I just looked at a game that is 60€ and said “I dont think its worth that and would buy now for 30, just to check it out”. Then I had the idea that some publishers/devs might benefit from knowing that 1-100000 people think that the game is worth X and would buy now for that price right now. In a case like today, the additional revenue would help their financial report etc. They could make short discounts to get especially these customers or even more tailored, you need to press “buy” and confirm at that price to let the publisher know. Like suggest price on ebay.
Let me know your thoughts and if this is a terrible idea. :)
Buy the game, try it for 2 hours, don’t like it at its current price? Refund it. Pretty sure when you refund the game you can leave that feedback, dunno if devs would ever see it though.
Ah yes Gamers™ would never abuse a system like that. There is a reason why many publishers have abandoned regional pricing, the loss in revenue is bigger than any gains they would make. Remember they are in it for profit maximization not customer base maximization. They rather sell 10 copies for 60 than a 1000 copies for 60 cents.
I think a good alternative would be is have the system, but have the developer provide a Target price listing of what they’re expecting and anything that’s significantly under that listing gets ignored
For example many people didn’t feel like frostpunk 2 was worth the release pricing and that they thought it was easily more worth around $30 instead of the 45 it released at, so Gamers could suggest that they’re not buying it because the price is too high and they could provide that $30 price point, unless that $30 price point is below the Target price that the developer has set as the minimum listing, it would be part of the metric. This would filter out the people who are abusing the system because there’s no point in using the system dishonorably because you don’t know if your metric is going to actually count where are the people who are you using it genuine and not doing obvious troll responses would not be filtered out because realistically they should be within the developers Target.
It’s not like these people are saying I would pay a dollar for this game when the games worth $40, they’re saying that they believe the price is too steep in that $30 is a much better cost point than 45.
They could even add a little bit of financial advantage onto it, by optionally having it so you can Mark a price point at what you’d be willing to purchase it at and if the developer ends up dropping it to that price point it, it alerts the user much like how eBay does with the suggest a price feature
Seeing how many devs ignore suggested regional pricing unless steam autofills it for them, nobody would enable this on their own, and you can’t make this sort of thing opt out.
I’m thinking of a “make offer” option where the customer can choose any price and the dev can manually choose to sell to that customer for that price or not.
It’s a very unclear signal as there’s a bunch of other possibilities too. Maybe I already have a similar game I prefer, maybe I don’t like the genre, …
I believe publishers already have good control over their prices. If they feel a game isn’t selling to the extent they wish, they lower the price. If it’s selling well, then they have no need to lower the price.
I think it’s a terrible idea but please don’t take that as an insult. It would instantly be filled with $1 “bids” and the data would be useless at best. I also feel like if I was a dev, I’d feel pretty bummed about the catalogue of people who think my game isn’t worth buying
Then it gets filled with the lowest offers. Either way, the data wouldn’t be useful enough to warrant it as a standard feature. If the devs want to know, they can put up a poll or something
Someone would setup some third party tracker that identified the auto reject threshold and listed it for everyone, so people could low-ball just above it. Or devs would just set it to auto-reject below the listing prices.
I think that makes sense for items of finite/low quantity like eBay. Then you have to make sure your offer is at least reasonable so it beats other offers. But with an unlimited resource like software you don’t have to worry about that.
This assumes people are rational and that what they say they are willing to pay matches what they are actually willing to pay. And that is just the people not trying to abuse the system.
Personally I don’t think I’d advocate for OP’s suggestion, but you could solve the problem by making the suggestion also a commitment for X period of time. If you make the suggestion, and the price drops within 90 days, it automatically purchases it, etc.
You can put in a buy order at 0.1 for a share worth 100. You’re dreaming, but you can still do it. Don’t think it really qualifies as abusing the system.
I’m guilty of this. So many times, I’ll see something at full price and say I’ll wait to buy it on sale. Then it goes on sale and I don’t feel like spending the money at all. Granted, I’m not trying to sway the market and screaming my bid, this is just my internal monologue. I have a backlog of games and a busy adult life, so it’s not like I’m game-poor. Just regular poor.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you’re submitting before posting to see if it’s already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don’t share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don’t want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
If I have to price it, I’m going to price it at $1.
Sounds like camelcamelcamel but for games.
There actually already is steamdb which does that exact thing. The reason I suggested it is because probably all would benefit from it.
Imo isthereanydeal does the price tracking more useful.
