Are we paying more for less?

[Leif_-]

Comparing HOMM5 and Dominions 3 is a folly. They're really entirely different types of games; the only similarities are superficial. Yes, they're both turn-based strategy games, but only in as far as both chess and monopoly are turn-based strategy games.

More importantly HOMM5 has an economy of scale that is wildly beyond anything that Dominions 3 might even aspire to. The two games have completely different economic realities and to decide that Dominions 3 is overpriced because it's more expensive than HOMM5 just makes no sense.

As for getting upset with Shrapnel for pricing it at $55 -- do you really expect them to sell it for a sub-optimal price? They're a business, and they're trying to make money. Can you really begrudge them that fact? (On another note, I'd be extremely surprised if Shrapnel has a higher per-copy profit from Dominions 3 than Ubi Soft has for HOMM5.)

[DragonFire11]

I think major publishers make a mistake discounting their titles. I seldom purchase a new title because I know if I just wait a few months I'll get a steep reduction. I assume that the publishers are pressured into this due to the fight for shelf space at retail. But I guess that is the sacrifice for a deep market distribution. Anyway, I think quality titles deserve a fair and consistent price. For this reason, I appreciate how Shrapnel markets its products. I would, however, like to see them hold a yearly sale or something of the sort. This might convert fence sitters and grow the dom brand until we all say "Blizzard who?".

[Leif_-]

DragonFire11 said:
I think major publishers make a mistake discounting their titles. I seldom purchase a new title because I know if I just wait a few months I'll get a steep reduction. I assume that the publishers are pressured into this due to the fight for shelf space at retail.

Well, there's several reasons for them to do this, I suppose. Partly, of course, it's not the publishers that discounts the titles, but the actual stores, who don't have the same interest in keeping prices high (as they have to bear the brunt of the inventory costs.)

Next, there's a question of time-limited marketing campaigns. Once the main marketing thrust around launch is over, I suspect most games see their sales taper off very sharply. To take some numbers out of thin air, if they sell 85% of the copies during the initial marketing blitz, it doesn't really make much of a difference to the bottom line if the remaining 15% sell for 100% of the original price or 50%.

Third, the large game developers share a product model with Hollywood, in that most of their products do not make a profit, but the cost is offset by the rare golden birds that make huge profits. They chase the blockbusters, and the fate of the other games, once it's clear they're not going to be a blockbuster, isn't really important to the bottom line.

There's probably a lot more factors involved. I'm not really that familiar with the economics of the industry or, for that matter, with economics in general.

[alexti]

DragonFire11 said:
I think major publishers make a mistake discounting their titles. I seldom purchase a new title because I know if I just wait a few months I'll get a steep reduction.

That situation is really weird. If you wait you're getting:
1) cheaper price;
2) better quality (the game is patched [to some extent] by that time);
3) lower platform cost (by that time, the hardware required to run that game decently cost cheaper).
These makes buying major titles right away impractical. I'm sure I'm not the first who noticed it and publishers certainly aware of it. So they probably just follow the plan of intentionally pricing the game higher on release. Probably they consider something like 20$ a good fair price for their product, but set it much higher initially to get money from people who *must* have it the day it's out.

[Talleyrand]

Can we get this thread locked now? I appreciate the official response and knowing now that the higher cost was due to the manual and not an attempted fleecing of a loyal playerbase. Every possible avenue has been explored in this thread already and I think it's time to move on to other topics. Thanks again.

[Frostmourne27]

I see no reason to lock it. It WAS getting a bit confrontational, but I think that has died down. There is probably very little to say, but somebody might come along with a good point or two. That said, no one should feel obliged to post here. We won't think less of you if you skip this thread, but some of us fanatics might want to chew on old soup a little more.

DragonFire11 said:
I think major publishers make a mistake discounting their titles. I seldom purchase a new title because I know if I just wait a few months I'll get a steep reduction. I assume that the publishers are pressured into this due to the fight for shelf space at retail. But I guess that is the sacrifice for a deep market distribution. Anyway, I think quality titles deserve a fair and consistent price. For this reason, I appreciate how Shrapnel markets its products. I would, however, like to see them hold a yearly sale or something of the sort. This might convert fence sitters and grow the dom brand until we all say "Blizzard who?".

I think you're mistaken here. While i still wonder about the incompetence that is displayed everywhere in the IT indsutry, (while working there i get to observe it first hand. I blame it on the older generation in higher management ranks who grew up with electric typewriters not computers) i'm sure that the economists at the big publishing companies know exactly what they're doing.
I'd say that in most mainstream games new graphics make up 50-80% of the selling point. Basically, crap like halo 2 or WoW sells because it's shiny and new not because it's so much better than the predecessor from last year. Ok, maybe those were bad examples since in bose cases they've ben massively overhyped too.
Anyway, mainstream games have to be shiny to sell, and on the mass market, games aren't shiny anymore if their graphics are a year old. Many posts in this thread show how important shinyness is for many gamers.
So, the way i interpret it, publishers of mainstream games don't have a choice but to reduce prices over time or they wouldn't sell the game anymore. Because you can always pick up the newest shiny clone of one of the five or so game types that are still produced en masse if you're willing to pay full price. No point in buying a virtually identical game with older graphics.
Niche games are different. Unlike Oblivion or Doom 3, games like Dominions or UFO: Aftershock (to name a semi-niche game not from Shrapnel) age very well, since shinyness isn't important in the first place, the value doesn't diminish with time.