Sections

“Sales screw your fans,” says Castle Doctrine dev

Wednesday, 15th January 2014 23:54 GMT By Brenna Hillier

The Castle Doctrine is going to get more expensive over time rather than cheaper, as developer Jason Rohrer isn’t impressed by the damage he believes is caused by sales and discounts like Steam’s.

In a new blog post, Rohrer argued that digital distribution sales don’t make the kind of sense as retail bargain bins did, and that they don’t do much good for fans or developers.

“Something different is happening. Something that is arguably bad for players, and possibly bad for developers as well. To put it bluntly: sales screw your fans,” he said.

“Your fans love your games and eagerly await your next release. They want to get your game as soon as it comes out, at full price. But they are foolish to do that, because a sale is right around the corner.”

Rohrer said that hardcore fans get a “kick in the teeth” when a game is put on sale, but that there are worse consequences pertaining to game’s broader potential audience.

“A culture of rampant sales is a culture of waiting. ‘I’ll buy it later, during a sale.’ Launch weeks become weak, and developers grow to depend on sales for financial survival,” he said.

“This waiting game is likely decimating your player base and critical mass at launch by spreading new players out over time. And your fans, who are silly enough to buy the game at launch and waste money, get to participate in a weaker, smaller player community.”

Rohrer also believes sales culture may reduce developer revenue in the long-term.

“To balance this out, we would need a whole lot of people who will buy random games just because they are on sale – games that they had no intention of buying otherwise. Maybe there are enough of these people, and I’ve certainly met some of them: people who have a backlog of 50 unplayed games in their Steam library,” Rohrer acknowledged.

“But even if there are enough people doing this, it’s not a good thing. It’s just people being tricked into wasting money on stuff they don’t want or need. Better that they spent that money on one full-price game that they really want rather than four 75%-off impulse buys to add to their backlog.”

Unfortunately, the developer also believes there’s no escaping the sales culture now, and admitted that Valve never forces developers to participate – although the more who join in, the harder it is for those who abstain.

Rohrer is hoping to do his bit to counter the trend, though, and is adopting the Minecraft model for The Castle Doctrine. An alpha version is currently available for $8, a 50% discount on its final price. During its launch week, it will cost $12, a 25% discount. It will then cost $16, apparently forever more.

The Castle Doctrine hits Linux, Mac and PC on January 29.

Thanks, GamesIndustry.

Latest

56 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. TMRNetShark

    This is like saying…

    “Well, we shouldn’t pay people a decent living wage so they can have disposable income to spend on frivolous things like entertainment or fancy dining. We should pay them less so they can learn how to budget and not spend money on things that make their life just a little bit more fun.”

    What an asshole.

    #1 6 months ago
  2. fearmonkey

    Yeah those digital sales allow me to buy games I would normally never ever buy for full price.

    If I love the game I’ll buy it no matter the cost, I won’t wait for a sale. if it’s a game i am on the fence about, I’ll wait till a sale happens. If its a game I am very iffy about only if its real cheap would I consider.

    I bought Torchlight 1 for $5 and bought Torchlight 2 for full price as an example of how a cheap entry can bring in a fan.

    #2 6 months ago
  3. ballz

    so they want us to buy the shit ports and beta releases at full price? good one

    #3 6 months ago
  4. Obernox

    Huh? what was that? sorry, couldn’t hear you over the sound of getting a good deal.

    #4 6 months ago
  5. Citrus raptor

    Sales can have a lot of negaive consequences. People might get used to cheaper and cheaper games, with the ongoing trend of sales. And it might escalate every time some developer/publisher lowers their prices to stand out.

    Example: “[Publisher's] games are cheaper, so the [console] is better” and with it a trend pushing towards the pricing, marketing and sales model of that particular game.

    And lets face it, a sale is either a sum that’s planned from the beginning to appear as a catch, or due to the product not selling well enough. Figuring out how much the target audiance is willing to pay for various games, and adjusing development and marketing after that, would be way better than trying to lure gamers with constant sales.

