Seeing movies in a theatre on TV and actually owning them are three very different things. People don't all go to the cinema Because they have to see the film right away, they go because its a better experience than watching it at home. Likewise, a hardback book is a different beast to a paperback. Games however, are the same no matter how much you pay for them or when you do so.

So, if people knew for certain that the exact same product they're buying today will be reduced to a certain price at a certain date will they still buy it? Well yes actually, but not as many of them.

Obviously then the publisher has to decide if and when they will reduce their prices in order to maximise profit. I'm sure the idea you've outlined isn't new to publishers. More likely , as they employ economists more practised than you and me, they've just thought about it and rejected it

I'm going to disagree. One flaw is too look at Wii Fit. If I remember correctly, it is about $90, but it sells better than other games that are $30-$60. On the most recent charts, the best selling games are pricier then those below it.

I think the answer is more in your link. It's that there is no new content. At the same time last year, we had Mario kart Wii, Super Smash Brothers Brawl, Wii Fit, and Grand Theft Auto 4. In this year, there has been very little content all around, or very little "must have" content. I think the consumers have nothing to buy unless they just bought the hardware.

The one comparable model which is steam and its metrics does show validity to what im saying. Revenue in the short run increases by over 100% for short term price cuts on the games. Unfortunately within the console market there is no such price discrimination, its generally one price and only one price. This is the big reason why a digital distribution model would would wonders for publishers by allowing this kind of stratified pricing.

@Smashchu: Theres no comparable game to Wii Fit, theres hardly any competition for that kind of game from any other game on any other system.

The OP makes good points but one of the reasons they don't do this kind of thing is that they don't wont to devalue their product ,by only droping some lines this leaves doubt as to when and if a price drop will happen.

I remember buying fantasy star the the Sega Genesis and it cost me 85 US dollars new at Kmart. This was back in like 1995.

I would say now that I have thought about it some more, used games are doing the price discrimination and helping to kill the legs of games after release.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/05/the-facts-behind-the-game-trade-kiosks-ars-gets-the-scoop.ars

Theres also kiosks to think about as well.

One problem with your ideas is they don't look at factor numero uno: consumers. Take digital distribution. Consumers will only want it when it becomes more convinient are more accessable that driving to the store and picking one up. With games getting bigger and bigger, even Wii games, the consumer will not take to a digital distribution method as downloading a game takes far too long. Although your comment was not dirrected at me. I will say that digital distribution is not the future as it pleases the publisher, not the consumer.

But Wii Fit is a perfect comparison. It is a game consumers demand and it is more expensive than other games on the market. JUust because Wii Fit is one of a kind means nothing. Every game was one of a kind at some time. We don't need a Wii Fit like game anyway, as the comparison is on price, not the product itself.

I agree.

When you can buy a system for $200 it is a little bullshit for it's games to cost 40% of the consoles price. Not to mention that games seem to be shorter these days, even the JRPG's.

Isnt that what used game stores are for???

But the launch prices of games have only increased by $10s... I don't know how quickly the prices go down, but I don't think the launch price is an issue.