Rock, Paper, Shotgun

Hmm: EA On Steam/Origin Mega-Sales

By Alec Meer on June 6th, 2012 at 8:00 pm.

I wasn't sure how to illustrate this piece, so here are some puppies in a box. Aww.

Having been doing an awful lot of dev interviews for this site and others over the last couple of years, I’ve become increasingly wary of the out of context quote. Not because I believe they’re inaccurate (at least, not usually), because if you say something you should damn well be prepared to stand by it, but because picking out key words or phrases creates a wholly new context. That is, a man stands on top of a building with a megaphone and unexpectedly bellows a forceful proclamation at the world. That’s never how it happens, even in those rare interviews where the subject goes into it with an intention to push a specific agenda. While their opinions are their opinions, the contentious statements that become headlines almost always form part of a larger, calmer conversation where they’re led onto certain topics.

Hence, EA’s Origin boss David DeMartini saying Steam’s mega-sales “cheapen intellectual property” did not involve DeMartini leaning in close to the journalist at GamesIndustry International, raising a clenched fist with fire in his eyes, spittle on his lips and an expression which suggested he hoped everyone at Valve would spontaneously combust. Instead, as you can see if take the time to read the full interview rather than have an immediate reaction to that quote on its own, he offered a considered answer in response to a very specific question, which was itself part of a wider-ranging chat.

So, with apologies to GI for quoting quite so much of their thoughtful interview, here’s the fuller quote.

“We [Origin] won’t be doing that [deep-discounting in sales]. Obviously they think it’s the right thing to do after a certain amount of time. I just think it cheapens your intellectual property. I know both sides of it, I understand it. If you want to sell a whole bunch of units, that is certainly a way to do that, to sell a whole bunch of stuff at a low price. The gamemakers work incredibly hard to make this intellectual property, and we’re not trying to be Target. We’re trying to be Nordstrom. When I say that, I mean good value – we’re trying to give you a fair price point, and occasionally there will be things that are on sale you could look for a discount, just don’t look for 75 percent off going-out-of-business sales.”

And, later:

“Without revealing too much, what I’ll say is one way to deal with aging inventory is you do deep discounts like that. There are other ways, which I can’t really talk about, of dealing with product as it ages over a period of time, where you present a value to the customer and you engage them in your service on a going-forward basis… We’ve got something else that we do believe in that we’ll be rolling out. But I absolutely understand your point, and I’m not not-hearing what you’re saying.”

I presume initiatives like Battlefield Premium and trickle-updates for stuff like Mass Effect 3 are related to the “something else”, but we shall see. Streaming games is another option, I guess, as are ‘ultimate editions’ that contain the increasingly hard-to-track glut of DLC’n'whatnot they push out for their big titles.

The trouble with DeMartini’s comments, for me, is not that he’s saying Steam or the publishers that do embrace mega-sales via it are wrong-headed. It’s that he’s talking about “cheapening intellectual property”, and he works for a company that’s quite happy to disregard Syndicate or Ultima’s heritage/value in favour of chasing the prevailing wind (rote FPS and F2P browser-strategy respectively), to rush out a sub-standard Dragon Age sequel, and to shut down multiplayer servers for games that its staff worked bloody hard to make after just a couple of years. Obviously, that wasn’t the subject or context of the question, and DeMartini is talking about the Origin store specifically rather than the publisher as a whole, but it’s not news to anyone that EA seems to be by and large more about the big fat cash than offering ultimate respect for its own brands. Everything seems to be monetised and spun-off into whatever avenues are available, be it Facebook, Mountain Dew cans or iOS Apps.

On the other side of the coin, I can’t help agree with him somewhat on this point: “ Also what Steam does might be teaching the customer that “I might not want it in the first month, but if I look at it in four or five months, I’ll get one of those weekend sales and I’ll buy it at that time at 75 percent off.”

We do see that time and again in RPS comments. Even you’ve said it, Steve. Yes, it’s completely fair enough in this economically-troubled times that anyone would want to save money where they can, especially on what are essentially luxury items. I can’t promise I wouldn’t do the same. But in an age where studios seem to be getting axed by their bottom line-obsessed overlords every other week, such consumer inertia probably isn’t helping. I honestly don’t have the foggiest if this problem, it it is indeed a problem, is anywhere near widespread enough as yet to have meaningful repercussions, but it does seem the case that a great many people simply take it for granted that they won’t have to wait long to get a videogame they’re only partially interested in much cheaper much later. That said, it might be that without the mega-sale many people would simply never buy a game they aren’t actively anticipating. What the deep discounting can do is lead people to games they might otherwise never have tried, and between that and the bundles quite a few indie devs have seen life-changing results. As Time Gentlemen, Please dev Dan Marshall observed on Twitter earlier, “Steam sales have enhanced my IP beyond what I ever thought possible.”

In conclusion: different companies do different things and that is okay.

__________________

« | »

, , , , .

294 Comments »

  1. Stiletto says:

    D’AWWWWWWWWWW! PUPPIES!

  2. ZIGS says:

    I’ll wait for a sale to read this article

  3. nearly says:

    I’m still interested to see if and what they actually do have coming down the pipes in lieu of mega-sales. I should hope Battlefield Premium and frequent updates aren’t all.

    • mondomau says:

      I have a feeling it’s going to be a subscription service, like the PSN one, where you pay monthly / yearly for a premium content on triple A titles and get older titles for free as long as you keep paying. it fits with the whole ‘games as service’ idea that publishers like EA are pushing.

  4. Captchist says:

    Good piece, and I find it a vaguely interesting topic.

    There is a ticking clock on games in the form of the multiplayer, or sometimes just the social conversation. You need to play the MMO from day 1 so people don’t get ahead of you! If you care about that.
    You need to play Journey now because in 3 months who will care on Twitter?
    But if you don’t care about the “social window” that the game has, then get it in 5 months on steam for 75% off. And don’t feel bad about that!

    • Hoaxfish says:

      I’ve stayed away from “up-front” paid multiplayer-only games for a long while (I think the only one I ever got was Quake 3 Arena).

      F2P stuff like Tribes: Ascend seems like the best way to get someone to try, and then pay into your product. The same thing goes for MMOs.

      MMORPGs have a slightly different in terms of character development requiring time played, compared to other more “pick up and go” gamestyles.

      A dead community means a dead multiplayer game. Something Singleplayer games/campaigns can fully avoid. e.g. People replay Mass Effect 1 while waiting for ME3… but whenever a new Modern shooter game comes out, the previous one’s community almost instantly migrates (especially if the company actually shuts the “locked in” online servers).

      With LAN play “gone” in recent products, you can’t even just have a game amongst local friends.

    • Vorphalack says:

      I’ve always said that if a game isn’t compelling enough to warrant a day one purchase at full price, it’s the games fault. Personally, I still buy some full price games, even though I know I can wait it out on Steam and get it for a song. If the game is good, and not crippled by DRM or DLC, I will get it early and support the developer.

      What Steam sales do is get people onto games that they might never have picked up at all, and more importantly getting people to pay for them rather than just go pirate. It might not make a huge amount of money for the dev in a 75% sale, but the game will make money, and the next game they make will have a larger player base.

      • PaulMorel says:

        @vorphalak: Exactly. I buy plenty of games on day 1. I buy all Valve games on day 1. I buy all the Assassin’s Creed games on day 1, even though they ARE crippled by DRM. I preordered Torchlight 2, and many other games. EA just doesn’t make games that I want on launch day. The end.

        EA is, honestly, a joke to me. Their monopoly license on NFL videogames has destroyed NFL videogames, and outside of Bioware, they have no clue what PC gamers want.

        EA will be back on Steam before January 2013. I’ll take cash bets on this.

        • Phantoon says:

          What? Bioware clearly has no idea what their fans want.

        • Jason Moyer says:

          The EA monopoly on American football not only means we lost the better of the two series (NFL 2k5 still blows every Madden out of the water) but also the possibility of getting a PC version, now that 2K releases their sports games for us.

          Their monopoly on NASCAR also killed the greatest racing game studio ever (Papyrus).

        • Kuraudo says:

          You have more faith in EA’s ability to make sound business decisions than I do – I’d take that bet; after all it will take them at least until 2014!

      • Obc says:

        your argument can also be applied to piracy: if the game is good people will buy it instead of pirating. same goes for movies. The Avengers didn’t shatter box office records because suddenly everyone stopped pirating but because it was a great movie that people wanted to see.

        and also be reasonable with DRM and DLC or else people wont even bother. and in this case for full price.

        paraphrasing Gabe: making something good will keep away the pirates and make people buy your product.

      • CorruptBadger says:

        CD Project Red should start a kickstarter fund to buy-out EA.

        PC GAMING IS SAVED!

      • Ateius says:

        Yeah, Steam sales don’t discourage me from buying games I want on day one. If I’m excited enough for a game (Skyrim, Portal 2, Guild Wars 2, Crusader Kings 2, for a few examples) I will not only pay the day one price, I will even pre-order the thing. If I’m not? I’m certainly not buying day one, I’m waiting for peer and professional reviews, and unless those are outright spectacular, I’m going to wait for a sale.

        EA doesn’t understand that when I buy something on a Steam sale, it’s something I would not have purchased at full price. It’s making the difference between $0 and $20 for the developers. I’m not dropping $60 on a game I’m only mildly interested in.

        • Ragnar says:

          If I had infinite time and income, I’d buy every game on day 1. But I don’t, so I rarely buy games on day 1.

          But, thanks to Steam / Amazon / GoG sales, I buy lots of games at huge discounts. That includes EA published titles such as Dead Space series, Mirror’s Edge, Crysis series, Alice 2, C&C RA3, King’s Bounty series. At least 11 games, of which I’ve so far only played one for a few hours, and that mostly to see if my system could run it.

          So, in effect, huge sales lead me to spend money, a little at a time, on games I don’t even have time to play. Assuming the worst case scenario (for EA) of me buying each of those games for a meager $5 each, or 90% off, that’s $55 spent across 11 games that I would have never bought had they been priced at $25 each.

    • PopeBob says:

      I’d be more interested if it weren’t coming from EA. Weakening Intellectual Property is the core of EA’s business model, it seems. And to claim they plan to counteract lack of sales by offering “quality product” is laughable, at least in the current crop.

  5. VileThings says:

    The one thing Valve did with their Steam sales is combat videogame piracy more effectively than any other gaming company ever did – especially Ubisoft – and they make money while doing so as well as generate positive PR.

    • Grygus says:

      I have wondered how much of a difference there is from the developer’s point of view; how much of that deeply discounted price do they actually see?

      • Zorak says:

        If I recall, Carpe Fulgur and other devs have actually said they saw a huge portion of their profit actually come during sales.

        • Hoaxfish says:

          There was also something about level of buyers after a sale remains higher than before the sale… i.e. there’s a permanent “boost” in buying of that product even after the discount has ended.

          It’s basically underlying marketting… word of mouth etc creates a bigger community that draws in more people.

          • Zorak says:

            Yes, Gaben made a comment that the long term expansion of sales and profit after a sale was massive as part of an interview.

          • Phantoon says:

            He said when they lowered the price of TF2 to that absurdly low cost of something like 3 dollars, they made more than three times what they had in previous sales. The first week of the Mann Co store blew that out of the water to the tune of over fifty times more dosh. It was some insane number like half a million dollars in less than a week, and just kept climbing.

          • TechnicalBen says:

            So basically, EA are killing their own business by deciding that sales “cheapen intellectual property”.
            They are destroying their own business by not putting sales on or looking at better ways for funding the games (in game store, F2P, subscription etc).

            After what they have said they are doing to Sim City 5, I hope they succeed soon enough to have to sell the IP to a proper publisher/dev team. :D

          • Ragnar says:

            EA launched Origin in a pretty crowded market. The only reason anyone has Origin right now is because of the 3 exclusives. Otherwise, there’s absolutely no incentive for anyone to buy games on Origin as opposed to Impulse, Gamefly, GreenManGaming, let alone Steam, Amazon, or GoG. By not running huge sales, they’re giving users even less incentive to adopt Origin.

            Origin is now like GFWL or DRM – nobody wants it in their games, they grudgingly put up with it because they have to, and they avoid it if at all possible.

        • Kestilla says:

          According to several indie companies selling their games on Steam, I can’t remember which, Valve gives them comparatively generous portions of the income from their titles. More than half, if I recall.

          • Ragnar says:

            I’ve heard that 70% of a Steam sale goes to the dev/publisher (as opposed to 50% of a B&M retail sale). And while 70% of $2.50 for an indie title is only $1.75, 100k sales turn it into $175k, which is substantial.

            Look at the current Humble Bundle: Total value – $155, Average sale – $8.19, Discount – ~95%, Dev cut – 65% split 8 ways, Sales so far – 475k, Amount earned per dev so far – $316k.

            Now, there are some great games in that bundle, but $316k is still pretty amazing for an old(er) game that most people already own.

      • Aemony says:

        The rates are still the same, if I’m right, which means that Steam takes a 20-30% cut of the price (meaning the devs gets 70-80%). However the extra units more than makes up for it and Valve’s data shows that a simple midweek or weekend sale is quite profitable.

        It’s also worth mentioning that some developers/publishers actually raises their prices a bit during a sale just to fool their customers into thinking that the discounted price is that much cheaper than the original price…

        • trjp says:

          That would actually be illegal under UK/EU law so I actually doubt that happens…

          I can’t remember it happening – hell I can’t remember ANY game going up in price on Steam pretty much ever! :)

          • Bakuraptor says:

            It’s not exactly illegal under UK law, I don’t think; you’re in violation if your sale is not actually the percentage off its pre-sale price or if your offer is misleading; and the OFT can stamp down quite heavily on that (although supermarkets get away with it all the time). But if you raise your price before a sale begins, that wouldn’t incur any penalties. That said, it’s been ages since I did anything to do with consumer law so I could be wrong, but I think this is the way it works.

          • RvLeshrac says:

            It would be illegal under US law, as well, assuming some evidence. Even we have that basic protection.

          • ItalianPodge says:

            I believe they have to maintain a stable price for a number of weeks before a sale in the EU. That way thereis an established price to be discounted and not simply a percentage.

        • TCM says:

          When talking about economic integrity, it’s best if you actually have any idea what you’re talking about, and not just making up stuff you THINK MAYBE happens.

          A better example would be those games that are on a 10% off sale for eternity after release — it’s technically true, but the sale price is the effective standard price point.

    • Major Seventy Six says:

      Quite frankly, it did another nice thing: allowed me to try franchises I would not have risked my hard earned money on. Would I pay 60$ for Kingdom of Amalur ? not a chance.
      Would I buy the game at 75% (15$), yes; and I bet many many people do the same.

      So, that is either 15$ through Valve at the winter sale or 15$ in the used bin box at GameStop, which one is more profitable in the long run?

