The Australian dollar is currently worth 98 US cents. $80 to $100 remains our standard pricing for 360/PS3 games. Closer to launch games up to $120 were not uncommon. In actual fact, around $100 has been about par for major releases here for as long as I can remember. Consider this our weekly reminder to Americans to please stop whinging about paying prices substantially lower than ours (not that I pay RRP).
Cheer Up: Games Don't Cost You As Much As They Used To
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Damn, ninja'd.ENKC said:
So yeah, if you take into account today's exchange rate for the Aussie dollar (approx. $1:$1), Australians can, quite [http://www.ebgames.com./Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=75118] literally [http://www.ebgames.com.au/ps3-146904-Gran-Turismo-5-PlayStation-3], end up paying twice as much for a game than Americans do. So, and I do apologise, but you can shove your "Games Don't Cost As much As They Used To" where the sun does not shine.
That's great and all, here on Mexico, each game, depending on where you search it, ranges between $750 and $999 mexican pesos, wich translates to $57 (actually not bad at all) and $76, and it's not even the collector's edition.
Games are not an expensive hobby, SCUBA diving is. I've spent more on one piece of equipment than the cost of a current gen console and several games. To put in in comparison, I need to purchase a regulator good for cold water, both 1st stage and two 2nd stages, at well as a gauge. It is going to cost over $900. Not to mention the cost of a BCD (500-800), Wet/Dry suits (400-1500), tanks(200-400), mask(80), fins(100), snorkel(15), dive light ($100), and the cost of the actual dive, which is about 30 bucks (w/o fill).
So gaming is cheap compared to my other hobby.
So gaming is cheap compared to my other hobby.
$100US is cheaper than a great many new games down under...The major retailers sell them for upwards of $110, and I remember xbox 360 games all being $120 when the system first came out. Pretty sure that "over 100" relative dollars doesn't quite match up to what we're being charged nowadays...
Well, if we're going to go really indepth, let's also point out that games are waaaaaaaaaay more freakin' expensive to make nowadays.rembrandtqeinstein said:
This topic has me thinking back to those old days of video games and how expensive it was for the N64 (my first console). In hindsight, it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to have just bought the games rather than rent them. These days I find it's the opposite where renting is cheaper with unlimited games a month.
I willingly did pay $60 for Banjo Kazooie, but you would have had to throw a real bargain for me to even consider Nuts and Bolts. In cases like that, I have that "Don't make 'em like they used to" sentiment ha ha!
That disparity in development cost in relation to the static retail cost is also interesting to note. It all factors into an unchanging rate for games that does not reflect too much on what exactly you're getting.
Of course, one can always argue that some movies that were cheap to produce that make a killing at the box office are not any cheaper for the consumer. So I would say that not only can the initial development cost come into play, but the end product's quality and value to the customer. For instance, a game backed by a substantial amount and yet fails to garner the desired sales will still not reflect that lowered demand with its pricing. If that same game had a reduced price and was cheaper than the other new releases, it could actually attract otherwise uninterested buyers.
There are many cases where I games that I would be interested in for a lower cost, but otherwise avoid because those AAA titles of an equal cost are much more enticing for the value.
As a side thought, if a movie-based game for $60 was offered to me, I would rather pay half and just buy the Blu-ray movie for less than half the cost (which is 9 times out of 10 better than the horrible game translation). This also has me thinking that if it weren't for the second-hand market, there would be next to no opportunities to get a "deal" on a video game, what with the slow price reduction especially.
I willingly did pay $60 for Banjo Kazooie, but you would have had to throw a real bargain for me to even consider Nuts and Bolts. In cases like that, I have that "Don't make 'em like they used to" sentiment ha ha!
I like your cartel analogy, as that is another good perspective concerning the set pricing.Therumancer said:
That disparity in development cost in relation to the static retail cost is also interesting to note. It all factors into an unchanging rate for games that does not reflect too much on what exactly you're getting.
Of course, one can always argue that some movies that were cheap to produce that make a killing at the box office are not any cheaper for the consumer. So I would say that not only can the initial development cost come into play, but the end product's quality and value to the customer. For instance, a game backed by a substantial amount and yet fails to garner the desired sales will still not reflect that lowered demand with its pricing. If that same game had a reduced price and was cheaper than the other new releases, it could actually attract otherwise uninterested buyers.
There are many cases where I games that I would be interested in for a lower cost, but otherwise avoid because those AAA titles of an equal cost are much more enticing for the value.
As a side thought, if a movie-based game for $60 was offered to me, I would rather pay half and just buy the Blu-ray movie for less than half the cost (which is 9 times out of 10 better than the horrible game translation). This also has me thinking that if it weren't for the second-hand market, there would be next to no opportunities to get a "deal" on a video game, what with the slow price reduction especially.
