It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
skeletonbow: What they might have done years ago is not so relevant to what their games value are perceived to be right now in 2016. What is most relevant is the current price of their games and how often they go on sale and for what kind of discount, with the most recent trends being the most accurate of a reflection of the game's perceived worth in the marketplace in combination with a company's willingness to lower the price lower and lower out of need of money. I haven't dug up the actual GOG sales promos to get the most accurate information but I remember at least 2 sales this year in recent memory that were seemingly close together the entire catalogue was on sale for 90% off and that is the most relevant info as to what the company and the potential customers value their games at right now.
Their current perception on GOG, yes, but what about their future perception? What if the new owner takes a leaf from Bethesda's book and starts doing lower discounts? While old customers might be wary of buying them at lower discounts, that might not be the case with newer ones, who might not even know (or care) about the ludicrous discounts of the past and just want to play Freespace 2.
avatar
skeletonbow: That is not dissing them in any way either. The price of games go down over time as a natural course of time passing. What is different though is that some companies are successful and as their games lose value they can straight up say (to themselves not necessarily out loud in the public eye) "We absolutely will not sell our game for less than $5" and they'd rather sell less copies than lower the price to dollar store prices out of pride or whatever. A good example of this is Bethesda, id Software, Ubisoft, EA. Not all of the games they ever made necessarily, but those made after a certain date for sure, and their tendency is often to do it with most older games too.

What would it take for Bethesda to lower the price of the games they sell no lower than $5 right now no matter what - to lower the price to $3 or $2 or $1? They're highly successful with a widely diverse portfolio and a lot of padding. They don't need to lower their prices even on a game that isn't even that great. If there's little to no overhead or costs with selling it, they can just sell it for whatever they want and if they sell a million copies in a year or sell 100 copies it is practically pure profit and they don't need to care.
Are we talking about base price or discounted price? Because if we're talking about base price, then Interplay's cheapest game is also no lower than $6. If we're talking about discounted price (as it seems that you're doing), then yes, Bethesda/EA/Ubisoft have actually sold their old games for less than $2.
avatar
skeletonbow: Interplay is a struggling company that is and has been desperate for a long time now however. Even if one picks an Interplay game that is equal or even better than a game that some other company might never sell for less than $5 because they simply don't need to like my Bethesda example (but I could have picked one of many companies in a similar position, say Blizzard...), Interplay doesn't have the padding of success to do that. They are starved for cash and their games aren't selling in quantity enough to keep them afloat, old or new. They have no choice but to lower their prices and start bailing out the water.

I'm not saying there is zero demand for Interplay games. I'm saying that the demand there is for Interplay games in combination with the companies need for money means that their games only move in sufficient volume in 2016 when they are 90% discounted by and large.

Since that's what you seem to be saying in your last sentence too though it seems that we may completely agree on the final verdict but perhaps have a different way of viewing or stating the details. ;oP
As I said above, that might be their current perception, but not necessarily their future one. To give an example, under Interplay's ownership, Freespace 2 might not be worthy of more than, say, $1. Under the future owner's ownership, it might actually be considered worthy of $5. Or maybe, the new owner might give Freespace 2 a typical 75% discount without trying to bait customers to buy other games for a higher discount (as is Interplay's 60%/90% discount MO)
avatar
skeletonbow: If Bethesda started to struggle to the danger point, you bet we'd likely see DOOM3, Rage, and many many other games that are both old and $8-20 all of a sudden be $1-3 too. :)
Doom 3 is currently available for $2.5 on Humble Store. Abandon the Bethesda ship! :P
avatar
skeletonbow: A price is ultimately a negotiation. A negotiation of goods, and what the price is ends up being the meeting place where the party that has the most to gain and the party with the most to lose if the transaction doesn't happen meet together somewhere in the middle.

Bethesda has the least to lose if we don't buy their 15 year old game for $5, they simply don't care - if you want it, you'll buy it eventually, if not they sell other games to hold the fort down and someone else will buy it instead. They have the bargaining power. With Interplay, they could do the same thing but if you don't buy it, they are not eating dinner tomorrow. :) Our $2 whimsical purchases let them have another day to breathe. :)
Every company is currently in a better position that Interplay. Well OK, maybe Atari isn't.
Post edited September 09, 2016 by Grargar
avatar
skeletonbow:
avatar
Grargar: Their current perception on GOG, yes, but what about their future perception? What if the new owner takes a leaf from Bethesda's book and starts doing lower discounts? While old customers might be wary of buying them at lower discounts, that might not be the case with newer ones, who might not even know (or care) about the ludicrous discounts of the past and just want to play Freespace 2.
I understand the logic of what you're saying but I think that if another company buys their games they would have to do it at a low enough price that if they sold Interplay's games at the same price Interplay did they would turn a worthwhile enough profit to even bother, and if they sell them at even higher prices then Interplay would have to take a bigger kick in the balls to sell at an even lower price so the new IP owner can sell at a higher price to make it worthwhile. But at the same time, if the games have come on sale for 90% off bargain bin cup of coffee discounts, that sets up the market to accept that, so future prices that are higher will be rejected by many knowing the games sold several times for far less. For it to be profitable there would have to still be high enough interest out there when everything was taken into consideration.

