Support NeoGAF

[shantyman]

I have seen this twice lately, once in a thread about RSC2, and once about Freedom Fighters.

Call me crazy, but when a game I am interested in drops price, I am excited because I save money.

 

[Gattsu25]

retarded question of the day...if it where political I'd assume you where Opa.



(example) If they purchased it while it was full priced that means that they lost $20 simply because they didn't wait a week or two.


So while YOU save money because you waited for the price drop, they loose it. Drops in price are expected, but not shortly after a product is released.

 

[Ghost]

People round here tend to forget they are consumers and not publishers....its an easy mistake to make...oh wait, no its not.

They also get angry when everyone doesnt buy the same things they do.

 

[SyNapSe]

In the case of something like RSC2.. generally if the price drops from $50 to $30 in a month or so. Well, it's not a good sign you'll see a 3rd RSC.

 

[adrockthekid]

In the case of something like RSC2.. generally if the price drops from $50 to $30 in a month or so. Well, it's not a good sign you'll see a 3rd RSC.

That's just the thing. It sucks when you are in a position where you play a fuckload of games, most of which are average to shitty, and the ones that you do really like sell for crap. See: Metal Arms, BG&E, PDO, and so forth.

 

[Screaming_Gremlin]

Like SyNapSe said, if its a game you like and it drops in price really quick, you probably won't be seeing a sequel.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

I get more upset when sh!tty games do well and the great ones tank.

 

[NotMSRP]

I'm happy for price drops because it wasn't something that normally happened pre-DC/PS2/GC/XBOX, where good and bad games stayed at full price for the full lifespan. With all of the deals now constantly popping up, I'm not dumb enough to buy a game at full $49.99. People are mad when price drops because they felt dumb for paying more than necessary because they lack any patience.

 

[shantyman]

I wasn't trying to be "political" as yu put it, so whatever. As a consumer I'm happy as hell when I save money, so I thought the sentiment was odd.

 

[belgurdo]

Plus if you're selling the game yourself on, say, Ebay, and the price drops at real stores that cuts into your chances to make a profit for yourself

 

[DaCocoBrova]

The market is so saturated that anyone w/ a lot of games and all consoles can always wait until pretty much any game is dirt cheap. I'll never buy another game full price again. That sh!t is played out.

The true answer to the original question is 'developer empathy'.

 

[dark10x]

People round here tend to forget they are consumers and not publishers....its an easy mistake to make...oh wait, no its not.

They also get angry when everyone doesnt buy the same things they do.

-shakes head-

As mentioned above, is isn't that cut and dried. The fact of the matter is, when a game sells well...the money made will pay for the development costs and fund future development. It will also place those invovled in a strong position for the future. If a certain level of success is met, a sequel is often the result...or at least more games from that company.

Beyond Good & Evil is a GREAT example of why people complain about poor sales. I absolutely LOVED the game when I played through it and would KILL for a sequel. However, extremely poor sales will pretty much prevent a sequel from ever being made. As a result, the lack of sales become a concern to me...as it will prevent a game that I wish to play from being made.

On the flipside, when a game like DRIV3R sells well...it has the opposite effect. The game is simply bad, and good sales will encourage others to follow their lead.

So, sales should be important to you IF you actually care about what you play. If Halo had sold very poorly, do you really think there would be a sequel in the works? POSSIBLY, but it would be MUCH less likely...and wouldn't recieve a fraction of the same attention from its publisher (Microsoft).

 

[Flynn]

I'm starting to think that fast price drops are going to be the status quo.

Here's the economic theory: Pump full-price out of "core" gamers then, once you've exhausted them, quickly drop the price to lure in the mainstream audience.

 

[Kobun Heat]

People railed against Nintendo's policy of keeping publishers to a certain amount of games per year. Maybe it wasn't the best situation but I think it's preferable to this.

 

[Gattsu25]

People railed against Nintendo's policy of keeping publishers to a certain amount of games per year. Maybe it wasn't the best situation but I think it's preferable to this.

Woa...Nintendo actually tried to/did do this? Damn...canyone have more details?

 

[Dujour]

I'm most often pleased whatn a price on a game drops quickly, but if it's a game I really like and were looking forward to, I briefly lament the publisher's loss and then head to best buy with a sweaty small sum of cash in my hands.

 

[belgurdo]

Woa...Nintendo actually tried to/did do this? Damn...canyone have more details?

I think they did this early on during the lifetime of the NES to keep a company from making too much profit than Nintendo or other companies or some shit. It's why Konami released a lot of games under the "Ultra" label and Acclaim did the same with "Flying Edge" and "LJN."

 

[shantyman]

I'm starting to think that fast price drops are going to be the status quo.

Here's the economic theory: Pump full-price out of "core" gamers then, once you've exhausted them, quickly drop the price to lure in the mainstream audience.