    @2 About your purchase of Torchlight: that is a good reason to lower the price of games that have or are about to get a sequel, but that also means that the marketing for the first game wasn’t efficient enough, or perhaps even poitless. I doubt using that example as a principle would be good in the end.

    #5 6 months ago
  6. Christopher Jack

    Kinda bullshit. Early adopters always pay more and why not? The premium goes towards the earlier access which true fans are more than happy to pay if it’s a reasonable price. It also makes sense financially, you get the most sales within the first few weeks at full price while lowering the prices over time brings in a consistent income (of both money and new fans) with sales providing small spikes.

    #6 6 months ago
  7. GregSolidus

    He’s right but people like getting something for next to nothing so they’ll say he’s wrong. I’ve personally stopped by modern titles directly after release myself due to all the DLC that I know will be rolled into a half off game of the year edition.

    #7 6 months ago
  8. Christopher Jack

    @7, No he’s wrong for countless reasons but most fundamentally is that the free market ultimately dictates price.

    #8 6 months ago
  9. GregSolidus

    Which is people getting something for next to nothing and saying he’s wrong.

    #9 6 months ago
  10. Phoenixblight

    You make a good game and word gets round and people buy your game at release. THats what happens unless it is going with a brand name but even then the quality of the game drives the sales.

    I wouldn’t have bought DeadPool, Demon Souls, Machine for Pigs, Spec Ops: The Line, Mirror’s Edge if it wasn’t for the sales. Its better to have some money coming in than none at all.

    #10 6 months ago
  11. salarta

    This approach is idiotic.

    People buy games on sale because they don’t give enough of a damn about the game for it to be worth the full price to them. When it becomes cheaper, it becomes worth giving a fuck. Without that sale price, you have a huge swath of consumers that will NEVER play the game, ever. What’s more, the loss of that sale doesn’t just mean the loss of that sale. It means the loss of sales for future games. A consumer buying and playing a game that’s on sale and liking it a hell of a lot easily leads to that consumer buying the NEXT game the company puts out right on release day at full price.

    I have several handy personal examples. I bought Folklore when it was at a reduced price, I loved the hell out of it, and I ended up buying and playing Knight’s Contract. I ONLY knew Knight’s Contract even existed because of Folklore. If I hadn’t bought and played Folklore at a cheaper price, I never would have later bought and played Knight’s Contract. Another example: Amnesia. I got the first game during a sale, I loved it, and I ended up preordering Amnesia: Machine For Pigs on Steam as soon as it became available. ANOTHER example. I got F.E.A.R. and F.E.A.R. 2 on sale on Steam, and because I enjoyed both of those games, I ended up getting F.E.A.R. 3 for full price. I never would’ve played or bought any of them without sales.

    The ONLY situation where what he’s suggesting is accurate comes from companies that make a game, pump out tons of DLC after the fact, then a year later release a Game of the Year edition with all the content available at the same price as the game’s original release. The ONLY reason he’s right in that case is because what we’re dealing with there is a company desperate enough to bilk money out of consumers that they toss out DLC totaling nearly triple the cost of the game itself in less than a year, making a very explicit case for how DLC can be bad.

    The whole point of a high price at launch day and a dwindling price as time stretches on is that the people willing to pay that high launch day price do so because they want to play the game sooner. They are rewarded for their higher entry fee with quicker access, in the same way as someone paying a higher price to get better seats at an event. If they really ARE such huge fans of a developer that they want to pay full price on launch day, then they’re not foolish for getting it sooner, they’re smarter and more devoted because they’re just that eager to get it ASAP. The people that pay later on at a cheaper price do so because they made the decision that they could stand to wait however long it takes for the price to drop to something they can afford or that they think makes the game worth buying.

