GoG's Guillaume Rambourg: Steam Sales are hurting the industry

"Stop buying cheap games from our competitor!!!"

That's bascially what I see from it.

Paying less money for games is never bad.

99% of all games released arent worth the 60 bucks you usually have to spend on them.

Fizzman

Pretty much this.

GoG even mentioned that most games aren't worth the full price as well so they (GoG) price theirs reasonably in the first place. However, since most companies don't reasonably price them in the first place, it is offset by deeper price cuts.

Have I bought some very cheap games that I've barely played? Yes, I am guilty of that. However, I have learned my lesson and havne't gone for my credit card for every $5 game that has decent reviews. There isn't enough time in a day to play every $5 (or less) game that goes on sale. :P

"Stop buying cheap games from our competitor!!!"

That's bascially what I see from it.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Paying less money for games is never bad.

99% of all games released arent worth the 60 bucks you usually have to spend on them.

Cwagmire21

Pretty much this.

GoG even mentioned that most games aren't worth the full price as well so they (GoG) price theirs reasonably in the first place. However, since most companies don't reasonably price them in the first place, it is offset by deeper price cuts.

Have I bought some very cheap games that I've barely played? Yes, I am guilty of that. However, I have learned my lesson and havne't gone for my credit card for every $5 game that has decent reviews. There isn't enough time in a day to play every $5 (or less) game that goes on sale. :P

The arguement is based on him addressing the industry as a whole rather then as a competitor in distribution.

As consumers:
Games are perceived as having less value, we buy games we don't intend to play and we expect to purchase games we want at a lower price.

As developers:
It becomes expected to release a game at a lower price. This will lead to less AAA (expensive to make) games and corners being cut whenever possible, something that is already highly visible.

"Our Business model is perfect, so since our competition is crushing us in total sales they must be brainwashing people and hurting the industry."

The arguement is based on him addressing the industry as a whole rather then as a competitor in distribution.

As consumers:
Games are perceived as having less value, we buy games we don't intend to play and we expect to purchase games we want at a lower price.

As developers:
It becomes expected to release a game at a lower price. This will lead to less AAA (expensive to make) games and corners being cut whenever possible, something that is already highly visible.

timma25

except instead of prices going lower, theyre climbing. i dont see the "as developers" scenario being totally true. as it seems that the prices are going up but the quality is going down...

Perhaps less AAA games was a bit of a jump for the short term. however game devs are not taking risks and going mulitplat to assure they can safely get as many sales as possible. As for prices climbing, the whole $10 increase is really nothing when considering inflation (even though it was caused mostly by console game sales). Tbh I don't really buy Blizzard, EA or Ubisoft games so that hasn't really affected me much.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"][QUOTE="vfibsux"]

Steam sales are bad for one thing, they addicted me to buying PC games I may never play lol. Either way isn't it great for the people making the games?? How is that bad? GoG has their niche with the older games, be happy.

GummiRaccoon

I'd rather spend 70 dollars on 12 games 6 of which I play than 120 on 2 games I play.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] You just supported their argument. It's bad for people to buy stuff they will never play. That's a bad buying habit to get into. OF course it's not 100% accurate because they assume everyone buys games they don't want only because they're on sale, and that's just not true.yellosnolvr

I'd rather spend 70 dollars on 12 games 6 of which I play than 120 on 2 games I play.

[QUOTE="yellosnolvr"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I'd rather spend 70 dollars on 12 games 6 of which I play than 120 on 2 games I play.

SF_KiLLaMaN

the problem is your point is a bad point.

It would only make sense if a digital copy of a game was a scarce resource, which it isn't.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"][QUOTE="yellosnolvr"] zing.NailedGR

the problem is your point is a bad point.

It would only make sense if a digital copy of a game was a scarce resource, which it isn't.

When PC games were 20 - 40 dollars brand new, I used to buy retail . . . ALL THE TIME.

When games went to 60 dollars, I swore I'd never buy another game for full price again, and I don't. I buy games I want and will play, but I wait until Steam is selling themcheap during a sale.

Born_Lucky

You're forgetting that modern games take a larger team, more production value to create. Just start with the game engine. Building one from the ground up takes man power, money, resources. Games today are no longer 8-bit from what I understand. So yeah, games are going to cost MORE. You can't compare what happened 10-20 years ago to TODAY's. But it's this kind of thinking like yours that hurts everyone in general. Gamers are now not even considering buying games they want badly because they're too cheap, or do not place the kind of value that another gamer who appreciates "said" developer and their game. But I guess at the end of the day, I'd rather have people buy a game for $5-40 than pirate the **** out of it.

I mean no offense, it's a debate that will never end well, and you'll usually never have a definitive answer for it. There are people who buy games cheap, people who buy games slightly less than retail, people who buy out of their region because they're cheaper, people who buy launch day prices, people who buy used games (usually pertains to console games), people who play their friends/family members' game, and people who pirate. And now, there's Kickstarter program.