      Point is, sell games at a price point millions are willing to pay, not only 1.3 million :)

      • Mistabashi says:

        Indeed, my Steam account contains plenty of games I would never had bought had they not been cheap; sometimes it turns out I was right to let them pass me by, occasionally I find a gem that I’d overlooked, but overall I think it’s a positive effect.

        If you’re really interested in a game you’ll happily consider buying it at full price (provided that price is reasonable). If you’re not so interested, or simply can’t afford it, you wait until it gets cheaper. It’s a win-win situation, especially when you consider the ever-present opportunity of just pirating it.

        • jezcentral says:

          I doubt I’ve played more than 10% of the games I’ve bought for 75% off.

          • arccos says:

            I think most heavy purchasers of PC games are the same way. I personally buy a ton of games at cheap prices, play a couple hours at most, experience a new game, and feel like I got a great deal. Win-win, really.

            I have so, so many games now, there are very few games I would ever buy if they didn’t drop below $10 or $15. I buy a few for full price at launch, but when I can play almost every game ever made, many of which I already own, it’s silly to pay much for a new game I don’t want badly.

          • Ragnar says:

            I just bought 2 games today on GoG for $5 each. Will I play them? Maybe. Did I need more games? Absolutely not. But at $5, I just couldn’t say no.

      • CorruptBadger says:

        a good point, i bought a good few games on sale, which compelled me to buy their sequels at £40 on release. For example, i got Heroes of might and magic 5 for £6, enjoyed it a lot, then bought 6 for £40, £40 the developers would never have seen if i had not bought the previous game in a sale.

      • Drew says:

        Now, if Kingdom of Amalur had been $30 at launch…

        Point being, very few games are “worth $60″ when there are so many great games you’ve yet to play, available for considerably less than $60. As a matter of course, games should not be $60.

        • InternetBatman says:

          I don’t think lower launch prices are the answer in most cases, because launch customers are willing to buy a game that they now very little about.

          • Drew says:

            True enough, and hell,. I’ve wait for games that were $5 at launch to drop to $2.50. But on the flipside, I pre-ordered Quantum Conundrum without hesitation when I found out it was less than $20 for the Most Deluxe Edition Available–whereas I have a mini ethical crisis every time a game I really want has a pre-order price of $60.

      • jrodman says:

        In an effort to combat nonsense corporate speak:

        Please consider “game” or “series” instead of “franchise”.

    • ichigo2862 says:

      Totally agree. I for one bought a truckload of games I had pirated previously last Steam holiday sale, and am working on legitimizing my library one game at a time, thanks to Steam discounts. Still considering whether or not to buy anything further from EA or Ubisoft though, sale or otherwise, they seem to not want my money, since every time they come to the mic, they say something that just offends/horrifies me as a consumer.

      • Ragnar says:

        I like to think that the people who make games at EA, Ubi, Activision, etc, are all good people; hardworking devs that love games and love gamers. I’m not happy that the greedy bigwigs who want to “take all the fun out of making games” end up pocketing most of my money, but I won’t let them keep me from supporting the people who actually make the games.

  6. Hoaxfish says:

    EA… I’m not sure what it’ll take for me to actually believe what they say, and certainly not as some sort of well-meaning opinion. EA is far from saving this industry, and is somewhat known for “cheapening” IP (e.g. Syndicate).

    • Mistabashi says:

      It’s worth bearing in mind that EA is a very big company, so it’s actions as a whole may contradict the views of one of it’s employees, regardless of their position in the company. It’s something that people often forget when talking about big corporations, we tend to assume that when a representative speaks they’re just towing the company line and have been scripted by their PR department but that isn’t always the case.

      • Hoaxfish says:

        It’s sort of a two-way street I think.

        EA has done something, where a lot of their staff “personal opinion” sounds like marketting spin, and all their EA pronouncements (obviously) sound like marketting spin. What little “real opinion” their staff may have as individuals is obscured by the amount of BS pretending to be personal opinion.

        Other companies seem to have managed to keep the line between “business self-promotion” and “personal opinion” much clearer, if not cleaner.

        • Phantoon says:

          I don’t believe it’s that way anymore. The actions of Bioware, once brought into the undulating plague-ridden fat folds of EA, stopped being their own people.

      • RvLeshrac says:

        When you’re taking someone’s money, you have partial responsibility for the actions undertaken by them. The same rule applies when giving someone money for a purpose.

        You don’t get a free pass on “just following orders” simply because you’re not involved in a government organisation.

    • Quarex says:

      “This cheapens intellectual property,” said a legitimately evil human being in charge of a game download service whose name continually mocks the intellectual property of one of the best computer game companies in history.

      • FunkyBadger3 says:

        Genuinely evil?

        Jebus wept, some people.

        • Phantoon says:

          Sorry, are we quantifying evil, which is a concept of morality, based on the fact that the guy probably hasn’t drowned the puppies in that picture at the top?

          Dude would sell you air if he could get away with it.

          • Ragnar says:

            Nah, he’d sell you a monthly subscription to air, with optional extras you could purchase such as a week of fresh air or clean air.

    • Zephro says:

      What’s the real difference here though suddenly for EA?

      Can they complain when Amazon have a big sale or discount pre-orders? No. HMV, No, Game, no. X-Box Live Arcade? No. PlayStation? No.

      If EA pissed them off by complaining about their sales they would risk pissing off their distribution channels. Their channels which know full well EA needs them more than they need EA.

      But EA are now manoeuvring to be their own distribution channel so they can price fix. So fuck them.

      • TechnicalBen says:

        The difference? None of those other retailers are calling out Steam (massively popular and profitable, more so than them) for being “stupid” with “IP”. This is the Valve that practically gives away it’s IP for free, and still makes shed loads of money.

        If any of those other companies, while dying a death through lack of sales, said “Steam is rubbish”, you would do a double take too.

  7. Brun says:

    “I might not want it in the first month, but if I look at it in four or five months, I’ll get one of those weekend sales and I’ll buy it at that time at 75 percent off.”

    I don’t think this will ever be a problem for major releases. A significant majority of people playing things like Assassin’s Creed, Mass Effect, COD, or Skyrim are going to buy on day one. Most of the “wait 4 or 5 months and then buy on sale” will continue to happen to B games. EA might not like the fact that games that it designed (or at least budgeted) to be AAA fall into that B game category, but until they stop churning out so much garbage they need to get used to it.

    • deenmeister says:

      Agreed, if the game you make isn’t good enough to capture a gamer’s attention at the (often exorbitant) price its initially sold for, you cannot blame them for buying it at the value they deem fair.

      • RvLeshrac says:

        This. Holy fuck, this.

        I didn’t wait until Space Marine was on sale for under $20 because I only had $20 to spend, I did it because that’s the amount of value I perceived. Same applies to other games I’ve waited for, like Deus Ex: How Revolting. I’ll pay full price at launch for a game I feel deserves it. The original Dragon Age, Guild Wars 2, Recettear, etc.

        If they don’t discount games over time they simply won’t get my cash, period.

      • Ragnar says:

        I disagree. I don’t think those games are B games at all. I simply don’t have enough time to play all the great games that come out. What’s the point in me buying a game on day 1 when I won’t get around to playing it for months? My backlog’s so big that I’m buying sequels at 75% off before I ever get around to playing the originals.

    • PopeJamal says:

      This is well worth repeating:

      “EA might not like the fact that games that it designed (or at least budgeted) to be AAA fall into that B game category, but until they stop churning out so much garbage they need to get used to it.”

      Thank you sir!

      More towards the discussion, I’m SICK and GD tired of stuffed shirts, game devs, and anybody else trying to give me a f-ing guilt trip because I don’t want to hand out $50 bills like f-ing valentine cards for their derivative, shit titles and rehashes. They’re just as bad as the movie studios.

      “No, I don’t want to see that movie AGAIN. I saw it in the 90′s and that was enough, thanks.”

      The same goes for games. I’ve already played ManShooter 17, GASP!, 16 times before. I don’t want to play it again. NO, I don’t want to pay $50+ for your product and it doesn’t make me an asshole for feeling that way!

      In fact, you should appreciate the fact that I even bought it for $5 on Steam while sitting in my pajamas at home because I sure as hell wouldn’t waste the $3 in gas and all the effort to drive to GroceryMart for the privilege of plucking it out of the bargain bin.

      99% of all gamers are going to spend the money on the titles that impress them. What the hell do they think sells video card upgrades and game consoles? It’s not because we’re all technophiles, that’s for damn sure.

      Dumb asses. EA seems to be THAT GUY. The one that pisses you off more and more every time he opens his big, greasy pie-hole.

      • beetle says:

        And how! I whole-heatedly concur.

      • Shooop says:

        The problem is those of us who think (properly) like you do are few and far between. There’s so many more “Dude man, dude. Duuuuuuuude” types who see a name brand on a game box and then wet themselves in joy that this way of thinking EA’s (and just about everyone else) embraced is not only possible to get away with, but is bound to make them rich enough to buy moon bases.

      • nutterguy says:

        Totally agreed! Also well put sir. :-)

      • Stromko says:

        Heyhey, that’s not accurate. They don’t want your 50$ for pumping out the same derivative shit every six months. They want your 60$.

        • Kuraudo says:

          And how much longer until $80.00? $100.00?

          Indie games can only benefit from this inevitable journey to 1,000.00 USD AAA titles.

          • Jimbo says:

            I doubt game prices have even matched inflation over the last 10-15 years. It’s arguable that they’re worse value than they used to be, but I don’t think they have become more expensive in real terms.

          • Brun says:

            http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/04/opinion-kohler-video-expensive/

            The increase in cost of development roughly matched inflation for most of gaming history. After about 2005, however, the cost started increasing rapidly and have been outpacing inflation ever since.

  8. Bobtree says:

    Current game prices and sales already saturate our playtime. What serious gamer doesn’t have a backlog these days? I now want high quality much more than I want low prices.

    • Tiguh says:

      Hear hear, good sir!

    • trjp says:

      You say that but you don’t actually mean that – not even remotely.

      To mean that, you’d have to suggest that quality has been slipping in the 3-4 years that Steam has been doing really, really cheap sales – and I’d say the evidence suggests the total and complete opposite.

      e.g. you’re talking balls…

      • Shuck says:

        I certainly am now at the point where I skip buying good games at low prices because I will never have the time to play it due to the backlog of great games I already have. My time has become a far, far more scare commodity than the funds in my game-buying budget.

    • woodsey says:

      That statement makes no sense whatsoever. You seem to be linking Steam sales to game quality.

      If you think you’ve got a backlog of shit games, stop buying shit games just because they’ve gone on sale.

      • PaulMorel says:

        I think what Shuck meant is that he doesn’t have time to play all the games he has purchased on sale (whether they are good or not), so the side effect of the steam sales is that he isn’t buying some games simply because he doesn’t have time to play the games he has.

        I have a backlog of games too … but the only thing that prevents me from buying is when I am playing a really awesome game like Skyrim or Dota 2.

      • Ragnar says:

        He’s saying that due to Steam’s great sales, he now has a backlog of great games. He’s now at the point that he has more great games than he has time to play, so he no longer cares about the price of new games as much as their quality.

        In other words, if EA wants him to buy their games, they need to make sure that their new games surpass the quality of existing games, rather than worrying about what price they’ll sell those games.

  9. Mordsung says:

    Interesting trend mostly based on anecdotal evidence from my own memory:

    Big publishers/devs seem to rag on Steam sales, especially those who don’t have their games on Steam.

    Smaller devs seem to love Steam sales, even when their product is being moved for 5 bucks.

    *counts the number of good games from large devs in the last 5 years* Hmm

    *counts the number of amazing games from smaller devs in the last 5 years* HMMM!?

    Carry on Steam. Carry on.

    • Archonsod says:

      Probably because large devs are used to selling three million copies at release, while most smaller devs are more used to shifting thirty copies. I doubt the larger devs see as much benefit from the game being on sale (i.e. most of the target market probably bought it on release) compared to the smaller dev (i.e. more people are willing to pay three quid for an unknown than fifteen quid).

      • Shuck says:

        Also, you also have a lot of small devs who are selling their games new for less than $20, so a $5 sales price isn’t that huge a drop compared to a $60 game being sold for the same amount. That is, their IPs aren’t being devalued in the same way that the AAA games are, if you want to put it in EA-speak.

    • InternetBatman says:

      Absolutely. Massive sales have not led to less money being spent on games, they just have led to a more equitable distribution of the wealth. This is fairly bad for publishers, who use their concentrations of wealth to create and maintain their positions, but better for the industry as a whole and the customer.

  10. djbriandamage says:

    Even in ecommerce you have to compete for shelf presence. You can do this with new releases, expansions and DLC, and with sales.

    What chance is there of a 3-year-old game turning a decent profit without a significant discount? There’s thousands of games on Steam; how else can developers differentiate themselves?

    Thank goodness for 75% Steam sales. I’ve bought so many games I never would have (and indeed, so many games I’ve not yet played, but will on that rainy day I keep saving up for). EA speaks of the health of the industry being at risk as a result of these sales, but I’ve spent far more on games overall as a direct result of this strategy.

    There can only be one leader. Follow, if that’s what you think is best, EA.

    • Brun says:

      The health of the industry EA knows and loves, the one it grew up with is at risk. Despite EA’s wishes to the contrary, that industry is changing. Steam’s sales are disruptive to EA’s (already flawed) business model. So of course they are going to badmouth Steam sales, and paint them as the devil that is destroying the industry.

      • djbriandamage says:

        This is why I love Valve and respect Gabe so very much. They revolutionize the market and then tear down the new standards they just worked so hard to establish. I was floored by their idea to give incentives to players that are enjoyable to spend time with. Valve seems to build their company on the concepts of positive reciprocity.

      • Zephro says:

        This is already true with other media. Films and music have and are suffering through the same problem.

        Why would I bother paying £10 for a cinema ticket when it will be out on DVD for a fiver in a few months on Amazon?
        Why would I buy a full album when only 1 song is good and I can get that for 70p?

        It’s not a new or unique problem. When was the last time any of us paid full price for a DVD or CD? Ever since I was a kid I waited for things to be on sale at HMV, Game and later Amazon before buying things. Steam aren’t even really innovating.

        It’s just EA being EA and desperately clinging to a business model that isn’t fit to survive.

    • iainl says:

      I think EA’s problem is that they want you spending £40 on their new game, not £10 on last year’s one that isn’t discernibly different. So they don’t see it as £10 profit on a game you weren’t going to otherwise buy, but £30 loss because cheap alternatives to their hype monster exist.

      Other companies sometimes solve this by ensuring that their new game is a different game, but that’s often not the EA way.

