It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
WoodsieLord: [Are GOG games overpriced?]
In comparison to the Virtual Console, where you can buy such 'classics' as Urban Champion for 5 quid⸮

No. GOG games are amazingly valued. Sure, the pricing is a bit broad, but how much can you finetune a price?

Addendum: Really, if you can't afford 15 dollars, you should really look at yourself and wonder where you've gone horribly wrong, financially speaking.
Post edited September 18, 2013 by Darvond
Regular prices - expensive - me not touching
Promo/discount/sale prices - excellent - me buying with a smile
Speaking as a bit of a cheapskate, no.
The vast majority of games are under $10 and if that is too expensive there are sales every Monday, Wednesday, and weekend.
Well, all those that are considerably cheaper elsewhere are obviously too expensive here. DRM-free might make a game worth more than its DRM infected counterpart, but that only goes so far. Considering that it's been true for years now that I can buy all four Unreal games here for less than the price of one (DRM-free too) then clearly they're overpriced.
I don't think they're too expensive, generally. But I admit, if I'm about to take the plunge on a game, I'll check around to see who has the best price first.

But I don't tend to play whatever the flavor of the moment is; I'm more interested in solid, in-depth, long-lasting games, not art projects. :-) There's a lot of stuff out there I'd probably never even consider, so comparing prices on what are to me completely different things doesn't get very far.
...not really, but gog needs to be a bit more flexible with its price points other than lumping everything into 5.99 and 9.99 categories (besides new games).

There are a fair amount of new indie titles that GOG's pretty much missed the boat on because they were originally sold on other sites or distribution channels for less than 5.99

Say how did the price experiment a while back turn out anyway?
avatar
mrcrispy83: Say how did the price experiment a while back turn out anyway?
Is it bad that I forgot entirely about that experiment until now?
My first experience with GOG was because i searched for an legal copy of Fallout (without DRM).
That said i bought it and other games. Than i realized their prices and promos.
GOG is not too expensive....nah but they are not flexible enough with their prices.
Selling the games with fixed 5.99, 9.99 or 14.99 just ask us to wait for the next promo.
Its OK to sell new games at normal prices, heck they are new and you want to try them.
But most games are old and it doesn't matter (for me) if i must wait some weeks or month till
they are in a promo.
avatar
WoodsieLord: Anyone else feel the same?
Nope.
GOG originally sold 6 and 10 dollar games. I think their decision to go higher then that to sell indie games, while refusing to sell indie games that cost less then $6, has skewed things a little, and there are a fair number of indie games here that I wouldn't buy at full price. But I wouldn't call GOG as a whole too expensive, no--I think six bucks for Shadow Man is an absolute steal, to pick a current example.
Post edited September 18, 2013 by BadDecissions
So to sum up: No. No they are not.
No, they just need more price points as has already been said.
No GOG's definitely not too expensive!

They are a business after all, not a charity, and considering the work they've put in over the past few years I'm certainly not complaining.
avatar
IAmSinistar: The main issue is whether or not it makes a profit over its cost of creation. For an indie title with a tiny team and no expectations of wealth, selling 25,000 copies at a dollar each may not be a bad thing. But for a large game studio, or a vendor like GOG, you need a credible amount of income to remain viable. Undercutting the prices reduces the overall perception of the value of games, and thus lowers what people think are acceptable prices. Certainly there is an argument to be made in case where cutting the price in half triples the sales, and thus more money is made, but with any supply-demand equation, there is a point at which the model breaks down and further reductions are not offset by increased demand.

Anecdotal evidence like that which you cite is useful, but needs to be taken in the context of the market as a whole. Many people didn't believe that big box chain stores would have the deleterious effect on the economy that they did either, because they were viewing data in isolation.
All are good points, and it's of course very hard to know the full truth. But as it stands, it does look like cheaper prices = more net profits to developers. I understand the doubts (and I have some myself) but it does not look like there is reason to believe 'undercutting' prices is bad for the industry at all. On the contrary, it looks like cheaper prices mean a healthier indie industry and a longer 'shelf life', i.e. quality games keep on selling for years after release. If cheaper prices have a negative aspect, they have positive ones too. Probably more.

I believe (though of course I can't know) is that gamers are willing to pay more for games they want to play more. I don't think the situation is the same as with the app market, where most buyers see one game as good as the next and therefore look mainly at the price tag.

Also, I believe cheaper prices doesn't automatically mean less money infused into gaming. Cheaper games have brought in customers who would not pay $60 or even $10 for a game. Gamers don't seem to spend less but more. Back when we paid $50 for a game, did anyone have a backlog? Do you know a single gamer nowadays who doesn't have a backlog now?
avatar
Huinehtar: Maybe it's just me, but I am wondering until when people continuing to make their backlog grow will stop buying games, because they're tired of it or because they cannot afford it
I'd think cheaper prices would cause more people to afford gaming.

avatar
Huinehtar: or even worse: because they're thinking that since the price of games has begun decrease, games should be free (and I'm not talking about freesoftware), so people would want F2P only for ever?
I see no indication of gamers (and I mean gaming hobbyists, not casuals) wanting to go F2P.

avatar
Huinehtar: How many years until fans buying at full price will stop preventing ambitious games with moderate/big budgets to fall?
expensive[/i]!!! Wanting prices to be very low, and expecting ambitious projects to succeed are incompatible IMHO.
Ambitious projects don't necessarily require big budgets. Fancy visuals do. How cheaper prices affect the AAA industry is hard to say (personally I don't really care) but I have a feeling people will be willing to pay more money for the Grand Theft Autos and Call of Duties as before.
Post edited September 19, 2013 by RaggieRags
avatar
Leroux: Exactly, so I guess it wouldn't be wise for them to imitate other stores with a different clientele. If they were just as cheap as Steam, most customers with a preference for Steam would still ignore GOG.
Then again, people with no preference will have less reason to use GOG. GOG has the extras and it's DRM free, but I don't think most people would be willing to pay extra for these things. At least not much.

Really cheap prices also attract casual purchases. A lot of times it's not people wanting to buy a specific game and comparing the prices in different stores, but they happen to see a game in a deep discount and buy it on a whim.

avatar
Leroux: Who can say, Maybe selling them cheaply in a bundle is the only way to sell them now, because noone will pay the full price anymore after they've all been available for such low prices. Personally, I own all of them, even though I haven't played through a single one and probably never will. Is that what indie devs want? :/
Does it ultimately matter if most buyers will never play the games? The player base for Spiderweb, AFAIK has not shrunk, so no negative difference there. The only real difference is that the profits (I hear) have grown considerably. I don't think that's a bad change.