Support NeoGAF

[JustinBB7]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ales-cheapen-intellectual-property-accusation

Some bits:

Valve has countered EA's accusation that Steam sales "cheapen" intellectual property, saying they in fact benefit games, publishers and gamers.

Holtman said Valve's data, based on some 40 million users, disproved this theory.

"If we were somehow on a cycle where you could see it, you wouldn't see us repeating it. We wouldn't repeat it with our own games. We wouldn't repeat it with partner games. Partners wouldn't want to repeat it.

"Actually everything we see is to the contrary. It's funny, when you look at the data, things come out and they make you scratch your head for a little bit, and then you're like, that kind of makes sense.

"For instance, if all that were true, nobody would ever pre-purchase a game ever on Steam, ever again. You just wouldn't. You would in the back of your mind be like, okay, in six months to a year, maybe it'll be 50 per cent off on a day or a weekend or during one of our seasonal promotions. Probably true. But our pre-orders are bigger than they used to be. Tonnes of people, right? And our day one sales are bigger than they used to be. Our first week, second week, third week, all those are bigger.

"If you're a fan of a game or a property, and you want it when it comes out, you want it. It's very valuable to you because you're a fan. You want to play it then, just like you want to see your favourite rock back when they come around.

"If you want to wait and get a discount later or find a sale or promotion, that's also super valuable for you. But all of those pieces, what they're adding up to is, more people are playing games, more people are engaged and they're making choices all along that spectrum of, yeah, I want that game when it comes out and, oh, I used to buy that game and now I'll buy it a year later. That's fine too."

Not that this is really news that EA is wrong but hey!

 

[JaseC]

Now, counter the fan accusation that you can't count to 3.

 

[Anoregon]

He's absolutely right. People who are looking forward to a specific game are not going to wait for a sale, while the sale brings in many people who otherwise would not have purchased the product. The actual data supports this, arguments to the contrary are just sour grapes and PR spin.

 

[HoosTrax]

If you're a fan of a game or a property, and you want it when it comes out, you want it. It's very valuable to you because you're a fan. You want to play it then, just like you want to see your favourite rock back when they come around.

Torchlight ][ and Borderlands 2 -- day one baby!

 

[kittens]

EA really said that??

Okay, for old times sake:

 

[Liamario]

He's pretty much nailed my decisions on whether to purchase something and when to purchase it.
VALVE KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING- SHOCKER!

 

[Anoregon]

People buy the games they want when they want them. It works this way in every market. Like movies? See some at the theater. Not particularly invested in this week's superhero blockbuster? Rent it later. Like comics? Buy the singles. Have a passing interest? Read some trades at the library.

Netflix cheapens Film!

 

[JustinBB7]

EA really said that??

Okay, for old times sake:

And like a week later they put heavy discounts on their own games as well. Oh EA.

 

[Massa]

EA really said that??

Okay, for old times sake:

EA, GOG and many others.

 

[walking fiend]

very idiotic answer overall; it doesn't matter whether more people buy more games overall, it matters how much they spend in the end on it; by their line of reasoning, iOS $0.99 is orders of magnitude better than theirs, cause much much more people buy more games there

 

[Anoregon]

EA, GOG and many others.

Oh yeah, I forgot GoG is on that bandwagon as well.

 

[Rickenslacker]

It's certainly how I operate. Lookin' forward to many cheap gaming goodies in the next week, but I'm also going to get Borderlands 2 and Dishonored on day one.

 

[Palette Swap]

Now, counter the fan accusation that you can't count to 3.

They'll do that tomorrow.

 

[DyTonic]

DO we really need Origins -_-

 

[Anoregon]

very idiotic answer overall; it doesn't matter whether more people buy more games overall, it matters how much they spend in the end on it; by their line of reasoning, iOS $0.99 is orders of magnitude better than theirs, cause much much more people buy more games there

Are you implying that isn't actually a valid argument? Because it absolutely is

 

[ghibli99]

If I buy a great game for cheap, it actually just makes the game *that* much better to me. I don't view it as cheapening the product, but rather me getting incredible value and entertainment for my money. It's rare that I feel this way about a $60 purchase.