I disagree because take for instance myself, I cant always afford to buy all the games that I want at launch or at full price, so if I cant afford it I wont buy it, if it happens that a steam sale comes along and its in the pricerange that at the current moment I can get it for then I buy it. I carefully pick my games the ones that I buy at full price, these games usually are in the BF3, D3, SC2 category games. I would buy all the games at full price if I could afford them but I cant. Not everyone can throw 60$ at a game every month. But also they need to consider the games that arent actually worth those prices. But sometimes I buy discounted games even though I may not like them just because it costs 5$, well why not.

Silicel1

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] Another person misunderstanding my point. What a shame.SF_KiLLaMaN

the problem is your point is a bad point.

It would only make sense if a digital copy of a game was a scarce resource, which it isn't.

That makes even less sense because in every possible way buying 12 games for 70 and playing 6 of them nets you more total enjoyment time, less total cost, more total options than buying 2 games for 120

If this were economics we would be talking about enjoyment hours per dollar spent.

So lets say you get 10 hours of enjoyment per game played.

spending 70 on 12 games nets you 6 games played.

6 games played gets you 60 enjoyment hours at a cost of 70 dollars

spending 120 on 2 games nets you 2 games played.

2 games played gets you 20 enjoyment hours at a cost of 120 dollars

Buying 12 games 6 of which you play for 70 dollars will cost you 1.16 dollars per hour of enjoyment

Buying 2 games for 120 dollars will cost you 6 dollars per hour of enjoyment

clearly buying more games, some of which you won't play, is wasting less money.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

the problem is your point is a bad point.

It would only make sense if a digital copy of a game was a scarce resource, which it isn't.

NailedGR

That makes even less sense because in every possible way buying 12 games for 70 and playing 6 of them nets you more total enjoyment time, less total cost, more total options than buying 2 games for 120

If this were economics we would be talking about enjoyment hours per dollar spent.

So lets say you get 10 hours of enjoyment per game played.

spending 70 on 12 games nets you 6 games played.

6 games played gets you 60 enjoyment hours at a cost of 70 dollars

spending 120 on 2 games nets you 2 games played.

2 games played gets you 20 enjoyment hours at a cost of 120 dollars

Buying 12 games 6 of which you play for 70 dollars will cost you 1.16 dollars per hour of enjoyment

Buying 2 games for 120 dollars will cost you 6 dollars per hour of enjoyment

clearly buying more games, some of which you won't play, is wasting less money.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

the problem is your point is a bad point.

It would only make sense if a digital copy of a game was a scarce resource, which it isn't.

NailedGR

That makes even less sense because in every possible way buying 12 games for 70 and playing 6 of them nets you more total enjoyment time, less total cost, more total options than buying 2 games for 120

If this were economics we would be talking about enjoyment hours per dollar spent.

So lets say you get 10 hours of enjoyment per game played.

spending 70 on 12 games nets you 6 games played.

6 games played gets you 60 enjoyment hours at a cost of 70 dollars

spending 120 on 2 games nets you 2 games played.

2 games played gets you 20 enjoyment hours at a cost of 120 dollars

Buying 12 games 6 of which you play for 70 dollars will cost you 1.16 dollars per hour of enjoyment

Buying 2 games for 120 dollars will cost you 6 dollars per hour of enjoyment

clearly buying more games, some of which you won't play, is wasting less money.

Owning in a Free to Play....Priceless :P

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

the problem is your point is a bad point.

It would only make sense if a digital copy of a game was a scarce resource, which it isn't.

NailedGR

That makes even less sense because in every possible way buying 12 games for 70 and playing 6 of them nets you more total enjoyment time, less total cost, more total options than buying 2 games for 120

If this were economics we would be talking about enjoyment hours per dollar spent.

So lets say you get 10 hours of enjoyment per game played.

spending 70 on 12 games nets you 6 games played.

6 games played gets you 60 enjoyment hours at a cost of 70 dollars

spending 120 on 2 games nets you 2 games played.

2 games played gets you 20 enjoyment hours at a cost of 120 dollars

Buying 12 games 6 of which you play for 70 dollars will cost you 1.16 dollars per hour of enjoyment

Buying 2 games for 120 dollars will cost you 6 dollars per hour of enjoyment

clearly buying more games, some of which you won't play, is wasting less money.

Total "potential" enjoyment time =/= Time you will play/enjoy playing. It's not about quantity. It's about quality, obviously. Just because I buy 6 games @$10 each doesn't mean I will enjoy those 6 games more than the 1 game I bought for $60. History has proved this to me, over and over again. And this is what he meant by valuing a game. A lot of people are in denial here. I see a lot of people complaining about their backlog because they buy games super cheap and never play it but you'll read about them playing a game that launched a week and enjoying it far more.

