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
TheEnigmaticT: It was conducted over email; I've been busy as a one-armed paper hanger, so I didn't have time for a phone or Skype interview.
avatar
gameon: What on earth is that? never heard of that expression.
Try hanging wallpaper with 1 arm.....
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: Lower price = better than higher price, no exceptions. It sounds like GoG can't compete with the other DD's out there, so they're trying to incite consumer loyalty.
That's really not the case--in my opinion. You're entitled to your own.

Opinions are like noses. We've all got one.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: snip
But still - is it the most important thing to say in the interview?

If you read the comments under this article, you'll see many negative responses.

And it's not the whining "you give away Fallout, but I already have it", it's something much more serious, "I will decide what's good for me".

This wasn't the best thing you could say.
Post edited April 06, 2012 by SLP2000
avatar
Rodzaju: Try hanging wallpaper with 1 arm.....
avatar
gameon: Oh right, thanks. makes sense now.
That's one of those Americanisms that makes to sense on the other side of the pond, I guess.
avatar
ET3D: I also don't think heavy discounts train people to buy bad games. I wouldn't buy games I think are really bad. I buy games I think I might enjoy, and since I'm paying very little I can afford to make mistakes. If I had to pay a higher price, the failures would just encourage me to buy less, or perhaps stop buying altogether.
I agree with this.

We aren't being trained to buy bad games. What I think the industry is actually worried about is that we are being trained to buy good games at low prices. Steam's pricing system only falls apart if the amount of people no longer buying at full price are not replaced by a commensurate amount of people buying at the lower price point.

To make the math simple, let's say new games are priced at $50. Two years down the line, those games go on sale for $1. Each customer who bought it new is worth 50 people that bought it on sale.

Over time, some of those people that normally buy games new will take to waiting to buy them for $1, and will then be worth less to the industry. Certainly you will sell a lot more if the game is $1, but will you bring in 50 times the amount of new customers for each full purchase payer that was lost over time? That's what determines whether the low price points are damaging the industry or not.
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: Lower price = better than higher price, no exceptions. Anyone who says differently is either ignorant, or is a stool pigeon who is in on the take. It sounds like GoG can't compete with the other DD's out there, so they're trying to incite consumer loyalty by using typical PR buzzwords to fool people into paying more for less.
Many companies in many industries compete aside from price. Price alone doesn't always determine whether a product is good or not. Its up to GOG to differentiate itself enough from the competition to allow it to grow.
avatar
ET3D: I also don't think heavy discounts train people to buy bad games. I wouldn't buy games I think are really bad. I buy games I think I might enjoy, and since I'm paying very little I can afford to make mistakes. If I had to pay a higher price, the failures would just encourage me to buy less, or perhaps stop buying altogether.
avatar
jungletoad: I agree with this.

We aren't being trained to buy bad games. What I think the industry is actually worried about is that we are being trained to buy good games at low prices. Steam's pricing system only falls apart if the amount of people no longer buying at full price are not replaced by a commensurate amount of people buying at the lower price point.

To make the math simple, let's say new games are priced at $50. Two years down the line, those games go on sale for $1. Each customer who bought it new is worth 50 people that bought it on sale.

Over time, some of those people that normally buy games new will take to waiting to buy them for $1, and will then be worth less to the industry. Certainly you will sell a lot more if the game is $1, but will you bring in 50 times the amount of new customers for each full purchase payer that was lost over time? That's what determines whether the low price points are damaging the industry or not.
Definitely. People will be 'trained' to wait and want prices to be much lower and wait for cheap sales. Having said that, there are those who will buy early/pre order and keep prices for certain games artificially high even if they don't really deserve (sold on brand and reputation rather than quality product) to sold at such higher prices (looking at you COD franchise).
Post edited April 06, 2012 by nijuu
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: That's really not the case--in my opinion. You're entitled to your own.

Opinions are like noses. We've all got one.
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: You personally get paid to help your company gain profit, not help the consumer save money. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the conflict of interest.
Iif you read the interview in another way, that's exactly what he's doing.
A steady, loyal customer that doesn't wait or expect insane price drops to make a purchase is the kind of customer that will ensure a company makes profit.
avatar
SLP2000: But still - is it most important thing to say in the interview?

If you read the comments under this article, you'll see many negative responses.

And it's not the whining "you give away Fallout, but I already have it", it's something much more serious, "I will decide what's good for me".

