Five Games For A Dollar – How Humble Bundle Uses Price Discrimination

24

September

2016

No ratings yet.

Do you remember the time when you had to pay $50 for a game in the store? And the price did not change much even after a long time. How things have changed since then. Ever since games are available in fully digital form on platforms such as Steam, prices have gone down a lot (even though they often still start out as expensive as in the past). How is it possible that games have become so much cheaper? Does the gaming industry simply make less profit? This is possible, but not necessarily the case. The answer lies in the fact that games are an information good, which means that while it is very expensive to produce the first copy, creating more copies is relatively cheap. So the more copies you manage to sell, the smaller your total cost per copy is (because the production cost is spread out over more products). In other words: to maximize your profit as a game developer, you want to sell as many copies as possible, even if this means reducing your price. Now, keeping this in mind, let us consider the concept of price discrimination: each individual has a willingness to pay for a particular product. Some people might be willing to pay $50 to get a game as soon as it is released. However, other people may only want buy that same game for $1. Ideally, you’d offer the game to the one person for $50 and for $1 to the other. However, if the game is sold in a store, you cannot differentiate the price, which is why in the past the only way to discriminate prices for certain groups of individuals was by changing the price over time, so that those with a lower willingness to pay would wait until the price dropped. But even then, putting a game in a store is obviously more expensive than selling a digital, downloadable version online, such as what Steam offers.

 

This is all very interesting of course, and a very happy development for all gamers, but this is not the phenomenon that I wanted to talk about. I’d like instead to point out another website that sells games: Humble Bundle. They have a very interesting business model where they have extended this idea of willingness to pay and combined it with the idea of bundles. What Humble Bundle does is they create a bundle of games and offer it for about a week. Now what is special is that you can pay what you want! In fact, you could get many of the games they offer for free (although you must pay at least $1 to get Steam keys, allowing you to download the games in Steam). What’s more: you can choose where your money goes. By default, part of it goes to each game developer, part goes to Humble Bundle itself and part goes to charity. But you can customize this any way you want, choosing not to give anything to Humble Bundle, or giving everything to a charity. In this way, you have the possibility to support the developers of the games that you really like. So why does this concept even work? If you are giving away games for free, how can you possibly make a profit? Well, obviously most people choose to pay a little bit, either to get access to the games on Steam or to ease their consciousness. In addition, Humble Bundle smartly gives an incentive to pay more by allowing you to ‘upgrade’ your bundle by paying more, meaning that other (usually more recent or more popular) games are added. This works because, as mentioned earlier, the Humble Bundle system allows great personalization, thus making it possible to make maximum use of each individual’s willingness to pay (and some people do in fact pay over $50 for a bundle). In addition, the idea of making bundles is very smart. People will feel that the total value is more, even if they only end up playing one game in the bundle. After all, it is easier to motivate someone to buy that one game that they want for $15 even though their willingness to pay was $10, since they get that other game that they were kind of interested in as well. Not to mention that a great way to sell unpopular games is by combining them with more popular games. Even if people can choose where their money goes, they likely won’t often choose to give nothing at all to a particular company.

 

All in all, I believe Humble Bundle’s business model is very smart, and while it may at first seem counter-intuitive, it likely leads to quite a bit of profit for game developers. In addition, they have executed this idea, that can be brought back to various economic theories, in a really good way. I hope they will continue to experiment and find new ways to make both consumers and developers happy. Now go celebrate this great development by treating yourself to a bundle of games – for whatever you’re willing to pay!

Please rate this

Social Media and Gaming

4

November

2015

No ratings yet.

“Gamers are loners.”, “Gaming is not social.”, “Everything was better in the past.”
In the old days, when kids went to the arcade, they went with friends. These days, kids lock themselves in their rooms alone with their gaming device. That isn’t social, or is it?

http://www.arcaderestoration.com/media/Graphics/arcade200707/arcade6big.jpg

Sony and Microsoft don’t agree with these statements. Their latest products, respectively the Playstation 4 and Xbox One, have social media integrated. They blend the online and offline world. For example, when a friend finds a legendary item while playing ‘single player’, the position of this item appears on your single player map too.
While playing a videogame you can also stream your gameplay live. This way your friends can watch you play and via their headsets they can interact with you. There’s even the possibility to aid your friend while using your tablet or phone. (Hunt 2013)

http://images.pocketgamer.co.uk/FCKEditorFiles//BeFUknBCMAAcJjq.jpg

You could say console gamers are finally catching up with PC gamers on the social aspect. Failbetter Games, for example, is pulling people in socially long before Sony and Microsoft did. Failbetter creates unique interactive stories, like Fallen London, “which could be best described as a sort of choose your own adventure story in which you play alongside Facebook and Twitter friends, asking them for help”. (Harper 2013)

http://sproutsocial.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Kickstarter-Games.jpg

Moreover, the crowd-funding website Kickstarter lets both big and small game developers fund their game ideas. This really changes the gaming industry, because fans spread the word themselves via Twitter instead of the developer marketing their games via traditional media. (Harper 2013)

There are countless communities where people spread their love for gaming. People interacting, collaborating and sharing. Building new relationships, maintaining them, even ending some.
It’s like people are all around you, but are they really? Is it the same as having a real person standing next to you, breathing? What is the difference? Do you think people are less social because of these changes in gaming that are supposed to make it more social?

