If you want to support game development then make donations to development studios, invest in companies, contribute to Kickstarter projects, and so on. Investment is investment, charity is charity, but business is business. At the end of the day there's no set value of what a particular game "should" be worth- a game is only worth what a person is willing to pay for it, no more, no less. This can vary quite wildly from person to person, depending on their budget, their preferences, what other gaming and entertainment options they have available, etc. And game companies recognize this, which is why you see discounts over time, to capture as much of the range of valuations as reasonably possible (after all, someone paying only $5 for Fallout 3 is still $5 more than that person paying $0, which would be the case if they only valued the game at $5 but the price never reached that level). Now, you can try to claim that everyone should value the game more than that, to which I'll just chuckle and respond "Well, some don't." Again, if you want to support game development invest your money in it, make donations, and so on, but don't mix up supporting game development with the simple business transaction of buying a game at or below whatever price one values the game at.

I don't need to be told how consumerism works, thanks.

In any event my point is more that he comes off as a jerk looking to screw the people providing his entertainment. I wasn't proposing new laws or saying he is doing anything that should be restricted.

Considering the silly statements you keep making it seems you do need consumer transactions explained to you, as you keep mixing up such transactions with charity. Basically your statement is no less silly than someone more zealous telling you that you come across as a jerk for only buying a single copy of a game you like rather than three (as one copy just isn't supporting the developers enough), or someone saying that someone deciding to take a pass on a game is a jerk because not buying the game isn't supporting developers.

No one is obligated legally, morally, or in any other way, to pay more than the asking price for a product. If you want to pay more than you have to as a form of charity then you're free to do so, but don't go confusing this with the simple business transactions that everyone else is engaging in.

It's easy as hell to get free shipping at Amazon and they're not the only ones that do that. You are right that the digital deals at Amazon are deep discounts on the prices he listed, though.

I'll say a few things in response to the original post:

I bought Baldur's Gate 2 Complete for $2 and NWN 2 Platinum for $3. These are better dollar/hour ratio (theoretically, I've yet to play them).

The lack of stock level is what allows digital distribution to offer much lower prices than physical distribution. Everyone can buy a good deal, instead of it being limited by stock. You don't see physical games offered at 75% off or more as much as you see in digital distribution.

Can you explain how Steam DRM restricts you?

EDIT: DarkkkPhoenix said it better and shorter, but I'm a compulsive writer.

If you mean the OP and/or people who buy games from deals, or waiting until the game is old, "we" can't screw the industry because they are setting the prices, not the consumers. If Blizzard wants to keep the prices of its old games higher than other games from the same era, fine, it is their prerogative. It may mean either that I buy their game for that higher price, or not buy (nor play) it at all.

Or, if they want to collect a monthly fee for playing their game (in this case WoW), fine, all power to them. But it also meant I didn't want to purchase the said game, but Blizzard did fine with WoW anyway without me. It is totally up to them, they set the pricing scheme.

Saying that I am screwing them over by not either buying their game, or postponing buying it, is ludicrous. There are lots of goods and services in this world that I either don't buy, or try to get as cheaply as possible. Take for example gasoline, I try to refuel my car on stations that sell it the cheapest, even if some of the gas stations are having hard times with low margins etc.

In my mind the only way I could screw them over is piracy, that's why I avoid it.


There has been discussion here about how some people can't afford games, hence they need to pirate them. For these people, I think it is only a good thing that there are different pricing of different games, depending e.g. on what the development costs are, how old and unwanted the game is etc.

Mass Effect 3 may be too dear for these people, so maybe they could buy Fallout 3 for $5 instead, or some GOG game.

Just to add to the discussions of low prices, offering special deals typically has a very positive effect on developer income. Lots of indies have seen sales soar on Steam sales or got a nice cut from indie bundles.

If most people thought that buying at a low price was wrong, they would simply not buy the games, and the developers (or publishers) would lose a big source of income.

It is impossible to measure it of course. There's a fine line between people just postponing buying games for deals (games that they would have probably bought for full price as well => less profit), or being a completely new customer who definitely would have not even thought about buying (and playing) the game without the discount, ever.

But I guess the point is that it is up to the publishers to find that line. They make the initial offer, and each end-customer decides by himself whether it is acceptable to them. The publisher can even sell the game to most of these people by first selling it for $50 when it is new, and years later for $10 or even less.

If some indie bundle lets the end-user completely decide by himself whether he pays 1 cent or $100 for a bundle, the publisher has forfeit its right to complain about the 1 cent cheapskates.

Oh bullshit. Which games get funded is directly related to which games sell. You sound like a pirate on a torrent forum who downloads every PC game for nothing and then wonders why PC gaming isn't top dog anymore with publishers.

By waiting years and getting games for $5 the OP is not supporting his favorite games or genres. He is not sending a message, he is not chipping in for development, he basically doesn't exist to publishers. Is he OBLIGATED to do more? Not legally certainly, and I never hinted otherwise, but as part of the gaming community? Yes, I think so.

Which games sell well is dependent on what people value them at- that's how the market fucking works. Some people value the games more, some people value the games less, and it's up the developers and publishers to 1) try to make games that people value more and 2) figure out pricing structures that maximize their return given what people end up valuing the games at.

Also, buying a game is not about sending a statement or "chipping in" for development- it's about exchanging money for a good one places some value on, in a transaction that both sides have agreed is suitable for them. That's it. Anything beyond that you're getting into investment and/or charity. Basically it seems that you're pissed that not everyone likes to engage in charity in the same way that you do.

I don't know that I'd call Bethesda bad developers. They release bug ridden games a lot granted, but then they have huge size & scope. I've never regretted buying one of their games day 1 and I've always known they'd have issues that needed patching & if I'd waited I could've gotten the game better & cheaper.

However I didn't like Fallout 3 at all either. I found the environment dull (grey with grey & more grey and brown... thought we'd got past that point) and the gameplay a bit unwieldy and stale. The VATS system was implemented quite nicely but enemy types soon got repetitive. Personally I much preferred Metro 2033.

Despite not liking Fallout 3 I did pick up New Vegas in a steam sale and have played it a few hours and it's more enjoyable. It feels more immersive too, although I'm not all that far into it yet I was just having a taster.

Hence DLC and DRM to kill used sales and everything else. If we're gonna be all like "fuck y'all I'll get this as cheap as possible" then they're gonna be all like "okay fuck you back, take these alternate revenue models and suck it."

To be crass.

Pretty much, though I would call it support rather than "charity." I want to support what I enjoy. To you this seems silly, which is part of the problem.

You think DLC and DRM are a response to people being more discerning with their spending, and that if people just threw around money more freely we wouldn't have them? That's so cute and naive it's kinda sad.

Let me spell this out for you again- people are able to buy games cheap because developers and publishers freely choose to offer them cheap. Do you know why they choose to do that? Because the alternative to someone waiting and buying a game for $10 is not that person buying the game for $50, but the person just not buying the game at all. The kind of efficient price discrimination that game developers and publishers can engage in is something that most retail industries would kill for. You make as much money as you can off the people who value a game at $50, then you make as much money as you can off the people who value a game at $40, then the people who value the game at $30, then $20, then $10, then $5. That's a pretty sweet deal for everyone involved- developers, publishers, distributors, and of course customers.

You're absolutely free to give money to game developers in the form of charity or investments, and I see absolutely nothing wrong or silly with someone choosing to do so. Getting irritated with other people because they choose not to do so... that's what I find rather silly.

If you danced around my actual points any more they would record it and put it on TV with judges scoring it and people going home at the end of the show.

Anyway, done with you.

Suit yourself.