This wasn't the best thing you could say.
What they published of the interview did end up coming off unfortunately; the point isn't that gamers don't have enough sense to make up their minds on what to buy and when. The point was that it seems to me that we've lost a lot of our emotional connection with games, and I think pricing's part of it. I used to be thrilled when I got a new game and I'd generally play the dickens out of it. Now, it's so easy to get games at such ridiculously cheap prices that I'll buy games I don't even want on the off chance that maybe I will want the game later when it's been patched further, or when the beta's done, or whenever.

But I'll probably never get around to it. Because I'll have bought something else in the meantime.

I think that games on crazy signaling promos are teaching gamers as a whole that most games aren't worth much, and they're encouraging the mentality of "enh, why the hell shouldn't I buy it?" I think losing that emotional connection with our games is bad for the industry as a whole--we care less about bad games, but we care less about good ones too and in the end we care less about games--and so it's bad for the gamers who buy games, too.
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: You personally get paid to help your company gain profit, not help the consumer save money. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the conflict of interest.
You personally pay money to buy games, not support the developer/publisher/distributor. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the conflict of interest.

See, cuts both ways :)
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: You personally get paid to help your company gain profit, not help the consumer save money. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the conflict of interest.
avatar
kalirion: You personally pay money to buy games, not support the developer/publisher/distributor. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the conflict of interest.

See, cuts both ways :)
I think the relevant difference here is that one is talking about themselves (the consumer) and the other is also about the consumer (not themselves) :)
avatar
Pheace: I think the relevant difference here is that one is talking about themselves (the consumer) and the other is also about the consumer (not themselves) :)
Hey, I buy games! :P
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: That's really not the case--in my opinion. You're entitled to your own.

Opinions are like noses. We've all got one.
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: You personally get paid to help your company gain profit, not help the consumer save money. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the conflict of interest.
The main goal is to profit maximize for the company . But for many companies, the whole customer experience and after sales support is getting more important (if not equally in some cases) not only to retain old customers but to bring new ones it. Isn't as black and white as it used to be.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: What they published of the interview did end up coming off unfortunately; the point isn't that gamers don't have enough sense to make up their minds on what to buy and when. The point was that it seems to me that we've lost a lot of our emotional connection with games, and I think pricing's part of it. I used to be thrilled when I got a new game and I'd generally play the dickens out of it. Now, it's so easy to get games at such ridiculously cheap prices that I'll buy games I don't even want on the off chance that maybe I will want the game later when it's been patched further, or when the beta's done, or whenever.

But I'll probably never get around to it. Because I'll have bought something else in the meantime.

I think that games on crazy signaling promos are teaching gamers as a whole that most games aren't worth much, and they're encouraging the mentality of "enh, why the hell shouldn't I buy it?" I think losing that emotional connection with our games is bad for the industry as a whole--we care less about bad games, but we care less about good ones too and in the end we care less about games--and so it's bad for the gamers who buy games, too.
Thanks for clarifying this. I understand your point better.

I think that the point you make has a grain of truth- that thinking of games as only worth a small amount of money somewhat also cheapens our feelings for them. But on the flip side, it also opens the door to consumers that never would have played the game before because it was too high of a price barrier; and for those people, it will give them their first opportunity to emotionally connect with those games. So, some may lose the love while others gain it.

I actually think I love gaming more (on the whole) because of the big sales though. Like I said earlier, I play for breadth more than depth, so I can afford more games and I gain a wider understanding of gaming as a whole, which makes me appreciate individual games in a different way because I see where each game fits into the larger historical context of videogames in general. However, it is true that there are few games that I really devote many hours too and really appreciate their depth. There are exceptions though. Right now, I am in love with The Witcher 2 and I am determined to play it through to the end, and perhaps even do another run or two after that. My first run is actually taking a long time because I just keep walking around and snapping screenshots. It's a beautiful game.

I value that emotional connection with games as well, but I don't feel like it has gone away. And though I spread that emotion out across many games now thanks to deeply discounted sales, I still spend devoted time with the games I most cherish. I appreciate your concern because we both want to see that emotional connection to gaming, but I am not sure that your concern is entirely founded about big sales breaking down that connection.
Post edited April 06, 2012 by jungletoad
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: snip
I agree with what you wrote, and this is how I understood the interview. But I think some understood something different.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: The interview got edited a little bit--and it was an interview with me (which is a little weird, given they're quoting it as Guillaume), but I possibly didn't make that clear to RPS.

I don't think I came off quite as patronizing in the full quote as the edited line there makes me sound. :">
Re-reading the interview I sent RPS, it's unjust of me to say that Nathan misattributed the interview; Guillaume and I both contributed answers and I didn't state who should be attributed for what.

Wading in on discussions at midnight after a long week like this can sometimes lead to a careless phrase that makes it sound like some guy who's reporting on a story is mucking things up when it's not on him.