References:
– Hunt, T. (2013) ‘5 Ways Video Game Companies are Leveraging Social Media’. Visited on 4 November 2015 via https://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/media-journalism/5-ways-video-game-companies-are-leveraging-social-media/.
– Harper, E. (2013) ‘Insiders Explain How Social Media and Video Games Are Merging’. Visited on 4 November 2015 via http://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-video-games/.

Please rate this

Pewdiepie

12

October

2015

No ratings yet.

I guess you’ve all heard of the YouTube celebrity Felix Kjellberg A.K.A. Pewdiepie. If not, he is the most subscribed YouTuber with an astounding 40 million subscribers, mostly playing ‘indie’ or unpopular videogames while live commentating the event. In 2015, his annual income is estimated to be 4 million dollars a year and his net worth is estimated around 16 million dollars. And he’s only 25 years old! (Net Worth 2015)
Where does all this money come from?

First, let me freshen up your memory by explaining the phenomenon called ‘Social Commerce’. “Simply defined, social commerce is the fusion of social media with e-commerce or basically the concept of word-of-mouth applied to e-commerce.” (Marsden 2010)
So, in the case of Pewdiepie’s channel there are some signs of social commerce. For example, every month Pewds gets a package containing several collector items which are all related by theme, like ‘Villains’. He unboxes the items on screen and comments on them. At the end of the video he advises people to also buy these ‘Loot Crates’. The video below is one of the examples of this word-of-mouth on his channel.

Another important way companies gain a lot of awareness is when Pewdiepie plays their game. Then, the so-called Oprah effect comes into force. The Oprah effect is the effect that an appearance on a famous show can have on a small business. (Investopedia 2015) Because Pewdiepie nearly has 10 billion views, a recommendation can have a significant influence on the game developers.

Not a lot of people know that Pewdiepie actually is signed under Maker Studios, a company owned by Walt Disney, which produces videos for channels on YouTube. (Maker Studios 2015) The funny thing is, Pewdiepie says in his videos that he never gets paid to promote the videogames he plays. (YouTube 2015)

Is he telling the truth? Or is he lying and exploiting all of his subscribers? That making money is his main motive?
What do you guys think?

References:
– Investopedia (2015) Oprah Effect http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/oprah-effect.asp
– Maker Studios (2015) Makers http://www.makerstudios.com/makers
– Marsden, P. (2010) Social Commerce: Monetizing Social Media, Hamburg: Syzygy.
– Net Worth (2015) Pewdiepie http://www.the-net-worth.com/2015/05/pewdiepie/
– YouTube (2015) Pewdiepie https://www.youtube.com/user/PewDiePie/

Please rate this

Minecraft, a blockbuster thanks to Word-of-Mouth?

13

October

2013

No ratings yet.

As we could see in this weeks readings, “[…] firms increasingly rely on “network” and “viral” marketing strategies” (Hill et al. 2006, Manchanda et al. 2008, Nam et al. 2010, Retrieved from Aral, & Walker, 2011) in order to drive the product adoption and sales. So basically, the attention is paid on how to make products viral using marketing strategies and campaigns instead of how to design products that can turn  themselves viral (Aral, & Walker, 2011). So I was thinking of a good example of a product that went viral without using any marketing and what came to my mind was Minecraft.

Probably most of you heard or even played Minecraft, but for those who don’t know, it is a sandbox indie game that has its unique look of everything being boxy and sharp. It is not one of those high-profile games with sick graphics and real-life feeling to them. So how is it possible that a game that is not made to be perfect and not made to be fully marketed has earned its huge worldwide success?

While trying to answer this question, I came across a couple interesting articles (Minecraft, the worlds most successful casual game, Why Minecraft is so popular) which all showed some different aspects of the game that made it a blockbuster. However, the one that interested me the most was the fact, that word-of-mouth was one of the factors that facilitated the popularity of the game. So how is it possible that the game became so successful having no advertising/marketing budget, using only word-of mouth? Well I do not think this strategy from the side of the company was on purpose. Minecraft community is fairly tight, anybody can play the game, old/young, gamers/non-gamers. Thus, the whole platform is fueled by people, their engagement, so word-of mouth becomes something natural.

It is only to be discovered why exactly this works. What do you think? Do you know of any other platforms that use this strategy (on purpose or not)?

Please rate this