Steam teases plan to allow developers to create their own sales

Game makers will be able to offer discounts on their own schedule.

Read the whole story

 

[nehinks]

Seems good if it leads to more frequent sales. However, I'm a little worried we'll end up with fairly constant low discounts (10-20%ish) rather than the big sales Steam is known for. I'm sure it can be scary to discount your own project by a large percent, but to me, 75-90% sales are what get me past the "eh, I have 25+ games I haven't started/finished on Steam already" factor.

On the other hand, my wallet might thank me in that case...

 

[Thordane]

If enough devs discount their games by 33% maybe Half Life 3 will be summoned?

 

[bburdge]

nehinks[/url]":2a5oucd5]Seems good if it leads to more frequent sales. However, I'm a little worried we'll end up with fairly constant low discounts (10-20%ish) rather than the big sales Steam is known for. I'm sure it can be scary to discount your own project by a large percent, but to me, 75-90% sales are what get me past the "eh, I have 25+ games I haven't started/finished on Steam already" factor.

On the other hand, my wallet might thank me in that case...

Agreed, and Newell's quote agrees with this.

"[If] we do a 75 percent price reduction, our Counter-Strike experience tells us that our gross revenue would remain constant," Newell said. "Instead, what we saw was our gross revenue increased by a factor of 40. Not 40 percent, but a factor of 40. Which is completely not predicted by our previous experience with silent price variation."

There is a point (which varies by game) below which the game becomes an impulse buy. There's a bunch of games on my Steam account which I never really wanted - until I saw the sale at 80% off, and suddenly getting a AAA title for $9 was just irresistible. And overall this is nothing but positive for the developer - the incremental cost of one more license is effectively nothing, so selling 100 at $10 is preferable to selling 25 at $40 (because more units out is more customers for later even if the revenue is equal), but according to Newell the difference is more like selling 400 at $10 compared to selling 10 at $40, that's huge.

So I hope the devs still take into account Valve's experience in this, and use this feature to help them boost sales at points important for their company.

 

[QuattroV]

nehinks[/url]":v6t2enid]Seems good if it leads to more frequent sales. However, I'm a little worried we'll end up with fairly constant low discounts (10-20%ish) rather than the big sales Steam is known for.

It's that 20% that could push people to buy the title on impulse and/or not wait x months for the hyper-discount sale, and that's a gain for both the consumer and the devs, right?

It's not as if the two are mutually exclusive, this is just more customization and an avenue for more consistent sale volumes.

 

[UserIDAlreadyInUse]

Thordane[/url]":2afp1bqb]If enough devs discount their games by 33% maybe Half Life 3 will be summoned?

Doubt it. Several thousand years from now, still yet the faithful will be teaching to the masses that if they are good and proper, and are worthy in the eyes of the Lead Developer, then one day the Third Rising of Half-Life will take place, and there will be rejoicing upon the all the peoples of all lands throughout the world and beyond.

 

[nehinks]

QuattroV[/url]":nltm2o9p]

nehinks[/url]":nltm2o9p]Seems good if it leads to more frequent sales. However, I'm a little worried we'll end up with fairly constant low discounts (10-20%ish) rather than the big sales Steam is known for.

It's that 20% that could push people to buy the title on impulse and/or not wait x months for the hyper-discount sale, and that's a gain for both the consumer and the devs, right?

It's not as if the two are mutually exclusive, this is just more customization and an avenue for more consistent sale volumes.

Agreed they do not HAVE to be exclusive, and any sales on things you really want/can't wait for are good. I'm just wary that developers might not see it that way. I'm guessing Steam is implementing this because finding the correct discount match for each game takes work on their end. Seems possible that they might cut back on it and let the game developers do most of the work. Probly just being pessimistic though!

Edit: To be clearer, I'm afraid that if Steam cuts back their involvement (ie, pushing the games into hyperdiscounts - I like that word btw), then at least some of the developers won't discount as much due to their personal investment. It's got to be at least somewhat emotional to see something your poured a year or two of your life into get discounted 90%.

 

[QuikMix]

Steam gets so many thing right that it's almost unimaginable how badly other digital services are executed (looking at you Origin).

