But look at the average GOG weekend promo sale thread. You'll find the same type of people in there, people who own every single game in the promo and haven't even touched a lot of them. It's a weird stance to take given they haven't really been innocent in the thing they're lambasting.

I can see where they're coming from.

Right now it a game has to be truly extraordinary for me to even consider paying more than $5 for it.

Also, as far as the "Game x sold a bunch, we'll make Game Y because of it" mentality, there's a reason why gameplay trackers and achievements (and always online DRM) have become so prevelant. They aren't just there to give the OCDers of the world something extra to do. They give game makers data to analyze. If a million people own a game but only 100,000 beat the first level, they have the data to maybe not invest their lives into the sequel.

Most of my wishlist tends to be 4.99 on sale sadly :)

A luxury problem one could argue though ^^

This! In fact I never bother to play most of the games of the indie bundles, and I probably spent half of the money on games I never will play. Pretty stupid if you think about it. But... oooooh these shiny low prices :D

On the other hand I have no problem buying Quality at full price (TW2, etc.). So he has a point I think, too low prices do not really help in making meanungful buying decisions.

I'm not sure what is confusing about it, but let me explain with a few scenarios:

1. Let's say I want to buy Spellforce. It is $9.99 at both Steam and GOG. I choose GOG because I prefer their service (no DRM, bonus goodies, etc.).

2. Let's say Steam puts it on sale for $4 and GOG puts it on sale for $5. I will still buy GOG because I prefer their service (no DRM etc.).

3. Let's say Steam puts it on sale for $1 and it's not currently on sale at GOG. I will buy the Steam release. It's too good of an offer to pass up and I don't imagine GOG will go this low.

4. Let's say Steam puts it on sale for $1 while GOG puts it on sale for $5. This is where I have to wrestle with the decision. I really don't mind Steam, even though I prefer GOG, so I have to decide if the no-DRM and extra goodies are really worth $4 extra or not. It's quite possible I would pick Steam instead.

5. If they both sold it at $1, I would again, clearly buy from GOG.


In scenarios 3 and 4, GOG's philsophy of deeper sales being bad for me causes them to lose out on a sale. If Spellforce was a game I would buy, but only on sale, then GOG just lost a sale for this game to Steam. I will not buy the game twice and it's one more game off my wishlist at both services. Basically GOG needs to beat Steam in scenarios 1 and 2, more often than it loses to Steam in scenarious 3 and 4 if they are not going to use scenario 5.

I don't agree with this entirely. I also have not played a lot of the games I have in my library. But I am pretty sure that most of it is stuff I am perfectly fine I invested in. I usually read up on them quite well before purchase, and even if I haven't played it myself, necessarily. Like the AC series, or Saints Row the third. I saw the GF play those through and after I figured they were worth picking up, even if I haven't had any particular inclination to play them myself yet.
But I do feel they were good games and 'worth the money'. Others like Recettear just feel like they're 'going the right way' so to say. I played it a little, but barely scratched it's surface really. Still worth it imo.

But on the other hand - should they really care if they lose 1$ sale?

What I think is that Guillaume didn't tell that it's also bad for the developers, and it's only good for Steam.

Because when a game is priced at 1$ during the sale, they (devs) earn almost nothing, and their sales are dead for the next couple of months, plus it's disrescpectfull.

But it's good for Steam, because gamers start to buy games at Steam, and then don't want to buy games somewhere else (no steam no buy).

Oh, and when it's bad for the developers, then it's also bad for gamers.

I think this is what they call 'missing the point' ... the price was just an example.

To be more specific. I'm not sure where I read it anymore, but it was from a developer (I think Indie) who gave his view on the really low sales and how he felt they really benefited from it. In there he stated that being part of a sale that low worked in several ways.
Firstly it was great advertising for their game (well, on Steam).
Secondly it got them a lot of buyers that otherwise wouldn't have purchased their game if it had cost much more probably.
But more importantly, every time they have one of those sales, it's followed by an increase in full priced sales for a while as well, as the viral marketing basically has people playing the games, increased word of mouth, people getting their friends excited, and then those end up buying the games as well.

Low price sales aren't nearly as detrimental as some people seem to think.

If they loose $1 x 30,000 , then yes, they should. Just sayin'. It's not. During the sales, many games make 3000% of the revenue. Sales make developers rich. It doesn't matter if they earn $50x1500 or $1x30000 . They don't need to care about bandwidth, etc etc. It's the same money for them.

There are too many games to be bought. Sales make them more accesible, and even more importantly - makes them go on the store's front page.

Maybe, but in this case it was bad example.

"Impulse buying" certainly is wrong, many people bought tons of bad games on steam just because they were on Sale

Good deals however on good games are another thing

I understand that GOG has some things which bring it and it's games above the steam versions but Why should people buy games on GOG when competitors can offer them for a cheaper price?

If it's just me, no. If it's all 5 million Steam users, definitely yes.

Of course it will be somewhere in the middle of those extremes, but you can see it depends on the amount of people that get enticed into buying the game because of the lower price.

How putting the game on steam costs developers with transfer?

And you think that Valve would put games for 0.99 there if it wasn't profitable?

Ps. Don't tell anything about "disrespectful". I'd love to be disrespected with $1 x 30.000 , I'd really do.