Actually he's not saying it's steam's fault. He just lost a save and didn't want to start over from scratch.

such a vote carries more weight the more expensive it is. buying a game at $40 sends a much stronger signal to the publisher than buying it at $4.

lots of games that really aren't quite that good still sell a lot of copies whenever they go on a $2.50 sale. problem is, a lot of really GOOD games do the same (for example Metro 2033).

voting with your wallet only works when you pay less or nothing at all for 'bad games', and more or full price for 'good' games. if you pay the same (i.e. buy everything on a discount) you cast no vote at all since it'll all look the same to the publisher.

Um, reread the thread, he's very clearly blaming Steam. (the guy anoffday is talking about is not the OP btw)

No, it sends a very clear signal that for the buyer making the purchase, price X is what that buyer feels the game is worth. Any purchase at any price is a vote with the wallet.

Ah, I thought it was about the OP. Sorry. Carry on.

OK, i'll make this easier:

- game A is pretty bad, doesn't sell much initially. but you think it's interesting enough. game drops down to $10 quickly, goes on sale for $2.50. you pick it up since it's dirt cheap.

- game B is pretty good, critically acclaimed. possibly disappointing initial sales. you decide to wait with your purchase for whatever reason. game drops down to $10 eventually, goes on sale for $2.50. you pick it up since it's hard to say 'no' at that price point.

now, from the publisher's point of view, what is your message? you pick up bad games as well as good games only during sales, and you pay the same low amount for both games. in other words, the worse game sells just as 'well' as the better game, and makes you spend just as 'much' money as the better game does.

where's your vote? what do you vote for? in the end, all you're voting for is paying next to nothing for games regardless of their quality. that's a hell of a vote to cast... and a surefire recipe for more bad games in the future.

There's no need to 'make it easier'. The simple fact remains that buying anything at any price is a 'vote with the wallet'. However, the meaning of or reason for that vote is not obvious, and for publishers to draw any kind of conclusion other than the fact that the purchaser is only willing to pay X amount, is foolish.The 'vote with the wallet' means only one thing: I'm willing to pay price X for this particular game. That's all.

Whether it's a 'good' game or not is immaterial. This is because unless these games are from the same publisher and bought with the same account, they have no way of knowing if it was you that bought the two games. So they cannot make any conclusions about what your message is. All they can conclude is that there's a segment of buyers that are only willing to pay $2.50 for a particular game.

Let's take it to my personal buying habits. Anything tied to a client, I consider worth far less than the release price. It's for this reason that I won't buy anything that's tied to Steam until the price drops to $5. I don't care what game it is. So I vote with my wallet by only buying Steam-required games that I'm interested in when they hit my target price.

However, the publisher has no way of knowing that's why I wait for a sale. All they know is that for some reason I find the game to be only worth $5. The difference is I go onto their forums and let them know that my maximum purchase price hinges on what they decide to do with their game. So they know that, in my particular case, their choice of DRM is the cause of the low price I'm willing to pay. So they're informed that one sale of the game at the low price is due to their DRM. They cannot conclude anything about all the other people paying that low price though, unless they're informed of the reason.

Gah, I'm likely not getting my point across very well.

yes, you are. i certainly see what you mean. i'm just not sure if i agree with it.

i realize that what i've been saying is basically only true if both games in question are from the same company.

what i mean is that "good" games (whatever this means to you, personally) should be bought at a higher price than "bad" games so as to make a point in favour of the former.

for example, let's apply this to GOG.com. if you want more OLD games (like Ultima 8) instead of newer ones (like Assassin's Creed), buying the former at its full price while buying the latter in a sale or not at all sends a clear message to GOG. buying both at a discounted price also sends a message, but it's a lot less clear.

nowadays, a lot of gamers are in the habit of buying games only during sales since most games go on sale rather quickly now. people forget that there ARE games worth paying full price for, and if you want more of those, you have to send a signal to publishers somehow, and clearest possible signal is buying those games at full price.

Assuming they both sell at the same regular price, yes. However, in the example you mentioned, the message could simply mean "Even with a free game attached, $20 is too expensive for Assassin's Creed". The other issue is what if you already own all the 'old' games you want? What message are you sending if you start buying newer ones from GOG?

The message is never clear-cut.

Now, this I can agree with to a point. However, with things like day 1 DLC (which many people disagree with), DRM concerns, and buggy releases, it's still not clear cut what your spending indicates if you wait for a sale.

Ah, but you're just making an assumption that people buy good and bad games at 2.50. Do you really have anything to back that up? Just because someone waits for a sale does not mean he or she will wait for the 2.50 sale. They might buy good games at a $10 sale and bad games at $2.50. Or they may not buy a bad game at any price. You're whole argument is based on you own assumption.

To add to this. What may be viewed as a bad game by a lot of people (Say Dragon Age 2) is still going to be liked by others. So while they are buying a game that a lot of people may view as a bad game, they are supporting what they feel is a good game.

Yeah, I suppose that if the revenue spiked the moment the price started to drop then there would be reason for them to pay attention to that. But I wouldn't bank on it. They're so honed in on the sales of the first few months that even day one sales can be seen as make or break. They really don't give a toss 6 months down the line, and when you're faced with that kind of attitude then there's no reason to assume that buying a game at a cheaper price tells the publisher anything at all.
Yeah, it's still profitable. All I'm saying is, don't call it voting with your wallet as your 'vote' is going completely unnoticed.
They can make some good extra money. But not the kind of money that acts as an incentive for them to make more games like that / in that series. That comes earlier.

Sure, a lot of people buy the game further down the line. But don't confuse GOG forums with an indication of the mentality of the average gamer. Mostly we're talking about teens who 'have' to have the game on day one. That's where the real money is. You and I don't really count for much in this market.

I agree that my vote is not as strong as other votes but if the business is profitable because of me buying than I add to the profit. I could go to Steam and buy all my stuff there instead. But I am here and many others are here too and even GOG knows that there are many people out there who like it cheap. So I think that my action won't bet completely unnoticed. However not as strong as some people who can throw out money like hell, but I will not compete with them. Then it simply is as it is.

Yeah, but by then you're just a part of some bonus miscellaneous revenue stream. They're selling a lot of older games to a lot of shops, online stores and digital distributors. If they bothered to figure out where that money was coming from and analyse what this revenue indicated then they'd be spending most of that money on the sheer bureaucracy of it all.