Posted September 09, 2016
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. 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. 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.
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) 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
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 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.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. :)
Post edited September 09, 2016 by Grargar