EA Chief: 3D Games Could Bring Higher Prices

[Andy Chalk]

EA Chief: 3D Games Could Bring Higher Prices

Electronic Arts [http://www.ea.com] CEO John Riccitiello says the advent of the third dimension in gaming could lead the way to higher prices for "premium" 3D games.

Avatar [http://www.amazon.com/Avatar-Two-Disc-Blu-ray-DVD-Combo/dp/B002VPE1B6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1276791104&sr=1-1] rocked my socks off. The story may have been puerile but the 3D effects were absolutely mind-blowing and as I watched, there was no doubt in my mind that I was looking at the future of cinema. Could it be the future of gaming, too? If so, you might want to brace yourself for higher prices once we get there.

"3D may well be one of the next and most important drivers for growth. [That's] yet to be seen and I don't think it's a 2010 story in any way, shape or form... in a meaningful way," Riccitiello said at an "executives breakfast" at E3 [http://www.e3expo.com]. "But as we move through 2011, 2012, its likely to be an opportunity both for additional growth and perhaps premium pricing for titles that better support 3D."

Game pricing is always a dicey issue. On one hand, new game releases are already pretty pricey and there's a natural tendency among consumers to recoil at the mere mention of higher costs; on the other, the collector's edition of Dragon Age: Origins [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%22Dragon+Age%3A+Origins%22&x=0&y=0] originally listed at $69.99 while The Bard's Tale sold for $76.95 in 1985, so it's not as though the industry has been clobbering us with outrageous price hikes. Could 3D be the engine that finally drives us to a world of $100 games?

Source: CVG [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=252187&skip=yes]


Permalink

 

[uppitycracker]

And here people are bitching about 60 dollar PC games. This is going to go over well, especially for those games that have 3d as an option, with the majority of us not having 3d capable hardware.

 

[Irridium]

Yeah, alright, now is the time to stop with 3D games.

Games are already expensive as hell, and forcing 3D will just increase budgets and prices, making things a lot worse for everyone.

You'd increase the budget, making games more expensive to make, increase the price so games are now more expensive, which has the effect of having less people buy the game, which means you sell less games and get less money.

How the fuck does that make good business sense?!

 

[craddoke]

And here we see the real reason why everyone's pushing 3D in our faces - first surcharges at movies and now higher pricing for "premium" games (HA!).

 

[Assassin Xaero]

And here people are bitching about 60 dollar PC games.

That would be me. >_>

Wait... wasn't it also EA that was doing the 'one time online pass' thing that would require anyone that bought a used sports game to buy a pass to be able to play it online? And the whole paying for demos thing, too?

 

[Plinglebob]

I'm probably the only person who doesn't mind if game prices increase. Game prices haven't really increased in line with either inflation or production costs so a price jump shouldn't be a surprise.

Edit

Wait... wasn't it also EA that was doing the 'one time online pass' thing that would require anyone that bought a used sports game to buy a pass to be able to play it online? And the whole paying for demos thing, too?

The paying for demos was Crytek (and a monumentally STUPID idea).

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I already made a thread on 3D gaming, it's gonna be fun for a while, but it's practically useless in the long run.

I imagine the prices will even more unreasonable than Austrlian game prices.

 

[Callate]

Who's calling for this? 3D is pretty, and all, but it's not "the" feature that I'm in a hurry to spend a few thousand dollars pursuing. Gimmicky retreads of old ideas and franchises are still going to be gimmicky retreads of old ideas and franchises in 3D. I understand there's someone in a back room who's seeing a huge growth potential in the 3D market, but honest, guys, you ought to be sure that the consumer base is equally interested in going that direction. I haven't even fully jumped on the Blu-Ray bandwagon yet.

 

[wooty]

Oh good, another reason for me to lose a bit more interest in games.

 

[Polock]

This 3D ..fad? really has to go. The TV's are going to be expencive and I don't want to have to wear 3D glasses. I don't know. I feel like this is a gimmick, but there seems to be alot of power behind the movement.

 

[lightsier]

As long as we don't go back to early N64 game pricing! $79.99 for KI Gold you bastards!

 

[omega247]

I really wish this gimmick would just die already

 

[uppitycracker]

And here people are bitching about 60 dollar PC games.

That would be me. >_>

Wait... wasn't it also EA that was doing the 'one time online pass' thing that would require anyone that bought a used sports game to buy a pass to be able to play it online? And the whole paying for demos thing, too?

yeah, that is EA that's doing that. The same thing as the project 10 dollar. Oh, and they claim that yer getting "beta" access, even tho it's just a glorified demo for preordering the games.

But 60 dollar PC games are going to become the new standard. That, I'm okay with. It'll allow PC developers to start seeing some better return on their games, thus straying away from the "PC gaming is dead" mentality. Sure, it sucks, but the price has to rise eventually.


