[jdhwosnhw]

I think the biggest (and, in my opinion, obvious) problem with this argument is that it relies on time having no value in the eyes of the consumer (or, equivalently, that the seller believes this to be the case). A consumer 5 years after a game's release may only purchase said game at marginal cost, but the consumer 1 day after release is willing to pay a premium to receive the product. There really doesn't seem to be any logical support for the component of the conjecture that says "because the price may eventually settle to the marginal cost, it must immediately settle to the marginal cost". There is obviously a time-constant present

[mitthrowaway2]

Yes, especially for a durable good like a video game, having it now means having it now AND also having it later. It strictly dominates having it later, so I would be willing to pay more. Plus, there's utility in synchronizing with my friend group so we can play through together at the same time, discuss it without spoilers, play multiplayer while our skill levels are similar, etc. And that purchase timing will typically be set by the eagerest friend, rather than the stingiest.

So yeah. I do wait for deals sometimes but it would be silly to say that these two things have the same value in the eye of the consumer.

[Ferret7446]

This still applies to "non durable" goods. Food is worth more today than it is next year, not least of which because if you starve, you won't get a chance to eat it next year. All goods are worth more sooner than later (relative to when they are needed), which is why people pay a premium for faster delivery.

[_alternator_]

An example that came up in the article is medicine (or more precisely a medical patent), which also clearly has an extremely strong time value, particularly for lifesaving medicine.

[xg15]

Maybe that's what "durable" means in economic jargon? A good that does not (or only very slowly) lose value over time?

If that what it means, Steam would not apply, because games were by that definition very much not durable.

[satvikpendem]

Games don't lose value over time though (barring exceptions like live service). A game now is just as fun as later.

[xboxnolifes]

This ignores the cultural/community value of games. Games have more value when other people are also playing the game. They don't lose all of their value over time, but, like watching a TV show as it is airing and having the shared experience of talking about it with others, video games also have a shared experience time frame.

This doesn't just apply to multiplayer games either. There is value in the active community conversation surrounding games like Expedition 33, Elden Ring, Baldur's Gate 3, etc.

[xg15]

It doesn't fall to zero, but for some people, there is still a difference between playing a game directly after release when everyone is figuring out and talking about it vs playing it years later.

It's the same as watching a movie in cinema or following a series or watching it later.

[satvikpendem]

Sort of, for many the cinema screen itself is the experience. In contrast, games played today vs 5 years from now are largely on the same hardware, whether it be the console or PC driving it and the TV and sound system displaying it. Like I said I make affordances for live service or multiplayer games but not sure there's such a strong connection to playing games as soon as they're out, although it does exist somewhat. That's why I classify games as a durable good.