Yeah, screw those people trying to save money and taking advantage of capitalism! What?

About the whole "shame list" theory. I've got 130 games listed in my steam list. I just went over it and didn't find a single thing I wasn't interested in playing to the end.

I have my list organized into a queue. I have every intention of eventually playing all of these.

The real advice here is don't buy a game just because it's cheap. Buy it because you're interested in it (quick looks and similar content are guilty of exposing me to a lot of games that I would have otherwise never looked into and I thank them for that.). I bought several of these while they were on sale but that doesn't mean I ever picked up something I didn't want just because there was a low number on it.

Which is why I just can't agree with this guys thinking at all. The one thing I think does have some ground is the idea that the more you invest into something the more time you're likely to spend with it I've gotten trapped into certain sinkholes by that logic.

Looking at it economically I disagree with his opinion. If more people can play the game at a lower price then that should be the price. The goal of the seller is to maximize the area under the price vs no. of sales curve.

But on the other hand, I see his point of paying less for a game devalues it. I know that some games I have bought on sale I feel very little commitment to playing them, there is much less of a draw to even try them, and once I'm in the game it's harder to become immersed. I bought Alan Wake for $7.50, I know that it is a good game but it's not the type that I would normally get into, since it was so cheap I haven't felt drawn to play it and still haven't touched it. I know for a fact that if I had paid full price for it I would have definitely played it to completion very soon after purchasing. Then again, I'm not sure if I would have paid for it at all if it was still full price.

Oh you silly, robbing your neighbors and sometimes killing them is not the real problematic theme here.

I find his arguement of "People didnt buy my months old game at full price" stupid.

There is a very small hand full of games that still sell at full price months/years after release. Even triple A games hit a sales wall and then fade away. You can't sit there and act like you are some kind of victim of some kind of "industry killing thing" when near the begining you even say you made tons of money from the cheap sales.

There are times I pay full price for a game, example Kentucky Route 0. After seeing the quick look on the site I went and got it. Saddly I havent had the time to play, not because im spending tons of money buying games on steam sales, its because of something called "having a life." Im married and have a job. Sorry I cant take a week off work to spend hours playing Jason Rohrer's game just to make him feel better.

Some one posted earilier about how Rohrer said that people complained about his game when they only played it for 2 hours "not passing the tutoral" if your game has a turotal thats longer than an hour or so that is more of the desginer's fault, not someone who took a chance and bought your game for 2 bucks.

And to tell the truth, I tried couple of his games, and really I don't like them.

Jason Rohrer: pretentious indie game developer, part-time economist.

I think this guy is also underestimating the insane amount of advertising power that you get from being put on the front page of Steam. There are so many games I have bought and enjoyed, that I would never have known existed, simply because they ended up being pulled to the front page of Steam by a sale.

If I'm reasonable interested in the title, and it's $10 or below, then yeah, I pick it up. Somehow, I still don't own Dark Souls though :p

I don't think that is what he is arguing at all. He even states many times in the article that sales greatly boost the profits of his and his peers games. His argument against sales are for his games qualitative value to his customers. He wants people to value his games, to appreciate his games and enjoy them to their fullest extent, even if it costs him at the end, which I think he has a good point.

It's a strange situation, you can look at it purely quantitatively and say that, absolutely, sales are good for games. But games are more than just products, they're entertainment that have an emotional value as well. If you look at it on that level, I agree with him that a lower price can diminish the emotional attachment and thus the value a game has.

This is my first comment on Giantbomb so go easy on me.

It seems like a lot of folks gloss over one of the points Rohrer is making. He and fellow developers benefit from steam sales monetarily, which can help the developer make more games and keep them in business. However, it seems that Rohrer not only would like money (obviously) but equally values people playing his game. I believe what he wants are people to both buy his games and play his games. As he looked at the reviews of his games from players he sees that many people aren't putting time in his games before the gamer decides to quit.

A game bought cheaply can lead a player to say to themself; "I bought this game I never would have bought anyway so the developer should be happy that they get this found money from me".

What Rohrer wants is for the player to both buy his game and play his game a lot. What he is seeing is a trend that games bought cheaply might be causing people to stop playing or never play his game.

Not sure how much that is true, but I think it is a definitely an interesting point to make.

Maybe if we eliminate sales and force people to pay $60 for games that are decades old Gamestop can finally start paying more for those trade-ins. In this crazy future where video games never lose value I want at least $45 cash for trading in my copy of Super Mario Bros & Duckhunt on the NES! Come to think of it, that's two games in one... now I want $90! Welcome to the future!

I bought Dark Souls for $5 in a Steam sale. It's one of my favorite games ever and I'm gonna buy Dark Souls 2 on day 1. Never would have tried that game otherwise. Steam sales are bad... huh...

I think where that perspective annoys me is that it assumes that, if someone buys his game and doesn't play it immediately or even within the year, something bad has happened. I do that occasionally. I buy things I normally wouldn't buy on sale, and then don't play them for awhile. But it's not because I'm tricked, and I don't need him to nanny my spending habits. I buy those games because, being outside my usual interest zones, it's not a good investment at full price. Because, again, outside usual interest zones, it might take me awhile to be in the proper mood to try it. When I try it, I may quickly decide I don't like it - it happens. But if it was like 3 bucks, who cares? And whether I liked it or not, either way I've broadened my horizons.

He doesn't like that people buy his game and than don't play it, or don't play it much, but I don't think people need to be saved from their own buying habits, in this case. It really isn't super manipulative, and it's really their own business. He's offering a product, and shouldn't dictate how people use it (or don't).

I have to disagree, I think you have the cause and effect backwards. People don't want to play a game more because it was more expensive. They are willing to pay more if they really want to play it. I think feeling compelled to play a game more because it was expensive doesn't create any artistic value. Would Brad have a worse experience with Brothers if he bought it when it was on sale for $5, I doubt it.

Physical games start going down in price pretty quickly if they're not halo/call of duty, and I knew a lot of people who always waited until it was cheaper to buy physical games -- I don't see how this is much different. People are basically waiting to buy until it's worth what they think it's worth. Just because it's digital doesn't mean it should stay the same price forever.

Man, independent development of any product needs to be less neurotic about making money. The whole "money shame" thing has plagued the "indie scene" for far too long.

Anyway, i fail to understand his perspective of "marketing tricks" as he fails to see his solution of, "buy now for 50% off because it will NEVER BE THIS CHEAP AGAIN!" as it's own form of marketing trick.

By using Rohrer's own logic, neither marketing plan is more unhealthy than the other one. If the developer can make a living with or without sales, because they clearly if you look at his own data, than neither is superior to the other. If you never go on sale you'll have users like me who are disgruntled that there is never a sale. If you do go on sale, you'll have users that are disgruntled like the kid who wrote to Rohrer. There will always be disgruntled users over your business model, but if the model works, you're more than welcome to use it.

@tmthomsen: That's the point. He sees Humble/Steam sales as hurting the early adopters that buy at full price.

@nycnewyork: He doesn't ignore price elasticity, it's actually the crux of his argument. But his conclusion is that those additional people who will buy the game at the lower price point are less likely to enjoy the game, evangelize the game, or even play it, which in a way is bad for everyone. Despite myself being the exact person he's talking about - I have over 200 unplayed games on steam and a wishlist of 50 games waiting on sales - I see his point.

cases exactly like your's are why sales are good for players

everything has its risk/reward,

stuff like R.I.P.D could have gone on sale, and people would buy it, but i dont think anyone will buy a R.I.P.D 2

I can't believe I was dumb enough to buy Sleep Is Death at full price when it came out. Hell, I even pre-ordered it because it seemed like a great idea at the time (rapid-improv storytelling with custom sprites and stuff). I played it for about an hour with a friend - it came as a 2-pack because of the nature of the game - and neither of us played it ever again, be it because we lacked creativity or originality, or because it was a great idea that was poorly executed. It's been about 4 years, I'm not confident on commenting on it in its current state, whatever that may be. Guess I'm part of his problem.

Say what I will about those games I got on Steam sales I may never play, but at least I will eventually get my enjoyment out of them. How many people are still playing Sleep is Death now? Guarantee if you go online and try to find a lobby, you'll find your own reflection faster.

As someone who studied econ, I find it offensive to put "Jason Rohrer" and "economist", even "part-time", in the same sentence.

