2008 in hindsight, Part 2 of 3

The only place you'll ever hear the truth
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:10 pm

tllotpfkamvpe wrote:Yes I'm Serious. Whats the point of selling a game for £4.50 when you can sell it for £20? Even worst is multiwinia retailing at £7.50ish. IV dont make cheapo budget games, they make good indie games. There is no point under selling a good product. No I'm not high.

Hell, what's the point of selling a game by 20£ when you could sell it by 100£? Five times the profit right there!

Also, you're argument is so very very flawed that I don't even know where to start. I'll just point out that assuming that a game is crap because it is cheap is down right retarded. (OMG! The Orange Box was at 10€ this weekend! That must be a really crappy game right there!)
User avatar
tllotpfkamvpe
level5
level5
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:04 am
Contact:

Postby tllotpfkamvpe » Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:40 pm

Graphics is just an indication of how old the game is and gameplay always gets improved with time. For example pro evolution soccer 98, was a great game to play in 1998, but since playing pro evolution 6, you realise how old and simple even the passing system was. Secon example, Doom, was amazing graphics and gameplay in its day. Now? A repetetive arcadey sort a game. Third example, orange box, aging graphics, gameplay for me very repetative. And I've also said that classic games dont count in my argument. I'll happily play simcity 2000 for hours. Do you want more examples?

Defcon on the other hand, original gameplay, graphics not really going to age cause there is no way to add more polygons to its graphics. So that is my argument, why treat defcon like a budget title?

Also you cant sell a game at a 100 pounds, that is retarded.
estel
level4
level4
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:20 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Postby estel » Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:09 pm

I think the point is that sales volume is a complex function of price and quality, and increasing the price has to be balanced by the expected drop in sale (which there will be) as a result.
For example (and I know that these numbers obviously don't precisely apply), titles in the Steam Sale /all/ increased their total income regardless of the price discount, and titles discounted the most increased their income the most too.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:06 pm

tllotpfkamvpe wrote:Third example, orange box, aging graphics, gameplay for me very repetative. And I've also said that classic games dont count in my argument.
Hum... You do realize that Defcon is over a year older than the Orange Box, right? Even taken the games in it individually, only Half Life 2 and Episode 1 are are younger than Defcon, and the second one by only Three months.

Defcon is, by videogame standards, old. You can't justify selling it at full price when the game is nearly 3 years old. By this point anyone that considered buying the game has done so, and raising the price would only alienate (or at worst, revolt) any other potential costumers.

Graphics/Gameplay as a measure of what the price for a game should be is ridiculous. Especially nowadays where graphics don't really change as fast as before. Personally I still find the Half Life 2 series to be one of the more realistic looking games I've ever played, and gameplay wise they are on par, if not above, most FPS's released nowadays.

You are just incredibly Biased on your like for Defcon vs Other games. The only way for Defcon to become relevant again would be through some major update (on which Defcon DS may have something to say).
User avatar
tllotpfkamvpe
level5
level5
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:04 am
Contact:

Postby tllotpfkamvpe » Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:32 pm

Xocrates wrote:Defcon is, by videogame standards, old. You can't justify selling it at full price when the game is nearly 3 years old. By this point anyone that considered buying the game has done so, and raising the price would only alienate (or at worst, revolt) any other potential costumers.


A lot of old games sell at high prices. Look at X-com UFO defense on ebay. Ok the game is rare, but how much coverage has this game got over the years? Everyone raves about its gameplay and this and that. Therefore the game has become a collectors item and now its almost rare. Economics and finance are two different things. How much something is actually worth and how much it's preceived to be worth. Half life games have been played by almost everyone who wanted to play them and the prce is only decreased to milk the last customers before somthing with better physics and graphics comes along. On the other hand Defcon is hardly heard of and not played by millions of people.

Therefore my economic argument for increasing the price based on my knowledge of the games market, is much more convincing then saying my idea is retarded, unjustifyible, ridiculous and biased.
User avatar
Phevnil
level1
level1
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:05 pm
Location: At my computer what did you expect?

Postby Phevnil » Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:03 pm

tllotpfkamvpe wrote:Third example, orange box, aging graphics, gameplay for me very repetative.