 

[Mr_Cynical]

bburdge[/url]":20pjb3sk]And overall this is nothing but positive for the developer - the incremental cost of one more license is effectively nothing, so selling 100 at $10 is preferable to selling 25 at $40 (because more units out is more customers for later even if the revenue is equal), but according to Newell the difference is more like selling 400 at $10 compared to selling 10 at $40, that's huge.

It's even better than that: he said that revenue (not units sold) increased by a factor of 40. So it's going from selling 10 at $40 to selling 1600 at $10 (at least if 'factor of 40' is what he actually meant).

 

[Otus]

bburdge[/url]":1xpojq7f]And overall this is nothing but positive for the developer - the incremental cost of one more license is effectively nothing, so selling 100 at $10 is preferable to selling 25 at $40 (because more units out is more customers for later even if the revenue is equal), but according to Newell the difference is more like selling 400 at $10 compared to selling 10 at $40, that's huge.

Actually, he's saying revenue is 40x, so that's like going from 10 at $40 to 1600 at $10.

 

[MattEvansC3]

Thordane[/url]":3p7ve7cb]If enough devs discount their games by 33% maybe Half Life 3 will be summoned?

Wrong! You need to discount it by 87.5%

cost of game = 1
one half life = 0.5
two half lives = 0.25
three half lives = 0.125

0.125 is 87.5% of 1.

 

[Thordane]

MattEvansC3[/url]":1gsnff3f]

Thordane[/url]":1gsnff3f]If enough devs discount their games by 33% maybe Half Life 3 will be summoned?

Wrong! You need to discount it by 87.5%

cost of game = 1
one half life = 0.5
two half lives = 0.25
three half lives = 0.125

0.125 is 87.5% of 1.

Of course! How could I have missed it!?!

 

[Tundro Walker]

The problem with this is that major dev companies will drastically reduce the price on the core game in order to get more customers in, hopefully get them hooked, and then have a new audience that will pay full price for the DLC's.

The base game these days is the loss-leader ... dev company could willingly give it away free as long as it gets customers hooked. Rolling out DLC after DLC for $5-$10 a pop is what racks up the real profit. (See Borderlands 2)

edit:

I guess I should clarify why I think this is a problem. I grew up with gaming in the 90's where you got a complete game, and very rarely an add-on came along. Most of the time it was a full sequal. I'm really tired of getting a core game and then getting nickel and dimed for DLC. Even GOTY editions, which used to be considered all-inclusive, are now just "everything up until now, but we're still rolling out DLC, so ... GOTCHA, BITCH!" I find it annoying as hell.

 

[cyrogenic]

I dunno, I can see a lot of developers hurting themselves here.

The games I buy at or close to full price, the 10%-20% off doesn't factor into my decision - I'm buying the game regardless.

The 75%-90% is when I perk up and buy things out of my comfort zone.


I feel like poorly timed sales (too soon, too close to holidays, etc) at something like 40% are just going hurt themselves. They may not attract that many "new" sales, but rather trigger purchases of people who were already going to buy the game leading to less money, not more. There is some point were people will buy games they normally wouldn't risk the money on... and Valve has a very, very good idea of where that is.

Less than that, and you may not be capturing the lost sales, which is what you want your sale to do -- you are only securing sales you already had.

 

[nehinks]

QuikMix[/url]":wu15y1y9]Steam gets so many thing right that it's almost unimaginable how badly other digital services are executed (looking at you Origin).

Eh, while I don't exactly like having another storefront/service to play with, my actual experience with Origin has been pretty painless. They don't have quite the sales that Steam does, but better than I expected originally. The update of the client is annoying - forgets all my account information so have to reenter name/password. Download speeds have been awesome though- even better than Steam. BF4 updates are usually mid 4MB/s where Steam rarely gets above 2-3.

 

[NathanM]

One thing that might help me buy more: actual working emails when a game on my wishlist is on sale. I've signed up for that, but right now, it seems to only occasionally send an email. I seem to get emails most reliably when it's a single daily sale, but for a general sale (weeklong, publisher catalogs, summer/Christmas), nothing is sent. Yes, I've looked in my spam traps, etc. Nothing there.

 

[Snarky Robot]

I'm usually a compulsive buyer too, but I'm all for letting developers offer discounts on their own if they want to run a promotion outside of Steam's typical big sales. I'm honestly surprised that they had to essentially get Steam's permission for pricing, up until now.

