Sales follow the tradition of supply and demand. Products come out at their highest price because of expectations and hype. Then, as interest wanes, the publisher continues to make some sales by reducing price to tempt the less interested parties.
But this isn’t the formula for all games. While we might agree that games from 2000 or even 2010 are “showing their age”, at this point 5 to 8-year-old games are less and less likely to be seen as ‘too old’ by comparison to hot releases. Some publishers have picked up on that theme, and doubled down on the commitment to the idea that their games have high longevity and appeal; making the most of their capitalistic venture for better or worse.
I recently was reminded of an indie game I had put on my wishlist several years back, but never ended up buying because it simply had never gone on sale - but looking at it now, not only did it maintain extremely positive user reviews, I also saw that its lowest all-time price was barely a few dollars off of its original price.
In the AAA space, the easiest place to see this happening is with Nintendo. Anyone hoping to buy an old Legend of Zelda game for cheap will often be disappointed - the company is so insistent on its quality, they pretty much never give price reductions. And, with some occasional exceptions, their claims tend to be proven right.
In the indie space, the most prominent example of this practice is Factorio, a popular factory-building game that has continued receiving updates, and has even had its base price increased from its original (complete with a warning announcement, encouraging people to purchase at its lower price while it’s still available).
Developers deserve to make a buck, and personally I can’t say I’ve ever seen this practice negatively. Continuing to charge $25 for a good game, years after it came out, speaks to confidence in a product (even if most of us are annoyed at AAA games now costing $70). I sort of came to this realization from doing some accounting to find that I’d likely spent over $100 a year on game “bundles” that usually contain trashy games I’m liable to spend less than a few hours in.
For those without any discussion comments, what games on Steam or elsewhere have you enjoyed that you’ve never seen get the free advertising of a “40% off sale”?
But this isn’t the formula for all games. While we might agree that games from 2000 or even 2010 are “showing their age”, at this point 5 to 8-year-old games are less and less likely to be seen as ‘too old’ by comparison to hot releases.
As someone that grew up in the '80s and '90s, it’s wild how much different the pace of change in games was then compared to now.
In 1991 I was playing NES games and 256-color VGA MS-DOS games, in 1998 I was playing Half-Life. Every single thing about the experience of video games changed in that span.
In 2017 I was playing Breath of the Wild, in 2024 I’m playing more or less the same game in Tears of the Kingdom.
Well, that is a sign of the medium maturing. We’ve figured out most basic technological limitations and many design conventions to make games that are as close to the vision of the creators as we want them to be. Until some new great discovery drastically changes how games are made, now it’s just a matter of building up on existing ideas, with new twists.
I think the main reason more players become patient gamers is due to more and more games release broken and buggy. So they have to wait to see if the game gets fix or not.
The main reason more people are becoming patient gamers is people are generally more broke and stressed than they have been in the past.
I think the main reason more players become patient gamers is due to more and more games release broken and buggy.
Yes this is also a reason but the reason behind that is that less and less money and creative control is being given to the workers who are actually doing the labor of making games.
We are in the middle of a massive class war being fought aggressively by the rich against the rest of us and we need to keep that front and center in every context that is affected by it. When your favorite game company gets bought out by some massive hydra of a company that promises nothing will change and then proceeds to gleefully harvest the spinal cords of all the former employees with its tentacles like a mortal kombat finishing move, remember the reason. This is an economic war and your favorite game company was just another battlefield torn to pieces.
I’ve heard that for smaller studios it is incredibly important to get those early sales. Their margins are often very small (if they exist at all) so getting early and continued support is often vital.
Indie games are pretty much the only ones I still buy on release.
Granted you have to have VR for it, but Beat Saber has pretty famously never gone on sale and never will, but it’s an unbelievably good game that super worth it.
This reminds me I need to start playing beat saber again.
Factorio is another game considered a modern masterpiece and the leader of its genre but they have flat out said they will never put it on sale.
Which is honestly fine because it’s $30 and you’re generally considered “new to the game” until you crack 1,000 hours.
I spend as much time in one play through the free factorio demo as I’ve played in some AAA games.
In the hours entertained per dollar doesn’t, factorio is stupid cheap.
Project Zomboid is in this category
The specific game that gave me the idea for this post was Freedom Planet 2. I remember getting the original as part of one of the early Humble Bundles, and enjoyed it, but never felt compelled to try the sequel.
Something I’ve been missing is having more game stories with fully “melodramatic” character acting - where character A is gasping in tears over the injuries to character B, and won’t ever forgive ruthless villain Y. That was something I remembered FP1 for, for better or worse, and apparently from reviews they improved their craft a bit for the sequel.
FP2 was a fantastic game. I loved it. I also liked Crosscode and Coromon. Both have the pixel look that I love and both were fun to me.
I think the rare missed game via patience is very worth the ability for all of us to keep pressure on game companies to keep gaming prices down/lower, by waiting for sales/out-of-early-access, etc.
Voting with your wallet does work sometimes.
I get that to some degree, but also look at it this way.
Developer A spends 10 years and lots of people’s time developing a heartfelt, memorable game, and prices it at $25 - keeping it at that price no matter what changes. Meanwhile, Developer B develops dozens of cheap games chasing crummy junk trends, and charges $60 initially for them, and discounting them down to $10 after two months. Theoretically, Developer A should deserve more of their money. But, many people will often see “83% off” and go for Developer B, even though the game refusing discounts is worth far more of people’s time.
I do think some people only really focus their wallet-voting in one direction. It should be not just avoiding expenditure on bad games, but also volunteering it on good games.
It should be not just avoiding expenditure on bad games, but also volunteering it on good games.
I definitely agree on purchasing good games, but only as long as they’re reasonably priced.
I’ve played games that thanks to patching, do not resemble the game I played any-more. TF2 is a good example of that, I can’t go back and play the game I played, it doesn’t exist any-more.
I think they made a classic mode, but that’s just one stage, I want to play the game I played the most which was a few updates in, but before it got silly.
I am currently waiting for Alan Wake 2 to go on sale on Xbox. In the meantime I’ve been catching up with their older games - I’m in the post-game for Control and about 1/2 through the original AW.
Also, the new Prince of Persia is not out yet but will probably be leaving it until it goes on sale. To be honest there are only a few developers that I would buy new games from: first-party Nintendo, some Sega devs (Vanillaware, Atlus).