In short, there are a lot of variables but it could go either way.

avatar
skeletonbow:
avatar
Grargar: Are we talking about base price or discounted price? Because if we're talking about base price, then Interplay's cheapest game is also no lower than $6. If we're talking about discounted price (as it seems that you're doing), then yes, Bethesda/EA/Ubisoft have actually sold their old games for less than $2.
I was referring to the discounted prices because largely as time goes on they are the real prices. I suggest that to be true based on the idea that a brand new release sells at a high price because of anticipation of the game and people willing to buy it immediately to get it right away who are willing to pay a higher price. But as time goes on, those people have already bought it and are shaken out of the buyer's list. The price has to go down to motivate others into anticipation again. In the mean time all sales promotional discounts have the same although very temporary effect. As a game ages and the price continues to drop I believe this effect shifts around to the opposite side of things where there are only a very small trickle of people willing to pay the non-discounted retail price and the primary mover that sells the games is the discounted price. I think that for the oldest of games the volume moves only when they're on sale.

I have no experience on that side of things, it's just educated hypothesis of sorts but I think it's a reasonable conjecture. :)

To clarify on the final note you mentioned, I was thinking of Bethesda games mostly in the year 2000-2010 range rather than older stuff like say... Betrayal at Krondor or the 90s in my examples. There are many 2000s games out there that were highly popular in their day and are well loved to day made by many developers, but a tonne of them now go for anywhere from $1-3 each either standalone or bundled together into packs either continuously or periodically either by the publisher or by the retailler. I picked up a number of retailler created collections from Amazon for example where I paid $2ish on average for top notch AAA games that are 10 or less years old and highly popular. But... try to find a deal like that on Elder Scrolls games or anything made by id Software and good fricken luck. :) Same thing with many Ubisoft titles or EA. The cheapest they seem willing to go on just about anything is like $2.49'ish. It seems most of them have a price point where they're like "We'd rather throw it in the garbage than accept a penny less than this."

Not saying it's right or wrong, but that it just happens and only because the company and question is in a position where they can do it even if 0 copies of something sell. They still sleep well at night. I'm sure not at Interplay though. :)

I should say another thing here too... I did say I wasn't dissing Interplay and I'm not, just expressing where I see things are at for them now. For the record while this conversation was going on I went and grabbed a game I wanted to play and installed it - Star Trek 25th Anniversary. I had no idea it was even made by Interplay. I own at least 15 Interplay games on GOG (maybe more but they don't all show up in a search of the store because some are no longer sold here) which makes them in my top 10 list of companies I own the most games from in my catalogue I think, and I probably own a number on Steam too perhaps. I just wanted to say that because a big Interplay fan may see my comments and think I'm being overly harsh or have a beef with them or something perhaps and I want to assure that I don't and I love and own many classic Interplay games also. In fact more than I even know or realize likely. :)

avatar
skeletonbow:
avatar
Grargar: As I said above, that might be their current perception, but not necessarily their future one. To give an example, under Interplay's ownership, Freespace 2 might not be worthy of more than, say, $1. Under the future owner's ownership, it might actually be considered worthy of $5. Or maybe, the new owner might give Freespace 2 a typical 75% discount without trying to bait customers to buy other games for a higher discount (as is Interplay's 60%/90% discount MO)
I understand what you're saying. I think my response to your first paragraph above covers my thoughts on that. Could go either way.

avatar
skeletonbow: If Bethesda started to struggle to the danger point, you bet we'd likely see DOOM3, Rage, and many many other games that are both old and $8-20 all of a sudden be $1-3 too. :)
avatar
Grargar: Doom 3 is currently available for $2.5 on Humble Store. Abandon the Bethesda ship! :P
Ok, the cheapest I've seen it to date was about $3 before or maybe $3.50, but you're most likely talking USD and I'm talking CAD so that price sounds about the same as the cheapest I've ever seen it. ITAD always knows best and haven't checked. There's DOOM, the expansion, and BFG edition, and possibly combinations of them. I never see them for the price that makes me hot to trot though. For $3 CAD if they threw in the expansion I might spring for the original release, or for the BFG edition perhaps. The thing is though, soon as I do that, 10 minutes later Bethesda will drop them here on GOG and I'll let out a big fat sigh.