    • Shuck says:

      “What chance is there of a 3-year-old game turning a decent profit without a significant discount?”
      It’s true* (well, for most games, anyways – there are a few exceptions), and this allows those games to have a “long tale” in sales that they otherwise wouldn’t have (at all). What’s rather shocking is that I’m seeing games being sold in specials on Steam for deep discounts that are only three months old. And it’s here, perhaps, that he has a point about devaluing IPs.

      *Edit: Although it occurs to me that there used to be concrete reasons for this that aren’t true anymore. Once upon a time, a three-year-old game was significantly less complex, technically, than a new game, and previous to internet sales, limited shelf space gave most games a commercial lifespan measured in weeks. So there was no significant competition between old and new games. Now, with cross-platform releases (with PC versions limited by console capabilities) and stagnant console development, a three-year-old game is likely to be identical to a new one (or even better). The sales mindset, however, is still stuck in that previous period where new games were more valuable. There’s no reason for that.

      • Ragnar says:

        It’s not just Steam, console games get that too through Amazon, Best Buy, even Gamestop (I bought Uncharted 3, Gears of War 3, and FFXIII-2 for $20-30 a few months after release). You have to figure that after the first month, everyone who really wants the game already has it. How many games have you bought at full price 2-3 months after release? So then you drop to 25% off, and remind people that your game is out there. Then 50% off, and get everyone who was on the fence about getting your game to buy in. Then 75% and get everyone who was remotely interested in your game to buy it.

        The cycle has always been there, it’s just been accelerated. Now, instead of having to wait 6 months for the 50% drop and 1 year for the 75% drop, you might only have to wait 3 months and 6 months. Those who bought on day 1 before will still buy on day 1, and those who were patient before are still going to be patient. It might shift some of the 50% buyers over to 75% buyers, but the studio now gets its profit from a game in half the time.

    • CorruptBadger says:

      a beautiful example would be ARMA II:Combined Forces, which went on sale a few weeks after the Day Z mod came out, I imagine Bohemia Interactive made a shit ton thanks to the sale, the game itself is a few years old, but because of mod support, something EA regard as heresy because it reduces the chance you’ll swallow that shit they call DLC, it has probably made a tidy profit.

      EA simply don’t seem to grasp the market, they seem to think nickel and dimming the customer is uber profitable, but in actual fact building up customer loyalty, good brands and favourable PR will bring in much more cash and customers in the long run. This idea of ‘Devaluation of IP’ just shows how much EA want to try and inspire hate against their competitors to bring in customers, rather than simply be a better a company and therefore gain customers on their own merits and word of mouth

  11. phelix says:

    I find that EA has no right whatsoever to discuss the “cheapening of intellectual property” without taking proper responsibility for ruining quite the number of promising IPs.

  12. Chmilz says:

    On the other side of the coin, I can’t help agree with him somewhat on this point: “ Also what Steam does might be teaching the customer that “I might not want it in the first month, but if I look at it in four or five months, I’ll get one of those weekend sales and I’ll buy it at that time at 75 percent off.”

    It does teach us that. But gamers have also taught developers that good games get bought up in the millions of copies for full price if they’re good. Maybe EA has a problem making good games worth their day-1 price.

    • Grygus says:

      It does seem like another case of blaming external forces when a game doesn’t sell well. Oh, well our game was… um… pirated! And it went on sale! That’s why people did not wire us their paychecks for our amazing first-person reboot of Frogger.

    • Ragnar says:

      You surely can’t claim that bargain bins filled with console games are in any way related to anything Steam did, or that Steam is responsible for Amazon, Newegg, BestBuy, etc slashing the prices on console games.

      It’s been that way for a long time, for all rapidly evolving technology products with a limited lifespan. Look at computer hardware, cell phones, tablets, video game consoles, headphones, earphones, GPS, etc. The only things that keep their price are things with long life cycles, such as computer cases, power supplies, monitors.

  13. onsamyj says:

    “Piracy is killing industry!” “Used games are killing industry!” “Sales are killing industry!”

    Can I suggest to shoot on sight anyone who throws things like that without real numbers and studies? And I mean anyone: I don’t know how my behaviour affects industry. Maybe preordering and bundles are killing industry.

    • Kresh says:

      It’s hard for them to embrace facts when they’re busy waving their hands in the air to simulate panic. Besides, facts would detract from the narrative and you can’t have that!

      Those darn pesky, always-ruining-a-good-plot facts. Curses!

      As in, you’ll never see them.

      Also, it’s not your job to change your behavior so as to keep from destroying the industry. It’s the industry’s job to adapt to your needs. If they can’t hack it then they deserve to fail. Capitalism baby. It weeds the weak from the strong.

      • onsamyj says:

        I agree, but the thing is we need numbers from “the other side” too. It’s just murky waters, and it is… murky… and wet.

      • djbriandamage says:

        Fantastically well stated. I was going to reward you with a milkbone but I couldn’t resist giving it to the box pups.

    • Amun says:

      The numbers* say that the relation between unit price and total profits is not linear as unit price goes down. When you sell your game at a deep discount, you get vastly more money as the discount gets deeper.

      *(Proponents of big sales put out these numbers.)

    • jhng says:

      The real problem that’s killing the industry is actually people playing the games — after all time spent playing is time that could be spent buying. Unless the industry finds a way to wean consumers off the expectation to spend time playing a game so they can just focus on the buying, I think it’s pretty much dead in the water.

      Movements like (almost)-always-online DRM will help but they really need to push a lot harder and faster if they’re going to get consumers out of the ‘buy-play’ cycle and into a proper ‘buy-buy’ cycle.

      Anyway, that’s my hapenny.

      • onsamyj says:

        So, it’s kinda bad that I spend 240+ hours (yes, 10 days) on just “Skyrim”?.. I’m killing industry.

        • jhng says:

          I was being ironic, but there is a grain of truth. Ultimately 240 hours on Skyrim is also 240 hours where you’re not browsing Steam/Origin/Desura and buying more games. I’m sure that there are some suits in the industry who would genuinely consider this a sup-optimal outcome.

        • Ragnar says:

          Actually, you are. And so is Bethesda. If you had only spent 20 hours on Skyrim, then you would have needed something else to fill in those remaining 220 hours. You would have had to buy 11 20 hour games, which you would have no doubt bought on day 1, to fill in that time. So yes, you and Bethesda are killing the industry.

          But let’s take a step back from there. Let’s look at Activision / Blizzard. How many people have avoided buying new games because they’re still busy playing Call of Duty, WoW, Starcraft 2, or now Diablo 3? Clearly Activision / Blizzard, and the people who play their games, are also killing the industry.

          And let’s take another step back. Let’s look at RPGs. On average, RPGs take at much longer to play through than other games. Even short RPGs take about twice as long. So clearly RPGs are keeping people from playing, and buying, other games and thus are killing the industry too.

          So there we have it. All we need to do is:
          1) Get rid of Bethesda
          2) Get rid of Activision / Blizzard
          3) Abolish RPGs
          and the industry will be saved!

          • Ragnar says:

            But, seriously, I think we all know what’s really killing the industry: hundreds of thousands of people playing games that they didn’t pay for.

            Yes, that’s right, F2P games. I mean, how is anyone supposed to sell a full priced game when other studios are just giving their game away for free? It’s like piracy, only worse, because there’s no way to vilify either the gamers partaking in it or the studios making it possible. And if you try to play F2P games for lost sales, people will just ask why you didn’t go F2P yourself. Ugh, there’s no way around it. F2P is clearly the #1 threat killing the game industry.

            #2 is Martian death rays. Damn death rays. Damn.

    • Bilateralrope says:

      Valve has provided the numbers. 75% discount leads to a massive increase in revenue. Then an increase in sales after the sale ends.

      Valve has also admitted that they are experimenting with the pricing because they don’t fully understand what’s going on.

      • onsamyj says:

        Sales works and they are there almost from beginning of commerce. I know that, you know, even EA know (they do, right?). But DeMartini and co implying other things, like shrinking of day one purchases, for example, longevity of a game, etc.

        That’s right, Valve is trying to figure it out so far. They closer to the truth, or I believe so, but don’t there yet – that’s why we need studies, that is all I’m saying.

  14. stupid_mcgee says:

    Honestly, I probably never would have bought Orcs Must Die or Torchlight if their sale hadn’t piqued my interest. Because I enjoyed their IPs so much, I’ve pre-ordered Torchlight 2 and will likely pre-order OMD2.

    • PodX140 says:

      I did this except not from a sale *wink wink*

      But knowing full well that I can wait a couple months for a 50% off sale, I still purchased TL2 at it’s full pre-order price because I realized it’s a developer/IP I want to support, and I sure as hell am going to support them.

      EA is just trying to justify not reducing prices as it “damages the IP” What, are <30$ games looked upon as beggars and lower class now? Hell no, if you're a good game you're good. Which is what EA seems to be lacking nowadays. So it does explain their complete opposition to the idea of sales.

  15. Kresh says:

    I honestly don’t think the sales are doing anything more than moving games that people were sitting on the fence about. People who want the game buy it right away. People who are interested either buy it right away or wait until the price falls the usual $10 or so within 6 months (as games seem to do, but this is merely my anecdotal observation). People like me, who aren’t really interested in a game, might pick up a game when the sale hits because it’s cheap enough that that I can try it out without feeling cheated if I think the game is terrible (or just not that good).

    Sales hit the sweet spot for people looking for something new but aren’t interested in spending $60 for a AAA title that is outside their normal genre preference.

    Every gamer has games they’ll buy the first day out, games they’ll wait for a drop in price, and games that they’ll buy when Steam bundles them with other gaming curios. EA needs to recognize that gamers aren’t a monolithic block of brain-dead consumers that are stopped from dropping premium prices on every AAA title that comes out merely because Steam has sales. Talk about a disconnect.

    • Brun says:

      EA needs to recognize that gamers aren’t a monolithic block of brain-dead consumers

      After years of focusing its efforts on the Xbox 360, is it really that surprising that this is EA’s perspective?

      • Kresh says:

        Please expand on your premise. How did their experience in the Xbox 360 market teach them this behavior? I’m a PC snob so I probably missed what you’re talking about. Please enlighten me.

  16. spleendamage says:

    “The gamemakers work incredibly hard to make this intellectual property, and we’re not trying to be Target. We’re trying to be Nordstrom.”

    I guess I don’t understand this. It isn’t like your production costs are dictating the sale price. The sale price point is established… $60 for a AAA. title The only thing that changes here is the number of units you have to move to make your money back. Thanks to wonderful digital distribution, there is no additional production cost for moving more units. Steam has already established that they hit a sweet spot for profit return at the 75% discount level. So what gives? The publisher doesn’t want MORE money based solely on the fact they don’t want their products to appear cheap?

    So, the logic being espoused is: It’s better to be more price exclusive thus cater to a “higher class” of gamer, than make more money and let more people play the game.

    • Brun says:

      You’re correct, but to clarify, it’s not just about moving units. Very few AAA games made today could recoup their costs by virtue of only units sold at a $60 price point. That’s why you see so many DLCs, Premium editions, etc.

      But yes. It seems that in the console world, at least, having a huge budget is something to brag about, because people will think that means it’s a better game. I think that logic stems from the same mentality.

      • djbriandamage says:

        This seems like the other side of this mobius strip, though. DLC allows customers to pay as much as they want for a product, while sales let them pay as little as they want. It’s a powerful combination for people who bought the game cheap and got such good value that they want to invest further.

        I bought the game Jamestown in an indie bundle, fell in love with it, and felt badly that they only received 75 cents of my donation, so I bought the DLC (which was smartly advertised right in the game).

  17. gorzan says:

    I must say that I have that “if I wait I’ll get it at 75% off” but I’m a broke student. I have 30€ to spend each week. Take the money I spend during social interactions, and notice that I buy comics too, and that’ll make it perfectly understandable.
    In fact, I know, when I end my studies and get a job, I will buy games on day 1 without a worry for possible sales a bunch of months later.

  18. MondSemmel says:

    On the matter of sales: I spend far more money on games than I ever did before (I used to play the same Blizzard games for years – SC:BW, then Diablo II, then WC3:TFT (several years), WoW (2+ years)); now, I own a Steam library of apparently 213 games, almost none of which I have bought at full price. I would be _very_ surprised if I had, on average, spent more than 2,5 € per game on my Steam library.

    So in that case, the deep discounting model has surely made _me_ spend far more money on video games, but of course I’m not representative of all gamers.
    And on the flipside, I own 50++ games I have neither finished nor even tried yet.
    And I still buy new games: Just in the last ~14 days, I bought the latest Humble Bundle, Indie Royale, Build a Bundle, Indie Gala and Game Music Bundle 2. (And while I don’t have the time to play all the games, I always have time for the video game music, and I have never been disappointed by that, so far.)

    But I notice a trend in my case, too – for the first few Humble Bundles, I paid a lot more than average because the games seemed to be worth it, and there was no buyer’s fatigue yet. Now, however, I rarely spend more than average.

  19. Mage says:

    Sorry but having just reinstalled Origin after a fresh windows installation, ending up on the store page and watching the main game slideshow they have going on, I’ve found EA are disconnected from the sale part of their little operation, 80 euro for a digital special edition of Sim City? If that was a bit steep, don’t you worry! The ever popular WoW-killer Star Wars MMO is reduced from 75 euro to 49! And look at that, Crysis 3 a bargain at 55 euro! No special edition at all, seriously? 55 euro? Finishing up with a lovely reduced price for the Crysis Maximum edition at 35 euro. I mean it speaks for itself, 55 euro for a new game? 5 above any other online retailer.. Digital is meant to be cheaper to sell than retail, but EA makes it look like it has to sacrifice seven cattle to the Digital Download Gods to get content onto your computer..

  20. LAB says:

    Why is it that any of the managers of major publishers open their mouth I have the idea they’re talking for shareholders instead of developers or gamers?

  21. NathanH says:

    I have to say, a game has to really excite me or really be cheap for me to buy at anything close to full price these days. Even things I really wanted to play, like Trine 2, I realized it wouldn’t hurt much to wait and buy it for £5 at some point.

    I think I have also changed my habits with regards to Steam sales. A few years ago I would buy things if I thought they might be good if they were cheap enough, whereas now I am much more careful and generally only buy things I definitely want to play. So I’d guess that Steam sales used to make me spend more money but now they make me spend less.

  22. 0011110000110011 says:

    Purely opinion here:

    Pre-Steam, I pirated every game, except those that relied on multiplayer for enjoyment.

    Post-Steam, I buy pretty much all my games, only pirating ones that aren’t on Steam, or I’m not sure I’ll enjoy.

    As others have said, Steam has without doubt increased the amount I spend on games. Developers are happy, Valve is happy, Customers are very happy. EA isn’t.

    Carry on Steam. Carry on.

    • cliffski says:

      Except the developers whose games are rejected by steam, whom you presumably feel happy to still pirate from?
      I know a bunch of developers who make good games who have difficulty getting on steam. Nobody seems to understand that you don’t just click a button and get listed on steam. games are listed at their discretion.

      Pirating a game because steam refused to put it on their site seems incredibly unfair to the developer who probably needed that sale 10x more than a developer who *is* on steam.

      • mr.ioes says:

        Famous example: Unepic.
        Steam rejects it for whatever reason. Game seems pretty good judging by what I read. Haven’t tryed it myself, as it’s not on Steam. Duh.

      • fooga44 says:

        Except most games and gamedevs absolutely suck balls. i.e. devs make games that aren’t very good compared to what already exists.

      • TCM says:

        Cliffski, I keep noticing a fundamental misconception you have.

        You believe that pirates play and enjoy all the games they actually pirate, cackling over the poor indie developer who fruitlessly waves his ‘will work for food’ sign.

        The reality of the matter, based on my highly unscientific and anecdotal evidence of a small sample, is that 95% of all pirated games are off the guy’s hard drive in a week. Within two, they can’t even remember the name of the game.

        If you don’t pay for something, it doesn’t have value to you. This is a simple fact. Any sales you believe you or others have lost to piracy was never a sale to start with.

        This hardly justifies piracy, of course — anyone who does get legitimate enjoyment from a game SHOULD be willing to pay for it, and support its developers. And I certainly can understand the frustration of indie devs, who are, more than anyone, in need of funds. But attacking pirates for not supporting the developer is tilting at windmills.

        • Kresh says:

          “But attacking pirates for not supporting the developer is tilting at windmills.”

          …and not just because the pirates don’t give a sh*t.

        • cliffski says:

          “If you don’t pay for something, it doesn’t have value to you. This is a simple fact. Any sales you believe you or others have lost to piracy was never a sale to start with.”

          The poster even says he buys game on steam and pirates them not on steam. So the act of steam approving a game he refers to magically gives it value to him, but the same game, for the same person, in the same universe has zero value because someone at steam didn’t approve it?

          Yeah right…

      • wu wei says:

        I really like Desura. It’s not quite as convenient as Steam but it’s close, and its wealth of free and cheap indie games & mods makes it worth setting up.

        Plus, y’know, it’s the other choice for pretty much all of the recent bundles.

    • Harlander says:

      The next step in your evolution is to not pirate games – if a game you’re interested in doesn’t provide a demo, just don’t get it.

      This, I think, will be win-win in the long run.

  23. Runty McTall says:

    I don’t get very much time to play computer games any more and, with our first kid on the way, I don’t have money to burn. With *very* rare exceptions I won’t pay over a tenner for a game now. Without Steam sales I simply wouldn’t buy many games. The money that they get on the sale is money they wouldn’t get from me otherwise. It’s that simple. Can’t speak to whether this is generally damaging to the industry or not but that’s what the implications are for this buyer.

    P.S – Gabe Newell seemed, in previous interviews, to be implying that their data shows games to be price elastic (ie a cut in price leads to a proportionally greater increase in volume, leading to more win for everyone), which would also shoot down the EA guy’s point.

    • 0011110000110011 says:

      Yep, games are very price elastic, which is why Valve manages to score such high profits whilst keeping every party happy (Consumers, publishers). Except EA.

  24. fenrif says:

    Meanwhile EA continues to spearhead their “games as a service” buisness model where you pay for a game, and then pay even more for the rest of the game at a later date (or the same date, day one DLC whoohoo!). They do this by avoiding making anything new like it’s a plague and running any existing franchises into the ground like it’s going out of style.

    EA doesn’t like any amount of power being on the customer side of the customer/publisher relationship. Any shift in that balance pisses them off because they have less of a chance of nickel and diming you for their “last years game +1″ drivel they shovel out the door like a wet fart.

  25. Monchberter says:

    I can’t remember when, but good ol’ Gabe knocked this one back a while back saying that their mega sales make up in volume what you would potentially lose in individual unit cost. In fact I remember the example being something like a 900% increase in profits or somesuch?

    At the end of the day, people like games, and people love cheap great games. And so should devs if they attract thousands more customers.

    • Salt says:

      There’s no doubt that Steam sales are profitable events, at least in the short term.

      The point in question is whether the existence of such regular and such strong sales make customers less willing to pay full price for games.

      • spleendamage says:

        I guess I would say, what’s the difference?
        If the sales give the same amount of profit margin by virtue of massive volume… who cares?

        Oh wait, I remember… the console market, which is basically tied to this $60 a game model.

        • cliffski says:

          makers of niche games.
          If you make a civilian transport helicopter sim, your target market is pretty small. If the value of games is devalued below the point where

          your target market * acceptable game price < development cost

          Your game cannot be made at a profit (so only by hobbyists).

          Thats bad news, unless you *only* like mass market appeal games.

          • subedii says:

            Railworks is pretty much the definition of hobbyist market, and has a ridiculous amount of DLC to cater to its demographic.

            And despite its low metacritic, low budget, and full price, seems to be continuing to be successful since it released.

            So I’m wondering where that fits into “only mass market” games.

            I mean I don’t necessarily disagree with your point, but if what you’re saying is true, there’s just no way that something like Railworks should even exist, let alone be plausible with its 100+ addons. It’s not cheap, It’s not high budget, and it’s certainly not “mass market” material.

          • BarneyL says:

            I don’t think Railworks is going for the buy everything model, I suspect it’s more a matter of picking out the location and era you’re interested in and spending £30-50 setting up for that. You wouldn’t judge TF2 based on the cost to buy every hat.
            Plus as it’s been pointed out before Railworks isn’t really aimed at the gamer market but at the model railway hobbyist who will happily pay over £100 for a single engine, in that context it’s pretty cheap.

          • jhng says:

            My opinion only, but I would say that is apples and pears — people who are interested in seeking out a niche product will generally be happy to pay a niche price for it and will understand that there is a premium. The fact that mainstream may be heavily discounted is neither here nor there.

            For example, I like some really niche music like early Wagner recordings – I’m not going to listen to Coldplay instead just because it’s £2.99 rather than £22.99. The price point of the Coldplay has no impact on my value assessment for the Wagner. Similarly, I was happy to send $50 to Tarn Adams because I think his work on Dwarf Fortress is exceptional, but £2.50 for Duke Nukem Forever would have felt like a rip off (I got it in a bundle, honest).

          • subedii says:

            That’s kind of my point. Railworks is hobbyist and niche, and no matter what kind of DLC you’re into it’s still going to be expensive (even the base game is still full price).

            It’s not a game that falls into the category of “only mass market” in any sense that I can really think of. But it’s successful, and that’s what’s important. It’s got a niche, but that niche is hardcore and wants to buy games of this sort.

            It’s not going to be “success” for every niche game, but then the same could be said of most games targeted at the “mass market” too.

          • jhng says:

            Ironically, I actually got Railworks for 90% off on Steam. Couldn’t resist trying it out for the sake of £1.90. Turned out to be really boring, I couldn’t even have a proper crash and there weren’t any steam trains. But I take your point.

          • wu wei says:

            But if you’re making a niche game, then you tend to have a niche audience who want it, and people tend to be impatient when it comes to their passions.

            The point of the sale is to make it more appealing to people outside of that niche, who might in turn become a part of it.

          • Devan says:

            @Cliffski
            Just speculating here, but couldn’t sales benefit even niche games as the reduced price would increase sales beyond the target demographic wherein fence-sitters or people with less certainty of liking the game would be willing to buy it?

  26. Salt says:

    As a contrast to the games that get a second wave of support when they drop to absurdly-cheap, I present Minecraft. Its price is now higher than it was for much of its life, and the stats page tells me it sold over 10,000 copies yesterday. Not only are people not “waiting for a sale”, but it’s still attracting new purchasers. Minecraft is still getting free updates, so maybe it’s an exception.

    Steam’s top sellers list shows me that Modern Warfare 3 (and 2!) are still popular sellers despite MW3 still holding a £40 price tag. The Call of Duty games are quite well known for taking ages to go on sale and I suspect that encourages the always quiet “I guess it looks okay” crowd to purchase rather than wait.

    On an anecdotal note, I can’t help but look at the £2.50 price for Far Cry 2 and not reconsider paying an order of magnitude more to preorder the sequel.

  27. Revisor says:

    There is no problem with discounting, even deep discounting. It helps to capture the audience that’s less interested than the hardcore fans.

    What’s important is to find the right pace, to create a smooth curve, not sudden huge price falls. There are some games that get discounted too fast for the value they offer – for example Deus Ex HR that has been going on regular sales for 5 currencies 8-10 months after release.

    Then there are games that are mainstream titles but don’t get any meaningful discounts. Eg Mass Effect 2 DLCs, not available outside the dysfunctional Bioware store and more expensive than whole new games.

    But what ultimately Mr. EA cannot change is the fact that there are a LOT of games competing for our attention. The market on gaming entertainment is pretty saturated, gamers are more picky and often have backlogs.

    High supply of games drives the prices down, of course.

    • NathanH says:

      Speaking of DLC, I think that is potentially quite a good way to deal with the deep sales “problem”. Discounting the main game quite heavily but not ever discounting the DLC too much may work quite well.

    • Salt says:

      To be terribly tiresome, I’ll point out that digital downloads of games are not just in “high supply”, but infinite supply.
      I think what you mean is that there’s a high variety of games. Choice leads to competition, which leads to lower prices.

      But of course games are not soap powder (whatever Kotick may think) so it isn’t as simple as seeing that Half Life 2 is going cheap and so buying that instead of Modern Warfare 3. Although they’re both story-driven first person shooters they’re also considerably different and can’t be substituted nearly as easily as Persil and Daz can.

      You definitely have a point that the resource games are fighting over is often a player’s time rather than their wallet. If you’re too busy playing hundreds of cheap games from Steam you’ll find skipping CODBLOPS to be that bit easier.

  28. wodin says:

    If it’s a game I really want I don’t wait for sales. Games I’d buy in a sale I’d never have bought otherwise. Simple as that, I’m sure many would say the same thing.

  29. GT3000 says:

    He’s right. It does cheapen the product. Looking at my Steam, it’s a glut of games I’ll never get around to because they just keep piling and piling and piling. I feel like my games are worth less because I paid less. Not to say I won’t continue to partake in Steam sales. It’s like attending a buffet as opposed to a high class meal. Lots of cheap titles, some of it delicious and some bland. You don’t savor each bite as much because there’s always more to shovel in.

    • Ultra-Humanite says:

      What the fuck are you talking about?

      • GT3000 says:

        EA’s consistently higher price or at least their refusal to drop their products to pennies on the dollar does make it more valuable as the owner. I’m going to put more time in BF3 than I am Assassin’s Creed because if I want to get a certain value per dollar. Especially if I get Assassin’s Creed on sale. I have to at least put 20 hours into the product to feel I got my money’s worth but if I pick up Assassin’s Creed for 5 bucks, I don’t care if I lose interest after an hour. It’s just 5 bucks. I’ll be far more circumspect in my purchases if the prices are higher.

        • The Dark One says:

          I wouldn’t equate a consumer’s psychological need to retroactively justify the amount of money they’ve spent on something to its actual value. Your example is what leads to fanboys yelling back and forth over the merits of their different $600 consoles.

          If you buy a game and it’s good, then continue playing it. Don’t force yourself through a terrible or even mediocre experience just because you don’t want to admit you’re regretting the purchase.

          • GT3000 says:

            Ultimately that’s why these backlogs exist. We can fool ourselves into thinking there’s a million wonderful games but realistically these sales encourage the pick up of games you’d normally ignore with a limited budget. You’re going to pick up the titles you’re rabid for day one but sales encourage the purchase of titles you’d consider mediocre. You will play it because you do have to justify the price in your mind even if it’s 20 minutes to tell yourself “At least I tried it.” You can bet your sweet ass I’m getting my money’s worth out a title I have to spend 40 or 50 bucks on but I’m going to examine it a helluva a lot closer to make sure I enjoy it before I do.

          • Brun says:

            So what? That’s how you play games. The publishers don’t care if you’re getting value for your money. They just care that they got your money – which would happen more often if they put their games on sale.

    • djbriandamage says:

      You have a very good point. I used to cherish the odd game I’d buy after saving up my babysitting money for a month. Now I can buy the accumulated work of 100 “man years” (as Carmack calls it) with the money I earn on my lunch break.

    • GT3000 says:

      Publishers don’t care if I get value but I do. I’d rather support a publisher that create incredibly high quality games at a high pricepoint than get a flood of cheap games with quality that’s spotty. There are exceptions to the rule but if EA can hone itself into a high quality publisher there position is justified and to be fair, BF3 is one of those titles I’d pay top dollar for because I know it’s good stuff.

      • subedii says:

        So here’s a question for you: Did you really enjoy Portal?

        If so, did you buy Portal 2 immediately, or did you wait half a year because you knew by then Valve were almost certainly going to discount it?

        Either way (and I’m assuming you did get Portal 2), was your experience playing Portal 2 “cheapened” by it having a 50% off sale later on?

        Speaking personally, my answers are “yes”, “immediately”, and “no”.

        • GT3000 says:

          I did in fact get Portal 2 but my girlfriend gave it to me as a gift but I would’ve purchased it knowing full well it’d get a discount. I think I would’ve been less patient with it had I spent less money. I use money to assign things value, not always the best thing but when you’ve got so many games, you have to learn to categorize it some way especially when your tastes are fickle. I never tolerate a terrible game because I spent top dollar on it but boy do I get Buyer’s Remorse. Not so if I spent nothing on it. Likewise I’m less patient with it if I spent nothing.

          • subedii says:

            See, I’ll happily say my tastes are fickle as well. I’ve seen loads of people gushing over countless sales that I couldn’t care less about because no matter how popular the game was, it wasn’t interesting to me.

            The flipside of that though is that being able to buy cheaper on other games that I didn’t know I’d like but was interested in, has allowed them to get sales from me that they ordinarily would never have, and allowed me to find some interesting gems.

            I mean I never thought the Stalker franchise was for me, but it quickly became one of my favourites, and if there’s a next game I’m buying it ASAP. Similar with Mirror’s Edge.

            Psychonauts on the other hand I bought on the heavy recommendation of others that I’d find it awesome. I didn’t, but at least I don’t feel so bad about it since I didn’t pay full price.

            But if I had paid full price for it? Oh you’d better believe I’d be buying far fewer indie or experimental games today. It just wouldn’t be worth it.

    • Lemming says:

      Nah, that doesn’t really work. I’ve got Witcher 2 on my steam library that I splooged £30 on and I can’t see what the fuss is about and regret buying it. Titan Quest, however, I spent a tenner on and have spent 30 hours in it.

  30. RobF says:

    It’s interesting that when it comes to being able to take potshots at Steam, this is all EA and GoG have got.

    Even more interesting when you consider it’s not Steam that put the games on sale. They’re not Amazon, the autonomy lies with the dev/pub not the store. (Obviously, they encourage it massively but I’m with Dan on the value there)

    More time building a better, different service (at least GoG are trying) that people want to use, less pissing in the wind over things they have -absolute- control over.

    • Archonsod says:

      Pretty sure GoG already tore them a new one over the whole compulsory client thing, which in fact they still tend to reference whenever they do their no DRM speil.

      • DrGonzo says:

        Their no DRM thing is starting to annoy me. I would like an (optional of course) Gog Steam like client. I never get around to playing my many gog games and it would be nice to have them all kept in one place, which could download, install and add the necessary mods to the games without any effort on my part.

        But no. Drm is eeeeeevil of course.

        • djbriandamage says:

          I kind of like GOG’s solution to this – they add game icons to Windows’ built-in Games folder which is intended to act as a launcher for all the games on your PC regardless of where you bought them. Because they follow this standard it works equally well no matter what version of Windows you use, and without the need for yet another memory resident launcher.

          • subedii says:

            I used to use the windows game manager, waaaaay back when. But it always was iffy detecting half the games I had (I think it’s just whether a developer supports it or not).

            These days, I just add shortcuts to my GOG games on Steam. Either way, they’re still all in the same place.

          • PopeJamal says:

            This is news, I did not know that. Thanks!

      • RobF says:

        Yeah, point taken on the GoG client stuff and at least that’s an obvious, I won’t say advantage but differentiator between services and competition in the more classic and welcomed sense. I can understand that. You have the choice of trading off convenience for freedom. I can’t fault that.

        I still find any corporate posturing tedious, mind.

    • RobF says:

      Oh, and how majestically he skirts round saying that it does have a positive result for EA. EA have sales -all the fucking time- on iOS, if someone shits their pants, EA have a “shit your pants sale” and it was only a week or so ago they had a massive discount on Alice on Steam.

      Hence “it devalues IP”. Because that means absolutely nothing whatsoever at all. But it does let the internet fill in their own blanks.

      • djbriandamage says:

        This logic actually flips the argument right on its head – sales VALUE the IP by pinpointing the price consumers respond to.

  31. satsui says:

    He’s still an ignorant dickhead.

    “We’re not trying to be target” is just idiocy. When you compare Nordstroms and Target, who do you think has more sales and brings in more money?

    Is that common sense I hear knocking on the door?

    • Brun says:

      This kind of made me laugh. I think his point was that they want to sell products that belong in Nordstrom rather than Target, i.e. high quality products that carry the associated high price. He seems to think they’re taking the artistic high ground by not “selling out” and churning out cheap goods. But it goes directly against their entire sales-driven business model.

      In the end I think companies like Valve have got the right idea. The best way to be successful is to create a Target (Steam) and use the profits to subsidize your Nordstrom (Valve’s own games).

      • RobF says:

        Oh come on, be fair. There’s only like 500 million dollars difference between the two. I can see why he’d prefer to align himself with the former for the good and benefit of EA’s shareholders. They don’t want moneys anyway.

        Snark aside, unless they start snapping up Origin Exclusives left, right and centre then they’re going to be selling the same stuff everyone else does. Assuming that they’ll try for the former, that’ll be fun if nothing else.

        Either way, good luck with that premium brand there, EA.

  32. Ultra-Humanite says:

    Well 1) A sale by definition cheapens your intellectual property. That’s how this whole “sale” concept works. So I’m not really sure what revelation Captain Obvious is bestowing upon us here. 2) It’s easy to make the argument that the EA’s of the world in fact grossly overvalue their intellectual property. And finally 3) He used a double negative. “Not not-hearing”??? Seriously, go fuck yourself.

  33. Baka says:

    After dozens or even hundreds of hours of comparing statistics, evaluating trends and computing gizmos I come to the conclusion that the RPS-comment “Why do I even buy this, I have no time to play this” outweighs the “I’ll wait for a discount” comment by approx. 4.86 to 1 (rounded). Therefore, even with a discount price of 75%, sales are still economically viable.

  34. Hecktar says:

    It’s looks like the same thought process big game companies have about piracy: Every copy of the game is a copy that could have been sold full price. I wouldn’t have bought most discounted games without the discount. Some were impulse buys motivated by price alone, others were too low on my priority list to spend full price on. Many were too risky to buy full price due to mixed reviews. The games I bought full price are usually the ones that were backed by strong marketing and hype.

  35. DrGonzo says:

    Having just read about all the DLC and Battlefield ‘Premium’ this quote seems extra hilarious – “we’re trying to give you a fair price point”

  36. passengerpigeon says:

    That bit about people saying “Well, I won’t buy it today, but I’ll buy it on sale?” That’s price discrimination — it’s an error to think that all those people would’ve bought it at full price. Price discrimination is a constant goal of corporations, since it lets you sell your product at normal rates to people who will pay normal rates and at low rates to people who will only pay low rates. Since those people wouldn’t buy it otherwise, it’s still a net gain for you. Steam does this for hundreds of games — and gets applause from consumers for doing so! It’s a little concerning that the guy running Origin doesn’t understand this basic economic strategy.

  37. whexican says:

    Many games I buy on sale I would have never bought at full price. Why? I simply didn’t think they were worth it.

    So by all means refuse to have a sale. That just means I won’t buy your over priced games. No biggie since I have a more then large enough backlog as it is.

  38. Spider Jerusalem says:

    pelevin would have a field day with this.

  39. The Dark One says:

    I think part of the issue is that Steam has been built up from its early days to support these kinds of sales. It’s not just the discounts themselves. If you push a bunch of units, people will start seeing those little steam popup boxes telling them their friends have launched your game. Their Community blotters will show all the achievements they’ve earned and screenshots they’ve uploaded while playing your game, and the different groups they’ve joined as a result of their play time.

    Even after the sale is over, the increased player base gives your game more visibility and more word of mouth- assuming it’s good. Maybe that’s the catch EA isn’t so pleased about. ;)

    • subedii says:

      Bingo. Steam sales haven’t prevented me from buying games I ordinarily would have, they’ve let me buy a lot of games that I never would have because £35 is too expensive to freaking well experiment with. Lower pricepoints is precisely what’s allowed me to try more of the “big budget” releases that I had no idea whether I’d be interested in.

      I haven’t spent less money on gaming since I got onto Steam (which as actually relatively late), I’ve been spending more, all because I don’t feel limited to mega-blockbuster-dead-certainly-awesome games only, buying rarely because each is priced at full price.

      That is to EA’s net benefit when it happens, I am buying games of theirs that I would never have considered before because I have to choose between “this game I’ve been waiting AGES for and I really love the franchise”, and “this game that looks really really good, but it’s still slightly more of an unknown to me so it just loses out”. The latter one is a LOST SALE because I never had the opportunity to buy it.

      If EA want’s to keep it priced full price for years on end, then no, I’m not going to spend money on it. It becomes an all or nothing equation where I’m not going to be spending on a “could be great” when there’s always a big budget game that I know “is great” that I’m waiting to release. Doesn’t even matter if I feel like there’s nothing else I’m interested in playing right now and I’d like to try the possibility, full price is too expensive for me to spend on a possibility in those circumstances.

      • PopeJamal says:

        “Steam sales haven’t prevented me from buying games I ordinarily would have, they’ve let me buy a lot of games that I never would have because £35 is too expensive to freaking well experiment with.”

        As an example, I had heard Arkham Asylum was a really good game, but “Meh! Whatever! It’s always “revolutionary” according to the press…”

        Plus it’s a tie-in to an existing IP, so that made me even more dubious. I bought it for like $10 on sale and was blown away. Without the sale, they never would have gotten my money because I’m not really a Batman fan. I don’t see how anyone lost in that equation.

      • InternetBatman says:

        Is it to EA’s net benefit? While some of their titles might make more money than they would have, a lot of it goes to studios outside of publisher control. They’re trading more money in specific instances for a smaller piece of the pie, and they used that to make monolithic, customer unfriendly decisions that were good for the bottom line in the past. Also, the increased supply of games probably means that mediocre ones make less money than they used to, increasing the risk of AAA games. I bet mediocre titles lose a greater portion of their budget now than they used to a few years ago.

      • jhng says:

        I had the same experience with Arkham Asylum, and then ended up buying Arkham City full price as soon as it came out — two purchase that I would never have made if it had not been for the deep discounting of AA originally. Same story for a number of franchises.

        I also agree that the plethora of cheap, older games does make it harder for mediocre new games to cut through. But from EA’s point of view given their back catalogue I would have thought that they could make enough on their long tale (if they got properly stuck into Steam and priced Origin competitively) to compensate for a more challenging environment for new releases.

    • djbriandamage says:

      Yeppers. This is exactly the strategy used by the Amazon App Store which gives a paid smartphone app away for free every day. Word of mouth prompts people to buy the apps enthusiastically shown to them by their friends who got it for free.

      The real key to discounts is to make them last a limited time.

  40. trjp says:

    There’s some interesting proof that EA are talking a lot of crap here – but even if they were right, unilaterally deciding not to discount your games when everyone else does it will leave you stranded and dead anyway…

    That proof? The latest HiB consists of 5 top-class and well-received/popular titles all of which are either very cheap (e.g. Sworcery) or have been discounted deeply before (everything else) – and yet they’ve sold coming-up-to 400,000 HiBs…

    FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND people have bought a bundle which contains games which are both popular and which have been deeply discounted before.

    If deep discounting/cheap games harmed sales – that would never have happened – case closed.

  41. Sehnder says:

    Imagine, if you will, that when you try to buy something from Amazon you see two vendors reselling the exact same product. Same shipping terms, arrival date, etc. etc.

    One is selling it for $25, due to a 75% discount.

    The other is selling it for $100, but has a note saying that it would cheapen the product experience for you if it were sold for less.

    No reasonable consumer would buy the $100 product over the $25 one. When you are buying things digitally, there is very little differentiation between a “Nordstrom” and “Target” experience. If the product is the exact same and I receive it the exact same way, why would I pay four times as much?

    Do you know what the most important rule of buying a car is? He who cares least wins. The buyer who is willing to walk away will always find the best deal. If you don’t provide me the game I want at the price I deem fit, I’ll walk. This is not a threat- this is how markets work. If you provide me a game at a price point I am OK with, you get my $12.50. If you don’t, I will pick another option and you get $0. I can live without your game, you can’t live without my business. The market responds accordingly.

    The good news for developers is that most gamers are highly impatient and will buy things out the gate. That is a good incentive for developers to make astounding games- if you make a product so compelling that I am not willing to wait x months for a price drop, good on you. Take your $50 and run with it. But I am a patient man- I can wait a long time (I wanted Rayman Origins since release, but I was happy to wait for a 50% sale.)

    Cheapening of IP is a moot point. We know we can get games for 75% off eventually, and barring price fixing that is not going to change. The only question is whether or not a company will deal with that reality and profit, or try to justify charging four times more than their competitor out of some bizarre “morality” where the laws of supply and demand don’t apply.

    • djbriandamage says:

      Yes to everything you’ve said, plus the threat of piracy. Piracy is yet another market force that can only be thwarted with aggressive competition.

    • InternetBatman says:

      Absolutely right. Games sales were not really behaving in a supply and demand fashion before. There was little competition at retail, few publishers could successfully release a game, and consoles had fixed the price points.

      He’s whining now because the market is behaving like a market rather than a small country where each publisher could tax a percentage of the population.

  42. nasenbluten says:

    EA as publisher, marketer and distributor just want to cover their ass and make us believe that what they do is valuable. Their job is getting less and less relevant each year it passes, same for music labels. Nowadays they just buy entire developer teams and make them work, destroying them in the process.

    I used to pirate just because it was way more convenient (and cheap) than going to a shop to buy a damn disc, I don’t even have an optical drive anymore. With Steam and thanks to those sales, I have around 400 games having spent (happily) around 1300 €. Isn’t it better to buy games cheap than to not buy anything at all?

  43. woodsey says:

    If game is great, I’ll be too interested to wait and buy it as soon as possible.

    If the game looks OK, I’ll probably wait for a price drop.

    If publishers insist on cramming the same two bloody months at the end of the year full of games that no one in their right mind would be able to afford, then again, I am going to wait.

    I suspect that’s the case for most people. This guy is talking out of his arse.

    What does it matter whether they look like a cheap store like Target or not? They’re the same fucking products and they’re all digital. The ONLY perception I have is that one is cheap and the other isn’t, so guess who my dolla’s gonna go to.

    • DodgyG33za says:

      Also, with the cost of distribution of each unit approaching zero, once they have recouped their costs every additional unit sold is pure profit.

  44. Voice of Majority says:

    It is not a matter of discussion aanymore that people buy a lot more games if the prices are low. My understanding from the developers is that quantity does make up for the reduced price point and they make good money.

    People are buying more games than they have time to play. As a side-note, a similar thing happened with e-books,people bought more books they could read because the prices were low enough and the purchase was made very easy.

    So what’s the problem, really? Isn’t it all good? Companies who own very valuable IP have a problem. They do not want you to buy all the games in the world. They want you to buy the next iteration of “big name IP” that they have marketed with millions of dollars.

    Would you rather pay for IP or for a great game? IP can be owned while great games must be made one by one.

  45. Vinraith says:

    As I’ve said many times before, the current sales model is hilariously unsustainable. Sooner or later you either get a complete collapse (because people stop hoarding) followed by a return to normal pricing (because developers need to be able to turn a profit on far fewer unit sales) or you get a world where every game is $5 but it was developed with that price point in mind (short, cheap fluff). The former is a mess, the latter a nightmare.

    Sectors of the industry that have not been sucked into the Steam whirlwind (ie. many wargame and niche developers) should be able to ride the whole thing out, of course, because their per unit profits already support a slow trickle of sales and aren’t dependent on hoarders (who turn their nose up at such “unreasonable” prices).

    For my part, I’ve long since stopped hording. A game that’s worth my time is also worth real money, so I go out of my way to support games that deserve it. Buying fewer games at higher prices I can’t help but notice that in addition to less overall money spent, far more of my money goes to developers whose continued existence matters to me, so it’s all win-win. Let the fluff, and the fluff-makers, rot.

    • GT3000 says:

      It truly is a crazy world when I agree with Vinraith.

    • subedii says:

      Like you, I can only speak for myself.

      I can’t say I’ve ever really been a “hoarder”. Pretty much every game I’ve bought I’ve played, and if I’ve liked them I’ve beaten almost all of them (unfortunately, everyone recommended me Psychonauts. And guess what? I didn’t like it, so I never completed it. Just how it goes, and I’m not going to force myself to complete a game I don’t like).

