Yeah it was kind of obvious that this is taking place, it doens't bother me that much, what bothers me the most is that games that are on digital platforms like PSN/XBLA for more than 5 years are still the same price like 5 years ago... o_o.

I feel stupid for never thinking about this xD. Good thing I don't really spend that much in digital games, but damn that is one tricky move.

The problem is, it's hard to see what an appropriate price point for each game really is.

So yeah, the devs could have thought, we'll charge an extra $5, but if there is no defined price point....

EA have said this about the Steam sales, they devalue PC gaming. I won't buy an PC games that I'm not 100% desperate to play until they are at least 50% off. If I'm on the fence, it's 75% off or under £10.

On the other side of that token, you could just as easily say that developers are potentially losing out on some revenue, because some people won't buy their game at all until Steam has some ridiculously low sale on it. Not every $15 game, after all, is really $10, as someone else said, it's kind of hard to place a price on each individual indie game, because who knows the wildly varying levels of time and money that each developer put into each game.

I think Steam is both a good thing and a bad thing, as I know a lot of gamers who have gravitated towards it, away from consoles, strictly BECAUSE of the frequent sales, and in fact some won't ever buy a game UNLESS it goes on sale, which I feel is a bad practice, if you actually care at all about supporting indie developers and supporting the industry in general. It's great to GET things on sale, don't get me wrong, and it's also great that Steam makes so many games available to people. But it has it's negative side that not too many people seem to ever bring up, if they even think of it.

Its nice coincidence that you posted right after nintendo released digital sales growth , you also use Wii u as an example.

Anyway i dont follow digital sales too closely, but the tactic u mentioned is an old hat. Retailer have used it long time already with tv sales and a lot of other stuff.


On german tv there was even a documentary about it, when the biggest listed retailer used the tactic for electronic equipment like tvs

EA never stated it devlaues gaming, they said it cheapens I.P, which the irony there is that valve have looked at the numbers and said themselves that people rush and buy up the big sales in droves and even when the sale is over, the game continues to sell at a higher rate than it would normally, generating overall larger profits.
On the flip side, EA felt inclined to offer us over half a dozen games including Battlefield 3 for $6 just a couple months ago and often provide discounts via Origin, so they contradict their own statement.

The other take from it is, people will only buy something if they think it's worth it, not everyone is going to jump at the lastest Call of Battlefield: Generic Shooter 78 and pay upwards of 100 bucks for it, but would more than likely jump on the chance at a muchly reduced price, devs might as well make some cash off that demographic IMHO.

I'm with you on the 50% discount though, thankfully it's so easy on the PC, generally there is *always* a sale happening somewhere.

Does this argument not also apply to physical games? Seems like normal free market economics to me.

The lesson is: buy a game (or anything else) based on how much it is worth to *you*, not by how much you think it is worth to somebody else, and never just because it is on sale. It's not a bargain if you ain't gonna use it.

Licence that is good advise i agree

I really support digital sales but I think there is still some catching up to do. Hell, what in the world can justify charging the same 50 dollars for both digital and physical versions of a game? In digital you don't have have: 1. manufacturing costs (cases, the media itself, manuals, etc.); 2. Transport costs; 3. Stocking costs; 4. Retailers fees (ok, Steam or GOG get their shares, but even then); 5. Industrializing taxes (in general) and many other stuff. So why charge the same at launch? It is totally unfair. What I think is: developers are in a catch 22 situation about going digital, because they cannot/will not have the prices low and maybe end up seeing people buy digital only, making physical copies a thing of collectors and purists in general. It then goes to affect the market in general and, thus, developers that have only digital distribution, who don't have to worry about any of those factors, that being probably one of the causes of what OP says. So I think the undecidedness of the market is something to blame, but then again digital distribution is in its infancy.

I think EA do still keep thier prices higher than elsewhere, I'm still waiting on a heavily discounted Crysis 3. I can get it for £16, but I want it for less than £10 since I want it as a tech demo.

If Valve say that it makes more money, I kind of believe them, even though I don't really understand it. If you're sensible even if you miss out on a sale, just wait a few montsh and it will come back, they always do

They won't pay silly prices for generic shooters, but prices for AAA PC games have been creeping up and yet we keep hearing how healthy the PC market it in every category.

You kind of wish that physical games would get a more variable pricing model. Sony has done some of that with Vita (Tearaway is cheaper than many Vita games), but in the UK, PS4/XB1 games are 25% more expensive than current gen games. I would say that's okay for some of the top teir games that will sell, but you would think that some of the smaller publishers would try selling their games at $40 or try putting a few publicity gaining discounts on the digital stores