Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
i know seething fanboys are probably gonna stop reading after the 1st line but if you read through it all good job i guess. I already posted many times why i think Factorio is basically a dead end stop at this point and imo should just wait on buying it till it actually add more new content that changes gameplay. Though i'm sure the devs will probably drop the new content (if they ever make it) as dlc for extra $$$ since they can't go back on their sales ideology or else they'll be outed as greedy hypocrites (never lowering but then they raise the prices). If they actually add new in-game mechanics and updates as in buildings cars and ♥♥♥♥ for no money i'll actually be impressed (but i know they won't).
So if Factorio is the bargain bin soda, what game would be the premium?
Does this person realize there are various vehicles in this game and there IS a car? Like, 300 hours and no bueno? Talk about being a lying hater
Game theory just models optimal behavior. And it doesn't just model one type of behavior, it models how different types of strategies/motivations go against each other when trying to solve a particular problem. For that reason, it can explain a lot. The thing about human behavior is that your brain does not always act under a centralized will. There's a lot of conflict going on inside there, with different competing systems trying to get their way. This definitely complicates things, but it doesn't mean that your behavior isn't explainable.
About the sales approach of Stardew Valley, yes and no. It depends on many factors such as how optimal is its regular price itself. As other people have pointed out in this thread, one strategy that "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" sellers can follow, is to overprice their products and then offer "discounts". But other than that, yes, going on sales especially for digital goods in the long term loses you money. Sometimes however you may have to sacrifice long term benefits to keep your company afloat for example - but you are losing money overall.
I only covered SOME examples of the games that the altruist/"♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" players play against each other and against the dev. While I hinted that the devs can also play games themselves to maximize their profits, it should be obvious at this point that devs can also pick altruist/"♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" strategies. Some of the examples that Overeagerdragon gave (Edit: he used the term "Buyers Paranoia"), that infuriate a game's core audience fall into that specific category. So yes, keep in mind that the system we're describing here is extremely complicated and has many aspects
Edit 2: If you're also considering its impact on all the other smaller devs by instilling the sales mentality, then it is also being indirectly harmful.
The cool thing about game theory is that it can explain so much! Things are also far more complicated than I could write in a small post here and there's also a lot of hope. It doesn't just predict absolute doom and gloom for all types of situations. For one, the types of strategies that people can pick don't just fall in the "altruist"/"♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" categories. Those are broad over-generalizations, and in fact there are winning strategies against "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" - and to even top it off game theory predicts certain winning strategies that not only win against "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" but that are also compatible with "altruists", under specific types of games of course. It gets even better because these types of models are 100% applicable in dealing with cancel culture for example.
Edit: The nice thing about altruism is that it is one of the simplest and most effective strategies that lead to fantastic outcomes, but it has that one drawback, being susceptible to "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥". If you can ensure that everyone's an altruist (an insect hive) then everything works great. With social insects specifically it's a lot easier to pull off since in many cases everyone in the collective is highly related to each other, and there's no point in trying to screw/deceive others for reproductive reasons. If I'm being an altruist to someone who's highly related to me I'm being nice and helpful essentially to my own genetic material and thus myself
I know that for me, personally, there have been a number of games that I would have bought and played immediately if I found them at a time where they were fully on-sale (or had a "no sales ever" mindset). But instead, I put them on my wishlist... and by the time the sale actually comes around, I simply don't feel inspired to play anymore.
For a recent example, Subnautica is on sale right now. Several months ago, I was having fun watching Subnautica let's plays, and decided I was really interested in doing a playthrough of my own, with the intention of continuing on to play Subnautica: Below Zero since it was going to be released soon. But since I knew it has frequent big sales, there was no way I was going to buy at full price.
Now that it's on sale? I'm not really interested in starting up a game at all. And because of that, I have no interest in playing the sequel either.
