Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

etc., etc.

View
24. Re: etc., etc. Jun 7, 2012, 16:10 Flatline
 
Prez wrote on Jun 7, 2012, 04:15:
If, hypothetically, you end up selling 3 times as many at $30 as compared to what you sell at $60, does it really matter if you aren't getting what you personally believe your property is worth? Bottom line - your revenues are higher. As it is, I think developers get too emotionally involved with correlating asking price with how hard they worked on a game. It should simply be a matter of economics; if market data says you have the real potential to make more money at a lower asking price, then the decision is an easy one. The ultimate goal is make a return on that investment of that time, talent, and money after all.

Agreed.

I'll add one more thing and one more prediction.

First, part of the deal with price point and sales is that there's a perceived "I'm getting a bargain" psychology going on. The drop from 60 to 30 dollars is a *powerful* motivation that might not be there if you price point at 30 bucks to begin with.

Anyway... My prediction is that Origins is going to offer a subscription based library of old games based on this:

Without revealing too much, what I’ll say is one way to deal with aging inventory is you do deep discounts like that. There are other ways, which I can’t really talk about, of dealing with product as it ages over a period of time, where you present a value to the customer and you engage them in your service on a going-forward basis… We’ve got something else that we do believe in that we’ll be rolling out. But I absolutely understand your point, and I’m not not-hearing what you’re saying.

That screams "subscription model" to me. The problem is, it's *so* easy to pirate old/dead games, the *only* way you're going to really monetize them is if you either sell them for peanuts or actually make them compatible for modern machines without having the user jump through hoops.

Which is what gog.com originally was supposed to do. They kind of bailed on that promise sadly.
 
Previous Post Next Post Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
    Date Subject Author
  1. Jun 6, 21:54 Re: etc., etc. Dagnamit
  2. Jun 6, 22:01  Re: etc., etc. nin
  3. Jun 6, 22:14   Re: etc., etc. Shok
  4. Jun 6, 22:21    Re: etc., etc. ASeven
  10. Jun 7, 00:29     Re: etc., etc. Matshock
  5. Jun 6, 22:28    Re: etc., etc. nin
  6. Jun 6, 22:41     Re: etc., etc. PHJF
  21. Jun 7, 07:52    Re: etc., etc. Beamer
  22. Jun 7, 07:55     Re: etc., etc. Beamer
  7. Jun 6, 23:00 Re: etc., etc. Silicon Avatar
  8. Jun 7, 00:13 Re: etc., etc. ^Drag0n^
  9. Jun 7, 00:29 Re: etc., etc. WarpCrow
  11. Jun 7, 01:08 Re: etc., etc. hjkar
  14. Jun 7, 02:03  Re: etc., etc. Matshock
  15. Jun 7, 02:55   Re: etc., etc. J
  16. Jun 7, 03:09  Re: etc., etc. Draugr
  17. Jun 7, 04:15   Re: etc., etc. Prez
  19. Jun 7, 07:03    Re: etc., etc. MattyB
>> 24. Jun 7, 16:10    Re: etc., etc. Flatline
  25. Jun 7, 17:05     Re: etc., etc. Beamer
  18. Jun 7, 05:23  Re: etc., etc. CommunistHamster
  20. Jun 7, 07:12  Re: etc., etc. Dades
  23. Jun 7, 09:41  Re: etc., etc. Cutter
  12. Jun 7, 01:21 Re: etc., etc. jdreyer
  13. Jun 7, 01:55  Re: etc., etc. PHJF
  26. Jun 8, 23:32 Re: etc., etc. Ant


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo