Massive sales is what devalues games for me. I am not buying anything unless it is at least 80% off and/or under 2€.

Garage sales!

Not to mention most markets & physical stores who got to sell games don't really have so much space to keep the price reasonable over the time period steam does.

Steam does have weekend sales, but most games probably sells like hot cakes on winter & summer sales, and during 6 months period game will keep its retail price only if it sells full price, while on steam game doesn't have expenses phys stores do and can sell 0 copies and still keep the price for 6 months and on summer and winter sales go for 25% of discount and sell and make possibly bigger profit that full price on retail.
I'm buying games full price.
I'm waiting for discounts.
I'm not delusional like some guys (not necessary you) who expects 1$ price & 80% discounts. Some games at 80% discounts cost 5$, soo...

Yeah, those absurd sales have caused the majority of users to wait for insane discounts.
I mean, I believe that 10+ years old games shouldn't cost a fortune, but 50% after only 1-2 years seems wrong.
It pains me to say this, but maybe stores should put a limit on possible discounts and prices?

How many clients took advantage of those, compared to Steam?
The scale difference is immense IMO.

I'm under impression games that have sales over sales, either don't have retail box or retail box was published like in 2005, and most of those boxes would be old, damaged or someone doesn't really wants to sell them, and reason why it's still played and is still making profit is steam discounts. (Trine series)
Trine series is also relatevely cheap 12€ for first title, 16€ euro for second. Even if they sold every possible physical copy published, they probably made more out of digital sales due to expenses digital copies don't have.


Amount of games on sale durign summer/winter sale is nothing compared to games on sale during a weekend. I'm more likely to buy discounted game on my wishlist if I see my whole wishlist is discounted, even it that particular game I purchased was discounted during the some random week.
I don't even buy every possible title on wishlist during summer winter sales.


Witcher has sold 40 million copies. I bet CD Project didn't publish 40 million physical copies out of thin air.& that they now value digital copies over physical

It really seems like OP is saying two things:

1. That they enjoy owning physical things, and since digitally distributed video games aren't physical they are inherently of less value than a physical copy.

This could be true for OP, but it is entirely subjective. I rejoiced when I was able to stop storing physical copies of my media files. I never valued the physical part at all, so for me it has not been devalued at all.

2. That scarcity and effort-to-obtain begets value in the sense of emotional attachment. And, since digital distribution and the gaming production boom have made games plentiful and easy-to-obtain, thus digital games are devalued.

This one is a little more plausible. If I had to search around for a year to find a copy of Baldur's Gate, you'd think I would value it more. EXCEPT that's exactly what I did before digital distribution caught up. I scoured eBay and local shops for more than a year to find rare and (even more rare) affordable copies of Baldur's Gate, TOEE, Fallout, etc. And I dropped all of those like hot rocks the second I could get them delivered digitally.

The production glut seems to make sense. Except that I still value the good games as much as I ever did. Witness me going on about Shadow Man every 2 months or so. And I now only own that digitally. I still like it as much as I ever did. I don't value the cheap bundle games I've acquired very much, but that's mostly because the games themselves mostly suck. And once I figured out how many sucky games I was acquiring just because they were a really good deal, I changed my buying habits in a big way. Now I spend money within a monthly budget and make sure I spend it on games I really want.

Conclusion: OP misses the old days and the old ways of doing things and actually values the experience of owning and collecting more than they value any actual game.

Yes

Now that I think about it - before I discovered digital distribution stores, I bought my games from bargain bins, budget editions, Ebay, borrowed them from friends or libraries, or downloaded them off Abandonware sites. So at least in my case, I can safely say that even before official digital distribution I checked out a lot of games and didn't pay higher prices for them. I already was a collector of cheap games before I ever heard about GOG, Steam & bundles. I also didn't play more (or fewer) videogames back then than I do now. In total, I do spend a lot more money on games now though ever since I discovered digital distribution stores.

It's perfectly possible that digital distribution and sales created more players with a mindset like mine. It's also possible that stores and publishers participate in these sales explicitly to reach people like me who were always more of a budget gamer to begin with, as soon as they've sold their copies to the bigger spenders. I can imagine it hurts a little to see your own game discounted so much, but on the other hand developers want people to play their games and they need to get paid. I'm not sure if it would be beneficial to publishers and developers if they'd renounce sales. Who knows, maybe I would value games more if they were more expensive, but I also wouldn't buy as many anymore, so one or two lucky developers might be able to seduce me to pay the full price (but woe to them if their game turns out a disappointment), and all the others wouldn't see a penny from me anymore. I bet that wouldn't earn them more than they get now, rather less.

Also, I think that in the same way that I pay few for individual titles but spend a lot in general, I do not value every title I buy very highly, but still cherish those that eventually click with me. From a customer's and player's point of view, I see nothing bad in that. I'd rather have the opportunity to freely search for what might have higher value to me (among all the choice that comes with sales and big collections) than force myself to value something more highly just because my choices are restricted.

indeed. and it is just that right now, it is easier to experience much more games (access and price).

I have a list of "essential games", which I more or less have installed all the time and keep coming back to, and there are games there from 1980's to games in early access right now. and the list is not long (about 40 games), but it is the games I truly adore.

So Croatia has not yet started taxing digital games, then? Governments are always finding new ways to tax people, after all...

Depends what you mean be devaluing. Do you mean it in the sense that it costs less to buy games? Do you mean it in the sense that they are less valuable to own? Do you mean in the sense that there were some implied industry "values" or standards that are eroded by digital distribution?

I pay taxes for everything I buy probably even digital things. I doubt I don't pay them.

But 90% of publishers don't have power to ship to ever random country like mine and I like those 90% of publishers because I'm not interested in:
AAA shooters
AAA football
AAA GTA clones

which is 90% of big name games here and published by 10% publishers worldwide,

He already explained that in post #18. Did you just react to the topic title?
Though the OP could've written a better title for his topic. Something like this: "Do you value digitally distributed games less?"

OT:
- I value better games more than lesser games.
- I value big box and old CE editions more than "lesser" packaging or digital releases.
- I value DRM free more than DRM'ed. (I have few DRM'ed-only games at this point.)
- Cost has nothing to do with how much I value a game.

So how I value a game is a combination of the above points.

I admittedly missed it. Thanks for pointing it out though.

I've edited my post to comment on the thread title. ;-)

For some who are having an issue with terms, here's a pretty good definition (not written by me):

"Price can be understood as the money or amount to be paid, in order to get something. Cost is the amount incurred in the production of goods, i.e. it is the money value of the resources involved in producing something. Conversely, value implies the utility or worth of the commodity of service for an individual."

(site: Key Differences, Difference Between Price, Cost and Value)

I think some confusion may have occurred because I tried to steer some early replies from price toward value... and instead of just going to bed I probably confused the issue.
Thanks! You understood my meaning.