I spend a lot of time on video game message boards. I constantly read about how games should look better, sound better, be longer, have more characters and features, have the DLC included, ect. I simultaneously see topics implying that they are never willing to pay full price for a game and will always wait until something is on sale. $60? Nonsense. Wait until it's $10. You can't have it both ways; you can't want games to be better and flashier and cost more money to make while refusing to pay the necessary premium.

I'm "guilty" of it, too. I love saving money. The Steam sale is insane and awesome. But I also have no problem paying more when I want more.

Also, yes, I totally realize that not everybody is fortunate enough to drop 60 bucks on a luxury item whenever they want. Totally fair. I'm referring to people who imply that they could afford it, but feel that they don't have to because game X is not worthy of it, or whatever.

I have some sincere sympathy for the dev who doesn't think his game is getting a fair price, and that steam sales for example are subversive to a good business model, even handed to both buyer and seller. Again, I crack up when some poster is way lowering the price point of a game cause he/she just doesn't really want to pay monies.

But hey, it is human nature, including mine, to look for a deal. We have to in life, especially for the luxury items(ie, nice video card), not mentioning the necessities such as toilet paper. I will not pay $725 for that 780 ti, at least not today. Heard a rumor of more memory in the future, and gawd yes, there may be a sale of sorts. Personally I am surprised the sales are really benefiting some devs, but I guess they are. And yes, I do get games on cheap I probably will not play, because Pat or Jeff or somebody liked them and I wondered if I would...can't help that! Right now that is Broken Age and Ultra Business tycoon lll, though I do poorly at adventure games and the other one is deliberately left field, which may well work for me....maybe.

Yeah, this dude is trying to pull some idealist type shit where people only ever get games that are super meaningful and totally worth every penny. A game is a product like anything else, and like any product - consumer demand is going to shape the way it is developed. That includes marketing, pricing, content, etc. To judge those developments as immoral, as opposed to simply manifestations of the market itself, is a little dumb. I get what he's saying, that he doesn't judge McDonald's for selling shitty food, but that he would not want to work there, but he's judging McDonald's as immoral all the same.

It really gets to that question about video games - whether they are art or entertainment - that applies to all forms of media (music, film, television, etc.). Just look at movies, in the 20's they were cheap entertainment, now they can bring people to tears. Same thing is happening with video games now.

Well, on average, they're weaker than men, so in a scenario where the family is in danger, the strongest one should do the protecting. That's common sense, and if people want to turn that into gender politics, that's fine. They're also morons.

@patrickklepek:

I guess the problem I have with the artcle is the lack of critique or analysis of the idea in the text, this isn't some abysmal troglodytic appeal to objective or balanced journalism; more that I think something more in depth would have been better. I realise there could well be a followup, and that this Is how thoughts from duptrucks and interviews are presented but I simply can't reconcile the lack of pushback to such inherently problematic and unsubstantiated ideas.

As others have I could write a massive critique of Rohrer's thoughts but I feel those are pretty self evident. I will just expand on one point that I think rarely comes up when these articles on sales appear.

For all Rohrer presents himself as not being about money his, Iwata's, and others arguments are at least tacitly dependant on the nauseating and mendacious notion that the monetary value of an entertainment/art product and peoples willingness to pay for it in any way relates to its cultural value and/or quality. This notion shows a massive and pretty damming lack of reflection on modern society for someone making the kind of games Rohrer does.

Wait a minute, that card...

Hey hey hey, Not nice. Number one rule on giant bomb is to not be a dick.

I don't think Rohrer is particularly good at articulating his thoughts (listening to him stammer through the interview is painful), but the gist of what he's saying seems about right. Every time I open Steam (which is a rarity, granted) there's always some ridiculous deal going on where games are on sale for up to 90% off. 90%. I don't think it's too much to ask people to consider the implications and future ramifications of these steep, steep discounts could have on future products/releases. When you've sufficiently trained your customers to always wait for a sale due to their frequency, how the hell do you get them to pay for anything more than two dollars and a hand job?

I don't think sales are evil, or bad, or whatever, but I don't think people should dismiss the idea that ultimately, in the long term, the kinds of insane deals that Steam regularly throws around will negatively affect how business is done on that storefront.

Is this a nice joke, or a mean joke. Cause it sure is funny.

I think 99% of you completely misunderstood what Rohrer was saying here...

Dunno where the nope is coming from since nothing you have said is inconsistent with the study's findings.

@starvinggamer is kinda right; I managed to convince myself that Dragon Age 2 was just as good as Origins on release. I was so very, very wrong.

@illuminosopher: Duder, I feel like you kinda don't get it.

