This was a point recently made by Guillaume Rambourg of GOG.com. I often agree with what Guillame has to say, so I was a little surprised at this recent quote.

“Heavy discounts are bad for gamers,” Rambourg explained. “If a gamer buys a game he or she doesn’t want just because it’s on sale, they’re being trained to make bad purchases, and they’re also learning that games aren’t valuable. We all know gamers who spend more every month on games than they want to, just because there were too many games that were discounted too deeply. That’s not good for anyone.”

Full Article:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/06/gog-talks-preserving-value-of-games-slow-death-of-drm/#more-102864


I don't know if Guillame will read this, but I strongly disagree.

This argument makes it sound like customers have no self discipline to manage how many games they buy and that it is the job of the retailers to keep them from buying too much junk by increasing price marks. Granted, I have acted impulsively on sales and bought games that I probably will never play, but I've learned from my mistakes. And it is more often the case that I am very happy to receive a deep discount. If you think the way to compete with Steam is to offer 50% discounts instead of 75% discounts, I think you will find yourself sorely wrong.

I do love GOG, and when the same game is offered on both services, I will choose GOG over Steam given more-or-less equal pricing, and will even pay a few dollars premium at GOG to ensure I have a DRM-Free product that works on a modern OS. But GOG alone cannot control gamers' impulsive spending. I will still buy games deeply discounted at Steam even if GOG doesn't offer the same discounts because they think it is in my best interest to not have them deeply discounted. Actually, I find it a little condescending and annoying that GOG is trying to claim this is in my best interest. I can control my own budget, thank you very much, and part of how I do that is by waiting for sales (both on Steam and here). I can understand why it might be in your best interest as a business, but don't try to convince me it is in mine.

Something to keep in mind here is the difference between brick and mortar retail and digital distribution. In brick and mortar retail, you can find games on sale, but the real deals are on the secondary market. A service like Steam doesn't have a secondary market, which is appealing to game publishers, but is not appealing to consumers. However, given that one of the primary benefits of a secondary market is lowered price points, Steam is actually able to get around this by having a trickle of games on sale daily, and then gigantic storewide sales for summer, fall, and christmas. Given that you can buy almost any game on Steam during the big holiday sales, this makes it easy to wait for the game you want to be discounted. In a brick and mortar store, I can find a popular game discounted any day of the week, but am less likely to find a rare game at any price. Digital distribution has the advantage of never having to worry about rarity. As long as the publisher continues to grant access to the game, there is never a shortage problem or lack of shelf space. Deep discounts are the one thing that makes digital ok though. Otherwise, I would want to buy used games, which just isn't an option on Steam, and is legally questionable with GOG since I could keep a copy of what I were to sell.

My point is that I think discounts are good for gamers. I am willing to pay a premium for DRM free, so if GOG costs a little more than Steam, I'm fine with that, but I'm always hunting for the best bargain for my money and I love a big sale.

Simply put, their argument is wrong.

I can't even begin to list all the games I've bought on sale that have become some of my favorites of all time. It's a lot.

I already stated in my first post that I will buy at GOG over Steam, even at a premium. Clearly I do appreciate the finer points of GOG. And even though it is true that there are consumers that lack self-discipline, I still want sales and the lower the price the better, from a consumer vantage point. Besides, it's not the retailer's job to discipline us.

I also am a fan of playing games that others might consider crappy. I play for breadth more than depth. I play many games, but only complete a few of them. I'm fine with this as it gives me a broader experience of gaming as a whole, even though I may not see the entirety of all the games I play. Bundles and big discounts work well for gamers like myself.

I wanted to post "What the hell he is talking about?!", but then I read interview and I must kinda agree with some points. I personally bought a few games that I didn't want just because they were on sale and later I was like "why the hell did I buy this?". ;)

But overall I like sales, but Steam and other digital distributors probably like them even more because of reasons pointed out by Guillame.

I have to disagree also. I just don't go buying whatever game(s) are on sale. Take this weekend sale for instance. I don't care for the older HoMM games. I wait til games that are on my wishlist go on sale to buy unless I am super tempted to get a game at full price if I really wanted to play it.

Now the only exception I would buy a game I don't like on sale would be used to giveaway to another GOG'er just because I like to return the favor when I have the spare cash.

I also disagree with GOG, but in a way, they aren't doing anything wrong.

GOG has already stated that they are not meant to compete with Steam. GOG's philosophy is that it won't offer prices as low as the Steam, but each game will have more value attached. They have decided GOG will be some kind of luxury service, rather than a Steam-done-right for the masses.

I can respect their decision, though it's not the most appealing option for me.

I think that he's doing too much to try and justify GOG's pricing instead of looking at ways that it does need to change, given the inclusion of newer titles.

GOG is way ahead of the curve in many respects. But releasing newer games has taken them out of the specialist DD category and placed them in direct competition with the likes of Steam and Gamersgate. It has also placed them in competition with indie bundles, given that the titles now appearing on GOG have seen a few bundles in their time.

