How well is Civ 5 selling

[Proteus_MST]

But Steam does get casual impulse buys... You can cruise the Steam site for new and interesting games just like people cruise the aisles of retail establishments. And checking out Steam for new and different games is a heck of a lot easier than leaving your house and driving to some store that might be miles away and only has a limited supply of different games.

I have to agree...
while you won´t see me casual buying any full priced games on steam (due to the fact that steam, with its "1$=1€" conversion is much more expensive than brick&mortar stores or amazon), I already have bought several games that were on sale, which I probably wouldn´t have bought if they had only been available in offline stores

[dregor]

I have 2, maybe 3, friends that wouldn't have bought Civ5 if they had to go to the store to get it. 2 just wouldn't have bothered, and the 3rd would have just pirated a copy. Instead, they got 3 customers.

[SewerStarFish]

I wonder if Steam can aggregate the hours played that shows up on each users account. I wonder if those that have purchased Civ V are playing it as much as when they got Civ IV. Not that there'd be any data on Civ IV.

[Mr Justice]

i think steam is great.

look im a long time user of steam. it was launced first with Counter strike years ago, i cant remember when but in the early noughties (i remembered, it was with CS version 1.6, then it was an update platform, in the cs community im proud to say i have a 5 digit steam id, proving i have never cheated! plus i am know steam user #15 (my almost claim to fame)). i heard all those same cirtics of steam then. i hasent happend yet. and CS is still steams biggest user base, im curious if civ will beat it

SewerStarFish: yes on both counts. BTS was also steam game, the full civ 4 package has also been available for quiet a while.
/edit: check your steam community page, it has your game play stats.
heres are global stats, not total purchases but still somewhat relevant.

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

i remain convinced that its a great product (Steam) and for me is much better than bricks and mortor stores.

Wodan: i also remain convinced that it is more profitable for companies to be distributing games digitally. i think your thinking locally and not globally in terms of costs. i accept your long term revenue vs one time big hit difference, but thats not bad, you can outsource such things if your that small, if you a big company you redistribute the staff.

their are no such things as casual PC gamers who impulse buy are a dying breed imo, consumers of games generaly read game mags or follow web sites. i reckon that PC game shelf space accounts for 10% of available shelf space in any game stores i go to in ireland.
most marketing would be done via web and magazines i would imagine too, although that may be me understemating the cost of shelf space (which you say also applies to steam, i would accept that)

[wodan11]

Changing your tune now I see... you go from "Steam doesn't get walk-in casual impulse buys" to Oh, brick an mortar does more. First, do you have any actual facts to support that?

Ming, you're being deliberately obtuse, ignoring the point to nitpick a supporting example. You're better than that.

The point is that we can't assume 2K/Firaxis are making out like bandits because "it's cheaper to distribute online" (it's a totally different model so the cheaper statement is misleading at best).

In a way Wodan has brought the thread back on-topic since the loss of players such as myself who wont buy from Steam me is a "cost" incurred by 2K for using this particular digital distribution (and I'm curious whether that is affecting Firaxis/2K).

Spencer, I'm not all that up in arms against Steam myself, though I respect others right to feel that way. In general I'm against some app running in the background that I didn't authorize and don't want clogging up my system.

i remain convinced that its a great product (Steam) and for me is much better than bricks and mortor stores.

Wodan: i also remain convinced that it is more profitable for companies to be distributing games digitally. i think your thinking locally and not globally in terms of costs. i accept your long term revenue vs one time big hit difference, but thats not bad, you can outsource such things if your that small, if you a big company you redistribute the staff.

What aspects of global distribution are you thinking are being overlooked? And I don't see the point about outsourcing or staff redistribution, other than that would be yet another difference between the two making it harder to blithely say "it's more profitable".

their are no such things as casual PC gamers who impulse buy are a dying breed imo, consumers of games generaly read game mags or follow web sites. i reckon that PC game shelf space accounts for 10% of available shelf space in any game stores i go to in ireland.

You're basically saying there are no customers except the ones who come on to the forums here?? Ming, you probably know: how many active users are there on CFC and Poly? Let's compare that to how many units were sold.

Here's a counter example, MrJ... I don't go on Starcraft forums or buy game mags, but when I walked in BestBuy and saw SC2, I bought it, right there on the spot. Maybe people don't do that in Ireland, but they sure do here in the states.

[Ming]

Ming, you're being deliberately obtuse, ignoring the point to nitpick a supporting example. You're better than that.

Huh... you original "claim" simply isn't true. And even now, you are "CLAIMING" that more impulse purchases occur in brick and mortar than online. I say PROVE IT! 40 to 60 bucks is not your typical impulse buy for NON gamers. There is as much if not more opportunities for impulse buying online by gamers at a game selling site as there is in brick and mortar retailers.

Your "counter example" is no better than what others have posted.

And as to your forums point.... I'm not sure what it is. You point to just two sources of information where gamers go and seem to want that to be the universe to prove your point. Between the gaming mags circulation, active users on CFC and Poly... AND ALL THE OTHER GAMING SITES, there are MORE active users of these sources of information than units sold by a long shot.

And last, who ever tried to claim that they are Making out like bandits... It is a simple fact that it is cheaper to distibute a product digitally than by traditional brick and mortar retail. Sure there are different models, and each game/product will be different, and the amount difference can vary significantly...

[Zoetstofzoetje]

I think we can agree there is not one single computer games market. Instead there are at least two: pc digital distribution, and pc retail. The two overlap, and cannibalize each other at that point. Beyond that, each has its own distribution method, with different market reach potential and efficacy.

[wodan11]

Again, Ming, I think you're missing the point. I don't give a crap which has more impulse buys. They have different number of impulse buys is the point. Zoet has it nailed.

And last, who ever tried to claim that they are Making out like bandits...

From earlier in this thread:
"The biggest factor in going with Steam, beyond stopping PRE-release pirating, is that brick and mortar retail outlets charge a ton of money for shelf space. With Steam, there is no shelf, no charging for physical space. Thus, the cut back to the developer/publisher is much higher."
"Is it becoming clear to everybody why Steam was chosen? This game will not sell the most copies ever, but it will have the largest profit."
"It's far cheaper to distribute digitally."

It is cheaper only in the sense that the physical production and physical distribution is cheaper. However, online distribution has other costs, that physical does not. So a statement that "it's far cheaper to distribute digitally" really only applies to the physical distribution, which the online doesn't even really have, so that's pretty much a "duh" statement. Yet by not clarifying and by stating it in such general terms, we are in effect implying that our intention is to apply it to the situation as a whole.

Are the absolute costs cheaper when all factors are taken into account? We don't have enough data to say. Can we therefore draw any useful conclusions? Not really. Should we make such misleading statements? Probably not.

[rah]

Are the absolute costs cheaper when all factors are taken into account? We don't have enough data to say. Can we therefore draw any useful conclusions? Not really. Should we make such misleading statements? Probably not.

Not to be a wiseass, but since the goal of any company is to reduce the absolute costs, I would think the increase of distribution in digital and the decrease in the other would lead me to make many useful conclusions with the main being, COMPANIES ARE DOING IT BECAUSE IT reduces costs and improves profits.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

Not to be a wiseass, but since the goal of any company is to reduce the absolute costs, I would think the increase of distribution in digital and the decrease in the other would lead me to make many useful conclusions with the main being, COMPANIES ARE DOING IT BECAUSE IT reduces costs and improves profits.

not to be a wiseass about you being a wiseass, but the goal of any company is to maximize profits; which is only partially accomplished by reducing absolute costs.

i would dare to guesstimate that firaxis' distribution costs are higher with civ5 than they were with civ4. the reason is they are distributing via multiple models.

the upshot is that the market reach is also increased, so that overall absolute and relative profits per unit are higher.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

obviously, firaxis would ideally not have any intermediaries and be able to reach every man and his dog nonetheless. reality implies some form of marketing (marketing=the process of getting a product known, liked, and delivered). you've gotta remember there's no black-and-white exclusionary boundary between virtual and physical. as such it's not the case that digital distribution is replacing physical distribution. instead, we are dealing with multiple dissemination methods, each with advantages and disadvantages.

to you, rationally, digital distribution is superior for your particular circumstances. you've gotta remember that not everybody is rational, and not everybody is you.

[rah]

Considering the ratio of digital sales to physical sales compared with those 5 years ago will give you a clue which is more profitable. This isn't rocket science.

Business software sold to business are almost all digital sales. They're just waiting for consumer purchases to catch up.

[Ming]

Again, Ming, I think you're missing the point. I don't give a crap which has more impulse buys. They have different number of impulse buys is the point.

Then why bring up impulse buys at all if you don't give a crap
I was just addressing your "statement" "Steam doesn't get walk-in casual impulse buys". And that simply isn't true!

It is cheaper only in the sense that the physical production and physical distribution is cheaper. However, online distribution has other costs, that physical does not.

No one has argued that...

So a statement that "it's far cheaper to distribute digitally" really only applies to the physical distribution, which the online doesn't even really have, so that's pretty much a "duh" statement. Yet by not clarifying and by stating it in such general terms, we are in effect implying that our intention is to apply it to the situation as a whole.

But it is a FACT that it is cheaper to distribute games digitally than with physical distribution. I've never put across any specific figures because it varies dramitically and is totally dependent on the deal worked out with traditional retailers and the digital retailers.

Are the absolute costs cheaper when all factors are taken into account? We don't have enough data to say. Can we therefore draw any useful conclusions? Not really. Should we make such misleading statements? Probably not.

No... we can't see the actual signed contracts, and those make all the difference in the world. But it is still a fact that digital is cheaper than physical. That is not a misleading statement.
And then you throw on the fact that digital allows for additional revenue streams that physical really can't... new civs, or other small sales that don't work at the retail level... and the fact that you have real global distribution without having to ship product or have retail outlets all over the world... and you have a WINNER!

[wodan11]

I give up. You win the "hardheaded" award of the day, Ming.

[Ming]

Gee... I'm hard headed because I believe in facts and reality... Well I guess I'm hard headed then... but then what does that make you