      The Steam sale hasn’t made me value big budget and full price titles less. I haven’t somehow stopped buying games I was always really interested in, nor have I stopped supporting indie games “until they’re on sale”.

      What it’s allowed me to do is buy more games that I’ve been interested in but can’t pay full price for. This isn’t lost money to companies, they are making MORE money off of me than they ordinarily would have.

    • PaulMorel says:

      @Vinrath: Your idea that the sales model is unsustainable is predicated on the assumption that the people buying the games are the same people.

      In other words, you’re looking at the problem as an individual buyer. In this sense, you’re right. The sales market IS unsustainable for a single purchaser. Eventually the buyer ends up with more games than he can play, or he never buys full price games. Fine. If there were only 100 millions game buyers, you would be right.

      But you forget that the game-buying market is constantly changing. What we’re talking about here is men between the ages of 18-35 with no children – ie men with large disposable incomes and a fair amount of free time.

      I’m betting that people are entering that demographic at a faster rate than they are leaving it. Hence, even if the sales market is unsustainable for a single buyer, it is quite sustainable for the industry as a whole.

      • Kaira- says:

        But even in that case, the sustainability will reach its limits eventually.

      • Vinraith says:

        I don’t think new individuals entering the demographic are likely to be nearly as susceptible to the “oh my god these games are $3 each I’ll buy a hundred of them!” mentality that has been sustaining this model to date, though. That’s a product of memory, of a time when games were expensive, and a good deal was something to be jumped on because it didn’t happen every week. People growing up on cheap ass games are, I suspect, likely to only buy what they want to play (and buy it at the $5 price point they know will be along a few months after release), rather than fall prey to the hoarding phenomenon.

        You can’t sustain selling 100 hour games for $5 to a population that actually plays those games for 100 hours. Their rate of consumption won’t counteract the low price point.

    • PopeJamal says:

      I can’t say I necessarily disagree, but I will say that I don’t really care.

      The health of the retail market for games is not my problem. I decided a long time ago that I will:
      a) Buy games at full price that I am really interested in
      b) Try to support small devs that I appreciate as efficiently as possible (Funnel as much of my purchase dollars directly into their pockets)
      c) Use this simple formula for purchasing everything else:

      if ($my_interest > $current_game_price)
      then
      Purchase_Game_Now($current_game_price);

      That’s pretty much all I’m willing to do and that seems pretty damn decent to me.

      As an example of “a”, I bought Skyrim 7-9 days after release because it seemed worth it. I did not buy Dead Island. I still haven’t bought it. For $5 even.

      As an example of “b”, I bought “Grimrock” directly from the devs site instead of through GoG because I figured they’d get more of the $$ that way.

      As an example of “c”, I “bought” SuperMeatBoy in a bundle so they got at least a tiny bit of money from me. Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t even pay $2.50 for it because I have zero interest in it (not that it’s a bad game, just not my thing).

      So, I’m sorry if that somehow “ruins the market” for games, but at least I’m putting forth an effort to show my appreciation. I got a job, kids, my cholesterol, (and at the moment S.T.A.L.K.E.R, which I had no interest in outside of a sale) to worry about. Someone else will have to “save” games this time around.

      • Vinraith says:

        Actually that sounds totally reasonable. The main thing, to my mind, is to pay real money to the devs you really want to support, and it sounds like you do that.

    • InternetBatman says:

      If it’s unsustainable, doesn’t that mean we should buy all the games on sale while we still can?

      Anyways, I agree that it’s unsustainable for AAA studios and publishers (more risk, less reward), but I think the current model is pretty good for indies.

      • Vinraith says:

        Buying all the cheap games you can is one reasonable reaction, yes. I’d rather concentrate my resources on keeping the studios I care about afloat than I would hoard a bunch of games I’ll never play, but YMMV.

        As to working out for indies, I think it depends on what you mean by “indie.” For studios that make artsy little 5 hour platform games yes, the current situation is just fine. For studios that make massive, sprawling, 100 hour RPG’s and huge, deep strategy games with high replayability it’s obviously not.

        • InternetBatman says:

          I largely agree with you, but I think there’s one more factor that complicates things. It’s less of a risk to try out those huge games now, so it’s easier to get new customers that way. I do think that this factor has been overestimated in some cases, like the paradox pack.

          • Vinraith says:

            Absolutely true. The interplay of a number of factors is very complex, here, and we haven’t even talked about timing (that Paradox pack would have been totally reasonable, IMO, a couple of years down the road). My point is simply that games as a whole are becoming too cheap too quickly for this situation to be sustainable much longer.

  46. mr.ioes says:

    The link at “thoughtful interview” is broken.
    edit: actually, all your links are broken!

  47. PaulMorel says:

    EA executives think that they’re distributing higher quality goods than Valve!!!! BWAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!1 Oh my sides hurt from laughing!!!! HAHAHA!!!1 I’ve got tears in my eyes!!!

    Mass Effect 1 & 2 were good games, but honestly, the Drew Karpyshyn books are what motivated me to play them. And the games weren’t good enough to convince me to use Origin to buy the third installment.

    Ditto with Dead space 1 & 2. Fine games. Not brilliant. I’m not impatient for the next installment.

    Dota 2 is deeper than anything EA has EVER produced. 600 hours into it, and I still can’t put it down. Same thing can be said about TF2 and Portal 1 & 2.

    EA really got the comparison wrong. EA is Walmart, while Valve is … too modern to be compared to an old-fashioned brick-and-mortar store.

  48. Yargh says:

    I have more games than I have time to play them.
    Without the steam sales many of the games I have happily paid for would never have been bought.

    I do think that people who really want a game will pay whatever they need (and can afford) to for it. The sales should (and I would hope, do) cater for those that wouldn’t look at it twice in other circumstances.

  49. crocket21 says:

    For me Steam sales make a lot of sense. I have such an insane backlog of games to play that I will never again buy a game in its first week. I will but more games during a Steam sale even though it increases my backlog however.

  50. Jannakar says:

    I suspect that devs have to recoup their production costs quite quickly. I think for your gen-u-ine AAA games sales are not a problem because they recoup their production costs by virtue of obliterating everything else in that time-frame. Everybody else just gets it in the ass.

    But I wonder what is the effect of being seen to be a bargain in a Steam sale (50% off!) vs having a lower initial cost (cheap and nasty)

    • subedii says:

      I would suggest that the answer to that is another question: “Do you regularly buy nasty games on Steam just because they’re cheap?”

      I mean personally, I don’t buy a game unless I expect I’m going to enjoy it. Doesn’t matter if it’s £30 or £3. Oh look, today’s Daily Deal is the whole Far Cry collection for £3.75. My thought process is basically “Don’t have it, still don’t care, don’t like it, not going to buy it.”

  51. Universal Quitter says:

    I don’t know, even with the full context he seems like a pompous (or perhaps, pretentious, even) ass, justifying the inflating costs of triple A titles with services that no one wants or ever asked for. I don’t care what kind of support they offer, if anything ‘art’ is a product (god, forgive me for saying that), not a service, and products get cheaper with time.

    Too bad I can’t change the inertia of an entire industry, all by me lonesome. C’est la vie, or whatever, I suppose.

  52. muut says:

    Sounds like standard executive spin to me. EA want to bleed you dry, but only because they care so much about developers and franchises and little kittens and orphans.

    I’ve bought quite a few discounted games on Steam, and I’ve never felt particularly cheap or dirty after playing them (with the possible exception of Skyrim, but that’s more to do with some mods that accidentally got installed somehow.. anyway..).

    I do have a policy for buying EA games since making the mistake of pre-ordering Dragon Age 2 – I wait for them to get discounted on Amazon so I can buy them for what they’re worth.. ;)

  53. Shooop says:

    It’s simple really.

    If you want to sell your games for $60, make them worth $60.

    CD Projeck doesn’t seem to have any trouble doing that for $50 games. So since EA’s such a larger company why can’t they manage?

    This is just more PR spin. Not even worth more than a minute’s thought.

  54. secretdoorinvisiblewall says:

    Yeah, thank God they didn’t cheapen Big Huge Games’ IP by putting Kingdoms of Amalur on sale and moving a large number of copies at a low price point. Those gamemakers worked incredibly hard on KoA, and it would have been a real shame to cheapen the IP by selling more copies of the game. All of BHG’s employees may have been laid off en masse, but I bet they sleep well at night knowing that their game is a Nordstrom and not a Target

  55. LockjawNightvision says:

    Probably talking a bit out my arse, but isn’t it fair to say that the value of intellectual property isn’t 100% determined by the hard sales numbers? Not only does greater market penetration allow you to sell more mega-lucrative DLC (this is basically why F2P became A Thing), there’s something to be said about the fuzzier vectors like brand loyalty and recognition. For example, if I buy a cheap indie game from Developer X on a 75%-off Steam sale and fall in love with it, I’m much more likely to buy Developer X’s full-priced follow-up.

    • subedii says:

      Another question it raises then is: Are Free-2-Play games valueless? I’m talking about the well done ones like LoL, where you can pretty much have tonnes of fun without paying a penny.

      Doesn’t stop them from being ridiculously successful. And I don’t think the IP itself is “cheap” as a result.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      I now ask you this. If everyone waited for that deal, and the indie developer never made his money back, and was forced to close down. You would never get that sequel. Or he could simply be bought out by Activision, and forced to churn out clone after clone.

      If you arent willing to be part of the gaming community and support those studios. then you shouldnt have any say in what happens to the gaming community. Developers live and die by the amount of games they sell, and for how much. A failure to sell enough games, because you have a million people waiting for it to go on sale, which causes a great developer to die is terrible. Just play terrible.

      I’m not saying everyone out there has $60 to spend on every single game that is released. But people need to take an active part in the economy and keeping our hobby alive.

      It is those initial first few months that determine life or death.

      I say all this as a small business owner. The people who come in during my sales are not the people who are keeping me in business, they are the ones picking over my least popular goods. They are the people who provide me with scraps to survive on.

      • subedii says:

        I now ask you this: Is it the case that everyone is abandoning developers and not buying games ever until on sale? Because on 11/11/11 my friends list basically read:

        In game: Skyrim
        In game: Skyrim
        In game: Skyrim
        In game: Skyrim
        In game: Skyrim
        In game: Skyrim
        In game: Skyrim
        In game: Skyrim
        In game: Skyrim
        In game: Skyrim
        In game: Skyrim

        Leaving that aside (since it’s a blockbuster title and I suspect you’re going to hold exception to my mentioning it) you want to talk about the plight of the poor and wrecked indie developers, but today indie games development is THRIVING, absolutely and definitively flourishing now moreso than at any time in the past, certainly at the point where the default publisher model was all we had. And I can only say I’ve read countless testimonies from indie devs about how valuable being on Steam has been for them, yes, even the value of those sales. Quite a few argue it’s better than being on XBL, or PSN, and it usually shows.

        It’s easy to say nobody buys games on release anymore. Is that really true? Have indie devs been cast aside today because of this phenomenon?

        Speaking personally, I buy the games I want to. It’s the games that I’m not sure about that become more viable when sales time comes around, and judging by the thriving indie scene, it’s hard for me to say that others aren’t buying as well. Heck, why did anyone buy Portal 2 on release, when Valve are a text-book example and guaranteed to discount their games later on?

        For that matter, how do kickstarter game projects even exist? I’ve pre-ordered more indie games in the past few years than I can even remember, because they looked amazing and totally like something I’d want. And when the option came up, you’d better believe I was on there ASAP, kickstartering for the chance of Wasteland 2 and a new Shadowrun. These games are still going to hit Steam should they release, why should I care about spending money to fund their development when I don’t even know they’ll get completed? Why did anyone? Surely everyone should just wait until they come out, and buy on a sale?

        On the flipside, I’m still waiting on something more concrete on Interstellar Marines before I pre-order. The latest demo might just be the push I need to show me they can do it.

        I mean recently Humble Bundle V has been making headlines not just for the sheer quality of its games, but the ridiculous amount of money its already made for its participants.

        And you know what? I haven’t bought it.

        There’s no point, every game on there that I thought was awesome and really wanted, I already bought beforehand. But I could easily see myself being tempted to buy it if I hadn’t yet.

        • Hug_dealer says:

          Thriving and flourishing? YES, but its in the same state it has always been, only now it is getting lots of media attention.

          I’m also not saying that people arent buying games on release anymore. But there are more and more who are waiting. I constantly see people saying. I’ll wait for it go to on sale, But by that time the fate of that studio could be sealed.

          also saless arent always good, or always bad good. What i am saying is that they arent great for a developer. What a developer needs is strong initial support for the game at launch and great word of mouth.

          Self publishing is fantastic, and Kickstarter is fantastic, But they still arent releasing games the quality of skyrim, or battlefield 3, call of duty. There is still this huge gap in the middle of the amount of money you need, and just how much you can do without a publisher keeping you alot, but kickstarter has a long way to go before we see funding in the multimillions.

          As a businessman, i know the ups and downs about sales. Without a doubt when i advertise a sale, i sell more stuff, but i make much less, and i know that if i were to keep all my products on sale all the time, i would go out of business. Simply because people would then assume thats just a normal price. I used to have my products priced $100 or more lower than any of my competition. And i pointed that out. But those people still wanted negotiate and didnt think they were getting a good enough deal. SO i decided ill simply match the competition, and that has worked out much better for me.

  56. Raziel_Alex says:

    “he works for a company that’s quite happy to disregard Syndicate or Ultima’s heritage/value in favour of chasing the prevailing wind (rote FPS and F2P browser-strategy respectively), to rush out a sub-standard Dragon Age sequel”

    Exactly. He should stfu. Don’t get me completely wrong, it’s great that Alec choose to attract attention to the whole part of the interview, but DeMartini is still a fucking hypocrite. Fair value? Syndicate is 50 euro on Origin… fucking asshole.

  57. caulder says:

    I’d just like to point out that, for all of their bluster about being anti-DRM, CD Projekt has publicly whined about Steam’s cheap prices before.

  58. lexoneir says:

    I think you made the real counterpoint at the end of your article. People have probably already said as much. I wait for sales for games I wasn’t going to buy before. If I am actually anticipating a game, then I’ll buy it immediately. Another thing that turns me off from buying early of course is DLC, knowing that I can just get a package deal later on instead of paying out the nose for DLC every month.

    What I would say about EA is that they are finding another way to blame their reality on the consumers instead of on their poor practices that lead to bad games. If you allow the developers to build great games, and encourage them to do so, people are much more likely to buy immediately in anticipation rather than wait for a sale due to the fact that the game looks like another crappy EA sponsored game.

    • Shooop says:

      But this is not how it works in reality for most people. They see the brand name, and they immediately jump at it.

      What EA really means:
      People who really want our games buy them immediately. There are enough of them so we don’t bother with anyone who’s sitting on the fence. We’d much rather focus on hype and high-profile marketing so we get explosive first-day sales instead of trying to coax more discerning, merely potential buyers.

