Topic: Jason Rohrer on the "inverse sale"

[idolminds]

Why Rampant Sales are Bad for Players

"Inverse sale" being my term I guess. TLDR: instead of launching high and then having discount sales which leads to people waiting for those sales and the complaints from people that bought it the day before and wanting a refund, you do the opposite. You launch low and tell people well in advance when the price will go up...and stay there. So if you want to buy the game buying early is better than later. Seems like that would be a great model for multiplayer games especially since you want to build the community quickly.

He makes some interesting points worth thinking about. Of course this is the opposite of the Steam model so everyone says he must be wrong. But it does make some sense. Minecraft did it that way and we know how much of a failure that turned out to be sales-wise.

[W7RE]

I was just reading this and checking out his game. I totally see where he's coming from. I don't necessarily like the idea of games never going on sale, because some of them I wouldn't pick up for full price, but I also like the idea that early adopters get the better deal.

[PyroMenace]

I skimmed it a bit but my first reaction to it is minecraft is like the worst example to base that argument around. It's success had little to do with its pricing and more to do with just being minecraft. It's the cultural phenomena that's outside the norm.

[W7RE]

Reading this actually made me wonder how something like this would work: Decide to sell your game for $10. Sell it for $20 instead, which a 50% off release sale. then do frequent sales so people can get it for $10 (or less), but have that itch of "gotta get it, it's on sale!"

[Cobra951]

I don't see how this could work in the general case.  If something goes up in price over time, I see it as a ripoff, and stay away, waiting for it to go back down.  Minecraft was in alpha when it first went up for sale.  It was a trial balloon, and eventually a unique success story.

I can see games that depend on large userbases being able to up the price of entry if they go from unknown to very popular.  Otherwise, no way.

[idolminds]

It reminded me of Carcassonne on iOS. One of the highest rated game apps and one of the best board game conversions for iOS. It launched at $5, never had a sale. When the iPad came out and they made the app universal they raised the price to $10. The app went 3 years and has only had a sale last December (because they released a new DLC).

Thing was that sale came as a total surprise. That was the app basically known for not going on sale, on a platform with a race to the bottom on prices and often frequent "free for a day" promos. It sold for $10 for the majority of its lifespan, and that was that.

Compare that situation to what is happening on PC where a game is either on sale, or you just wait 2 months for the next sale. It's damn near guaranteed, so why buy now?

I agree that this isn't a sales method for everyone. Jason makes pretty niche games that probably won't make that many sales in general, so it doesn't make sense for him to run sales in the first place. Plus his personal lifestyle is rather unique. It seems like he doesn't personally care if he makes a fortune off a game. When your yearly budget is under $10,000 you don't have to sell a million copies of anything.

This method won't work for CoD, obviously. But it was interesting to think about. Knowing that Castle Doctrine won't ever go on sale, I am now pretty tempted to buy the alpha now when I know I'll be getting the best price.

[Xessive]

They could just go with the Activision model of practically never going on sale except on very, very scarce occasions. For example the COD games stay at the $60 price mark for a while. The games' base price doesn't change for at least a year. Even during major sales events they're discounted 33% at most.

Furthermore, early adopters pretty much get the shaft, since any "pre-order bonus" is available to everyone else in the season pass anyway.

[Cobra951]

If I buy a car from last year, I get it cheaper too, even if it's not used.  If I skip playing a game for a year, then get the all-included version for cheap, I missed out on a year of playing the game.  I missed out on its prime, and its community's prime.  I missed out on discovering its secrets along with the community.  I'm late to the party.  I'm tolerated on its forums, held by the hand and guided even.  But I'm not part of the in crowd.

Things need to get cheaper as they get older.  Exceptions are exactly that, and no more.

[Quemaqua]

That's not really the point, Cobra. I think games should get cheaper over time too, as far as their non-sale value. But running sales so frequently does mean that I never buy a game at full price, ever. If you want to wait a year or even 2 and get the game cheap or it's GOTY version or whatever, I still think that's legit, but there's something weird about sales happening as frequently as they do. There's almost no game that I'd want to buy at full price anymore. I just wait for a sale or bundle, where I can get 5 games that were $15 apiece for $5 total, or get just the game I want for 2/3 of the original price. It seems an odd way to do things if you're trying to make sales. Yet I've paid good money for games like Carcassonne that idol mentioned, and all the expansions, because they're really good and don't require a sale to tempt me to buy them.

[Xessive]

I guess they're looking at it from the angle that fans will buy the game no matter its price but having the sales increases the chance that someone who would have never even considered the game might go ahead and buy it when it's "too good a deal to pass on."

As Que put it, the frequency of the sales is questionable. It's almost a spit in the eye of the fans. On the other hand, how do you prove your "fanhood?"

I think they need to rethink not only the sales but also the pre-order & special editions structure. Someone who's willing to pay full price for a game as opposed to holding out for a discount ought to get some form of recognition.

I think if someone is willing to pre-order and pay full price up front they should get some major bonus like a DLC pass, giving them access to all DLC that will ever come out for the game at no extra charge. Anyone else who buys later or during a sale gets the base game and "standard" treatment. It stands to reason that, since pre-orders are essentially purchases on faith and little else, why not make it worthwhile and reward early adopters in some way?

[K-man]

If not for Steam sales I wouldn't have bothered purchasing 90% of the stuff in my library.

So they got some of my money when otherwise they would not have.  Furthermore, if I am excited enough about a game to preorder it then obviously I have no bones about paying full price to be part of the community on day 1.