Skip Navigation
Games @lemmy.world
Buttflapper @lemmy.world

Why does the PC gaming industry still use such deceptive pricing?

Battlefield 2042 is $60 right now. One of my friends on Steam plays Battlefield 2042 and I thought hey, that would be pretty cool to play with him. I'm sure it wouldn't be that much because that game came out a long time ago and was extremely poorly received and like, I'm sure it would be really easy to buy that game or get it now since it's been so long and again, very low reviews. The game is $60!! But when it goes on sale, it's like 8$, so 80% off. Truly unbelievable. Why do they do this? Like, they're basically trying to kill the game or something because no one in their right mind would pay $60 for this game, so 90% of the time when it's not on sale, no one buys it or wants to try it out... Also, lots of old games that are "on sale" constantly for like $5 and the base price is 40-60$, so it makes it seem like SUCH a good deal, when in reality, the value has just depreciated...

They never seem to lower the base cost of anything, making it deceptive. Is it really 80% off of a $60 game if no one in their right f*cking mind would pay that much for it ever?

38 comments

  • Discounts on games creates a sense of urgency in the buyer, as most discounts are temporary. Since discounts are often shown on the front page of a storefront, it gets a lot of eyeballs on it. If someone's wishlisted the game then they'll even usually get a direct notification.

    Another way to look at it is that the game is always available at the full price. But if you're a patient gamer then you can expect to get a lower price eventually.

    Depending on how much discretionary income you have, you might be forced to wait for a sale. Or the difference in price might be no object to you. Or you may have to hoist the black flag.

    Something else to consider is that the perceived value of the game differs from buyer to buyer. If I'm a big fan of a niche genre, I might be willing to spend more on a weird game than the average user. A $30 game might be worth it for me, but you might only think it's worth $20

    And more to that point, it's extremely difficult to nail down the exact value of a game. What honestly separates a $12 game from a $15 game when they both offer a unique experience?

    Anyway, all this to say, I don't think having sales on games is strictly a predatory thing. Sometimes a discount is the only way you'll get eyeballs on your game, or a way to reach more of the market that wouldn't have otherwise bought your game.

    I do agree that modern AAA prices are out there. I don't pay very much for games now, and usually AAA prices me right out of the market

    • I get the concept behind it. But it just seems so predatory that older games never depreciate in value. Back in the olden days of GameStop, they would adjust prices. An old game was reduced in price after a certain time since it's no longer new.

      Now, that's no longer the case. Valve seems to be the only one that does this, as an exception. Left 4 Dead 2 is now $10 standard and that's not some crazy percentage off discount. That's just the base price now. Other games though are silly as hell with the pricing. Battlefield games are the most obvious. Priced at a full $60, but the value plummets to $8 when on sale. Why don't they reprice it to $30 and then on sale for $8? Seems less psychologically manipulative

      • There’s still a bit of market force, but it comes in the form of other game developers.

        Imagine you went to the grocery store, and saw Hardin McCombsky’s Super-Premium Dry Seasoned Cheese was $1000 a wedge. How ridiculous! How do they expect us to pay that much for that cheese?

        Only…Shaw’s Bargain Dry Cheese is $4. And it’s not the same thing - but it’s still pretty good.

        Basically, this kind of thing works out in many other industries. Sometimes on rare occasion, one producer makes things MUCH better than competitors and can demand a much higher price because no one else comes close.

        To give a more game-relevant example, BattleBit is $15 and compared favorably to Battlefield. In other cases where there’s no competitor and the developer hasn’t lowered their price for sales, it may be because they’re confident they did good work and made a good game. Factorio is famous for this.

      • I agree that it'd be nice if they depreciated in value like in the days of physical media.

        In those days though, the store only has a certain amount of shelf space. So in that sense it makes sense that they depreciated because a new game is always going to have a higher perceived value.

        Digital storefronts don't have that problem. The game can be shared infinitely without accruing a ton of publishing costs. There's always more shelf space.

        In this sense, there's no financial motivation to depreciate. And we all know the social responsibility of big companies will be to only do what they're forced to do.

        We often feel games ought to depreciate because that's how it's always been. But just because that's how it's always been doesn't mean that's how it always will be.

        Battlefield is an interesting case though where each game in the franchise is highly derivative of the previous game. So if each new game is essentially an upgrade of the previous one, then I'd agree that there should be an expectation that the older version is less expensive.

        The same could be said about many of the giant titles. Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, and most major sports games come to mind.

        One final thing to think of is that many games have continuing development. It's basically the early access model (a whole other can of worms), and you could argue that many of these games appreciate in value. Some notables have - Factorio comes to mind.

        I don't think Battlefield 2042 falls into that category though

38 comments