The win, for Steam, I think is a heck of a lot more data that they can use to further improve sales. I think most people are better off sticking with what Valve recommends, but it's always good to let people experiment and incorporate that data.

Personally, if I'm a game company, I try doing a 25%-40% sale every Friday afternoon/evening. Catch people when they're coming off of work and when they have 2 days off to enjoy themselves (and make them feel like they're being savvy by waiting) and you might end up with a lot more "impulse" buys.

 

[MattEvansC3]

bburdge[/url]":34txwk5q]

nehinks[/url]":34txwk5q]Seems good if it leads to more frequent sales. However, I'm a little worried we'll end up with fairly constant low discounts (10-20%ish) rather than the big sales Steam is known for. I'm sure it can be scary to discount your own project by a large percent, but to me, 75-90% sales are what get me past the "eh, I have 25+ games I haven't started/finished on Steam already" factor.

On the other hand, my wallet might thank me in that case...

Agreed, and Newell's quote agrees with this.

"[If] we do a 75 percent price reduction, our Counter-Strike experience tells us that our gross revenue would remain constant," Newell said. "Instead, what we saw was our gross revenue increased by a factor of 40. Not 40 percent, but a factor of 40. Which is completely not predicted by our previous experience with silent price variation."

There is a point (which varies by game) below which the game becomes an impulse buy. There's a bunch of games on my Steam account which I never really wanted - until I saw the sale at 80% off, and suddenly getting a AAA title for $9 was just irresistible. And overall this is nothing but positive for the developer - the incremental cost of one more license is effectively nothing, so selling 100 at $10 is preferable to selling 25 at $40 (because more units out is more customers for later even if the revenue is equal), but according to Newell the difference is more like selling 400 at $10 compared to selling 10 at $40, that's huge.

So I hope the devs still take into account Valve's experience in this, and use this feature to help them boost sales at points important for their company.

That ignores the facts that counter-strike has a strong user base as well as a pedigree. There's a big difference between a tipping point price and an impulse purchase price.

Games like counter-strike will already have a large group of non-owners who want to own the game but are still on the fence about buying it because they've heard good reviews, their friends play it, its something that might appeal to them etc but the y aren't 100% sure and the price is too high to take a gamble. A price reduction is enough for them to give it a shot and "tips them over".

An impulse buy is a spur of the moment purchase , normally where they've done no research or even heard of it before but the price is low enough to not be an issue. We are talking B grade titles or obscure indie titles and can't be compared to Valve's own games.

 

[Deleted member 1]

QuikMix[/url]":2ct89fbi]Steam gets so many thing right that it's almost unimaginable how badly other digital services are executed (looking at you Origin).

The only other digital service that seems to do it right is the Ouya store. It's no Steam, but there doesn't seem to be any other contenders for 2nd place.

 

[r3loaded]

Newell's comments seem to suggest that games are very price elastic. But the experience of Activision with CoD and EA with Battlefield instead suggests that their games are largely price inelastic. I wonder what the real economics behind games really is...

 

[OnThePlusSide]

Tundro Walker[/url]":m6c16yex]The problem with this is that major dev companies will drastically reduce the price on the core game in order to get more customers in, hopefully get them hooked, and then have a new audience that will pay full price for the DLC's.

The base game these days is the loss-leader ... dev company could willingly give it away free as long as it gets customers hooked. Rolling out DLC after DLC for $5-$10 a pop is what racks up the real profit. (See Borderlands 2)

edit:

I guess I should clarify why I think this is a problem. I grew up with gaming in the 90's where you got a complete game, and very rarely an add-on came along. Most of the time it was a full sequal. I'm really tired of getting a core game and then getting nickel and dimed for DLC. Even GOTY editions, which used to be considered all-inclusive, are now just "everything up until now, but we're still rolling out DLC, so ... GOTCHA, BITCH!" I find it annoying as hell.

I have a huge problem with this too. I don't mind if a company makes extra goodies for a game and sells them, as long as those goodies are optional and I have a full game without them. The problem is, so many people don't seem to mind getting nickeled and dimed to death and I think many don't even realize that by the time they finish playing a particular game they most likely ended up paying something like $500 for what should have been a $50 or $60 game.

ETA: I should clarify, I never had a problem with full-blown expansion packs and played numerous games where ultimately I bought every one. It's the micro-transactions that get me, but as long as they're optional that's fine, I don't have to buy them. My problem is with buying a game that feels half finished or can't be completed without extra purchases. With some games I've bought I ended up waiting until the game and all expansions had been released in a bundle at a discount. I scored Civ IV this way for $14 years back.

 

[Otus]

NathanM[/url]":jtiild9q]One thing that might help me buy more: actual working emails when a game on my wishlist is on sale.

OTOH, if this lets developers use frequent -10% sales to push out a lot of wishlist emails, Valve should also let us set some kind of threshold like third party notification services.

 

[s73v3r]

Tundro Walker[/url]":14mi57rs]The problem with this is that major dev companies will drastically reduce the price on the core game in order to get more customers in, hopefully get them hooked, and then have a new audience that will pay full price for the DLC's.

The base game these days is the loss-leader ... dev company could willingly give it away free as long as it gets customers hooked. Rolling out DLC after DLC for $5-$10 a pop is what racks up the real profit. (See Borderlands 2)

edit:

I guess I should clarify why I think this is a problem. I grew up with gaming in the 90's where you got a complete game, and very rarely an add-on came along. Most of the time it was a full sequal. I'm really tired of getting a core game and then getting nickel and dimed for DLC. Even GOTY editions, which used to be considered all-inclusive, are now just "everything up until now, but we're still rolling out DLC, so ... GOTCHA, BITCH!" I find it annoying as hell.

You know, nobody is forcing you to buy the DLC. And clearly you didn't play many games, especially strategy games, as those ALWAYS had an extra expansion pack that came around. And those were usually more expensive than these DLC packs generally are.

 

[solomonrex]

What's interesting is that Steam is already so open that devs can sell their Steam keys outside Steam. They already do their own sales, amz, humble bundle, etc. So perhaps this is just encouraging devs to keep sales on Steam when they do occur.

It's such an interesting and consumer friendly approach. Thank God for Steam, I have such a larger library on the PC.

 

[T3hN00bSux0rs]

r3loaded[/url]":3mjo5dnm]Newell's comments seem to suggest that games are very price elastic. But the experience of Activision with CoD and EA with Battlefield instead suggests that their games are largely price inelastic. I wonder what the real economics behind games really is...

I think it has to do a lot with the variety of gamers that exist. I, for one, don't play video games all that often, but then will go on a binge for a month where every waking moment is spent gaming. Most of the time, that will wind up being just one multi-player game that I already have (usually Counter-Strike), but on occasion I'll see something on sale and pick it up.

CoD is something that I would never pay full price for, primarily because I don't really like the style of play. But, for $10, I have no problem buying it just to have when I decide I need to go on a gaming binge. On the other hand, Forza and the every new Madden game tends to be on my shelf by the end of release week.

So, based off of my anecdotal evidence, there are games that have a following, and will have repeat customers time after time, and there are games that will be bought when they hit the price that is right for the consumer. And those might wind up being the exact same game.

 

[punkmaggit]

I don't want to see a "race to the bottom", which is what the the mentality of the iOS store seems to be.

 

[Astramancer]

r3loaded[/url]":33phmguv]Newell's comments seem to suggest that games are very price elastic. But the experience of Activision with CoD and EA with Battlefield instead suggests that their games are largely price inelastic. I wonder what the real economics behind games really is...

I think the primary difference is the type of game and apparent target audience.

disclaimer: I don't play battlefield or call of duty, nor do I intend to

Everything I've ever heard is that there are primarily two kinds of players of CoD and Battlefield: The storyline player who's one and done, and the multiplayer who might run through the story... or not. My personal experience with console gamers is the storyline player will get the game, beat the game, trade the game back in. And the mutiplayer will get the game, keep it until the next one comes out, and trade it in -- because most of the multiplayer crowd migrates to the next iteration pretty quickly.

While a storyline player might be interested in a 75% discount 8 months down the line, they probably already got it by buying used from gamestop (and likely a copy that's already been through 3 or 4 other people), and the multiplayer wouldn't grab an 80% off copy of a one-geneneration back game because the mutiplayer community is "dead."

