News E3: "Steam sales cheapen intellectual property"

People at EA who think up things like this clearly suffer from HUAS.

This confirms it, I've seen games on origin for dirt cheap also, rather contradicting.

I still don't use Origin though & have no intention of doing & I bought BF3 on pre-order but just don't like Origin, I know I know it's cutting myself off from an ok game but I don't really mind doing that if it means I have to support something I don't like.

How did people have such a big problem with ubisoft but not EA? that really puzzles me, ubisoft are fine compared to EA & I support ubisoft because they weren't doing anything I didn't disagree with, EA forces you to agree to things or you can't use Origin so the only way to disagree is to not use the games you bought from them which really stinks.

Steams perfectly fine, in fact no it's awesome. I bought the witcher 2 from GOG to give direct support to the awesome makers to give them max profit for making a kickass game.

 

-I purchased Witcher I from a steam sale for $10. Had no interest in the game prior so $10 was my ceiling.

-I ended up liking Witcher I so much that I bought the sequel at full price when it came out. Checkmate.

 

I like to think by not pirating I forward the industry and add my share. If I cannot afford to buy 10 games during x-mas for $690 dollars it is kid of painful "waiting it out" when I could just download the game and crack. But it is horrifying endlessly reading news reports when the creatives making my favorite games are laidoff in huge numbers. It gets to the point where buying used games just to make Game Stop rich where Game Stop has never innovated a game yet would be a slap in the face of all those hard working people.

However after two years of waiting I can buy a game discounted on Steam! And feel proud that instead of Pirating or buying used that I bought from a publishing strategy that directly benefits the talented developers I want to support.

According to EA however, I am only cheapening intellectual property.
WOW what a slap in the face. ( considering I have bought plenty of really cheap sales deals at ORIGIN and have defended ORIGIN in the beginning because they were offering so many initial promotions )
If I refuse to buy used or Pirate a game...
That simply means " I DO NOT GET THAT GAME".
according to my Math no money at all cheapens EA's intellectual property far more than the excitement STEAM's blessed sales represent.
EA is really out of touch here! If they do not belive that video game prices are anywhere close to being realistically affordable entertainment! ( considering the prices I have spent since my original Magnavox Odessey II ).
As addictive as games are...
and as an international market matures...
The industry could charge the price of a pack of ciggarettes and probably make more than it does now.
I simply do not see any "average or impoverished demographic" with anything resembling a video game collection! And even in upper scale suburban hubs I feel parents punish kids with guilt over the high price of video games. Where a kid wanting that latest EA game is a spoiled brat with no fiscal responsibility who is taught a lesson by having said game withheld! ( Not! because they are gamers. But because the high exotic price of a "collection" is easily viewed as "unreasonable" by even the richest of parents ).
When really it is not the collection or the amount of video games in the end ( little johnny could probably buy a comic book every single day without any worries! ) It is the thousands of dollars it would cost to simply have a well read video game collection. Period!

If EA thinks the thousands of dollars I have spent on video games cheapens the industry then they really need to learn some fiscal responsibility as well as the meaning of the words "value" and "brand loyalty".
You do not get either by kicking a devout EA fan like myself in the nuts!

( speaking of a being a devout EA/ORIGIN fan... I always appreciated being able to create my own multible directory structure in ORIGIN and despite this recent social gaffe... I have found plenty of deals on ORIGIN in the past. )
Hoepfully, they have already realized theri mistake.

 

4 or 5 month wait? really?
Going out of business sales?

I am sure I have waited well over a year on most my STEAM sale purchases!
and...
Every single developer is still in business and benefitted from my purchase.

Come to think of it...
Even a 5 month wait represents a customer that is unwilling to buy your game.
As much as I want MASS EFFECT 3...
I will never buy the game at a ridiculous price.

No Sale! ( MEIII demo only for me )

 

I do see why they have said this though, they are generally releasers of AAA titles, those aren't cheap. And to be fair, EA is a business. A business is out for profit and usually resistant to change. While this is hardly practical (nor is it very pleasing to hear) in the perspective of purely financial form, what EA is saying merely emulates what the stockholders are saying:

Games would be much more profitable if they didn't depreciate. And that is true.

Is this right? I don't know to be honest, because on one hand, there are large overhead costs for games, very large. On the other hand we're used to the model where they depreciate over a short amount of time. There's a valid (if poorly presented point) here for EA. Games do depreciate quickly, faster than cars if you will. In one year some games drop from their $60/$50 price point to $10 or $20. That's more than 50% loss. Mind you those are the games that usually flop, but for a publisher it's pretty rough to see something that's had millions (that's right millions) invested to see it be worth so little.

So before people start saying that EA is the bane of all existence, I think it would be at least somewhat fair to at least see it from a perspective of a group of investors who while not very sociable (or nice for that matter) want to make money. Not that I'm exactly fine with their business practices (BF3's support is miserable still, but that's because DICE have this glass pyramid built) but there is a certain (misguided) logic to it.

 

I can get why he said it but surely this sort of thing is more for letters to shareholders explaining your business strategy than to advertise to gamers at the worlds biggest gaming convention that a rival platform is cheaper.

 

I really like Origin, what's not to like?

 

Prices in comparison with competition.

 

I cant help but feel origin only has its userbase of 11 million because EA forced it on people for the likes of battlefield 3. i think forcing a user base to use your product doesn't make it a rival/competitor because users don't have a choice of getting a game from either platform, instead EA limit their big titles to origin only so of course they will have those kind of numbers

 

i agree with you there

was going to buy battlefield

but then i don't like origin at all

they are still selling it for £39.99

 

Steam did the same with half life 2 but they had the vision to do this at the right time & they do it excellent after a good time to mature, EA don't listen to consumers, they fail.

 

But you don't have to buy the game from origin so pricing is irrelevant.

 

the only game i got off origin i paid NOTHING for LOL! since bf3 turned into a steaming pile i haven't got it or origin installed. steam Cheesecake i paid £5 for borderlands & dlc's and its been enought to convince me to preorder borderlands 2. would like my number removed from the 11 million please.

 

Battlefield 3 has been a complete and Epic fail, ask any clan that has played it and they will all complain about the same thing, EA being Greedy as hell, Not taking any notice of Customers needs or even fixing their game with its bugs and problems.

EA and Dice are dead as far as the gaming community care.

 

Nope always retail copies which land up being far cheaper. Even during sales.

 

there is also the issue that all previous EA accounts are counted as Origin. My old account is now Origin. Last time I logged in? ME2 DLC - From Ashes. Next time I login, probably never.

 

You dont have to buy your games from Steam either, unless it is an indie title.

 

Its called market forces isn't it. If demand is low to sell more units you have to lower the price.

 

>"just don't look for 75 per cent off going-out-of-business sales"

What if the game was 75% off at launch? Wouldn't it sell 10x more copies? Just ask Notch how it worked out for him. Smart pricing = lots more sales. Not all gamers are rich, at $60 you are selling to a niche market.

 

Throughout this topic I thought I was making this clear. The reason why they're $60 is purely because they're luxury products. Video games no matter how mainstream are still niche products in a sense.

What many don't seem to realize (and forgive me for sounding like a condescending knob ) is that these games usually cost a large amount of money to finance and make. The ROI is risky because there's a clear standard that they have to cater to, but yet there has to be a balance between content creation and content in of itself. Simply put, there are much more costs involved with making a game. To sell it cheaply would only be feasible if it was an indie game with a significantly smaller budget.

Truth be told, for those who think it was good in the old days, some systems had games that were +$100. But don't get me wrong, I too would like cheaper games. But if you want a game the scope of say, Skyrim. You better pony up, the margins aren't high. What you also have to account for is that if a game is negatively reviewed within 2-3 months the price gets cut to shreds. There goes millions down the drain.