Associate
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 970
But a company earns more money selling 500 000 copies at £30 then another 500 000 at £15 a few months later than putting the initial price at £15 and selling 1 000 000 copies at that
EA Blocks Multiplayer Mode on secondhand Console Games
- Thread starter chaparral
- Start date
But a company earns more money selling 500 000 copies at £30 then another 500 000 at £15 a few months later than putting the initial price at £15 and selling 1 000 000 copies at that
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,560
- Location
- Warwickshire
Lol, £10. And if they were free, nobody would buy second hand games. What's your point? You can't just go on reducing selling price indefinitely. There is an optimal price point, and EA think they've got it.
Yes, but would it reduce it by enough to counter the drop in margin from the reduced selling price? You're seriously over-simplifying this entire issue.
Brilliant news. Revenue means nothing without profit. You may be thinking 'one extra digital copy sold = 100% profit as there is no marginal cost to EA from selling another game on Steam', but they still need to cover development overheads and dividends.
I used £10 simply because of the post I was replying to already used that number. Thanks for showing you only read posts you intend to try and discredit and ridicule so you can "get one up".
It is obviously a big enough threat for them to consider doing something about it, so that would suggest it probably will. However, we are also talking about a company the size of EA. They could try it out and see what happens, do some market research on it, instead they have grossly simplified it buy just slapping a price onto post-sale services.
Not hard to imagine 1000% revenue increase on a Download only service has a Profit increase of not much lower than that
this.
game developers want a second bite of the cherry, it's just sick that we're letting them.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,521
- Location
- Surrey
Would they now? And you're saying that based on extensive research right? As the guy above said, EA will have entire teams of professionals dedicated to that kind of market research, it's laughable that you think you know more than them.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,560
- Location
- Warwickshire
Dj_Jestar and many others are ignoring the effect of reduced retail prices on the second hand games market, in the case that EA chose to reduce retail prices and drop the charge for second hand online registration.
You really think that sounds sensible from a commercial point of view? 'Try it out and see what happens'? All that would happen if they started reducing selling prices willy-nilly, is that they would make less total profit and the second hand games market would continue at very similar levels to what it already is.
People that are willing to buy second-hand games now because they are cheaper than retail games, would continue to do so because they'd still be cheaper, and market forces would reduce second hand prices also. Unless, of course, EA did something rather clever and stamped on the second hand games market by forcing a separate paid-for registration for online gaming.
Until Tefal provides a link saying that Steam increased their revenue by 1000% (compared to what period? How much of this was due to the typical Christmas rush?), rather than just dropping in with a number that might as well have been plucked from the air, I will assume that he means that they increased their sales volumes by 1000%.
Going by your and Tefal's apparent point of view, why not price each Steam download at £1, since that also has a 100% gross profit margin on that unit of sale? GREAT, WE SELL LOADS OF UNITZ LOL!!!11!! But do they cover their operating costs using that method?
You really think that sounds sensible from a commercial point of view? 'Try it out and see what happens'? All that would happen if they started reducing selling prices willy-nilly, is that they would make less total profit and the second hand games market would continue at very similar levels to what it already is.
People that are willing to buy second-hand games now because they are cheaper than retail games, would continue to do so because they'd still be cheaper, and market forces would reduce second hand prices also. Unless, of course, EA did something rather clever and stamped on the second hand games market by forcing a separate paid-for registration for online gaming
.Not hard to imagine 1000% revenue increase on a Download only service has a Profit increase of not much lower than that
Until Tefal provides a link saying that Steam increased their revenue by 1000% (compared to what period? How much of this was due to the typical Christmas rush?), rather than just dropping in with a number that might as well have been plucked from the air, I will assume that he means that they increased their sales volumes by 1000%.
Going by your and Tefal's apparent point of view, why not price each Steam download at £1, since that also has a 100% gross profit margin on that unit of sale? GREAT, WE SELL LOADS OF UNITZ LOL!!!11!! But do they cover their operating costs using that method?
It's just laughable that you're sticking to your futile point so vigorously that you can't see the glaringly obvious. Second hand games are about £20 now. If they were £10 new, you still think there would be the same number of people holding out for second hand games.
