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

×
Has there been a trend for GOG to release games at higher prices or is it just me? It seems that more games are being released on GOG at $10 with some releases really more suited to $6.
More price points have been discussed recently. My concern with more price points is that a $6 price point will disappear. Since publishers are a greedy lot they will insist their games be released at the "new", higher price points. More price points would effectively raise GOG game prices, IMHO, with the $6 price point becoming a rarity . . . =)
Edit: Also seems to be more 30% sales rather than 50% sales.
Post edited July 02, 2010 by Stuff
avatar
Faithful: When there is a deliberate attempt to block out competitors it is a no win situation for users in the end.

I'm curious, where did you see a deliberate attempt to block out competitors from a DD service? You may say that developers do that, and even then it's a stretch.
avatar
Faithful: When there are very few competitors, there are very few reasons to give sales.

Do you really think Steam does sales because of competitors? That's childish. They do sales because even they declared that during sales the volume of product sold greatly exceeds the period with no sales, to an extent that it brings more money to cover the "loss" they suffer by reducing the price and also rack in a lot of cash on the side. This also means that publishers love this.
avatar
Faithful: When there is a deliberate attempt to block out competitors it is a no win situation for users in the end.
avatar
AndrewC: I'm curious, where did you see a deliberate attempt to block out competitors from a DD service? You may say that developers do that, and even then it's a stretch.
avatar
Faithful: When there are very few competitors, there are very few reasons to give sales.

Do you really think Steam does sales because of competitors? That's childish. They do sales because even they declared that during sales the volume of product sold greatly exceeds the period with no sales, to an extent that it brings more money to cover the "loss" they suffer by reducing the price and also rack in a lot of cash on the side. This also means that publishers love this.

Yes, they do the sales to get money from people who wouldn't have bought the games at full price, which still leads to profit since the only cost is bandwidth.
avatar
Faithful: When there is a deliberate attempt to block out competitors it is a no win situation for users in the end.
avatar
AndrewC: I'm curious, where did you see a deliberate attempt to block out competitors from a DD service? You may say that developers do that, and even then it's a stretch.
avatar
Faithful: When there are very few competitors, there are very few reasons to give sales.

Do you really think Steam does sales because of competitors? That's childish. They do sales because even they declared that during sales the volume of product sold greatly exceeds the period with no sales, to an extent that it brings more money to cover the "loss" they suffer by reducing the price and also rack in a lot of cash on the side. This also means that publishers love this.

First, I never stated this is their process at the moment.
The point I was making was that when the largest supplier of any service/product controls the bulk of the market, it has the ability to block entry of new business into the same market area. While a business may not have a true monopoly it can be one of the few large businesses that provide the service/product to customers and when this occurs there is less incentive to provide sales to consumers since maximizing profit is the goal of business.
Yes, very deep discount sales generate dollars, but they also marginalize the smaller players who cannot compete with the much larger business. Why do you think this thread exists? GOG feels the pinch of a much larger business and has limited recourse in response.
I simply believe that if any business gains the lion share of the market it does not serve the consumer well.
In the end, the only thing I have against Steam is that it is DRM in every way, shape, and form.
avatar
AndrewC: I'm curious, where did you see a deliberate attempt to block out competitors from a DD service? You may say that developers do that, and even then it's a stretch.
Do you really think Steam does sales because of competitors? That's childish. They do sales because even they declared that during sales the volume of product sold greatly exceeds the period with no sales, to an extent that it brings more money to cover the "loss" they suffer by reducing the price and also rack in a lot of cash on the side. This also means that publishers love this.
avatar
Faithful: First, I never stated this is their process at the moment.
The point I was making was that when the largest supplier of any service/product controls the bulk of the market, it has the ability to block entry of new business into the same market area. While a business may not have a true monopoly it can be one of the few large businesses that provide the service/product to customers and when this occurs there is less incentive to provide sales to consumers since maximizing profit is the goal of business.
Yes, very deep discount sales generate dollars, but they also marginalize the smaller players who cannot compete with the much larger business. Why do you think this thread exists? GOG feels the pinch of a much larger business and has limited recourse in response.
I simply believe that if any business gains the lion share of the market it does not serve the consumer well.
In the end, the only thing I have against Steam is that it is DRM in every way, shape, and form.

Just need to chime in here:
You are doing what a lot of other people do here. You are falsely applying the concepts behind a monopoly.
Let's say that Steam was the ONLY DD outlet. GoG is offline. Impulse commit suicide. D2D might still be around, but nobody uses it :p. Hell, let's crank it up a notch and say that all the retailers exploded and died. The only way to get a game (PC or otherwise) is through Steam.
Steam has a monopoly with regard to distribution. They are the only option. That DOES mean that they don't need to work so hard to introduce new and innovative things. But games themselves (and sales) won't be affected.
Sure there is less incentive to organize massive sales. But the various publishers and devs are still going to demand them. Why? Because it lets them compete against the others.
Because while Steam would have a monopoly on distribution, they wouldn't have one on games. So we might not get a "Perils of Summer' sale, but you can bet your bottom dollar we would see things like "Dragon Age 5 for $2!" because Bioware/EA would want to try and push out CD Projekt. And then we would see "The Witcher 3 for $4" because CD Projekt would have to compete.
And then, we would STILL see new shinies from Steam periodically. Because they need to prevent anyone else from getting a foothold. If all the devs want smell-o-vision integrated into Steamworks, they need to do it. Otherwise, another DD-platform will pop up and start taking market shares.
So maybe Steam would have a monopoly. But it would not really affect us all that much (unless you are non in the US, because Steam hates squiggly moneys :p).
GOG will survive if it preserves its niche. I am an avid Steam user and was initially enticed by all the games Steam doesn't have and probably will never pursue.
If GOG could get, even with some limited exclusivity, the rights to distribute some of the "most wanted" games (according to our votes), there would be a massive influx of users. I know that the Interplay D&D games are mired in licensing hell, but what if GOG was the outfit that aggressively sought to resolve this in order to distribute these games online for the first time?
The way I see it, the ball is really in GOG's court to diligently pursue games that are unlikely to be offered at Steam. The goal is to be a Steam supplement, not a Steam slayer. This second path leads to self-destruction.
avatar
Mentalepsy: By the way, what is going on in your avatar? I've been trying to figure that out for ages.

It's a snippet of the photo attached below, explained here: [url=]http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19600297000[/url]
One of my uncles was one of Flak-Bait's pilots.
Attachments:
avatar
Brandondorf: GOG will survive if it preserves its niche. I am an avid Steam user and was initially enticed by all the games Steam doesn't have and probably will never pursue.
If GOG could get, even with some limited exclusivity, the rights to distribute some of the "most wanted" games (according to our votes), there would be a massive influx of users. I know that the Interplay D&D games are mired in licensing hell, but what if GOG was the outfit that aggressively sought to resolve this in order to distribute these games online for the first time?
The way I see it, the ball is really in GOG's court to diligently pursue games that are unlikely to be offered at Steam. The goal is to be a Steam supplement, not a Steam slayer. This second path leads to self-destruction.

I couldn't agree more with the last paragraph. Well said!
Other DD services should find a road less traveled instead of walking along the path where Goliath tread. GOG does it well by offering classic games that can't be found on any other store and I hope other DD services also find their own niche too instead of being a copycat.