Nuvendil said:
Personally, for me, it's not Stockholm Syndrome (thanks for that bit of presumptuous ondescension though), it's just that I have a broader perspective on the issue. Cutting prices this fast in my mind devalues games as a whole, especially when it is a high quality game doing it, and ultimately perpetuates the hype-machine driven front-loaded-sales state that the industry is in. It conditions consumers to *expect* rapid drops in prices, meaning if your game isn't spectacular or more to the point hyped up by a massive advertising push, you're screwed. Because your game won't sell enough in launch window and you can't keep your price up and bank on legs because no one will pay that full price. Rapidly falling prices on all games in my mind is unhealthy for the games industry. It encourages companies to double down on the already toxic preorder culture, devalues games in general in the minds of consumers, discourages taking risks on new ideas that will be dependent on long term sales rather than massive launch window sales, and encourages the already egregious advertising spending. Nintendo can be extreme in peotecting the value of games, but look at, say, Splatoon. In a market where games have been devalued by the aforementioned practices and consumers conditioned to expect price cuts constantly, Splatoon would have had little chance of becoming the successful new IP it was because it's very odd premise made it dependent on legs much more so than launch day sales. Could it have been a sales success still? Probably but nowhere near as profitable and who knows where that would put us at now. Who knows if Nintendo would have even bothered. Personally, in my mind, unless a game is failing in sales, I would like it's MSRP to stay $60 for 12 months. Then drop it in tiers over an extended period. Cutting a quality game's price in half 5 months after launch is just not healthy for the industry and while it's lovely short term for consumers, it's not worth the exchange. |
That's the gaming market in general, things depreciate in time. It's generally out of a publisher's hands when a game doesn't move despite their efforts. Video games aren't currency though. Trying to artificially fix prices way beyond the point of interest doesn't help the publisher at all, especially when they should ultimately look out for their consumers. You have to get the product out there the best you can to keep interest in your brand's output so they can figure out why it's worth buying in the first place. It seems like publishers like Nintendo have been creating this economic subculture among their fandom of scalpers and forgers due to both keeping their prices relatively high compared to other publishers, and having product in constantly limited stock.
To be fair, I do understand what you mean by devaluing the market. Case in point, the Xbox One, which is at the polar opposite of the spectrum. Microsoft had gotten so desperate to put systems in homes, they were giving away so much of their merchandise (along with third party games) at the time. It was less a move to benefit themselves, than it was just to spoil the industry for the competition. Giving away SEVERAL current gen games with the purchase of their consoles on top of the discounted price of the system, only stemmed the market to wait to buy their products in fire sales. Not just at the end of the year in holiday sales, but year round. Leading to their position at the moment.
There's got to be a balance between not being flexible with prices and giving away the house, since the interest and demand for games has a small window from release. Video games are a rapidly evolving industry, constantly looking for new angles to sell games. Sometimes, products fail, but playing keep-away with prices and hoping and wishing products get discovered at some natural impulse doesn't happen. The industry has to move forward, looking for the next product that can hopefully be successful.