I, however, do NOT agree with paying more for games that have 3d bundled with it. Once the technology becomes viable, and everybody has it, sure maybe. But until then, I'd hope that they would release the same, exact game with all the same, exact features in a 3d mode, as well as a regular mode (for the regular price).

 

[warmonkey]

EA says crazy stupid shit that's not even remotely based in reality, news at 11

 

[Assassin Xaero]

And here people are bitching about 60 dollar PC games.

That would be me. >_>

Wait... wasn't it also EA that was doing the 'one time online pass' thing that would require anyone that bought a used sports game to buy a pass to be able to play it online? And the whole paying for demos thing, too?

yeah, that is EA that's doing that. The same thing as the project 10 dollar. Oh, and they claim that yer getting "beta" access, even tho it's just a glorified demo for preordering the games.

But 60 dollar PC games are going to become the new standard. That, I'm okay with. It'll allow PC developers to start seeing some better return on their games, thus straying away from the "PC gaming is dead" mentality. Sure, it sucks, but the price has to rise eventually.


I, however, do NOT agree with paying more for games that have 3d bundled with it. Once the technology becomes viable, and everybody has it, sure maybe. But until then, I'd hope that they would release the same, exact game with all the same, exact features in a 3d mode, as well as a regular mode (for the regular price).

From what I heard from someone (not sure if this is true or not) was that console games had licensing fees and were harder to develop than PC games, so that is why they cost more. I still refuse to pay $60 for a PC game (unless it is a collectors edition or something) when the majority are still $50. Most the $60 ones seem to be the more popular games too (MW2, SC2, AC2). They are becoming like Apple now...

 

[solubility]

I'm pissed. Why would they need to raise the prices?
The games are already rendered in 3d. all that's need to be done is render it twice for two offset images.
The only necessity is hardware that will be able to display it.
Cash grab, once again.

 

[Sartan0]

Yeah, $60 is ok for a computer game if you must have it right away and a physical copy. It would bother me a bit if they automatically raised prices on download services to match but I would live with it. Basic economics tells you that doubling the price for something overnight will likely lead to less units sold. (And that might end up causing you to make less money if less then half of your units ship as before) So jumping to $100 might not make sense. Now slowly raising the price might work better and I think that is where we are going.

In a sense some companies have been doing this stealthily like Bioware with all their DLC and special editions have been around for awhile.

I would rather pay more as a PC gamer and get better games designed for a computer then limited by the eventual dead end that is consoles. As the TV and computer approach each other the consoles era is coming closer to the end.

 

[WrcklessIntent]

I'm sorry but no. If games ever reach $100 I'm just gonna have to stop. I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel now for game money, if it goes up any more i have no where else to look for it.

 

[uppitycracker]

And here people are bitching about 60 dollar PC games.

That would be me. >_>

Wait... wasn't it also EA that was doing the 'one time online pass' thing that would require anyone that bought a used sports game to buy a pass to be able to play it online? And the whole paying for demos thing, too?

yeah, that is EA that's doing that. The same thing as the project 10 dollar. Oh, and they claim that yer getting "beta" access, even tho it's just a glorified demo for preordering the games.

But 60 dollar PC games are going to become the new standard. That, I'm okay with. It'll allow PC developers to start seeing some better return on their games, thus straying away from the "PC gaming is dead" mentality. Sure, it sucks, but the price has to rise eventually.


I, however, do NOT agree with paying more for games that have 3d bundled with it. Once the technology becomes viable, and everybody has it, sure maybe. But until then, I'd hope that they would release the same, exact game with all the same, exact features in a 3d mode, as well as a regular mode (for the regular price).

From what I heard from someone (not sure if this is true or not) was that console games had licensing fees and were harder to develop than PC games, so that is why they cost more. I still refuse to pay $60 for a PC game (unless it is a collectors edition or something) when the majority are still $50. Most the $60 ones seem to be the more popular games too (MW2, SC2, AC2). They are becoming like Apple now...

yeah, licensing fees do increase the cost for consoles, but there's not as much work put into them, given the fact that they all run on the same hardware. there's a LOT more software engineering done to make the programs stable across all forms of hardware and software. licensing issues also apply in some forms, a well.

don't forget that these aren't the first PC games to be priced at 60 dollars. hell, i remember WC3 being priced at the same, and there have been countless others, as well. it's just now that people are starting to take issue with it, maybe it's the more mainstream success of gaming. hell, i remember some super nintendo games costing 70 bucks.

you also need to take into consideration how much more work is required to make games these days, more heads, and how gaming has hardly been touched (in terms of software) by inflation over the years. it was bound to happen eventually.

 

[ZephrC]

I think this is a point in favor of making early 3D games portable. Portable games aren't quite as wrapped up in the graphics arms race, so development costs are a bit more reasonable, and new DS games are usually, what $40? If that goes up ten or twenty for good quality 3D I don't see a huge problem there. Plus we don't have to invest in an even more monstrously expensive television, again, already.