Steam prices! Grey key sites! and the I love/hate developers thread - Enter if you dare!

[Slam62]

Yeah, I would like dirt rally, but its a stupid price on steam even with the current discount. Now it's released fully on 6th April and going by all the other dirt games it will plummet in price before too long. So I am either simply not going to buy it, get a good deal from the grey market of which there aren't really any or wait. If I wait I shall probably go off the idea and not bother at all.

Still I'm sure these companies know what they are doing.

 

[FoxEye]

So it's better to sell 100 copies at £5 than 10 copies at £40...

Too simplistic. It's better to sell 100,000 copies at £30 and 50,000 copies at £10, than it is to sell 50,000 copies at £30 and 100,000 at £10.

If they don't want to sell 300,000 copies at Ukrainian prices (for example) why release 300,000 keys at Ukrainian prices? Surely they've budgeted for that?

It's better to sell 50,000 copies in Ukraine at Ukrainian prices, than 10,000 copies in Ukraine at UK prices.

They can't guarantee any sales at Full European/UK prices.

I ask again, what if everyone bought at sale prices? Are we supposed to feel guilty for waiting for the sale prices too?

Nope. The person who has the discipline to wait for a sale is not a lost revenue opportunity, even with grey key sellers in the market.

If game studios and publishers are struggling to make money, why do they keep doing it? Would you keep doing something where you barely broke even?

If it's not a legal issue then what is it? Just something you feel strongly about and believe everyone should agree with you?
It's not wrong, it's just that you don't like it?
Like some people feel about eating meat?

Well, it's a fact that many studios do keep going under, restructuring, laying off staff.

It's obviously a labour of love for many of the coders, artists, designers, etc. As to why they keep getting funded, well there must be potential for profits.

But if enough projects fail, then investors become risk averse. They will only fund "safe" projects, like the next FIFA, or the next Battlefield, or the next COD.

It's a bit like this in Hollywood. Lots of "safe" films and sequels, and fewer and fewer original films, due to risk averse investors.

 

[Moothead2]

Hmm, I hadn't considered that. Your interest in a game wanes quickly after release date?

Although having said that, with a few exceptions, it only takes 1-6 months for a typical title to hit £20. XCOM:EU, for example, was 1/2 price after one month.

Would you say your interest has cooled significantly in the first 3 months, then?

Unless I'm really hyped for the game yeah. If they offer those kinds of cuts that quickly then I'd definitely consider them but truth be told many don't. Most major releases barely scratch 33% for at least 6 months. If I'm willing to wait 6+ months for a title I'm more than willing to wait another 6 months for it to be cheaper on Steam. Truth be told I only tend to buy from CD Key sites during the release period if they offer an unbeatable price for a game I'm very interested in, otherwise I'll wait for Steam sales/Humble Bundles etc.

I also buy directly from developers/Steam if they price the game close to that of key sites. An example being Cities: Skylines which was a couple of Euro more expensive on their own site so I bought it there, I don't necessarily go for the rock bottom price.

 

[Jono8]

Hmm, I hadn't considered that. Your interest in a game wanes quickly after release date?

Although having said that, with a few exceptions, it only takes 1-6 months for a typical title to hit £20. XCOM:EU, for example, was 1/2 price after one month.

Would you say your interest has cooled significantly in the first 3 months, then?

The trouble we all have and why this argument will never end is that there is no true, know value to a game, unless we know exactly how much it costs to make and exactly how much they need to sell and at what price to recoup that money.

Battlefront for example, on Origin was £49.99 on release. A few weeks later Game had the digital version on sale for 50% off, £24.99. Then a few weeks ago ( still only 2 months after release) Origin themselves had it available for £24.99.

All this sort of thing does is make consumers think that £50 is just a "lol, release day price", because that is essentially all it is. Creators will try and fleece as many people as possible for silly prices until they realise they need to drop the price (which is usually in a matter of months).

There are now a huge amount of people like me who can just wait as we know in a few months a game will become reasonably priced anyway. If however I see the price that I was willing to spend for a game on a grey key site or from a different region I will just buy it then. Literally the only difference is that the maker gets my money sooner, and in fact it probably benefits them as it stops the risk of me losing interest and forgetting about the game altogether...

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Too simplistic. It's better to sell 100,000 copies at £30 and 50,000 copies at £10, than it is to sell 50,000 copies at £30 and 100,000 at £10.

It's better to sell 50,000 copies in Ukraine at Ukrainian prices, than 10,000 copies in Ukraine at UK prices.

Nope. The person who has the discipline to wait for a sale is not a lost revenue opportunity, even with grey key sellers in the market.

Well, it's a fact that many studios do keep going under, restructuring, laying off staff.

It's obviously a labour of love for many of the coders, artists, designers, etc. As to why they keep getting funded, well there must be potential for profits.

But if enough projects fail, then investors become risk averse. They will only fund "safe" projects, like the next FIFA, or the next Battlefield, or the next COD.

It's a bit like this in Hollywood. Lots of "safe" films and sequels, and fewer and fewer original films, due to risk averse investors.

