Steam's doing well, but we have no freakin' clue exactly how well they're doing or even how close their download sales are to retail sales because they absolutely refuse to release sales figures for games that are also on store shelves.
I'm not sure I would conflate the piracy problem (PSPs in particular) with sociology. While uniquely interesting, it's pretty much off-topic. The claim that Gabe Newell is not a sociologist, while correct, is a bit of a non-sequitur. He sells video games. More importantly, he sells video games successfully in a market saturated with piracy. Sociology would teach us very little about the PSP, digital downloads, and piracy UNLESS you could actually form a controlled study on that particular case (it's not sociology unless you can build a scientific experiment). The closest thing we have is case study evidence in similar markets... which was the point of the Gabe Newell reference. The link is a bit tenuous, but it can be genuinely applied to similar PSP markets like Indonesia and the Philippines (where PSP piracy IS widespread and rampant), and not so much in markets like Korea and the US (in which piracy is only a minor problem at best).
According to one guy from the NPD group, estimates have the sales at roughly (he emphasized the word "roughly) half of all sales.
Well why the poop have you not posted that in the sales thread?
I think I did. I misremembered. It was talking about subscriptions.
One area which NPD has been having trouble with is digital downloads, but they did reveal some information. "PC game sales at retail have declined by over 50 percent in the last seven years," she said, but NPD does track subscriptions, which showed them that PC gaming is at least twice what retail shows.
Though Frazier reminded us that this was a very rough estimate, NPD guesses that the total content picture for the game industry, including PC and console, might include non-retail sales of $2.3 billion overall, and retail sales of $11.7 billion.
"Again, this is a really rough estimate, but we’re trying to get our arms around this intangible world that none of us have a lot of information about," said Frazier.
According to NPD analyst Anita Frazier, who presented at this week's DICE Summit in Las Vegas, some 75 percent of game players say they prefer a boxed product, and 58 percent had never downloaded a game.
But out of those who have downloaded a game, 77 percent said it was just as good as a retail box.
Also, 65 percent of surveyed game players said they would be more likely to purchase a digital product if it were 10 percent less than retail.
Sony can be all Digital Download for all I care, since I DD now through them, but they really need to rethink their current strategy and website if they want to fix up the PSP. Do you know why Sony of Japan has such a high number of software sales? BECAUSE THEY HAVE GAMES. Oh my god. Every single month for an entire year I watched as there would be two or fewer games released a month in America and Europe, and Japan and CHINA would have 2 or 7 games a month. Sure, most of those games are probably niche or wouldn't do well over here, but it's really irritating when shit like Xenogears would be released in China and not released over here because Sony of America said no.
Everyone I know bought a psp so we could play playstation games on the go. Everyone I know with a psp cracked that bitch so we could play playstation games on our psp. Sony, I, personally, want to give you money, but you don't have any games I would want to buy. If Sony would have released playstation games on the psp like they said they would, piracy probably wouldn't have gotten so out of hand.
Honestly, I'd rather buy games through the Xbox 360 website since it's easier to navigate, has genre as an option to look through, and just generally loads faster then the sony network.
Gabe Newell is a good game maker, but he is not always automatically correct. Without Steam sales numbers in front of me, I really don't know if he has found a way to turn pirates into payers or not.
Gabe Newell is a good game maker, but he is not always automatically correct. Without Steam sales numbers in front of me, I really don't know if he has found a way to turn pirates into payers or not.
I admit that my post was a bit nebulous, but that particular sentence was not intended as an appeal to authority. It was a clarification comment on "Gabe Newell is not a sociologist" as a non-sequitur. He is not a sociologist AND he sells video games, not "you should take his word over other people because he sells video games."
Gabe Newell is a good game maker, but he is not always automatically correct. Without Steam sales numbers in front of me, I really don't know if he has found a way to turn pirates into payers or not.
I admit that my post was a bit nebulous, but that particular sentence was not intended as an appeal to authority. It was a clarification comment on "Gabe Newell is not a sociologist" as a non-sequitur. He is not a sociologist AND he sells video games, not "you should take his word over other people because he sells video games."
...which was the point of the Gabe Newell reference. The link is a bit tenuous, but it can be genuinely applied...
I'm sorry, are you saying anything at all here?
Because I read your post as "Gabe maybe knows something, or maybe not" which may be a valid point, but is a stupid thing to interject in the middle of some one else's argument. Who walks in to an argument to state "both sides have the potential of being right.'? What does that add?