PC gamers, sadly, don't have much, if any, of a used market because most games won't let you, but a lot of games are story-based (or at least single-player based), with some notable exceptions. So it really is a different crowd with a different set of priorities and triggers.

 

[bburdge]

r3loaded[/url]":12gnh1v0]Newell's comments seem to suggest that games are very price elastic. But the experience of Activision with CoD and EA with Battlefield instead suggests that their games are largely price inelastic. I wonder what the real economics behind games really is...

"[If] we do a 75 percent price reduction, our Counter-Strike experience tells us that our gross revenue would remain constant," Newell said. "Instead, what we saw was our gross revenue increased by a factor of 40. Not 40 percent, but a factor of 40. Which is completely not predicted by our previous experience with silent price variation."

Actually if you look at it, he says the experience with Counter Strike predicted an inelastic response (flat revenues), but instead [for other games] they saw a revenue increase of 40x (thanks to those who noted that misread in my initial post) or very flexible.

This suggests two things - 1) different games have different demand curves 2) The demand curves are likely very non-linear for most, with a strong knee at a break over price

1) is fairly explicable - games with strong fan followings and large social aspect would tend to be more inflexible. Counter Strike, CoD, and Battlefield all fall into this, they have built a large playerbase on the back of consistent results that meet the majority of the players needs, the playing is social - when your friends all move from Black Ops 1 to Black Ops 2 there is a strong pressure to buy it to continue playing with friends. There is also a marketing aspect here - but that's already discussed in undergrad econ courses, marketing has the express goal of making demand more inflexible. Big budget titles with a lot of marketing will also exhibit this - current example being Titanfall (it helps that it's a great game, but MS has done a lot to talk it up.)

2) I discussed in my earlier post.

 

[H2O Rip]

I won't comment on any specifics on the back end (because ya know...it does say confidential and all..grr), my 2c on some of the comments based on my games on the service.

- Tundro Walker: Sales aren't a Trojan Horse for future DLC delivery (in most cases). Even for games with no DLC the discounts make sense because of some of the quotes above. If you get front page visibility it will drive a lot of units, and your overall revenue will spike. It's not sinister, promise. I like more people in my games! While I hope they'll want DLC at some point, that's not remotely the purpose of a sale.

- solomonrex: If I buy a key on amazon or humble bundle it's more opportunities to have Valve put more game ads in front of me. Seems like a smart move on their part. They aren't that huge of a company though, so I think they are doing a lot of focus around optimizing workloads.

-T3hN00bSux0rs: your own experience sums it up nicely, people have priorities across the board. Some folks want it when the game comes out (I'm the same way for certain titles), while others are content waiting until a discount to pick it up. The sales are good because if you run them properly you're capturing people across the whole spectrum of purchase intent. That's a much larger market than keeping a game at MSRP forever. But the big catch is that every title is amazingly different. Some may see flat revenues, others may get that 40x spike. Steam is a platform that rewards experimentation. How frequently do you do sales, do you burn out customers, what is the optimum speed to increase sale % over time....etc.

-punkmaggit: The economic theories around the value presented and sale functions are very interesting....and complex. But when putting a game out there I think most of us in the industry actively think about how the price will be over the course of the next 1-2 years. If I've got a game on steam, I price it with the knowledge that based on my release and their sales my price point will actually be X at launch, Y at one date, and Z at another. The race to the bottom would occur moreso if the store was just a free for all and not curated.

 

[minijedimaster]

Astramancer[/url]":19l6krde]

r3loaded[/url]":19l6krde]Newell's comments seem to suggest that games are very price elastic. But the experience of Activision with CoD and EA with Battlefield instead suggests that their games are largely price inelastic. I wonder what the real economics behind games really is...

I think the primary difference is the type of game and apparent target audience.

disclaimer: I don't play battlefield or call of duty, nor do I intend to

Everything I've ever heard is that there are primarily two kinds of players of CoD and Battlefield: The storyline player who's one and done, and the multiplayer who might run through the story... or not. My personal experience with console gamers is the storyline player will get the game, beat the game, trade the game back in. And the mutiplayer will get the game, keep it until the next one comes out, and trade it in -- because most of the multiplayer crowd migrates to the next iteration pretty quickly.

