The sites, like simplyCDkeys (I used for BF4) will probably force the price down in the more expensive markets.
I didn't have the Russian language problem, I know someone who did however.
Printable View
The sites, like simplyCDkeys (I used for BF4) will probably force the price down in the more expensive markets.
I didn't have the Russian language problem, I know someone who did however.
Because a product has to reflect the cost of living in the area you're selling it in. The cost of many products is vastly different in eastern countries compared to here. The same system applies to digital media - you cost it relative to your audience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
This is *nothing* to do with the cost of *physical* media. It's economics, not distribution.
Release dates: Marketing and tie-in deals. That new Mario Brothers game - millions in marketing costs. Those new toys that tie in with the release of the game at McDonalds? In production 6 months ago, ready to fit into the marketing slot they just paid a fortune for.
The world doesn't work around games, and release dates are often dictated by other factors.
Random fact: A certain, large digital distribution company (you can figure it out ;)) I was working with a few years ago told us what dates we couldn't have. The reason? Server overloading / issues when distributing. They also didn't like to release more than one 'big' title on the same day for this, and marketing space within the software reasons.
Yes, they can. That's capitalism for you. You can't work in a job and a society that's capitalist in nature, and then complain about the games industry doing the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
You're complaining about the system, not games.
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
The problem is that many of the games you're talking about are developed in the higher income areas (namely, the west). If you then strip that income away when it comes to the sales of the item, you end up with a system that has significantly less money in it and in some cases, it becomes unsustainable. This is *bad* for development.
Take a mobile game at $2.99.
In the US, the lowest minimum (non-tipped) wage is in Georgia at $5.15 an hour. That's not even an hour of work to buy it.
In India, it's "Varied from 118 rupees ($2.18) per day in Bihar to 185 rupees ($3.40) per day in Haryana" (Wikipedia). This means you could work an entire day, and you still would not be able to buy it.
Now extrapolate those figures to your yearly amounts. Do you still market the game at $2.99 in India?
No. You reduce to cost to suit the wage there. Income from there is better than no income. This does not mean you're being ripped off, this means that the company can get a higher return from its product and continue development by utilizing multiple territories.
Do you know what would happen if you dropped the cost to that of India?
You'd have no game. It wouldn't exist. Not until we can use labour in cheap counties to make games of the same quality, anyway.
See above - market forces can only dictate price to the point of it being sustainable, if you want new products. If a company can't make their development cost back (and a profit), the market can't dictate the price, as the product would not longer exist to dictate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
My word. This is nothing to do with the physical media model. In fact - post some evidence please. If you're so sure on this, show me evidence that this is related to physical media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
"Big business"?! Again - What?!
Steam made an estimated $1 billion in revenues in 2010. One. Billion. Dollars.
Go and look up the financial data for the older physical publishers, even at their prime (I'll give you a hint - it's pitiful in comparison).
"Big Business" is big for a reason - they're getting sales ;)
I'm sorry Corky, but that is absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
The business model is the best it's ever been.
Games sales have smashed music sales.
They smashed film sales.
They were getting close to smashing both combined - I've no idea if they have or not.
Games are the highest revenue generating area in the entertainment sector.
PC games sales have been increasing year on year.
PC game sales have overtaken consoles: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasoneva...keep-fighting/
And you are claiming this business model no longer works? :eek:
It's been done. It doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
If you don't sell it there legally, someone will sell it illegally. If you sell it legally, then it has to be a at a price point that is suitable for that market.
This is tried and tested. It's been done for years in many areas of the entertainment industry.
As for the consequences.....mmmm.....yeah, good luck with that in those regions. The US has been putting a lot of pressure on some countries, but it's had very limited success.
In an ideal world, yes. Everyone should have fair lives. But this doesn't really help people trying to sell their games now, does it? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
I was replying (and quoted) the "I'm usually happy enough to wait a few years if necessary for games I may be interested in to be on sale at a much lower price anyway".
If you can't afford a product, you wait for it to drop to an affordable point, or you don't buy it. The other options are illegal, of course. I'm not sure what there is to disagree with there.
Funny that because i thought a product had to reflect the costs involved in making it, why bother selling it in a country if you are going to be losing money ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
In exceptional circumstance, the norm is that there is no tie-in deals, toys being made 6 months before, etc, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
But it's OK for them to complain about it when the public uses that same system against them ? Or for them to manipulate the market to their advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
And that is my problem how ? You don't hear people in markets saying "oh best not buy those cheap ones, because it may become unsustainable, or it's bad for the producer."Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
You want evidence for what is a well known fact, that publishers charge different prices based on were they are selling a game, even when that game has no physical media ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
Those have nothing to do with the business model, those are sales numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
So you are saying it's OK to sell your product at a loss to stop people from pirating it ? Except it doesn't stop people pirating it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
I wish all business had the same view on theft.
And that is my problem how ? We live in a capitalist economy, the strong survive the weak perish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
According to which law? There's no relation in the slightest for most products - you can buy the same product under a value label as you can under a branded one and pay more for example. See just about anything from Apple or B&O for tech equivalents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
All sorts of reasons, from brand awareness, to providing more wordwide buzz or even simply more players in the world that your premium customers can play with for multiplayer. But in this case it's more likely that getting some money is still better than getting no money, provided your costs were first met by other buyers.Quote:
why bother selling it in a country if you are going to be losing money ?
So not the same product then. If you are selling product under a "value label" you have changed the product, the actual item may not have changed, but the labeling has, the advertising has, R&D costs, and probably many other things have changed to enable you to offer it at a lower price.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Selling the a product at a higher cost isn't going to mean no sales.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Subsidising one market with higher cost in another is a broken business model, when the market paying higher prices is able to acquire access to the cheaper market you are forced into a situation where you either have to lower of raise prices. It's exactly what is happening as stated in the article, people are buying more products from the cheaper market.
I have started making my own value judgements on games and reviews, I might take it a step further when reviewing games I like on Steam by posting how much I think the game is worth, but if I read a review and decide that a game is worth say £10 then I will wait to find it at £10 or not buy it at all. If I saw it for £12 I might decide to pay the extra but I wouldn't stretch to £15 even if the original was £39.99. If more of us made decisions on that basis then publishers would be forced to look at their business models or they will start to lose money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
If I can't find the game I want at the price I want to pay in the usual channels then I will look at those cheaper markets and buy from them. I think the only pre-orders I will get from now will be those that I have acquired through free offers or giveaway promotions, seeing as I have about 4 or 5 pre-order titles that have gone well beyond release and I have still yet to play them.
Since when?Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
The markup on certain products in the tech industry is sky high. For example, look at the BOM cost of the iPhone with the most flash memory and compare it to its sale price.
Two things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
I've already covered that point more than once now - some money is better than no money. Brand awareness. Capturing that market segment. Marketing deals locally.
Angry Birds was free - how much in merchandise was made worldwide? About 30% of Rovios income in 2012, although you can find higher figures the year after: http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/07/an...nt-of-revenue/
You're not losing money. Distributing a game digitally is easy, as long as you have the legalities in place. It's effectively 'free' money once you minus the costs. Most game business models from games developed in the west, only really target the west and certain, limited eastern counties.
Take COD for example: http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/18/582...y-online-china
One of the biggest games in the west, yet is very difficult to sell in China. As a result, you don't factor in the sales from China in your marketing forecasts as they will be so low, it's pointless.
Just think about that for a second. A population of ~1.3 Billion and you can't factor in sales from there as the culture is so different.
This concept applies to a *huge* amount of western made games. As a result, the only sensible thing you can do to keep brand identity, merchandise sales, and gain *some* income is to release it legally there at a suitable price point.
If you don't, the people that want it will obtain it illegally.
Yet you're totally ignoring marketing, which is one of the biggest reasons for different release dates. Also, different release dates are rarely on smaller titles, only some (and even then, limited) triple A titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
And what about localisation? Translation and QA for each region is expensive.
Validation? Different regions have different legal issues. PEGI certification vs local version for example.
Of course they can complain, in the same way you are. However, you're justification is mostly that you want it cheaper - fair enough. Their justification is that things like this *really* hurt development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
You like games right? The ones that you'll buy on the cheap from regions that will barely make a return for the company?Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
You'd like to keep playing those games, right?
Then understand the development costs, cycles and why price differentiation happens. At the moment you're staying largely ignorant to it and trying to argue a single point: You want it cheaper, so screw all of the other factors.
That's all well and good, but if the quality of these games was to start dropping as a result, you'd then complain about that.
If everything became F2P and you paid by the level / weapon, you'd complain about that.
Ermm, yes you do. Quite often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Take the fishing industry - over the last decade the sales of sustainable fish has rocketed. Supermarkets, shops and restaurants make a big deal of it, and for good reason.
Games are a finite commodity. Just because the distribution is mostly digital, it doesn't change the huge underlying costs of them. If you stip income away, then they can become unsustainable.
No - you've claimed that the price difference is because of the physical media model, when it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
The separation of market segments is covered several times in my posts now, but you just seem to be ignoring it and keep going on about this 'physical media model' being the reason.Quote:
they still try to enforce the physical media model that could be split into separate markets into a single market economy.
Ironically, the costs of distributing the physical media is tiny, so I'm not even sure how you're trying to link the two here. You simply do not seem to understand how games are distributed and sold.
Right. And you do realise that sales are the key economic driving force behind almost every business model? Certainly any within the games industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
If the business model is failing, like you're claiming, sales would not be on the rise. Constantly. For the last goodness knows how many years. They would be dropping.
In fact, this is another claim by you which simply isn't backed up by sales, industry movement, or any article I can find. Could you explain how this model is failing exactly? With figures to back it up. At the moment you're just claiming the model is bad, with not a single thing to back it up.