Exactly. But even on that initial purchase of RIPD, the sale isn't to blame; the consumer is. The games industry in particular has so many resources for game reviews/coverage, be it official websites or YouTube/Twitch users that it is super easy to educate oneself about a given game before he/she buys it. You could sell any game on steam for $0.99, but if it has like a 10 on Metacritic (assuming someone only checks the Metascore for games) as opposed to a $20 game with a 90, I would think that person would either buy the $20 game or simply not make a purchase at all. Sales don't lead to drops in game quality; only consumers' dollar votes can do that. If people buy bad games without thinking about it, which I don't believe most do, that's what will hurt the qualities of future games, if anything.

I don't see the difference between:

- Not playing a game because one doesn't have it (not enough money, access to hardware, whatever)

- Not playing a game because they don't want too (they own it, installed, but never launched)

Suggesting there is an issue with sales because it promotes bad behavior supposes that they would have played it under another circumstance and I don't see evidence of that anywhere. Basically if one is never going to play a game, what does matter if they own or not?

Considering that he makes games that take a while to "click" with the player, this seems to be the worst strategy for pricing his games. In a long-burn game, it's going to take a while for the game to really grab the early adopters, then longer still for word of mouth from them to reach new players. But then anyone curious about trying the title is then looking at a full price tag with no possibility of future sales. I bet that will scare off a large amount of those who otherwise would be curious enough from word of mouth to try the game.

Look at the Souls series, the poster child for requiring patience from players in order for them to fully appreciate the game. When Demon's Soul first released in NA, no one knew about the game. Slowly but surely word of mouth grew and grew. Then Dark Souls became a regular on Steam sales and the audience grew and grew further. Now there are tons of people foaming at the mouth for Dark Souls 2. If Dark Souls released for half price then said it was going to be full price forever after, there would have been nowhere near the same audience growth. Sure maybe some just let it sit in their Steam library, but there are others who really get into their new purchase. Just look at how the Souls games have gotten their claws into the GB crew, long after release.

@lategordon: What I don't like about this piece is that he takes some really superficial data to imply a lot of conclusions about the state of gaming and gamers. People who play PC games are a really heterogeneous bunch of people, and the motivations behind their behaviour cannot be extrapolated simply from the sales and playing time graphs. If it were that simple, marketing, game design and economy would be pure sciences.
You can only make hypothesis about the single game, and only in relation to the single history of its pulòic exposure and collateral events.
From my chair and my little knowledge I can make some hypothesis that totally oppose his ones (some were already made in this thread).

First of all, maybe the peaks in revenue during Steam sales were due to the "wating for a sale" mindset but maybe it was caused by a misplaced initial price or a surge in exposure given by the sale itself, or it could be all of the above (this is where i stand). The same could be said about the play times, maybe some didn't give the game enough credit due to the price, but it also may be caused by people simply not liking the game, for design reasons or simply because there were people who gave it a shot to try something different only because of the sale and that would have never played it otherwise.

This was my first post too, and sorry for my bad English, it's not my native language

The thing that astounds me is the type of person, mentioned in his piece, that would email a developer complaining about missing a sale on a game and then wanting a refund of the amount. That just boggles my mind. It seems so selfish to me to complain after the fact. You missed a sale? That's life. A grocery store won't give you that awesome deal on hamburger if you bought it at 3 dollars a pound and it was 1.99 just a week after. You missed out. I guess I don't see much difference between a pair of shoes at an outlet store, a food item or games.

When I buy a game, I know what I am willing to pay for it pretty much right away. If I spend 10 dollars on a game, only to see it go on sale for 5 dollars in the next week, I shrug my shoulders and move on. I understand that money is tight for some people, but if you only have 12 dollars to your name, then spend it on something other than a game or save it. If I had barely anything in my bank account, I would stop spending money and wait until I had the income to where a few dollars difference in a product didn't kill me financially. I can spend money on games now because I have that disposable income. I'm not choosing between rent, heating oil and food. I love games, but many other things win out when strapped for cash.

As a fan of games, I tend to buy what I like for the regular price. I only tend to wait for things I am unsure about. Never putting those types of games on sale would mean that I would most likely never purchase them. Then the publisher would get nothing from me, instead of something. Also, games that go on sale which I buy to try out have also made me a fan of the game creators themselves. Then I am more likely to buy their next game for full price. Again, if I never get a taste of the game through some sort of sale, I would never try their next game either.