I would hope so. I find it odd as well that games seem to never be on sale. Occasionally Best Buy will sell a game for 5 or 10 off, but unless you live near a Frys you're pretty much out of luck. DVDs and CDs regularly sell for far lower than MSRP when they first go on sale, why is it not like that with games?

I understand the developer empathy thing but that does not faze me. I guess I feel like there will always be something cool out there to play.

 

[Ranger X]

-shakes head-

As mentioned above, is isn't that cut and dried. The fact of the matter is, when a game sells well...the money made will pay for the development costs and fund future development. It will also place those invovled in a strong position for the future. If a certain level of success is met, a sequel is often the result...or at least more games from that company.

Beyond Good & Evil is a GREAT example of why people complain about poor sales. I absolutely LOVED the game when I played through it and would KILL for a sequel. However, extremely poor sales will pretty much prevent a sequel from ever being made. As a result, the lack of sales become a concern to me...as it will prevent a game that I wish to play from being made.

On the flipside, when a game like DRIV3R sells well...it has the opposite effect. The game is simply bad, and good sales will encourage others to follow their lead.

So, sales should be important to you IF you actually care about what you play. If Halo had sold very poorly, do you really think there would be a sequel in the works? POSSIBLY, but it would be MUCH less likely...and wouldn't recieve a fraction of the same attention from its publisher (Microsoft).

IAWYP

 

[Mock]

I noticed quite a few people were giddy as a school girl when it was mentioned that La Pucelle Tactics was dropping to $20 at Target this week. I think its sad that people get excited when they can save huge on a great game at the expense of a small developer like Nippon Ichi.

If it were Front Mission 4, I'd feel a bit different as Square-Enix is a much larger company, but then, I'd feel uneasy about the future of the series. Seeing Ubi Soft lose big on two great games last fall - Prince of Persia and Beyond Good and Evil - was also really sad to see. PoP is able to continue only for the universal praise its recieved, but it eventually had to be paired with a Tom Clancy title to continue to move units, which is really pathetic.

 

[shantyman]

But what about a game's budget? You can't compare the budget of La Pucelle and a Square game.

 

[Mock]

But what about a game's budget? You can't compare the budget of La Pucelle and a Square game.

I didn't compare budgets, I implied that a loss on Square's part would not damage them as much as it would Nippon Ichi, but it could still potentially hurt the future of a series.

But then, Square isn't a stranger to 2D SRPGs, Final Fantasy Tactics/FFTA, anyone?

 

[shantyman]

I didn't compare budgets, I implied that a loss on Square's part would not damage them as much as it would Nippon Ichi, but could still potentially hurt the future of a series.

But then, Square isn't a stranger to 2D SRPGs, Final Fantasy Tactics/FFTA, anyone?

What I mean is the budget for Pucelle was almost certainly lower than any square game, so perhaps they can asorb the lower cost.

 

[SyNapSe]

I noticed quite a few people were giddy as a school girl when it was mentioned that La Pucelle Tactics was dropping to $20 at Target this week. I think its sad that people get excited when they can save huge on a great game at the expense of a small developer like Nippon Ichi.

There is a difference between a sale at one store and an overall price drop. If it's just Target who is lowering their price for a week, then in that case it doesn't affect the Publisher/Developer at all. Target would have already purchased the games from them at the standard rate.

In the case of RSC2.. it appears as if the publisher has lowered the MSRP basically. So, they are selling it to the Retailers at a cheaper price than it was originally released at. In turn shrinking their profit margins most likely.

 

[Mock]

What I mean is the budget for Pucelle was almost certainly lower than any square game, so perhaps they can asorb the lower cost.

Perhaps in this case, Nippon Ichi can afford to eat the loss. This is a game over two years old and at this point, US sales are icing on the cake more than anything else. Still, there's some developers you want to see get that additional bit of success. Square-Enix is going to make millions no matter what the game is (ok, maybe not Drakengard or The Bouncer).

 

[Mock]

There is a difference between a sale at one store and an overall price drop. If it's just Target who is lowering their price for a week, then in that case it doesn't affect the Publisher/Developer at all. Target would have already purchased the games from them at the standard rate.

Do you honestly think Target, after lowering it to $20, is going to order more copies afterward? That's not your avarage sale, its 60 percent off retail price. That's a clearance, not a sale. That will affect Mastiff and Nipon Ichi in the future, I think.

 

[Justin Bailey]

I think they did this early on during the lifetime of the NES to keep a company from making too much profit than Nintendo or other companies or some shit. It's why Konami released a lot of games under the "Ultra" label and Acclaim did the same with "Flying Edge" and "LJN."

Not exactly. Nintendo didn't care if companies made more profit on games since they were getting money from sales as well. It was basically a quality assurance measure on their part. The fiasco that happened during the Atari days was still fresh in everyone's minds so Nintendo wanted to prevent it from happening again. Their reasoning was that if a company was only allowed a certain number of games per year (I think it was like 5 or 6), they would spend more time on them to ensure they were up to standards instead of risking profits on buggy, unfinished games for quick sales.

