Image alt text: An image of Steam’s top 10 best-selling games at the time of posting, three of which are marked as “prepurchase”
I checked the Steam stats and noticed that in the top 10 best selling games by revenue, there’s three games that aren’t even out yet. If we ignore the Steam Deck and f2p games, it’s three out of four games. They have also been in the top 100 for 4, 6, and 8 weeks respectively, so people just keep on buying them. I would love to know why people keep doing this, as the idea of pre-ordering is that there is a physical copy of a game available for you on release, but this is not a concern with digital items. So after so many games lately being utterly broken on release, why do people not wait until launch reviews to buy the game? If you touch a hot stove and get burned multiple times, when does one learn?
I don’t think digital pre-orders even include banking functionality. I wouldn’t know because I lack the nerd cred of ever pre-ordering a game
You are assuming the reviews have any bearing on whether I want to play the game. This is a risky assumption.
When Cyberpunk was busted and everybody was hating that’s what prompted me to jump in. I went and got a PS4 physical version of the 1.0 last-gen release when I could find one on sale, even though I primarily played the game on PC. It’s one of my favorite gaming artifacts. I like it more than any collector’s edition nonsense.
Also, what reviews? I don’t know if I know what “reviews” for videogames even mean anymore.
Anyway, to answer your actual question, if there is a discount at launch (which is increasingly a thing, which is kind of sad) or a decent preorder bonus I can prepurchase. I don’t mind. Otherwise I just get things when I get things.
It’s true, I feel like instinctively people think videogame reviews were good at one point because it seems odd a whole industry exists that never did the thing it does reasonably, but even going back to 80’s and 90’s magazines, slop got 5’s while classics in retrospect got 3’s in many cases. Videogame reviews have always been marketing propaganda with no relationship to reality.
It did the thing reasonably for the time and the context, I can tell you that first hand.
The set of values was just different early on and so was the purpose of reviews.
It’s weirder to me that the audience consensus ended up being that game reviews are meant to be consumer advocacy, like they’re crash test reports for cars or something. I find that depressing. I’ve always gotten mad when reviewers tell you whether a game is “worth your time” or “worth your money”. What do you know of my time and how I want to use it? Or what value I put in money?
Ideally art criticism is about finding a view on a piece of work, an intellectual framing for it, and sharing it with the audience, and there was a brief time of sheer hubris where a few critics thought that was more or less what they were doing.
And then influencers happened and streamers became a thing and now it’s something else. A bit of community curation, maybe.
In the 80s and 90s? It was targeted marketing for a thing that nobody knew about. You didn’t read a review to know if a game was good, you read it to know that it existed, whether it did anything technical that was exciting and perhaps if it did the thing that the arcade game you already knew was doing. A four star review was often on the basis of “sprites big”, and we were all fine with that.
Well I can tell you I spent MANY months of saved allowance at the expense of keeping up with comics I followed and going to the arcade with friends (that bus fare alone is 1/200th of an NES game) for MANY a stinker game with great reviews in the 80’s and 90’s, and I was NOT fine with that.
Hah. That’s what you get for playing on a closed system instead of copying computer disks and tapes like us normal people.
I certainly cared a lot more about that cost in the 16 bit era when I was on a console instead, but by that time there were fancy things like VHS tapes with footage of games and demo kiosks and stuff.
But all through the 8 bit era over here there weren’t ads for games anywhere. Not on TV, not anywhere else. Today we’d say magazines were about discoverability. Without them you were limited to whatever was on the cover or the back of the box. It was a crapshoot. At least in reviews you got some screenshots and a description, distorted as it could be.
And it’s not like I was immune to that, either. I had my nose glued to the computer shop every other day staring at Barbarian or Space Ace, which barely count as games by modern standards. I don’t think I ever thought to question whether playing them was any good. That barely felt like the point.
That is also all tinged by it being a formative period and growing up and so forth, so most of us are unreliable narrators, I suppose.