  59. Gandaf007 says:

    My question is: Don’t the devs/publishers have to agree to sales? If they agree to it, I don’t see what the problem is, especially since if I were a dev I’d like my game to reach as many people as possible while still making some decent money.

    I suppose I’m just trying to say I don’t think it cheapens the value of the game at all.

  60. InternetBatman says:

    My original post was too long. Digital Distribution has vastly lowered the price of selling games, an (probably permanent) outward supply side shift. This would drive prices down even without major sales, it just happened more quickly to games outside of the publisher’s control. What he’s complaining about is a market that was previously constrained by rigid retail and heavily controlled consoles being open to the law of supply and demand. Eventually, it might drive the prices of some games higher, but what it’s doing now is only natural and fair. Steam (and other retailers) are just taking advantage of this by moving with the market.

    Anyways, I suspect some of the more insane deals (paradox’s entire catalog for $20) won’t happen much longer anyways. That’s just insane.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      distribution of the product is only pennies compared to the budget of the game and possible marketting to go along with it.

      You should see maybe at most a $5 discount if you are lucky for buying it online.

      • InternetBatman says:

        Distribution and Returns is about $11 on every $60 video game. 18% lower costs (after retail) is pretty substantial.

        http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html

        More importantly, it’s lowered the barrier of entry into the industry. Not only are costs significantly lower, you need substantially less capital to start up an entity that can develop a game and get it directly to the retailer. Also, tools like unity and UE3 make it easier than ever to actually make a game. This means that the decrease should drive prices lower than just the decrease in cost because there has been a great increase in competition. Sales are a symptom and a driver of a feedback loop, but are still an effect of the new technology rather than a cause.

        • Hug_dealer says:

          or $%. You dont lump them together. Returns go back on a truck that would have been there anyway.

          There is also the cost of maintaining your online store and all the bandwidth costs that it requires. That stuff is not free.

          This is from a guy trying to spin his business in a positive way and sell it. So he will fudge the #s in his favor.

          • InternetBatman says:

            Admittedly the source is not great, but it’s the best I’ve seen so far.

            I thought entertainment companies had a different returns policy than physical retailers.

            Steam also significantly helps with advertising, for free.

            Also, your cost of maintaining your goods online is zero if you use another retailer, like Steam with its crazy infinite shelf-space. Sure they take a 20-30% cut (from various sources, they’re pretty tight lipped but it’s an accepted standard in these arguments), but that’s what retail would take anyways. Derek Smart and the Ceo of Big Kahuna games talks about Steam deals being more favorable than the deals on retail alone.

            More important than all of that in the pricing of games is that we’re now seeing it act like an actual market, with supply and demand. Before the big companies could set the prices fairly unilaterally because the high barrier to entry kept developers from publishing their own games. This current situation is more natural (although it may be trending a bit low) and less favorable to publishers.

            Finally, I think the most important upshot of this is that more creators are directly profiting from their works and supporting themselves. If developers weren’t getting by, I would feel differently about the market. But this is a CEO complaining while the developers of good games are getting enough money to buy houses, cars, and support themselves for a few years to come. I think that is the greatest metric of success for this model, not the amount of money the customer spends.

            For instance, Bastion was made by 5 people (I believe), if they had minimal business expenses and split the profit evenly, then each person has already made $62k from the Humble Bundle sale. Since it took 22 months to develop, that’s $2800 a month, easily a liveable wage. I think that’s the most important metric of success to me.

  61. fish99 says:

    “ Also what Steam does might be teaching the customer that “I might not want it in the first month, but if I look at it in four or five months, I’ll get one of those weekend sales and I’ll buy it at that time at 75 percent off. ”

    You don’t see AAA games 75% off after 4-5 months. Maybe an indie/budget game that flopped, but not an AAA game, or anything that sold well. Also I’m assuming here that the publisher calls the shots on timing/discounts.

    The bottom line – every penny of extra revenue is a good thing for the publisher/developer. Valve don’t charge for bandwidth, and there’s no cost in producing digital games, so publishers should embrace this staggered pricing philosophy. TBH almost all of the 200+ games I own on steam I wouldn’t have paid more for, and most of them were picked up in a sale.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      I’m sure those studios and devs that are no longer employed are grateful for your support of steam, and not the studio that gave you the game.

  62. Bluerps says:

    This is just my personal experience, of course, but my list of games on Steam contains a huge number (triple digits) of games that I have bought through sales. However, if there were no sales, I would simply not have bought the majority of them.

    There are a few games in my list which I got at a discount, and which I would have bought for the normal price, but that is only because they were coincidentally on sale when I wanted to get them.

  63. Lemming says:

    “On the other side of the coin, I can’t help agree with him somewhat on this point: “ Also what Steam does might be teaching the customer that “I might not want it in the first month, but if I look at it in four or five months, I’ll get one of those weekend sales and I’ll buy it at that time at 75 percent off.””

    But hasn’t that always been the case? A lot of people (most?) will buy a game much earlier than that if they’ve been anticipating it. There’s always been the patient bargain-hunters, but I’d argue that if you haven’t sold your game at full price in the first 3 months, you probably aren’t going to change a customer’s mind unless you drop the price.

    This is all quite apart from the fact that the developer/publisher ultimately decides if something goes in a Steam Sale. Not Valve.

  64. Desmolas says:

    Doing mega-sales on games does the exact polar opposite of cheapening the IP as far as I see it. Look at Steam now. There is a %75 sale going on for the Farcry series right now. I wonder why Ubisoft is doing that. Maybe its the fact there is an enormous buzz around Farcry 3 from the E3 presentations that just went on?

    If people who haven’t played the far cries before play them, and the games are good on their own merit (which they are, and Ubisoft knows it) then it can only generate new fans and strengthen the IP. You don’t have an IP if you don’t have a fanbase for it.

  65. GH Moose says:

    Mostly, I think EA is just irritated that they don’t have full control over the price of everything they produce everywhere – they’re looking at the ebook industry and wishing they had ‘agency model’ pricing and could just tell everybody that they had to charge $X and no less.

    I think this is largely all a sign of an industry that doesn’t analyze itself well. The big industry businessman sees sales at discounted prices and goes “Damn, we just missed out on a $60 sale”, ignoring the fact that they price almost everything at $60 regardless of what it’s actually ‘worth’ in market terms. They’re so worried about the mythical ‘lost revenue’ that they aren’t paying attention to the revenue they have.

    This adherence to a “our stuff is always worth $60″ strategy is also contributing to the ‘boom and bust’ nature of gaming. If everything is $60, even the stuff that is reviewed poorly, didn’t quite come together, or is experimental – well, that stuff isn’t going to sell. People are going to go with the sure thing. But if they could buy 2, 3, or 4 of the experimental/new thing for that same $60 price, they might take the chance. The thing sales are doing is exposing to companies the fact that there’s a big market out there they aren’t capturing because their pricing model is flawed….and instead of learning that lesson, they’re busy worrying about that ‘lost revenue’ that happened because the $15 sale wasn’t a $60 sale.

    Frankly, the deep discount model is good on the balance for them because they stubbornly adhere to a bad model. It gets them revenue that, despite their fantasies to the contrary, they wouldn’t have gotten otherwise. It also allows them to keep the ‘real price’ high, so that the early adopters pay a premium. They’d probably be better off with a wider ‘scale’ of prices on games so that the deep discounts weren’t necessary to reach an attractive volume of sales, but that’s another topic entirely.

    That being said, there are downsides. GoG, for instance, is trying to go for ‘every day low prices with occasional 50% discounts’ which…is a little tricky when the guy next door is offering 75% discounts all over the place. Not that I’m saying GoG is a perfect angel either, but I can understand how that would be annoying. 75% off is much easier to offer when you’re still getting $15 from the sale than it is when it means $1.50 from the sale. GoG COULD compete by offering old games at ‘launch price’ and offering 90% discounts constantly, but that’s just silly at some point.

    Also, I think the discounts are actually mildly bad for indie games. Not that I’m saying it’s not good for them to be on sale – I’ve bought LOADS of indie games because they were on deep discount – but because the knowledge that high discount percentage = big attention causes them to launch at higher prices than they maybe should be. Now, I grant that I’m not in a position to tell people what they should charge for games, but right now, if I were launching an indie game – I’d probably price it higher than I think it’s worth because when I need to hype people up to buy my stuff in a couple months I want to have a big 50-75% discount and still make noticeable money on each sale.

    Frankly, that’s part of what’s going on in EA’s collective head too – they still think they deserve $60 per game but they know that raising the price to $200+ so they can still get that $60 after a hefty discount will get them a massive backlash. So they’re trying to find ways to raise the price indirectly via DLC/premium memberships/non-game incentives/etc because they’re trying to sneak in price raises so they get the magic $60 from people who buy games when they’re on sale…or offset those sale buyers by getting full-price buyers to pay even more.

    TL;DR;
    Basically, what I’m saying is this – if EA made cars, they’d price their uber-high-end sports car at $250,000 and their good-quality family car at $250,000 and wonder why the family car didn’t sell (probably deciding that people only wanted sports cars in the process). And when dealerships started selling the family car for $30,000 instead, making piles of cash in the process because the unit cost is covered, EA would be complaining about that $220,000 they ‘lost’ because of those evil retailers offering discounts.

  66. ShineyBlueShoes says:

    For once EA is actually not the bad guys and are actually echoing a sentiment many smaller studios and forward looking indie devs have been saying about Steam sales and bundles for the last year. While I’m a fan as a consumer they do have a point that long term they’re probably going to be bad for business.

    • RobF says:

      I’m not sure wanting things put back to to how they were is necessarily “forward looking”, man.

      • ShineyBlueShoes says:

        I don’t think that’s what any of the indies that have pointed out how this is damaging the industry and the value of games and the creative work want necessarily but this isn’t sustainable without driving the talent and creativity further out of the industry.

  67. Walter Heisenberg says:

    The old broken dinosaur is making a fuss about the impending asteroid…

  68. Caiman says:

    I’ve said it before, but I spend WAY MORE (too much perhaps!) on the gaming industry these days because of things like Steam sales. So the individual publishers may be getting a smaller proportion, but the industry as a whole benefits. I’m going to assume my experience is not unique.

  69. MadTinkerer says:

    Dear EA,

    Steam sales are the only time I buy your games, for a number of reasons. Do you want zero money from me, or some money? (Hint: some > zero.)

    Just think about it.

    Sincerely,
    The Mad Tinkerer

  70. PurpleXVI says:

    For me, it just gets more sales. Because if I want a game at full price, I’ll buy it right when it’s out, at full price. And then let it pass. If I don’t want it at full price, I’ll buy it later when it’s on sale.

    It’s never a cold and calculated decision, it’s more that I’ll buy it whenever it hits the price that I am willing to pay for it. Resultingly, what happens is that a bunch of games I would otherwise never have bought, I am now actually buying. And seeing as how there’s no production cost for more copies of a digitally distributed title, the creators aren’t taking a loss by selling it at a discount.

  71. eclipse mattaru says:

    GOG.com tried to pass this same kind of crap a couple months ago and it didn’t work back then either, and at least we DO like those guys.

    Also, try to sell that nonsense about cheapening the work of gamemakers or whatever to the indie devs that see their numbers skyrocket every time there’s a Steam sale.

    And all the context in the world can’t help that thing about EA giving me “a fair price point” –I mean, isn’t this the same company that has been bumping PC games’ price to $60 for years now?

  72. TCM says:

    I continue to be amused at EA’s stubborn refusal to learn from their primary competitor on the digital distro front — not only does Origin make UI and functionality mistakes that Valve made and solved long ago, they are making PR and Pricing mistakes too.

    • eclipse mattaru says:

      My favorite Origin Bullshit Fact is how proud they are about being installed in twelvity gazillion PCs and whatnot, as if implying that people are *choosing* to use Origin, when you’re just *forced* to run it if you want to play a bunch of the highest-profile games of the last couple years.

      • DazedByTheHaze says:

        Since the BF3 close combat patch is hold back by console certification/Battflied Premium service development I can finally uninstall this piece of shit. Thanks DICE for making this desicion as easy as possible.

  73. DodgyG33za says:

    The only thing I know and care about EA / Origin is that it is being uninstalled the moment I decide I have had enough of BF3. While I have got my moneys worth from the game, even if it is not up there with BC2, I still regret that I ever installed Origin.

  74. fakeplastic says:

    It’s pretty simple, EA: developers can get some of my money, or none of my money. Of the 50+ games I have on my Steam list, I’ve purchased 4 at or near full price. The rest were bought during sales, and would not have been bought at all had they not been on sale.

    Steam sales don’t devalue games. Steam sales give me a reason to give a shit about games I would never have dreamed of buying otherwise. You know what devalues games? DLC. DRM. Unimaginative settings and gameplay. Poor production values. Poor gameplay. Oh yeah, and maybe the fact that fact that every year there are hundreds, maybe thousands of new games released across a dozen platforms. When you also consider that I may occasionally wish to spend my time and money on things other than games, it’s no secret why people like myself don’t value games like EA thinks we should.

    So go ahead and keep your titles on the top shelf, away from the grubby, undeserving hands of us proles. You get to preserve the value and dignity of your software, and I get to keep my money.

  75. Miltrivd says:

    If it wasn’t for sales I wouldn’t have a Steam account at all. If it wasn’t for sales, I wouldn’t have bought lots of games that I ended up regretting buying, but were cheap, so no real harm done. If it wasn’t for Steam, I wouldn’t EVER buy games on release, like I do now.

    • eclipse mattaru says:

      Point. In my case, if it wasn’t for Steam sales I would probably still be pirating games, since it even isn’t a big deal where I live –fully legal brick-and-mortar stores sell pirated games because there are no companies representing any game publisher to give a crap about it. So I’m the real life incarnation of that example Gabe Newell made in his speech about not fighting but rather winning over pirates a couple years ago.

      Even more interesting, I came to Steam for the sales and eventually I made such a habit of buying my games legally that I started to buy more and more titles at full price -and even preordering- in the last couple years.

      And just yesterday I convinced a coworker of following the same path as me, after hearing him complain about what a hassle it was dealing with cracks for newer games.

      Of course, we’re just a couple guys in a small South American country EA doesn’t give two shits about, so there’s that.

  76. Larkington says:

    Alec Meer says, “Getting axed by their bottom,” RPS readers stunned, perplexed.

  77. JohnnyMaverik says:

    LOL. How many developers have gone out of business because of the heavy cut steam sales? I can’t remember any. I can remember a few who have been saved by them though.

    EA just don’t like the idea that people are starting to realise 30 quid probably isn’t a great deal any more in a world where there’s tons to play, a lot of it really cheep or even free, and damn good games at that, and not a lot of time to play they in.