Source (the game engine of the orange box) can still support amazing graphics. In fact I haven't seen any game's that beat the graphics of the orange box that are fun to play. Not to mention that TF2 NEVER gets old.
[insert outrageously funny/insightful comment here]
Weatherproof
level1
level1
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:18 pm

Postby Weatherproof » Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:45 pm

Haha, you said "ex-future employee"
Paradox!!

Seriousness though,
Wow, second depressing post... this is going to be an epic-sad saga...
User avatar
sfericz
level5
level5
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:25 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby sfericz » Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:48 pm

Xocrates wrote:The only way for Defcon to become relevant again would be through some major update (on which Defcon DS may have something to say).


IMO, I feel the Defcon DS project will do nothing for the Defcon we play now. (Unless, magically, DS players will be able to play PC/Mac players.)

A good way for Defcon to "become" relevant again, is for people to stop thinking its irrelevant, and for IV to fix just a few long standing bugs.


[edit] MVPE, raising the price of Defcon wouldn't be a smart move in any sense, sorry. It was a smart move to stop demos, and lower the price (So the long playing demo players would get off their high horse and buy it.) Every player counts now, (I even removed Mind Bender from the SFCON's ban list :P), so if lowering the price brings those players in, then that's what needs to happen.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:57 pm

tllotpfkamvpe wrote:A lot of old games sell at high prices. Look at X-com UFO defense on ebay.
X-Com sells at 5€ on Steam (for comparison Defcon is at 10€), and before going on Steam it was abandonware and you could get it for free. ebay is hardly a point of comparison for retail. Also, Amazon.co.uk sells the boxed copy of Defcon at 11.64£

tllotpfkamvpe wrote:Half life games have been played by almost everyone who wanted to play them and the prce is only decreased to milk the last customers before somthing with better physics and graphics comes along.

And how is that different from Defcon? The fact that Half-life is better known? So what do you propose to do, just increase the price?
Fine, now we have a 3 year old indie game that won't be the subject to impulse buying (since it is too bloody expensive) and that no-one ever heard of, on account of no-one having played it, on account that despite being three years old is still bloody expensive.

Don't you get it? By keeping a game at full price you remove the chances of anyone who never heard of the game of buying it. It's not a matter of return of investment, because no-one is buying the bloody thing. Everyone that was willing to pay full price for the game already did - either because they were aware of the game and told their friends, who might have also have picked the game up.

By keeping the price high, you deny impulse buying, therefore denying the spread of the word. You are just stagnating sales.



sfericz wrote:IMO, I feel the Defcon DS project will do nothing for the Defcon we play now.

It might raise awareness for the existence of the game and therefore renew interest.

The release of new versions of old games can give boosts for the original versions (ike Starcraft and Diablo II showing up back on the top selling game lists after the announcement of their sequels)
User avatar
shinygerbil
level5
level5
Posts: 4667
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
Contact:

Postby shinygerbil » Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:02 am

Valve have made several comments about the effect of reducing price on sales. Namely, that reducing the price by half can more than double your sales, so in the end you may make more by selling it cheaper. They even mentioned that one indie game (they didn't say which) got something ridiculous like a 1700% increase in sales, or something. I'm guessing off the top of my head there, but it was something huge, and it furthers the point here, that hiking the price back up will do nobody any favours.
User avatar
sfericz
level5
level5
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:25 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby sfericz » Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:07 am

Xocrates wrote:The release of new versions of old games can give boosts for the original versions (ike Starcraft and Diablo II showing up back on the top selling game lists after the announcement of their sequels)

Hm, That is a good point. But their sequels was for the same platform. This situation is llike releasing a new Madden only for PS3 and not Xbox.
Although I do agree it might give people motive to look more into Introversion, giving the chance they see the rest of IV's games. So that there, might be enough (lets hope)
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:19 am

shinygerbil wrote:Valve have made several comments about the effect of reducing price on sales. Namely, that reducing the price by half can more than double your sales, so in the end you may make more by selling it cheaper. They even mentioned that one indie game (they didn't say which) got something ridiculous like a 1700% increase in sales, or something. I'm guessing off the top of my head there, but it was something huge, and it furthers the point here, that hiking the price back up will do nobody any favours.

