LATEST CHATTY HEADER
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
New to Shacknews? Signup for a Free Account
Already have an account? Login Now
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/25/
Basic treatise: If you buy a publisher's game used then you're not a customer of theirs so they don't really care if the "one time use" code thing pisses you off:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/words-and-their-meanings/
And boy did the responses start coming in:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/lets-talk-about/
And now they've started posting some of them (with permission, I'm assuming):
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/lets-go-phones/
Very interesting...
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 313 replies.
I certainly see the developer's perspectives in this. They need to make money to continue to exist.
At the same time, I think the pricing model is completely fucked up. Not every game is worth $60. It's certainly not worth $60 6 months to a year after it's been released. I agree that an early adopter premium is fair on high demand games, but when a game has been out for a while and it's slipping on the charts, it makes sense to me that they should begin re-evaluating the cost proposition. Steam has proved time after time that older games will sell through the roof if the price is right. I don't think there is a single Shaker who hasn't gone on a binge buying spree on Steam when they have a sale.
It seems to me that the console market could learn from that and start a variable pricing model. Not everything is a triple A title. Nor should every indy game wind up on the budget list simply because they don't have a real distributor.
Here's the reason that the used market exists: Because the retail price of the game does not meet the price expectations of a large number of their potential market. That delta between expectations and price is the differential that the used game market can exploit. If manufacturers are serious about capturing that market, simply limiting DLC or multiplayer isn't going to make that big a difference. But changing the retail pricing to reflect market expectations will.
Triple A games should sell for a premium, especially at release. But very few games are blockbusters or have the potential to be blockbusters. Publishers actually reduce the amount of money they can make by treating every title like it's going to be a hit. It's an introduction to microeconomics lesson that the publishers seem to have missed.
If they sell 1000 units at $60 a unit, but they can sell 1500 at $50 a unit, they're stupid to keep selling at $60. Obviously the point where they would maximize profits is somewhat less than $60 and I maintain that the vast majority of games are being over priced, which is why we see the used game market.
The post has been reported. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post.
You must be logged in to post.