I don't think publishers should offer incentives to people who buy at launch. It would start a bad precedent which would inevitably be abused-- see also preorder swag from Gamestop.

To me, gamers who buy games at launch for full retail do get something for their money: They get an increased likelihood that the sort of game they just bought will be made in the future. It's not a concrete, I hold in my hands a plastic model of Master Chief's head, but it can be a very good thing.

When I pay my money for a new game, I'm saying "This is the sort of game that is worth $60 to me." Money talks, as the old saying goes, and if enough people's dollars say the same thing it's bound to have an impact on the industry. If you doubt, then all you need to look at is Madden. It's one of the best selling games on the market every year that it comes out. The result? Every year we are offered the same game. For good or ill, EA listens to who gives them the most money.

So if I see a game that I want, and it has some element to it that I'd like to see become a trend, I buy it at launch. It's why I bought Katamari Damacy and God Hand at launch, it's why I pre-ordered Loco Roco. Whether my dollars had any impact on the industry, it may be too soon to tell. But it's like voting: If you don't do it your complaints are devalued. You can't say "Why don't they make good games?" when you wait for the good games to hit the bargain bins.

It's just capitalism. People don't pay less because they wait, they wait because they want to pay less. People pay what they feel the product is worth to them.

What I'm sick of is every single game coming with 3 tiers of special edition. Sell me the game. If you want to sell additional merchandise... DO THAT.

Speaking as someone who has seen a lot of retail numbers, the reason that games are slashed rather quickly is a result of the success that retailers have had (and now, to some degree, suffer with) at convincing gamers of the need of day one purchasing. They are caught in a spiral of their own making, trapped by their own success and having to keep up with an ever steeper curve of seeing the bulk of most games sales occur within the first 48 hours of a new release. While there are certainly some games that have legs, I've personally seen time and again games that sell 50-60% of their total lifetime inventory with two days of release.

The reason that prices used to remain much more stable is two-fold. 1) the sales slide used to stretch a lot further. 2) Retailers are competing with themselves by moving used product. After two weeks there is already strong downward pressure on prices for the vast majority of games, and it has nothing to do with benefitting or punishing adopters of any kind. To quote Dire Straits, "we got to move these, refrigerators. We got to move these color TVs." Except instead or refrigerators and televisions, it's games.

Inventory control is one of the biggest issues in retail. The goal is to have exactly enough product in the right spots to meet week one demand, and then virtually nothing left over (because that's just inventory sitting on the shelves looking pretty). This is directly the result of the pre-order model of games, and is its own biggest headache. Now specialty retailers can't live without pre-orders because they've programmed their customers and they have to be prepared to have exactly the right volume in each store to be able to meet demand without leaving huge overhead. This is why it's also such a pain in the ass to walk into Gamestop and ask for a game without a reserve.

This is not an issue of penalizing any sector of the consumer base. I think specialty retailers in particular are inextricably linked to the model of pricing as you see it, as a result of factors like used games, preorders, inventory control and, frankly, all the things we hate about their business models.

Now, all that said, I refuse to get worked up about the moderating price of videogames. If you bought on day one (knowing full well that the price will eventually go down) don't get jealous with me because I had the patience to take advantage of the system. I don't begudge those picking up Crackdown now for $15 just because I paid $60. Downward pressure on prices is a benefit of a bad system, not a thing to get frustrated over. If nothing else it opens up the opportunity for long term enjoyment of games you might not have otherwise paid full price for.

At one time I believed that how\when\for how much we purchased games had an impact on the industry itself.... I dont anymore.

There are very few games I purchase at launch. (I average one every 2 years or so) Those games are usually sequals to proven good titles I know very well. And even then not all of those get purchased at launch.

Today I mostly have discovered I can wait 1-4 years on games. It saves me tons of money and issues with bugs. I dont fear about not have a system that can play them. And I can purchase more games this way. Also I have tons of resources to read from to make sure what I am getting is a solid game.

I also take the price point very much into account.

50$ Almost no purchases period

40$ Only proven titles from established series or well known title. Few exceptions.

30$ At this price point I bite on items where I know a lot about. No impuse buys here.

20$ Some impulse buys here, but very few. Usually from favored publishers.

10$ Most purchases of mine are at this point.

5$ Most impulse purchases happen here.

The only time I feel like I have ever been burned by not getting a game at the $60 price point is when the online portion of the game is concerned. I have gotten games after a price drop only to find that the online community has died out, or the only players left are way more advanced in their skill level than I. However, if the game has a great single player component then I see the $30 savings as a way of purchasing the single player without having to pay for the multiplayer experience that I would have gotten had I shelled out $60 at launch.

That being said, $10-$20 is my sweet spot as well, but I have recently been forcing myself not to purchase a game unless I have time to play it. Live Arcade games, however, are the exception that keeps breaking this rule over and over again.

Well, that's a pretty good summation of my feelings. Based on the reviews I would expect Mercs 2 to drop in price relatively quickly yet I still don't feel bad about paying $60 because that's what the game was worth to me.

Are the complaints really just buyer's remorse?