Are "sales" really that cheap?

I dont see your point

Even with physical distribution, games and software should not cost 60 dollars. The bulk of cost or suggested retail price is based on license fees, copyright protections like DRM and legal actions, and then the actual development costs of the software. Most triple A games, the development budget includes advertisement. Certain companies spend 1/5th the total budget just for advertisement, CoD I think spent 25 or 225 million dollars on advertisement alone.

All of the above is moot though, you point is that the sale price we see is/should be the actual price, but at the end of the day, it doesnt matter because as long as the end consumer feels pleased with their purchase price than we can continue to see more games created. Some people are happy buying a game at 50-60 dollars at release, while others are happy at 10-5 dollars 2 years down the road. Still some others are never happy, even if they manage to get the game for free. Those that buy early, supplement those that buy much later.

One thing you dont factor in however is that added cost for bandwidth and support the digital distribution brings. Steam and every other online store takes a healthy chunk of the pie whenever they sell a game, something like 20-30%. Developers are still expected to provide end support for users when, not if, they run into trouble. Steam is expected to provide a copy/download at any time of the day which no limit to the number of downloads.

You do realize that if PC games started being sold for 10 bucks on release, the console people would just migrate to pc, right?
Do you really thing the companies that have thousands of dollars invested on consoles are going to let that happen? Not to mention the guy above me has a good point. There is much more to go into the price of a game.

Pretty sure whatever company said that was totally bullshitting you, as that is not in any way shape or form correct data.

Also I am pretty sure they meant that they can drop the price by 10 dollars, when you cut out physical distribution, which is why "most", (I'm looking at you Activision!), games release for $50 on PC.

Depends on the sale, innit?

Seriously, though, that "explanation" was a load of rubbish. The reality of a free market is that prices will always settle at whatever maximum amount the market will bear. This is why professional athletes make millions of dollars while firemen and policemen earn a middle-class wage. This is also why a soda costing 15 cents to make sells for $5.00 in a movie theater.

The problem is this, Steam is a middle man and the publishers are not magically gone despite it. Truth be told, they only chopped off $20 max, you still have the retailer (steam) and you still have the publisher, which takes a huge chunk for marketing and because they can. This is why EA shoved Origin down our throat, they have no middle men, they are the middle man. Did they lower their price? Obviously not, they are a business designed to make money.

Considering I could buy over half of my fairly large wishlist for under 100 bucks right now, as opposed to like, 500...yeah, I'd say they're cheap.

Also, gonna need a source on your quote, cause I'm pretty sure NO AAA company ever said that, since it's nearly proven fact they only care about money.

Interesting enough, atari 2600 games went for 50ish as well (not all of them I'm sure but do recall seeing some), aside from region pricing for the most part they haven't gotten hit with inflation, unlike pretty much everything else.

I think I remember hearing that steam eats about a third of whatever the game sells for too.

Same as them telling me in school back in 1992 that by the year 2000 you'd be able to buy a top of the line CD player for a couple dollars.. While I'm sure wholesalers can buy top-notch /components/ for a CD player for a couple bucks, we'll never get there :>

I'd say that "cost of distribution" money ends up going into Steam's pocket now, instead of where it used to.. And if they offered digi-games for 50 and physical copies for 60, then everyone would be disgusted with console gaming (plus the fact that buying a Steam license to a game is immortal ((so long as Steam is immortal)), if my house burned down today I'd need to buy a new physical copy of Borderlands 2.. If I owned it on Steam, my house could explode and I'd still own Borderlands 2)..

Its just another money-grab.. For instance, I'm disturbed that Fallout 3 GOTY and Borderlands GOTY are both holding onto their hideous digital price-tags while I can run to my local game store and pick them both up (LIMITED copies, with physical boxes, a CD, cover art) for less than ten dollars easy, while the online digital copy will sit perfectly on Steam and other e-stores, never spoiling, never running out of stock, and yet the price barely drops (why should it? If someone REALLY wants it, well, they'll pay!)..

What kills me more is that I'd give my left testicle to be able to make my own game, while all these other indie devs out there are making games that are generally trash :| I mean, you've got a chance to make a marketable game, and as shown by stars like Minecraft and Diablo 1/2, if you make a timeless game, well, you'll be rich for the rest of your time :> On the other hand, if you waste your shot on, say, Alien Spidy or Chicken Shoot or Space Badgers or some shit, well.. :| I can't fathom it :|

I just buy games that are on a 75%+ discount after the base price dropped to 30 € or lower, so that means I won't ever pay more than 7.50 € for a game. I think that's pretty much what a digital download should cost to begin with. Luckily there are enough people that will happily pay 30 € or more for games, but I'm just too old to believe/enjoy that hype :)

Devil May Cry 75% offer sucks a lot. Generally sales are bad for now, exception for some games like Hotline Miami 85%, others like The Witcher 2 80% is just typical. I liked to get Blade Kitten for example, but 50% is just worse than a regular deals.