    My venting of annoyance at this aside, we’ll be seeing what kind of damage this does to sales of this guy’s game in short order. I know I won’t be buying it. Though that doesn’t mean much because I hadn’t heard about the game at all until now. All he’s really going to get out of his scheme is a larger than normal influx of first week sales from everyone that wants to get it at some point, followed by much much lower lifetime sales than he would have received otherwise, and a smaller install base for anything he makes in the future.

    #11 6 months ago
  12. Asgaro

    Thanks to Steam I now play more games than I used to.

    Back in the days that I went to retail stores I kept my purchases limited to the well known AAA titles:
    - Medal of Honor Allied Assault
    - Medal of Honor Pacific Assault
    - Fallout 3
    - GRID 1
    etc.
    I had times where I had completed everything. And I didn’t dare to venture in unknown genres because 50 euro was too high a price to risk it.

    Now with sales, so MANY games are instantly accessible at the click of a button.
    It’s gotten to the point where I have to use an Excel spreadsheet to have oversight!
    I still complete 90% of my games though. But my spreadsheet of To Buy games will never get empty at this rate lol.

    Developers should be happen we now spread our money over a ton more developers compared to in the past. Where we were only inclined to give money to those few developers we trusted 50 euro to.

    Console gamers still live in that old scheme though…

    #12 6 months ago
  13. TheWulf

    I see this as utter nonsense. I did have a sizeable amount of respect for Rohrer before this happened, but this has put a dent in that. It’s sort of how Cliff Harris of Positech made himself a laughingstock by angrily lashing out at sales and pirates.

    The problem Rohrer and Harris have? They make incredibly niche games, and they’re often boring and unimaginative, too. The problem is is that the niche is too tiny, and the games are too vague to even properly target those tiny niches. I mean, take the Kudos games, for example — whom are those targeted at? It might seem like this has a simple answer at first (Sim fans), but then you actually play them and…

    Yeah.

    They need to do more research into the kinds of niche games that would actually sell, and then they need to laser focus at those niche audiences in a non-vague way. Simple as.

    If a game isn’t making money, it either has no audience and/or it’s a bad game. Even then, with the right audiences targeted even a lacking game can make a mint. I’m sorry, Rohrer, but like Cliff Harris you’re just doing it wrong. Sales aren’t to be feared.

    Edit: Also, as has been pointed out, if your game is good enough and/or it’s targeted the right audience, then fans are more than happy to pay an early adopter’s tax.

    Gone Home is now less than half the price of when I bought it. Am I bothered by that? Nope! Gone Home felt like a game that was designed for me, and how weary I grow of realistic violence and violent motivations. I’d have given them more if they’d asked for it.

    If your game isn’t making money, you really are just doing it wrong, and you need to go back to the drawing board. Waxing philosophical about why a badly made and/or poorly targeted game isn’t making money isn’t going to fix it.

    #13 6 months ago
  14. dtyk

    @Asgaro

    “Console gamers still live in that old scheme though…”

    While I agree that most of the time I can’t get any PS3/4 games for cheap like I do on steam, Playstation Plus has alleviated the situation significantly.

    Regarding the topic, if your game is good enough, people will cough up full price. I didn’t hesitate to buy Last of Us at full price.

    #14 6 months ago
  15. Tormenter

    Sorry TheWulf…Grammar Nazi incoming.

    “whom are those targeted at?”

    I like the fact that you used the word ‘whom’, not enough do, it’s a good word, (especially all the way through that one song in P4^^), however you’ve not used it correctly. It’s either…

    ‘To/at whom are those targeted?’ or ‘who are those targeted at?’.. ‘To who’ would also be wrong for the same reasons.. ‘who’ is always the subject of a verb, ‘whom’ never is.

    As you can probably tell, I’m bored.

    #15 6 months ago
  16. TheWulf

    @7

    Economics isn’t something you do, is it?

