the Ur-Dragon, and didn't envy myself when I discovered Monster Hunter Unite after most people had left), and sometimes it is a sequel, which pretty much implores you to buy it.

All this said, I don't know why people are concerned either. Because...eBay. Come on.

P.S. Actually no, I don't know if that's valid. Because I prefer the price I get on eBay which is often 50 or (later) 40 dollars to my home launch price of 110 or 120 dollars. I've just realised that in the US it's probably only a mild discount (if that) to buy online. Confirm or deny?

 

[Aircross]

I never complain about launch-day prices because I know I can get them 75%-90% off if I wait a year or two.

 

[Lilani]

You never really explain why $60 is fair though. By your logic, there is no reason to complain if games released as of tomorrow are $200 on release.

No, I never said it was fair, because frankly I'm not qualified to determine that. But also that's not my point--the price is determined by what the people who want the product more than a bargain are willing to pay so they can achieve the maximum price per unit. That has nothing to do with what is fair, and has everything to do with supply and demand. When a high-demand product is first released, no company is concerned about what is fair. They just want to get as much money as they can as possible before the novelty dies down. Like that $200 coat that is released at the beginning of fall--that coat probably cost the manufacturer $20 to make at best, but they know they can get away with the full retail price because it's "new" and "high quality" and that is what people who buy coats at full price at the beginning of the season want--the new stuff. The price isn't fair, but it's what people are willing to pay for what's new, so they price it that way. Plus, that means even their "discounted" price later gives them plenty of wiggle room for profit.

Of course there is a top limit--there is a price in which even the people who are extremely desperate for the game won't even buy it. But according to the fact that $60 games are still selling millions in the first days of launch, $60 is well enough below that top limit for the bulk of their customers.

How does this equate to digital distribution where there is virtually unlimited supply as such?

Good question--and I'm replying to you because you worded it the nicest.

It seems EA hasn't figured out the value of discounting yet. They've got the "charge as much as possible on launch" part of the deal down, however they're still falling short on the "lower the price after that initial spike to maximize long-term and impulse buys" part. Because both digital and physical products have a reason to lower their prices in the long-term. With clothing you lower the price later in the season to make room for the new stuff, and with digital products you lower the price so that you can get people who would have never considered buying the product to buy it on impulse (because $2 is better than $0). Steam is doing a fabulous job with that with the Christmas and Summer sales, but alas, EA/Origin still doesn't see the value in bringing in customers by offering prices physical stores never would, and as a reward increasing their sales figures more than physical stores ever could boast (because, as you said, they have an infinite supply).

 

[RubyT]

See, there's this thing called supply and demand

Yeah, that's not it though. Games are not supply-limited. With steam around, they are actually one of the few goods that are practically of unlimited supply.

What you mean is probably more befitting of the term "early adopters tax".

So why is it always such a surprise when the same thing happens when games are first released?

Who is surprised by that? I don't remember a lot of "Wow, this game is $60, I'm shocked" topics.

I just bought Mass Effect 3 last week for $40. This is mostly because I disagree with EA's business practices and didn't want to give them the full $60 for it

EA made the same money off it, you just shorted the retailer. If you hate EA, you should've bought used.

 

[monkey_man]

Well games are expensive at launch day sure. bUt consider the fact that a game gets you at minimum about 10~ hours of gameplay, even if you don't continue after that. (most people buy a game end end up putting entire stacks of hours in them, hundreds, or even thousands, just bear with me here) That's 6$ per hour of gameplay. that's not much, movies tend to be what, 10-12 dollar? i don't know I'm no American, (In the Netherlands a movie costs you about 10 euros, not entirely sure). so that's about 1.5 hours- hours, so for 10 euros, you have 6.66-5 euro per hour. exactly the same.

When you buy a newly released game, you get to play it earlier, you get to have fun with it earlier, and less will be spoiled. If you were to buy a "old" game, say God of War 3, it's about 20 euros. But you may have glimpsed certain events in the game, you may have played it a friends. It's not "new". The new bit is what makes it magic. You're one of the first to launch the new game, a pioneer of gameplay. Remember the new game you brought home and had to play it instantly? I always get that vibe when I buy a newly released game, but intensified. I don't often buy games anymore, but when I do, I like new games better. Like a little bonus of joy.

In short: No, newly released games aren't expensive, if you don't like the price, wait a few months. Then you can get it cheaply.

 

[GAunderrated]

Really another thread complaining about complaining that has me complaing about the complainer complaining about the other complainers? There isn't a unique suggestion or thought in that original post that hasn't been said over 1,000 times before.

Also sorry if I am appearing rude but at some point the stupidity of these topics must stop.

 

[Lilani]

What you mean is probably more befitting of the term "early adopters tax".

Eh, probably. Some difference in context, though.

Who is surprised by that? I don't remember a lot of "Wow, this game is $60, I'm shocked" topics.

Lordy, lot's of pedantic folks around today. Perhaps not literally "surprised," as in caught off-guard, but rather more "surprised" in that they are outraged to be expected to pay so much for it. Again, they are not literally surprised, but I sort of read it as surprise since the topics about game prices only come around the times when lots of AAA games are being released.

EA made the same money off it, you just shorted the retailer. If you hate EA, you should've bought used.

I got the PC version, that isn't something you can usually buy used. And last time I was at the local game store the PC version wasn't much cheaper there, and I knew I'd have to get Origin either way, so I just thought "fuck it I'll just buy it from Origin and be done with it."

 

[RubyT]

Really another thread complaining about complaining that has me complaing about the complainer complaining about the other complainers?

Hah. Very good.

 

[Pink Gregory]

I've not personally got a problem with launch day prices, but as it's probably been said before, publishers would be receiving much more of that day-1 cash they love so much if they made the prospect of buying it on release day a little more attractive; then they'd stop complaining about the used market, then DRM becomes less necessary than it already is, and then maybe sprout wings and fly to the moon lololololol.

But it seems to me that some publishers have started to do this. Take Darksiders 2 for example, they added all sorts of fun loot for folks who preordered, picked up the "limited edition" new, registered on their Facebook page, etc etc etc. Borderlands 2 threw in some extra weapons for folks who pre-ordered. Battlefield 3 had some extra map packs (Back to Karkand), and Call of Duty is doing the same (Nuketown 2025).

Perfect? No, but it does seem like some publishers are trying to make that day-one purchase a little more attractive.

Provided the price doesn't go up too much.

I do like the extra shiny things, a LOT, like, I'm still so pleased that I got the Bioshock special edition (meaning a limited edition that was the same price as the regular edition, maybe £2-£4 more, don't remember), which is a fancy fancy metal case. I'm shallow.

But what I've noticed with some releases at the moment is that rather than having higher price = shiny things, there are 2 or 3 different special editions, which offer completely different bonuses, rather than a sort of hierarchal system in which higher price means the previous tier of shiny things plus more.

Thinking about it, that could be a good or bad thing, since DLC has to end up, plot wise, being kind of inconsequential to the main game (e.g. Assassin's Creed III), but then again, I've seen a special edition of XCOM with a whole bunch of shiny things for a higher price, but for some reason it doesn't include the in-game content of the special edition; since it's probably going to be a download code anyway (this might have been prepared before the pre-order DLC), why not include it, even if it's purely cosmetic in-game?

 

[RubyT]

Lordy, lot's of pedantic folks around today.

Well, you opened a thread under the false premise that there's a landslide of people being surprised, non-understanding or outraged of game prices.

People are aware of how basic economics work, you don't need to explain it, least of all wrongly.

They still have a right to complain, just as we complain when hardware is too expensive at launch or taxes are too high or gas-prices are too much.