Gamersgate has already learned lessons from the indie bundles and has released its first now. Steam has done indie bundles for a long time and probably invented them.

Gamersgate has its blue coins to reward positive community involvement and repeat custom. They've also done a lot to bolster the community side of things (despite still lacking a forum). Steam's community features are unrivalled.

Where does this leave GOG? Behind. In some regards, by quite a significant margin. GOG still has its DRM-free games and no regional pricing but it's going to be very hard for them now to justify certain deficiencies in the overall service.

No doubt many will stick with GOG no matter what, just to support the ideals. But there's no denying that releasing newer games has had the unintentional side effect of drawing parallels that aren't so easily explained away as they used to be.

Some things, like rigid price points, no bundled games and wish lists and user pages that aren't viewable by others are some of the things that GOG will simply have to change to compete in its new market.

Sure, you can get good games on sales but I agree with Guillaume. When I pay 30 to 50 bucks for a game I buy it because I "respect" it. Before the special sales started on Steam I used to play every single game I had there - now I haven't played about a third in my library and have only seriously played like 3-5% of them.

The main problem however is this one: by buying any game you cast a vote. You give money to the developers or their publisher and this way they know which projects are good, which one show the right direction for the future. If you just pay for games that you don't even bother to play, this evolutionary process is being disturbed.

For example this might happen: some indie developer made some game, hundreds of thousands of people buy it just because it's on sale. Seeing the success the developers assume that their game was awesome and people want to see more like it. Then they develop a sequel or something but it fails epically. People don't really bother buying it. They actually bought the previous game but didn't like it at all or aren't ready for a sequel yet because they don't know if the previous game was any good as they had no chance playing it because their games library ist just too huge. As a result we either get worse games or even destroy some developers just by being ignorant consumers. That's terrible!

But sill my main problem is that I generally loose respect for games, even the good ones, when I'm drowning in them. They really do loose value.

I find your standpoint confusing given that you acknowledge GOG offers a better product and then say you want it at the same low price you can get at other retailers even though you are buying less from those other retailers. Isn't that a bit irrational? Yep. Terrible.

I don't think there is anything "wrong" with them offering 50% sales instead of 75%. They can set their price whereever they want. I don't even mind given that GOG's base-rate price is low to begin with (at least with the old $5.99, $9.99 games). My issue is mainly with the rationale that it is not in gamers' interests to have big sales. The idea just sounds absurd to me. It doesn't even fit the fact that GOG also has big holiday sales, and pretty deeply discounted prices.

I get the impression that they are trying to rationalize the new higher price points added to GOG and the fact that their sales don't drop as much as Steams do in many cases.

Nevertheless, there may be some damage done to the perceived values of games by having so many sales. Perhaps games feel more disposable when they can be purchased cheaply; but piracy is always there and piracy makes it feel like games can be found for free, so no company is going to solve that problem. Any particular game is never on sale for long either, so you still partly think of its value as that of the regular asking price.

It's hard to not come off like a bit of a buffoon when speaking in absolutes, especially in a "We know what's best for so and so ways."

It's also just kind of a weird point in general. They talk about how their sales are only 50 percent, which puts their games in the 3-5 dollar range. Other sites do 75 percent sales. Which puts their games in the 3-5 dollar range. They may have lower base prices and lower discounts but they're doing pretty much the same thing.

Disagree entirely. When I buy a game for 50 dollars or whatever sum their selling it at, generally speaking I always end up regretting those purchases. Cost of purchase does not equate to satisfaction with the purchase.

And on the indie gamer thing, if the first game sold sell but it was terrible, and they make a second game that is the same quality as the first why should I feel bad if it fails? A good game will almost always receive some level of recognition. If a game company continuously puts out a sub par product and goes under because of it, I feel nothing for them. It's a business, you have to supply a good product to continue making successful business. It isn't charity. There are plenty examples of indie companies making a successful business by providing a solid product. Deals just accelerate the process.

I don't think you got the point of what you're quoting...it's not that bargains are bad. It's compulsive buying that's bad.

Have you been on Steam during their last big christmas sale? There were TONS of people who bought games only to get the promotional achievement and one chance more to win the raffle. I realize that was the entire purpose of the promotion, but still while Guillame's argument is invalid for you, it seems to be valid for quite a lot of other people.
It's like that with any kinds of promotions in shops. While some people are careful buyers most actually will get either a bad product or more than they actually need JUST because it was a bargain.

I think sometimes it's right. I have many games I bought just because they were cheap. (and never played them yeT) I just don't understand how that's bad for me. I had a 5 seconds of pleasure by buying a cheap game, and maybe that's enough.

Also, it's my money, I don't understand why that dude from GOG.com thinks he should care about my money.

On the other hand, games on GOG.com are cheap. When they make 50% off or 60% off , these games are mostly 2.99 or 2.39. And at that price, it's a steal deal. I don't know why anybody would want GOG.com games to be even cheaper.

But if they want to sell their 14.99 , or 19.99 games on GOG.com, they HAVE TO make bigger sales on that titles.