Automatic Price Decay (APD)

[D. Flame]

So digital prices were kept artificially high so that physical games could compete with the, despite digital games not having physical packaging, media, shipping costs, etc. So it would also make sense for digital games to have to compete with physical games and their price decay over time, which leads to my suggestion:

Make prices automatically lower by $5 after every 90 days until it reaches a $20 price floor.

Example:
Release day: $60
3 months later: $55
6 months later: $50
9 months later: $45
1 full year later: $40
1 year and 3 months: $35
1 year and 6 months: $30
1 year and 9 months: $25
2 full years later: $20
10 full years later: $20

Obviously devs should have the ability to go in and override this price change once every 3 months, but otherwise, it should be an automatic process.

[Tito Shivan]

D. Flame a écrit :

Like I already said. There are games up that are still full price despite being over 10 years old.

I am not still getting paid monthly for the lawn I mowed as a young kid.

Apples and oranges.

[D. Flame]

Tito Shivan a écrit :

D. Flame a écrit :

Like I already said. There are games up that are still full price despite being over 10 years old.

I am not still getting paid monthly for the lawn I mowed as a young kid.

Apples and oranges.

You wanted to push this analogy, now live with it.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

D. Flame a écrit :

The age of the game has everything to do with it, and no, it is not the same game it was 10 years ago. Technology advanced. It did not. It is now outdated by current standards.

The excuse doesn't make it better. If game dev want to be paid $50 for their game at base price that what it be, and if the dev willing to put it on sale at 80% making it $10 for limited time, then why should they be force to lower their base game price because you said so?

Also you just contradict yourself by saying it not the same game, despite game didn't change, doesn't mean it changed that not how that works, a game has to be changed in order to be different, example if game hasn't updated for 10 years, and you're saying it not same game 10 years, that where you be lying. And using different hardware/software doesn't make the game different just because you said so, we can play exact same game from GTX 260 vs GTX 1060, that doesn't make the game different as still same game.

[Brian9824]

D. Flame a écrit :

So digital prices were kept artificially high so that physical games could compete with the, despite digital games not having physical packaging, media, shipping costs, etc. So it would also make sense for digital games to have to compete with physical games and their price decay over time, which leads to my suggestion:

Make prices automatically lower by $5 after every 90 days until it reaches a $20 price floor.

Example:
Release day: $60
3 months later: $55
6 months later: $50
9 months later: $45
1 full year later: $40
1 year and 3 months: $35
1 year and 6 months: $30
1 year and 9 months: $25
2 full years later: $20
10 full years later: $20

Obviously devs should have the ability to go in and override this price change once every 3 months, but otherwise, it should be an automatic process.

One of the worst idea's ive ever heard on the forums IMO. Steam has no legal authority to change the prices dev's charge, nor to dictate what they should sell their game for. Having the dev's have to constantly track the games duration and overwrite the price would be a good way to kill steam.

So a giant NO to this "idea"

[Brian9824]

D. Flame a écrit :

BJWyler a écrit :

Perhaps the same process should be applied to your place of business, so your salary is lowered every 90 days.

The only ones who have a right to determine the price of their product are the devs and publishers. No one else has a right to determine what the price of a game should be just because they want cheap or free games.

Like I already said. There are games up that are still full price despite being over 10 years old.

I am not still getting paid monthly for the lawn I mowed as a young kid.

And? If the creator of that product feels its still worth that price who are YOU to tell them their product isn't? If you feel its not worth the price then don't buy it. Sounds like entitlement to dictate to developers how they have to price THEIR games

[Tito Shivan]

D. Flame a écrit :

You wanted to push this analogy, now live with it.

Where?

[Start_Running]

Yeah no m8. just no. Games aren't fruit and why should the prices for them behave any differently than say, books, audio books, etc.


The only reason game prices tended to fall over time was because the retailers were growing desperate to clear out unsold inventory. Shelf and storage space are finite. This literally doesn't happen in the digital space so there's no need to artificially devalue the product.

A seller is within their rights to set whatever price they want and no dev/pub would sign on to that sort of thing.

[Boblin the Goblin]

This is a great idea if you just want devs to pull their games or set the release price ridiculously high to combat this extremely predatory practice.

[BJWyler]

D. Flame a écrit :

The age of the game has everything to do with it, and no, it is not the same game it was 10 years ago. Technology advanced. It did not. It is now outdated by current standards.

Age has nothing to do with it since a digital product does not suffer from the same effects of aging that a physical one does. And if a game did not change in 10 years, how is it "not the same game it was 10 years ago." Not changing, by definition, means it is the same. The fact that other technology advanced around it is completely immaterial, especially when the overall price of games has remained relatively flat over the course of 40 years and advancing technology.

[AmsterdamHeavy]

What a cleverly disguised tin cup. But ya cant hide that rattle.

[Start_Running]

SlowMango a écrit :

This is a great idea if you just want devs to pull their games or set the release price ridiculously high to combat this extremely predatory practice.

Or I can think of devs just being cheeky and tacking a yeart onto the title and just changing the year number every so often.

NO you're thinking of SF6 '23 This is SF6 '26.

[cinedine]

That's what sales are for. Base prcie is irrelevant after a year and some companies do their best to make it irrelevant few months after release already. Deathloop or Guardians of the Galaxy for example hit the 30 % discount extremely fast.

[Crazy Tiger]

cinedine a écrit :

That's what sales are for. Base prcie is irrelevant after a year and some companies do their best to make it irrelevant few months after release already. Deathloop or Guardians of the Galaxy for example hit the 30 % discount extremely fast.

^^ This. I prefer it if the product owners set the prices and discounts.

The only reason for the suggestion is "I want lower prices". Which is fine of course, but that doesn't mean others have to entertain that thought. Just wait for sales.

[Tito Shivan]

Crazy Tiger a écrit :

^^ This. I prefer it if the product owners set the prices and discounts.

"But that means I won't get MW2 for €10."

Because sure on top of the reduced price people still expect sales to happen.

cinedine a écrit :

That's what sales are for. Base prcie is irrelevant after a year and some companies do their best to make it irrelevant few months after release already. Deathloop or Guardians of the Galaxy for example hit the 30 % discount extremely fast.

I guess OP has probably put his sights in some of those games that don't go on (a deep enough) sale ever.

I've had MW2 on my wishlist for a decade and it never hit the price I'm willing to pay just to play the campaign. It can get on some people's nerves.

[D. Flame]

AmsterdamHeavy a écrit :

What a cleverly disguised tin cup. But ya cant hide that rattle.

Wut?