Surely they've budgeted for 300,000 Ukrainian keys being sold though? Why is it a problem when they are?

Maybe when studios go under it's a sign that what they're making is either **** or nobody is willing to pay what they're asking?

CoD: Black Ops 3, I'm not paying full price for it. I'm not paying grey market prices for it. It almost never goes on sale. By the time it's even close to a price I'd pay for it I've lost interest and so has almost everyone else.
That's better than making a sale at 50% of the price?

I bought Dawn of War 2 for £1. I wouldn't pay much more than that for it. I'm not even paying £4 for the DLC. It seems to me that £1 is a sale they wouldn't have made without the grey market. £1 may not be a lot, but if that's what they'll sell it to Ukrainians for then they must be happy with it.

How about I re-word my earlier post to:
Why will they go out of business? They're still making a sale they deem as a worthwhile sale. Unless you think they're selling the cheaper keys at a price that's pointless to them just so people in less wealthy nations can play games? If they weren't worthwhile sales in those places business logic would suggest it makes more financial sense not to sell there at all.
Would they make less profits if everyone used the grey market sites. Yeah, no doubt. Would they make less profit if everyone waited until the game was on sale? Yeah, no doubt.
Does everyone wait for sales? Doubt it. Does everyone use grey markets? Doubt it.

 

[FoxEye]

The trouble we all have and why this argument will never end is that there is no true, know value to a game, unless we know exactly how much it costs to make and exactly how much they need to sell and at what price to recoup that money.

Battlefront for example, on Origin was £49.99 on release. A few weeks later Game had the digital version on sale for 50% off, £24.99. Then a few weeks ago ( still only 2 months after release) Origin themselves had it available for £24.99.

All this sort of thing does is make consumers think that £50 is just a "lol, release day price", because that is essentially all it is. Creators will try and fleece as many people as possible for silly prices until they realise they need to drop the price (which is usually in a matter of months).

There are now a huge amount of people like me who can just wait as we know in a few months a game will become reasonably priced anyway. If however I see the price that I was willing to spend for a game on a grey key site or from a different region I will just buy it then. Literally the only difference is that the maker gets my money sooner, and in fact it probably benefits them as it stops the risk of me losing interest and forgetting about the game altogether...

But it's funny how companies like nV and Intel can charge silly prices for top-end products, and nobody complains, or accuses them of fleecing?

Eg the Titan X being close to £1000, and people being happy to pay that, and expressing how happy they were with them, and how nV is their favourite GPU maker.

Yet if a game releases at £50 for the first month - nobody is forcing you to buy it then - we pile on the scorn for being "greedy".

It does seem weird to me that we hold software devs to such strict pricing standards, whilst giving Intel or nVidia thousands of pounds for grossly over-priced gear.

The 970 should have been the 960, the Titan should have been the 980, etc, etc... But nVidia invented a new price tier, and bumped all their range up by hundreds of pounds... and we applauded them for doing it!

Meanwhile a game can only cost £20 max or words like "greed" start being thrown around.

 

[Jono8]

But it's funny how companies like nV and Intel can charge silly prices for top-end products, and nobody complains, or accuses them of fleecing?

You cannot have been writing that with a straight face. This is a joke right?

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

But it's funny how companies like nV and Intel can charge silly prices for top-end products, and nobody complains, or accuses them of fleecing?

Eg the Titan X being close to £1000, and people being happy to pay that, and expressing how happy they were with them, and how nV is their favourite GPU maker.

Yet if a game releases at £50 for the first month - nobody is forcing you to buy it then - we pile on the scorn for being "greedy".

It does seem weird to me that we hold software devs to such strict pricing standards, whilst giving Intel or nVidia thousands of pounds for grossly over-priced gear.

The 970 should have been the 960, the Titan should have been the 980, etc, etc... But nVidia invented a new price tier, and bumped all their range up by hundreds of pounds... and we applauded them for doing it!

Meanwhile a game can only cost £20 max or words like "greed" start being thrown around.

Seriously?
That's pretty much all 50% of the Titan threads are!
The Fury X, Fury and Fury Nano were the same.
there have been loads of complaints about just about all the recent graphics cards.

And do you know what? There were people that bought them from mainland Europe and got them shipped over because they were, wait for it, cheaper!

If there was an easy way for people to get new graphics cards at 50% of the price do you not think they would?
It's just harder to source and ship them for significantly cheaper.

The difference is the digital distribution. If all games were still boxed on DVD/Blu-Ray and you actually had to pay to have them shipped over and then pay customs on them, I doubt people would do that either.

Talk about your stupid posts...

 

[Vonhelmet]

Triple A developers don't have 100% profit margins so they would make no profit if they sold at 50% lower prices.

Citation needed.

 

[Vonhelmet]

The cost of the sale is nil? What kind of statement is that?

The cost is not the cost of the code to produce. The code is just a string of letters and numbers, and has virtually nil cost at all.

Yeah, that's what I said. The code costs nothing to produce, so the marginal cost is nil.