I believe it was something like 13000%. They themselves had a 3000% increase in sales with the L4D sale
User avatar
kipper_308
level1
level1
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:00 pm
Location: Southampton, England

Postby kipper_308 » Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:53 am

Xocrates wrote:
shinygerbil wrote:Valve have made several comments about the effect of reducing price on sales. Namely, that reducing the price by half can more than double your sales, so in the end you may make more by selling it cheaper. They even mentioned that one indie game (they didn't say which) got something ridiculous like a 1700% increase in sales, or something. I'm guessing off the top of my head there, but it was something huge, and it furthers the point here, that hiking the price back up will do nobody any favours.

I believe it was something like 13000%. They themselves had a 3000% increase in sales with the L4D sale


Yeah - it's about hitting that "magic price" that we all set ourselves, that certain amount of money which in a particular context, we don't consider a "significant" investment. Basically it's the price below which you will impulse buy, rationalising: "For that price, I'll give it a whirl: if I enjoy it, bonus! If not, well, I'll have got a few hours entertainment and no harm done to my bank account.".

Steam know this, and have thier weekend promotions, which must make them and the game developers lots of new sales. My games list is littered with impulse buys from 1/2 price offers: Call of Duty, Penny Arcade, Garry's Mod, Flatout, Lost Planet, Far Cry 2. All of these games I had not bought at full price, for one reason or another, either I was unsure if I'd like the game, or just didn't want to pay full "just released" price for it.

I think this kind of behaviour is pretty normal. Many of my friends do the same thing, and pickup obscure (to them) games, just because they look tempting at a lower price. The reason that it's attractive for a publisher / developer should be obvious. As an example, take Far Cry 2. I wanted to play it, but after reading reviews wasn't sure I'd love it. Initially it was selling for ~£30 and that was just too much for a "gamble". When it was reduced to £15 on Steam, I snapped it up. For that price I was prepared to accept the chance of not enjoying it. At the initial price, that was a "lost" sale for Ubi/Crytek, I'd never have bought it for that much, but by reducing the price they got SOME money from me.

Additionally, I told one of my friends about getting it, and that I was enjoying the game. He bought it as well shortly afterwards, even paying full price. This is perhaps even more important for the publisher / developer than the cut of the money I paid myself: a personal reccomendation from a friend is much more likely to encourage someone to part with thier money than all the advertising you can buy. By stratigically reducing the price of your game, especially later in its lifetime, you will tend to extend the lifeitme of the game, by continually trickling in fresh players, and broadining your potential market by doing so through the friends and contacts of those new players.

PS: Thankyou to Chris for writing so honestly and openly about life within IV. Very few people, let alone companies, are able to be that honest, frank and objective about thier difficult times.
User avatar
Wasgood
level5
level5
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:44 am

Postby Wasgood » Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:00 am

Xocrates wrote:
tllotpfkamvpe wrote:Third example, orange box, aging graphics, gameplay for me very repetative. And I've also said that classic games dont count in my argument.
Hum... You do realize that Defcon is over a year older than the Orange Box, right? Even taken the games in it individually, only Half Life 2 and Episode 1 are are younger than Defcon, and the second one by only Three months.

Defcon is, by videogame standards, old. You can't justify selling it at full price when the game is nearly 3 years old. By this point anyone that considered buying the game has done so, and raising the price would only alienate (or at worst, revolt) any other potential costumers.

Graphics/Gameplay as a measure of what the price for a game should be is ridiculous. Especially nowadays where graphics don't really change as fast as before. Personally I still find the Half Life 2 series to be one of the more realistic looking games I've ever played, and gameplay wise they are on par, if not above, most FPS's released nowadays.

You are just incredibly Biased on your like for Defcon vs Other games. The only way for Defcon to become relevant again would be through some major update (on which Defcon DS may have something to say).



Wow, time goes fast. I just think Defcon needs more promotion hell, half my friends play now.
User avatar
cheesemoo0
level3
level3
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:19 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby cheesemoo0 » Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:16 am

I can only hope that the next post is about how much better things get and how you are living happily ever after since.

Return to “Introversion Blog”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests