In all fairness it makes more sense for a film, same kind of setup as the animation films we’ve been having of late about what’s going on inside people’s minds and such.
It makes sense for those who are big enough in the Game Industry (which is now several times the size of the Movie Industry in terms of revenue) to try and do the same as movies and leverage that sweet brand recognition of celebrity actors to sell more copies of the game.
However I suspect it doesn’t work quite the same in practice as the “main character in the story” in games is almost invariably the player him/herself and those famous names will never be more than secondary characters with limited interaction possibilities.
Gotta monetise to the max that personal brand recognition!
(Whilst in a video game like that I do expect his work was proper acting rather than merelly being famous, he’s still the one there doing it for the big $$$ rather than somebody else because of brand recognition: as in my personal experience there are tons of just as good actors in Britain who simply are not widelly known, as Britain has a massive thing for Theatre thus good acting schools and lots of people going into performing arts).
With maybe the notable exception of multiplayer games, all games will be at least just as good a year after launch as they are at launch day.
Add to it that in a year’s time there will be enough reviews out there from people who actually played it longer than 5h and the heavy marketing phase will be more than over so it’s actually possible to get a hype-free overview of it, AND the game itself will likely be better than at launch due to bug fixing in the meanwhile and maybe even some content added, and it’s the logical thing to never buy before or at launch and just wait.
However most people have problems with “reward delaying” (and actual psychological term for the ability to wait for something to be more ‘rewarding’ before going for it) and “just have to have it now!” and that just overrides logic (assuming they even took the time to think about it in the first place).
GOG, because if you don’t use GOG Galaxy (and you can as is not at all required and ALL games have offline installers) you never fire up a game and have to wait for Steam to update or are on vacations running it on a notebook with mobile paid data, forget to disable “cloud saves” or some stupid shit like that and run out of data.
Also GOG is 100% DRM free.
Oh, and did you know that Steam is about to switch off Windows 7 support?!
Why should games that work perfectly in older computers with Windows 7, bought and paid for because of supporting it, stop working because Valve wants to keep on controlling your usage of games you bought but doesn’t want to spend money for even a basic launch clienf supporting that OS?
There is no such problem with GOG and there will never be if you download the offline installers for your games - as long as the machine works, the games will work, period.
Oh, and GOG goes out of their way yo support old games: it’s in their name Good Old Games.
So you just had to write what in your eyes is “obvious” for everybody as a comment, which hence is redundant, about how some other comment is “redundant and obvious”…
If people buy it anyway at the full price, then the game publisher will correctly deduce that it indeed worth at least that much money for enough people (otherwise those people would not part ways with that much money to get it) to get that game as soon as it comes out.
In Economics, perfect pricing (which is not yet possible but, damn, they’re really trying hard) from the point of view of a seller (i.e. for maximum profits) is when they get exactly as much money from each individual as that person is willing to pay for it, so the “ideal” world for them would be individually-tailored prices going as high as it could possibly go for each person whilst still managing to sell to that person.
As they can’t as of yet sell at different prices to each and every individual, they’ve gone as far as they can (regional pricing, different prices in different stores with different audiences and, maybe more importantly, time-from-publishing pricing) and then push prices up and up slowly whilst checking if in total the price increase has yielded more money or not (they have no issue with loosing customers due to higher prices if in total they still make more money at the price point than at a lower price point).
IMHO, in the face of this, the easist and best reaction for somebody who wants the game but does not think it’s worth $70, is to wait until the price falls down to how much they’re willing to pay for it (even better, let it fall some more and buy a couple more games with the savings). In fact if enough people do it the price will fall much faster as the publisher’s sales data analysis will signal to them that they’ve put the game at too high a price point and they’ll lower it trying to pick up the “money left on the table” from those who are interested but not at that price point before those people lose interest.