    1.) You start off by giving your game a lot of thought.
    2.) Then you decide on what you’re most passionate about.
    3.) And you pick which audience that caters to the most.
    4.) You talk to that audience about it at any given opportunity.
    5.) Create your game.
    6.) Sell it at a decently high price, knowing that your audience is going to be willing to pay the early adopter’s tax to play the kind of game they want.
    7.) Once the game has been out for a good few months, put it in sales and bundles for word of mouth.
    8.) Your target audience buy your game again to share it with friends.
    9.) People who wouldn’t normally try your kind of game decide to give it a go, finding the entry price agreeable.
    10.) They like it and tell their friends about it, who then pick it up.
    11.) This creates an ongoing ‘buzz’ about the game, which draws new people into that audience.
    12.) Keep up communication with your audience and supply content/fixes as is necessary. This good will will set the stage for future releases.

    That’s how you make a successful indie game, in my opinion.

    Many people fail at steps 2-6, and everything just goes off the rails from there. Though if you can handle 2-6 and create a decent game and keep up communication with your audience, then the rest will just fall into place.

    It isn’t about people wanting something for nothing, since fans will always pay full price for something. But I know I wouldn’t have paid for a game 2-8 times more (as a gift) if it hadn’t been on sale or in a bundle.

    #16 6 months ago
  17. TheWulf

    @15

    Yeah, figured there should have been a ‘to’ there, but I’m being lazy. I’m hardly at my most eloquent whilst idly posting on comment threads. >_>

    (I usually get more eloquent when it’s something I’m passionate about, but this is just going through the motions to teach something that I feel should be common sense.)

    #17 6 months ago
  18. Tormenter

    @17

    yeah I figured it was just a slip… it is coming to it though that the only thing I can think of commenting on in a VG article is the grammar in the comments. :/

    Lol.. listening to ‘Theatre’.

    #18 6 months ago
  19. Ireland Michael

    He is entirely right, but people aren’t going to say that because a lack of sales doesn’t benefit them personally.

    Standard prices in the industry can barely sustain the business as it is, which leads to a very volatile market and one that is extremely difficult to sustain business in.

    What does this lead to? A lack of risk. A lack of risks mean more sequels and more annual iterations, and less variety.

    But people will still complain about problems “lazy” cashins and constantly plating the same games over and over, while picking up their latest favourite game for a fiver because it didn’t make enough profit to sustain a company at its standard price. And when that companies to out of business? The finger gets pointed at everyone else.

    Sales are fine. In moderation. The problem is that it’s gotten so bad and so common that people in many cases are actively avoiding buying the games at all until they’re on sale. They might as well just make them cheaper off the bat, considering.

    #19 6 months ago
  20. Phoenixblight

    @19

    Whose fault is that though? The gamers? The Developers who think that the only games that can make it are the ones with the biggest and most bloated budget?

    Developers and Publishers have to look into streamlining their budget and overall pipeline to help costs instead of just going for employing 600-800 employees so they can make the next Assassin Creed within a year.

    Publishers could easily invest in smaller dev team to test to see if a new concept of gaming will work much like Blizzard is doing with Hearthstone and Heroes but they choose to go and make 50-100 million dollar games to see if they have bigger returns. They can easily do both and it will allow more variety.

    #20 6 months ago
  21. Misekato

    @19

    I would agree,and to further the point, I would say constant sales shortly after release has encouraged the growth of exclusive pre-order DLC.

    #21 6 months ago
  22. fihar

    @20
    Look at the recent GOTY poll result in vg247.
    All of the top 10 games are triple-As.

    As long as this is still going on, big-budget releases will continue.
    This time, the fault lies with us.

    #22 6 months ago
  23. Phoenixblight

    @22

    Its both really. Gamers will always want the prettiest and biggest thing. The Publishers should look into saving costs without running to outsourcing or cutting corners but looking into workflows and pipelines that make it cheaper much like Unreal 4 allowing global illumination and on the spot compiling so you don’t have to waste hours to see if your tweaks will break the game.

    #23 6 months ago
  24. Ireland Michael

    @20 “Whose fault is that though? The gamers? The Developers who think that the only games that can make it are the ones with the biggest and most bloated budget?”