 

[enzo_gt]

You know, I kind of understood EA's criticism even if they didn't really have a point/goal outside of smearing Steam. I wonder how well Valve's data applies to Indie titles and not just big titles (or overall).

 

[AndyD]

And like a week later they put heavy discounts on their own games as well. Oh EA.

That was the best part. Its like they have two PR departments with no knowledge of what the other says or does.

indeed.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Happy Valve is the disruptive force here. Imagine a world where Origin was the only PC DD service. Game prices would probably stay near release price for years.

 

[fastballspecial]

When it comes to other companies selling digital product, EA should really just shut up.

 

[Sober]

It's certainly how I operate. Lookin' forward to many cheap gaming goodies in the next week, but I'm also going to get Borderlands 2 and Dishonored on day one.

Exactly, I never understood the legions of people who make fun of people who preordered. I mean, sure they'll wait for a sale, but I want it day 1, so who's to say I'm wrong?

There have been a few games where I got it on sale and now I'm super looking forward to playing the next one on day 1.

 

[pants]

idk EA, thats kinda like saying booksales cheapen the bible. If something is seen as being worth $60 to people, they will buy it at that price. Sales only bring in extra income as it appeals to those that valued it at a lower pricepoint. Sales buyers wouldn't have have bought it at $60 anyway.

 

[that1dude24]

very idiotic answer overall; it doesn't matter whether more people buy more games overall, it matters how much they spend in the end on it; by their line of reasoning, iOS $0.99 is orders of magnitude better than theirs, cause much much more people buy more games there

they might have data on how much people spend

just a wild guess though!

 

[walking fiend]

Are you implying that isn't actually a valid argument? Because it absolutely is

yeah, having by far the largest user base and sold game, but having a revenue lower than CoD franchise is definitely the way to go

they might have data on how much people spend

just a wild guess though!

Steam is the largest store for PC games, but it doesn't mean in the long run it won't devalue the whole market in general; just like Apple is by far the largest market, but has devalued the overall market it has

 

[mysteriousmage09]

They'll do that tomorrow.

Half-Life 3!

Spoiler

Portal 3....

 

[Eideka]

You have my sword Valve.

 

[DyTonic]

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 sale

huh

 

[MNC]

Hah, so that's why we don't have a sale.

 

[arts&crafts]

very idiotic answer overall; it doesn't matter whether more people buy more games overall, it matters how much they spend in the end on it; by their line of reasoning, iOS $0.99 is orders of magnitude better than theirs, cause much much more people buy more games there

You are wrong on all accounts. Let's say 90 percent of people who buy a game on sale were never ever going to pay full price for that particular gAme because they didn't really want it or weren't that interested. Now hundreds of thousands of people are buying the game giving money to everyone involved in making the gAme. Even if it's down to 5 dollars the company is still making for example 500 000 dollars profit they wouldnt have if the game didn't go on sale. This is a simplified example but you get the idea.

 

[catapult37]

huh

yep. those stores don't stock the same items lol

 

[LQX]

Funny but looking at that Steam thread I would say EA was more right as many in that thread seem to be holding off buying anything until Steams magical sale starts. Even Amazon sale on some great Steam enabled games can't seem to persuade some as Steams prices might be better.

 

[Tylahedras]

You know what cheapens intellectual property? Hats.

 

[toastyToast]

People value things differently.

The end

 

[PaulLFC]

Before making himself sound like an idiot, the guy from EA could have asked himself one simple question and saved himself the subsequent embarrassment:

"If Steam cheapens intellectual property so much, why do publishers keep agreeing to the sales?"

 

[Fuzzy]

And like a week later they put heavy discounts on their own games as well. Oh EA.

Which is when Valve should've responded. Valve Time™ and all that...