While a storyline player might be interested in a 75% discount 8 months down the line, they probably already got it by buying used from gamestop (and likely a copy that's already been through 3 or 4 other people), and the multiplayer wouldn't grab an 80% off copy of a one-geneneration back game because the mutiplayer community is "dead."

PC gamers, sadly, don't have much, if any, of a used market because most games won't let you, but a lot of games are story-based (or at least single-player based), with some notable exceptions. So it really is a different crowd with a different set of priorities and triggers.

Why is it sad that PC gamers don't have much of a used market? That sucked back in the day of physical media when you pretty much had to buy every game at full price and couldn't get anything back for it. We can refer to that as the dinosaur model. The same model the console market is stuck in.

But the PC has evolved into something much better for the consumer where we get massive discounts on many games (up to 90% in a lot of cases). I'd rather pay $10 for a game and "have" to keep it as opposed to $60 just to trade it in for a $25 credit a month or two later. Seems like a much better deal to me.

 

[Snarky Robot]

minijedimaster[/url]":30d5ldq9]
Why is it sad that PC gamers don't have much of a used market? That sucked back in the day of physical media when you pretty much had to buy every game at full price and couldn't get anything back for it. We can refer to that as the dinosaur model. The same model the console market is stuck in.

That "dinosaur model" lets you buy a game at steep discounts too. Trying to imply that the only way to enjoy games on discs is at full price is ridiculous. It's obnoxiously incorrect. I can buy a game on sale, buy it used, buy it from a friend, borrow it from a friend, rent it, trade for it, wait a year and buy it from the bargain bin, I can use coupons and gift cards and online sales, wait for "game of the year" editions and buy THOSE on sales, easily saving 75% or more. Buying discs doesn't stop you from getting deals.

Hell, a group of used to buy games together, and then just rotate the games around the group. 6 people in the group meant 6 games for ~$60, or $10 a game. And then you sold the games if you didn't want to play them anymore, meaning you usually got about $5-10 back.

The "dinosaur" model is in every possible way superior to DRM-based systems, save one: convenience. DRM systems like Steam have massive, impressive advantages to make it easier to find and buy games, offer a way for you to re-install your game if you lose your disc, and provides a single place to shop, unlike having to have multiple ways to find cheap games otherwise. And that's why people do it. Because Steam is a heck of a lot more convenient. That's a trade-off for freedom, though.

But the PC has evolved into something much better for the consumer where we get massive discounts on many games (up to 90% in a lot of cases). I'd rather pay $10 for a game and "have" to keep it as opposed to $60 just to trade it in for a $25 credit a month or two later. Seems like a much better deal to me.

Being able to buy a game for $10 AND being able to give that game to a friend later on is still better. So is being able to rent a game disc, pop it in your tray, and play.

 

[Otus]

Operative Me[/url]":1s4qp6at]The "dinosaur" model is in every possible way superior to DRM-based systems, save one: convenience. DRM systems like Steam have massive, impressive advantages to make it easier to find and buy games, offer a way for you to re-install your game if you lose your disc, and provides a single place to shop, unlike having to have multiple ways to find cheap games otherwise. And that's why people do it. Because Steam is a heck of a lot more convenient. That's a trade-off for freedom, though.

The choice isn't between disc and DRM, but disc and downloads. Either may or may not include DRM, which may in practice prevent reselling even for discs (e.g. when tied to account).

Steam doesn't require DRM, there are some games there that have none, and there are others who sell game downloads with no DRM, like gog.com. Even if they may not have all the other benefits of Steam, they do have good sales, so the rest should be possible as well.

 

[Astramancer]

Operative Me[/url]":3lvocyvt]That "dinosaur model" lets you buy a game at steep discounts too. Trying to imply that the only way to enjoy games on discs is at full price is ridiculous. It's obnoxiously incorrect.

Thank you.

I know the EU is making Steam do secondary market reselling of game keys (is that accomplished yet? I haven't heard anything in a while), but I serously doubt that's going to happen any time soon in the US.

In some ways, the success of steam is based on the steam sales, which does somewhat emulate the pricing of the used game market (get older games for cheaper) without some of the scummier downsides of dealing with a commercial used game market (see: gamestop offering $5 for a used game which they sell for $40), or the risk of unregulated used game markets (craigslist), but it still requires you to wait for their schedule, not yours.

