Early adopters of new stuff

[Sentura]

http://www.polygon.com/2014/2/26/5449526/early-adoption-is-expensive-stupid-and-we-never-want-to-stop

 

The article explains how early adoption is bad, but I'm still missing a sound reason for why people would get it at launch. To me, even as playing games, I just can't get past that it's a bad deal. I know there's a few early adopters here, so maybe you could help shed some light on this?

[-HP-]

I'd shed some light on this for you, the main reason why I'm an early adopter resumes down to: supporting the stuff you're passionate about.

 

Why do people pre-order games? Why do people buy shares of their favorite sports club? Why do people do anything before a popular opinion is even formulated?

It all comes down to whatever you're passionate for, you love that stuff so much you're almost grateful for the people that spend months and years working on that product and from past experience you know it's gonna be good so you put in your hard earned dollars in advance in a vote of faith.

 

I don't see how being an early adopter is a bad thing, spending money is good, it's good for everybody, for the economy and specially for us. If people are passionate about shit, let them vote with their wallets.

 

I felt a really good warm feeling when I bought a PS4 day one. I know I'm supporting a company that cares about the same stuff I care, games!

The same reason I felt that warm feeling again this weekend when I bought a WiiU. Nintendo is doing really bad, so I bought a WiiU and I also own a 3ds, it's obviously not the main reason I did, the games are, but knowing I'm also helping them it's a great feeling.

 

PS. The flip coin of this is: Why do people don't buy a game when they see the EA logo on it? Same reason, they're voting with their wallets, and good on them.

[Sentura]

Good point with voting with your wallet, I didn't actually consider that. I don't usually do fandom of hardware, especially when there's no immediate use for it, so I always thought it was funny people wanted to burn money on stuff like that. On the other hand, I hear about people buying new consoles and stuff even when they don't actually have the money for it, as if it was some sort of event warranting purchase in and of itself. Not that it is any of my business, people can do whatever they want - but it seems to me that many have an almost religious trust in the product sometimes. I get that you can be a fan of company - I got a PS3 fairly early (not on release, though), but is there a point where it's too far?

 

The incentive seems to always be lost on me since launch titles have a horrible reputation for being pushed out in time for the release, rather than being the flagship products they should be - which is something I've always speculated about as well. I can't argue with people buying them, even sometimes for apparently sound reasons, but I can't help but think how different it would be if the flagship products were actually worthwhile.

[Sigma]

In any group of transactions there will always be a select group of consumers whose price elasticity of demand is inelastic. That is their consumer behavior (demand) does not respond to changes in price (or over-pricing in monopoly settings like console video games). Thus you get the early adopter phenomenon where-in those people will buy the product knowing that a price drop exists sometime in the uknown future. They do this for a multitude of reasons including those mentioned in the article (specifically support of the company itself and not necessarily the product) and exemplified by HP's response (thanks for that by the way!); although typically this behavior is reserved for non-luxury necessities such as water and electricity.

 

What you are experiencing Sentura is the fact that your individual demand for games and games related hardware/content is, in fact, sensitive to price (elastic) and you tend to not be an early adopter. In either event there is nothing wrong with it as the early adopters encourage renewed investments into the industry--especially in these higher profits seeking times. While it may not be the best economic practice for an individual consumer, as HP mentioned, it encourages the total economy and is a good group behavior for the health of the industry.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Sigma

[Mazy]

Main reason that I'm a sucker for early adoption, especially with consoles, is that I love to be part of the hype and excitement, and I know that makes me superficial as hell, but I don't give a fuck. 

 

Yeah the launch lineups are almost always disappointing, and you often get the quiet lull that we're in right now where nearly no platform specific titles are being released, and as such it feels ridiculous to have bought it so early, however with Sony for example I know that I'm going to want their 1st party titles, so might as well get it early

 

Plus I agree with HP in that it often feels really good to support the things that you like and want more of. I don't want Sony's 1st party to go away, so supporting that as much as possible seems like the right thing to do.

 

In the case of stuff like the Retina Macbook Pro, Retina iPad and iPhone 4 it was mainly because I actually needed them, but also because it was the first time in years where there was actually cutting edge tech that wasn't just about things running faster. Even if you get all the early production problems, then it's pretty cool to feel like you're living 1 step ahead in the future.

[Sentura]

In any group of transactions there will always be a select group of consumers whose price elasticity of demand is inelastic. That is their consumer behavior (demand) does not respond to changes in price (or over-pricing in monopoly settings like console video games). Thus you get the early adopter phenomenon where-in those people will buy the product knowing that a price drop exists sometime in the uknown future. They do this for a multitude of reasons including those mentioned in the article (specifically support of the company itself and not necessarily the product) and exemplified by HP's response (thanks for that by the way!); although typically this behavior is reserved for non-luxury necessities such as water and electricity.