 

[dragonlife]

You know what cheapens intellectual property? Hats.

If by cheapen you mean makes them sell more, then, yeah.

 

[Exuro]

I'll just say that I wouldn't of bought half of the games I have if it weren't for sales. Not because I'm cheap but because I wasn't interested enough in those other titles.

 

[Silas Lang]

I agree with Valve. I would have missed out on games I would have never tried if it wasn't for sales. Also if its a series you have the potential to create more fans who will be there day 1 buying it at full price. Smart business.

 

[The Technomancer]

very idiotic answer overall; it doesn't matter whether more people buy more games overall, it matters how much they spend in the end on it; by their line of reasoning, iOS $0.99 is orders of magnitude better than theirs, cause much much more people buy more games there

Except people are spending more, hence the whole "week one through three purchases are up" comment.

 

[dollartaco]

Funny but looking at that Steam thread I would say EA was more right as many in that thread seem to be holding off buying anything until Steams magical sale starts. Even Amazon sale on some great Steam enabled games can't seem to persuade some as Steams prices might be better.

It works the same in any retail environment in which a known sale is approaching. But the thought process in my mind is usually, "I typically wouldn't buy this game, but I'm willing to take a chance at a reduced price."

 

[demosthenes]

Before making himself sound like an idiot, the guy from EA could have asked himself one simple question and saved himself the subsequent embarrassment:

"If Steam cheapens intellectual property so much, why do publishers keep agreeing to the sales?"

Because they're more concerned w/ the short term than the long term.

EA was alleging that yes the sales get you money now but they were devaluing games for the long term.

 

[DyTonic]

Because they're more concerned w/ the short term than the long term.

EA was alleging that yes the sales get you money now but they were devaluing games for the long term.

Long term games lose their value anyway being on the pc =/

 

[PaulLFC]

Because they're more concerned w/ the short term than the long term.

EA was alleging that yes the sales get you money now but they were devaluing games for the long term.

Well that was my point. If the games are being devalued so much, the publishers that have been through multiple Steam sales would see that, and wouldn't agree to further sales. This hasn't happened, therefore we can conclude what the EA guy was saying isn't true.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

You're missing the blunt economics of this.

The comics industry is a great example of pricing gone wrong. Everything is high, and every few years gets higher; as the prices go up the audience shrinks, but the overall profit goes up. This is good for that year, maybe, but not for the health of the industry in even the near term, say, two years later. The readers that drop off rarely come back, and many of the people who stay buy fewer books.

Hence the situation that industry is in now: smaller and smaller boom periods where readers are brought in by branded events, which burn out existing readers, lead to price hikes, and then another decline. It hurts mid-tier books that get dropped, and it kills long term readers. And the people in charge, much like EA, seem to miss the point. For example, when Joe Quesada was EIC at Marvel, he was convinced that getting rid of glossy pages and going for lower quality cover stock was the equivalent of taking HD tvs away. The point he misses is that nobody pays an HD fee every time they use their TV, as well as the prices on most HDTVs being pretty reasonable. They might annoy some collectors but it's far more important to have a larger number of readers.

You could see the same happening with games. It certainly does with Activision products: full-priced yearly releases, eventually leading to a crash where those players never come back. The Steam method prevents this; it keeps people trying new franchises and smaller releases at low prices, and as a result they've seem pre-orders for quality full-priced games actually go up. Personal example: I got Torchlight for $5 long after release, played it, loved it, didn't hesitate to pre-order the sequel at four times that price to play it day one.

yes.

 

[dollartaco]

Also, remember that even EA didn't buy their own bullshit. They almost immediately turned around and discounted a bunch of Origin titles, no?

 

[The Technomancer]

Because they're more concerned w/ the short term than the long term.

EA was alleging that yes the sales get you money now but they were devaluing games for the long term.

I didn't initially reject that claim, although I know a lot of people on here did. I mean, it does seem to make sense that constantly offering things at low prices will reduce the number of people who buy at full price. But Valve's data seems to suggest otherwise.