    So you’re telling me most people wouldn’t throw a hissy fit if Assassin’s Creed still looked like Prince of Persia (PS2 era)? Of course they would. Most people wouldn’t even give it a glance because it “looks like shit”. That stuff has to be made somehow, and you can’t buy time, only people.

    Budgets do need to be streamlined yes, but the demands of the consumer are a far bigger problem.

    #24 6 months ago
  25. Dragon

    @22,
    Is it really a fault? People are free to like what they want.

    “the demands of the consumer are a far bigger problem.”
    No. It is not. Anyone can like what they want.

    #25 6 months ago
  26. Ireland Michael

    @25 Obviously.

    Just don’t complain when you ask for a million apples and there isn’t any money left over for a few oranges,

    #26 6 months ago
  27. Christopher Jack

    I think some people just like being contrarians for the sake of it, it’s seems the biggest cool thing in gaming is to hate the big guys & shower niche developers with endless praise. Pretty much the 21st century hipster, go along with the major trends while at the same time criticizing other for following other trends.

    #27 6 months ago
  28. Djoenz

    Was Minecraft made with a bloated budget? I think not :mokken:

    #28 6 months ago
  29. Ireland Michael

    @27 I can’t tell if this was partially aimed at me.

    @28 There are always going to be exceptions. You can’t say the reasoning doesn’t apply because of a handful of lucky chances.

    #29 6 months ago
  30. Phoenixblight

    @24

    You can still get all the eye candy and not employ an army of artists to do so for example THe Order’s studio uses 3D scanning that allows them to create textures on the fly without the need of a texture artist.

    There is also the idea of creating content procedurally.

    #30 6 months ago
  31. GregSolidus

    That technology isn’t free…

    #31 6 months ago
  32. Phoenixblight

    @31

    Doi but it saves you in the long run that’s the point. It has a big upfront cost but eventually it pays for itself.

    #32 6 months ago
  33. lookingglass

    This guy.

    Pretty much what he’s saying is…

    Risk your money on everything developers out out, no matter what.

    Look, every time you think about buying a game you decide for yourself whether it’s worth it.

    How much money do you have for it?
    Do you have time to play it now?
    Are you sure you’ll like it?

    Sometimes you wait, sometimes you don’t. Rarely does anyone always wait.

    I get that developers need to get paid and live their lives, but this guy is just ignorant and greedy.

    #33 6 months ago
  34. fihar

    @23
    Unreal 4 is somewhat new isn’t it?

    Still, you’re right though, game engine is somewhat of an issue. Someone else mentioned before that the reason Tomb Raider costs so much was because of the engine.

    Just try not to go to the extremities and do what Call of Duty has been doing for the past few years.

    #34 6 months ago
  35. Phoenixblight

    @34

    Well Activision goes with what will get you the most with the least then put in the budget of GTA into their marketing.

    Unreal 4 and Frostbite and next gen engine allows you to tweak on the fly without the need to bake lighting or compile the build which can take hours to do to see if it looks or works correctly which is money out the window.

    #35 6 months ago
  36. Christopher Jack

    @29, A little, yes. I enjoy your comments most the time but sometimes you just come off as a contrarian, hating something because it’s popular & successful.

    I admit I get like that myself but I think some people (not you) take it to the hipster level of bitching about the likes of EA & ActiVision at every chance they get while promoting some niche indy game.

    #36 6 months ago
  37. Ireland Michael

    @36 I have never once disliked anything because it’s popular. If I dislike something, it’s based entirely on my own personal critical assessment of it as a product and nothing more. It’s popularity (or lack thereof) is entirely irrelevant to me.

    I enjoy a tonne of things that are popular and successful… but people rarely ever seem to pay attention to positive and affirming comments on the internet.

    #37 6 months ago
  38. Joe Musashi

    “..but people aren’t going to say that because a lack of sales doesn’t benefit them personally…”

    Well said. Empathy-on-the-internet, where art thou?