You're not selling at a loss, if the sales from those people are not included in economic forecasts - which is what happens!Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
And I never claimed it did. Offering the product for sale though will certainly help reduce piracy and can *only* help sales.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
You can never stop piracy.
Apart from it's not theft. It's copyright infringement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Like the games industry segmenting different markets to stay strong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
That to one side, it's a cold view to have. Where do you draw the line? What about the real people at the end of those jobs that might perish?
Your idea clearly doesn't work as nothing could have subsidies. If our society was a pure capitalist one, where the weak always perished, we would be a lot worse off.
So you're saying the margin is the same and only the costs differ? That's really not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Most people do make decisions on what they can afford. After all, if they couldn't afford it, they wouldn't buy it and sales wouldn't be so high. Their price point is just higher than yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeyboardDemon
Why do you think publishers would look at their business model when sales are through the roof? The current one of slowly decreasing cost / sales is working well and games are very fairly priced.
Tell you what, go to some investors and tell them you have this great new product that you are going to sell for less than it costs you to make, and then watch as they wet themselves laughing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
What you consider a high markup doesn't take into account R&D, marketing, testing, etc, etc.
Sure a company can charge more than the bottom line if they have a captive market and people are willing to pay, but to start selling products to one market but not another for less than it costs to make them is a fast road to bankruptcy.
Yet you've still failed to address why the reverse doesn't apply, if some money is better then no money why not sell it for a higher price. Sell less copies with a higher likelihood of copyright infringement that you can actively do something about ? Why not raise brand awareness with advertising. It seems to me you are basically saying because people can't afford, or are not buying our product we should sell it at a loss, something most sane people and investors would laugh at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
At the moment you are not losing money because you are clinging to a broken business model and are trying any method you can to keep doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
You are using one market to subsides another and then crying foul when people use your bad business model against you.
So marketing can only be done in one region at a time ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
Translations and localisation are normally done long before a game ships.
Validation is normally done on mass before a game ships so they know if they have to make changes to the core game.
There is no complaining or justifications coming from me, i am merely pointing out how trying to force a physical world business model into a digital world doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
Sorry but when did i say i want it cheaper ? IIRC i have just pointed out that the business model being used is broken, if people take advantage of this broken business model to their own advantage the only people to blame are the people enforcing that business model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
So games are like fish now ? One resource can be exhausted, but we aren't going to wake up one morning to find there are no more games to catch, there was a time and there still are developers that don't require millions to make a game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
So they are not trying to segment their market so they can charge different prices then ? Like how their market were naturally segmented in the days before digital media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
True but you have still failed to convince me, much in the same way as you have failed to address any of the point i have raised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
Sales mean nothing, i could sell a single product for a million pounds that cost me a fiver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
Or using your model sell a million products for a pound that cost me a fiver to make, I'll let you decide what my investors would be most happy about.
If you want a fact to backup my claim that it's a bad business model you just need to re-read the article, people are buying game codes from regions where the game is cheaper.
But you are using one market to subsidies another, so you are artificially lowering your price in markets that there is a higher likelihood of piracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
But you did say high prices cause more people to pirate. If you can't stop it why bother if higher prices cause more of it, after all the reverse is also true lower prices cause less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
Semantics, maybe you should bring that up with the copyright holders who frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
Like the games industry crying foul when their old world business model is failing to work in the new world, so they enforce draconian measures in their attempts to protect the way they want to do business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
So should we subsidies failing industries, products, and ways of thinking all because they refuse to adapt to a changing world ?
Many are running in debt, complaining about multiple-millions of unit sales as "not enough" etc. So, I think there is a fair amount of evidence to point to them needing to look at their business model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
Tarnishing the gaming industry as a whole, as a trying to hold onto a bad business model though just isn't true. In general the industry is quite healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithis
The way people in this thread are talking, the entire industry is in collapse.
Very simplistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
It costs a given amount to develop a game regardless of the numbers sold. So the investment prospectus would define how that investment can be recouped before a profit is made. It might say " sell one copy for the whole amount" - that would get investors laughing.
More likely it will be - sell n thousand at a 'premium' price - that covers the cost - any sales after that are pure proft - regardless of the selling price.
A similar model existed in the airline industry. It used to be said that if a or Virgin sold all the seats in first class and busines class, that covered the overall cost of the flight and anything sold in economy was the profit. In practice there is a mix, but only a percentage of seats in each cabin have to be sold for the flight to break even.
Steam and Origin stop this problem obviously when buying direct from them. So it is where I buy most of my games from, unless it is a free to play like World of Tanks.
When I do buy games and software from ebay and amazon market place, I'm always very careful. I read the small print, and the reviews, not just that item but of the seller in general. Sometimes there is a workaround the region specific, but these are rare these days.
It's normally fairly obvious to spot a lot of knock off price games, if you like cheap games, but also a gamble it's perfect for you, but don't moan when it doesn't work! Otherwise stick to more conventional retailers.
Or stick to the cheap suppliers that you know and trust or have heard of through recommendations from trusted sources/friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlSomething