RJ_Sizzle said:
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. |
At least you acknowledge the basics of what I am pointing out, but you highlighted the wrong extreme with Xbox. Yeah, that's a devalued brand but the ultimate end of a devaluation trend, of a race to endlessly undersell is the mobile market, a market bereft of creativity, of risk, of ambition. A market rife with the worst consumer-hostile practices. And a large part of it is because the consumer base there has been conditioned to see games as having absolutely no intrinsic value of any kind. You have the psychologically batter people through game design to get a penny out of most. Only a tiny number of brands can have any success selling for even $10. Shoot even $5. For goodness sake MARIO has struggled selling at a premium. And this KILLS creativity. Because profits are so low or because you are chasing microtransaction revenue, you are either a breakout big success or you're out of business. And so the market is dominated by me-too games and shallow experiences more concerned with concocting "gotcha!" schemes than actually advancing game design.
And that's what rampant devaluation breeds: it renders mid-tier projects and creatively risky or new ventures financially unviable. I mean, here's a news flash for people: cost to put a game on a shelf is WAY lower than the $60 price. These companies could price the game way lower and still turn profit in theory. Call of Duty could launch for $30 and have profit well in reach. Problem is, if you have a market where consumers expect games launch or to rapidly fall to $30, only the juggernauts would survive. Because if you reduce revenue by that significant an amount, you have to increase volume of sales to recoup development cost. So all your mid tier stuff? Gone. Dead. Bye bye. Because the increase in volume wouldn't be enough to offset the lost revenue. Especially when, after passage of time the price would go from being viewed as a huge deal to just normal. I mean keep in mind $50 to $60 was once upon a time a drop in price to from the $70 to $80 and no one talks about that being a good deal, even as inflation has made $60 easier to accumulate for your average joe.
And look, I'm fine with prices falling over time, that's just business. But there's a difference between timely price cuts and devaluation by racing to undersell, between looking out for consumers and cultivating a mindset where games have no intrinsic value. One consequence no one points out in this is the indie pricing problem. Indies, except for a VERY select few, cannot get away with pricing over $20. Shoot, most are expected to price at $15. Why? Because they "don't spend as much on it." The reason I take umbridge with that argument is simply that it implies the ONLY value a game has is what was spent on it, NOT the quality of the game. And it doesn't seem to matter whatsoever what kind of game it is. I've seen people balk at FAST RMX having a $20 price tag. People balk at the $30 for Rime. It shows the mindset that has been cultivated in the current market: people don't view the games as having value unto themselves. You don't pay $60 for the game, you pay $60 for the money spent to make the game and that is what I find disconcerting. It should be the other way round. Screw the budget, a game is worth $60 when its quality warrants the price of $60 and that's all there is to it.
And to those who think I am paranoid, look around you. The signs are there. The obsession with preorders, the integration of micro-transactions in full price games, the absolute focus on launch week sales, the MASSIVE hype machines pushing all of this, all these are actions companies are taking as the window for making full price sale revenue shrinks more and more. And we also see companies like Ubisoft, where the devaluation is probably the most advanced with a software publisher's brand, pulling all of these stunts as well as starting to stagnate in creativity and ambition, using the same basic design document for almost every game out of fear of missing those all-important launch window sales. Companies are feeling the squeeze from this ever shrinking window of opportunity and they still continue to shrink it.
And like I said, Nintendo is an extremist in this and yes, I feel a middle ground is best, but they do have the right of it: big sellers hailed as high quality games should *hold* their value longer. Low quality games or games not gaining traction should fall in price faster. That cultivatese the right mindset, that good games are worth something because tehy are of good quality. That's why I say big sellers that are hailed as great by consumer and critic should hold their price for 8 to 12 months then drop to $40 for say 6 months and then drop to something like $30 and then go down or stay stable depending on sales. Games with weaker sales would obviously not hold as long as these but my point is that rapidly lowering the price of high quality sales successes is an unhealthy practice. And obviously, periodic sales are different.
And if people wonder why I care about "Nintendo's wallet" well for one, it's not Nintendo's wallet I care about the whole industry's health. And I care because the health of the industry corelates directly with the quality and quantity of games we get. A lot of people have a "screw them, got mine" attitude and that's all well and good for your immediate gratification but what about the future? That's my concern. Instilling a concept of intrinsic value in the games themselves is a good thing.
Oh and just to address a personal pet peeve: Nintendo does not artificially supply constrain everything. In fact, they have done this so very few times. The Switch is not artificially supply constrained. This is factually, demonstrably incorrect. The NAND component shortage is a documented fact. Denying it as an explanation for the shortages is as silly as denying gravity as an explanation for why stuff falls. The Wii was conservative in initial shipment but NIntendo rapidly increased production as much as possible, hence why it broke sales records. The only possible examples are the NES Mini and Amiibo which are collectibles/limited time products BY THEIR NATURE. It's like railing against Sony for artificially restriciting supply of the gold PS4.
And as for the price hold of their products factoring into the desire for people to resell their products...well yeah. But frankly, if no one is even passingly interested in reselling your product for profit, you might want to give your business a solid look cause that means your product has no value. Again, not defending the length of time Nintendo holds their game prices, but the idea that your product having intrinsic value in the minds of consumers is "bad" is just silly. And just as a side not, Nintendo virtually NEVER undersupplies a game. Shoot, I can find tons of copies of every Nintendo published Switch game out and about right now. So their game price holding does really nothing to effect the scalper nonsense.
But yeah, TL;DR: I want a healthy and stable industry. That's good for everyone long term. Sacrificing that for a brief window of good deals is just not worth the damage.