  78. lordhyperion says:

    To honest, I have always waited for the price of games to drop, well before Valve/Steam came along. Back in the day, a game would come out for $40, but in 3 months or so would be down to $30 retail. More recently, the numbers have increased to $60 and $40 respectively, but still the same general trend has held. I have done this for almost every game I’ve ever owned, including those games (like Skyrim) which I knew I would spend obscene amounts of time on (read: 200+ hours). The only difference in the Steam sales is that now instead of simply going back to replay an old game (or continue playing Elder Scrolls), I have a wide variety of excellent games which I bought for cheap. If anything is true, this (and the various bundles) have increased my spending on games much more than the sales have decreased how much I’ve spent.

  79. ichigo2862 says:

    EA: My perception of your product’s value is not influenced by how much money or time you threw at your game. It is influenced solely by how much I like it, and you talking about how it’s such a huge privilege to buy a game of yours, does little to improve that perception.

  80. manveruppd says:

    The delusion that copyright-holdershave that their property is worth a specific number is what leads people to piracy. People will pay what they think your game is worth. If you stubbornly refuse to drop the price to what the market considers fair, they’ll just pirate it.
    Coincidentally, Amanda Palmer said the same thing about music to the Economist yesterday: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/06/crowdfunding-music (first paragraph)

    Entitled IP-holders seem to have forgotten just how recent a development copyright legislation is, and that what it gives them is not an inherent right but merely a short time reprieve from their work being in the public domain and anyone being allowed to use and profit from it, which is what it’s been like for the majority of human hisotry! ie. copyright is a temporary deviation from the rules of the free market, a time-limited monopoly on something that will revert to public ownership.

  81. remoteDefecator says:

    Most of the games that I bought as a result of a Steam sale are games that I probably would never have bought otherwise. But I see that I can buy it for $5 this weekend and go what the heck.

    If there’s a game I want, I don’t think to myself “I’ll wait till it goes on sale on Steam.” I’m way too instant-gratification-oriented for that.

    So the way I see it, Steam sales have extracted extra money from me in small increments that would otherwise not have been spent on Steam.

  82. Gabe McGrath says:

    Meanwhile, Brawsome (Jolly Rover, McGuffin’s Curse) have decided to *raise* their prices…
    http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/06/the-interesting-honest-reason-why-brawsome-are-raising-prices/

    Thoughts, hivemind?

  83. Captain Hijinx says:

    If companies are getting axed left right and center, too bad, that’s the nature of being owned by a Publisher that does not give two shits about you, that’s an industry issue, not a consumer one. If i want to spend less money on buying games as a consumer, that is my right. I despise EA, i despise them for what they’ve done to so many games i have loved for the sake of short sighted short term profits, the sheer bald faced cheek of this chap to talk about ‘cheapening intellectual property’ That’s practically EA’s motto. As a PC gamer i have spent an insane amount of money on my hobby, the problem is not that there’s not enough money being spent on games, the problem is that the lions share of it is going into the wrong bloody hands.

  84. Hypocee says:

    It is perfectly OK that EA adopts this policy, but I found the Amalur situation interesting in light of it – after only deducing that it was in place.

    I’m a fully propagandified customer. I don’t buy a lot of these indie PWYW bundles because I already cheerfully bought all the games at full price. I did a big buying wave recently, in which I waited a week to avoid inconvenient sales that would have unacceptably cut the price of a few of the games.

    My picture of Amalur was: Padded and not my genre, but interesting art and noteworthy combat system. I was never, laugh-in-your face ever going to pay sixty bucks for that. 25, maybe 20 with Origin encumbrance was my high mark for a casual novelty. With the developer (the publisher’s investment) sinking fast, I kept checking around for weeks and never saw anything below 50 or so. I noticed it at the time – ‘Origin must command enough margin to keep prices high’.

    Nobody knows whether the race to the bottom is beneficial to a particular product, and I’m not even dumb enough to plunk down an opinion or weasel words on it. Also there was probably no physically possible result that would have saved 38 after such epic mismanagement, and I care less than any other person about the skanky, suicidal WoW knockoff they hoped to do next. All I’m saying is one more person is in one of the columns you marked. EA could have $20 from me. Because of this policy they have $0.

    • Avish says:

      This. Exactly.

      I don’t understand EA’s 60$ policy for all their titles.
      KoA would have sold much better under a 40$ initial price tag + a 50% sale after 3-4 months.

  85. mustgoderper says:

    Every time I read something like this where some big-shot is calling sales “harmful” to the industry in some nonsense way I get the feeling like they are blaming it on the gamers. Sometimes it honestly feels like some publishers/devs think it’s our duty to buy everything they put on the market and this is simply not the case. I mean I don’t go out and buy a new model toaster every time one comes out, no matter how glorious it’s bread toasting qualitys are or how fancy it looks. I might however buy the new toaster if it was simply better than my old toaster or brought something completely new and interesting to the toasting experience… I think my toaster example started to fall off, and now I want toast.

    It’s their job to make games and products that we want to buy, that should be their sole purpose, not trying to guilt trip the consumers to buy their yearly update of a game or the weekly DLC pack that adds two freaking guns and costs $5.

    Steam isn’t doing sales because they want to destroy the industry, they do it because obviously we, the consumers, like cheaper games and are more willing to fork out a couple of €$£ for games that we have not even thought of buying before the sale.

  86. Theschiznits says:

    This is why they are a steadily declining company, and why I as a game consumer, will NEVER buy a EA product again. DiMartini you sir are an Asshat.

    • Shooop says:

      Declining? Every game they’ve released the past 5 years has been a best seller.

      The only thing that’s declined about them is their public image. And that doesn’t mean a damn thing.

      • Theschiznits says:

        Ok. That’s all well and good. However who buys their product? The public. Us. And if they lose credibilty as a company there sales will suffer, as they should. WE decide what we want. Not EA or anyone else. Survival of the fittest. Give it time. Unless they change there model they will be done.

  87. Stevostin says:

    “But in an age where studios seem to be getting axed by their bottom line-obsessed overlords every other week, such consumer inertia probably isn’t helping.”

    I’ve been working in a very close sales-type contexte actually years before the whole Steam sales frenzy and all I’ve learned leads me to think it’s wrong assumption. Sure, make a 50% discount and you’ll loose money on a few people that would have bought it 100% one time or the other. But you also gain customers you wouldn’t have had otherwise. More importantly, you have a control on when big money will flood, which is always helpful when organizing yearly planning.

    I don’t know any method to make a valid comparison because once you choose a path you don’t choose the other and can just try to figure how it would have worked. But my guess is that Big Sales >> Big Price, but it has to be balanced to communication costs. Because the amount of “new” customers you gain via big sales is related to how much exposure boost you get (in % of what you already have, conceptually). If you have a big license, with millions in ads spend, if you’re the big thing, the boost ain’t that great.

    So does it mean EA should stay away from big sales ? Imo no, they should go Valve’s way : less communication, more sales. At least on PC : Console market is obviously a different thing. It’s more expensive…

    … and really, that may cripple next console generation as well. Steam wasn’t here last time. The value for money and variety of games seems now to be strongly better on PC.

  88. Llewyn says:

    There are other ways, which I can’t really talk about, of dealing with product as it ages over a period of time…

    …like turning off the servers and heavily promoting the sequel.

  89. best_jeppe says:

    “That said, it might be that without the mega-sale many people would simply never buy a game they aren’t actively anticipating. What the deep discounting can do is lead people to games they might otherwise never have tried”

    This quote is certainly true for me. Currently I have 94 titles in my Steam library and I have played (which both means I have played all the way through or may have just tested it for a few hours before thinking that I will play it at some other time) 48 of them. So essentially I have 46 titles I haven’t even installed yet and tried out but knew that they had gotten good reviews and was a sale which meant I bought it even though it may not be my type of game at all. So that is 46 games where developers have gotten my money even though I might not have been superexcited for their game. And that is better than no money at all I figure.

    Because without the steamsale I would not own nearly as many titles. I would probably just own the 48 I have played (or maybe a few less since I didn’t enjoy some of the ones I have tried). So no money from a customer should sorely be better than some money?

    Also, Gabe has said that when they have a steam sale and announce it the sales usually goes up by 40 times! They apparently tried to put a few titles on steam sales WITHOUT telling anyone about it and the sales didn’t change. Also, if we look at a game like ArmA II they have as you all well know a five fold sales increase just because of a mod. If EA would release mod tools for their products then maybe they would also get a sales boost even though the game might be a bit expensive.

  90. zeroskill says:

    Trying to fight Valve on the PC is the biggest mistake EA has ever done, and will eventually lead to their downfall, which is appreciated.

  91. Duoae says:

    I know i’m late to the conversation here and, as such, my comment will never be read… HOWEVER:

    On the other side of the coin, I can’t help agree with him somewhat on this point: “ Also what Steam does might be teaching the customer that “I might not want it in the first month, but if I look at it in four or five months, I’ll get one of those weekend sales and I’ll buy it at that time at 75 percent off.”

    If this is a problem then it’s another sign of the software and game industries thinking they are special and above all other commodities and services businesses ever in existence in the world. Plenty of people see a price and think – well, i’ll get it when it gets cheaper…. And we think like that, not because we’re trained to think like that through experiencing sales; we think like that because that’s what happens in life. Things get cheaper over time – they get older, less relevant (yes, even software) and are therefore worth less in value.

    Not to mention that the whole concept that IP is worth whatever the creator/publisher thinks it’s worth is complete and utter rubbish. Whatever you create, whatever you make – it’s only worth what people are willing to pay for it. I think a song i just wrotre (i’m making this up, now) is worth €100 per listen – it’s just that god damn awesome! However, I can guarantee you that no one in their right mind would pay that price for that experience (well, okay maybe some rich people with questionable mental acuity might)…

    Back to digital releases: By definition, DRMed, time-limited software you buy on Steam, Origin and any other digital distro is worth less because you don’t control it. I could, if i wanted, still play Doom on my computer – I have the data, I have the disc (and diskettes). They’re on me, they’re my responsibility. I also have the Steam copy of Doom too…. but if Steam goes down, closes doors/shutters then I can’t play it, it’s gone. It’s their responsibility. That automatically devalues the hell out of what I’m willing to pay for something.

    So, dear Reader, I put it to you that it is not the sales that are training us to want or expect to pay less… it’s the quality of the experiences we’re slowly getting as digital comes into its full glory. All those shut-down music services…. all those shuttered online portions of games (that are apparently so integral to the experience!)…. DRM schemes that break, stop us from playing our games or just generally degrade the experience. We learn and we remember our treatment, our experiences.

    Want to complain about consumers wanting to pay less for your product? Then make sure the product you’re offering is worth to the consumer what you want them to pay for it.

  92. frightlever says:

    The alternative to waiting for those 75% sales, isn’t necessarily paying more, it could simply be paying for fewer games. Personally I buy a bunch of games if the price drops low enough, but might not install them for months or years later, if at all. If they held their price better, I wouldn’t buy them ever. The stuff I REALLY want to play, I pay for fairly quickly. If the sales stopped, I’d probably save money.

    So… how would that help the industry? Some game I only got round to playing because it was 80% off and I enjoyed, so now I’m excited to play the sequels, or a franchise that’s dead to me because I never tried it.

  93. amisysally says:

    I have been reading your blog a lot over the past few days. I am very appreciate your talent, please continue post more article, thanks !pellet plant

  94. Hardmood says:

    “cheapen intellectual property”

    i translate that:

    ” bwahuahahaa *sniff* steam cuts our profits mommy…”

    ye sure they cut it, cos theyre just the more clever publishing system and thinkin in longterms of selling instead of shortrange big-cash publishing and then customer piss off strategies to serve some shareholders evry fiscal year.

  95. tkioz says:

    I’m sorry but these are the people that have kept some games at $89AU on their service after they’ve been out for years…

    As for waiting for a sale, it depends on the game, a game you’re only slightly interested in, you’ll wait for the price to drop, after all no-one is made of money, but when it comes to a game that you’re really pyched about, you stay up all night waiting for it to tick over so you can play it.

    Problem is publishers expecting every game to a multi-billion dollar game, when only a few can be that good, but you need the moderately profitable aswell.

  96. theaborted says:

    My problem is why should I pay an ever imposing price for a product that I don’t technically own?

    If they so and wish to do so, they can remove the ‘service’ and that’s it, my hard earned money down the drain.

    I do buy steam games, and most of the games I now own are games I would never have bought if they weren’t at a reasonable price because, as mentioned before, I was sitting on the fence.

    EA wishes to cripple the industry.

    Their idea of not allow people to have their own servers is ridiculous. The PC community have supported games for years to much praise without companies feeling the need to make a quick buck out of their own servers which they can shut as and when they need with no support.

    It’s a very dark day for games players anywhere. So far, Steam seems to be a trust worthy company so my money stays with them.

    I will restate the ‘So far’ bit.

  97. Sparkasaurusmex says:

    Love how they want you feel guilty for waiting on a deal

  98. Nick says:

    EA doesn’t give a shit about providing value to its customers.

  99. archagon says:

    I’d be more inclined to agree with this fellow if publishers didn’t keep bumping the price of their games. $60 is 1/3 of the price of a console. That’s absurd!

  100. Jahandar says:

    That Nordstrom/Target analogy is so bogus. They aren’t offering better quality products in a better environment. They are offering the exact same games in an inferior environment (The only exception to the first is when they artificially withhold games from Steam for alleged grievances).

  101. checkthisout says:

    It’s fascinating to watch how well Capitalism is working in America.
    The first two comment pages are filled with people literally rushing to “prove” they are good sheepies, running to their slaughter with a smile on their face and a bunch of $100 notes in their hands…

    Indeed, you gotta compensate this poor-poor EA cat for his hard-hard work (i.e. exploiting game developers, crushing unions, providing abominable working conditions, letting people work hard to creat IPs, withholding their due profit as well as fleecing their customers by any method available).

    It reminded me of Franz Kafka’s “In the Penal Colony”, where in the beginning an execution is about to take place:
    “The Condemned Man, incidentally, had an expression of such dog-like resignation that it looked as if one could set him free to roam around the slopes and would only have to whistle at the start of the execution for him to return.”

    That’s how I think of you.
    The EA Master whistles and you come a-runnin’ willing to please the shit out of him.

  102. Melf_Himself says:

    I will continue to buy many Steam games on sale to play on Steam, and continue to buy zero EA games at full price to play on Origin.

  103. wererogue says:

    Super-late comment:
    When I see a game and think “I won’t buy that at launch but I’ll get it later in a Steam sale”, the prior alternative was “I won’t buy that at launch, so I will never get to play it”.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Respond to our gibber

Read our finest words

Telltale On ‘Weird’ Experiments, Revisiting Comedy

Search for clues

Browse the archive