When Jason Rohrer says something, it's invariably couched in zero-sum sacrificial thinking. The principle is embedded deep in his games, as well as his lifestyle, and by inverting that viewpoint it's easy to find flaws in his arguments.<p>With respect to this idea, it models the game as a magical artifact of worship that grows more valuable simply by being older, and then reasons backwards to "this rewards the true fans." But most of the internal models used by players involve the game being some mix of disposable content(interactive stories and scenarios to experience), a pastime or hobby, or a piece of fashion - something friends are also playing. And in the majority of those instances, obsolescence can be assumed; mass piracy of our oldest video games is taken for granted.<p>Price can rise if the game is continually developed. Minecraft is exceptional in that it's always the same product with large, relatively frequent updates, but the same effect is much more often seen across defined sequels: The first in a breakout hit series might be a low-budget game, and then after a sequel or two it warrants a bigger budget and a $60 price.
I think the biggest benefit of Steam sales is probably lowering piracy. Some large number of the people who got the game at 75% off would probably have just pulled it off a torrent site had that option not been available rather than pay full price.
We're talking about two very different types of pricing strategies that each work very well for two very different types of release.<p>With a big-bang, "it's done, ship it" release, going out at a high price captures high revenue from the few high-expectation customers. Dropping the price later captures remaining revenue from the many low-expectation customers. Steam-style repeated sales have the bonus marketing benefit of being noteworthy and counter-intuitively do not appear to cannibalize high-revenue sales much if at all.<p>With a slow-burn, "it's not done yet" release, going out at a low price matches the general low expectations for the product and has the bonus marketing benefit of getting talkative early-adopters on board early and also getting them increasingly excited as development proceeds. As quality increases, price increases accordingly. This has the bonus feature of putting some time pressure on customers who are on the fence about the cost/value proposition, but want to lock in a lower price by buying early.
This is the problem with assuming humans are all rational, utility I maximizing machines. When a game like Skyrim comes out, I don't care that it'll be $45 instead of $60 in some months. My friends are playing it, the Internet is playing it, people are making memes.<p>I picked $45 as an example price on purpose, because games which are brand new (according to my anecdata as someone who couldn't stop refreshing Steam in Dec), newer games just aren't as deeply discounted as older ones.<p>So no I don't buy it. There's a lot to be said for playing the new and shiny if you can afford it and if it's great. The only time I hold off on for a Steam sale is for a game I wasn't going to buy anyway. In a sense he's committing the same fallacy as the RIAA did by presuming that, in the absence of piracy (or sales in this case) people would just pay full price. Maybe some would! But it's fallacious to ignore the difference an incentive such as a sale makes in purchasing at all vs no purchase at all.
Wasn't sure until the end whether he realized why Minecraft's pricing made sense; it was beta. You weren't buying a finished product.<p>I tend to play consoles and while I pick up a few games at full price every year (3 preordered at three moment) I do tend to wait for the price drops (about $10 each time unless the game is a flop) more than sales.
I think this misses a few key points:<p>1. Steam is digital, there is almost no cost associated with "selling" a game, almost everything you sell is profit. Thus, it is somewhat disconnected from standard sales where dropping price too much can hurt you.<p>2. Steam does not allow you to buy physical games, you can't take a game out of steam. What you are paying for is for game to be added to your digital collection. Collection is a key term here, that what steam sales are all about. In modern times nobody has enough time to play all the good games, but we still want to buy them. I know a bunch of people with huge digital collections on steam.<p>3. Author seems to be divorced from realities of economies of scale. As things get cheaper, the audience gets wider. Essentially this means putting game into hands of more people.<p>4. More players is good, steam trading cards means that more players = more sustained profit.
> If you buy it at launch, are you going to be screwed a few weeks later by a sale? Am I going to make you wish that you waited?<p>Maybe I'm the odd one out, but I'd only feel that way if your game wasn't good. I happily buy games at full price, and if they are good, they are good. The reason why sales on Steam or other places work so well in attracting people like me is that those places are marketing themselves. Steam is in my face when I play games, so it's not as if I could miss the game.<p>Is it just the sale that increases the sales? Or is it also the in your face advertising?
If there are more sales, but at lower prices, and it balances out, it only hurts you if you thought you would get a bigger share if people hadn't spent money on other games.<p>If it doesn't balance out, if sales have decreased spending, then fine, maybe there's a problem. But I doubt that, give that Steam's sale frequency increased after they started.<p>So how can I tell that he's not just complaining because he wishes he'd gotten a larger share, that he feels he is losing out because people are spreading the money around more?