Buy the game, try it for 2 hours, don’t like it at its current price? Refund it. Pretty sure when you refund the game you can leave that feedback, dunno if devs would ever see it though.
No it’d get flooded with “2 dollars” or “free”
Have a look at steam reviews then ponder how people would use it
Ah yes Gamers™ would never abuse a system like that. There is a reason why many publishers have abandoned regional pricing, the loss in revenue is bigger than any gains they would make. Remember they are in it for profit maximization not customer base maximization. They rather sell 10 copies for 60 than a 1000 copies for 60 cents.
I think a good alternative would be is have the system, but have the developer provide a Target price listing of what they’re expecting and anything that’s significantly under that listing gets ignored
For example many people didn’t feel like frostpunk 2 was worth the release pricing and that they thought it was easily more worth around $30 instead of the 45 it released at, so Gamers could suggest that they’re not buying it because the price is too high and they could provide that $30 price point, unless that $30 price point is below the Target price that the developer has set as the minimum listing, it would be part of the metric. This would filter out the people who are abusing the system because there’s no point in using the system dishonorably because you don’t know if your metric is going to actually count where are the people who are you using it genuine and not doing obvious troll responses would not be filtered out because realistically they should be within the developers Target.
It’s not like these people are saying I would pay a dollar for this game when the games worth $40, they’re saying that they believe the price is too steep in that $30 is a much better cost point than 45.
They could even add a little bit of financial advantage onto it, by optionally having it so you can Mark a price point at what you’d be willing to purchase it at and if the developer ends up dropping it to that price point it, it alerts the user much like how eBay does with the suggest a price feature
Seeing how many devs ignore suggested regional pricing unless steam autofills it for them, nobody would enable this on their own, and you can’t make this sort of thing opt out.
I’m thinking of a “make offer” option where the customer can choose any price and the dev can manually choose to sell to that customer for that price or not.
So eBay?
Sounds awful. A million people spamming 1 cent on all games
Lmao
I guess a minimum order thingy could be set but then the lowest offer would be spammed.
Then games with the offer option would be seen as bad or cash-grabby.
So the option should be to get un-broke and pay full price or wait until winter.
I think that would be abused pretty quickly to get games sold at 60+ down to 1 or less.
The action of not buying something signals the price is too high. Sales numbers vs sales expectations are the only metric that really matter.
It’s a very unclear signal as there’s a bunch of other possibilities too. Maybe I already have a similar game I prefer, maybe I don’t like the genre, …
deleted by creator
I believe publishers already have good control over their prices. If they feel a game isn’t selling to the extent they wish, they lower the price. If it’s selling well, then they have no need to lower the price.
It’s market economy.
Also, if you wait long enough, those games become heavily discounted during seasonal sales.
I think it’s a terrible idea but please don’t take that as an insult. It would instantly be filled with $1 “bids” and the data would be useless at best. I also feel like if I was a dev, I’d feel pretty bummed about the catalogue of people who think my game isn’t worth buying
You could say the same about steam reviews.
They can set a auto rejection on offers below a certain threshold, ebay does this with its make an offer.
Then it gets filled with the lowest offers. Either way, the data wouldn’t be useful enough to warrant it as a standard feature. If the devs want to know, they can put up a poll or something
Someone would setup some third party tracker that identified the auto reject threshold and listed it for everyone, so people could low-ball just above it. Or devs would just set it to auto-reject below the listing prices.
I think that makes sense for items of finite/low quantity like eBay. Then you have to make sure your offer is at least reasonable so it beats other offers. But with an unlimited resource like software you don’t have to worry about that.
This assumes people are rational and that what they say they are willing to pay matches what they are actually willing to pay. And that is just the people not trying to abuse the system.
Personally I don’t think I’d advocate for OP’s suggestion, but you could solve the problem by making the suggestion also a commitment for X period of time. If you make the suggestion, and the price drops within 90 days, it automatically purchases it, etc.
And what’d you get? People putting in 0.10. Unfortunately useless, as the poster above said.
You can put in a buy order at 0.1 for a share worth 100. You’re dreaming, but you can still do it. Don’t think it really qualifies as abusing the system.
potential solution: minimum commitment 10% of original list price?
I’m guilty of this. So many times, I’ll see something at full price and say I’ll wait to buy it on sale. Then it goes on sale and I don’t feel like spending the money at all. Granted, I’m not trying to sway the market and screaming my bid, this is just my internal monologue. I have a backlog of games and a busy adult life, so it’s not like I’m game-poor. Just regular poor.