 

What you are experiencing Sentura is the fact that your individual demand for games and games related hardware/content is, in fact, sensitive to price (elastic) and you tend to not be an early adopter. In either event there is nothing wrong with it as the early adopters encourage renewed investments into the industry--especially in these higher profits seeking times. While it may not be the best economic practice for an individual consumer, as HP mentioned, it encourages the total economy and is a good group behavior for the health of the industry.

 

Where'd you get the "fact" that I'm sensitive to price? The price doesn't matter - what matters is what I can use the newly acquired product for. Had the lineup been 4 stellar games + a puss4 or xboner for 1000 euro I'd probably have considered it as well.

 

Also, while I appreciate that early adopters have their own intrinsic reasons to fuel the economy, I don't think it's necessarily good as a whole for the economy to sell too much. I can easily imagine a scenario wherein too many sales of a console lead to a flood of investments that will crash over time, like a game industry bubble. With everything that's already going on in the industry, I'm certainly not interested in having that looming on top. But then again, what do I know, I do level design not world economy hurr durr

[Sigma]

 

In any group of transactions there will always be a select group of consumers whose price elasticity of demand is inelastic. That is their consumer behavior (demand) does not respond to changes in price (or over-pricing in monopoly settings like console video games). Thus you get the early adopter phenomenon where-in those people will buy the product knowing that a price drop exists sometime in the uknown future. They do this for a multitude of reasons including those mentioned in the article (specifically support of the company itself and not necessarily the product) and exemplified by HP's response (thanks for that by the way!); although typically this behavior is reserved for non-luxury necessities such as water and electricity.

 

What you are experiencing Sentura is the fact that your individual demand for games and games related hardware/content is, in fact, sensitive to price (elastic) and you tend to not be an early adopter. In either event there is nothing wrong with it as the early adopters encourage renewed investments into the industry--especially in these higher profits seeking times. While it may not be the best economic practice for an individual consumer, as HP mentioned, it encourages the total economy and is a good group behavior for the health of the industry.

 

Where'd you get the "fact" that I'm sensitive to price? The price doesn't matter - what matters is what I can use the newly acquired product for. Had the lineup been 4 stellar games + a puss4 or xboner for 1000 euro I'd probably have considered it as well.

 

Also, while I appreciate that early adopters have their own intrinsic reasons to fuel the economy, I don't think it's necessarily good as a whole for the economy to sell too much. I can easily imagine a scenario wherein too many sales of a console lead to a flood of investments that will crash over time, like a game industry bubble. With everything that's already going on in the industry, I'm certainly not interested in having that looming on top. But then again, what do I know, I do level design not world economy hurr durr

 

 

Poor choice of word. The concept that I am trying to convey is that everyone recognizes (perhaps subconsciously) a value for the product that is converted from various considerations including "what can I use this for...", and then base purchasing decisions on the combination of those considerations (thereby giving us the "cash value" of the consumer's demand--which is the price of the product/service). Decisions are based on "value received".

 

Off Topic: I agree that over-selling without regulation (self imposed or governmental) can lead to bubbles (we saw this with the .com bubble busts and the housing lending mortgage crisis in the USA), but I do not worry about the same for the games industry as investors have learned some lessons since than (and if they have not they will bankrupt--see Rhode Island's struggles with its investment in 38 Studios (specifically post bankruptcy and dissolution)).

 

The impact that cuts at AAA studios will have is greater diversification of investments among games studios thereby insulating the industry as whole against critical failures. That's not to say there will not be up's and down's, there always are, and currently the games industry is experiencing both effects at different studio/games investment levels (indies are in an upward trend whereas AAA are in a downwards trend). The effect of over investment will certainly lead towards market saturation and market corrections (such as studio downsizing/increasing) will occur until new market distortion events (like a new console release) result in a new round of investments. This is all normal (although scary if you work in the industry experiencing the down turn). Until such time as the upfront costs of development do not require significant investment levels and/or community funded development takes over without recourse like those available to investors as the primary model (i.e. Kickstarter), it is the market economy we live and work in.

 

What should concern you is the event of sudden market shifts due to investor pressure at the top levels (i.e. investor pressure on Microsoft's new CEO to cut and sell and/or create subsidiaries out of the gaming sectors of their company--won't happen based on level of support being given to dev.'s currently though I do not think). But that could go either way as good or bad right now (personally I'm a fan of making it a subsidiary responsible for itself and not benefiting directly from its parent company--let's get Xbox lean and mean!).