If I wait, it'll be another year though and then show up for like $20 regular, $7.99 on GOG sale or something like that... and I'll sigh some more. :)

avatar
skeletonbow:
avatar
Grargar: Every company is currently in a better position that Interplay. Well OK, maybe Atari isn't.
LOL! Can't argue much with that, except to whisper out loud... "Hello Games"... :)
Ok, they're probably doing good with cashflow right now... but just wait 12-24 months... :)

All I can say is... well... Goodbye Games... :)
avatar
TStael: It is not Dethmold dying - but his pimple popping and slave raping, as lead up to the genitalia mutilation and throat slashing.

I killed the rapist king, too, btw - *the flea stabs a lion" or whatnot - no humiliation though.

I want gsming to be universal, and to me: Dethmold having his genitalia slashed is not it.
avatar
skeletonbow: I think CDPR should make that into it's own standalone spinoff game like Gwent. :)
Even abstaining from the Witcher 3, I pretty soon assumed they would - and why not. That Belgian dear loved friend of mine was pretty crazy over the original "Magic" deck game when that came online. I rather needed him to play with me, but I really liked it as we did.

The demand is there.

If gog.com could do it across all the games that they have - even more admirable, as this would have to be cooperative, not a simple concept implementation. Not holding my breath, but here's hoping!
avatar
skeletonbow: I think CDPR should make that into it's own standalone spinoff game like Gwent. :)
avatar
TStael: Even abstaining from the Witcher 3, I pretty soon assumed they would - and why not. That Belgian dear loved friend of mine was pretty crazy over the original "Magic" deck game when that came online. I rather needed him to play with me, but I really liked it as we did.

The demand is there.

If gog.com could do it across all the games that they have - even more admirable, as this would have to be cooperative, not a simple concept implementation. Not holding my breath, but here's hoping!
Now that would be a sight to behold, and a tremendous challenge to GOG indeed if they could implement co-operative genital mutilation functionality into every game in the GOG catalogue! I mean, it would be difficult with some games due to lack of source code but they do binary hack games to work around bugs and bypass copy protection and whatnot so it's theoretically possible at least.

Not only that, but if they could secure the rights and turn the Cockpuncher movie into a video game! Imagine being able to control Steven Seagal in FPP or TPP in a game, running around punching people in the cock! That would probably sell like hot cakes and get better reviews than No Man's Sky to boot!

The big unknown in all of this though, is would GOG have the balls?
avatar
TStael: If gog.com could do it across all the games that they have - even more admirable, as this would have to be cooperative, not a simple concept implementation. Not holding my breath, but here's hoping!
avatar
skeletonbow: Now that would be a sight to behold, and a tremendous challenge to GOG indeed if they could implement co-operative genital mutilation functionality into every game in the GOG catalogue!
This kind of post slightly baffels me. But I do not mind.;-)
avatar
TStael: This kind of post slightly baffels me. But I do not mind.;-)
If you think that is baffling, just wait until you hear what they're going to call the new genital mutilation DLC for No Man's Sky!

Yep, that's right! No Man's Cock!
avatar
TStael: This kind of post slightly baffels me. But I do not mind.;-)
avatar
skeletonbow: If you think that is baffling, just wait until you hear what they're going to call the new genital mutilation DLC for No Man's Sky!

Yep, that's right! No Man's Cock!
You go, my boy or gal! :-D
avatar
TStael: You go, my boy or gal! :-D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGK8IC-bGnU :)
avatar
TStael: You go, my boy or gal! :-D
avatar
skeletonbow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGK8IC-bGnU :)
No need - I have the DVDs.

Or you TheDavieDuck? Then better get your ass sold for a few commercials...
They need all the money they can get for Cyberpunk.
avatar
CARRiON.FLOWERS: I keep seeing people mention this, but what the fuck is CDPR going to do with Earthworm Jim? Or Redneck Rampage? Or MDK?

Let someone else buy the IPs, someone that will perhaps actually do something new and interesting with them. CDPR is already fully concentrated on Cyberpunk 2077, as they should be. Besides, they make story rich and fleshed out RPGs. They don't need to own a single IP on that list.

I hope Deep Silver/Volition get Freespace, and I hope Parallax get Descent back. The FPS titles would be better off with a company like Night Dive or Devolver, and I'm sure a company like Nordic would eat up games like Sacrifice, MDK and Giants.

I think the only reason GOG self-published the D&D and WH40K titles is because whoever owned them didn't want to bother with ANY of it, not even earning any money off sales.
avatar
Darvond: Well, GOG could always buy the rights to prevent them from falling to EA, Activation, and that obscure Russian developer that might be a front for the Mafia, and then using their noggins, sell the properties off to studios that GOG trusts not to screw things up/milk the cow until the bone shows.
Don't bring WG into this. Besides all the titles they are selling off are of no interest to the
guy running the company. He only bought Orion and the guys\ studio behind Total
Annihilation because he admired that work. They currently have little interest in
branching out with the exception of Hybrid Wars.