 

[Derrick01]

They should not have even given EA the satisfaction of a response at all for saying something that stupid. Especially when they were handing out free games less than 2 weeks after it and had a 75% sale about a week after.

 

[walking fiend]

You are wrong on all accounts. Let's say 90 percent of people who buy a game on sale were never ever going to pay full price for that particular gAme because they didn't really want it or weren't that interested. Now hundreds of thousands of people are buying the game giving money to everyone involved in making the gAme. Even if it's down to 5 dollars the company is still making for example 500 000 dollars profit they wouldnt have if the game didn't go on sale. This is a simplified example but you get the idea.

If all steam game go one sale for $5 instead of $50, you think people are going to buy 10 times more games? and if go to $1, 50 times more?

People who will eventually play 10 games a year, might buy 20 games or 30 games a year just because they are cheap, but they won't buy 100 games just because they are cheap; however, in the long run that $5 is the established price, people may not even buy 30 games any more...

You're missing the blunt economics of this.

The comics industry is a great example of pricing gone wrong. Everything is high, and every few years gets higher; as the prices go up the audience shrinks, but the overall profit goes up. This is good for that year, maybe, but not for the health of the industry in even the near term, say, two years later. The readers that drop off rarely come back, and many of the people who stay buy fewer books.

Hence the situation that industry is in now: smaller and smaller boom periods where readers are brought in by branded events, which burn out existing readers, lead to price hikes, and then another decline. It hurts mid-tier books that get dropped, and it kills long term readers. And the people in charge, much like EA, seem to miss the point. For example, when Joe Quesada was EIC at Marvel, he was convinced that getting rid of glossy pages and going for lower quality cover stock was the equivalent of taking HD tvs away. The point he misses is that nobody pays an HD fee every time they use their TV, as well as the prices on most HDTVs being pretty reasonable. They might annoy some collectors but it's far more important to have a larger number of readers.

You could see the same happening with games. It certainly does with Activision products: full-priced yearly releases, eventually leading to a crash where those players never come back. The Steam method prevents this; it keeps people trying new franchises and smaller releases at low prices, and as a result they've seem pre-orders for quality full-priced games actually go up. Personal example: I got Torchlight for $5 long after release, played it, loved it, didn't hesitate to pre-order the sequel at four times that price to play it day one.

Yes, but I don't believe pre-orders making major of the Steam sales

---
To me, I believe games should be priced based on the following questions:

"What is the price that people can pay for a game and think there wasn't something more fulfilling by that same amount of money?"

For example, you may pay 4 dollars and watch a 1hour episode of an action TV series; now you may pay $40 and either watch 10 hours of the series or buy CoD and play probably like 20 hours or maybe much more if you get into multiplayer; and since you get a lot for that $40 you pay for CoD, people are willing to do so every year


---
most in the gaming industry having a very short or at most mid term view, for whatever reason, and don't look at long term effects their strategies may have;

I wonder for example why Amazon doesn't do this with their kindle books? Then I think probably because they have a very long term view considering this as it is their only business; and the same goes for Nintendo

 

[GJS]

very idiotic answer overall; it doesn't matter whether more people buy more games overall, it matters how much they spend in the end on it; by their line of reasoning, iOS $0.99 is orders of magnitude better than theirs, cause much much more people buy more games there

Steam sales help attract new customers to the platform, which could subsequently increase the number of full price sales for newly released games Which is what Valve has seen and is stated in the OP.

 

[demosthenes]

Well that was my point. If the games are being devalued so much, the publishers that have been through multiple Steam sales would see that, and wouldn't agree to further sales. This hasn't happened, therefore we can conclude what the EA guy was saying isn't true.

I didn't say it was a good argument.

But then Steam's argument is that pre-orders have gone up in the wake of the sales.

You sure about that? I don't think the console space is exactly a wonderland in terms of shelf life.

Again, I didn't say it was a good argument.