Edited February 27, 2014 by Sigma

[Sentura]

I'd like to see some source material for these market shifts you speak of. It'd be interesting to take a look at what sort of puppeteering is going on up high. 

 

I also don't think it's as simple as investors knowing what's going to happen. When the economy crashed some years ago, it did so despite people at the helm with years of experience and supposed lessons learned made it crash. What makes you think investors in our sector will fare differently? I'm not saying it's going to happen just yet, but as the games industry grows in relation to the ever-expansive consumer demand, I'm seeing this as a potential pitfall of the near future.

[Sigma]

The market shift has not happened yet, but it potentially could (I don't think it will due to actions like this though). As for the investor pressure see : This and This. : Edited in as of Feb. 28. See THIS opinion article.

 

In reference to the AAA changes one need only look at events like this and the list.

 

Indies are booming though I think and will continue to do so for quite a while, especially with the layoffs at AAA as developers seek out their own fortunes.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Sigma

[Vilham]

lots of people are impatient. I would honestly think that is the main reason.

[Pampers]

A shout-out to all the beta testers.

[Skjalg]

When I early adopt something (movies, games, hardware), then its mainly because I don't want to be spoiled. Whether its the story in a movie or the game play in a game or the feel of the new hard ware, I don't want someone else's opinion color my own before I get to watch/play/test something that I have faith in. I love the feeling when I sit down and enjoy something for the first time that people has not told me all about beforehand.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Skjalg

[Sprony]

I know this will sound sentimental as fuck but in case of console releases there's only one very simply reason for me. With age comes reason and with experience comes knowledge. As a child I was actually afraid of scary movies. I also found it very convincing that Arnold could kill 30 people without getting a scratch. But as you grow older you lose that innocence. You know it's all make believe and you understand how the world works. The above is a movie example but the same applies to games and what not.

 

When you make your own money, pay for your own things and you have access to a lot of stuff, the novelty of getting things is lost. When my mother bought me a game as a child I was so excited I played it for days. Now I have a huge back catalog of games (sealed and all) that I still need to play. It's not that I don't enjoy things anymore, on the contrary, it's just on a different level. So what has all of this got to do with console releases? Simple, when I buy it, unpack it and fire it up I feel like a child again. Just really enjoying every little step and be amazed by the novelty of it all.

 

Recently the same happened when I got my PS4. While there's still not really anything worthwhile on it and I haven't turned it on for over a week, I can still stare at it and feel instant joy knowing it will bring me a huge amount of pleasure in the years to come. This makes it all worthwhile.

[blackdog]

People get stuff at launch because they are either passioned hence impatient, or want to show off. Or the product just happens to fall nicely in your window of needs so you better get it before it becomes to feel old (eg: smartphone or computers).

Then there are so many facets, and it depends if we are talking about a physical product or "software" (not only games but music or a show at the theatre).

I find incredibly scary to read there's people driven to buy "because it's good for economy", i hope they are not really that serious.

 

The same reason I felt that warm feeling again this weekend when I bought a WiiU. Nintendo is doing really bad, so I bought a WiiU and I also own a 3ds, it's obviously not the main reason I did, the games are, but knowing I'm also helping them it's a great feeling.

I can't help but think about this bit of The Corporation when i read this kind of statement.

Not judging!

Make no mistake, I understand the "passion" aspect of things... i'm definitely not the biggest compulsive buyer, but you'd be amazed by the back-catalog of games i've built in this years because "maybe in 3-4 months i'll finally be able to afford a new gaming rig" and i'm still moaning about that.

But i would never pay the full price for stuff i know i wouldn't be able to use in the immediate future!

I say "vote with your wallet" all the time in game discussions, and in general I believe in the principle. For that reason I almost never get a D1 game and even less do preorder: most of the time I don't find a game worth 60€. The only reason to do something like that right now for me is multiplayer: on consoles communities die very quickly or apperently are never born (never been able to play Kane & Lynch 2 with humans after buying it discounted).

[Pericolos0]

According to sigma's definition, I am very elastic . I think games are way too expensive, especially new releases that often come with bugs, or were way overhyped. 

It's really rare that I buy something at release nowadays. Usually I wait until the reviews have settled, the price has dropped and the patches are out. I get to pay less for a product that's more polished, which in turn increases my enjoyment of it. Same goes for hardware, I'd rather buy last year's gadget.

 

 

Does anyone here buy special edition versions of games? I get being an early adopter, but I don't get the people who pay 3x as much for a special edition of a game. You get the same product plus some cheap extras.

 

I also don't understand preordering. It's not like the game will "run out" on release day. Why preorder?

 

Don't wanna derail the thread but i think they're relevant questions to the discussion .