bit-gamer.net

Garry's Mod sales performance revealed

Garry's Mod sales performance revealed

According to Valve, the recent sale of Garry's Mod 10 saw sales jump by more than 1074 percent in a week.

Valve are a company known for a lot of things, but letting the public see just how successful the Steam platform is for them isn't usually one of them - which is why it's interesting to see the sales data for Garry's Mod released.

Originally a modification of the Source engine that turns the game into a virtual Lego set, Garry's Mod was released as a commercial product in November 2006. It was recently put on it's first discount sale run, with Valve slashing the price £5.99 GBP price in half for eight days.

According to statistics released by the eponymous Garry, sales then spiked massively. In the eight days before the sale Garry's Mod sold 2,975 copies.

"Because it was 50 percent off, we kind of needed at least a 200 percent rise in sales for it to justifty itself.. The actual rise was 1074 percent," Garry said on his blog.

Garry also revealed that the game sold more than 34,927 copies in that eight day sale period alone. Sales statistics show that that accounts for just shy of 10 percent of the mod's total sales.

This isn't the first time that Steam sales have been shown to be so impressively successful. Valve's first Left 4 Dead half-price sale pushed sales up by 3000 percent and increased Steam registrations by 1600 percent, for example. One unnamed third party game increased sales by 36,000 percent in a single sale weekend.

Have you played Garry's Mod yet? We very much recommend it, but you can let us know your thoughts in the forums and check out the sales chart for the game below.

Garry's Mod sales performance revealed
Click to enlarge

16 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
ChaosDefinesOrder 8th October 2009, 11:46 Quote
it's quite simple economics - low cost items sell more units that high cost items, and you make more money selling many low cost items than you do selling a small number of high cost items. Something more games publishers should realise *ahem*modern warfare 2*ahem*

I'll always maintain that the sweet spot for a full game (on PC) is £25, the sweet spot for premium DLC is £3 to £5 and add-ons such as skins or extra tracks should be £1 max

just my views though obviously!
fodder 8th October 2009, 12:05 Quote
Digital distribution removes the 'unit cost' argument almost completely (you still have to pay for bandwidth). So a unit has no real value to the manufacturer apart from development cost and something for future support. BUT the profit is now obtained by how much money you can get in the time the game is available. So, if you can get say 10,000 payments in a week at £10 or 5,000 at £15 then the cheap option wins as there is virtually no overhead on each unit sold.

The clever bit is betting on whether you can sell the same amount of units at a higher cost over a longer period, and if your bank manager will fund it until you cover your development cost. The figures may look great selling 100,000 in one week at half price, but if that kills sales for the rest of the quarter you may as well sell at twice the price. As long as you sell 50,001 units in that quarter your better off.
Dreaming 8th October 2009, 12:08 Quote
I agree with Chaos really, although since I'm still a student and not in full time employment I guess my perspective is different. But then again, you can make the argument a good proportion of gamers won't be in full time employment as they're going to be guys between 13-25 mostly I am betting.

Maybe that's why a lot of developers are focusing on games that attract wider audiences now. Increased willingness / ability to pay.
infi 8th October 2009, 12:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder
and add-ons such as skins or extra tracks should be £1 max

I have to agree with you on the first part, for me there's a certain price point I'm willing to pay for a game which is around 30-40 euros (that's why I'm importing all games from the UK), but those little extra add-ons consisting of only a skin or two should cost nothing imho, they should keep the customer happy and attached to the game and the company so they will buy new games again, not for making money (which in the long run is making money again, yeah I know).
ChaosDefinesOrder 8th October 2009, 12:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by infi
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder
and add-ons such as skins or extra tracks should be £1 max

I have to agree with you on the first part, for me there's a certain price point I'm willing to pay for a game which is around 30-40 euros (that's why I'm importing all games from the UK), but those little extra add-ons consisting of only a skin or two should cost nothing imho, they should keep the customer happy and attached to the game and the company so they will buy new games again, not for making money (which in the long run is making money again, yeah I know).

ah, but free is included in £1 max! certain extras you should pay for. extra songs on Rock Band and Guitar Hero should be paid for and should cost the same as an equivalent MP3 download because the artist should be paid for their work as that's what you're buying; an mp3 with quick time events on top.

just a new costume should be free, but if it's a licensed costume, it's unfair to make the developer effectively cover the licensing cost themselves.
Joeymac 8th October 2009, 12:45 Quote
I wonder what the sales figures would be if the game had been £5.99 since release and the reduced it to £2.99 for a 8 days.
Jaffo 8th October 2009, 12:48 Quote
I think the most interesting thing is that if my rough calculations are right, it's made about £1.8m since it's release. They should rename it Garry's Minted!
CardJoe 8th October 2009, 12:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaffo
I think the most interesting thing is that if my rough calculations are right, it's made about £1.8m since it's release. They should rename it Garry's Minted!

He split the profits 50/50 with Valve in exchange for access to all their source code, IIRC.
mjm25 8th October 2009, 12:55 Quote
that one unnamed third party game was almost definitely Stalker Clear Sky, they dropped it to 4.99 and Steam almost imploded. i remember that weekend... i even bought it and never got round to playing it! (plus i did a report on digitial distribution and all the dates matched up) check me out!
Blademrk 8th October 2009, 13:26 Quote
Quote:
with Valve slashing the price £5.99 GBP price in half for eight days.
typo?

That's quite a boost in sales.
logan'srun 8th October 2009, 14:36 Quote
funny how this is on the front page with Gearbox saying valve = evil and takes advantage of the small dev's. Is anyone asking Gary if he's upset?
SMIFFYDUDE 8th October 2009, 16:40 Quote
Someone should show Activision this.
Star*Dagger 9th October 2009, 04:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaming
I agree with Chaos really, although since I'm still a student and not in full time employment I guess my perspective is different. But then again, you can make the argument a good proportion of gamers won't be in full time employment as they're going to be guys between 13-25 mostly

Actually the average age is much higher, and with elite level games like EVE it is in the 30s.
PC Gaming requires 500 euros a year at a bare minimum, and the ability to keep upgrading. The ages you are talking about are buying the "cheap" consoles and then buying the console games.

Yours in PC Gaming forever Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Lepermessiah 9th October 2009, 14:45 Quote
U do not need to upgrade every year, that is a BS myth, i have not upgrade mt PC for 2 years, i max every game out, as PC tech moves ahead, it is cheaper and cheaper to platy games on high settings then ever. 500 euros a year? What are u smoking? Sure you can if you WANT to, but you certainky do not. my upgrade cycle is close to every 2 years, and I always play games on their highest settings, and it si NOT expensive, I sell my old stuff on ebay, youd be surprised how chape it is to maintain a good gaming rig.
SMIFFYDUDE 9th October 2009, 16:07 Quote
Im using a PC Athlon 64 3500+ PC with a 8800GTS 512 on a 24" monitor. If AA is turned off the only game I own that stesses it is ARMA. I don't have any DX10 games on it admittedly but then again i haven't been wowed enough to buy any of the handfull that exist. Its overdue an upgrade for sure, but not doing so until next year.

Lepermessiah is right, 2 year upgrade cycle is more accurate. Only spend 500 euros a year if you like sitting in front of benchmark software with your pants around your ankles knocking out some PC Gaming forever Plasma.
ZERO <ibis> 10th October 2009, 05:53 Quote
One of the big things that makes the sales work is that it helps promote the game. People that may not have ever even bought it go oh well it is on sale and it ends soon so I got to act now. This is why sales work better than simply having a lower price even when unit cost is not a big issue.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums