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”?
For me, the only reason to jump on a game early is if it’s necessary for there to be a thriving multiplayer community to enjoy the game. That’s something you would miss out on by waiting for a sale. That early stage, where everyone is still figuring out how the game works and finding new strategies, can be fun. But I rarely play multiplayer games now, so I just skip that and I don’t mind.
If it’s a singleplayer game, there’s no reason to jump on it early – and certainly not to enjoy it as a technical spectacle. It’ll look just as good five years from now.
I remember replaying the original Half-Life in 2008 for its ten year anniversary, and thinking, “This is still fun, but the graphics are almost distractingly outdated.” But when I replayed the original Mass Effect from 2007 just a couple years ago – which was more than ten years old then – I thought it looked just fine.
I would argue there’s some merit to catching the cultural “wave” of a new AAA release every now and again.
Obviously I don’t do it often, but I recently picked up Baldur’s Gate 3, and it’s been fun to talk to people about it at work and such.
That’s a really good point. Sometimes the fun you can have with the game’s “multi player” community isn’t in the game itself.
Baldur’s Gate 3 is probably the best example I can think of. (And I don’t have it, and it is really tempting for the reason you just gave.) I actually overheard two people talking about it at a coffee shop today, and three people talking about it on the train a couple weeks ago. I can’t think of any other game that has been like this.
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.
Any sort of fighting game if you’re planning to play online. It doesn’t matter how cheap Rivals of Aether or Street Fighter 6 is, if you’re not playing near release you’ll only be fighting against people with 500+ hours of experience.
I mostly agree, but I feel like Street Fighter 6(Going to throw Tekken 7/8 out as an option as well) has a good enough ranking system that you will be able to get people around your skill level years down the line. I didnt jump on Street Fighter 5 till Arcade Edition released, and never had an issue with learning and getting matches in Ranked, and I feel like that will be the same for SF6.
You will have to catch up with knowledge of characters, but I feel lower ranks are much easier in that regard.
However, the Street Fighter 6 Battle Hub is merciless and full of Master ranked players, and that is where turning up late is going to be painful and soul crushing(and I will be one of those people contributing to that).
This also highlights a huge advantage that popular fighting games have: the constant arrival of new players. You don’t want to be the only person who picked up the game that week.
Thankfully, there are multiple really popular fighting games out right now (at least, really popular compared to how the genre was doing a few years ago), which is great.
Every game made by Nintendo in the last 20 years. They never go on sale.
Patient cat here
I just download em. SMRPG worked perfectly on day one, which was nuts. TotK took some time, but now it’s 1440p/60 and mods! MODS!
In addition to this there is also occasionally the case where playing an extremely popular game right at launch lets you participate in the zeitgeist in a way you can’t really do if you wait a year and a half for a sale. I imagine whether this matters to you is extremely subjective, but I remember this being a big thing for me with both Elden Ring and BG3; being able to participate in discussions and discovery at the point in time when not everything about the game has been mapped out. Watercooler talk or chatting on Discord with others and sharing your respective findings during that early time when the Wikis aren’t filled in yet.
While that’s true, specifically avoiding the zeitgeist (read: hype) is the stated goal for patient gaming communities (at least the ones on Reddit and here on Lemmy at !patientgamers@sh.itjust.works). It’s why people pay too much for games that are released unfinished in the first place. And there’s always a popular game out or right around the corner.
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).
Flash-in-the-pan multiplayer games that may not have anyone left to play with if you don’t join in while the pan is still hot. Heck even ones that stick around a while just get harder to start in when most players have built up skill in the game and know all the little nuances. It’s a lot easier to grow along with everyone when a game first drops, IMO if you care at all about the competitive side.
It would be interesting to see how many ‘patient gamers’ are actually into multiplayer games at all because of this reason. I wouldn’t call myself one per se, but I probably fit the criteria, and most of the games I wait to come on sale are single player campaign.
I’m patient for SP games, but I also sometimes jump on bandwagons for MP games from time to time. Especially when they’re cheap, like Lethal Company or Fall Guys.
I’ll just be over here sobbing in Absolvers empty arenas. I really enjoyed that game. And then it just died.
Oh, damn. I still have that one on my wishlist.
Project Zomboid is in this category
