Buying now or later

I don't understand the philosophy of asking to buy a game now or later. The initial success of a game can dictate the size of a development team and/or spawn new projects, especially smaller titles. If you wanted something to succeed, wouldn't supporting it in it's release window validate the game rather than wait for it to fail and pick it up for less? Ultimately dooming any inspired forms of creativity and innovation. I just wanted to know what others think.

I don't think consumers would or should necessarily even consider any of these hypotheticals. If it's coming down to value for your dollars it just depends on whether or not there's a major draw for you as a consumer to get whatever the new hotness is or if you're satisfied with the much cheaper alternative of buying all your games used after a year or two from their release date. Games that have a large multiplayer component have the advantage in the market of possibly being much less compelling after the initial release whereas in pure value terms there's no reason not to play used single player game from a few years ago.

I understand the concept that you are putting forward, and on a philosophical level I completely agree with you. What is also of mention however is that a lot of people don't have disposable income they can throw around, so day-one purchases for them have priorities that need to be met to make their investment individually fruitful.

Also of note is that a lot of people will buy a game and finish it before they move on to something else, and balancing which purchase to make and when in regard with what they are currently looking for is a topic of debate. Personally, if there is something I have been looking forward to a lot and I know I plan to buy it, it usually gets scooped up on release day. This has lead to me dropping my current game in progress to taste something new that I have been looking forward to, and in rhetrospect, a lot of unfinished titles sitting on my shelf as the cycle continues.

I like to support certain developers and their products the way you have put forward, and agree with that train of thought. That being said, I know what I want, when I want it, and typically don't engage in discussions of "when to buy" something. Economic factors aside, other people are very different from me and hence view things through a different scope.

you're a consumer. just buy what you want, when you want it.

a single extra purchase at the release window will not influence anything, so unless you organize alot of support and get people to buy the game, you'r enot going to make a difference. if you're gathering enough support to make a difference then you might as well be on their payroll.

the success or failure of a new game is not your responsibility. your only responsibility is to be a smart consumer. buy things that are consumer friendly. avoid ripoff day one DLC's. stuff like that. you shouldnt feel an obligation to buy a game to support a new game mechanic you find interesting. even if the game fails hard that innovative game mechanic will be salvaged from the wreckage of the failed game. its happened before, and it'll happen again.

don't stress about it. if you want to wait to get something, do so. as long as you don't buy it used then the developers will get a cut.

Buying a game new close to release is very much a rare occasion for me. I don't have the disposable income to be spending $60 on games frequently. Skyrim was the last game I bought day one, I think. I'm very much a bargain-bin "what-can-I-buy-for-$20?" gamer.

At least for me it is because I want to play the game now and the extra price is worth me not waiting

I understand where you're coming from, because that's what I used to do. Then something kept on happening over and over again. I'd buy a new game at release at full price, but I wouldn't be able to get to it for a long time due to other games and other interests. By the time I would get to some games, they would already be marked down significantly. I was just better off buying games either when they had already dropped in price or whenever I actually had time to play them. If it's a game I've been anticipating, I will buy it during it's release window and play it right away.

When consumers starting "buying later" publishers decided to start enforcing $DLC to punish late adopters. This has massively backfired as gamers just wait longer now for Game of the Year bundles.

@cannonballBAM said:

I don't understand the philosophy of asking to buy a game now or later. The initial success of a game can dictate the size of a development team and/or spawn new projects, especially smaller titles. If you wanted something to succeed, wouldn't supporting it in it's release window validate the game rather than wait for it to fail and pick it up for less? Ultimately dooming any inspired forms of creativity and innovation. I just wanted to know what others think.

But how else do consumers effectively indicate what they're willing to pay? I can't comment on the console market, but in several interviews, Valve and a few indies have talked about how selling games at lower price points has resulted in them earning more total revenue than at full price during the game's release window. There at least a few people in the industry suggesting that it's possible to be just as, or even more successful at something other than the typical $60 price point, even for AAA games.

It's a been a problem in the industry for a long time that they focus on short term sales far too much. That's changing in the PC industry, with at least small devs realizing that ongoing support of existing titles and lower prices ultimately pay dividends - though big publishers still don't get it. If it's crippling creativity and innovation - I see that as a publisher issue, not a consumer issue. In other words, why do consumers need to compensate for bad publisher behavior instead of the publisher adapting to consumer behavior?

Publishers need to look at games getting picked up at the $40-30 price points, and realistically consider whether it makes sense to release certain games there initially. The only what that happens is if they see people buying the game at those prices. Consumers win and the publishers win if they end up selling more games at those price points.

Like I said though, this is all based on small piece of info gleaned from articles about the PC market; may be meaningless for console market. And I probably don't have much business speculating given than I'm not in the business (armchair industry analysts annoy the crap out of me, yet here I am doing it myself, argh!), but hey for whatever it's worth there's my 2 cents

I don’t like sequels so I make it my mission to only buy games once that the developer works on a new ip. or is bankrupt. (I may be exaggerating a bit here).