Because I read your post as "Gabe maybe knows something, or maybe not" which may be a valid point, but is a stupid thing to interject in the middle of some one else's argument. Who walks in to an argument to state "both sides have the potential of being right.'? What does that add?
I was clarifying why: 1) Gabe Newell as a sociologist is conflating an off-topic remark (about the value of sociology in this scenario) with the current topic. 2) The Gabe Newell reference was used in the first place (not by me, I might add) and 3) It probably doesn't apply broadly, but it CAN be applied to a particular market.
It's all there in the post. Again, my post is a bit nebulous, however, and for that I apologize.
EDIT: I'm directly saying (right now, that is) "Your Gabe Newell != Sociologist remark is off topic" AND that "But introducing the Gabe Newell thing to the discussion only applies in regards to models where piracy is rampant in a particular region." Which, as a matter of broadly speaking, it's not as huge of a problem in the US and Korea as it is in Indonesia and most of Southeast Asia. I just thought my previous post explained it better, which upon re-reading, it did not.
So you were making an off topic remark to tell me that I was off topic? Odd tactic.
However, I was right on topic. My point was that Gabe Newell's expertise lays in the area of creating games, not in the area of determining the motivation of video game pirates. He may have some familiarity with dealing with them, but he simply does not have the kind of experience with controlled empirical studies that one would need before others would accept their word as an expert on that particular topic.
So you were making an off topic remark to tell me that I was off topic? Odd tactic.
However, I was right on topic. My point was that Gabe Newell's expertise lays in the area of creating games, not in the area of determining the motivation of video game pirates. He may have some familiarity with dealing with them, but he simply does not have the kind of experience with controlled empirical studies that one would need before others would accept their word as an expert on that particular topic.
Except that he's also involved in marketing the games (rather than just creation) to places that are generally considered to be "untouchable" by big game companies because of the rampant piracy. Empirical studies on the motivations of software pirates are meaningless unless they prove the statement that the motives of video game piracy will directly impact the overall sales of the game. While it "makes sense" and from a quantitative standpoint it probably is true, no one can conclusively prove that the attitude of "I like getting things for free" directly translates to "I will never buy video games again" and furthermore, it doesn't give a model for predicting how game sales will fare. The prevailing attitude over the past few years is that this relationship was completely true, but apparently Valve has attempted to sell games in those areas, and it has worked with some amount of success. Even with a DRM wrapper such as Steam.
Sociology is a non-sequitur here, and it is a lazy claim. While market research may be a sub-category in sociological research, one does not have to have a Sociology degree to investigate and participate in it. The sales of games in foreign markets through Steam despite saturation of video game piracy is simply one case report. Of course, without publicly released numbers, there's nothing that we (the flagellating debaters) can do but speculate, but the market apparently is big enough that Gabe Newell openly proclaims it as a success. As in, you don't have to "get into the minds and culture of the pirates" to succeed at marketing games in regions that have a high amount of piracy*. I guess we'll never know for sure unless more companies start going that route.
The better questions (rather than dismissing Gabe Newell entirely because of qualifications) are: Should Sony model the PSN after Steam? Should it take the same risks? Is it in the position to make a "Steam-like" model into a reality?
* Although some of the comments that he has made in previous interviews suggests that they did just that. Valve found out it wasn't about "getting things for free" but "getting games at all in a timely and cost-effective manner." It's not a case-controlled study, by any means, but it was enough evidence to peddle their goods in uncharted "waters", so to speak.
So you were making an off topic remark to tell me that I was off topic? Odd tactic.
However, I was right on topic. My point was that Gabe Newell's expertise lays in the area of creating games, not in the area of determining the motivation of video game pirates. He may have some familiarity with dealing with them, but he simply does not have the kind of experience with controlled empirical studies that one would need before others would accept their word as an expert on that particular topic.
Except that he's also involved in marketing the games
How much of a role does Newell play in marketing the games? Is he actually hands-on in the trenches doing the market research?
How much of a role does Newell play in marketing the games? Is he actually hands-on in the trenches doing the market research?
If you want people to say "Valve in general" instead of "Gabe Newell as the founder/managing director/spokesperson for Valve", why don't you just say so?
How much of a role does Newell play in marketing the games? Is he actually hands-on in the trenches doing the market research?
