Are you sure?

To anyone who owns every game in this bundle on GOG.com:
Will you offer me a trade for Gianna Sisters at 75%off.

A shame, this would be a great bundle, but the timing isn't the best: Snapshot is up in the Humble Indie Bundle and La Mulana is in the the Groupees Greenlight Bundle. So for $1.51 you can get two of the games out of the bundle DRM-free already.

GOG couldn't have anticipated this, but I'm certain its really cutting into sales. If it had been a pick and mix they might be doing a but more.

Indeed. Got both games from the others bundles.

Or at the very least at a moment where the nothing is still better than anything else you can get, like when there isn't a blanket 50% going on already anyway.

Very true. This sort of thing would be awesome as a regular weekend deal.

Out of all the games in this bundle I'm the most interested in Mutant Mudds and Giana Sisters. Though it was very nice to see Capsized here on GOG and a shocker to see it on sale like this so soon.

Whatever happened to "devaluing the brand" with Steam-like sales?

I find it funny that GOG is finally getting into the 75% sales. I take immense pleasure from seeing others proved wrong, but it's a rather big paradigm shift.

Of course, it is hard to argue with the numbers. Take for example a game that sells for $10 digitally. Let's say it sells on average 100 copies a week. That;s $1000 in revenue.

Let's say you put it on sale for $5, and it boosts sales up to 200 copies. That's still only $1000, as the increase in sales is in the same proportion as the decrease in price, 50%.

Now, if you sell the game for $2, and you now sell 1000 copies, you have pulled in $2000.

Videogames don't have "overhead". After the initial sales window, which mirrors physical releases, there is no reason NOT to heavily discount a game, as history has shown that it WILL sell more.

Using the same logic, I don't get why Activsion sells Call of Duty for only $60. If anything, Bobby Kottick is a saint. The fools who buy into that drivel *have* to have the newest game each year, and as such, they will simply do without other things to afford the extra cost if needed. I think Call of Duty should be selling for at LEAST $120 each year for the basic no-frills version, and at LEAST $60 per map pack.

I mean, since $60 to $120 represents a 100% jump in price, it would require 50%+1 of current users to stop playing the game to NOT result in a net gain. Do you really think anything short of a $1000 price tag per year would get 50%+1 of the idiots to wake up?

Sales are great, but there is devaluation going on when people start to question whether they should pay, say, $4.99 for a game. And as with most things, when supply outstrips demand, the value of that thing goes down. The developer can potentially make more money at the lower price, but that's only because many people have become accustomed to not paying any more than that price for games. "Indie Bundles" don't help the situation, when people can pay $1 for a handful of good games. Short term, the developer will probably do great, but long term is a different story, especially as the world economy brings in thousands of new developers from around the world, saturating the world with even more games. Years ago Nintendo said something about "trying to feed someone who is already full," and that's what we've been seeing for some time now in the game market.

Eventually it comes down to money vs. free time for everyone. I haven't picked up any games on sale yet, only because I have so many, from GOG and other sources, that I haven't played yet. (Although I will very likely pick up Moonbase Commander, even if it isn't heavily discounted to a full 75% off, because I really enjoyed that game.)

Of course. But how come no one ever complains about that with the other digital stores, especially considering their bundles don't care if you have some of the games already (ie. you end up paying again for games you already have _from the same service_)?

Take for example the GamersGate "all Bethesda games" bundle yesterday, or e.g. the Darksiders Franchise bundle in Steam. They don't really care if you have some of the games or DLCs already, even from the same service.

The GOG bundles are much more fair than any of those bundles, because GOG bundles do take into account if you have some of the games from GOG already.

That said, I would probably modify the current GOG bundles so that the discount increases linearly towards 75%, depending the more games you buy (or already have from GOG). But I'm pretty sure the same people would still complain even then if they are not getting the full 75% discount if they want to pick only one of the games from GOG, so maybe this current one is more luring to get all the games at the same time, even if you happen to have some from some other services too.

GOG in love these days :)

But that "already have from GOG" is a sticky wicket as well. We're dealing with mainly classic games and indies. So it's far more likely that I'll either own the original discs or have bought them direct or from a bundle. This sort of bundle works better with recent, AAA titles where there is a greater chance to build and maintain brand loyalty. I love that many of these games are available to buy again and it would be great to get good deals on them, but I hate feeling penalized for having bought them 15 years ago.

I see GOG's point about devaluing games, but sadly they're fighting a losing battle. The genie is already out of the bottle and they're fighting on the losing side. Even if they don't want to devalue games nobody else cares and they're less competitive as a result.

They're also the problem that there's a higher set price. To make deep-discount sales work you need to lower the bar to entry to the point that it can become an impulse purchase. That's how you really make money. If it's just people buying stuff off their wishlist then, no, it won't work as well, but the beauty of these is the ability to draw in people to buy something they hadn't intended to.

When it comes to these all-or-nothing sales though they're really losing out because if presented with the choice of buying several games they already own for a set price and a better discount I suspect most customers will avoid the deal. Buying something I was kind-of interested in or that I didn't know about, but looks intriguing for $3-5 is a much easier sale than getting someone to buy two games they want, two they don't want, and three they already own just because they worked out the math and they can technically save $2 that way.

Many here actually buy older GOG games they already own on CDs, just for the ease of use (ie. not having to try to find the CDs from the cupboard in order to play them, nor trying to make them work on modern systems etc.).

I feel much more "penalized" with e.g. Steam and GamersGate bundles where I already have many of the games in their bundles, even from the same service, and yet I don't get compensated for them as I do in GOG. For example the "all Bethesda games" bundle in GamersGate, I already have the Fallouts, Morrowinds, Oblivions etc.

As I said, the GOG bundle model is much more fair than Steam or GamersGate bundles. I hope no one is trying to argue that.

I still don't get it why this same is not argued for GamersGate or Steam bundles, only with GOG bundles. The Steam/GamersGate bundles are only worse in case you already have many of the games already from the same service.

It makes sense for GOG to recognize loyalty, ie. people who decide to get many games from GOG (and only from other services if it is not in GOG) are rewarded. I think it would be counter-productive in the long run for GOG to reward those instead who only rarely buy from GOG, and primarily buy elsewhere.

That's a pretty bad example in my opinion since contrary to GOG you can gift those games out like they were separately bought copies with no effort at all. If you buy a bundle on GOG that's 1 key for all and the only way to gift anything is all or nothing unless they happen to already have some games in there.

When it comes to GOG, their discount for already having games is obviously the best out of the options, however GG does the gifting games from a bundle far better.

This gets argued all the time, certainly on the Steam forums? Just not generally on the GOG forum for a bundle on GOG? You're the one making an effort to compare with other digital retailers here. The rest are mostly commenting on the bundle as it is on GOG.