I expected people to have strong opinions on this, but nowhere in Rohrer's discussion (here or on his website) does he say the people who engage in sales culture are bad people. He's only pointing out what he perceives as negative consequences. The fact that some folks are taking this so personally is really surprising to me.

@psychohead: Reading your post may have made my day a little better. Thank you.

Man, I REALLY disagree with this guy's arguments of sales being bad for consumers. If he wants to argue that game sales are bad for developers, that's perfectly fine, but his choice of language and the way he disguises his arguments is in bad taste. In fact, his original argument was really about how game sales are bad for developers (despite the name of the blog post). Since his blog post got attention, it seems like he decided to double down on this idea that steam sales are bad for consumers, since that's what people latched onto.

First off, how the fuck does this guy get off telling people that they wasted their money? Or, that they've been tricked into buy games for cheap that they don't intent on playing. He's trying to victimize the consumer in an insulting way.

If you feel cheated because you have 500 games in your steam account and you haven't touched 90% of them, guess who cheated you? Yourself. This dude claims that he's disgusted by the concepts of monetary psychology, that is to say positioning your product to get more sales (the .99 cents vs 1 dollar thing). However, he feels that these methods really work, and that they are evil. To this guy, I'm a mindless cow whose being herded around by steam sales. I'm not actually capable of making my own decisions because when I see a game on sale that I have no intention of playing, I can't help but purchase it anyway.

What a load of bullshit.

Not everyone is a compulsive shopper. Those people do exist, but if it's really a problem, they should seek some sort of help. Some people are addicted to alcohol. That doesn't mean that we ban the substance. Plenty of people do drink responsibly, and don't require somebody doing whats best for them.

At the end of the day, this dude is trying to sell me something. He can throw on the sheep's clothing if he wants to, but I'll always question a person's motive. I have zero issue with him selling a game that will never go on sale. Just don't pretend you know what's best for millions of people you've never even met. Especially if you argument is full of holes. A leaky boat doesn't float for long.

Definitely a more philosophical view on what sales are doing to destroy some games. What I took away from it is that the importance of word of mouth as a way of promoting games doesn't reach people who are waiting for sales as much since their reason for buying the game is because of its low price, rather than from a desire to play it and experience it, and then end up sharing their experience.

I agree with that, but then again, if someone wasn't ever going to buy a game at full price to begin with, then you never access the possibility of a player promoting their game through social means. Ever.

If anything, the negative parts would've come in other forms through the internet and globalization. I have so many games. Soooo many games that even before Steam, largely, popularized their blowout sales (Hey, Black Friday's existed longer than the internet, guys), that my library is just larger than the time I have to play every game.

He's definitely got a point, but I don't think it overrides the positives that sales have given to most creators that've otherwise not seen social or monetary returns.

So one guy making video games on a very small scale has come to the conclusion how sales are hurting the entire industry?

I admire anyone trying to make a living from his passion, but he's not really an economist now is he? Since most of the publishers partake in big sales, that means companies that actually employ economists think it is profitable to sell at big discounts. I know who I'd put my money on. Other companies don't do discounts (Activision/Blizzard) and they are also doing well. So both strategies are valid from a business standpoint.

As for being a problem for gamers: you can't protect people who have more money than sense. That's also a problem that will solve itself for the most part. Firstly because once people see they have hundreds of games they've never even played, they'll stop buying games just because of a big discount. And secondly most people have started noticing they have all the good games that go on big sales already.

I find it fascinating that this interview seems to carry along with this fantasy world in which sales are a new & innovative way of selling something (Oh noes, Steam has come and done something to games by creating heavily advertised sales on a globally accessible store, often without unit limits) and that now we can get statistics on the number of people who buy & then do not consume something that it is taken as a new trend. There has been a major innovation in moving unit prices to almost zero (so the marginal profit on a single sale can stay stable when selling a game for pennies and not pounds) but sales have been with gaming as long as there have been commercial releases.

Well, he is telling people that they should buy games at full price so they can appreciate them more...

I dunno, it kind of feels like he's telling people "you're not responsible enough to know when and where to spend your money, and your games have no value." I disagree with that, I don't think the amount of money I spent on a game makes it more or less valuable to me. I've brushed away games that I spent $60 on (GTA V) and loved games that I spent $12 on (Tomb Raider).

I can see where people might take it personally.

I don't want to be a dick, but this sounds like the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Sales are good.

I disagree with nearly every aspect of his argument, but I've certainly got nothing against him refusing to put his own games on sale. I doubt as many people will buy (or play) the game under that business model, but hey, that's his business.

I, for one, will be buying Castle Doctrine! Not only because the game looks like my brand of crazy but also because Rohrer is absolutely right! People that care enough about your game to be there day one should be rewarded!

i've never even heard of any of this man's games before.

edit: oh wait, i HAVE heard of Diamond Trust. interesting.