Remarkable, truly remarkable.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,560
- Location
- Warwickshire
Should? Should? What does this mean? Should by whose standards? If it were legal, practical and cost efficient for car manufacturers to disable second hand cars until the new keeper paid them a registration fee to enable the engine again, believe me they'd be doing it.
What's truly remarkable is that you are entirely neglecting to take account of the effect of retail prices on the second hand games market.
No they wouldn't, because any manufacturer that does it would see their sales drop dramatically. No body is going to pay for a new car that they will have difficulty selling on.
No. You are completely neglecting to take account that the second hand market is only as active as it is because of the price of new games.
Who said anything about "willy-nilly"?
Less people would hold out for second hand if games were not expensive. Period.People that are willing to buy second-hand games now because they are cheaper than retail games, would continue to do so because they'd still be cheaper, and market forces would reduce second hand prices also. Unless, of course, EA did something rather clever and stamped on the second hand games market by forcing a separate paid-for registration for online gaming
Here's a better idea, lets go for the utter extremes to try and look like we are cool. Oh wait...
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22378
So yeah with the lower prices they actually made more money than the high prices at launch.
And that's for l4d which includes the retails profits.
You know what they say about assumptions now don't you
Oh? And i assume you know exactly what EA plan to do here do you? I bet what they'll do is reduce the price of new games to compensate for the fact the second hand market will probably boycott there games altogether.
Oh wait no, if anything i bet they'll INCREASE the price because they know gamers can't simply wait for a second hand game.
Stop talking like you know what they're upto, its complete ********. They want to make more money and since Publishers are unique and you can't simply go to another publisher to get the same game, its effectively a monopoly.
Fixed.
Speaking from personal experience: I find the £30+ point too high, and do not buy games in that range. I will wait until they drop in price to the £20-25 bracket. I would rather not buy 2nd hand. Case in point - I was looking for a new game the other day and thought Bioshock 2 would be perfect, fired up steam, selected the game, saw the price... and I am now playing it having not bought it on steam! £34 is too much - sale lost - had it been £25 that would have been £25 in their pocket not mine.
L4D is the opposite - waited - bought it when it was cheap, and convinced 2 friends to do the same - 3 sales due to good pricing...
Bearing in mind that I do not have to buy games... when I do I consider it a triumph on the part of the developer and a testament to the quality of the product and the fairness of the pricing. Fail to do that and I'll look elsewhere - sad but true!
L4D is the opposite - waited - bought it when it was cheap, and convinced 2 friends to do the same - 3 sales due to good pricing...
Bearing in mind that I do not have to buy games... when I do I consider it a triumph on the part of the developer and a testament to the quality of the product and the fairness of the pricing. Fail to do that and I'll look elsewhere - sad but true!
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 894
I said pretty much the same to my boss when I heard about this myself.
kylew how would you feel if you created something, that I then sold for my profit and you get zilch?
Tefal, your point would be valid if the 2nd buyer got a brand new car or house, which you don't its either got a mileage or the roof needs renervating etc, when buying a 2nd hand game you get the full product, ok maybe once in a while no manual.
I myself would be annoyed too if I didn't work in game dev but doing so has open up my eyes to the other side of the fence.
End of day it's life so get on with it!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,560
- Location
- Warwickshire
You know what they say about assumptions now don't you
That when someone comes and bands figures about without links or reference, they should expect them?
All the 'holiday' shoppers were holding out for the sale anyway, so they were selling **** all because everyone knew the price would be $20 in a few weeks. Then the inevitable comes, and the price drop combined with the holiday season results, shock horror, in thousands of people suddenly buying the game, resulting in a revenue spike that simply made up for the previously weak sales. 3000% of nothing is not much, and a 3000% growth is not proof of anything without considering the starting point. L4D was always going to sell in vast amounts, they just shifted the timing of their sales. The figures are misleading and vague, simple as that.
Your link is hardly resounding proof that EA are making some huge mistake. People will still buy their games if they like them.
Nothing, because I've already sold it. It's gone. Not mine anymore.
You just keep making things up to suit your argument, don't you? Even with the link provided by Tefal, you still just cannot accept that you were wrong.