I like the way this guy thinks. The full-price-then-sale model is industry standard---but a company looking to build a relationship of trust with its fans might be able to do so this way.<p>There are certain game companies I love---Stardock in particular comes to mind. I like Stardock for the pretty simple reason that I read Brad Wardell's writing, and he seems like a pretty cool guy.<p>When you factor in company-customer trust, there are a lot of wacky business models that might just be crazy enough to work:<p>- What if a player signed on as a Patron? $20/month, and the company comes out with games whenever it feels like it. Only Patrons can play.<p>- The company benefits somewhat from having trusted <i>players</i>. Documentation, video tutorials, coaching---a lot of this can be done by players rather than W-2's.<p>That's all I have off the top of my head, but I think there's virgin (or perhaps fallow) soil here.
I'm largely a fan of the idea I've felt the burn of the "I paid full price for this because I appreciate your work but now it's 33% off?" moment (Borderlands anyone?). I want to see that abolished. Because I've seen a lot of negative feedback of the argument, I want to offer an addition to it.<p>As an example, I had my eye on Kentucky Route Zero since I saw it in IGF and I fit the example user "It'll go on sale. I'll wait" But after a year it only went on sale for 50% (crazy, I know) and that happened a couple times. At that point, I knew it wasn't going to go to 66% or 75% any time soon so I picked it up. I can see a happy medium with sales where you make it clear that you won't go on sale for a certain period of time and/or for a specific discount. You don't necessarily have to verbalize that either. I don't follow any KRZ news but it was clear that that price point was not going to change quickly. This way you still get the press about sales (I saw a lot of KRZ at 33% and 50%) without having to screw fans over.<p>I'm sure there are a few ways of strategizing it that would require some experimentation (e.g. a bit before a steam sale, have another 10% type discount like might be seen on launch week but make it clear that it's not going to go below that). There are also more mediums for sales with the Humble Store now you see a lot of games with shallower discounts.<p>I will say I don't think this model works as a long term plan however. I like the idea of starting low for pre-orders and then increasing the price over time, but I don't think it would work as expected over a two week period. With Minecraft there was the expectation of more content over a period of a year or so between increases. It may still be viable but that may be a case for early access. Make it clear there that the price will increase when it's finished.<p>I hate seeing what appears like developers feel like they have to sell out on their baby, and I hope something like this can work.
I stopped buying games at full price. What I do now is either buy them in sales/bundles or I pay over full price because I really want the game (kickstarter).<p>I wonder how KS to Steam Early Access fits in there, for Wasteland 2 it's clear that the game will be cheaper once it is released. There is no secret, it's been said over and over again.
"Hell, No!, Never! ... or so, were my first thoughts, because aren't we brainwashed into thinking that's the way how the market works?<p>But on second thought: maybe he isn't so of the tangent. How many games did i buy, but never played, even never touched, just they were on sale? And how many games, which i really, really wanted to try did i never buy, because i thought : "Aww i could buy three for the price of this one! So let's wait for the inevitable sales-offer.", just to loose interest, because i was occupied otherwise and a half year later already new games were flooding the market.<p>So it boils down to price, time and satisfaction! Maybe this is another triangle where you can move just on the axis, and never have all together.<p>The most limiting factor is time. You can only play one game at a time and if it produces satisfaction you probably would be willing to pay a higher price.
> This waiting game is likely decimating your player base and critical mass at launch by spreading new players out over time. And your fans, who are silly enough to buy the game at launch and waste money, get to participate in a weaker, smaller player community.<p>It seems like part of the problem is that some of his games (MMOs?) need a player base to realize their potential. In which case I wouldn't consider these multiplayer games the same products as other single player video games which don't require a player base.<p>If your game requires a player base, consider a freemium model that allows you to get players in the game contributing to the community/network effect, but also allows you to generate a profit from the inevitable ~10% (of a much larger player base) that will buy extra content in your game.
The reason Steam does sales is because they make more money: <a href="http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/24/less-is-more-gabe-newell-on-game-pricing/" rel="nofollow">http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/24/less-is-more-gabe...</a>. From the article, they expected that cutting Counter-Strike by 75% would result in 4 times the number of people buying it, thus being revenue neutral. Instead 160 people bought it for every person that regularly did, this increasing the revenue by 40x!<p>He's right about charging less in alpha and beta: those players are taking a bigger risk and for a multiplayer game he needs to build critical mass. But after the game is launched, Valve's results show that sales make you more money, not less.