Problem is, some companies (like Konami) had the manpower to put out more than 5 or 6 quality games per year, so they would create new labels to "get around" the game limit.

 

[Justin Bailey]

I'm starting to think that fast price drops are going to be the status quo.

Here's the economic theory: Pump full-price out of "core" gamers then, once you've exhausted them, quickly drop the price to lure in the mainstream audience.

Well, if that's the publisher's mindset then they'll be in for a rude awakening. Eventually the "core" gamers will catch on since they are the ones that pay attention to this sort of thing. They'll simply hold out for the price drop.

 

[TekunoRobby]

When I heard about how badly Beyond Good & Evil was selling and how wonderful the game was I decided that I wanted to show my support and went out and purchased the game. A week later the game dropped in price to $20. I'll admit I was a bit annoyed since I could have waited for a bit and saved $30 but on the flipside I don't think I could have predicted that. I did lose out on money but again the game was much cheaper so it would be available to a larger population.

 

[Mr_Furious]

I wasn't trying to be "political" as yu put it, so whatever. As a consumer I'm happy as hell when I save money, so I thought the sentiment was odd.

Problem is video games aren't about saving money. If all you cared about was saving money then let me ask you this; what if every game tanked and dropped in price soon after release to make you happy? The industry would collapse as we know it and everyone would suffer, including yourself. Sure it's fine to want to get games cheaper but it's not something to wish for because it's perceived as a failure in the market place for a game to drop in price if it were to happen too soon. If you really enjoyed your bargain well guess what? There will most definitely not be a sequel.

 

[shantyman]

Problem is video games aren't about saving money. If all you cared about was saving money then let me ask you this; what if every game tanked and dropped in price soon after release to make you happy? The industry would collapse as we know it and everyone would suffer, including yourself. Sure it's fine to want to get games cheaper but it's not something to wish for because it's perceived as a failure in the market place for a game to drop in price if it were to happen too soon. If you really enjoyed your bargain well guess what? There will most definitely not be a sequel.

I still disagree. If a game comes out I want, I buy it regardless of the price. If I don't get it right away and it ends up dropping in price I am going to be happy about that.

Last month I had to choose between getting Riddick and RSC2. I picked Riddick, and in the interim RSC dropped in price, so I was happy. I don't wait for a game to drop in price, but if it does I like it.

 

[dark10x]

I still disagree. If a game comes out I want, I buy it regardless of the price. If I don't get it right away and it ends up dropping in price I am going to be happy about that.

Last month I had to choose between getting Riddick and RSC2. I picked Riddick, and in the interim RSC dropped in price, so I was happy. I don't wait for a game to drop in price, but if it does I like it.

...but you don't give a shit that an RSC3 will never be made? Whether or not you care about such things, many people do and surely you can understand WHY they do.

 

[shantyman]

...but you don't give a shit that an RSC3 will never be made? Whether or not you care about such things, many people do and surely you can understand WHY they do.

It's not that necessarily. Does anyone know that because RSC2 dropped in price within 60 days a third won't be made? Aren't they making Freedom Fighters 2?

 

[dark10x]

It's not that necessarily. Does anyone know that because RSC2 dropped in price within 60 days a third won't be made? Aren't they making Freedom Fighters 2?

Freedom Fighters didn't drop that fast, though. It was $50 for months (on consoles).

 

[Mr_Furious]

It's not that necessarily. Does anyone know that because RSC2 dropped in price within 60 days a third won't be made? Aren't they making Freedom Fighters 2?

You are entirely missing the point here. If a game drops in price soon after it releases, it's because it's not selling well. If it doesn't sell well, majority of the times a publisher will not consider a sequel because said title is perceived as a failure in the marketplace. It's common sense and good business to not make RSC3. And your comparison to FF2 being made doesn't make sense because FF was a multiplatform game and the combined sales probably equalled a profit for EA.

 

[shantyman]

Freedom Fighters didn't drop that fast, though. It was $50 for months (on consoles).

I thought it did.

Oh well, I was not intending to insult anyone, it just seems counterintuitive to me that someone would be unhappy because a product is cheaper. I suspected the answer would be developer loyalty, I guess.

 

[Flynn]

Well, if that's the publisher's mindset then they'll be in for a rude awakening. Eventually the "core" gamers will catch on since they are the ones that pay attention to this sort of thing. They'll simply hold out for the price drop.

You think you'd be able to wait for something of Halo 2 caliber?

Though that's a bad example, because Microsoft left Halo at full price for eons.

 

[Mr_Furious]

Oh well, I was not intending to insult anyone, it just seems counterintuitive to me that someone would be unhappy because a product is cheaper. I suspected the answer would be developer loyalty, I guess.

I'm not insulted at all. Just trying to give you a different perspective on the topic. Also there's a difference between a "sale" and "price drop". One is temporary and doesn't hurt on the publisher's side. I just picked up RDR and Shrek2 at BB for $29 but both prices will return to their full $50 by Sunday.