An example I use is something like Amnesia: The Dark Descent. I would never have bought that game full price when it first came out. Then I started hearing this incredible word of mouth and I wanted to try it. I ended up buying it during a Steam sale for half price, I believe. Love the game. Love it. Ended up buying the Penumbra games on Steam, and Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs. It was the same thing with BioShock. I bought the first one discounted, then I ended up buying the second game for full price, the combo pack for full price, and the Collector's Edition of Infinite for full price. If I try a game and love it I will give my money above and beyond to that publisher in the future. I think that is an important thing to consider too when talking about sales.

Right, but that concept is just pure speculation on his part based on nothing and actually contradicted by a few people's personal experiences in this thread. Consider the recent explosion of Dark Souls. It was a beloved niche game that was huge for a small number of people and kind of ridiculed by the masses. Then came the Steam holiday sale where it was like $7.50, so the skeptics gave it a go and now it's become a wide-spread hit and I'm sure tons of it's fans (who bought it at a discount) are going to pay full price the day Dark Souls 2 comes out.

That's good for everyone, and it may not have happened without a lowered price.

Well ... I payed for terraria 2.49 , the cheapest game I have bought , acording to him I would plain ignore it and not give it a chance. My steam says I played it for 71 hours already

Is the first time I hev bought that type of games , so it was unkown territory for me , so if I didnt like it I wouldnt heve lost a lot of money (even more so now that I cant have 15-60 bucks each month for videogames expenditutre). If sales stop Im gonna be pretty mad at this man >:(

I agree with him. I mean, two years ago I could have bought anything on steam's front page and knowen it was at least playable. Today I cant even get that garentee. not even from full, not Early Access games. This microtransaction game crap is just turning gaming into crap.

Who said that long tutorials were a bad thing? Resonance of Fate frontloads the hell out of its tutorials, and it systems are harder to understand because of it. If you have complex systems to deal with, then it makes sense to show the player bits and pieces of the game over a long period of time rather than getting it all out of the way as fast as possible.

Hard to believe you figured this whole internet thing out yourself. Bunch of idiots trying to save money, I tell ya...

@somejerk: There is also value in being able to afford rent and food by waiting for a game is on sale so you can actually afford it. I used to have allot of disposable income, and then I moved out of my parents house and quickly realized that being frugal helps you pay the bills.

Do I think a game like Bioshock Infinite is worth 50 bucks? Yes I do but I can sure as hell tell you that I cant afford to spend 50 bucks every time a big game is released. I cant even afford to to purchase 1 indie game a week without hurting my food budget, so I set aside a small amount of money every week and wait for a sale to get the things I want because I dont need video games to live but I do need food, shelter and the ability to pay off my student loans lets I be in debt forever.

I don't share his sentiments about a jillion people buying games during a sale and never playing. I'd prefer a small following of dedicated people. It'd allow me to make less compromises for the sake of appealing to a larger audience... or perhaps making less compromises leads to a smaller audience... whatever. Now, if I could get big profits while appealing to a small audience, that's better for the both of us.

Long tutorials result in a large barrier to entry, as well as typically being tedious and dull. Some games do tutorials really well, but many don't. The reason long tutorials are typically (not always of course) bad is that many people don't have a lot of time to play games and having to trudge through an overly long tutorial will cause them to give up and move on to one of the millions of other games that may get to the point more quickly and allow them to get to the heart of the game more quickly.

I do not feel his argument is strong enough to warrant press. Is any indy developer who wants to raise a petty grievance entitled to an article?

Such a greedy bullshit argument.

Never paying a cent for anything he works on.

You're so right.

Does he not know one of the reasons why the Steam sales are good is the fact people see the game on the frontpage and remember that game EXIST on the store. Look at Kingdom of Amular or ClaDun X2 on Steam, both games have been on sale maybe TWICE in the entire two or so years they been on the store. You almost never see anyone buying them because they been full price for years. Making your game never have sales might be a bold statement, especially if it popular, but if it not then it just going to be forgotten.

Same here.

I can't agree with this. There are a lot of games I'm interested in. But just because I'm interested doesn't mean I'm gonna pay 50, or 20 or 15 bucks. Depends how much I'm acutally interested.

I never really cared for The Witcher I, so naturally I didn't buy it. At some point I bought it during a steam sale cause I wanted to try a new RPG. Now the game is one of my favourite games of this generation and I bought Witcher 2 at launch (and Witcher 1 again as a Retail product).