I had an Atari ST and a relative was in the 80’s ST piracy scene so I’d get massive stacks of pirated cracked games on floppies, which was AMAZEBALLS, but the basic level design on those games was almost universally with a few, mostly, late exceptions UNMITIGATED ASS. I totally had your thing where I never actually questioned if James Pond or whatever was “good” but I still intuitively knew the design on the console games was better and there was no social cache or ability to multiplayer with your bros on a normal gamepad (I maintain every Atari joystick ever was ass).
Meeeeh, I’m with you on some bits, not so much in others.
I agree that controller design was much, much better on consoles. I agree that we didn’t understand the technical limitations that made computer action games so much worse. I remember at best we could tell when a game was “fast” or not, but had no concept of framerate, and we were disproportionately obsessed with parallax scrolling but didn’t parse the value of smooth scrolling nearly as much.
But design wasn’t universally bad at all, we’ve just refocused on different things over time, so the list of games that hold up does not line up with what was exciting at the time at all.
I can play Eye of the Beholder right now and have fun. That’s up there with modern entries on that genre today. I can play Lemmings and have fun. I can play Monkey Island or Loom and be absolutely delighted. Civ 1 is simplistic but the core of what’s good in the series is there. Ditto for Sim City. I can play Another World or Prince of Persia, that’s a genre playing to the strenghts of that hardware.
It’s just at the time we were all freaking out about Gods instead, which is barely playable. Or about Dizzy, which is shallow and inscrutable. It was all happening at once and nobody had an understanding of why things were different from other things. It was a beautiful mess and we mostly didn’t even realize.
To keep it on topic, writing game reviews at the time must have been impossible. Nobody knew what they were talking about, and those who did were making games, not writing about them. We couldn’t tell what good looked like on that area, either.
I agree it was impossible in the computer space, but I feel like publications of the time reflected that in the computer space. I forget the name of the publication, but I used to get an Atari ST magazine that came with a demo disk every issue in a bag with the magazine, and its focus was less “here’s what to buy” but you actually got demos of most games they covered, and it was more like, “here’s what’s going on in Atari ST stuff” idk that they even had numerical ratings. I also don’t remember there being a print media space around DOS games in the same way to begin with. On the other side, console gaming magazines were like “THIS IS THE HOT SHIT BUY IT NOW 5/5!!!” And then the game was a scam.
I did pre-order KC:D II, but it’s the first full price big title I’ve purchased in a long while. I was hoping to have a new GPU at release, but it looks like I’ll have to wait a little longer. At least they’ll have ironed out the major bugs at that point.
The reason I preordered the game was that there’s a bonus quest, the game was 10% off and I can theoretically still cancel my preorder from Gamesplanet in case the reviews suck. It’s not like pre-orders are irreversible.
I would make a very rare exception and pre-order only certain titles, like if there was a new Civ Game, cause I knew I was going to get it immediately anyway and sometimes they’d let you pre-load.
But with the new Civ being nearly $170 CAD for the full version, I’m not even doing that anymore. I look forward to the real Civ VII release date of sometime in the 2027 Steam Christmas sale lol.
The last game I preordered was CP 2077. Wasn’t even mad because I got a decent price for a physical copy and it was worth it for the memes alone.
All they have to do is add a skin or some shit as a pre-order bonus and people will deposit money. It’s absolutely crazy, especially with the state almost every launch is in these days.
Big games are like 50% off after a few months anyway, no point buying those at all until then.
Last game I preordered was World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade and I stood in line for 12 hours to make sure I was the very first to have it. Haven’t preordered any game since then. They weren’t distributed digitally back then, so running out of ‘copies’ was a real thing.
Now, I perpetually buy games that are 1-2 years old. They’ve been patched, they’ve been balanced, they’re stable, and I can watch someone on Twitch beforehand to decide if it’s worth purchasing.
I’m going to preorder monster hunter wilds, I’ll do it the day before and pre-download it. Does that count?
If I have trust in the developers that the game won’t be an absolute shitfest (i.e. they have an okayish track record) and I want to play on day one to be part of the community, yes. That said, the last game was Elden Ring and the next is Monster Hunter Wilds, so that doesn’t happen very often.
Nightreign and Subnautica 2 are also on the list, I’m not too hyped about anything else this year.