(i don't appear to have earned an emoji displaying the raising of a convivial glass)
Overall though, I'm guessing you'd score this effect as a net negative.
yup - i mainly know game theory from poker - but obviously it extends to any system where there is advantage to be gained (i.e. every system)
and as for altruism, as mentioned it can be (and in human systems almost always is) exploited - and so a system where people trade and both parties win while technically acting in their own self interest has generally shown to work better for humans than a system where everyone is expected to work for the good of the group with no regard for their own interests - (so long as they want to attempt to live in some kind of peace of course - if violent revolution in order to overthrow the tyrannical dictatorship is wanted then trusting humans to work together in harmony is the way to go)
and as an aside, even a seemingly altruistic act often still has elements of self interest - e.g. we protect those that we care about, sometimes at the expense of our own safety or comfort - since we likely judge that harm coming to those we care about will be a greater loss than whatever we are sacrificing in order to keep them safe - thus creating a win win, rather than a zero sum in favour of the party for which the sacrifice is being made
unfortunately most systems are at the mercy of those who aim to exploit the weaknesses of others for their own gain - but in a system where we have opportunities to increase our own comfort while also increasing the comfort of others, there is less incentive for (as well as more resiliency against) those zero sum acts where your loss is my gain - in favour of looking for the win win scenarios
but not in poker - at the poker table i'm looking to empty your pockets sucker ;-)
anyway....when we come back to discounts it is possible to argue for both cases being a win win, at least for some of the parties involved:
- offering discounts below the perceived value of the product means that the customer saves money, and the seller may make more sales, which may equate to more money in the short or the long term - so win win
- but there is at least one third party that may lose - i.e. other sellers who may not be able to compete with the discount price, who will either lose sales if they don't match the discounts, or lose income if they do - and possibly either of those scenarios may make their financial position untenable
- plus the original seller may have permanently devalued their product in the eyes of the customers - limiting the value of any future sales, and possibly affecting the perceived value of future products
- whereas stating a position to never offer discounts ensures a high return per unit for the seller, so long as they can generate enough sales
- and the higher price with no discounts allows other sellers to compete by offering lower prices, with or without discounts
- and therefore customers can choose from the cheaper products thus saving money, as well as buying the product that does not offer discounts without concerns that they may be able to get it cheaper at some other time in the near future
- but if the original seller is not generating enough sales and decides to offer discounts, that could generate severe backlash from past customers, affecting sales of future products, as well as possibly putting off new customers that were aware that the seller reversed their position that was claimed to be a matter of principle
- so they can instead choose to lower the price, with the only downside there being reduced per unit profit, but offset by increased sales, which were required based on the aforementioned scenario where they weren't selling enough copies at the previous price
- with an upside that they are still standing by their position regarding discounts, which could be considered a win both with and for customers who agree with that position, and feel positive about doing business with the seller, both now and in the future
so still - while i agree that sales are fun for the customer, and can net them many games for well below their true value - i do think their relative benefit to customers can depend heavily on the kinds of games they like - since the aforementioned constant need to compete on price could mean that one or more particular genres could end up severely underrepresented - thus giving fans of those genres a very limited range of titles and studios from which to choose
i also continue to credit the pricing strategy and policy employed by Wube to be a matter of principle, rather than a greedy tactic - i.e. a win win rather than a zero sum
certainly personally i feel that their policy has been a net benefit for me - even if judged solely in terms of the interesting discussions about it
but i also think it is of general benefit to customers too - and not specifically Wube's customers - since they have set a high bar for quality - i.e. if a game wants to charge this kind of price, (whether it is a discounted price or not), if they expect $30 from me then they are going to need to meet or exceed the quality of Factorio - both in terms of gameplay, the availability of a demo, polish, communication and customer focus etc
but also there is the opportunity to charge a lower price, but with the no discount policy, with the expectation that a potential customer may be aware of Factorio and be thinking about value for money rather than simply is the price lower than X dollars, or is it discounted by at least X percent
anyway - i doubt this added much to the discussion - but i had various half constructed rambles and i needed to get one out so i could get myself focused on doing other things lol
good day to all :-)
Oh well, not gonna support this dev.
Free to believe it in, which is fine. Free not to buy.
Yet here you are, begging. Pathetic.
Was there an actual point to this post beyond a knee-jerk reaction?
It's very odd to take offense and directly going on the offensive for someone seeking out value when possible.
More so claiming "pathetic" with no sense of irony. But at the same time, not unique, the Steam forums are very notorious for toxic fanboy behaviour. Very rarely, if ever, is it an actual place for civil game discussion or actual human interaction.
As evident by this post.