It's makes less sense bringing economics into the enjoyment of games. You're arguing about something that is very subjective. You can't prove it with your numbers.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

the problem is your point is a bad point.

It would only make sense if a digital copy of a game was a scarce resource, which it isn't.

NailedGR

That makes even less sense because in every possible way buying 12 games for 70 and playing 6 of them nets you more total enjoyment time, less total cost, more total options than buying 2 games for 120

If this were economics we would be talking about enjoyment hours per dollar spent.

So lets say you get 10 hours of enjoyment per game played.

spending 70 on 12 games nets you 6 games played.

6 games played gets you 60 enjoyment hours at a cost of 70 dollars

spending 120 on 2 games nets you 2 games played.

2 games played gets you 20 enjoyment hours at a cost of 120 dollars

Buying 12 games 6 of which you play for 70 dollars will cost you 1.16 dollars per hour of enjoyment

Buying 2 games for 120 dollars will cost you 6 dollars per hour of enjoyment

clearly buying more games, some of which you won't play, is wasting less money.

I've bought plenty of games from Steam that I normally would even look at in a shop, I'd say that Steam is helping the industry.

I like Steam sales. Mr. Rambourg apparently has a small opinion of gamers, apparently we only buy cheap games because they're cheap not because maybe say ... oh I don't know ... we've been waitng months for that one game to go on sale on Steam? I've looked around on GoG's cataloque and they have a lot of good old games true, but way over priced considering how old they are. I suspect he's just whining about Steam offering new games at prices competitve to what GoG charges for 4 and 5 year + games. Suck it up Giillaume, it's called a free market and competition is part of it.

I like Steam sales. Mr. Rambourg apparently has a small opinion of gamers, apparently we only buy cheap games because they're cheap not because maybe say ... oh I don't know ... we've been waitng months for that one game to go on sale on Steam? I've looked around on GoG's cataloque and they have a lot of good old games true, but way over priced considering how old they are. I suspect he's just whining about Steam offering new games at prices competitve to what GoG charges for 4 and 5 year + games. Suck it up Giillaume, it's called a free market and competition is part of it.

fenriz275

[QUOTE="fenriz275"]

I like Steam sales. Mr. Rambourg apparently has a small opinion of gamers, apparently we only buy cheap games because they're cheap not because maybe say ... oh I don't know ... we've been waitng months for that one game to go on sale on Steam? I've looked around on GoG's cataloque and they have a lot of good old games true, but way over priced considering how old they are. I suspect he's just whining about Steam offering new games at prices competitve to what GoG charges for 4 and 5 year + games. Suck it up Giillaume, it's called a free market and competition is part of it.

ShadowsDemon

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"][QUOTE="fenriz275"]

I like Steam sales. Mr. Rambourg apparently has a small opinion of gamers, apparently we only buy cheap games because they're cheap not because maybe say ... oh I don't know ... we've been waitng months for that one game to go on sale on Steam? I've looked around on GoG's cataloque and they have a lot of good old games true, but way over priced considering how old they are. I suspect he's just whining about Steam offering new games at prices competitve to what GoG charges for 4 and 5 year + games. Suck it up Giillaume, it's called a free market and competition is part of it.

SkyWard20

What are taxes

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"][QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] You good sir deserve a medal. :)GummiRaccoon

What are taxes

The arguement is based on him addressing the industry as a whole rather then as a competitor in distribution.

As consumers:
Games are perceived as having less value, we buy games we don't intend to play and we expect to purchase games we want at a lower price.

As developers:
It becomes expected to release a game at a lower price. This will lead to less AAA (expensive to make) games and corners being cut whenever possible, something that is already highly visible.

timma25

All hail the voice of reason. Finally someone gets it. :)

[QUOTE="timma25"]

The arguement is based on him addressing the industry as a whole rather then as a competitor in distribution.

As consumers:
Games are perceived as having less value, we buy games we don't intend to play and we expect to purchase games we want at a lower price.

As developers:
It becomes expected to release a game at a lower price. This will lead to less AAA (expensive to make) games and corners being cut whenever possible, something that is already highly visible.

Pedro

All hail the voice of reason. Finally someone gets it. :)

Then we're sending them the correct message, since we're not buying those games that aren't on sale, precisely because they're not on sale. We're telling them those games are too expensive.

SkyWard20

Then the overall quality of good games would suffer because the returns would not cover the cost of development. I hope you and your peeps would be fine with that. :)

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]Then we're sending them the correct message, since we're not buying those games that aren't on sale, precisely because they're not on sale. We're telling them those games are too expensive.

Pedro

Then the overall quality of good games would suffer because the returns would not cover the cost of development. I hope you and your peeps would be fine with that. :)

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]Then we're sending them the correct message, since we're not buying those games that aren't on sale, precisely because they're not on sale. We're telling them those games are too expensive.

Pedro

Then the overall quality of good games would suffer because the returns would not cover the cost of development. I hope you and your peeps would be fine with that. :)

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]Then we're sending them the correct message, since we're not buying those games that aren't on sale, precisely because they're not on sale. We're telling them those games are too expensive.

Pedro

Then the overall quality of good games would suffer because the returns would not cover the cost of development. I hope you and your peeps would be fine with that. :)

honestly, gaming was better when they weren't spending 200 mil on each game.

I do buy games at full price if I think they're going to be worth it, I'm a huge fan of the Total War series and have bought every one at full price at release from the original, the same with Neverwinter Nights. What I'm saying is that I won't spend money on a game I can't even play a demo for. Maybe I'm getting old but I remember when every pc game had a free demo so you could see if was your thing or not, now you have to pay full price. Steam saw a market where pc games were horribly overpriced in terms of who would actually want this game and priced them accordingly.

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Paying less money for games is never bad.

99% of all games released arent worth the 60 bucks you usually have to spend on them.

Lox_Cropek

Before there was steam there was online retailers. PC games started out cheaper then console games $50 vs $60 and the prices dropped alot quicker then consoles and also tended to go lower in price. Before I switched to DD as my main way to buy games I would just buy retail copies of older pc games on amazon.com for $5-$15 so buying pc games was cheap before steam really took off as long as you didn't buy all your games at launch full price and the same still applies today.

i have to agree. i like steam sales but i don't like steams overall strategy and i think it's not sustainable. their philosophy seems to be that every game is worth buying if offered at the right price point but as a result the market is being saturated with what is mostly low priced mediocrity. they also include mediocrity to their package deals to make them seem more worth while. so far they are successful as the illusion of a great deal is strong, especially with most of us being used to paying fairly high prices in the pre-steam times, but this has to cause some sort of moment of extreme overkill on the gamers end sooner or later. at some point peoples will start to realize that they need to make time to actually play that crap while it really isn't worth their time cause we have enough good stuff too.

you see today that other and even new companies are jumping in on these thus far successful practices which count on a games market which i think just doesn't exist. this way steam is the lead character in creating a bubble that will sooner or later burst.

I disagree that the sales are bad for the consumer (come on . . .) but I can definitely say that I used to buy a lot of games at release, and after my first Steam Christmas sale, I might buy 2 games per year at release now. Why pay $60 for a game, when Steam will be selling it for $15 just 2-3 months later?PurpleMan5000

[QUOTE="PurpleMan5000"]I disagree that the sales are bad for the consumer (come on . . .) but I can definitely say that I used to buy a lot of games at release, and after my first Steam Christmas sale, I might buy 2 games per year at release now. Why pay $60 for a game, when Steam will be selling it for $15 just 2-3 months later?ShadowsDemon

[QUOTE="PurpleMan5000"]I disagree that the sales are bad for the consumer (come on . . .) but I can definitely say that I used to buy a lot of games at release, and after my first Steam Christmas sale, I might buy 2 games per year at release now. Why pay $60 for a game, when Steam will be selling it for $15 just 2-3 months later?ShadowsDemon

That's because you guys are far away.

I'd like to agree, but I'm cheap and will continue to buy games at a discount. I'm also guilty of buying game simply because it was cheap, and had no genuine interest. But hey, sometimes, that's how you discover good games.flipin_jackass

[QUOTE="PurpleMan5000"]I disagree that the sales are bad for the consumer (come on . . .) but I can definitely say that I used to buy a lot of games at release, and after my first Steam Christmas sale, I might buy 2 games per year at release now. Why pay $60 for a game, when Steam will be selling it for $15 just 2-3 months later?ShadowsDemon

honestly, gaming was better when they weren't spending 200 mil on each game.

NailedGR

More like gaming was better when gamers expectations was not unreasonably high.

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

honestly, gaming was better when they weren't spending 200 mil on each game.

Pedro

More like gaming was better when gamers expectations was not unreasonably high.

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

honestly, gaming was better when they weren't spending 200 mil on each game.

Pedro

More like gaming was better when gamers expectations was not unreasonably high.

You mean when everything was a PC exclusive?

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"][QUOTE="PurpleMan5000"]I disagree that the sales are bad for the consumer (come on . . .) but I can definitely say that I used to buy a lot of games at release, and after my first Steam Christmas sale, I might buy 2 games per year at release now. Why pay $60 for a game, when Steam will be selling it for $15 just 2-3 months later?guynamedbilly

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] You do realize us Aussies have to pay double that amount on retail right?ShadowsDemon

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] And what's your minimum wage? Here, it's 7.25.guynamedbilly