Yeah....this is shit! And here is my own personal spin about it. In real tearms buying an xbox or a ps3 game will set you back normaly £40 brand new here in the uk. Thats about as much as was a few years ago, so that part I couldn't agree with more. ON average buying a brand new pc game will set you back about the same amount. In the uk £40 seems to be the benchmark for new games for I think the last ten years. Thats fine. Here is my problem with this. Nobody seems to release complete games anymore. DlC has changed everything and I think it's double edged sword. Take a game like Borderlands for example. Lots of game for your money right there and the dlc only adds more to it. Now take games like Mass Effect 2 or Dragon age and Empire total war or Napolean Total war. To me and I apreciate I may be in a majority of one here, just feel like unfinished games. To me it feels like they finnished the game then took bits out to sell later on for more cash. In the case of Mass Effect for example I remeber the first one taking me weeks to complete while I was unemployed and generaly did not have a lot going on my life.Vanilla Mass Effect 2 took me three days while starting my own buisnes and working between 12-15 hours a day. I do not like this precedent and feel it is only going to get worse in the future. I'm not going to say it was better in the old days, I still remeber beeing able to buy games for my Amstrad 464 with my £2 pocket money when I was a kid but generaly thoes games sucked big warty mellon balls. What I am saying is that I think we end up spending a lot more on these games than we realsie. I know the quality and standard today has gone through the roof and if I could just go back in time and show my younger self the type of game I would be playing in the future his head would explode and he would be be willing to pay anything to play them. My point is I am not going to sit here and let anybody tell me gaming is a cheap hobby. It really really is not. Sorry about the spelling and shizzle, had a few drinks this eve.
Edit* just noticed 100th post! and i'm pissed as a lord...my mums going to be so proud
Edit* just noticed 100th post! and i'm pissed as a lord...my mums going to be so proud
The problem is that we used to pay $70 for a game that would have up to 40+ hours of gameplay, even some fps games. Yet now we're paying around the same amount for only 10 hours of gameplay.
Yeh, the graphics are better but that's just natural progression in the industry and with so many more game devs out there the overall costs of doing this stuff would have gone down too.
I don't mind paying the higher prices if the game will last me a few weeks, but when i can play it all in one sitting, then i start fuming about being ripped off!
Yeh, the graphics are better but that's just natural progression in the industry and with so many more game devs out there the overall costs of doing this stuff would have gone down too.
I don't mind paying the higher prices if the game will last me a few weeks, but when i can play it all in one sitting, then i start fuming about being ripped off!
This study would be more useful if it looked at the effect of inflation on wages, as well as the changes in the cost of living; basic subsistence costs are much higher now than they were twenty years ago. $60 now vs. then is not pretty when the relative increase in earnings for the consumer hasn't kept up over time; which is kind of depressing, when you think about it.
Your anecdotes about indie developers is mind-boggling. Those stories are news because they aren't the norm.Dexter111 said:
DLC is a recent creation not just because development studios like to supplement the initial sales with recurring income so they can continue with other projects without being forced to make things like Barbie Horse Adventures at the bequest of outside financiers to make ends meet, but because distribution of minor additions, whose lack does not make the game an unplayable product, was financially and logistically infeasible prior to widespread internet usage. Unless, as with your magazine CD example, another entity was eating the costs in exchange for tangential benefits.
Just as dessert is not necessary to a meal, DLC isn't necessary to play the game; or in terms of your toaster analogy: you buy a toaster that toasts a slice of bread, and the company later releases an attachment to your toaster allowing it to toast another slice at the same time, for a one-time cost; not having the attachment does not prevent your toaster from toasting bread.
Doesn't matter, anyway: the entirety of your point is perceived value. The article addresses monetary value. You claim you're getting less for more, when at the very least you're getting status quo. There were plenty of games released in the past that people felt weren't worth the full retail price, and if it feels like it's more common now, it's because there's that many more games on the market by comparison.
Still, if you don't believe a game is worth the standard price, then nobody is forcing you to buy it. You don't feel subscription services are worth what you're willing to pay, nobody is forcing you to pay them. Calling the price of something 'hidden' or 'lurking' when they are neither, is distinctly 'odd'. Calling companies out for maximizing profits in a purely luxury industry makes little sense to me - is there some particular line crossed where you can't make any more when what you do is not a essential?
Exactly what I was going to say. Once we stop getting ridiculously jacked up prices because of where we live then we can stop complaining.elexis said:
I'm glad you understand that EVERY SINGLE STORE's games are 60-70 euros.Delusibeta said:
I even went to fucking Germany and the games were the same price.
I don't disagree that in some places things are comparitively cheaper. But in Europe, when I'm going to the Steam store and an American buddy is paying 50 DOLLARS while I pay 50 EUROS for a new PC game that is fucked up and certainly NOT cheap.Altorin said:
In New Zealand we pay anywhere between $120 and $140 for a new game, I'm sorry, but they never used to be over a third of my paycheck.SL33TBL1ND said:
yeah but back then there was maybe 1-2 games I wanted to play per year. Now there are twenty billion a year. The $50 meant a lot more back then. You'd spend it on one major game purchase and love the hell out of that game for months. Games these days have become so forgettable and disposable that the pricetag feels like a ripoff.