But there's no real reason why I shouldn't be able to take advantage of the other side of the used game market -- buy a game when it first comes out and sell it to someone else to recoup some of my costs after I'm done with it -- just because I bought Call of Duty: Ghosts on PC rather than XBox.

 

[Snarky Robot]

Otus[/url]":2utjc94e]
The choice isn't between disc and DRM, but disc and downloads. Either may or may not include DRM, which may in practice prevent reselling even for discs (e.g. when tied to account).

I would argue the exact opposite. DRM-free downloads are more similar to discs than DRM downloads. DRM-free downloads are just a copy of some bits that a person can do with as they like, the same as a disc. If you lose them, you stop being able to play, the same as a disc. Most Steam games, however, have DRM and are much more restrictive. They're tied to your account, which provides some benefits, but many restrictions, too. Ditto Origin, app stores, digital downloads on consoles, et cetera.

Steam doesn't require DRM, there are some games there that have none, and there are others who sell game downloads with no DRM, like gog.com. Even if they may not have all the other benefits of Steam, they do have good sales, so the rest should be possible as well.

"Some" games not requiring DRM (and I'd wager most of those not being AAA games that are for the mass market) is a heck of lot different than ALL games being open and maintaining first-sale doctrine. I'm not saying one is inherently better, mind you. I actually buy almost 100% of my games as DRM-laden downloads now. I don't really have a problem with it, because it benefits me. But then again, I stopped selling my games when I was younger, so I don't have to worry about that anymore.

Until Steam or Xbox lets you actually lend your games out, (and not the nonsense way Valve announced), however, that's a massive advantage that discs will have over digital.

 

[the_frakker]

Where will these discounted games be promoted?

I doubt Valve really wants to flood their "Sales" list with extra sales from the developers. That messes with the deals they've made on those weekly/daily sales less visible.

I don't want the discounts hidden away on the product pages either and I'm certain neither do the game developers. So my guess is that a new section will be added for listing all the currently discounted games.

All of my Steam purchases thus far have come from a Steam sale, were gifted, or were included in a Humble Bundle.

 

[Otus]

Operative Me[/url]":1gfdmt7g]

Otus[/url]":1gfdmt7g]
The choice isn't between disc and DRM, but disc and downloads. Either may or may not include DRM, which may in practice prevent reselling even for discs (e.g. when tied to account).

I would argue the exact opposite. DRM-free downloads are more similar to discs than DRM downloads.

Yes, that was my point as well. The trajectory has long been towards more DRM in both discs and downloads. If that continued, the freedom we currently enjoy with discs could be lost as well. (Just look at other software, like Office 2013 – you can't necessarily reinstall if you buy a new computer.) However, I'm slightly encouraged by more recent anti-DRM sentiment, e.g. with regard to consoles, and think that trend may be reversed.

Operative Me[/url]":1gfdmt7g]"Some" games not requiring DRM (and I'd wager most of those not being AAA games that are for the mass market) is a heck of lot different than ALL games being open and maintaining first-sale doctrine.

True enough, I guess. I mostly only buy games that run on Linux which probably have more overlap with games that are DRM free.

Operative Me[/url]":1gfdmt7g]Until Steam or Xbox lets you actually lend your games out, (and not the nonsense way Valve announced), however, that's a massive advantage that discs will have over digital.

I don't know what's nonsense about the Steam system, considering I've lent and borrowed several games, played them tens if not hundreds of hours, and had no problems. It's not the easiest to set up, but at least with single player games it works fine.

However, I agree that discs still have an advantage there.

 

[Snarky Robot]

I think we're mostly in agreement, so I didn't want to quote all of the foregoing, so I'm snipping just to address this part:

Otus[/url]":24v8h475] I don't know what's nonsense about the Steam system, considering I've lent and borrowed several games, played them tens if not hundreds of hours, and had no problems. It's not the easiest to set up, but at least with single player games it works fine.

The "nonsense" I was referring to was their system of being able to share a library with someone, but not being able to play the rest of your games (and, if you play a game, auto-logging out the other person). That's precisely the wrong sort of way of handling it, in my opinion. It'd probably be nice for in-house sharing, ("hey hon, don't log in, I'm playing something") but not for cross-country digital sharing.