So, no, I don't agree with him. At all

Steam profiles list the time someone has spent playing a game, and Rohrer noticed a crucial detail with players who didn't like Inside a Star-filled Sky: they weren't spending much time with it.

Well....of course they aren't. Why would they if they don't enjoy it? This aren't the NES times anymore when you were stuck with a game you bought cause you couldn't afford a different one.

What an absolutely fascinating article. Nice work, Patrick.

I could probably rant on all day on this subject but I'll try to be brief.

I think Mr Rohrer raises a lot of very valid arguments, and I have a lot of respect for the decisions he's making, but there seems to be what I can only describe as a kind of megalomaniacal thought process going on with his attitudes towards games buying / playing, and I just don't believe that works in the modern gaming world.

There are simply too many games to get absolutely 100% out of everything we might want to play. It makes gaming a far more short-lived and fickle thing than it ever has been, for me anyway. Price doesn't enter into it at this point. If it did, there'd just be too many expensive games instead.

It reads to me as though he's trying to say that we should stop trying to play everything, in order for us to have the time to give games the credit they deserve, to which I would say 'fuck that, what are these other 5 new games that got released this week?'

If a game grabs me, it grabs me regardless of price.

I'm in total agreement that a player could potentially give a game less of chance, the less he / she has spent on it (allthough I could provide strong anecdotal evidence for both sides of that argument), but some chance at a player picking up your game is always better than no chance at all, if they're on the fence and feel they missed their chance at getting the game a price they were more prepared to pay.

It seems this developer doesn't want on-the-fence customers, and it takes some serious balls to price your game like this and effectively say 'only serious players need apply' - I dont like that attitude, personally.

<deep breath> I need to stop...

I don't think that's exactly his argument. He isn't talking about people NOT playing his game. He's specifically commenting that the people who bought his game on sale, and spent very little time on it, rated it poorly. He then notes that people who paid MORE for the game spent more time with it and thus gave it a higher review.

I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but he's drawing parallels between 'spend more money = spend more time = fully understand the game' as opposed to 'spend 3 bucks = spend 30 minutes = this game is trash'.

The mentality he's fighting against it games being priced lower and thus being treated as throw away affairs. It reminds me of a story I heard when I was a bartender. A man was tasked with importing and marketing a vodka to the American market. Pricing the vodka lower in order to have the broadest access and appeal wasn't working. Sales were going anywhere and the vodka was considered inferior in quality. The man's solution? Rebranding and repricing. He massively raised the price of the vodka and marketed it as high quality. The result? Sales increased because the vodka was considered a high class liquor. But it was the same drink in the bottle.

I'm not saying that bad games will be reviewed better or appreciated more if they have a higher price tag; we've seen our fair share of bad games at full price. But he is drawing a correllation between how players view the money they spend on a game versus the perception of quality they have before they even go into the game. I've done that myself. There are times were I go into a 60 dollar game and feel as if the product wasn't up to snuff. But there are also times were I've paid bargain bin prices for a game and felt it was worth much much more.

Would I have felt the same way if I bought the game at full retail price? I couldn't say. But there is some expectation of quality/enjoyment associated with how much you pay for a game. And I think that's the point Rohrer's driving at.

More research (developers, publishers, and (r)etailers) is needed for this article to be of much use. Right now we just have one dude and his assumptions. Plus, one man not wanting the money of others because he questions their purchasing habits (despite knowing next to nothing about their habits) is hardly worthy of a story, IMO.

@davidwitten22:

Doesn't that malign complexity and coerce developers into making simpler, more visceral (for lack of a better word) games? That would probably eliminate the only two games I've beaten for the PS3 (MGS4 and Valkyria Chronicles).

And something has just now come to mind: the guy in the article whose name I am far too lazy to look up feels sorry for people who pay more because they bought just before a sale. What about the inverse, though? What's his opinion on somebody who just now found out about this game and has to pay a higher price because they were a day late?

But late adopters who may not have heard about the game until well after it releases can go fuck themselves I guess?

In the end someone is still going to end up getting the short stick. I ain't sure why hearing about something first makes someone any more worthy of a discount.

Though I sorta get where the guy's coming from, I really don't agree with any of his conclusions or assumptions.

@video_game_king: Probably does! As long as the tutorial (or however the game explains its mechanics to you) is fun and interesting its not an issue though. It's only an issue if the developer can't find a way to introduce the mechanics and the fundamentals in a way that is entertaining.