what about the future?

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

If the niche is that big, why do board game stores have such a hard time staying profitable? Why do almost all the large RPG/boardgame publishers go bankrupt or get taken over by a the giants? Why is it so hard for normal boardgames to stay in production?

Sure you can get The Settlers of Catan everywhere. But that is simple low strategy board game. Now try to buy Shogun/Samurai Swords somewhere. Big strategy board games get out of print often. Why? Because eventually the market is saturated. The avid war/boardgamers all have a copy. And the group of these is rather small so it doesn't really pay off to keep copies laying around for the small amount of sales you get. While Settlers still sells regular. Why? Because difficult board games are a niche, and settlers has a broad appeal.

Here's the thing you're neglecting - the lifespan of a game. One title cannot stay in print forever, you're right. And it shouldn't. Publishers need to release a steady stream of titles in order to stay in business. And this is even more true for computer games where changing technology obsoletes old games. (Don't get me wrong, I still love playing games from the 90s, but i probably won't even be able to run them after my next (imminent) hardware upgrade.)

A computer game's lifespan is 5 years at the most. Only the most exceptional games hit 10+ (eg, Starcraft). So when you start off by asking questions like 'Why is it so hard for normal boardgames to stay in production' or 'why do RPG companies go out of business', you're asking entirely the wrong questions. You need to keep producing new products that will bring back older customers as well as be accessible to new customers. This explains why Magic the Gathering is still going strong some 17 years after starting. Or why WotC chose the publication structure it did for D+D 4e (every year sees a new set of core books), and why a 5th edition is inevitable.

Dom3 is already past the expected lifetime. It shouldn't be expected to generate any sales at all, especially at full price, and that it does should be regarded as miraculous.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Here's the thing you're neglecting - the lifespan of a game.

That is true.

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

And this is even more true for computer games where changing technology obsoletes old games.

And that is the problem. Dom3 isn't obsolete. There is no replacement.

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

So when you start off by asking questions like 'Why is it so hard for normal boardgames to stay in production' or 'why do RPG companies go out of business', you're asking entirely the wrong questions. You need to keep producing new products that will bring back older customers as well as be accessible to new customers.

But a lot of RPG and boardgame publishers did just that, and still went out of business because the niche for boardgames and rpgs was shrinking. Sure the large ones like MtG and WotC survive. But the small ones die, or downsize.

Unrelated, how is dnd 4ed selling?

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

A computer game's lifespan is 5 years at the most.
...
Dom3 is already past the expected lifetime. It shouldn't be expected to generate any sales at all, especially at full price, and that it does should be regarded as miraculous.

Only if there is a better version. Only if there is something new and shiny comparable out. Especially for a certain type of niche. (Starting to really dislike the word niche btw, used it a bit to much).

Otherwise where is nothing in conventional economics saying why prices should drop. Sure there is a method to slowly get the most out of the costumers by gradually dropping the prices, but that only works in certain situations, cant recall which exactly, and to lazy to look it up in my economy books. But supply vs demand doesn't apply in this case, as supply is rather infinite.

Boardgames also don't gradually drop in prices, and when they do, it is because the shops need the shelve space.

The idea that games should drop in prices is because you expect them to do, because it is supposed to be normal. Not because it makes economic sense.

Ps: regarding the lower prices. Never forget that this could be a business ploy. Lower pricing to drive the competition with lesser deep pockets out of business. (I'm paranoid anti-corporate, it is my Shadowrun heritage). Valve playing themselves off as the less greedy friendly corp, while crushing the competition.


---
Edit:
Perhaps there now is a better version, if Elements gets improved.
Edit2:
I think the economics theory is related to different adopters of products. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusi...ter_categories

[13lackGu4rd]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Otherwise where is nothing in conventional economics saying why prices should drop. Sure there is a method to slowly get the most out of the costumers by gradually dropping the prices, but that only works in certain situations, cant recall which exactly, and to lazy to look it up in my economy books. But supply vs demand doesn't apply in this case, as supply is rather infinite.

actually, it makes perfect sense economically... your problem is that you're dismissing the supply vs demand issue on "infinite supply" of computer games. not only is this false in reality(they still take money to produce, even though it's much cheaper than say board games), supply is not just about the actual making of the game but also about the competition.

moreover, time is also a crucial factor that you don't really address in your own economical equations. there's a reason why "we expect" prices to go down over time, it's only sensible even under economical logic. why do car prices go down every year? why do pretty much any other products go down in prices over the years? the older a product is, the further way the company gets from the "cover their expenses" stage to the "pure profit" stage. when all the expenses have been covered the company should logically start reducing their prices, or else they're just overly greedy and will usually be unsuccessful in the long run. even giant corporations like Blizzard lowered the prices of their games, as well as make gold editions(for example Starcraft+Broodwars expansion) which costs just a bit over original Starcraft when it was released, but now you also get the expansion with it.

Boardgames also don't gradually drop in prices, and when they do, it is because the shops need the shelve space.

false again. board games also drop in price, it's just that they drop less because they have far less to drop into, due to increased expenses over computer games.

The idea that games should drop in prices is because you expect them to do, because it is supposed to be normal. Not because it makes economic sense.

false, as I've started saying above. also keep in mind that new products are valued higher than old products, and it doesn't matter whether you're talking about cars, furniture, computer games, computers(as in hardware), TVs, or whatever else you want. of course there are exceptions, such as classic models or antiquities(mainly in furniture) but every rule(logic, etc) has exceptions...

Ps: regarding the lower prices. Never forget that this could be a business ploy. Lower pricing to drive the competition with lesser deep pockets out of business. (I'm paranoid anti-corporate, it is my Shadowrun heritage). Valve playing themselves off as the less greedy friendly corp, while crushing the competition.

you're mixing 2 different things here. companies that lower prices in order to destroy the competition, don't do it over the years, they do it mainly with their new products. moreover they sell their items in loss prices for a limited amount of time, in order to crush the competition. than when the competition is destroyed they raise their prices considerably, and of course release other products and product lines in full prices, now that they have no competition remaining. this method is now illegal by the way, but it's still being used due to the hardship of actually proving the existence of loss prices.