I sorta feel bad for not buying Syndicate when it came out because I thought it looked fun and I really liked the MP demo they put out. Just at the time didn't feel it was a wise purchase - then I saw that it sold less than Azuras Wrath, which isn't even a game per-se, and that was kind of a shitty feeling cause those guys that worked on Syndicate are a quality developer and they deserved better.

I've kind of started buying games new, but only for games that don't sell a lot. For example, I'm sure Diablo 3 and Max Payne 3 will do just fine without me buying it. On the other hand, I bought Rayman Origins at full price shortly after it came out because it seems like it could use the support.

Nonetheless, buying at full launch price isn't something I can do consistently, and it's still a pretty rare thing for me to do. I don't buy used, but I usually wait a few months for a price drop.

I think with the emergent success and popularity of indie games, the assumption that every new game is worth $60 has been completely thrown out the window. Couple that with the fact that most new games can be had for massive discounts within a few months of coming out and are usually less than half price within 6 months of release, why wouldn't you wait. This isn't a problem that the consumer created and if this is the metric that publishers use to determine success, maybe they need to change how they look at things.

Prototype 2 is already $39.99

Final Fantasy XIII-2 was 50% off within a month of it's release, and some places are still selling it for $29.99, I bought this game the day it came out full price and it's still sitting wrapped on my shelf, I wish I had waited, but it's not a big deal.

Always be buying later.

@cannonballBAM: I buy a game based on it's quality, my available free time, and my budget. It's up to the devs and publishers to make an awesome game and come up with a reasonable publishing and marketing strategy. Anything else is franking a little bit crazy. If they can't survive on the quality of their product, good riddance.

You know that only way for consumers to influence publishers is how they choose to spend their money right?

That and online petitions.

Not everyone has the chance to drop 60 dollars in every game he wants to play.

@Humanity: Yeah I felt the same way since I didn't want to use Origin after all the backstabbing that went around Valve with that one. I love Starbreeze and just got it on the 360.

I only buy day one when I've convinced that I'll love it.... I don't have enough money get everything I'd like to support.

I think you should buy Dead Space 2 now if you haven't yet, rather than later. :D Ha ha.

@NTM said:

I think you should buy Dead Space 2 now if you haven't yet, rather than later. :D Ha ha.

That game was great, joking aside.

It would certainly be nice if the success of a game wasn't determined by how many copies it moved in the first month or so. I mean, it's the strongest statement of support for a game to buy it at full price near release day, but sometimes I feel silly buying a game on release, only for it to drop to half price 2-3 months later.

I think games cost to much. I'm not whining, I do not buy games at $60, ever. Most entertainment is overpriced, in my opinion, and is not worth the money (no cable, no sports, never bought a DVD, very rarely buy or listen to music, don't read books, etc). I'm not afraid of spending money, I immediately paid for my GB subscription, and would have paid double the price easily, and I buy books and rent movies for my kids.

That means I currently enjoy subsidized entertainment, since the price I buy games at would never support $10 million+ budgets. You know what? I've noticed no connection between entertainment value and development cost. Persona 4 was WAY more entertaining than Final Fantasy 13. Minecraft and Peggle have taken more hours from me than all the Halos and Modern Warefares combined (I did play a lot of Medal of Honor and Call of Duty 1). I loved Bayonetta, and I bet it cost a lot less than Arkham City, which I sold back after a couple of hours.

So I don't feel responsible if publishers/developers go out of business because of low return on investment. I am not demanding higher budgets.

Oh, do I have to mention that I don't pirate entertainment either? I think that is the subtext of a lot of these discussions, price does not trigger "do not buy," it triggers "steal." Whatever, I just don't find most stuff entertaining.

I agree, OP, but money is an issue here. Most people raise quite an eyebrow at just one $60 game a month.

I have bought way too many games day 1 and then had them sitting in the wrapping in my shelf for a year or so. I'll just buy a game whenever I want to play it.

If you want a game badly enough, you won't wait to buy it. If you're willing to wait until it lands in a bargain bin, or buy it on discount a few months from now, that's a failing of the people making and marketing it, not you.

Make a game enough people want badly enough to buy it day one, and you're set. This is business, not a charity drive.

I don't buy games based on wanting to support developers - that's why I don't pirate them. I make a value proposition, and decide if it's worth it. I bought Fez, because it looked good, and like a game worth the money they were asking. Same with Minecraft. Same with Trenched. I thought Asura's Wrath looked interesting, but not worth the $60 they were charging for it ($67 really), so I didn't run out and buy it. I wish the developers of that game the best, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be a shmuck and overpay for an experience I don't think is worth the money they are asking.