If I have trust in the developers that the game won’t be an absolute shitfest (i.e. they have an okayish track record)
The problem is that virtually every series has some point where it has bad releases, or we’d just have enormous, permanently-running game series.
I can think of an extremely few very-long-running series that I have a pretty consistently solid opinion of what I’ve seen, like The Legend of Zelda, but even there, there were what I’d call lemons, like the second game in the series. I am out of date on Final Fantasy, but as I recall, at least when it launched, Final Fantasy XIII was…not good.
But the vast majority of series, even those that have managed to get five or six releases, which is a long time to have a successful series of games, wind up coming out with worse releases at some point. I mean, teams change, expectations change, people take technical or design or business risks that don’t pan out.
It’s especially frustrating when a game is fairly unique. I loved Kerbal Space Program, and there isn’t much else like it, but the attempt to develop a sequel really did not go well.
And even where series keep going, some people don’t like them even if they liked earlier games. I personally like Starfield quite a bit, consider it to definitely be worth the price. But a lot of people who did like earlier Bethesda games did not like Starfield.
Honestly, I kind of prefer the Paradox model to the “series” approach, in an era of digital distribution. I play a game, and keep buying DLC as long as I like the game. They do smaller releases that incrementally expand the game. Reduces risks for the player as well as the publisher. That doesn’t work for every genre, can’t do an adventure game like that, but it does work for games that are very replayable.
Never preorder.
No. I’m doing the opposite.
I’m currently playing PS4 games I have never played before.
You get them on ebay for like $10.
Can’t wait to play PS5 games in 5 years… 🙃
Sounds like you should join us over on !patientgamers@sh.itjust.works
Can’t wait to play PS5 games in 5 years…
All six of them.
I almost never preorder any game I’m not 100% sure I’ll play no matter what. Sometimes I’ll do it with online games in 90% sure on bc my internet is horrible and I like being able to get started on the download asap
For example I’m gonna preorder the new Fatal Fury game even though I’m not super confident in SNK to put out a functional game, but I know it’ll have fun gameplay and worst case scenario it’ll get fixed in a while. Being able to download early is worth for me even if I won’t download in time to play early, and worst case scenario it’s completely nonfunctional and I just refund it until it works
Absolutely no reason to, you pay more for a buggier version. I generally wait until there’s a good sale.
Last game I pre-ordered was Cyberpunk 2077. Yeah, it’s a fun and really good now but when it released it was basically unplayable until Phantom Liberty was released. I had already said I would never pre-order a game and I made an exception for CDPR and got Cyberpunk, and I was immediately burned. For real-sies this time, no more exceptions. I will never pre-order another game until the day that I die.
Only if it’s a game I’m going to play regardless. I pre ordered FH4 and FH5 and I easily have 2k+ hours in both of those games.
Hissssss 🐍
Don’t preorder, what the hell are you people thinking?!
No, but I have purchased Early Access games on Steam.
Honestly, I’ve got lots of hours in Early Access games. That said, they were like $20 when I bought them in EA and as content gets added and they get closer to launch, the price goes up.
I don’t think that’s the same as pre-orders though.
The only digital game I’ve ever preordered was City Skylines 2. I was on vacation the day it came out and didn’t want to miss out on playtime and waste my PTO. Definitely worth it, and I enjoyed it and the lead up to release. (I’m on the fenced whether I enjoy it more than the first, but that’s mostly because I’ve got so many add ons for the first that the second seems like it’s missing things. But it worked well for me and I got hours and hours of playing in that day.
What incentivizes you to pay money for early access games? Wouldn’t you rather wait until it’s done and have a better experience?
Some of them are in a fine state as-is.
I guess maybe for an adventure game or something, you want to have one playthrough and to get as complete of an experience as possible.
But for most stuff I play, like roguelikes/roguelites, that’s not really an issue. For example, Nova Drift, an action roguelite, is out of Early Access now, but I played it for a long time in EA, and it was a perfectly reasonable game in that state. Same thing for Caves of Qud.
I do think that buying Early Access is only really a good idea if you’re going to be okay with the developer terminating development tomorrow and still feel that you’re better off having purchased the game – incomplete or no – than not.