Partly, but he's also saying that he doesn't want his game to be an impulse purchase from someone who never played it. Dude wants his game to be more. He wants people who buy his game to buy it because they really want it, not because fuck it, it's cheap. There's nothing wrong with that.

It's about his creation being appreciated. Every creator wants that.

^^ This is what attracted me to the argument in the first place.

As a casual purchaser I used to only spend $60 a year on games, but because of so many good sales I now probably spend $120-$180. I'm putting more money in because I'm getting a lot more out of it, and its exciting that for once I can actually participate in new games before they become irrelevant to everyone.

I can't say for everyone else, but I bought Inside A Star-Filled Sky on sale because I was never gonna buy it otherwise. Sales don't really matter if you have provide enough value, seeing as Minecraft is pretty much the most popular game ever and it had a similar pricing plan.

Edit: to be clear I didn't mean that I didn't want to buy it, just that I never really thought about it and forgot about the game at that point. Sales is a good way to generate publicity after all. I'm glad I bought it because it's neat.

Who is "they"? The Bombcrew has certainly expressed disdain for some specific DLC content, but they don't seem opposed to it in general, in fact go search on YouTube "Jeff Gerstmann DLC on the disk", and listen to what he has to say about it.

The idea of not buying his game because it is "cheap" but instead because someone really wants it seems to forget that when making any kind of entertainment you are trying to win an audience over. Aren't you? If the audience is already 100% on your side that is great why drop the price ever? If you are Disney why ever drop the price of a movie. If you aren't its a lofty goal to aim for.

This is not in any way a pro consumer argument. The only pro consumer claim he made was that if you spend more you will value it more. By that logic lighting all my money on fire would be the most fun I could ever have.

@planetfunksquad: that is so pretentious I can't even take it all in. I only want the right people playing my game. All you cheap yahoos that bought it on sale are not welcomed.

Great article!

Honestly, if no game ever went on sale ever again, my playing habits would absolutely not change. Would my buying habits change? Most definitely, but I don't think it would effect what I actually play one bit. I didn't like Inside A Star Filled Sky very much (not sure what I paid for it) so I'll probably skip The Castle Doctrine, but good on Jason for trying something different. He seems like a cool dude.

@mumrik: I think they're just doing a lot of premium content lately because there aren't a ton of new games coming out right now. I used to actually have the opposite opinion, that they did so much free stuff that premium wasn't really necessary.

I'm just happy that for once I'm seeing someone in the game industry actually doing something that isn't specifically meant to make them more money. It's weird to see a motivation that isn't greed in the business world and I commend him for it.

Artistic integrity motherfather.

So how much does the industry pay you to write this? This goes for all gamez journulists. The video game culture of being so anti consumer is hilarious.

Great, but it's based on a false premise, at least to me. Just because someone pays a lower price doesn't mean they don't appreciate it, it just means they took a chance and possibly bought a game that wasn't for them. I dont understand the logic of not wanting your game to reach as many people as possible.

I really shouldn't. There has always been a societal force demanding that people who only partake as opposed to support a negative trend also be made to feel a degree of responsibility in establishing and continuing it. It's become all the more powerful in the video game industry as of late due to conversations regarding depictions of females, malicious business choices, etc. It carries over to this conversation as well: saying someone's purchasing choices leads to negative consequences makes one perceive it as an accusation of direct responsibility. And no one wants to be told their buying of games at cheaper prices is somehow killing the hobby they love.

I do not need to be babysat. If I want to buy a hundred games on sale and never play them, that's my choice. Enjoy your money, developers. You've earned it.

@relshak: but this guy only wants your money if you build and shrine and worship how amazing he is. If you bought it cheap and don't know anything about it, he does not like that. .....fuck this pissed me off.

I think that rewarding early access-ers works when you're talking about a game that wouldn't otherwise be made or both needs the money AND is being tested. It gives testing that they pay for not you. But when you're talking about a game that's fully released with expectations that it should be done, you pay an inflated price to be the first to see it, and those who want to be able to access it at affordable prices have to wait until often a year or more. When people pay more to see something that's largely incomplete and possibly broken, that's where expectations get confused and the two market ideals mix in unsavory ways. People protect it by saying "You can't judge it because it labels itself as unfinished" but the ones who are upset are those who are used to paying more to buy in early on traditionally sold games.

On the otherhand you have games like minecraft or the castle doctrine here which reward early adopters. Whether that means they can't lower the price for affordability later is up to them, but it seems strange to alienate people who may find it a long time later without having a chance to be an early adopter. I think that line falls where you start selling it however. Expectations about price drops are in the commercial market, not the gaming one specifically and if you're willing to put your game out there early to make money, you have to look at the fact that consumers are paying to test your product, people will expect the game to lower it's price because you're asking for money, you are frontloading sales by putting it on the market before completion, and you have to decide how you'll deal with the price when it's actually completed.