    JM

    #38 6 months ago
  39. The_Red

    So if someone is not super rich and can’t afford to buy a game during launch, he/she must not be able to wait. Rather, they must be punished and should never buy games because they have to keep getting more expensive? Well done. Yes, these games aren’t super expensive but then again, life isn’t super cheap either.

    Also, he is completely ignoring the release discounts. I bought Spelunky and many others during the first days of release AND enjoyed a discount because guess what? The likes of Steam which offer such sale discounts, often get to do so DURING initial launch in order to reward the fans / early adopters.

    #39 6 months ago
  40. Ireland Michael

    This isn’t about being super rich. This is about “sales culture” he mentioned wherein the popularity and frequency of sales has become so popular that selling products at full price becomes extremely difficult to do. It’s a much bigger problem when it includes millions upon millions of people.

    Big companies can deal with it because they have huge exposure and promotional budgets, but an indie developer whose just trying to pay the bills isn’t going to be able to get by if the only time he can sell his game is when it’s 75% off. Thinks beyond your own nose for a second.

    #40 6 months ago
  41. salarta

    @39: I hadn’t thought about that, but you’re right. Digitally, a lot of games are selling as pre-orders with discounts, partly so the company has guaranteed sales, and partly because those early adopters are sort of like post-beta testers that can spread good word the sooner they play.

    #41 6 months ago
  42. The_Red

    @40
    But I am trying to look at it beyond my nose. The monitor is at least 13 inches away! But seriously, that 75 percent off during a sales event might be the only time many gamers will pay attention to the said indie game. Without the sale, that title might get fully ignored.

    Thankfully, the discount before / during release initiate leads to both “rewarding the early fans” AND “having a decent price for people that might not be able to afford the full price”.

    @41
    If anything, the Early Access overuse is the only thing that could hurt these games. Having a discounted title on its launch week is great but getting to experience something in a broke and half-finished state during that time might actually hurt people’s perception or at least initial impression of it. Of course there are always people like the assholes behind Planetary Annihilation who charge MORE for the “premium beta”.

    #42 6 months ago
  43. Ireland Michael

    @42 Again, fine in moderation.

    The current system isn’t moderation.

    #43 6 months ago
  44. fihar

    @39
    But that’s kinda the point isn’t it?
    If you can’t afford it yet, then sorry, but you can’t enjoy it.
    Why not expect consumers to save up for games that they want? Why must we automatically expect developers to slash the prices of their products for our own benefit?

    Reducing the prices of games that have been out for a while (the retail bargain bins he mentioned) is fine, but having a huge sale only a couple of months after release is kinda a slap in the face for early adopters.

    Actually, he did mention launch discounts, as he is doing one himself. I’m a fan of launch discounts, as it actively encourages early adopters.

    #44 6 months ago
  45. salarta

    I actually do have to agree, on thinking about it, that how quickly some games drop in price IS a bad thing for companies rather than consumers. There have been cases where I buy a game for $60 on release, then a year later it’s available for $5-10 even without sales. Cases where they drop off that fast do actually make me regret buying it that early, because then it turns out that I could have waited until later and spent a lot of that money on other games or other needs.

    But sale prices dropping too fast isn’t the same thing as having sales at all being a bad thing. The current model at its base is good and the best way for companies to make money. Saying sales are always a bad thing is like saying knives are always a bad thing because they can be used to kill people instead of make food, or cars are always a bad thing because you can have deadly accidents in them.

    #45 6 months ago
  46. Blackened Halo

    well, looking at the Castle Doctrine, Im not surprised that the game isnt being sold well, :DD lol

    #46 6 months ago
  47. ArithonUK

    What a moron. And I say that as a professional software developer of 22 years.

    I Kickstarter-funded Godus and paid £30 towards it’s development. The game went on Steam for £14.99 (less than I’d paid) and I’m a fan. Did I have any issue with that? No. They priced it about right. I even bought a second copy for my younger son.
    When it went on sale over Christmas on Steam, my other son bought a copy of Godus, because he could afford it with the money he had. A copy that would NOT have otherwise been sold.