Does that mean that if all keys were £1, you'd make a profit on all keys sold? And if that's "true", then that metric of determining profitability is as worthless as you say my statement is.

The fact remains, you don't "make a profit on every key sold", because that statement ignores the actual real costs involved in making a game.

Which is what my post went on to say...

 

[Vonhelmet]

This is only true for people who a) won't wait for the price to fall and b) won't pay £35 and c) will pirate.

People who would pay £20 but not £35 always had the option to wait.

You cannot say - as you seem to be - that you make /extra/ sales by having the game available at £20 on release. Some people would have waited for the price to decline, so they are /not/ lost sales. Just sales that come earlier instead of later.

The people who *will not wait for price drop* and *are prepared to pirate* are the extra sales, I will grant you that.

Does the revenue from this "WILL NOT WAIT!!" group offset the lost revenue from "Would have paid £35, but 50% discount at launch, yes please!" group?

£20 now is worth more than £20 in the future. Booooooooom.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Also lol at the idea of it being a matter of discipline to wait for a product to be on at a sale price in the uk. Discipline indeed.

 

[hyperseven]

But it's funny how companies like nV and Intel can charge silly prices for top-end products, and nobody complains, or accuses them of fleecing?

Eg the Titan X being close to £1000, and people being happy to pay that, and expressing how happy they were with them, and how nV is their favourite GPU maker.

Yet if a game releases at £50 for the first month - nobody is forcing you to buy it then - we pile on the scorn for being "greedy".

It does seem weird to me that we hold software devs to such strict pricing standards, whilst giving Intel or nVidia thousands of pounds for grossly over-priced gear.

The 970 should have been the 960, the Titan should have been the 980, etc, etc... But nVidia invented a new price tier, and bumped all their range up by hundreds of pounds... and we applauded them for doing it!

Meanwhile a game can only cost £20 max or words like "greed" start being thrown around.

Yep, just like graphics cards. I can sell them on for a decent chunk of the initial cost, you can do that with PC games, right?

 

[FoxEye]

You cannot have been writing that with a straight face. This is a joke right?

Not really. There were tons of people in the other thread with Titans and 980tis, complaining about the price of games, once they breached the magic £20 price barrier.

Yet the irony is for many of them, those 980tis and Titans would have zero value at all, without the games to play on them.

It's like buying a £100,000 Ferrari, and begrudging paying the UK government enough money in taxes to maintain the roads. It's pretty much exactly like that. Then complaining that the poor quality of the roads and the potholes makes it difficult to drive their Ferrari properly.

 

[Vonhelmet]

A Ferrari is overkill anywhere in the uk but a dedicated race track, which you pay a good amount to use, so I'm not sure the comparison works.

 

[FoxEye]

£20 now is worth more than £20 in the future. Booooooooom.

If you're talking about inflation, well, we're not talking about years here are we... a few months is all it takes to start seeing 25% off (or more).

Also lol at the idea of it being a matter of discipline to wait for a product to be on at a sale price in the uk. Discipline indeed.

What would you call it? Do you deny that there are people who can't wait? Who have to have a game as soon as it's released? If not discipline (financial discipline is real you know), then what do you call it? Just plain old patience then? Makes little difference to me.

Some people won't wait, this is a fact. Those who do get their reward in the form of saving money. Quarrelling over the precise word you would use to describe the nature of their wait is beyond asinine.

A Ferrari is overkill anywhere in the uk but a dedicated race track, which you pay a good amount to use, so I'm not sure the comparison works.

A Merc or a BMW then. It's basically just saying that people have strange ideas of what represents good value. Some people will pay a lot of money for a car, moan endlessly about the state of the roads, and yet do all they can to avoid paying taxes. True or false?

 

[Zethor]

Citation needed.

How about using your head? If you seriously believe game developing companies have 100% profit margins, you are deluded.

 

[Uncle Petey]

But it's funny how companies like nV and Intel can charge silly prices for top-end products, and nobody complains, or accuses them of fleecing?

Eg the Titan X being close to £1000, and people being happy to pay that, and expressing how happy they were with them, and how nV is their favourite GPU maker.

Yet if a game releases at £50 for the first month - nobody is forcing you to buy it then - we pile on the scorn for being "greedy".

It does seem weird to me that we hold software devs to such strict pricing standards, whilst giving Intel or nVidia thousands of pounds for grossly over-priced gear.

The 970 should have been the 960, the Titan should have been the 980, etc, etc... But nVidia invented a new price tier, and bumped all their range up by hundreds of pounds... and we applauded them for doing it!

Meanwhile a game can only cost £20 max or words like "greed" start being thrown around.

This has to be one of the funniest posts I've read in a while.

 

[FoxEye]

This has to be one of the funniest posts I've read in a while.

Look, another one £500+ nVidia GPU, that X99 Intel CPU is £700-£900 from what I can tell, and you're on the side of "games are too expensive".

Do I see a pattern emerging?

 

[Uncle Petey]

No, but I can see a repeated pattern of delusion, absolutism and GPU envy.

It's X79 and I didn't buy it brand new. I shafted Intel going by your logic.