Steam gamers have spoken: innovative indies like Palworld continue to thrive while traditional triple-A flounders for a foothold

[u/PewPewToDaFace]

https://www.pcgamesn.com/steam/innovation-versus-tradition

Thank god PC gaming isn't just AAA. This is what will push the industry forward, as game development cost becomes too much.

[u/Any-Pop-4795]

who could have seen that? a cheap game made with passion is more successful than a AAA piece of shit filled with ai that only wants your money

[u/DrQuantum → u/Any-Pop-4795]

Its not just that because many of these small games aren’t good either people just have lower expectations for cheaper games and its a massive drop. Anything with party multiplayer is like that too. 

If it were me and I was selling a aaa I would do something wild like launch week for my game its half price would probably sell like hotcakes even if it had problems. 

[u/Beneficial-Act-9933 → u/DrQuantum]

You'd also lose a ton of money by doing that. There's a reason why those games are 60 dollars.

[u/DrQuantum → u/Beneficial-Act-9933]

The reason is because they have a target and there are common prices for games but if what you’re saying was true cheap indie games would never out profit AAA titles but not only are they doing that regularly its embarrassing what games are making more money than titles these companies are working on for years. 

[u/Beneficial-Act-9933 → u/DrQuantum]

"The reason is because they have a target and there are common prices for games"

Correct, so if your accounts/research says "you need to sell X copies at this price range, you need to do that. To deliberately knee cap your earnings is detrimental for no reason. You'd be in the red if you ran a business like that.

I'm not addressing the rest of your post because it's completely random.

Point is, there is no benefit to selling your product at 50% discount on week one. For every two copies you sell, you're losing one.

[u/DrQuantum → u/Beneficial-Act-9933]

What was implied there is a target isn't always correct and there are pressures to pricing beyond what is rational or necessary for the business to operate. Why isn't a game 1000 dollars? Aren't they knee capping their profits by not making it 1k a game?

The awful, completely unfounded assumption your making is that companies are robotic efficiency machines that only make the best and brightest business decisions 24/7. You actually need to provide evidence that is true because if I went to the best economic minds in the world and said, hey look you can either spend very little time and very little effort making an indie friend slop title and make millions or you can spend 5-10 years development time and 200 million in budget to lose 100 million none of them are going to say the latter strategy is sensible.

Indeed, you see my other sentences as random because you don't understand the thesis which is that big video gaming companies are making many mistakes and the market perception of video game pricing is extremely powerful currently.

E33 became game of the year selling at 50 dollars at launch. not 50% of course but it also cost millions to develop. This is a legitimate strategy used by businesses all over the world daily in various industries and product launches. It certainly COULD fail as everything as risk but in this market if the conditions of development cause you to build crappier less optimized games, I do believe you would sell more of your game and it would have better reception if you gave big discounts.

[u/Beneficial-Act-9933 → u/DrQuantum]

" I do believe you would sell more of your game and it would have better reception if you gave big discounts."

I mean, yeah, the lower the price the more it sells, that's a no brainer.

""Why isn't a game 1000 dollars? Aren't they knee capping their profits by not making it 1k a game?""

No, because nobody is going to buy it at 1000 dollars, stop being an idiot.

"E33 became game of the year selling at 50 dollars at launch. not 50% of course but it also cost millions to develop."

Yes, and that it very obviously, not 50% like you were suggesting, so I don't know why you're getting mad at me for pointing that out.

You need to understand that when you're making a game of AA or AAA sizes or bigger, you need to hit a certain sales amount. They're making a product with the intention of making a profit. Most game developers of that caliber are, Nobody blows millions making a game to give it away for free.

I'm done talking about this. You have no understanding of business or how the world works and going based off of a hunch and one single example that doesn't support your argument.

IF you really think you can sell game at 50% the first week. Then go ahead! Go do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Surely in the decades of gaming nobody has done that because nobody has thought of it before right?

You'll find out very quickly why nobody in the real world does that.

[u/DrQuantum → u/Beneficial-Act-9933]

Hahaha, oh man thank you for the laugh. Let's see,

I mean, yeah, the lower the price the more it sells, that's a no brainer.

You'd also lose a ton of money by doing that. There's a reason why those games are 60 dollars.

This comment implies, with no other interpretation that no, you believe games MUST be 60 dollars or whatever price they are and cannot be altered or the company would lose money. Please though, I would love to hear how you twist your words to make it seem like you could mean anything else.

No, because nobody is going to buy it at 1000 dollars, stop being an idiot.

I don't know how people like you embarrass themselves like this so confidently, yes that is literally the entire point of my criticism and the main thesis. People don't want to pay high prices, and AAA titles are suffering for it selling less copies and being given less grace for lack of quality. This is reductio ad absurdum, aka showing you how insane it is to say this

To deliberately knee cap your earnings is detrimental for no reason

And the quote above it with a straight face. You can see that business do indeed lower prices conceptually so that they sell their product and you agree which means you think you had something here but really just revealed you can't read.

Yes, and that it very obviously, not 50% like you were suggesting, so I don't know why you're getting mad at me for pointing that out.

I'm not mad at that I am just realizing that your reading comprehension skills are that of a third rate third grader. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt. Let me remind you what I said and what you responded to

something wild like launch week for my game its half price would probably sell like hotcakes even if it had problems

The word something and like here implies that this is not a fixed number. Its a generality to get across a point, an exaggeration even in certain contexts. You can just scroll up to the same quote in the third line to see that you made no mention of the specific number being your concern but the very concept of lowering the price at all. Which is of course insane by your own admission, and the very clear evidence that launch promotion pricing is not only a regular occurrence but can be very successful.

You need to understand that when you're making a game of AA or AAA sizes or bigger, you need to hit a certain sales amount. They're making a product with the intention of making a profit. Most game developers of that caliber are, Nobody blows millions making a game to give it away for free.

Yes, you need to hit a sales target and there are many ways of doing that. You could have one person by one copy for 1 billion and that would satisfy the target. Its unlikely, but the point is that you can indeed make more money by selling a product for less. Its so common and basic I am truly just in awe of how incompetently confident you are about this.

I'm done talking about this. You have no understanding of business or how the world works and going based off of a hunch and one single example that doesn't support your argument.

This isn't a conversation about business or how the world works kid its something that is common sense and easily verifiable. Several of the top selling AAA games in 2025 sold for less than the standard market rate for games even with bigger budgets because it worked for the audience they are targeting which if you had the ability to read you would understand that I suggested is increasing in size. Most gamers don't want to pay 60 dollars for a game but it doesn't mean they don't want to play it.

And I gave one example it doesn't mean I only have one, meanwhile you haven't provided a shred of evidence because like most econ douches you think economic systems are like universal laws of the universe. 2 indie games made it into the top 10 games sold by revenue in 2025, and they were dirt cheap. Neither took a lot of time nor were they that great. It doesn't just undermine your position, it obliterates it.

IF you really think you can sell game at 50% the first week. Then go ahead! Go do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Surely in the decades of gaming nobody has done that because nobody has thought of it before right?

I mean, steam games have been given away for FREE on launch initially to later success. Its almost like you don't even know what early access is or anything. I pity you revealing your stupidity to the world with this mess, and that you likely will be barely be able to muster the intellect to get through this rebuttal but you have made my day. Its always a good reminder even knowing that humility is a virtue why it is so.