    Once software has recouped is development costs, then you can sell at any price and it is all profit, so having a legitimate excuse (Steam Sale) to “temporarily” drop the price and sell exponential numbers in a short period is a huge income boost and creates MORE fans.

    This guy is either a grasping miser or an idiot.

    #47 6 months ago
  48. YoungZer0

    Most games are too expensive anyway, so I don’t see a problem here, really. There are sales outside of the gaming industry as well and you don’t hear them complain.

    If it wasn’t for sales, I would not have bought most of the games that I now have in my steam library. It’s not full price, but it is still money and I know for a fact that a lot of other people share my experience.

    #48 6 months ago
  49. Blackened Halo

    #47ArithonUK
    well, he reminds me of ..what was his name, Fish? the dev of FEZ, yes, that arrogant Fish …

    #49 6 months ago
  50. 0verlord

    I agree with his statement, but for different reasons. Check out the article I wrote about Steam Sales, Humble Bundles and PlayStation Plus, and how they are ruining gaming. Thanks!

    http://aggressivegaming.com/steam-ps-and-humble-bundles-are-ruining-gaming/

    #50 6 months ago
  51. Covertghost

    If this were true, people wouldn’t be shelling out for DayZ & Starbound early access by the million.

    Interestingly enough, for the entirety of the winter sale, these games along with Rust were the ones leading the sales charts. Not discounted games.

    If what he was saying had merit, this would never have happened.

    #51 6 months ago
  52. stlthriot

    The biggest slap in the face is when the Game of the Year Editions release and late adopters get the original game AND all dlc for less of a price than the people that bought only the full game at release.

    #52 6 months ago
  53. silkvg247

    @52 Yes and to add insult to injury they never release a sensibly priced “upgrade pack” to let the early adopters get all the added content into their existing game. Instead they have to buy the whole thing again.. silly..

    #53 6 months ago
  54. Bomba Luigi

    1000 Sales for 5 Dollars is still better 10 Sales for 50 Dollars. Has something to do with Math or so.

    #54 6 months ago
  55. sebastien rivas

    Mr Rohrer, you are right but to the infinitely and smallest outcome.
    I am sure your negative unscrupulous, cheap, stingy gamer ideal exists somewhere and somehow.
    Although just like many on Vg247, I would not spend a dime on a game that I don’t trust, or believe, or am already hooked on (e.g: watch dogs). I watched video and concluded this game would not be for me as the game is just plain too mainstream.
    What it means is that gamers already have a sense of value much like all fucking publishers around the world and whine and cry that their IP is NOT viable and profitable and therefore is a huge financial risk at even at 80 fucking dollars a piece.
    But here is the thing, like many I grew up with video games selling full price for a couple of bucks and I was buying IPs PER BAGS meaning I was going home with no less than 3 or 4 and that was my monthly spending and/or I would buy less because there were not enough games coming out :/

    When games passed 20 bucks bar, I was buying one game a month
    When games passed 30 bucks bar, I was buying between 1 game a month and 1 game every 3 months
    When games passed 40 bucks and up. Yep 40 dollars and up is altogether then I started to buy games with great diligence.
    For example I bought full price Wolfenstein and I loved it. Yet, I could have joined Ubisoft bandwagon with Watch Dogs that sounded interesting on paper but watching video and the price just hit my face. I pondered the question and the result was no thanks, not worth 60 bucks.

    Now it does not mean I will never buy it but I will certainly not buy it until the games goes UNDER 25 bucks because I value the game as such that the game would appear fun to play at that value!

    #55 1 month ago
  56. sebastien rivas

    my point was that your mentality is sound indeed but I ll raise my middle finger to games I don’t want as long as you would not put it/them on sales.

    Look at Microsoft Xbox 1, considered a flop financially and yet the unit sold but it did not sell to the expectation so….. what does mean….. gamers still have a brain?

    #56 1 month ago