If you want people to say "Valve in general" instead of "Gabe Newell as the founder/managing director/spokesperson for Valve", why don't you just say so?
Valve didn't make the quote that Dan was touting as his proof; Gabe did.
I'm not sure what your agenda is here. As far as I can tell, you're just here to play pedant because sociology isn't quite the right field for the statement I was making. The thing is, this is a message board on the internet, not a high school debate meet, and it is close enough.
A future with a different PSP and PSN... is there a market to be had with download games, and how can Sony screw it up? If the do it "like Steam", they can probably find ways to succeed. But I find it unlikely that Sony will 1) gather up a MASSIVE collection of games for sale 2) reduce the price points to where it is commercially acceptable 3) have a weekly incentive sale to move software units. They already have a fine groundwork with the latest firmware update (which puts the PSN store directly on the PSP). But it's all about content generation and getting consumers to look favorably on consuming the content.
Posts
So much of it.
Well why the poop have you not posted that in the sales thread?
I think I did. I misremembered. It was talking about subscriptions.
Anyway, evidence doesn't point to people caring much for downloading games over buying a physical copy.
http://www.edge-online.com/news/npds-frazier-consumers-prefer-retail
Everyone I know bought a psp so we could play playstation games on the go. Everyone I know with a psp cracked that bitch so we could play playstation games on our psp. Sony, I, personally, want to give you money, but you don't have any games I would want to buy. If Sony would have released playstation games on the psp like they said they would, piracy probably wouldn't have gotten so out of hand.
Honestly, I'd rather buy games through the Xbox 360 website since it's easier to navigate, has genre as an option to look through, and just generally loads faster then the sony network.
That's an appeal to authority.
Gabe Newell is a good game maker, but he is not always automatically correct. Without Steam sales numbers in front of me, I really don't know if he has found a way to turn pirates into payers or not.
EDIT: In fact, I state:
I'm sorry, are you saying anything at all here?
Because I read your post as "Gabe maybe knows something, or maybe not" which may be a valid point, but is a stupid thing to interject in the middle of some one else's argument. Who walks in to an argument to state "both sides have the potential of being right.'? What does that add?
It's all there in the post. Again, my post is a bit nebulous, however, and for that I apologize.
EDIT: I'm directly saying (right now, that is) "Your Gabe Newell != Sociologist remark is off topic" AND that "But introducing the Gabe Newell thing to the discussion only applies in regards to models where piracy is rampant in a particular region." Which, as a matter of broadly speaking, it's not as huge of a problem in the US and Korea as it is in Indonesia and most of Southeast Asia. I just thought my previous post explained it better, which upon re-reading, it did not.
However, I was right on topic. My point was that Gabe Newell's expertise lays in the area of creating games, not in the area of determining the motivation of video game pirates. He may have some familiarity with dealing with them, but he simply does not have the kind of experience with controlled empirical studies that one would need before others would accept their word as an expert on that particular topic.
Sociology is a non-sequitur here, and it is a lazy claim. While market research may be a sub-category in sociological research, one does not have to have a Sociology degree to investigate and participate in it. The sales of games in foreign markets through Steam despite saturation of video game piracy is simply one case report. Of course, without publicly released numbers, there's nothing that we (the flagellating debaters) can do but speculate, but the market apparently is big enough that Gabe Newell openly proclaims it as a success. As in, you don't have to "get into the minds and culture of the pirates" to succeed at marketing games in regions that have a high amount of piracy*. I guess we'll never know for sure unless more companies start going that route.
The better questions (rather than dismissing Gabe Newell entirely because of qualifications) are: Should Sony model the PSN after Steam? Should it take the same risks? Is it in the position to make a "Steam-like" model into a reality?
* Although some of the comments that he has made in previous interviews suggests that they did just that. Valve found out it wasn't about "getting things for free" but "getting games at all in a timely and cost-effective manner." It's not a case-controlled study, by any means, but it was enough evidence to peddle their goods in uncharted "waters", so to speak.
How much of a role does Newell play in marketing the games? Is he actually hands-on in the trenches doing the market research?
Valve didn't make the quote that Dan was touting as his proof; Gabe did.
I'm not sure what your agenda is here. As far as I can tell, you're just here to play pedant because sociology isn't quite the right field for the statement I was making. The thing is, this is a message board on the internet, not a high school debate meet, and it is close enough.