A better idea is a modified version of the Microsoft model. You essentially have a token for a game. You may pass that token to a friend so that they might play the game. If you start playing that game, you automatically revoke their token. The console auto-checks the token status every so often and if that console cannot connect to the internet for a period of time, that token expires, meaning they can't play. If you are disconnected, you cannot request the token (but can play any other game).

That makes a lot more sense to me.

 

[Tundro Walker]

s73v3r[/url]":10qiwtud]

Tundro Walker[/url]":10qiwtud]The problem with this is that major dev companies will drastically reduce the price on the core game in order to get more customers in, hopefully get them hooked, and then have a new audience that will pay full price for the DLC's.

The base game these days is the loss-leader ... dev company could willingly give it away free as long as it gets customers hooked. Rolling out DLC after DLC for $5-$10 a pop is what racks up the real profit. (See Borderlands 2)

edit:

I guess I should clarify why I think this is a problem. I grew up with gaming in the 90's where you got a complete game, and very rarely an add-on came along. Most of the time it was a full sequal. I'm really tired of getting a core game and then getting nickel and dimed for DLC. Even GOTY editions, which used to be considered all-inclusive, are now just "everything up until now, but we're still rolling out DLC, so ... GOTCHA, BITCH!" I find it annoying as hell.

You know, nobody is forcing you to buy the DLC. And clearly you didn't play many games, especially strategy games, as those ALWAYS had an extra expansion pack that came around. And those were usually more expensive than these DLC packs generally are.

To clarify, I don't want to buy a game piece-meal. I want to wait until all the DLC and expansion packs are bundled together as one product for one price. That's why I always waited for the GOTY editions in the past. I gladly popped $60 for a GOTY edition if it included everything. But, what I found out with Borderlands 2 GOTY ed. that came out recently... it didn't include everything. I had to pay extra for the Ultimate Vault Hunter 2 pack (to get to level 72), and they were still rolling out head-hunter packs every holiday. It rubbed me the wrong way. The game is old enough they should just move on with life, but they keep rolling out more crap to cash in on. It just really irked me that I bought the GOTY, but I still had to pay extra to get that UVH 2 update. I guess I'm turning into an old fart. I don't know. I don't mind paying a premium price for all-inclusive stuff. But this "season pass" and constant "don't know when they'll stop rolling it out" DLC practice of gaminng lately rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Otus]

Operative Me[/url]":ixmbsctt]

Otus[/url]":ixmbsctt] I don't know what's nonsense about the Steam system, considering I've lent and borrowed several games, played them tens if not hundreds of hours, and had no problems. It's not the easiest to set up, but at least with single player games it works fine.

The "nonsense" I was referring to was their system of being able to share a library with someone, but not being able to play the rest of your games (and, if you play a game, auto-logging out the other person).

Oh, that. In practice it's only a limitation with multiplayer games, because all games will run in offline mode. As long as either the sharer or the sharee is in offline mode, both can play even the same game. Not intuitive, but there you have it.

 

[Kasoroth]

punkmaggit[/url]":wlh3475m]I don't want to see a "race to the bottom", which is what the the mentality of the iOS store seems to be.

Well, the interesting (but not particularly surprising to me) thing here is that the low prices significantly increased revenue, and since these are digitally distributed (no "per unit" manufacturing, shipping and storage cost of discs, boxes, etc), more revenue = more profit.

Essentially it's a "race to the top" for gamers in terms of games/$, and a "race to the top" for developers in terms of profits earned. I suspect that gamers are actually paying more total dollars (because they impulse buy a lot of games, rather than being very selective about what games they buy), but are quite happy with the situation because they're getting more games for their money.

How is this "everybody wins" scenario possible? Simple: digital distribution is just fundamentally way more efficient than physical media.

It seems quite likely to me that there is a huge amount of elasticity in the market for entertainment products, which means that pricing them well into the "impulse buy" range is actually the most profitable point when you aren't limited by manufacturing costs.

The problems appear when you want to sell both digital and physical versions of the same product, for roughly the same price. For many things, I suspect the "ideal" price for the digital product is actually below the cost of manufacturing, shipping, and storing the physical product, so many companies fear the "erosion" of per-unit price because it makes it impossible to offer the physical version at a competitive price without losing money on it.