This is to say nothing of the actual consumer side. I have more games than I've played, but the humble sales made it possible for me to start buying games semi consistently. I always vet which ones I keep and give the extras away to people who might not be able to get them. That way even with a somewhat unplayed library, I know that I can have plenty of games to jump into, say nothing of other sources. Not everyone will treat their libraries the same but that's ok. I'm much more happy with people having libraries filled with interesting games that they can try in anytime, games they might not otherwise have noticed or tried. Sure it might not let them get deep into it, but it's a reason for developers to make better intros to their games in this market, and will decide the consumer opinion of those who aren't so deep they would jump for the games at first. After all, people who are curious but cost averse are the ones who might try it, and they probably wouldn't have tried it at all otherwise.

I know some might find it wrong that I wait for sales, and I don't always(Nidhogg is a good recent one). But they got me into really getting games, and supporting people more consistently. When it often drills down to getting games first against cost I find it interesting how the point isn't addressed clearly. Especially when so much sales data points straight at it.

@jz: Thats a pretty reductive way of looking at it. He just doesn't want his game to be disposable.

And that's a valid viewpoint. Jason just looked at all the data that was available to him (which as the creator, not the consumer is very different to whats available to you) and came to a different conclusion. He's not trying to make you feel bad for buying stuff in sales, he's expressing his opinion on why he doesn't want to be involved. It doesn't really matter if you see the logic or not.

That's what I meant by "appreciate them more." And I agree to some extent, but at some point the dollar value attached to a game doesn't necessarily make it worth more on a deeper level. True, if you only buy one game occasionally, then you're probably going to get more out of it, but that doesn't make it a good or great game that you're going to look back on fondly. It just means you spent a lot more time with it.

Besides, I appreciate my bloated Steam library, and I've even found a deep appreciation for some games despite having a hundred or so that I haven't played much of yet. The dollar value of a game doesn't really propel me forward after the first few hours anyway. That's all a little anecdotal, I know, but I just think people are ultimately responsible for their own time and money.

I don't oppose sales in the slightest, but find it extremely idiotic when people say they have X thousand amount of games on Steam because of sales. Like, sure you have the right to purchase any amount of games you want with your hard earned money, but that doesn't make you any less of an idiot. A developer would probably take half the amount of sales, if it can ensure that all those people will actually play their games and become actual fans, as opposed to their game just sitting in your endless library untouched.

Agree with the sentiment but maybe not the presented execution. Steam Sales have become a bit too much of a thing and they probably should ease up a bit, but the only reason they've gotten this big is because gamers have been getting priced out of games. I can't afford to spend 40 - 60 dollars on a game at launch or anytime really and while setting the price at maybe twenty and going up from there sounds good, it stops being so once you realize that it's going to keep people who couldn't afford it when it was cheap from affording it later when it's expensive. There is a problem with the way people get games (it's not a new thing, either) and it is certainly not an easy one to fix. Good on Roher for identifying the problem and presenting an alternative, but it's definitely an issue that needs to be tailored to the service.

@codynewill: I was referring to your love of AdBlock.

Why would someone wish to pay full price for a product they feel to be sub-par?

@ltwood12: AdBlock is great though.

@planetfunksquad: well if he's upset that his game is not getting the respect he thinks it deserves. He should stop making games. Game development is a cruel thankless job, a thousand times more so for indies.

Really, though? Someone would rather have half a paycheque than know there are some people out there who gave them money and didn't play their game? I have yet to be inconvenienced by people giving me money for nothing.

Economic angles aside, maybe look at it this way:

Rohrer is a craftsman. An artist, even. And he's poured himself into this project, an original work which he perceives to have value. He clearly struggles with what amount of value, which I can totally understand. The game he makes is an expression, and he's created it more out of a labor of love than as a means to make a buck, as a job. To assign a dollar amount to that is really, really hard. It's far easier to say what's too cheap than it is to say what's too expensive or just right.

As someone who paints, I completely understand where he's coming from. If I were to somehow gain some sort of presence in the world and have hundreds of thousands of prints made of my works, prints that would sell for, say, a dollar, I'm not sure I'd like it from a philosophical perspective. To have something that I spent years painting suddenly become mass produced and shit out by computers in seconds would cheapen the overall effort. On the other hand, from an economical, build-my-future-and-make-my-parents-proud angle, that's complete bullshit and I'd take the money and run. But I feel like he just doesn't want to become the Thomas Kinkade of painters, and that is totally fine by me.

If Castle Doctrine is good, I'll save up and buy it at full price.